Swedish Artists Are Now Threatening Legal Action Over Streaming Royalties… | DMN

The origin of the outrage is telling: Sweden is widely regarded as a model country for streaming and access, thanks to massive adoption and recovering recording revenues. The threatened suits suggest that not everyone is celebrating or, more importantly, enjoying the early spoils.

Regardless of the locale, the issue comes ahead of very difficult juncture for Spotify. Mega-artists like Thom Yorke continue to raise uncomfortable questions about paltry payouts, but more perilous questions are dangling on the financial side. Recent financial figures show an unsustainable level of cash burn at Spotify, and potentially serious problems attracting more capital as a result. And after burning through hundreds of millions of dollars, Spotify is getting dangerously close to depleting its funding tranche.

READ THE FULL STORY AT DIGITAL MUSIC NEWS:
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2013/10/25/swedishartists

YouTube Awards Tarnished by YouTube Hate Videos and Jihadi Recruitment

YouTube, Just Like Television? What network broadcasts hate and jihadi recruitment programing?

Music Technology Policy

Google has a lot of excuses for why they profit from piracy, but what is inexcusable is how YouTube profits from hate videos and war porn.  It is difficult to understand how Lady Gaga and other artists slated to perform on the “YouTube Music Awards” would be able to turn a blind eye to this evil, no matter the fee and no matter how much “promotion” a media giant like Google can bring to bear.

The Problem from Hell is Easily Solved

johnny rebel youtube

What is difficult to understand about YouTube’s hate problem is how Google could just ignore it–particularly when these videos no doubt violate some policy that Google pays lip service to.  Fortunately, the Anti-Defamation League has compiled a list that Google could easily use to enforce violations of their dormant terms of service when it comes to hate speech.

I tried YouTube searches by picking a few names from…

View original post 527 more words

@natgeo and @geico sponsor beheading videos on YouTube…yes, real ones

Just Like Television?

Music Technology Policy

beheading

[Editor Charlie sez: Here’s a recent “content warning” video embedded from YouTube:

So YouTube makes it look like they are screening violent videos, but all they are really doing is grabbing users email addresses to sell them other stuff and preserving Google’s monopoly over video traffic by allowing grotesque videos to drive traffic to YouTube through referring sites.

 

YouTube–the #1 music destination online–is also the home of all sorts of grotesque videos, monetized by YouTube and Google.  Try searching YouTube for “beheading” and you’ll get the idea.  544,000 search results all available for streaming directly into your home, right now, all over Internet television.

Not only is YouTube available at home, but it’s also linked to Google’s education apps, government apps, and by the Android.  And these are not just an odd video here and there, these videos account for millions of views.

Some of the beheading videos…

View original post 55 more words

Do these companies really want their products promoted aside “Free Find and F**k” ads? | Vox Indie

Ads for Adidas, Acura, Bertolli, Crest, Charmin, Domino’s, Ford, Geico, Hellmann’s, Lowe’s, Panera, Papermate, PG&E, Post and more share space with sex ads.

Ad Industry Best Practices?

The ad industry and ad service providers have made a show of agreeing to voluntary “best practices” agreements to fight ad-sponsored piracy,  but despite their talk and White House support, not much has changed.  Take a look at the graphic below…What kind of  industry “best practices” do these ad placements represent?

READ THE FULL POST AT VOX INDIE:
http://voxindie.org/#sthash.vEKTxQ2V.dpuf

New Study Shows Up to 96% of Megaupload Files Are Infringing

A new study from North Eastern University is getting some attention and it’s interesting how some people are spinning the numbers, so we decided to take a look.

“For Megaupload (MU) the researchers found that 31% of all uploads were infringing, while 4.3% of uploads were clearly legitimate. This means that with an estimated 250 million uploads, 10.75 million uploads were non-infringing. For the remaining 65% the copyrighted status was either unknown, or the raters couldn’t reach consensus.” – Torrent Freak

Simple Math : 31% + 65% = 96%

Spoof Ad Campaign Responds to BitTorrent’s Recent Billboards

The BitTorrent Billboard advertising campaign story has taken an interesting turn spawning a satirical response spoof banner ad campaign appearing on sites such as Grooveshark, Mashable, MediaFire and Rollingstone.com. The banner ads read “All your content are belong to us” and “Instead of paying artists, we spent money on banners.”

Clicking on the faux ad banners lands on the site RightTheMusic.Org that presents internet piracy fun facts such as “Worldwide, 432.0m unique internet users explicitly sought infringing content during January 2013” and provides an additional click through the source of the quote.

AS REPORTED ON AT TORRENT FREAK:
http://torrentfreak.com/angry-artists-attack-bittorrent-with-spoofed-billboards-131018/

AS REPORTED ON AT SOFTPEDIA:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/BitTorrent-Banners-Trigger-Spoof-Campaign-from-Angry-Artists-392769.shtml

AS REPORTED ON AT ADLAND:
http://adland.tv/node/156152#Zrk6olusqTDT7IBX.99

Top 10 Reasons People Use To Justify Pirating Digital Content (And Why They’re Wrong) | Lit Reactor

Book authors are now learning what it’s been like to be a musician for the past decade.

Pirating digital content is illegal. Full stop.

Yet people continually steal eBooks and movies and television shows and treat it like it’s no big deal. There’s a couple of reasons it happens: Torrenting is easy and the chance of getting caught is low. And saving money is fun, especially when the economy isn’t at its strongest. But the biggest reason was summed up perfectly by Devin Faraci of Badass Digest (who tweeted the following while I was writing this, and I couldn’t possibly say it better myself):

In our culture today people think they deserve their entertainment, not that it’s a perk.

An eBook is a luxury, not a right. If you can’t afford it, too bad, but that’s life.

Still, people excuse the practice of pirating with a plethora of ridiculous reasons that don’t hold up to scrutiny. I have yet to hear a single legitimate argument in favor of it. Here’s the ones I’ve heard so far–and why they’re complete nonsense:

READ THE FULL POST HERE AT LIT REACTOR:
http://litreactor.com/columns/top-10-reasons-people-use-to-justify-pirating-digital-content-and-why-theyre-wrong

USC Studies How Online Piracy Profits from Advertising Revenues

Some great work has been done this year by Jonathan Taplin and the USC Annenberg Innovation Lab in studying the relationship between online ad networks and media piracy for profit.

Large Pirate sites distribute illegal content and continue to steal trademarked, copyrighted content and siphon millions of dollars away from the creative community, making it much harder for artists to make a living. We do not believe that government regulation alone is the answer to the Piracy problem, but rather that the self-regulation of major sectors like the online advertising industry could make it harder for the “Kim Dotcom’s” of the world to unfairly exploit artists.

A fantastic round up of media coverage from the universities research can be found here:
http://www.annenberglab.com/category/tags/ad-transparency-report

BitTorrent 99% Infringing, 100% Disinformation… now with Ads.

We’ve reported before on BitTorrent’s claim that they are “not designed for piracy” despite multiple studies and research finding over 99% infringing content being distributed using it.

The latest comes to us from AdLand.tv who are offering commentary on BitTorrent’s recent move into outdoor advertising that first appeared in Gizmodo.

The opening of Gizmodo’s article reads thusly:

“Torrenting” is kind of a dirty word. It makes you think piracy, doesn’t it? Well it shouldn’t. Torrenting isn’t illegal. It’s not even morally ambiguous. It’s just a way to send data, and it’s awesome.

Yes. That’s right. Keep telling yourself that. Guns don’t kill people. People do. It’s not the syringe, it’s the heroin. It’s not the file sharing platform enabling copyright infringement; its the millions of users using the site to infringe.

Baa, baa, baa, Sheeple.

As usual the folks at AdLand have a wonderful way of exploring the ad campaign by BitTorrent.

“The internet should be regulated people-powered.”

What other industry do you know that has near zero regulation except Big Tech? We have Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food And Drug Administration, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to name a few of the regulators. Big Tech doesn’t even police itself because if it did, it would be losing money by the truck load. This isn’t even up for debate.

People-powered, my ass. In the immortal words of our dear president, we didn’t build that. Someone else did. They built the internet, the websites, the software. The search engines. The email programs. Just as someone else created the content you’re helping yourself to for free. Don’t fall for this “people-powered” bullshit at all. The artists and musicians (you know– the people) do not make money off torrent sites from the ‘exposure.’ This has been reported on ad nauseam. The only people who have the power are the Big Tech companies getting rich off of content they don’t own.

READ THE FULL POST AT ADLAND.TV:
http://adland.tv/node/156095#sJh2zH6EcHXqaxFB.99

Why Spotify is not Netflix (But Maybe It Should Be)

If we are to explore the digital marketplace for both streaming and transactional downloads the music business might do well to look at what the film business is actually doing in the same space. We will quickly see that Spotify is not Netflix, but maybe it should be.

Readers will note the film business has not bought into the faulty logic that the only way to combat internet piracy is to make every film ever made, available instantly, on an all you can eat service for $9.99 a month. Some might argue that is what Netflix is, but people making that argument are obviously not current subscribers!

One thing that has struck us in the comparisons between Spotify and Netflix is that Netflix does not have every film, or even every current film, or even a large percentage of popular films. For the vast inventory that Netflix has, you also realize the service has a lot missing. But then again, what do you expect for nine bucks a month?

This is not to say that most in demand films are not available, somewhere (and legally). It’s just not available on Netflix. Other services such as Itunes, Vudu and Cinemanow (to name just a few) offer some films for rental while they are still in the theater, some for streaming rental prior to a home video “dvd” date, and there are constantly new variations and options.

Generally speaking films arrive at Netflix last in the distribution chain, if at all. This is a problem for Netflix in a lot of ways so they have responded to this by 1) offering competitive advances to film producers to get films earlier (generally in the cable window) and 2) they have begun investing in producing original content to differentiate themselves from the competition (this strategy worked particularly well for HBO).

Netflix in responding to their needs in the marketplace is actually investing capital directly into content creation in a meaningful way. Perhaps some artists should charge an advance for high profile new releases that will attract listeners to the service. Likewise, perhaps Spotify should provide funding for the financing and development of new artists.

So here is the question, is the record business really utilizing the new digital platforms correctly to address the current market place? Perhaps by looking at the options available to consumers from movie streaming, rental and download businesses we can find more robust and flexible opportunities for artists.

One thing we’ve noticed absent from the current offerings for example, is say, a $1 a day transactional streaming rental for an album. Why doesn’t this exist?

FILM RELEASE WINDOWING

The movie business releases films in what is known as “windows”. A typical feature length film is generally released in a pattern that looks something like this:

1 Film Released in Theaters
2 Film Released later on Video on Demand (Rental)
3 Film Released later on Cable and/or Broadcast
3 Film Released Later on Home Video (Rental and Purchase)
4 Film Released Later on Netflix (Subscription)

There are variations on the above, but the point being that you can not buy the DVD of a blockbuster film the day it opens in theaters, nor can you view it on TV that night from the usual cable movie channels. Today these windows are being rethought as the film industry explores different release models including how digital platforms are utilized as part of a theatrical release.

RECORD RELEASE WINDOWING

We’ve heard people say that the record business historically has not windowed releases. This is only sorta true. It is true that a record is released to all outlets in all configurations more/less simultaneously on a single release date. There may be some exceptions with the availability of say vinyl, but mostly it is true that labels do not withhold music releases from different markets or distribution channels. But maybe that’s not exactly either right if we look at it closer.

Generally speaking, a historical record release “window” looks like this:

1 Radio Airplay prior to a commercial release of the single
2 Commercial Single Release
3 Album Release at Full List Price, but “Discounted” at Retailers

There’s not much more that is done until the album gets to be a catalog title, which the record industry would refer to as a mid-line title. Some records, drop one more step from midline to budget. Records that generally make the last drop may have been albums by artists who had one hit on the album.

Today, these traditional old physical model windows built around pricing incentives don’t really make sense on digital platforms. New Releases on Itunes are not discounted on release date and then return to their suggested list price a week or two later when the discounting ends. So if record release windowing is not based in pricing incentives, perhaps it should be based in accessibility incentives.

DIGITAL PLATFORM MUSIC RELEASE WINDOWING

What comes next is the starting point for a discussion to break free from much of the current controversy over whether or not Spotify is fair and sustainable. It is an attempt to rethink the digital music distribution landscape in the same way the film business has with varied consumer offerings and options.

We’d love to see some new players in the marketplace for music that function much in the same way that Vudu or Cinemanow do for films. These would be transactional streaming rentals.

1 Single Release Digital Transactional Download 99 cents
2 Single/Song Release Digital Transactional Streaming Rental 10 cents for 24 hours
3 Album Release Digital Transactional Download 9.99
4 Album Release Digital Transactional Streaming Rental $1 for 24 hours
5 Select Songs Released to Subscription Streaming Services, not whole albums.
6 Album Release Subscription Streaming Services

The key to a future where streaming may be the preferred delivery method is dependent upon more variations and flexibility in the the business model than currently offered by Spotify. There are a range of opportunities in exploring business models that allow for streaming rentals, and limited access to different material at different times.

If every decision we make is based upon the extortion of illegally operating and infringing businesses, surely we will pay the price in a race to the bottom where eventually everyone loses except the companies getting our labor for next to nothing.