Why Spotify is NOT the Enemy of Artists, and Who Is…

Spotify has been taking a beating in the press lately and we understand why. We have offered our own criticisms which mostly revolve around royalty rates and transparency. But we’ve also stated that Spotify is a symptom of a much larger disease of illegally operating, infringing businesses who make millions individually and billions collectively while paying absolutely zero to artists and rights holders.

As much as we disagree with Spotify over their rates and PR spin on several issues, we also recognize that they are legal, licensed and pay out royalties as they have been negotiated. Artists are able to opt out of Spotify individually (and also if their label permits).  It is for these reasons that Spotify are NOT the enemy.

However this begs the question, if Spotify are not the enemy, who is? Well, as we stated above it is the massively deceptive Ad Tech businesses who have been financing mainstream music piracy for over a decade. This is the Silicon Valley internet tech lobby (lead by Google) who seek to dismantle and destroy copyright protection for individual creators.

Yes, we hear a lot of lip service about how these people say they are really pro-copyright and pro-artist, but when every meaningful action and suggestion is to the contrary of protection and compensation of the artists work and labor it all rings a bit hollow. We now know after a decade plus of internet/tech snake oil salesmen there is no magic bullet and that “touring and t-shirts” is an admission of the failure of these online businesses to provide sustainable earnings for creators.

Piracy is NOT Promotion

Exploitation is NOT Innovation

In our ongoing “Exploited By…” series of posts we illustrate how major Fortune 500 companies, represented by Madison Avenue Advertising Agencies have been, and continue to finance the destruction of the creative community.

So we say this…

Let us focus first on the many who pay nothing at all to musicians while pocketing 100% of the Profit. Let us focus our energies on the illegally operating companies and corporations who have made infringement for profit their business model.

We are encouraged to see Spotify also take up this mutually beneficial fight against those companies and business who have so greatly devalued the work of musicians as well as impeding the growth potential of legal and licensed companies to create sustainable models for all stakeholders.

Will Page a Spotify spokesperson had this to say in The Register UK:

“Copyright infringing websites are big businesses … 2/3 of piracy sites have advertising, and 1/3 also include credit card logons. This competition is real: consider how ad pricing is distorted by those unlicensed sites who offer more scale and no content costs.”

This is the first step towards making real change that will remove the bad actors from the marketplace and move towards a sustainable ecosystem for all legal and licensed stakeholders.

We’ve commented before that we believe that Spotify is unsustainable at current rates. It is also worth noting that Spotify pays significantly MORE than YouTube, a business that was founded and built on the premise of infringement for profit. Although YouTube and Google have made improvements in their services for rights management they still fundamentally devalue the work of artists hiding behind the DMCA.  Google and YouTube also continue to create and distribute anti-copyright and anti-artist propaganda asserting that any “remix” of an artists work is “fair use.” It is not.

In the end Spotify needs to increase it’s revenue per stream so it can increase it’s royalties per stream to be sustainable for artists. The number one way to do this is to capture the millions or even billions in advertising revenue that are financing illegally operating and infringing businesses that pay artists nothing.

In closing, the enemy is not so much those who pay so little offering artists both consent and compensation, but more so those who are paying nothing at all and deny the artists consent.

Exhibit A:

Lou Reed Exploited By American Express, AT&T, Chevorlet, Chili’s, Lysol, Pottery Barn, Vons, Domino’s Pizza, Netflix, Galaxy Nexus and Ron Jeremy!

Stealing is Good for You Says CCIA and GAO: A match made in heaven

More Silicon Valley nonsense. Essentially the CCIA asserts that stolen goods don’t harm the economy because the money eventually gets spent somewhere… can’t beat logic like that.

Music Technology Policy

Washington lobbyist Matt Schruers, who works for the Computer & Communications Industry Association, is floating a paper released by the Government Accountability Office (“Intellectual Property: Observations on Efforts to Quantify the Economic Effects of Counterfeit and Pirated Goods” (GAO-10-423)).

So you get the context, the Computer & Communications Industry Association is a very well funded lobby shop in Washington that is (was?) one of the big backers of the Internet Radio Fairness Act through its membership in the Internet Radio Fairness Coalition and is prominently mentioned in the Google Shill List.  I fully expect them to be major opponents of Ranking Member Mel Watt’s performance rights legislation that could be introduced as soon as next week.  The CCIA also funds a variety of studies that try to tell us things like stealing is good and the movie business is a “fair use industry” whatever that means.

The GAO…

View original post 2,014 more words

FOIA Request Shows That GAO Is Still Stonewalling on Sources for “Stealing is Good” Report

Essential reading in response to the current attack on creators rights. So WHO exactly is going to take responsibility for this nonsense?

Music Technology Policy

[This post appeared earlier in 2011–but given the rogue sites debate that demonstrates just how much money is being made from online theft, understanding who influenced this GAO “report” that found that “stealing is good” is even more necessary.]

Some of you may remember the report by the Government Accountability Office that studied the problem of online theft of artists’ work and discovered that no one was able to prove anything and that everyone failed to take into account the positive effects on the economy of theft–in other words, stealing is good.

The report, specifically the April 2010 Government Accountability Office publication “Intellectual Property: Observations on Efforts to Quantify the Economic Effects of Counterfeit and Pirated Goods” (GAO-10-423) was required under by the PRO-IP Act (P.L. 110-403), specifically Section 501(a) of the Act directed the undertaking of a “a study to help determine how the Federal Government could…

View original post 2,058 more words

Why Spotify’s Piracy Study Isn’t Cause for Celebration | SPIN | Newswire

Report shows promising signs, but only in the Netherlands…

…According to a Spotify spokesperson, the company doesn’t break down user numbers by individual country, but has 6 million paying subscribers and 24 million users worldwide…

…The report follows news that music sales increased greatly in Sweden, Spotify’s home country, corresponding with the service’s growing popularity there. Which is great news across the pond, but which doesn’t necessarily scale to America’s humungous market. The Netherlands is a country of under 17 million people with 6.8 million residential broadband connections versus the United State’s 313 million population and 82.4 million broadband users…

READ THE FULL STORY AT SPIN.COM:
http://www.spin.com/articles/spotify-piracy-study-festivals-thom-yorke/

Aimee Mann Exploited by Russian Brides, Wells Fargo Bank and Nationwide Insurance

In light of current events we’re re-running this post.

The Trichordist

When an artist signs a contract with a record label and publishing company there is a customary clause that governs how the artists music can be used in association with brands, marketing and the context of commercial placements including films and television shows. This provision grants the artist authority and control over how they are represented to the world and often coincides with the artists personal values (such as political campaign uses).  These concepts track the laws against misappropriation of the artist’s right of publicity and laws against falsely implied endorsements.  Not to mention the moral rights of artists.

The online exploitation of artists work, beyond the obvious illegal distribution of their work without permission or compensation now extends into brands leveraging the appeal of the artist to promote their product or service (like banking or insurance). In the examples below both Wells Fargo Bank and Nationwide Insurance are specifically benefiting…

View original post 204 more words

This is What Innovation Looks Like!

A small random sampling of what Innovation and Expression of Free Speech looks like. This post could easily go for miles so please forgive our small sampling and omissions in our illustration of the innovative work of musicians and songwriters.

“Dark Side Of The Moon” – Pink Floyd
“Nevermind” – Nirvana
“OK Computer” – Radiohead
“Straight Outta Compton” – NWA
“Hotel California” – The Eagles
“The Blue Print” – Jay-Z
“Andy Wahol” – The Velvet Underground & Nico
“Sergent Pepper” – The Beatles
“Pet Sounds” – The Beach Boys
“Kinda Blue” – Miles Davis
“Appetite For Destruction” – Guns & Roses
“Raising Hell” – Run DMC
“Paul’s Boutique” – The Beatie Boys
“Play” – Moby
“Led Zeppelin IV” – Led Zeppelin
“The Chronic” – Dr. Dre
“1999” – Prince
“Rated R” – Queens Of The Stone Age
“Pretty Hate Machine” – Nine Inch Nails
“The Doors” – The Doors
“Nevermind The Bollocks Here’s The Sex Pistols” – The Sex Pistols
“The Joshua Tree” – U2
“Born To Run” – Bruce Springsteen
“Thriller” – Michael Jackson
“Tubular Bells” – Mike Oldfield
“Are You Experienced” – Jimi Hendrix
“College Dropout” – Kanye West
“Remain In Light” – The Talking Heads
“Highway To Hell” – ACDC
“Kill Um All” – Metallica
“Mothership Connection” – Parliment
“The Clash” – The Clash
“Goodby Yellow Brick Road” – Elton John
“Imagine” – John Lennon
“Rain Dogs” – Tom Waits
“Loveless” – My Bloody Valentine
“Day Dream Nation” – Sonic Youth

And the list could go on and on and on…

Aimee Mann Could Score Millions in Massive Digital Royalty Lawsuit | SPIN | Newswire

Aimee Mann has filed a big lawsuit against a little-known company with serious clout in the digital music business. As the Hollywood Reporter points out, the singer-songwriter has slapped MediaNet, prevously known as MusicNet, with a copyright-infringement lawsuit seeking $18 million in damages. Never heard of MediaNet? That just demonstrates how complicated the music industry has become in the streaming era.

READ THE FULL STORY AT SPIN.COM:
http://www.spin.com/articles/aimee-mann-medianet-copyright-lawsuit/

But This Time We Mean It… Welcome To The Ad Tech Time Machine…

Welcome to the Interactive Advertising Time Machine… set the dial for 2010

“The Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) has pledged to work with content producers to make sure that ads don’t inadvertently end up on sites peddling unauthorized copyrighted material.”

That was back in 2010 when NPR aired the story, “Feeding Pirates: When Legit Companies Advertise On Shady Sites.” That’s right, 2010 when filmmaker Ellen Seidler brought the issue to light when she documented the piracy around the release of her indie film “And Then Came Lola.” Highly recommended reading is Ellen’s highly detailed blog, PopUpPirates.

Ok, so maybe not far enough back for you? Set your Interactive Advertising Time Machine to the year 2007...

Here’s  the case of easydownloadcenter.com which found Google caught red handed actually helping the site improve it’s SEO to maximize advertising revenue. This as reported by DailyTech at the time:

“The two men said in sworn statements that Google offered them credit as an easy start to advertise on Google’s search engine, and that the search company also suggested ad keywords such as “bootleg movie download,” “pirated,” and “download harry potter movie.” According to the report, Google received $809,000 for its advertisements.”

And this was Google’s response at the time (arguably the biggest member of the IAB):

“Google declined to comment on the specific clash over its ads, but did say that it is working on ways to screen out ads that violate the company’s policies.

A spokesman for Sony Pictures said, “Discussions with Google have been ongoing for a while, and there’s hope it can result in a mutually satisfactory arrangement whereby Google will not give support to pirate sites.”

Read that again. “Discussions with Google have been ongoing for a while,” that was in 2007 for activity that dates back to 2003.

So please forgive us if we are less than optimistic over the latest so-called “Best Practices” announced by the IAB. This is not a new or unknown issue and what’s worse is that actual knowledge by Google and other members of the IAB dates back at least to 2003, a decade ago.

Think we’re biased? Ok, fair enough but DigiDay calls the latest appeasement “Toothless” and it is a trade publication that reports on internet advertising that is owned by The Economist:

There are also plenty of built-in outs. The networks, for instance, can keep ads running on sites engaging in piracy if those sites have “substantial non-infringing uses.” Also, the agreement lets networks simply remove ads from pages engaging in piracy, while leaving ads running on the rest of the site. The agreement places the onus on the rights holder to notify the networks about pirated content, not requiring the networks to monitor the content themselves. The agreement “cannot, be used in any way as the basis for any legal liability.” The agreement excludes ad servers and ad exchanges.

The agreement may not be not much of an agreement at all.

Yeah, that’s pretty much what we think too. So, what does the creative community have to do to protect itself from the blatant exploitation of its products and labor from internet robber barons? Stay tuned…

YOU MAY ALSO BE INTERESTED IN READING:

The Ad Network Transparency Conspiracy

Tell Us Again “Streaming Is The Future” As Paid Downloads Are Down 2.3 Percent In the US…

Let’s see… maybe streaming services are cannibalizing transactional sales, maybe? Streaming Royalties are small but they can really grow? Really? Let us guess… the good news is streaming is reducing piracy? In Norway and Sweden

According to half-year stats shared by Nielsen Soundscan with Digital Music News this weekend, paid downloads are slumping 2.3 percent at the half-point, meaning the period from January 1st through June 30th.

All of this points to the same issue of streaming services paying too little, while illegally operating, infringing businesses pay absolutely nothing at all. So much for sustainability…

READ THE FULL POST AT DIGITAL MUSIC NEWS:
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2013/20130721downloads

The New Yorker : If You Care About Music, Should You Ditch Spotify?

The New Yorker weighs in on the controversy surrounding music streaming royalty rates…

The issue beneath all the complaints about micropayments is fundamental: What are recordings now? Are they an artistic expression that musicians cannot be compensated for but will create simply out of need? Are they promotional tools? What seems clear is that streaming arrangements, like those made with Spotify, are institutionalizing a marginal role for the recordings that were once major income streams for working musicians—which may explain the artist Damon Krukowski’s opinion that music should simply be given away, circumventing this entire system. But first, some words from Godrich, condensed and edited for clarity.

READ THE FULL STORY AT THE NEW YORKER:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/sashafrerejones/2013/07/spotify-boycott-new-artists-music-business-model.html