Spotify Retaliating Against Apple Music Exclusive Artists, Execs Say… | DMN

Nope… nothing to see here…

The Times dropped the bombshell after digging into the Frank Ocean situation, one that is actively causing the music industry to reinvestigate their practices around exclusives.  “Executives at two major record labels said that in recent weeks Spotify, which has resisted exclusives, had told them that it had instituted a policy that music that had benefited from such deals on other services would not receive the same level of promotion once it arrived on Spotify,” Sisario wrote.  “Such music may not be as prominently featured or included in as many playlists, said these executives…”


Spotify might not suppress search, but that doesn’t mean artists with exclusives get treated equally | Tech Crunch


However, while Spotify has been clear about rejecting one part of the argument against the company, there is another piece of the story that remains unaddressed. Hidden in the details, the accusations are really twofold, including both the notion that

* Spotify directly suppresses tracks from artists that have previously signed exclusives with Apple Music or Tidal in search results.
* And, Spotify indirectly targets artists who have signed exclusives with Apple Music and Tidal but promoting music differently in playlists and banner ads.


Spotify Is Burying Musicians for Their Apple Deals | Bloomberg

New boss, worse than the old boss…

Spotify has been retaliating against musicians who introduce new material exclusively on rival Apple Music by making their songs harder to find, according to people familiar with the strategy. Artists who have given Apple exclusive access to new music have been told they won’t be able to get their tracks on featured playlists once the songs become available on Spotify, said the people, who declined to be identified discussing the steps. Those artists have also found their songs buried in the search rankings of Spotify, the world’s largest music-streaming service, the people said. Spotify said it doesn’t alter search rankings.


YouTube’s Content ID : $375.00 Per Million Views… aka “Block In All Countries”…

With the major labels in the throws of license expiration with YouTube this seems like a good time to review the math…

The Trichordist

We’ve been supplied nearly a year’s worth of Content ID data from a mid-sized indie label. Over the course of about a year here’s what the data shows:

Content ID

After nearly a year and 80 million plays, the net average per play amounts to less than $375.00 per MILLION Plays on YouTube. Ok, that’s just for the sound recording, there are two other parts to the uploaded copyright, the musical composition and the video content itself. Assuming each of the three parts earns an equal share (why would they not, but how would we know given YouTube’s usual secrecy sauce?), then the full amount payable by YouTube for 1 Million plays via Content ID would be $1,125, or $.001125 per play (on average).

We know that on directly uploaded videos where the creator or rights holder is claiming all three copyrights they are being paid more than $1,125 per million plays on…

View original post 764 more words

Silicon Valley Hypocrisy: We Support Solutions To Piracy, Except When They Are Actual Solutions to Piracy…

You can’t make this up. Law 360 is reporting that the International Trade Commission (ITC) has been denied authority over digital goods.

The Federal Circuit said Thursday that it wouldn’t reconsider its decision that the International Trade Commission lacks the authority to block the import of digital files, drawing a lengthy dissent from one of its judges.

Keep in mind, the same people now opposed to the ITC having this authority are the same who argued in favor of the the ITC doing so as an alternative to SOPA called the Open Act.

Below is an except from an excellent post on this issue By Devlin Hartline & Matthew Barblan at CPIP.

When advocating for the OPEN Act as a good alternative to SOPA and the PROTECT IP Act, the bill’s sponsors touted the ITC as being a great venue for tackling the problems of foreign rogue sites. Among the claimed virtues were its vast experience, transparency, due process protection, consistency, and independence:

For well over 80 years, the independent International Trade Commission (ITC) has been the venue by which U.S. rightsholders have obtained relief from unfair imports, such as those that violate intellectual property rights. Under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 – which governs how the ITC investigates rightsholders’ request for relief – the agency already employs a transparent process that gives parties to the investigation, and third party interests, a chance to be heard. The ITC’s process and work is highly regarded as independent and free from political influence and the department already has a well recognized expertise in intellectual property and trade law that could be expanded to the import of digital goods.

The Commission already employs important safeguards to ensure that rightsholders do not abuse their right to request a Commission investigation and the Commission may self-initiate investigations. Keeping them in charge of determining whether unfair imports – like those that violate intellectual property rights – [sic] would ensure consistent enforcement of Intellectual Property rights and trade law.

Some of the groups now arguing that the ITC shouldn’t have jurisdiction over digital goods openly supported the OPEN Act. Back in late 2011, the EFF stated that it was “glad to learn that a bipartisan group of congressional representatives has come together to formulate a real alternative, called the OPEN Act.” The EFF liked the bill because the “ITC’s process . . . is transparent, quick, and effective” and “both parties would have the opportunity to participate and the record would be public.” It emphasized how the “process would include many important due process protections, such as effective notice to the site of the complaint and ensuing investigation.”

Google likewise thought that giving the ITC jurisdiction over digital goods was a great idea. In a letter posted to its blog in early 2012, Google claimed that “there are better ways to address piracy than to ask U.S. companies to censor the Internet,” and it explicitly stated that it “supports alternative approaches like the OPEN Act.” Google also signed onto a letter promoting the virtues of the ITC: “This approach targets foreign rogue sites without inflicting collateral damage on legitimate, law-abiding U.S. Internet companies by bringing well-established International trade remedies to bear on this problem.”

You can read the full post here (Strongly Recommended):

Digital Goods and the ITC: The Most Important Case That Nobody is Talking About


Register of Copyrights: Please Support Take Down-Stay Down | Nova.Edu

“Why can’t everyone see that section 512 is an abysmal failure? If take down worked, the number of notices should go down. Instead the number of takedown notices sent increases exponentially every year. This is an enormous waste of time and resources for everyone involved. “



Safe Harbor Not Loophole: Five Things We Could Do Right Now to Make the DMCA Notice and Takedown Work Better


DMCA “Take Down and Stay Down” Is The Logical Solution to a Flawed Loophole [VIDEO]

2010 A Brief History Of Spotify, “How Much Do Artists Make?” @SXSW #SXSW (Shill By Shill West)

For those of you at SXSW… here’s a little trip back in the time machine…

The Trichordist

SXSW Rewind… Back in 2010 during Daniel Ek’s Keynote Speech an audience member who identified themselves as an  independent musician asked how much activity it would take on Spotify to earn just one US Dollar. The 27 year old wunderkind and CEO of the company was stumped for an answer… Five years later we have a pretty good idea why.

2010… #SXSW Rewind…

Live Blog: Spotify CEO Daniel Ek Says Music Service Now Has 320,000 Paid Subscribers | TechCrunch

Q: How many plays equals one dollar?
A: Depends on the type on contract with the publisher/record labels. We share the rev we bring in. You can’t really equate to ‘per play’ we look at all our ad rev. Creates a bucket. For instance how do you account for a purchase of a song. There is no easy answer to your question. Over time our ad revs are growing, number of…

View original post 184 more words

After Skipping Spotify, The 1975 Scores a Number 1 Album | DMN

“After avoiding Spotify entirely and focusing the release on iTunes and a variety of physical formats, the band achieved a number one album in several countries.  According to Billboard and its counting partner Nielsen Music, The 1975’s just-released album, I Like It When You Sleep, for You Are So Beautiful Yet So Unaware of It, sold 98,000 units in the US alone, a chart-topping tally.”



Three Simple Steps To Fix The Record Business in 2016… Windows, Windows, Windows… (2015)


How to Fix Music Streaming in One Word, “Windows”… two more “Pay Gates”… (2014) 


Why Spotify is not Netflix (But Maybe It Should Be) (2013)

Artists Rights Watch – A Newsletter 02.22.16

Across all disciplines of the arts, we all share the common enemy of Internet Advertising Funded Piracy and the efforts of internet based businesses to erode or eliminate the protections granted to individuals, artists and creators in copyright.

Block an Ad Save an Artist? Google Still Supporting Ad Funded Piracy Time to Fight Back | Trichordist
Block an Ad Save an Artist? Google Still Supporting Ad Funded Piracy Time to Fight Back
* Is this what an artist/creator uprising will look like?

EFF Launches New TPP Infographic | Illusion Of More

Questioning Googles Extraordinary Influence over U.S. Government Decisions | Precursor


Grammy President Attacks Streaming Services for Threatening viable Careers | DMN

Grammy President Attacks Streaming Services for Threatening ‘Viable Careers’

* Music’s biggest night, addresses music’s second biggest problem…

Will Streaming Music Kill Songwriting? | New Yorker Magazine
* Story features SONA member Michelle Lewis.
The truth behind songwriter royalties: billions of streams pay less than minimum wage | Auddly
* Songwriters today, composers tomorrow…


Cox Communications Liable for Willful Contributory Copyright Infringement | Lexology

Hollywood’s piracy problem  | The Conversation

Village Roadshow launches legal action to block piracy-related website in Australia – ABC

Film companies and Foxtel move to block access to piracy websites  | The Guardian

Dotcom extradition appeal set for August | NBR

Ruth Vitale – Without copyright…we cannot be creative and innovative. | Vox Indie

Ruth Vitale – Without copyright…we cannot be creative and innovative.


Kanye West album ‘pirated 500,000 times’ already – BBC News
* Exclusive, what? This is called market failure.

Sony Entertainment Chief Predicts Music Will Move to Phased Release | Re/code
Sony Entertainment Chief Sees Music Moving to Phased Release, Like Movies (Video)

The Future of Sony Music Is Hollywood-Style Windowing | DMN

Unlimited Free Music Is About to End, Sony CEO Says

The Reality of Touring Revenue From Someone Who Has Done It For 32 Years |The Trichordist
The Reality of Touring Revenue From Someone Who Has Done It For 32 Years

Vevo CEO : Ad-Supported Is Not Sustainable In the Long | DMN

Vevo CEO: “Ad-Supported Is Not Sustainable In the Long Run”


Spotify¹s Reply To @DavidCLowery: When the going gets tough, the tough getfancy | MTP

Pandora ‘meeting with potential buyers’ ahead of possible sale – MBW

Pandora ‘meeting with potential buyers’ ahead of possible sale

SoundCloud could be forced to close after $44m losses | FactMag

YouTube’s DMCA decision and the campaign to morph victims into villains | Vox Indie

YouTube will pay copyright court costs for a few users–not because it’s right–but to protect Google’s bottom line

According to a story in today’s NY Times, the folks at YouTube are ready to pony up cash to support some of its users “fair use” claims in court.

“YouTube said on Thursday that it would pick up the legal costs of a handful of video creators that the company thinks are the targets of unfair takedown demands. It said the creators it chose legally use third-party content under “fair use” provisions carved out for commentary, criticism, news and parody.”

You’ve probably read a lot about “fair use” lately.  It’s the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s mantra and if the folks there had their way, pretty much everything and anything would be considered “fair use.”  Fair use an important legal doctrine and when applied properly (criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research) is not an infringement of copyright.  However, these days, too often is used as a disingenuous defense for copyright theft.