SoundExchange is appealing the “Web IV” decision by the Copyright Royalty Board. The Web IV decision handed a huge victory to Pandora and iHeart Media by manipulating contract terms into industry-wide rates while ignoring the payola terms of those contracts. Then the Copyright Royalty Board froze artist royalties at those absurd rates for five years.
via @SoundExchange to Appeal Web IV Ruling — Artist Rights Watch
And who works for the Chairman of the F.C.C.? Counselor to the Chairman, Federal Communications Commission: Gigi Sohn, formerly CEO of Google Shill Lister Public Knowledge. Special Assistant to Chairman, Federal Communications Commission: Sagar Doshi (Google Product Specialist) THE cable set-top box — a clunky technology from a bygone era that costs many consumers around […]
via Jonathan Kanter: Don’t Hand Our TVs Over to Google — Artist Rights Watch
A thoughtful response to David Pakman (call sign “One Trick Pony”) by Jim McDermott. David’s post is “The Music Industry Buried More Than 150 Startups” which is something of a summary of David’s various public statements and Congressional testimony over the last 10 years or so. David you’re one of the smartest guys on the block, and […]
Last night I posted this
It has since gone viral. It has also produced a remarkable display of ignorance on the part of many defending Spotify.
Not to single out this one person but it illustrates how little tech types know about the compulsory licenses and government set pricing schemes that subsidize these platforms.
Nice. A little classic brogrammer master-of-the-universe arrogance thrown in. I guess those songs just magically appear on those platforms.
Except that there is no supply and demand for songs. In order to “spur innovation” the federal government provided a compulsory license that allows streaming services to use our songs at a below market rate fixed by the Copyright Royalty Board. You can’t even get your songs off these services. Well that’s not always true. If you threaten to file a class action lawsuit for failing to pay the already abysmal royalty rate (among other things) then they will take your songs off the service. See below:
Amidst Serious Accusations, Spotify Removes Victory Records’ Catalog
But the ignorance continues.
ALL the platforms mentioned, MTV, Radio and Labels also enjoy either a federal compulsory license or below market rates set by a single federal judge (see ASCAP/BMI rate court). Songwriters are forced by the federal government to subsidize all of these platforms since 1909, when the federal government mandated songwriters license their songs for mechanical reproduction at 2 cents a copy to “spur innovation” of record labels and player piano rolls.
Every one of these supposedly “innovative” platforms is essentially suckling at the breast of the federal government.
So lets have a poll
Thank You Songwriters Of North America (SONA)
Spotify just posted their financials and Paul Resnikoff at Digital Music News was quick to point out that the average Spotify employee salary is $168, 747.
Contrast that to the plight of songwriters. There would be no music business without the fundamental efforts of songwriters. Yet, there is not a free market in songs. The federal government sets compensation for songwriters/publishers based on a percentage of revenue. An abysmal below market rate. In effect a subsidy for streaming services. Last I checked this rate was working out to about $0.00058 per spin. This includes both the public performance (BMI/ASCAP) and the streaming mechanical (IF they happen to pay it).
Best case scenario, if a songwriter retains all publishing rights to their song then a songwriter would need 288,104,634.15 spins to earn the reported average salary of a Spotify employee.
Any questions?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Related see this post on failure of techies to understand that streaming services are subsidized by government mandates
Clueless Spotify Defender Illustrates Tech Ignorance about Federal Cap On Songwriter Pay
If you followed the Copyright Office request for public comments on the DMCA “notice and takedown” safe harbors, you will probably be aware of reports that a group called Fight for the Future generated 86,000 comments to the Copyright Office in approximately 36 hours. I will give even money that it will turn out that investigation will reveal that most of those comments were fake. One reason I’d make that bet is because they look fake. Many were anonymous or pseudonymous and there’s really no way to know who or what submitted those comments. And that’s why there’s a question about whether this kind of public comments can be used at all for policy making.
“Progressive” Democratic congressional candidate for Woodstock NY Zephyr Teachout is director of an astroturf organization that takes regressive copyright positions that harm artists and favor major Silicon Valley corporations like Google. In 2013 Fight For the Future mounted a massive copyright infringement campaign against the MLK estate over the “I Have a Dream Speech.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Musicians often support left/progressive politicians that undermine their rights
In the UK the Green Party tends to enjoy solid support from musicians and other creators, yet last year (among other things) they proposed to legalize p2p file sharing and roll back copyright protection length to 14 years or less. In 1710 when average lifespans were less than 40 years, The Statute of Anne gave authors a copyright length of 14 years. This is so regressive it prompted me to write a letter to the UK Greens that suggested this compromise:
Dear UK Green Party:
We authors will accept your early 18th century version of copyright if you and your members promise from this day forward to rely only upon dental and medical techniques from the same period.
Of course it is even worse in the EU parliament where the Pirate Party is in alliance with European Green Party. As a result the EU Green Party incorporated a five year copyright term into their platform!
But it’s not just small parties the like Euro Greens and Pirate Party lunatics attempting to erode artists copyright protections. In the US it is becoming increasingly apparent “progressive” Democrats are exhibiting these same tendencies. Despite years of reliable (if unwise) support from musicians, songwriters, authors, actors, directors, screenwriters and media executives, progressives appear to be tilting towards technology companies when it comes to copyright protections afforded artists.
I suppose it’s amusing in ugly sort of way: Progressives are essentially going against a largely democratic unionized industry (Hollywood) while embracing the agenda of an anti-union and libertarian industry (Silicon Valley). The Author Thomas Frank should write a follow-up to his “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” and call it “What’s the Matter with Hollywood?”
There is no better example of this than the current darling of the progressive movement Zephyr Teachout. Teachout is running for Congress in NY-19 as a Democrat. At first glance Teachout appears appealing to the majority of Americans (left and right) who want to reform American politics and rid our election system of the corrupting influence of money. These are certainly worthy goals. But if you do a little digging, Teachout is not who she appears to be.
Why did Teachout move to the NY 19th congressional district from metro NYC?
Teachout appears to have “shopped” for a congressional district in which to run. NY-19 is a marginally Republican district with a retiring Republican incumbent. She has no roots in the sprawling 19th congressional district. Teachout a law professor at Fordham University in NYC moved to Dutchess County 9 months before entering the race after a lot of online progressive speculation that she should run for congress. There were already perfectly good local candidates running for the seat, a liberal Democrat, farmer Will Yandik and three Republicans. But hey this is politics and we all know politics is ugly. No surprise right?
One of the things that gives Teachout a shot in this Republican leaning congressional district is the cluster of counter culture progressive democrats in places like Woodstock. This is largely the legacy of the music business economic cluster that developed here in the late 1960s and continues to generate considerable economic activity throughout the Hudson Valley. The list of musicians, songwriters, engineers producers and managers associated with Woodstock and the Hudson Valley is impressive.
I imagine that Teachout will want to draw support from this important community, and my guess is that many in this community will reflexively support her. Unfortunately this would not be in their interest. Why? Teachout is the director of an astroturf organization called Fight For The Future. Why is that important? Well first you need a little background.
The problem for artists: “Notice and Takedown”
Under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Internet corporations like Google and Facebook are given a “safe harbor” against copyright infringement committed by their users as long as they promptly comply with requests from artists and other copyright owners for removal of infringing content. This process is informally called “Notice and Takedown.” When the law was enacted, no one imagined that companies like Google/YouTube would interpret the law as a game of “whack a mole.” That is, once the offending file was removed online service providers could let the exact same file pop right back up on their servers and copyright owners are forced to notify the service again. This effectively gives companies like YouTube a free “DMCA safe harbor license” for virtually every song and recording in the world. Although major corporations like Sony and Universal Music Group have been able to effectively keep certain hit songs off of these platforms for a few weeks or even months, it requires extraordinary human and technical resources, and there is virtually no recourse (except expensive federal lawsuits) if the user who uploaded the song falsely “counter claims” that they have the right to upload the song.
Particularly hard hit are the independent, middle class and legacy artists that do not have resources (financial and technical) to police vast platforms like YouTube or SoundCloud. As a result platforms like YouTube are able to generate revenue from advertising and data mining that is not shared with artists. Further the fact that virtually every song is available on YouTube has undermined the value of songs and recordings across the entire digital marketplace. Why buy a song when it’s on YouTube? Why pay for a premium subscription streaming service when YouTube is free? And why do artists put up with the shitty royalties from streaming services? Because the alternative, YouTube is even worse. YouTube, SoundCloud and other services that have abused the DMCA takedown process have created a market failure.
After piracy sites like the Pirate Bay, YouTube and its “DMCA safe harbor license” is the next biggest revenue drain for artists. Legendary producer Jimmy Iovine (now at Apple Music) estimated that while YouTube represents as much as 40 percent of all music consumption, it is only 4% of the revenue. And it’s getting worse. In 2015 YouTube views increased 101% but revenues to rights holders increased only 31%.
Artists propose a solution: “Notice and Stay down”
In order to fix this problem, artists and rights holders have proposed “Takedown and Staydown.” That is, once an online platform is notified that a particular file is infringing, and there is no valid counterclaim from a user, they would block that exact same file. This is a pretty mild proposal. It’s not designed to block someone using a snippet of a song in a home video or a critical review that also uses a song snippet. It might not even block the upload of the same song in a different format (AIFF rather than MP3) or at a different bitrate. It’s still a whack-a-mole game but the odds are a little more in the artists favor. Naturally the companies that benefit from the DMCA safe harbor are opposed to this change.
US Copyright Office consultation
Unlike other federal agencies the US Copyright office doesn’t have enforcement powers. However they periodically review aspects of copyright law and often make recommendations for changes to the law. Their recommendations usually carry considerable weight. In this case the Copyright Office began by conducting a public consultation on changes to the “Notice and Takedown” provision in the DMCA. The Copyright Office asked for comments and papers from interested parties. Comments were supposed to be posted to a special page on the Regulations.gov website. The deadline was midnight April 1st.
Teachout’s organization opposes take down stay down, Coordinates with YouTube channel to hijack consultation process.
On the afternoon of March 31st Teachout’s organization Fight For The Future suddenly launched the Takedownabuse.org website (registered domain name at 2:30pm) and with the help of a teen oriented YouTube Channel (Channel Awesome) began to bombard the Regulations.gov website with identical bot generated comments in opposition to the Takedown Stay down proposal. Fight For The Future even bragged to the press that they had “taken down” the Copyright Office website.
Read our detailed coverage here:
Did Teachout and Fight For The Future break the law?
Violate the law? Fight For The Future created a “comment bot” that bombed the Regulations.gov website with identical, anonymous and most likely fraudulent multiple comments to the Copyright Office. Consider the following:
Read more of our coverage here:
Fight For The Future advocates (and continues to advocate) mass copyright infringement against MLK estate.
This is live right now on the InternetFreedomDay website, which is controlled by FFTF. This means Teachout as director of FFTF is advocating mass copyright infringement at this very moment. There is also the question that the group is making a false claim. Licensed versions of “I Have a Dream Speech” are widely available on the internet! For instance you can buy it on iTunes for as little as $2.99. What the entitled “progressives” at FFTF are really saying is they don’t want to pay for it.
Perhaps, more troubling is the fact that in 2012 Fight for the Future organized a mass copyright infringement campaign against the MLK estate to celebrate “Internet Freedom Day.” Put aside the sheer arrogance of FFTF and Teachout equating the 1960’s civil right struggle with a bunch of entitled brats that think they have a right to post anything to YouTube, this the world first anti-civil rights civil disobedience campaign. Further, I can think of about a million much more classy ways to celebrate “Internet freedom day” than to mount a mass copyright infringement campaign against the MLK estate.
Read our coverage here:
Total Hypocrisy: Teachout opposes “black box” and corporate money in politics yet Fight For The Future gets almost all of its money from black box foundations and technology firms.
This is a story best told with pictures.
This doesn’t look sketchy at all! Fight For The Future Received almost $200k from London Trust Media a mysterious company that lists its address in this industrial park in Michigan. FFTF Financials Here
A search of Michigan State Records indicates no company by this name is registered in Michigan.
London Trust Media also owns PrivateInternetAccess.com which according to Ip2Location.com was geo-located in Hong Kong on May 1st 2016. It’s not clear that London Trust Media is a US entity.
According to tax records this mysterious black box fund claims to be an “Environmental quality, protection and Beautification” fund. Fight For The Future has no projects or efforts that are remotely related to environmental protection. Yet this fund gave Fight For The Future $230k. This contribution is likely in violation of IRS rules.
Chicago Instructional Tech Foundation which is really based in Boulder Colorado and is now called Voqal (Mispelled above) gave Fight For The Future $105,000. Again what does Fight For the Future have to do with “instructional tech?”
Corporate money supporting Fight For The Future includes venture capital behemoths like Union Square Ventures and Silicon Valley firms like NameCheap and Yelp. The Consumer Electronics Association (now Consumer Technology Association) figures prominently in FFTF finances. The Consumer Electronics Association now largely represents Silicon Valley companies like Google.
You can read more of our coverage here:
https://thetrichordist.com/2016/05/01/anti-copyright-fight-for-the-future-and-their-1-grassroots/
Teachout Hypocrisy on SuperPACs and Irregularities at MayDay PAC
Finally it should be noted that Teachout until recently served as the leader of the MayDay SuperPac. This PAC was founded by the famous copyleft author and failed presidential candidate Lawrence Lessig. Lessig famously wrote a Wall Street opinion piece entitled “In Defense of Piracy.” He has twice challenged the constitutionality of aspects of copyright law at the US Supreme Court (he lost both times). The MayDay superPAC was ostensibly designed by Lessig to support candidates that wanted to get the big money out of politics. Instead it was widely criticized (on left and right) for being just another way for Silicon Valley billionaires to exert political influence in races far from home and was accused of a host of campaign irregularities.
Read more here:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/zephyr-teachout-larry-lessig-mayday-pac-2016-120660
http://irregulartimes.com/2014/07/02/questions-about-the-mayday-pac/
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/13/embrace-irony
http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2014/11/20/fec-complaint-mayday-pac-violated-campaign-finance-laws/
Hello Spotify, Goodbye Songwriters The Frame’s John Horn spoke with Songwriters of North America founders Michelle Lewis and Kay Hanley about why the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 no longer works in an era of music streaming services and what can be done about it. Interview Highlights MICHELLE LEWIS AND KAY HANLEY: Your song […]
Billboard’s robust and immediate (within hours) defense of Pandora founder in the wake of revelations that he and other top executives contributed to anti-gay politician raised eyebrows in artists’ rights circles.
Hypebot is reporting that Billboard editor Glenn Peoples is leaving for a job at Pandora. Under his leadership Billboard seemed to exhibit a bias towards the streaming services and against artists. We suspect it came from him. Here is one of his personal tweets:
Here’s our advice to Glenn: Avoid the cliff to nowhere and get monthly vesting.
The Trichordist 
You must be logged in to post a comment.