Why Can’t Songwriters Audit? A Brief Guide to Statutory Audits Under the U.S. Copyright Act

Essential reading for all songwriters and musicians.

Music Technology Policy

BLANCHE

Whoever you are…I have always depended on the kindness of strangers.

From A Streetcar Named Desire, by Tennessee Williams

Songwriters earn a sizable percentage of their ever decreasing income from mechanical royalties.  Until the last few years, mechanical royalties were almost always licensed under direct licenses to record companies that incorporated by reference the statutory license provisions of Section 115 of the 1976 U.S. Copyright Act and the corresponding regulations.  Section 115 is a direct–and almost word for word–descendant of Section 1(e) of the 1909 U.S. Copyright Act.

Why so little change in nearly 70 years?  Until 2000 or so, nobody used statutory licenses except in the rarest of circumstances.  Instead, the statutory license became something like the Uniform Partnership Act or the Uniform Commercial Code.  It could be used for reference but was often–almost always–modified in a direct license.

The main point that was added in these…

View original post 660 more words

Wu-Tang Clan to release one copy of new album, sell it for millions | EW

The shape of things to come? This is one solution… Absolutely genius.

As the product’s official website indicates, the legendary rap team’s stealthy new record is called The Wu – Once Upon a Time in Shaolin. There’ll only be one copy of the album… like, ever. It’ll be grandly “presented in a hand carved nickel-silver box designed by the British Moroccan artist Yahya,” and yes, it looks as fancy as it sounds. Before that one copy is sold, though, civilians can listen to the album when it embarks on an ambitious tour of museums, galleries, festivals, and other such happenings around the world. Then after that, the item will go up for sale, with an expected price range somewhere in the multi-millions.

READ THE FULL STORY AT ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY:
http://music-mix.ew.com/2014/03/27/wu-tang-clan-shaolin-single-album/

Update: Beastie Boys Settle with Goldieblox: More grace than Goldieblox deserved

Music Technology Policy

“Put all your eggs in one basket, and then WATCH that basket.”

From Pudd’nhead Wilson and Other Tales by Mark Twain

At the intersection of “Too Cute By Half” and “Stupid Stanford Tricks,” we find Silicon Valley darlings, Goldieblox.  What do they teach them at Stanford, anyway?

In a gracious–and supremely undeserved–act of kindness, the Beastie Boys agreed to dismiss the lawsuit (Goldieblox Dismissal) that Goldieblox brought against them.  If I had to guess, I would guess that the paying party was probably not just Goldieblox, but that’s because I always thought that Goldieblox was engaged in marketing by lawsuit and got extraordinarily bad advice.

The unanswered questions in this case are many, but I think they’ll just have to go into that mysteries of life pile unless Goldieblox just cannot keep it buttoned and there’s a better than 50/50 chance of that.

First, what did Intuit…

View original post 669 more words

Should Artists Hitch Their Royalties to Advertising in the YouTube Monopoly: @zoecello’s insights

A must read from Music Tech Policy!

Music Technology Policy

I ain’t gonna work on Maggie’s farm no more
No, I ain’t gonna work on Maggie’s farm no more
Well, I try my best
To be just like I am
But everybody wants you
To be just like them
They say sing while you slave and I just get bored
I ain’t gonna work on Maggie’s farm no more

From Maggie’s Farm by Bob Dylan
Copyright © 1965 by Warner Bros. Inc.; renewed 1993 by Special Rider Music
(Read more: http://www.bobdylan.com/us/songs/maggies-farm#ixzz2w2uoNmHA)

We’ve pointed out for years that the collision of the Web 2.0 advertising based economy creates an odd and unhealthy dynamic for artists.  There is no place where this is more prevalent than YouTube.

YouTube routinely delivers random advertising for a variety of products against artist videos (either the “official” video or user generated versions of the artist’s work).  This means that artists have lost control of a…

View original post 1,216 more words

Did Slate Sell it’s Journalistic Integrity to Google -oops I mean New America Foundation Which is Run by Google Lobbyist?

The Interwebs have been  buzzing about a pair of articles on the once great Slate.com.

It began with the  posting of a “news” article on Slate by Google Lawyer Marvin Ammori in which he compared entertainment creators to a stalkers.   Adland.tv quickly pointed out to Slate Magazine that they had not made the proper disclosures.  So slate added this to the article:

Update, March 11, 2014: Disclosure: The author represented Google and other companies fighting SOPA/PIPA in 2011 and 2012. He currently represents Google and other companies on several issues, including copyright reform. These views are his own.

Translation: oops we accidentally published a piece of corporate PR propaganda crap.

Next  comes the hilarious follow up to this article by Kurt Sutter the writer/creator of Sons Of Anarchy. In a blistering and brilliant attack Sutter takes Ammori and Google to task for relentlessly undermining creators rights to enhance their bottom line.

“I Created Sons of Anarchy. Here’s Why I hate Google’s Stance on Copyright.”

Screen Shot 2014-03-15 at 11.57.38 AM

This is a must read.   And most importantly  you better read it now because Slate has already toned down the title.  It’s now pathetically titled “Not-So Zen and the Art of Voluntary Agreements.”  How long will it bebefore they completely delete this article under pressure from their other Google lobbyist partner “New America Foundation?”

You read that right.  The original piece by Ammori is in a special section of Slate, the very sci-fi-tabloidy (Omni Magazine anyone?)  section called Future Tense.  And according to Slates’ own website Future Tense is a “partnership”  of  Slate and New America Foundation.

And what is New America Foundation?

It is a Washington DC lobbying advocacy group  that is now run by (former?) Google Lobbyist Alan Davidson.

And where does New America get their money?

They don’t disclose that.  It’s a 501 (c) (3)

Has the struggling Slate.com entered into some sort of financial relationship with New America/Google? It looks like it has to us?

Also I don’t really understand this whole 501 (c) (3) crap but  since copyright review is before the House of Representatives isn’t New America violating IRS 501 (c) (3)  rules on political lobbying?