MTP Interview with Blake Morgan on the First 30 Days of #irespectmusic

Music Technology Policy

MTP:  How was the audience reaction for your first 30 days on the I Respect Music petition campaign? 

Blake Morgan: It’s honestly––and very happily––been above and beyond anything we could have estimated or ever hoped for. If you ask anyone who’s been working with me on this, they’ll tell you that the goal I’d set for us was to try to get 1,000 signatures in our first 30 days. A daunting number to try and reach for a petition to Congress about paying artists for radio airplay. But, it turns out that after 30 days we’re actually at 10,000 signatures.

A Huffington Post Op-ed of mine in December [“Art and Music Are Professions Worth Fighting For“] garnered a huge reaction going viral with over 44,000 likes and over 8,000 Facebook shares. That was the piece where I first wrote the words “I Respect Music.” So I knew there…

View original post 630 more words

Beats Music Hires Artist Bully as Artist Advocate

Billboard Magazine is reporting that Beats Music has hired long time artist bully Dave Allen as their so called Artist Advocate.  This is fantastic news for artists rights bloggers and music journalists as they were close to running out of ways to imply Dave Allen is a shill for streaming services.  By taking this job at Beats Dave Allen has made it easy for all of us.  Now we can just come out and say he’s paid by the streaming services!

If you don’t know, Dave Allen is the former bass player for the Marxist Rock band Gang of Four.  Allen has made a name for himself by rudely lecturing songwriters like David Byrne, Thom Yorke and myself on streaming, globalization and the inner workings of free markets. Rich right?

And it looks like he intends to continue.  Check the featured quote from the Billboard story announcing his hiring:

“It is hard for me to understand why intelligent people like David Byrne and Thom Yorke do not appear to understand that we are in the midst of new markets being formed,” Allen wrote. “I have concluded that we can only look to what internet and mobile users are doing or want to do, and then note how their actions drive technologists to provide platforms for them. Put very simply, that is how markets work.”

(Wow.  This is his first day as Artist Advocate? Off to a bad start-Ed)

No Dave.  It’s the opposite of markets.  By Government mandate our songs have been “collectivized” for use by these streaming and webcasting services.  Further government rate courts set the prices.  There is no “market” for songs.  He’s purposely leaving out the part where the government forces us to license our songs to the technologists at below market rates!

Allen knows this.  Everyone in the business knows this.  I mean that’s why  U.S. Rep Doug Collins of Georgia introduced this week this bill to establish fair market pricing for songs!

While we have some generally positive things to say about the Beats service (the lack of a free tier means their effective per spin rate to songwriters and performers will be higher than many other services) we note that the appointment of Allen does not bode well for Beats Music.

This is a ham-fisted move that won’t solve the fundamental PR problem that all streaming services have with the general public: low payouts to artists and a lack of transparency. No amount of shouting and name calling by Allen will fix that problem.  Quite the opposite.

RELATED:

Music Streaming Math, Can It All Add Up?

Streaming Services Will Never Become Profitable, Study Finds… | Digital Music News

It’s time to end compulsory licensing for digital music | Tech Liberation

Musicians Sing for a Cause That’s Their Own | The New York Times

In the latest example, a group of artists including David Byrne, Mike Mills of R.E.M., John McCrea of Cake and the guitarist Marc Ribot are putting on a free concert on Tuesday at Le Poisson Rouge in Greenwich Village to protest the way radio stations pay royalties, and to introduce a new advocacy group, the Content Creators Coalition.

“This is possible now because musicians and artists are fed up,” said Mr. Ribot, who is renowned for his work with musicians including Tom Waits, another coalition member. “It takes a lot to get a musician to go to a meeting, serve on a committee. It’s not what we do; we play music. But the way things are now, many of us feel that our backs are to the wall.”

READ THE FULL STORY AT THE NEW YORK TIMES:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/25/arts/music/musicians-sing-for-a-cause-thats-their-own.html?_r=1

Gloria Steinem: Artists Rights Are Human Rights #IRESPECTMUSIC

Electronic Frontier Fondation disagrees.  “*&#$&^@!!!!”

So let’s see…. Human Rights are interfering with our freedoms?  Help me out here.  I guess you have to be a lawyer to understand this logic.

RELATED:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights – Article 27

The Human Rights of Artists

Google pretends to care about human rights | Vox Indie

Camper Van Beethoven’s 2013 Net Profit Was $645 Million Dollars Higher Than Twitter.

Technologists in Silicon Valley love to tell artists we need to update our business model.

This is hilarious since each of my businesses have been profitable for decades. Stunning when you look at just how unprofitable these Silicon Valley Companies actually are.  Twitter for instance lost $645 million dollars last year.   Jaw dropping when you consider that their total revenues were $646 million dollars.   They spent 2 dollars for every 1 dollar of revenue.  And if you look at their losses they are accelerating.

Screen shot 2014-02-19 at 10.59.36 AM

Source: https://investor.twitterinc.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=823321

Now consider the fact that the City of San Francisco also gave them approximately $56 million in tax beaks.  This is while the city has been pushing to slash benefits to city workers. 

Yes maybe Camper Van Beethoven needs to update our business model to include tax breaks and political cronyism.

RELATED:

http://irespectmusic.org

Internet Consultants Are Wrong : Confused About Musicians, The Internet and Piracy

My Song Got Played On Pandora 1 Million Times and All I Got Was $16.89

CCC-NYC.ORG | RALLY & CONCERT FEB 25 2014 feats David Byrne, Marc Ribot, Mike Mills, John McCrea, More!

About CCC-NYC

The New York City Chapter of the Content Creators Coalition is a new group united with the national CCC behind the idea that creators of cultural content need to join forces in order to ensure fairness and dignity for artists in the digital age. If the past fifteen years has taught us anything, it’s that artists cannot depend on industry professionals or journalists or fans to advocate for them—we must speak up for ourselves.

The group is enacting bylaws and seeking nonprofit status so we can operate and address these issues over the long-term.

Statement of Principles:

1) We believe in an Artist’s Control Of Their Work; that it’s the right of any creator of cultural content to choose when, how, and whether their work is distributed for commercial gain, monetized with advertising, or otherwise exploited.

2) We believe in the Ability to Opt-Out of services; the right of artists, writers, and other creators of cultural content to refuse, individually and collectively, to participate in business models that threaten our livelihoods.

3) We believe in Fair Pay; the right of content creators to a fair share of the wealth our work generates.

4) We believe in Collective Representation; the right of all creators of cultural content to aggregate our power to protect our livelihoods and our art forms.

Join Us!

If you are a NYC area creator of cultural content and would like to get involved, please contact us at cccnewyorkcity@gmail.com (or the form below). We want you at our meetings and events. You can also follow us on Facebook or Twitter.

If you are outside the New York area, please visit the national CCC website: www.contentcreatorscoalition.org.

The “Bad Romance” of Musicians and Silicon Valley : Happy Valentines Day

You’ve heard this story before, or actually – you’ve seen the movie. This is like a John Hughes film the 80s. You know the ones about High School Romance. The plot lines from these movies remind us a lot of the bad romance between Silicon Valley and Musicians over the last decade or so.

You’ve heard this one before…Before the internet musicians had a largely dysfunctional but not entirely bad relationship with record labels, like the self obsessed jock. Labels would wine and dine artists, buy them gifts, lure them back to the fancy label HQ and fawn all over them. This love affair would usually continue through the making of the record and up and until the album was released. After that, the honeymoon period would be over and disagreements over money and creative issues would start to surface. Eventually, artists would become increasingly dissatisfied with their partner and the dirty laundry would become public. Labels would be accused of taking the artist for granted, not giving them enough attention and be unresponsive to their needs.

Then one day, the Silicon Valley drives up the school in a shiny new Ferrari convertible, music blasting, well dressed and charming. Silicon Valley says all the right things to artists, “labels are bad news, they don’t appreciate you.” Artists are wooed by the possibilities of their wind blowing in the air in the passenger seat of the Ferrari on their way to a better future. Silicon Valley tells the artists that not only do they not need the labels, but Silicon Valley will empower the artist to be truly independent. The artist, enamored with this world of possibility and opportunity joins hand in hand with Silicon Valley. And all seems well, for a while…

Over time the artist seems to notice that things are not really getting better. Silicon Valley becomes less available to the artist and less responsive than the label. Making maters worse, Silicon Valley insists the artists path to freedom is self reliance, and Silicon Valley refuses to support the artist unless the artist is willing to do more work from themselves.

The artist starts to reflect on the relationship with the label. The label paid for dinners, bought them gifts, and offered support. Silicon Valley made a lot of promises but never actually delivered. Silicon Valley had become more demanding, and refuses to communicate with the artist in any way other than barking orders and suggesting that the artist use their primary asset to make money on their own, unless they want to give up their new found freedom.

As the plot develops we see that Silicon Valley’s wealth has been earned by going from town to town and helping artists join the worlds oldest profession for “personal empowerment.” Of course, Silicon Valley connects the artists to customers and controls the flow of revenue to the artist. If the artist protests, Silicon Valley gets very angry and berates and bullies the artists with insults and threats of poverty.

The artist reflects on what Silicon Valley “freedom” really is and decides to speak up and speak out to help other artists break free of the exploitation they have experienced. As the Prom approaches the label and the artist make fleeting eye contact passing in the hallway. In the end the artist, having had the experience of being with both the label and Silicon Valley arrives at the prom empowered, with other artists, and hopeful for a better future.