Gene Simmons Voices Support for New Artists | Slyck News

We love Gene’s passion for new and developing artists to have the same opportunities he did.

The foxes have been led into the hen house, so people wonder why there’s so few chickens. It’s because you allowed your kids to go in there and steal the stuff for free, so record companies are dying and new bands don’t have a chance. And new bands should get every chance in the world, and if it means ‘The X Factor’ or ‘American Idol’ or any other kind of (outlet), give them a chance.

“I still think [downloading] is a crime. The sad part is that the fans are the ones who are killing the thing they love, great music. For f***ks sake, you’re not giving the next great band a chance. How much have we lost through illegal downloading?

READ THE FULL STORY AT SLYCK NEWS:
http://www.slyck.com/story2274_Gene_Simmons_Speaks_Out_Once_Again_About_Music_Piracy

NAMM 2014 Artists Rights Panel, Actually Features Artists…

We’ve written here before how so called “Artists Rights” or “Artists & Copyright” panels at conventions such as CES and SXSW seem to be lacking any artists who are actually interested in protecting their rights and copyrights. So we’re pleased to see that NAMM has gotten it right and we encourage those going to the convention to drop in on the panel.

NAMM 2014 – Copyright, The Internet and You
http://www.namm.org/thenammshow/2014/hot-zone/copyright-internet-and-you-panel

Day: Thursday, Jan 23

Start Time: 3:00 pm (One Hour) 

Room: The Forum (203 A-B)

Presenter / Moderator: Gregory Butler

Why are content creators seeing less money than ever while their art is being used so widely? Join our panel of experts as they look at the challenges of navigating the new music industry, piracy and intellectual property.

Panelists:
* Lucy Miyaki of Tashaki Miyaki
* Manda Mosher of Calico
* Reinhold Heil, Film & TV Composer
* John Cate, fmr Tunecore CFO
* Tom Biery, Artist Management
* Brian McNelis, Music Supervisor / Soundtrack Album Producer

Google Buys Nest™ Renames it SkyNest™ —-Joking, Sort of.

“They know when you’ve been sleeping, they know when you’re awake”

Who needs the NSA when you’ve got Google?  Now they are in your home.

Google has announced that  they have bought “smart” (read spying) thermostat maker Nest.  As reported in the NY Times:

“Google likes to know everything they can about us, so I suppose devices that are monitoring what’s going on in our homes is another excellent way for them to gather that information,” said Danny Sullivan, a longtime Google analyst and a founding editor of Search Engine Land. “The more they’re tied into our everyday life, the more they feel they can deliver products we’ll like and ads.”

Nest’s products track not just a home’s temperature and the presence of smoke but also when people wake up, leave and return home. By incorporating hardware and software and using sensors and algorithms to learn behavior, they program themselves and can be controlled remotely with a smartphone.

Google apologists are already incorrectly reporting that Nest’s privacy polices won’t change.   This is wrong. Google privacy policies must and do extend to all of their products.  If Gmail will scan private attorney-client emails  to pitch advertising do you think Google will treat your Nest data any differently?

And when those privacy policies do change?  It’s gonna cost Nest owners a couple hundred bucks to get Google out of their houses.  When you bought that Nest product  you weren’t giving the NSA Inc -er I mean Google permission to enter your house.   But make no mistake Larry Page is now in da house. Permissionless Innovation at it’s finest.

Help Electronic Frontier Foundation!  Our privacy is being invaded by Google!   Oh wait. I forgot the EFF gets millions from Google and Facebook. They aren’t gonna help.

While Artists are Bitching About Spotify Royalties… Google, YouTube and Grooveshark are in the Getaway Car…

While artists bitch about low payments from Spotify royalties,  YouTube,  Grooveshark and The Pirate Bay pay artists less or even nothing.  The reason Spotify pays so little is because it’s forced to compete with illegally operating, unlicensed sites who pay nothing at all. Artists need to focus on the big picture.

Spotify has become the symbol of inequity for artists in the digital age, and we’re not saying artists are wrong to focus on the Spotify royalty payments as an example of this inequity. We’ve written our own criticisms of Music Streaming Math and our doubts that Spotify could ever actually scale to be a sustainable business for both artists and labels.

Whatever the criticisms we may have of Spotify it is important to note that they are legal and licensed with secured rights.

The truth is that Spotify is only a symptom of a much larger disease.  The actual cause of the inequity is mass scale, enterprise level, corporate sanctioned piracy for profit. Ad Funded Piracy is the primary mechanism by which the work of artists and musicians has been devalued to fractions of cent and here’s how it works.

Imagine creating a business where you could profit by attracting every fan of every musician and band.

Imagine not requiring any licenses or permission from any of the musicians and bands.

Imagine selling advertising based on not only the overall popularity of the musicians and bands, but also from providing free streaming and/or downloads to the music of the musicians and bands.

Imagine not having to pay musicians and bands and keeping all of the advertising (and/or subscription/access fee) money.

GOOGLE:

One of the most accessible points of piracy starts at Google search and they can absolutely do more to assist legal and licensed businesses that pay artists. Digital Music News recently reported that “Google Receives Its 100 Millionth Piracy Notice. Nothing Changes…” As we’ve seen with Google’s swift retribution to Rap Genius, search can very effective to discourage or remove bad actors from the legitimate marketplace (When it is in Google’s business interest to do so!). Google is also tracking over 200,000 known domains engaged in active piracy. This seems like an easy problem to solve.

Not only did a series of research studies by the USC Annenberg Innovation Lab identify Google as one of the primary companies feeding advertising to pirate sites, but there is actually a longer darker history of Google assisting illegally operating business online.

Artists don’t get paid anything from pirate sites profiting from advertising revenue. This is the big one, those who pay nothing at all but distribute the most music at the highest volumes.

YOUTUBE:

YouTube is a company that was intentionally founded and designed to profit by ripping off artists, musicians and creators. These practices are well known from court documents published by sources such as Daily Finance.

It appears that much of the music on YouTube may still be generating profit for YouTube but not so much for musicians. East Bay Ray of the Dead Kennedy’s details the state of things here on NPR.

Even when YouTube is paying, they are paying half as much (or less) than Spotify on a per play basis.

GROOVESHARK:

We’d love to hear from artists (musicians and songwriters) who actually have their music legally licensed on Grooveshark. And, for those who do, we’d love to see what some of those royalty statements look like. We can’t imagine that Grooveshark is paying better than Spotify and that’s only for those artists who may actually have a valid license from Grooveshark.

As of this writing Grooveshark is still embattled in a number of lawsuits, which at one time included every major label. Essentially Grooveshark designed their business to be like an audio and music only version of YouTube. We detailed their practices in the post “Grooveshark, Notice and Shakedown”.

We don’t know how much money Grooveshark is making, but it’s enough to put the companies founders on the Forbes 30 Under 30 List… It seems that it is the (new boss) gatekeepers controlling the money and once again it is the artists themselves getting screwed.

PANDORA:

As of this writing Pandora has abandoned it’s ill conceived attempt at legislation that would have reduced artists royalties by 85%. But let us not forget that the arguments used by Pandora for attempting that move were also motivated by the downward economic pressure placed on artists whereby the majority of music consumption is happening with no compensation at all due to various forms of Ad Funded Piracy.

Welcome to the Exploitation Economy.

We suggest that artists focus on the disease that is creating the symptoms of businesses like Spotify.

RELATED:

Google, Advertising, Money and Piracy. A History of Wrongdoing Exposed.

Lou Reed and Dead Kennedys Go Public Against Ad Funded Piracy with Facebook Posts


Goldieblox Case Reassigned to Judge Hearing Google Privacy Case

Interesting News. (from Chris Castle)

Music Technology Policy

In an interesting twist, the Goldieblox case has been reassigned to a judge currently hearing one of the many Google privacy cases–that is, someone who is very, very familiar with Silicon Valley shenanigans.  And she’s not afraid to threaten the attorneys with sanctions.

If you believe as I do that the Goldieblox attorneys are walking a very, very fine line in bringing this case in the first place, this is good news.  A case that appears to be clearly “marketing by lawsuit” is a prime candidate for nice juicy sanctions for wasting the court’s time.

Judge Koh recently expressed some exasperation with one of the Apple lawyers in a different case:

“Come on,” Koh told Bill Lee, one of Apple’s lawyers. “You want me to do an order on 75 pages? Unless you’re smoking crack, you know these witnesses aren’t going to be called.”

Judge Koh also recused herself from…

View original post 86 more words

Is Google Trying to Expand Its Smartphone Domination Using Our Music?

Some of you may be aware that Google and Microsoft don’t like each other (which probably explains why Eric Schmidt didn’t include Microsoft in his gift to antitrust regulators–the Gang of Four cartel interview).  They have been involved in some extensive wrangling for some time now.   But check this out: It seems that Google is purposely blocking the YouTube App on the Windows Phone, Microsoft’s smartphone.

Yes, when artists post your videos on YouTube, Google uses access to all of our videos through the YouTube app as a stick to beat up on competitors for Android–from which we do not benefit at all. (Granted there’s an iOS YouTube app, but Google also gets to be the default search setting on iPhones–which I’m sure they don’t get for free.  There’d also be a revolt if artists couldn’t get their own videos on artist-friendly Apple products.)

Bear in mind that Google has essentially created YouTube as a monopoly in video search (mostly using music and movies):

Artists need to be particularly concerned about inadvertently creating monopoly-like companies that leverage our music to their own benefit.  We’ve had lots of experience with what happens to our take home pay when in practice you end up with “one of everything”.  MTV? Clear Channel?  Live Nation?  Pandora?  and now YouTube?  We don’t need to make the Anti-Artist,  Wifi-spying, data gobbling,  privacy sucking Google any more powerful.   It’s particularly ironic that back in the day Microsoft was prosecuted for using similar tactics with Internet Explorer while Google gets away with it with Android (as well as search, YouTube, maps, Safari shenanigans…shall I continue?)  Artists should also note that Microsoft has a long history of respecting artists’ rights and paying us fairly.  Xbox music is one of the highest paying music services per stream on my statements.

Of course, Google will come up with the usual Google-de-goop, slow no answers to explain themselves–we know all about that since Google got over 200 million take down notices for links to infringing sites in search last year alone.  You would think that after telling someone 200 million times there’s something wrong with their product, they’d get it?  Not Google.

Here’ another beef on Google’s leveraging our music so that YouTube can’t be played on a whole class of smartphones:  We aren’t getting paid the YouTube crap royalty on those phones.  Not because of anything we did, but because Google wants to screw a competitor!  I don’t recall ever telling Google they could withhold my music on YouTube to line their own pockets–maybe that’s what Google’s famous “permissionless innovation” looks like.

Now I’m not a lawyer but I think I understand some of the basic purposes of anti-trust law.  It isn’t fair to use your dominance in one market (online video search/YouTube) to leverage your dominance in another market (Android OS).  Isn’t this what Google is doing by blocking YouTube on the Windows phones?  Why does Google get away with this kind of blatantly anti-competitive BS?   Is it their political connections?  Is it those frequent dinners at The White House?   Or we could call it what it really looks like:  Political Corruption and Crony Capitalism.

A Kim Dotcom For All Seasons

This seems timely…

The Trichordist

Come on, guys, I am a computer nerd. I love Hollywood and movies. My whole life is like a movie.

That’s Kim Dotcom in an “open letter” to Hollywood that he penned last week. Dotcom is the owner and CEO of Megaupload and is currently facing federal criminal charges, along with six other individuals, for allegedly operating a “mega-conspiracy” that made him a very wealthy man using other people’s work without permission.

Since his indictment and arrest, Dotcom has been waging a PR campaign to cast himself, not as an opportunistic hack who exploited thousands of creators through his spammy, scammy website, but as some sort of internet freedom fighter — in his latest “music video”, he portrays himself as no less than Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Strangely, in the topsy-turvey world of the internet, Dotcom’s efforts appearto beworking.

You can fool some of…

View original post 919 more words

More misleading statements about Pandora. This Time in NY Post.

In this piece in the NY post about “independent”  artists gaining more market share,  there is a very misleading statement about what Pandora plays.  We can only assume that this information came from Pandora as the New York Post would have no knowledge of what Pandora’s spins or the contents of it’s servers.  Here is the statement:

  Songs from outside the major labels make up 50 percent of the content streamed on the 14-year-old service. On broadcast radio, it’s 13 percent.

So on first glance the  takeaway is that in aggregate 50% of the total spins on Pandora are by independent artists while 13% of the artists on commercial radio are independents.

Yay! Pandora!  The indie musicians’ true friend!

But wait. Did you read that really carefully?  This is a statement that you would expect a defense attorney to concoct. It’s very carefully constructed. The statement is not saying that 50% of the total spins on Pandora’s service are from independent artists,   it’s essentially saying that the content on Pandora’s servers are made up of more than 50% independent artists. And at some point they’ve been streamed.

Of course that’s true.  There are many more unpopular bands than popular bands. And an overwhelming percentage of these “unpopular” bands are independent.

But Necrophagist is not being played nearly as often as a Miley Cyrus. Comparing YouTube views I’d say Cyrus is probably being spun ten thousand  times more often than Necrophagist.  Yet Necrophagist and Miley Cyrus have a similar number of tracks on Pandora’s servers.  So we all see how this statement is totally misleading. Right? It’s not really saying 50% of the spins are indie artists.

Further the distinction between “independent artist” and “major label artist” is somewhat arbitrary and frankly no longer useful.   Although Taylor Swift might be considered technically “independent” it’s not exactly edgy underground DIY music.  Further like many of the “independent” artists in the count, these artists are promoted and distributed by major labels.   That is major labels are actively working these titles and taking large percentages of the revenue!

The more important distinction to look at is how much “unknown” or “non radio friendly” tracks a music service plays.

As I’ve demonstrated with my own catalogue Pandora doesn’t really play that much more music from my “Long Tail” of popularity than commercial radio.  For my catalogue it’s more like 20%.  That is only 20% of my spins on Pandora are songs that weren’t also hits on the radio. Looking at other artists’ royalty statements I have observed the same approximate percentage.

While it’s true with my catalogue Pandora does marginally better than commercial terrestrial radio, Satellite radio and college radio play more music from my “Long Tail” than Pandora.  A LOT MORE. 

We’d be really surprised if Pandora’s total spins are any different from any other 80/20 model where 80% of the spins come from the top 20% of artists/songs while the remaining 80% of artists/songs only account for 20% of spins. This is where Openess and Transparency by those with the data would truly be informative to artists and musicians. Maybe we’re wrong, and we’d like to be, so let’s see the actual numbers…

Oh, and one might also just look at the promoted genre’s on Pandora’s homepage, doesn’t look like indies to us (well, Contemporary Gospel, maybe)…

Screen Shot 2014-01-08 at 6.31.28 PM

My Songs = Your Instagram Photos. A New Trichordist Statement of Purpose.

For the past 20 months or so the Trichordist has been almost exclusively focused on artists rights in the digital age.  In particular we have zeroed in on two main issues and suggested solutions.

#1 Government Mandated  Digital Uses and Pricing of Songs and Recordings Should be Ended

The Government and  institutional mechanisms that  limit artists’ choice over how to monetize their recordings and involuntarily collectivize their songs and recordings for the benefit of wealthy technology firms should be ended.

The compulsory licenses and antiquated DOJ consent decrees have become massive subsidies from songwriters (especially) and performers to webcasters and on demand streaming services.  Spotify and Pandora have market caps well in excess of $4 billion!  (EMI was recently sold for $2.1 billion.)  Apple and Google  recently started webcasting services and are the largest tech companies in the world.  Why do these companies need help from the US Government?

While many songwriters find it personally insulting that they are often paid micropennies per digital spin the truth is that no one  can really tell you the fair rate per spin for any particular song. Songwriters and artists can’t.  Spotify can’t. Pandora can’t.  Neither can BMG,  Sony nor the US Congress.  This is because  there is not really a free market in songs and recordings in the US to set those fair prices.  This is easily solved: Create one.

That is why we are simply asking our government to dismantle the regulations that prevent a free market in songs and recordings from developing.  We are asking our government to dismantle the biggest impediment to a free market:  The rate courts and consent decrees that keep a free market from developing for songwriters.   At a minimum, our government could at least allow an “opt out” for artists and songwriters so that compulsory rates become a “floor” rather than a “ceiling”.

It should be noted that contrary to what some in the  technology press have been saying, we are not  asking for special treatment,  handouts or subsidies for artists and songwriters.   We aren’t asking for special legislation to protect prices for our industry. We are not asking to be protected from the disruptions caused by technological innovations.  To the contrary, it’s the webcasters, broadcaster and Silicon Valley giants that have lobbied Congress for royalty fixing legislation to prevent “disruption” of their business models.

#2 Ad Supported Piracy.  Payment Processor Supported Piracy.

The second thing we have focused on is ad  and payment processor  supported piracy.   Virtually every major music piracy website seems to sell their inventory for some kind of advertising . Some sites proudly display advertising  from Fortune 500 companies.   Others sites charge premium subscriptions for faster downloads with the complicity of companies like Paypal, Mastercard, Amex and Visa.

Screen Shot 2014-01-01 at 12.43.33 PM

This is ridiculous–massive banks and credit card companies (that got a huge taxpayer bailout which we’ve never asked for or gotten) profit from massive theft.  It is very easy to find out which sites are likely involved high levels of infringement–just ask creators if they ever licensed the site.  Credit card companies do all kinds of checking on creditworthiness, why don’t they check on dishonesty?

If asking doesn’t “scale,” Google helpfully provides The Google Transparency Report on number of DMCA takedown notices (copyright infringement notices) associated with each site–notices that Google has acknowledged are over 90% accurate.  An advertiser or payment processor need only look at this link.

I am not a lawyer but I understand  that mass copyright infringement is a predicate for federal prosecutors to bring a case under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act or “RICO”–which is the law that the government used to take down white collar criminals like Michael Milken (a Gordon Gekko figure who may have done a lot of things but who wasn’t engaged in global advertising fraud).  I believe that at the very least the federal government should be investigating the online advertising industry and the payment processors  to see if they are knowingly involved in any criminal conspiracies associated with these sites. (Processing payments? Paying ad revenue to pirates? How could they not be? Don’t the accountants and bankers who “move” money for the mob usually go to jail? Orange Is The New Black?)

But this is unlikely to happen.  The Federal Government, in particular the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission seem unwilling to give even slaps on the wrists to the companies involved in these practices. In particular frequent White House dinner guest Eric Schmidt and his company Google.

While this may seem like a wild accusation to some,  it seems to be supported by objective facts.  If the federal government will  fine Google a measly $25,000 dollars in the NSA-like Google Maps “WiSpy” data vacuuming scandal why would they bother with a silly thing like RICO criminal acts? $25,000 dollars? Think about it.   This is a $370 billion company. They make $25,000 in seconds.

Well that’s just one isolated case right? Google doesn’t get special treatment.  Right.

Sadly it looks like they do.

Ever heard of the Google drugs case?   This was a CRIMINAL international drug trafficking case brought against Google by the Rhode Island US Attorney’s office.   Google paid a $500,000,000 dollar fine in that case to avoid CRIMINAL prosecution.

Well that sounds better. They didn’t get away with that!

Really? Since when do people pay fines instead of going to jail for being key part of promoting organized international drug operations?  Since when does the  DOJ purportedly offer an apology for prosecution, as the Wall Street Journal reports? 

This Is What Corruption Looks Like

So after 20 months of arguing for artists rights in the digital age I’ve come to the conclusion that this goes way beyond a few thousands artists losing 2/3 their revenue to shady websites with the complicity of multi billion dollar  corporations.  This is much worse.

We have monopolistic companies doing bad things on a scale we haven’t seen since the days of the Robber Barons. And getting away with it.   The most positive spin I can put on it? We have the same old “Pay to Play Democracy” except this time instead of picking our pockets they are only picking our data.  We should call it what it is:

Corruption.

We need a new Teddy Roosevelt to “Bust these Internet Trusts”.

Our love affair with the internet has left us blinded to the enormous power that these companies hold over our government and our daily lives.  It has blinded us to the massive invasions of privacy and and attempts to collectivize our private data, personal information and  even our photos with no protection from our federal government.

Why are we letting these giant monopolies develop?  Has anyone considered that a single search engine controls nearly 70% of all web searches in the US.   Recently Google “demoted” both JC Penny and  Rap Genius in search results for using “black hat”  search engine optimization techniques. These are not laws that were broken. This is a private company’s arbitrary rules (they “black hat” their own properties like YouTube)  What’s to stop them “demoting” one political candidate and “promoting” another one?  How would you ever know if they have already done it?

What’s to stop them from sharing their vast store of data on us with government spy agencies or the political candidates they favor.  How do we know they haven’t already done this, too?

My Songs = Your Instagram Photos.

Remember the Instagram Terms of Service changes?   They get to use your photos for advertising? Without your permission?  The Internets went crazy.   That’s exactly the same thing these Silicon Valley companies (that are essentially just big advertising agencies) have been doing with my songs and lyrics for years.   They slather advertising on sites that don’t ask my permission to use my songs or lyrics.  I don’t get any of the revenue and no one will stop them because they are too politically powerful.

If they can do this with my songs they WILL do it with your Instagram photos. Your FaceBook profile, your Google+photos.  (Heard of “shared endorsements”?)  It’s just a matter of time!

Oh, wait–they’ve already done it.  Facebook sponsored stories. And Google plus shared endorsements.  These “services” probably weren’t part of the deal when you first signed up for these “convenient” and “free” services.  Right?  Facebook and Google just changed their terms of service. And then helped themselves to your identity and photos. “Permissionless Innovation” is what the suits in Silicon Valley call it (as if that’s a good thing).

Here’s The Washington Post succinctly on the subject:

“But critics say tactics that further exploit the data people leave online amount to a bait-and-switch. People signed up for Google’s services because they were free and convenient. They probably never thought their words and identities would be put in front of strangers to sell a product.”

New Statement Of Purpose.

Well I’ve oversold this a little. There isn’t really a new statement of purpose.  Just simply we are expanding the blog to cover more than just artists rights.

Why?

Your average Internet user is being exploited in exactly same way that the artists are.  You are being exploited by exactly the same companies.  Ad supported piracy?   What’s the difference from “shared endorsements”? They take something that belongs to you without your permission.  They then sell advertising against it and keep all the money without letting  you set the price–much less paying you a share of the revenue.

It’s time that the average Internet user understands that the web is something we collectively created.  And when it doesn’t work the way we want it to?  We can change it. We can make it better.  We can upgrade it.  The web doesn’t belong to these multibillion dollar internet behemoths. It belongs to all of us.  And these companies need to play by the same set of rules that the rest of us play by.

Sympathy for RapGenius

Yes.  You read that correctly.

As I stated before I never wanted to see RapGenius.com go away or get shut down.  I just wanted to see them get licensed.  And I was pleased to see that they decided to sit down with The National Music Publishers Association and work out licenses.

But then I see this story.

http://valleywag.gawker.com/is-rap-genius-fucked-1489917137

RapGenius engaged in some “black hat” spammy SEO (search engine optimization) and they got caught.   And now Google has demoted them. Rather than ranking number #1-5 on lyric searches as they did in many searches I conducted, they are now on page 7!

Not search result #7!  Page 7!  Has anyone ever scrolled 7 pages into search results?

Industry pundits claim this is an effective “death sentence” for the site. And I bet they are right.  According to Vice and Quantcast they’ve lost 80% of their web traffic in days!!

Screen Shot 2014-01-02 at 12.26.07 AM

So think about it.

RapGenius violated the Search Engine Optimization rules arbitrarily set by a private company Google.  A set of rules Google itself  appears to routinely violate to push it’s own property YouTube up in search results.

RapGenius didn’t violate any real law created by an elected legislative body when they did this.  But now they are considered “toast”

So do we really want a monopolistic über politically connected company like Google to be this powerful?  To have life or death power over any and all websites? No trial, no jury, no appeals process, no nothing.

Face it people the web is ruled by an autocratic, unelected and unaccountable search engine.

What happens to freedom of expression when you have a search engine that is this powerful?

Fuck that, what happens to democracy?  If a candidate proposes something that Google doesn’t like will that candidate’s website suddenly sink to page 7?  (And the first 6 pages are filled with links to negative stories about the candidate?)

Surely the internet free speech advocates have something to say about this?

<crickets>

Isn’t it funny that Google won’t noticably demote a site demonstrably and unequivocally involved in a RICO predicate like industrial scale file infringement. But you try to game their SEO and you get demoted to page 7.   Don’t be evil. Yeah right.

On the bright side Google just admitted that they can do more than they say they can about file infringing websites. They can demote them. Same with human trafficking and other exploitative businesses. And see the Internet didn’t break.