Fetishize The Past? Google Executive’s Double-Vinyl-Gatefold-Sleeve-Rock-Opera Of A Straw Man Argument.

Paul Resnikoff at Digital Music News was masochistic enough to transcribe a rant  given by Google’s Tim Quirk at Future Of Music Coalition Conference last month. Tim takes a blog from The New Yorker that may or may not romanticize shopping for vinyl in shops in the 90s.  He then makes a false equivalency between that and artist’s current criticism of the current digital services and royalties.

This is the mother of all straw man arguments.  And again we need to call him out on it.

Artists are not fetishizing the past.   They are simply asking for fair pay in the digital age. End of story.  

Of course there is another interpretation of this.  Is Quirk implying fair artist royalties are some sort of fetish from the past?

If this is the case, count me as really confused. For wasn’t it Tim Quirk who in 2009 magnificiently ranted on his band’s website (Quirk was in the band Too Much Joy)  how his old record label Warner Bros was not properly crediting his account with digital royalties?

http://www.toomuchjoy.com/index.php/2009/12/my-hilarious-warner-bros-royalty-statement/

I quote from his blog:

“So I was naively excited when I opened the envelope. And my answer was right there on the first page. In five years, our three albums earned us a grand total of…

$62.47

What the fuck?”

So what happened to the 2009 Tim?

I’ll tell you.  He got a Job at Google.  Meet the new boss Tim.  Yourself.

(BTW all artists should read the transcription of Tim’s remarks.  There is a visceral hostility toward artists throughout the entire piece that is quite startling  considering he is an executive in Google’s music division. Just saying.)

YouTube Awards Tarnished by YouTube Hate Videos and Jihadi Recruitment

YouTube, Just Like Television? What network broadcasts hate and jihadi recruitment programing?

Music Technology Policy

Google has a lot of excuses for why they profit from piracy, but what is inexcusable is how YouTube profits from hate videos and war porn.  It is difficult to understand how Lady Gaga and other artists slated to perform on the “YouTube Music Awards” would be able to turn a blind eye to this evil, no matter the fee and no matter how much “promotion” a media giant like Google can bring to bear.

The Problem from Hell is Easily Solved

johnny rebel youtube

What is difficult to understand about YouTube’s hate problem is how Google could just ignore it–particularly when these videos no doubt violate some policy that Google pays lip service to.  Fortunately, the Anti-Defamation League has compiled a list that Google could easily use to enforce violations of their dormant terms of service when it comes to hate speech.

I tried YouTube searches by picking a few names from…

View original post 527 more words

@natgeo and @geico sponsor beheading videos on YouTube…yes, real ones

Just Like Television?

Music Technology Policy

beheading

[Editor Charlie sez: Here’s a recent “content warning” video embedded from YouTube:

So YouTube makes it look like they are screening violent videos, but all they are really doing is grabbing users email addresses to sell them other stuff and preserving Google’s monopoly over video traffic by allowing grotesque videos to drive traffic to YouTube through referring sites.

 

YouTube–the #1 music destination online–is also the home of all sorts of grotesque videos, monetized by YouTube and Google.  Try searching YouTube for “beheading” and you’ll get the idea.  544,000 search results all available for streaming directly into your home, right now, all over Internet television.

Not only is YouTube available at home, but it’s also linked to Google’s education apps, government apps, and by the Android.  And these are not just an odd video here and there, these videos account for millions of views.

Some of the beheading videos…

View original post 55 more words

Study Finds That Piracy Is Growing Rapidly and Becoming More Profitable… | DMN

Streaming services may be paying you pennies, but at least they’re lowering piracy. But what if that isn’t true?

At present, there are three major types of piracy ecosystems that are used worldwide: they are BitTorrent, video streaming, and direct download cyberlockers.

The vast majority of BitTorrent sites make money through advertising.

So the piracy sites that we’ve focused on for this study are very much driven by profit: they are generating revenue from advertising, they are generating revenue sometimes from premium subscription fees. And obviously when enforcement shuts these sites down and or shuts down their payment processors, it’s hitting directly at their revenue streams.

READ THE FULL STORY AT DIGITAL MUSIC NEWS:
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2013/10/21/studymediapiracy

As Downloads Dip, Music Executives Cast a Wary Eye on Streaming Services | New York Times

As sales of CDs plunged over the last decade, the music industry clung to one comfort: downloads continued to sell briskly as people filled their computers and iPods with songs by the billions.

Now even that certainty seems to have disappeared, as downloads head toward their first yearly decline.

So far this year, 1.01 billion track downloads have been sold in the United States, down 4 percent from the same time last year, according to the tracking service Nielsen SoundScan. Album downloads are up 2 percent, to 91.9 million; combining these results using the industry’s standard yardstick of 10 tracks to an album, total digital sales are down almost 1 percent.

READ THE FULL STORY AT THE NEW YORK TIMES:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/21/business/media/as-downloads-dip-music-executives-cast-a-wary-eye-on-streaming-services.html?_r=1&

New Boy Band Poll: Who Should be the Fourth Horseman of the Spotocalypse?

Time for some artists’ rights comedy gold.

We can’t help but notice that when an artist publicly criticizes Spotify there are three bloggers that seem to quickly post rebuttals as if they are members of a synchronized swimming-er blogging team.  To paraphrase Spin Magazine on these guys: “#TeamSpotify.”

Most recently we see the Three Horseman of the Spotocalypse going after David Byrne for his editorial in The Guardian.

Bob Lefsetz the 60-year-old self-described “industry expert” angrily calls the 61-year-old David Byrne an old fart.

Meanwhile Jay Frank calls David Byrne “bad at Math.”  Now while Jay is always careful to be right, if you look at the big picture it turns out he’s arguing over things like whether it takes 150 million Spotify spins or 75 million Spotify spins a year to reach minimum wage (and is that federal or state minimum wage, and which state Jay? ) . Does that really matter?  Byrne’s points still stand. Either way it’s a fuckload and it’s not sustainable. Yes Jay, technically you’re right but It’s like a Larry David episode.  You’re making my brain hurt and I AM A MATHEMATICIAN.

Finally Dave Allen former bassist of the “Marxist”  Gang Of Four now turned Ad Exec spends 100,578,238 words incoherently criticizing David Byrne, Thom Yorke and myself.  This in advance of a meeting with Spotify executives in LA.  I draw no conclusions.

But here’s the real problem with these guys: I can’t take them seriously.

And it’s not because I don’t like what they write.  It’s because there are just three of them.

If 6 is the number of The Beast.  3 is the number of the comedian.

“Dave Allen, Bob Lefsetz, and Daniel Ek walk into a bar”

If you want to be seen as a powerful, elite or even sinister force three is not a good number.  Think about it.  “Three Stooges”, “Three Blind Mice”, “The Three Amigos”, “The Jonas Brothers” etc etc.

Four is much better. Four is a masculine world-changing number.

“The Fab Four”   “The Fantastic Four” and of course “The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.”

These guys will not be taken seriously until they add another horseman.

The pro-spotify-anti-artist-blogging business is no different from the boy band business.  You need some variety among your bloggers for broadest appeal.  And the more bloggers the better.  They should really take a cue from some of the great boy bands of the past.   As Bob Lefsetz might say “Work hard, be excellent,  and add another member”  “The Four Horsemen of the Spotocalypse” is so much more serious sounding.

And they are almost there.  They’ve got three great ingredients already!

Jay Frank: The nerdy but fun one.

Dave Allen: The angry one,

Bob Lefsetz: The really angry one,

Who should they add?  Do they go cuddly?  Sinister? Cute? Hispanic?

They definitely don’t have cute.   And they probably should go cute but there are no cute anti-artist-rights-pro-spotify bloggers.

So dear reader please help us!  Please help The Three Horseman of the Spotocalypse become Four.   Vote for a new member!

Top 10 Reasons People Use To Justify Pirating Digital Content (And Why They’re Wrong) | Lit Reactor

Book authors are now learning what it’s been like to be a musician for the past decade.

Pirating digital content is illegal. Full stop.

Yet people continually steal eBooks and movies and television shows and treat it like it’s no big deal. There’s a couple of reasons it happens: Torrenting is easy and the chance of getting caught is low. And saving money is fun, especially when the economy isn’t at its strongest. But the biggest reason was summed up perfectly by Devin Faraci of Badass Digest (who tweeted the following while I was writing this, and I couldn’t possibly say it better myself):

In our culture today people think they deserve their entertainment, not that it’s a perk.

An eBook is a luxury, not a right. If you can’t afford it, too bad, but that’s life.

Still, people excuse the practice of pirating with a plethora of ridiculous reasons that don’t hold up to scrutiny. I have yet to hear a single legitimate argument in favor of it. Here’s the ones I’ve heard so far–and why they’re complete nonsense:

READ THE FULL POST HERE AT LIT REACTOR:
http://litreactor.com/columns/top-10-reasons-people-use-to-justify-pirating-digital-content-and-why-theyre-wrong

“Luddite” Artists Point Out That BitTorrent Doesn’t Know Shit About Their Own Technology.

Like Germans BitTorrent is “mostly unitentionally  funny.”*  The  company has decided that they should attempt to legitimize their artist exploiting torrenting system with a charm offensive by buying billboards in Los Angeles.  Check this one out.

It seems to me that BitTorrent is suggesting that by using their product you are somehow safe from snooping by the NSA.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Nope you aren’t even safe from a so-called luddite musician. Check it out.

Here are the IP addresses, ports  and some sample Cracker and Camper Van Beethoven songs being hosted and illegally torrented by 33 Bit Torrent users.  This is using one of the vast number of tools available to snoop on Bit Torrent traffic–think the NSA doesn’t use this for jihadi communications????

And to the folks illegally sharing my music?   You might want to ask what other naughty stuff I can see on your computer?

Seriously, if I could figure this out in 20 minutes how hard is it for the NSA? FBI? Local PD? Hacker?

Apparently BitTorrent doesn’t even understand how it’s own product works. Luddites.

*No offense Germans, I’m simply paraphrasing my favorite German Author Thomas Meinecke.

The IP Address The Port Sample File Name
98.194.45.42 45832 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
76.125.248.153 16079 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
76.122.163.166 53855 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
67.187.147.156 31163 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
67.180.160.68 49992 12 – Circles.flac
68.35.217.145 48451 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
67.173.109.168 39167 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
50.131.219.101 43611 12 – Circles.flac
71.198.221.119 47128 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
69.245.16.52 19150 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
76.126.53.161 46736 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
50.159.89.238 20533 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
98.255.69.205 61427 Cracker – Teen Angst (What The World Needs Now).flac
76.121.64.84 11373 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
98.225.183.21 21709 05 – Peaches in the Summertime.flac
174.60.188.235 32303 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
67.185.200.229 38984 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
71.228.181.111 53935 Cracker – Teen Angst (What The World Needs Now).flac
68.61.76.14 44025 Cracker – Teen Angst (What The World Needs Now).flac
24.130.205.30 16422 Cracker – Teen Angst (What The World Needs Now).flac
71.207.200.119 53935 Cracker – Teen Angst (What The World Needs Now).flac
98.232.177.136 39146 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
68.49.180.22 33418 Cracker – Teen Angst (What The World Needs Now).flac
98.239.116.29 56239 69-Cracker-Euro-Trash Girl.flac
71.207.226.46 53935 Cracker – Teen Angst (What The World Needs Now).flac
98.230.67.200 61161 Cracker – Teen Angst (What The World Needs Now).flac
76.106.137.141 33912 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
98.252.25.93 50437 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
76.101.248.189 16076 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
68.63.112.223 26424 69-Cracker-Euro-Trash Girl.flac
98.211.89.34 45985 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
76.23.241.13 50364 Cracker – Teen Angst (What The World Needs Now).flac
66.229.199.147 55914 10-Cracker-Lonesome Johnny Blues.flac

Internet Exploitation, Not Just a Problem For Artists | Nick Lewis

Guest Post by Nick Lewis (Copyright in the Author)

Nick Lewis is a mastering engineer from Brighton, UK. Visit his website at www.brightonmastering.co.uk

Most talk about the exploitative internet is focused on artists. But they’re just the headline. Artists may be the front-line, the visible face, but the effects go much deeper.

Artists being paid less due to piracy, pay-what-you-like and advertising funded models has a direct effect on entire subsections of the economy. And these sectors serve as omens for the future of increasingly information-based economies like the UK.

The trickle-down effect

Think about everything that goes into making and releasing a record. Recording engineers, mixing engineers, mastering engineers, mixing desks, outboard, microphones, speakers, software, computers, pressing plants, their staff and equipment, blank stock manufacturers, distributors, warehouses, vans, drivers, PR agencies – the list goes on.

No one gets paid if no one buys the record.

I can’t count the number of times artists have promised to send a single/EP/album to me for mastering by a certain date only for that date to slip because they can’t get the money together. Very often it never materialises: they’ve given up and either forgone mastering, tried to do it themselves or got their hobbyist mate to do it. This isn’t good for me or the band.

The same goes for mixing. Probably 90% of everything I work on has been mixed by the artist themselves. And I’ll tell you something – you can immediately tell when something has come from a proper studio mixed by a proper mixing engineer. It’s night and day. Sure, sometimes it’s a conscious choice on the part of the band, but most of the time they just can’t afford to mix in a proper studio.

The fewer working studios there are, the less money spent on high-end equipment and the fewer techs can afford to keep working. You see where this is going.

Loss of expertise

 This isn’t just bad for people losing money. Less money means less investment which means lower quality. Fewer people can afford to make a living doing the things that make a difference to how a record sounds (for example).

Yes you can make a record on a laptop. But it won’t come close to Abbey Road. This is about time with experts where artists can concentrate on their art and not worry about anything else. This is about a level of technical knowledge, let alone appropriate acoustic spaces.

People can’t afford to take on apprentices like they used to. A lot of the top mixing and mastering engineers now work from private facilities at home. Eventually all these people will retire and their skills will go with them. The people that replace them will never have learnt from them, and very likely never had the money to invest in the same quality of equipment.

Soft skills are already suffering because there’s not enough money in it. People have to get day jobs and pursue them as a hobby or not at all. That means a lower quality end product.

Beyond music

 This isn’t just about music. It’s not even just about creative enterprises. The downward trajectory of price to zero will eventually affect anything transmittable in binary. Data, software: anything that can be distributed with a computer.

For countries like mine, the UK, which is increasingly moving towards an information based economy, where manufacturing is taking a backseat and media and services dominate – this can only spell disaster. When competition from open source projects, piracy and vastly under-priced international alternatives hits everything from financial services to software development we will have nothing left to sell.

Free market fallacy

The internet has provided the mechanism for the biggest, fastest, unregulated free market the world has ever seen. And its sheer size is exposing the flaws in the system.

The free market theory is that competition will drive price down, which is good for the consumer. Adam Smith couldn’t possibly have predicted what would happen in the face of intangible, easily copyable assets and hyper-globalisation. The trend towards zero is not good for the consumer in the long-term as the quality of product degrades or disappears altogether along with the skills and supportive infrastructure that go into it.

A sustainable internet isn’t just about ensuring musicians and artists get paid fairly for their work, it’s about protecting our economies. Further, it’s about choosing what kind of a world we want to live in.

The French (among others) have a fixed book price agreement, recently extended to include e-books, to protect their publishing industry. The net effect is 2,500+ book shops in France, while the UK sector, left to laissez faire, dwindles. This is a direct expression of the value placed on literature in France – both in itself and as an economic sector. It’s also an example of the kind of measure we need to fight for online. As musicians queue up to descry the new business models of the digital economy, it’s clear the ‘invisible hand’ isn’t working for artists, listeners or the jobs and skills that depend on both.

This isn’t just about art. Art is just the beginning. This is about restoring the link between price and value in an information economy.