Google and YouTube want “Transparency and Openess” except when it applies to Google and YouTube!

Censorship anyone? Hmmmmm…

Because information wants to be free, as long as it’s your information. Which brings us to this: YouTube is now threatening to completely sever its relationship with digital distributor ONErpm, thanks to some ‘over-sharing’ of information in a recent guest post on Digital Music News. According to ONErpm founder Emmanuel Zunz, YouTube is unhappy that certain payout details and percentages were disclosed, with a complete blacklisting being threatened.

According to ONErpm, YouTube has demanded that the entire guest post – here – be ripped down, which would obliterate nearly 100 comments and the knowledgebase that comes with that (not to mention the detailed information in the post itself).

“Yt is threatening to cancel our agreement,” Zunz emailed. “It’s a very serious issue for us.”

READ THE FULL STORY HERE AT DIGITAL MUSIC NEWS:
YouTube Demands the Removal of a Digital Music News Guest Post…

The idea that Google is an open and transparent company is simply laughable to anyone who has actually dealt with the company and given Google’s monopoly over video search, when it makes threats about cutting someone off from YouTube, those threats are amplified with what is called a “force multiplier” in some circles (or an “A-hole multiplier” in others).  An amplification that varies directly with the effectiveness of YouTube’s monopoly over online search, a monopoly perfected for years by Google subsidizing YouTube with profits from its other monopoly businesses.

READ THE FULL STORY AT MUSIC TECH POLICY:
More Stupid New Boss Tricks: Google’s YouTube Artist Relations Debacle

RELATED:
So Much For Innovation, YouTuber’s Meet The New Boss…

Does Sirius and “Piped in” Airline Music Lead to More Music “Discovery” than Pandora? PT 2

After one get’s past the debate about whether webcasting and streaming pay artists fairly, you find there is a more complicated question.  How much of webcasting and streaming is “discovery”  and how much is just plain old consumption.  Listening to familiar tracks we already know.  This is not an academic question.  This fact can be taken into consideration by Copyright Royalty Board judges when they set the rates for webcasting. (Yes believe it or not in the year 2013 the prices to webcast songs and music are set by the US government!!).

Clearly all forms of broadcasting and webcasting are a little of both consumption and discovery (or promotion).   But the Webcasters have been arguing that they are better suited for “discovery” and thus are giving unknown artists and listeners something of value.  That argue they are better for music “discovery” than traditional broadcasters. Is that really true?

Yesterday I took my top 5 bonafide radio hits from the 80’s and 90s and subtracted their spins from each service then I looked at the percentage of spins “left” on each service.  The idea being the more a service plays the non hits the more likely listeners are discovering music.  I found something surprising.   Sirius XM and “Piped in” Airline Radio played more deep tracks or non-hits  than any other format.  Thus listeners were more likely to discover songs they didn’t know on these two services.  At least from my catalogue.

Following up with yesterdays post.  I’m digging deeper into my catalogue and subtracting spins for the minor hits, regional hits and tracks that otherwise garnered significant popularity from other sources.

Yesterday I subtracted spins for just the Top 5 tracks.

Low, Teen Angst, Get Off This, Take The Skinheads Bowling, Eurotrash Girl.

We will now subtract the spins for an additional 10 tracks.

All these tracks garnered significant radio promotion and sales through the years.

Eye of Fatima pt 1*  (Minor National  Rock/Modern Rock success)

Happy Birthday to Me*  (Minor national alternative paly, Minor recurrent play).

Turn On Tune In Drop Out With Me.  (#13 AAA radio.  Minor format.  Featured in Californication.)

Sweet Thistle Pie* (Mid-Atlantic, Chicago,  South Florida, Texas regional)

Good Guys And Bad Guys* (MTV Specialty and College Radio)

Big Dipper ( Coastal Carolinas regional).

Cracker Soul (Virginia, Carolinas and Chicago regional).

Turquoise Jewelry* (KROQ Los Angeles only)

I See The Light  ( Indie 103.1 Los Angeles Only. Daily airplay for nearly 3 years because DJ Steve Jones of Sex Pistols just decided to play the shit out of it on his popular afternoon show!)

Yalla Yalla  (Armed Forces Radio, mildly viral YouTube remix.)

* Promotional CD or Vinyl serviced to radio. 

This is not subjective.  These tracks were selected after looking at various royalty statements and airplay reports.  These are the top 15 tracks that still generate significant spins and individual sales.  There are certain tracks that were worked as singles like “I Hate My Generation” that generated a brief period of airplay but have never sustained spins.   Nor have they sustained individual sales over the long term.  These tracks are not included.  As further evidence please note that the aggregator of web simulcasts Live 365 pretty much agrees that these are the top 15 tracks.  See last screenshot.

Now the question is “Who plays the largest percentage of my catalogue outside the Top 15 tracks”

Airlines 39.27% broadcast
Sirius XM 28.57% broadcast
College Radio 25.02% broadcast
Pandora Radio 17.28% webcast
Live 365 16.91% webcast/broadcast
Rhapsody Radio (not on demand) 10.19% webcast
Terrestrial UK 8.81% broadcast/webcast?
Terrestrial US 1.07% broadcast

So for music discovery your best bet is a little air travel!  Followed by Sirius and then College Radio.  To be fair Pandora moves up a notch and it’s relative percentage of songs in the “tail” of my catalogue hardly changes.  This seems to argue that at least 17% of the time Pandora seems to be true music discovery.  It’s not just playing what the crowd says is already popular.  Again that 17% is nothing to sneeze at.  This suggests  that at least some significant portion of the time Pandora is playing you some artists or songs you would have likely never encountered.   That is encouraging.

Tomorrow let’s look at the On-Demand streaming stats.

Live 365 shows 13 of the 15 tracks in it’s top 25.

13 of tracks in top 25

Does Sirius and “Piped in” Airline Music Lead to More Music “Discovery” than Pandora?

Readers of this blog know that there is a raging debate over the rates that artists are paid by Streaming and Webcasting services.    But underpinning that debate is the notion that certain webcasting services and streaming services help people discover new music and are thus giving something of value back to the artist.  It occurred to me that I have a big enough song catalogue that we could actually look at the question try to measure if these services lead people to new music or just sort of spin what is most popular and familiar.

So in my own catalogue there are 5 songs that were genuine radio hits on multiple radio formats.  At least here in the US.   As individual tracks they also tend to be in my top ten sellers. They were also released commercially as singles.    They are:

Low

Teen Angst

Get Off This

Take The Skinheads Bowling

Eurotrash Girl

(Pictures of Matchstick Men is a Status Quo cover and I don’t get granular statements for that track).

There are also another dozen tracks that were minor hits, regional hits,  or garnered significant but fleeting radio play.  I deal with these and “On-Demand” services in a subsequent posts.

So the question I attempted to answer is  “What percentage of spins on these service are NOT the top 5 hits?”   This is not necessarily the only way to look at the question.  This is perhaps the bluntest of measurements.  However it is interesting to actually look at the data rather than just make unverified claims.   (For balance I’ve also asked a friendly yet sometimes adversarial fellow blogger to look at my raw data and ask the question differently.)

Here are the somewhat surprising results.

Percentage of spins that are NOT my top 5 hits.  Webcasters and Broadcasters only.   On Demand Streaming services like Spotify or Rdio are not considered.  

Sirius XM 46.13% broadcast
Airline Radio 46.02% broadcast
College Radio 32.15% broadcast
Live 365 31.36% webcast/broadcast
Pandora 18.18% webcast
Rhapsody radio 16.02% webcast
Terrestrial UK 8.90% broadcast/webcast?
Terrestrial Radio US 3.47% broadcast

Here are the big surprises.   Sirius XM although relatively few spins, tends to play more stuff out in the “long tail” of my catalogue than every other source.  And Airlines?  how did that happen?

Pandora which loudly boasts of it’s music genome project ends up in the middle of the pack.  Further 4 out of 5 spins on Pandora are for “Low” my biggest hit.  The only other service that spins Low as much is US terrestrial (85% of all spins).   However there is one caveat with Pandora.  The other 20% of the time the spins are more evenly distributed throughout my catalogue.  At least relatively speaking.   I mean the number two played track is an obscure outtake  from Kerosene Hat “Sunday Train.”  I assume that is the music genome at work.  So 20% of the time Pandora acts as claimed as a music discovery service.  At least with my catalogue.  Second caveat.  This is just within my catalogue.  It’s entirely possible that in aggregate Pandora as claims plays more indie music and artists out in “the tail” of popularity.

Percentage of Spins that are the track  “Low.”  Webcaster and Broadcasters. 

Terrestrial Radio US 85.26% broadcast
Pandora 79.82% webcast
Rhapsody Radio 63.75% webcast
Terrestrial Radio UK 39.56% broadcast/webcast?
Live 365 28.97% webcast/broadcast
Airline Radio 25.09% broadcast
College Radio 24.99% broadcast
Sirius XM 24.96% broadcast

About 20% of the time Pandora seems to really play some obscure tracks. Kudos!

Pandora plays

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

We’d just like to say a very big thank you to both Lou Reed and the Dead Kennedys who publicly posted to Facebook this week our posts showing how they are being exploited by major brands and big tech internet advertising corporations.

LOU REED FACEBOOK POST:
https://www.facebook.com/LouReed/posts/10151804045145953

DEAD KENNEDYS FACEBOOK POST:
https://www.facebook.com/deadkennedys/posts/10151784946510638

In the recent weeks we’ve heard from Aimee Mann, Pink Floyd, Thom Yorke, Blake Morgan, Lou Reed and the Dead Kennedys on various issues negatively effecting artists in the “digital economy.”

These artists have presented their concerns ranging from Spotify royalty rates, Pandora’s dishonest attempts to cut  their currently mandated rates by 85% and of course Ad Funded Piracy which pays artists absolutely nothing.

In each of the cases addressed above artists are speaking out against the exploitative practices of corporate interests destroying the ability of professional musicians to maintain sustainable careers.

Change happens when artists speak up and speak out.

8 Takeaways from today’s IP Subcommittee Hearing

Artists and Creators or all types, this is what you are up against, and we’re not even kidding. Wish we were… this is a Must Read.

Music Technology Policy

Every now and then you get a gift from the ether–today’s hearing “Innovation in America: The Role of Technology” at the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet was no exception.  It’s hard sometimes to convince lawmakers and staff that “yes, they really are that self-centered” when speaking of the groovier-than-thou Big Tech community, so it’s always nice when Big Tech does it for you.

First of all–get it straight that it is highly unlikely that anyone on today’s panel uttered a word that was not approved somehow by Google or its intermediaries. And certainly not one word was uttered that would give Google any heart palpitations (or as they say in the mountains, “agida”).

Having said that, I think the testimony of the witnesses at today’s hearing can be distilled into a few recurring themes, although I encourage anyone who thinks I’m oversimplifying to read the transcript…

View original post 797 more words

Repeat after me… “Artists are Innovators!” via VOX INDIE

Testimony from copyright hearing highlights what’s at stake for content creators

On Thursday (July 25th) the House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet held another hearing on copyright reform, “Innovation in America: The Role of Copyrights,” with the following witness invited to testify:

Sandra Aistars, Executive Director, Copyright Alliance
Eugene Mopsik, Executive Director, American Society of Media Photographers
Tor Hansen,Co-Founder, Yep Roc Records / Red Eye Distribution
John Lapham, General Counsel, Getty Images
William Sherak, President, Stereo D

Unfortunately, to some in the press–who the witnesses were seems to have overshadowed what they may have actually said. In The Washington Post Andrea Peterson bemoaned the lack of “innovators” on the witness list.

READ THE FULL POST AT VOX INDEI:
http://voxindie.org/house-hearing-copyright-reform

Spotify is Right on Ad Funded Piracy and YouTube

We were very pleased to see this statement by Spotify’s in house economist Will Page (and sorry if we missed it before) :

“Copyright infringing websites are big businesses … 2/3 of piracy sites have advertising, and 1/3 also include credit card logons. This competition is real: consider how ad pricing is distorted by those unlicensed sites who offer more scale and no content costs.”

This is exactly what we’ve been saying and are glad that we can find some common ground between artists and streaming/webcasting services.  Ad supported  piracy reduces revenues for both artists and legitimate licensed services.

We’d also like to note that one Spotify executive pointed out to us the inconsistently in artists pulling their music from Spotify but keeping their music on YouTube.

They are both on-demand streaming services but YouTube is a much less artist friendly service.  Artists don’t seem to realize these facts:

*Spotify appears to pay more than YouTube.  A lot more (see my songwriting statement below).

*Spotify relies on licenses from rightsholders.  Whereas YouTube often relies on  the legally questionable premise that it’s “users”  make the songs available on YouTube and thus aren’t responsible for getting a license.

* If artists control enough of their rights  they can remove their music from Spotify.  Try that with YouTube.

*YouTube is essentially the  largest on-demand music streaming service.  If Artists are being underpaid by these services  the logical place to start is with YouTube not Spotify.

*YouTube sounds terrible compared to Spotify.  It sounds like every song has a flanger on it. ( Sorry this is just my pet peeve.)

(Ed note:  And then there is the matter that YouTube’s policies on comments and free speech.  These allow YouTube to be a platform for every conceivable form of hatemongering. Do you really want your kids going to this site?)

spotify vs pandora

Poll: Ad Agency Giants Unite for More Innovative Brand Sponsored Piracy?

Music Technology Policy

Some of you may have seen the story about the merger of Omnicom and Publicis the huge global advertising agencies.  When the House IP Subcommittee holds hearings about “innovation”, they will hopefully be interested in the effect of this merger on brand sponsored piracy.  We have noted in the past that Omnicom clients (particularly Chiat Day clients) have been particularly nonresponsive on explaining why they support online theft of music and movies.  Plus, who can forget the Chiat Day “Arists vs Artists” campaign.

Poll by Damn the Science!

View original post

Stealing is Good for You Says CCIA and GAO: A match made in heaven

More Silicon Valley nonsense. Essentially the CCIA asserts that stolen goods don’t harm the economy because the money eventually gets spent somewhere… can’t beat logic like that.

Music Technology Policy

Washington lobbyist Matt Schruers, who works for the Computer & Communications Industry Association, is floating a paper released by the Government Accountability Office (“Intellectual Property: Observations on Efforts to Quantify the Economic Effects of Counterfeit and Pirated Goods” (GAO-10-423)).

So you get the context, the Computer & Communications Industry Association is a very well funded lobby shop in Washington that is (was?) one of the big backers of the Internet Radio Fairness Act through its membership in the Internet Radio Fairness Coalition and is prominently mentioned in the Google Shill List.  I fully expect them to be major opponents of Ranking Member Mel Watt’s performance rights legislation that could be introduced as soon as next week.  The CCIA also funds a variety of studies that try to tell us things like stealing is good and the movie business is a “fair use industry” whatever that means.

The GAO…

View original post 2,014 more words

FOIA Request Shows That GAO Is Still Stonewalling on Sources for “Stealing is Good” Report

Essential reading in response to the current attack on creators rights. So WHO exactly is going to take responsibility for this nonsense?

Music Technology Policy

[This post appeared earlier in 2011–but given the rogue sites debate that demonstrates just how much money is being made from online theft, understanding who influenced this GAO “report” that found that “stealing is good” is even more necessary.]

Some of you may remember the report by the Government Accountability Office that studied the problem of online theft of artists’ work and discovered that no one was able to prove anything and that everyone failed to take into account the positive effects on the economy of theft–in other words, stealing is good.

The report, specifically the April 2010 Government Accountability Office publication “Intellectual Property: Observations on Efforts to Quantify the Economic Effects of Counterfeit and Pirated Goods” (GAO-10-423) was required under by the PRO-IP Act (P.L. 110-403), specifically Section 501(a) of the Act directed the undertaking of a “a study to help determine how the Federal Government could…

View original post 2,058 more words