July 15 2015 Screen capture from YouTube video by hate rock band Kill Baby Kill which depicts  skinheads killing and burning non-white immigrants.  These channels and playlists are at this very moment being used by violent groups to recruit new members.  

In the wake of the “resignation” of Reddit’s CEO Ellen Pao much has been written about the violently misogynist and racist views expressed on some especially sickening subreddits.   Sam Biddle at Gawker has been particularly courageous in covering the controversy and the cesspool that is reddit.   Read him here, here, here and here.

But in the mainstream press much of the discussion quickly turns to Reddit’s failure to clean itself up and become a profit making company.   Specifically how does one attract mainstream advertisers when your site (in the name of “free speech”) permits a subreddit devoted to pictures and videos of black men being killed and allows users advocate for genocide?

I can see how that would be tough to attract advertisers like American Express and Chevrolet.

What is mystifying to me is why advertisers somehow think YouTube is any different from Reddit?   Remember the scandal back in March when CNN reported that YouTube/Google ran Aveeno and Bud Light advertisements before an ISIS video inciting violence.  This was not an isolated incident.  YouTube shares Reddit’s same absolutist (and legally wrong) conception of free speech.  YouTube is full of violent, racist and misogynist videos that often depict unspeakable cruelty.   Some may argue that there is some sort of educational or newsworthy value to the videos.  But read the comments. Look at the user names.  That is not what is going on here.

Back in 2013 I wrote an open letter to the artists that appeared on the YouTube Music Awards asking them to ask YouTube to clean up its act.   Since this letter is so similar to the complaints about Reddit I thought we should re-run this story.  It is posted below.

YouTube Music Awards Artists Can Help Clean Up YouTube

https://thetrichordist.com/2013/11/07/ytma-artists-can-help-clean-up-youtube-an-open-letter-to-jason-schwartzman-lady-gaga-spike-jonze-m-i-a-arcade-fire-and-macklemore/

11/07/2013
This is not about whether the YouTube Music Awards were a train wreck or not.  I’m not going to criticize the overall quality of the show’s production.  Live shows are tough.  I’m a performer, I know.   I’ll leave the criticism or praise of the show itself to others.   I enjoyed the show and thought it had its moments.  It was nice the public got a vote. And hey Eminem even got an award for an album that wasn’t out yet!

This is not a pile on.  This is about something entirely different.

This is about YouTube’s lack of corporate responsibility and artists’ traditional role as the first to use their influence to demand corporate responsibility in the face of massive corporate influence. 

This is about otherwise sensible and decent artists who I LIKE AND RESPECT that seem to have been unwittingly duped into lending their credibility to a site that hosts and often directly monetizes (with advertising) videos that promote hate, animal cruelty videos, human trafficking ads, beheading videos, jihadi recruiting videos, playlists devoted to violence against women and other disgusting stuff.  This site is YouTube.

Think about it.

 

*Would artists perform on the MTV music awards if MTV broadcast hate videos from bands like Final War, Skrewdriver or Kill Baby Kill?  (That would never get past MTV’s standards and practices)

*Would an artist host the Grammys if The Recording Academy  were in the business of distributing cat kicking videos? (That would never get past CBS’s standards and practices)

*Would artists perform for a network that also had channels that seemed to be exclusively devoted to rape scenes? Real and from movies?

*And again, would artists make videos for a company that distributed a snuff film that shows a man decapitating his wife?

(Ed note: It should be noted that extreme violence,violence towards women, racism, hate, etc are all standard exclusions in artists recording and publishing agreements for licensing – and for good reason.  Why should YouTube get a pass on this?)

Now I feel confident that no artist who participated in the YouTube awards would knowingly support this kind of activity. I have to assume that they are as unaware as I was that this unspeakable stuff is on YouTube and YouTube is profiting from its repeated viewings.   If it weren’t for my University of Georgia research I would not have been aware of the extent of the problem either.

However, unlike many problems in the world, this is a problem artists can actually do something about and do some good in the process.

Assuming that YouTube does their music awards next year,  artists could do good by demanding that YouTube clean up their act before participating.  And there’s no time like the present to get started with the clean up.

I anticipate that YouTube will say that the videos violate YouTube’s terms of service and that YouTube will take down the videos if they are notified by a sufficient number of members of the YouTube community.  Or you could say that YouTube will take them down if YouTube gets caught enough times. (They never say how many “flags” are enough.)

Many of the videos already have graphic content disclaimers.  Someone–presumably YouTube itself or the YouTube community–has already flagged these videos, so YouTube knows what they are hosting!   I think YouTube needs to be much more proactive in cleaning up their act, and the artists who associate themselves with YouTube have an opportunity to do something about it.

Artists who performed this year could do good now by publicly  demanding that YouTube take down these offensive videos, stop advertising on the videos and give to charity Google’s share of all revenue generated to date from these videos.  For instance, the revenue from the Final War song below could be donated to The Anti-Defamation League.

Beheading Videos.

I’m leaving out the screen capture on this one.  But if you search YouTube for “Beheading Mexico”  you will find a snuff film of a man decapitating a woman, (purportedly for infidelity). There is no news or freedom of speech issue here.   There is no editorializing or reporting here.  Just the raw footage.  You also find the chainsaw beheading execution of a man by the a notorious drug cartel. The reason the drug cartel filmed this execution was to intimidate and terrify people. Same with decapitation by various radical jihadi groups.  By hosting and profiting from these videos YouTube is amplifying the terror these groups intended to cause.

In the past when I queried this search on YouTube I came up with sponsored (advertised) videos for “male baldness cures” and other odd products that relate to the head. This leads me to believe there is some sort of keyword specific advertising going on.

Playlists Devoted to Violence Against Women

YouTube has thousands of videos that depict rapes and violence against women.  Some are scenes from movies but others appear to be real footage from security cameras, cellphones and even professional cameras.   Regardless they are often grouped into playlists.  It should also be pointed out that many of the rape videos purport to be of underage girls (see below). I believe these titles are designed to specifically appeal to pedophiles.   If anyone does not believe that these videos have any effect on the young men who watch them just read the comments.   I dare you.

Here’s one such playlist “YouTube Mix – rape camera”   (I’ve catalogued dozens). The first video below “sketch” may seem to have an innocent title but trust me you don’t want to watch it. This playlist also contains a notorious and disturbing real video of a young teenage girl apparently being groped and molested on a school bus.   Note the advertising from Inspirato/American Express, Airborne and Xfinity.   Tweet at American Express.  Tweet at Xfininity.

Neo Nazi bands and recruitment.

There are hundreds if not thousands of videos by Neo Nazi and  hate bands on YouTube.   Check the ADL list of “Bigots that Rock” and try a YouTube search yourself. Two things quickly become apparent.

1) Many of these videos YouTube has monetized with advertising.

2) The YouTube channels that host these videos appear to be actively recruiting members for various hate groups.  Look at the comments and email addresses displayed in the videos.

In the example below RNskins88 channel appears to be run by a Greek neo nazi group but in comments I’ve highlighted a supporter of the Aryan secessionist group Northwest Front actively recruiting. (BTW 88= Heil Hitler)

Tweet at Showtime.  Tweet at Chevrolet. 

Do it for the kids.

These are just a few of the numerous categories of vile videos you find on YouTube.  It’s really quite startling when you begin to examine what they will host and monetize.  But to me the much bigger problem is that YouTube’s key music demographic are children.

If you have children you know that they don’t listen to Spotify or iTunes radio.  They get their music from YouTube.  They watch TV on YouTube.  They get the vast majority of their entertainment from YouTube.  While YouTube theoretically age restricts videos all the videos above are available even if you are not logged into an account.  Thus they are not age restricted unless you are logged in. I didn’t even get a graphic content warning on several of the most violent videos.   So basically when your kids are on YouTube ALL of this content is there and available to them to watch.

Music videos drive a large percentage, if not a majority of the traffic to YouTube so we artists have a special obligation to ensure that we are not a “gateway drug” for the really disgusting stuff that YouTube hosts.  I humbly ask you to join me and ask YouTube to clean up their act.  Do it for the kids.

This is not a matter of freedom of speech or censorship.  YouTube is a private company and they can choose NOT to host certain videos. They already choose NOT to host porn and certain other content.   If someone really believes they need to show the world a beheading video they can post it on their own website.  YouTube is not required under first amendment principles to host it.  That is a false argument.   And they are certainly not required to monetize videos like these with advertising.

If YouTube really wants to be an alternative to television and have the YouTube music awards be a rival to the Grammys they are gonna have to clean up their act.

We are not really sure if these two events have anything to do with each other.  But we’d like to think they are related.  It serves as warning to other companies that decide to rely on government lobbying and mandates instead of old fashioned hard work and innovation to create a profitable company.

NPR Withdraws from Mic-Coalition.

http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/legal-and-management/6633535/npr-follows-amazon-in-withdrawing-from-mic-coalition

Pandora stock falls 6.66%

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=P

 

 

A Timeline of Spotify hardball lobbying efforts with EU, State AGs, Executive branch, DOJ, FTC and Congress since hiring former Obama/Clinton administration official. 

We have been tempted to stay out of the debate over Apple Music and let the three big music tech companies Apple, Spotify and Google/YouTube rip each other apart.  After all,  real market competition from these companies for our recordings and songs could eventually lead to better pay for artists.

But we can’t sit this one out.   Why?   Because Spotify as usual seems to be up to its habitual dirty tricks using our money.  This time by hiring a recently departed Obama administration official and apparently using his revolving-door political connections and some of Pandora’s lobbyists to engage the U.S. Congress, the Federal Trade Commission and state Attorneys General to protect Spotify’s  untenable and money losing business model.  The end goal of these efforts WILL negatively impact artists.

If you zoom out and look at Spotify’s lobbying activity in sum total they appear to have three goals:

1) Protect their free tier (which pays artists 1/7 of what the premium subscription service pays) but makes them more valuable at IPO or as a takeover target to an advertising-driven company like Google.

2) Get Apple under some kind of anti-competitive regulation in EU, US and state AGs.

3) Get rights holders of sound recordings (Artists and Record Labels) under some sort of anti-competitive regulation in EU, US and US states  so they are obligated to license sound recordings to Spotify outside of the free market (like the ASCAP and BMI rate courts).

Yes, we were disappointed with Apple’s initial attempt to not pay artists during it’s 90 day free trial (they’ve since changed their tune), the fact is Apple is still better than Spotify for artists:

1) Apple free trial pays about $0.002  a spin while the last time we checked Spotify pays about $0.0009 per spin on their ad supported free tier  (Online advertising rates have experienced a secular decline since then).

2) Apple free trial is 3 months.  Spotify free tier is forever. After 3 months Apple free trial ends and subscribers move up to subscription tier.  We expect Apple’s subscription tier to pay more than Spotify subscription so this means a significant increase in revenue per spin to artists.  Plus–we don’t have to go through the absurd revenue share calculation of the advertising peddlers.

3) Spotify is actively trying to get users to unsubscribe from its premium service offered through the Apple App Store, which will likely mean an overall net reduction in revenue to artists due to inserting inconvenience into the transaction.  Apple is actively trying to encourage subscription uptake which will mean an overall net gain in revenue to artists.

Artists have an interest in seeing a competitive marketplace for streaming services that isn’t dominated by the duopoly of YouTube and Spotify. According to Kara Swisher, the top tech journalist:

Omid Kordestani, who has just temporarily replaced Nikesh Arora as chief business officer of Google, is joining the board of Spotify, according to people with knowledge of the situation.

In addition, sources said, one of the search giant’s former execs, Shishir Mehrotra, will become a special adviser to CEO Daniel Ek and the company’s management.

The move is a fascinating one, especially since sources inside Google said that new YouTube head Susan Wojcicki has expressed interest in acquiring the popular online music service if it were for sale.

YouTube and Spotify share a board member! (DOJ: where is that anti-trust investigation?)   Every quarter when artists get their royalty statements they have tangible evidence of the damage created by this duopoly.

Here is the kicker, we should welcome investigations by the  European Commission, State AGs, Congress and DOJ into anti-competitive  behavior and collusion in the digital music licensing marketplace for sound recordings.  But it must include ALL players!  Broaden it to include Spotify, Google/YouTube,  Pandora, Amazon, IHeartRadio, NPR, MERLIN (indie label licensing authority) and the major labels. (The feds already have songwriters and their PROs under DOJ supervision).

Fair is fair. Democracies don’t function when certain politically connected companies and individuals get different treatment under the law.  Further the government needs to get out of the business of licensing music. (See my argument in detail here.) We are wasting vast amounts of federal manpower and taxpayer dollars  when our nation(s) faces other more important challenges.  Seriously we’re worried about streaming services profit margins when we face very real threats from Greek bankruptcy? A resurgent and expansionist Russia? Chinese hackers?Federal cyber breaches, and ISIS inspired terrorism?

Let me remind you once again: Artists are not asking for a handout from the federal government. In this debate it is the multi-billion dollar streaming services asking for the handout. Spotify is asking for protection from competition. Artists welcome competition. Artists are simply asking the federal government to do less and stop regulating the market, let our songs and sound recordings be priced in the free market.

References For Timeline

http://www.odwyerpr.com/story/public/3207/2014-09-25/prince-shuffles-spotify-head-comms.html

http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/6480332/spotify-vp-public-policy-lobbying-dc

http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/6/8558647/apple-ftc-spotify-app-store-antitrust

http://9to5mac.com/2015/05/04/doj-investigation-apple-beats-music/

http://9to5mac.com/2015/05/07/apple-beats-music-spotify-complaint/

http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/19/8621581/sony-music-spotify-contract

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/leaked-sony-spotify-contract-reveals-inner-workings-of-streaming-music-20150521

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/11/us-apple-music-antitrust-idUSKCN0PL03O20150711?9to5

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/spotify-makes-case-against-apple-in-congress-119976.html

The International Music Managers Forum is the parent organization which nominally oversees the Music Manager Forum affiliates in various countries around the world.  Last week we broke a story that a whistleblower indicated the Music Managers Forum in the UK along with its sister organization Featured Artist Coalition are taking money from Google and Spotify.  We have since had a second source corroborate this.

This is important because MMF and FAC have been  strong advocates for Spotify and its low paying ad supported free tier. Further many artists feel betrayed that MMF/FAC hosted a series of “informational” meetings with Spotify while apparently taking money from Spotify.   It’s not a good look for the (formerly) well respected institutions.

Naturally  in the wake of this revelation we received communications indicating that certain members of the IMMF were not happy with this news, and seemed to want to distance themselves from the MMF.

Fair enough.  So we looked into the IMMF to see what they are about.  What we found is just as ugly:

1) The IMMF is a member of  Copyright 4 Creativity. Other members include the artist-hostile-anti-copyright-Google-funded EFF as well as the CCIA and CDT.

2) The Executive Coordinator of  Copyright 4 Creativity is Clara De Cook.  She also appears to be the lobbyist for Google in the EU.

3) The IMMF is a signatory to the Copyright 4 Creativity manifesto which contains this clause:

Sounds okay right?  No one likes big monopoly corporations!

Uh… except that’s not the kind of  monopoly they are talking about.  They are talking about YOUR individual rights as a monopoly!! Specifically your copyright “monopoly” over your songs and sound recordings, which is the same kind of “monopoly” you have over your guitar, your car, your house or your body, not an anti-competitive monopoly.   “Regulating” means taking away your right to decide how your sound recordings and songs are exploited in the online environment and at what price.   Implicit is the government would somehow set the rates and uses.

What could possibly go wrong?  The big internet companies would never out lobby and out spend us in Washington and force us to take rates we’d never agree to in a free market!  That would never happen!  Right?  (See Pandora Media.)

4)  The Copyright 4 Creativity Manifesto which is endorsed by the IMMF  contains cute little graphics like this cartoon:

This is some real intelligent thoughtful stuff here.   Next manifesto maybe they should try using only decade old internet memes.  And BTW the last frame to be accurate should read:

“Lawsuits! When the artist figures out the manager stole his copyrights”

Not cool at all.  But it’s really no surprise.  Sleazy managers ripping off artists? Again?

Same as it ever was.

 

 

Someone has to say this. Might as well be me.

Punk Rock Generation: We rebelled by protesting wars, dictatorships, apartheid, government corruption, the military industrial complex, polluting corporations, the christian right,  the draft, nuclear power, the slaughter of sea mammals, and even other punk rockers.  We were at times tear gassed and beaten by police (See Dead Kennedys Wilmington CA).

Millennials:   We rebel by not paying for stuff.  We want bean bag chairs at work.

I was listening to a story about a pirate streaming service on APM’s Marketplace yesterday and I was surprised that the following statement about “millennials” not paying for stuff went un-mocked:

This is a pretty common sentiment for people born anytime after, say, the early 80s. Millennial Michael Krynski is 29. Here’s how he sums it up: “We’re like the Napster Generation. We just expect things to be available (free) online. Everything we’re looking for.”

Krynski runs a blog all about how to stream content for free. Most of his readers are under 30, and he says, “They have money, but they don’t want to give money to companies that are still in this old school distribution model.”

Old school distributions model?  You mean paying?  Cause illegal and legal streams are all distributed the same way.  You know that right?  You do understand how the internet works?

So what you’re really saying is:  Millennial rebellion is rooted in some pseudo moralistic justification of theft based on which businesses use the discredited web 2.0 “freemium” business models?

That’s where you take a stand?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

(Personally I don’t buy this crap. I don’t believe there is a “millennial” generation with a different set of values than any previous generation.  Every generation has it’s selfish lazy assholes who are willing to justify any sort of behavior by claiming to speak for their generation.  And every twenty years or so marketers invent a new generation so they can pitch their consultancies, books, analytics and speaking tours.  But since the media seems determined to cram this current fiction down our throats we might as well have some fun with it by following the fiction to it’s logical conclusion.)

 

NOTE TIME CHANGE:

The Copyright Society of the USA Texas Chapter and the Austin Bar Association Entertainment & Sports Law Section have are co-sponsoring a panel with Chris Castle and Austin manager Ray Flowers with this title that pretty much sums it up: