Thom Yorke, Trent Reznor and a Chorus of Artists Speak Out For An Ethical and Sustainable Internet

Perhaps 2013 will be the year that we see as the tipping point in artists rights advocacy for an ethical and sustainable internet. There have been more artists speaking up vocally this year than we can remember over the last decade. The hangover from an excess of hope that the internet would empower musicians has begun to set in as the evidence of more, and worse exploitation becomes increasingly obvious every day.

Radiohead’s Thom Yorke noted his realization about Google and other big tech companies.

“[Big Tech] have to keep commodifying things to keep the share price up, but in doing so they have made all content, including music and newspapers, worthless, in order to make their billions. And this is what we want?

“We were so into the net around the time of Kid A,” he says. “Really thought it might be an amazing way of connecting and communicating. And then very quickly we started having meetings where people started talking about what we did as ‘content’. They would show us letters from big media companies offering us millions in some mobile phone deal or whatever it was, and they would say all they need is some content. I was like, what is this ‘content’ which you describe? Just a filling of time and space with stuff, emotion, so you can sell it?”

Nine Inch Nails frontman Trent Reznor has also been outspoken this year commenting first on streaming services, and then later on the value of music.

“I know that what we’re doing flies in the face of the Kickstarter Amanda-Palmer-Start-a-Revolution thing, which is fine for her, but I’m not super-comfortable with the idea of Ziggy Stardust shaking his cup for scraps. I’m not saying offering things for free or pay-what-you-can is wrong. I’m saying my personal feeling is that my album’s not a dime. It’s not a buck. I made it as well as I could, and it costs 10 bucks, or go fuck yourself.”

Jerry Cantrell of Alice In Chains refused to play new songs in the bands live set until the new album is released to protect the integrity of the bands work.

“Well, in the old days – if you start out with ‘in the old days,’ you’re totally an old f–k – you were able to play a lot more stuff live,” Cantrell tells Spin magazine. “But with the advent of the Internet and sharing and shit going everywhere, you can’t do that anymore. We really haven’t been playing anything off the new record that’s not out yet. We’ve been playing ‘Hollow‘ and ‘Stone,’ and now that it’s going to be released, we’re thinking about whipping out ‘Phantom Limb‘ and maybe a few more.”

Quincy Jones discussed his legacy and the challenges presented for new artists in an environment of unprecedented piracy.

What’s sad is that there is 98 percent music piracy everywhere on the planet. It’s just terrible. What if these kids (who download music illegally) worked for me for two months and then I said, “I’m not going to pay you.” That’s just not right.

Aimee Mann brought a lawsuit against a digital distributor.

Guy Marchais of the band Suffocation showed fans how to buy a CD and explained the importance of supporting artists with legal purchases.

Marc Ribot of Ceramic Dog (and sideman for Tom Waits) took up the battle against Ad Funded Piracy.

We don’t know what the ultimate solution is — but we know it isn’t the impoverishment of musicians and defunding music. And we know it isn’t pretending that no-one is being hurt. Corporations are making huge profits from the ads on ‘free’ sites, from selling the hard and software that make illegal downloading possible.

Austin band Quiet Company noted their disappointment after an internet marketing partnership experiment.

““After everything, I’m not sure there is a new model. The old model is still the model, it’s just that the Internet made it way worse.”

East Bay Ray of the Dead Kennedys noted who is making money and who is not at SF Music Tech.

“There’s opportunists on the Internet that have taken advantage of the artists, [they’re] giving a free ride on a carnival horse, but they’re starving the horse.”

Zoe Keating spoke to the NY Times about how artists in certain genre’s such as classic and jazz maybe condemmed to poverty in the new digital economy without better mechanisms in place.

“In certain types of music, like classical or jazz, we are condemning them to poverty if this is going to be the only way people consume music.”

Blake Morgan went public with an email exchange between him and Tim Westergren over Pandora’s attempts to reduced already low royalties to artists.

I hear you when you say you’re “seeking a balanced structure that allows musicians to generously participate in the business.” But respectfully –– and this is quite important –– musicians are what your business is built on.

Without us, you don’t have a business.

Victoria Aitken wrote about the effects of piracy on EDM artists.

“The Internet pirates have made me, and thousands of other musicians, walk the plank. We now have to swim in shark-infested waters where the big fish gobble up our dues and the pirates laugh their way to the bank.

I believe this basic injustice must be remedied – Internet pirates are white-collar criminals. They should pay the royalties they have stolen or be answerable to the law, like looters, burglars, and fraudsters.”

Pink Floyd expressed their feelings about Pandora and digital royalty rates for the next generation of musicians.

It’s a matter of principle for us. We hope that many online and mobile music services can give fans and artists the music they want, when they want it, at price points that work. But those same services should fairly pay the artists and creators who make the music at the core of their businesses.

Martha Reeves also explained the importance to continue to work towards fair royalties for artists in the new digital economy.

Musicians should be paid a fair value for their work and all digital services should play by the same rules. These are just common sense ideas, and once Congress adopts them as law, future generations will wonder why we ever struggled over them. But that’s why we must keep struggling – until justice is done.

Shawn Drover drummer for Megadeth responded to a question asking if the band had been effected by piracy.

Of course it is. We are certainly thrilled to have a #6 record on Billboard in America and #4 in Canada, but sales are way down for the entire music industry right across the board, which is a real drag. Internet piracy, torrent sites and all that are the reason why. Concert attendance for us is still great around the world, so we are definitely happy about that.

Pirates Won’t Stop Us from Creating, They’ll Stop Us from Sharing…

We recently reblogged a link to Trent Reznor’s interview in Spin Magazine where he stated his current feelings over the value of music as a creator. Below is a comment in response to that article that we felt deserved it’s own post.

Music, like a certain other activity, is usually done for love or money. A lot of pirates nod enthusiastically at this right up until they realize that, if there’s no money in it and a musician has to do it for love … that if I don’t love you, you don’t get any. :-)

They keep missing this part. Yes, musicians will MAKE music no matter what. But we don’t have to share it with anyone other than the people we want to share it with. In order to get into that room, now you need to persuade me you should be there. Before, you could throw money at me, and I’d let you in. Now that there’s no money in it, I need another reason. Be an asshole, and you don’t get in.

Even the threat of not making money will only work on artists for so long. They won’t just hang around and starve. Eventually, they will read the writing on the wall, bow to reality, and simply get other jobs and decouple their artistic output from their financial input. And then they really don’t have to share our music with just anyone.

The pirate kids really aren’t following this thing to its logical conclusion:

1) Decouple money from art. Then,
2) Artists get day jobs and keep them. Hence,
3) We don’t need to share our art with anyone if we don’t want to.

So make me want to.

Oh … and without handing me money, which would have been the simplest way to accomplish that, but that’s not working anymore, is it?

Neither will acting like a tantrum-throwing, entitled brat. :-)

For those in doubt, we can reference Beck who first made available his album “Song Reader” as sheet music, encouraging people to supply their own labor to hear his new songs.

The “Chilling Effects” of YouTube’s Internet Censorship and Lack of Transparency

We’ve been watching with interest a story developing over at Digital Music News. The site ran a guest editorial by Jeff Price promoting his new YouTube Content Management System Collections Service, Audiam.

It’s interesting to note how Price targets distribution companies as the black hats but does not criticize YouTube for their less than stellar “Openess and Transparency” with artists. East Bay Ray of The Dead Kennedys spoke to NPR about his frustrations with Google.

YouTube Shares Ad Revenue With Musicians, But Does It Add Up?

“Holiday in Cambodia” by the punk band Dead Kennedys has been streamed on YouTube over 2.5 million times. Guitarist Raymond Pepperell — also known as East Bay Ray — says, overall, Dead Kennedys videos have been watched about 14 million times. But the band has only seen a few hundred dollars.

“I don’t know — and no one I know knows — how YouTube calculates the money”

It’s easy to see why so many readers took exception to Price’s understanding of how YouTube monetization works (or actually doesn’t). One of those people wrote a response to Price’s editorial, Emmanuel Zunz of ONErpm.

Why Jeff Price Is Horribly Misinformed About YouTube Monetization…

If I understand Audiam’s business model correctly (I have tested the service), it’s a pure Content ID play.  So here is my first point: Audiam states that they pay artists 100% of the revenues they collect for them from their own channel.  But by generating UGC claims on their channels that pay out at 35% instead of the Standard 55% an artist can get on their own, they are actually reducing the amount of money a musician can make through a Standard direct deal with YouTube.

What follows is the real story about the lack of transparency and openess that Google claims is essential to a “free and open” internet. You know, the kind of “free and open” internet where you make the music, movies, books, photos, etc and Google is “free and open” to monetize it without restriction. “Permissionless Innovation” yo!

So apparently when Zunz was being transparent and open (um, without permission) about Google/YouTube payments and policies in his response to Price he got a little to close to home in revealing Google family secrets. The result was a panicked Zunz contacting Digital Music News to remove, retract and/or otherwise redact the information that Zunz had made public. Oooopsies…

YouTube Demands the Removal of a Digital Music News Guest Post…

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).

But the story doesn’t end there. Zunz had already written a second a highly detailed post for Digital Music News detailing how YouTube monetization actually works! Unfortunately that “Open and Transparent” post is not going to see the light of day in educating musicians about the actual mechanics, percentages and payments by YouTube.

YouTube Successfully Intimidates a DMN Guest Contributor…

It’s called “the chilling effect”…

Despite serious threats, YouTube has been unsuccessful at removing an earlier article on Digital Music News about confusing royalty payouts and specifics.  But what they have been successful at is preventing the next one: a 4,000+ word, highly-detailed essay on YouTube best practices and royalties, from a company highly-specialized in YouTube distribution.

The company simply got spooked, and asked that we not print the piece for fear of having their MCN status revoked by YouTube.  So here’s what artists, labels, publishers, startups, and the industry is missing as a result.

So the next time someone wants to talk about the benefits of a transparent, free and open internet based in permissionless innovation it might be worth while to send them this post. After all wasn’t it Google Chairman Eric Schmidt who said, “If You Have Something You Don’t Want Anyone To Know, Maybe You Shouldn’t Be Doing It“?

So when Google protects it’s interests it’s “business” but when musicians protect their rights it’s “censorship”.

Where are the defenders of internet freedom when you need them? The crusaders against internet censorship are silent…

Trent Reznor speaks on value of music: “It costs 10 bucks, or go **** yourself. | SPIN

“I know that what we’re doing flies in the face of the Kickstarter Amanda-Palmer-Start-a-Revolution thing, which is fine for her, but I’m not super-comfortable with the idea of Ziggy Stardust shaking his cup for scraps. I’m not saying offering things for free or pay-what-you-can is wrong. I’m saying my personal feeling is that my album’s not a dime. It’s not a buck. I made it as well as I could, and it costs 10 bucks, or go fuck yourself.”

READ THE FULL INTERVIEW AT SPIN:
http://www.spin.com/featured/trent-reznor-upward-spiral-nine-inch-nails-spin-cover-september-2013/

PRE ORDER THE ALBUM ON ITUNES NOW:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/hesitation-marks/id655150305

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…

21st Century Piracy: The Demise of the Music Industry | THE WIP

EDM artist Victoria Aitken speaks out.

The Internet pirates have made me, and thousands of other musicians, walk the plank. We now have to swim in shark-infested waters where the big fish gobble up our dues and the pirates laugh their way to the bank.

I believe this basic injustice must be remedied – Internet pirates are white-collar criminals. They should pay the royalties they have stolen or be answerable to the law, like looters, burglars, and fraudsters.

READ THE FULL STORY AT THE WIP:
http://thewip.net/contributors/2013/08/music_industry_killed_by_pirat.html

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

How Will Musicians Survive In the Spotify Era? | The New Yorker

Sasha Frere-Jones, Dave Allen, Jace Clayton, and Damon Krukowski discuss how (mildly) popular musicians are going to survive.

Last month, Damon Krukowski and I discussed Spotify, the public exit of Nigel Godrich and Thom Yorke from that platform, and the various challenges facing musicians who do or don’t want to participate in similar streaming services. Toward the end of the discussion, Damon and I both hinted at the freedom of going free, the moments when giving your music away is more profitable—in the long run—than letting another company sell it inefficiently and unprofitably. Damon expanded on his position in a subsequent article for Pitchfork, but neither of us was advocating that musicians play and record for free, in all scenarios, all the time: nothing of the sort. So before I hand this discussion over to a new panel, one clarification.

My band, Ui, released a clutch of records through Southern Records. These albums are no longer available on Spotify because, according to Southern, the costs of administrating the relationship were not covered by the microscopic amount of revenue generated. I believed them then, and believe them even more now.

READ THE FULL STORY:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/sashafrerejones/2013/08/how-will-musicians-survive-in-the-spotify-era.html

This is What Innovation Looks Like!

A small random sampling of what Innovation and Expression of Free Speech looks like. This post could easily go for miles so please forgive our small sampling and omissions in our illustration of the innovative work of musicians and songwriters.

“Dark Side Of The Moon” – Pink Floyd
“Nevermind” – Nirvana
“OK Computer” – Radiohead
“Straight Outta Compton” – NWA
“Hotel California” – The Eagles
“The Blue Print” – Jay-Z
“Andy Wahol” – The Velvet Underground & Nico
“Sergent Pepper” – The Beatles
“Pet Sounds” – The Beach Boys
“Kinda Blue” – Miles Davis
“Appetite For Destruction” – Guns & Roses
“Raising Hell” – Run DMC
“Paul’s Boutique” – The Beatie Boys
“Play” – Moby
“Led Zeppelin IV” – Led Zeppelin
“The Chronic” – Dr. Dre
“1999” – Prince
“Rated R” – Queens Of The Stone Age
“Pretty Hate Machine” – Nine Inch Nails
“The Doors” – The Doors
“Nevermind The Bollocks Here’s The Sex Pistols” – The Sex Pistols
“The Joshua Tree” – U2
“Born To Run” – Bruce Springsteen
“Thriller” – Michael Jackson
“Tubular Bells” – Mike Oldfield
“Are You Experienced” – Jimi Hendrix
“College Dropout” – Kanye West
“Remain In Light” – The Talking Heads
“Highway To Hell” – ACDC
“Kill Um All” – Metallica
“Mothership Connection” – Parliment
“The Clash” – The Clash
“Goodby Yellow Brick Road” – Elton John
“Imagine” – John Lennon
“Rain Dogs” – Tom Waits
“Loveless” – My Bloody Valentine
“Day Dream Nation” – Sonic Youth

And the list could go on and on and on…

Aimee Mann Could Score Millions in Massive Digital Royalty Lawsuit | SPIN | Newswire

Aimee Mann has filed a big lawsuit against a little-known company with serious clout in the digital music business. As the Hollywood Reporter points out, the singer-songwriter has slapped MediaNet, prevously known as MusicNet, with a copyright-infringement lawsuit seeking $18 million in damages. Never heard of MediaNet? That just demonstrates how complicated the music industry has become in the streaming era.

READ THE FULL STORY AT SPIN.COM:
http://www.spin.com/articles/aimee-mann-medianet-copyright-lawsuit/

But This Time We Mean It… Welcome To The Ad Tech Time Machine…

Welcome to the Interactive Advertising Time Machine… set the dial for 2010

“The Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) has pledged to work with content producers to make sure that ads don’t inadvertently end up on sites peddling unauthorized copyrighted material.”

That was back in 2010 when NPR aired the story, “Feeding Pirates: When Legit Companies Advertise On Shady Sites.” That’s right, 2010 when filmmaker Ellen Seidler brought the issue to light when she documented the piracy around the release of her indie film “And Then Came Lola.” Highly recommended reading is Ellen’s highly detailed blog, PopUpPirates.

Ok, so maybe not far enough back for you? Set your Interactive Advertising Time Machine to the year 2007...

Here’s  the case of easydownloadcenter.com which found Google caught red handed actually helping the site improve it’s SEO to maximize advertising revenue. This as reported by DailyTech at the time:

“The two men said in sworn statements that Google offered them credit as an easy start to advertise on Google’s search engine, and that the search company also suggested ad keywords such as “bootleg movie download,” “pirated,” and “download harry potter movie.” According to the report, Google received $809,000 for its advertisements.”

And this was Google’s response at the time (arguably the biggest member of the IAB):

“Google declined to comment on the specific clash over its ads, but did say that it is working on ways to screen out ads that violate the company’s policies.

A spokesman for Sony Pictures said, “Discussions with Google have been ongoing for a while, and there’s hope it can result in a mutually satisfactory arrangement whereby Google will not give support to pirate sites.”

Read that again. “Discussions with Google have been ongoing for a while,” that was in 2007 for activity that dates back to 2003.

So please forgive us if we are less than optimistic over the latest so-called “Best Practices” announced by the IAB. This is not a new or unknown issue and what’s worse is that actual knowledge by Google and other members of the IAB dates back at least to 2003, a decade ago.

Think we’re biased? Ok, fair enough but DigiDay calls the latest appeasement “Toothless” and it is a trade publication that reports on internet advertising that is owned by The Economist:

There are also plenty of built-in outs. The networks, for instance, can keep ads running on sites engaging in piracy if those sites have “substantial non-infringing uses.” Also, the agreement lets networks simply remove ads from pages engaging in piracy, while leaving ads running on the rest of the site. The agreement places the onus on the rights holder to notify the networks about pirated content, not requiring the networks to monitor the content themselves. The agreement “cannot, be used in any way as the basis for any legal liability.” The agreement excludes ad servers and ad exchanges.

The agreement may not be not much of an agreement at all.

Yeah, that’s pretty much what we think too. So, what does the creative community have to do to protect itself from the blatant exploitation of its products and labor from internet robber barons? Stay tuned…

YOU MAY ALSO BE INTERESTED IN READING:

The Ad Network Transparency Conspiracy