Google’s plea against web censorship rings hollow | VOX INDIE

Google’s True Colors as Lobbying Goliath Revealed

Sunday’s Washington Post featured a story, “Google, once disdainful of lobbying, now a master of Washington influence” that examined the company’s rise to become a top dog among Washington influence peddlers. For Google watchers revelations in the piece, authored by Tom Hamburger and Matea Gold, come as no surprise. However, for those who continue to regard Google as the web’s guardian angel of “free speech,” the story should add a bit of tarnish to its halo, illuminating the company’s extensive back-door maneuverings — the new normal in DC’s world of political puppeteering.

READ THE FULL POST AT VOXINDIE:
http://voxindie.org/Google-Washington-lobbying-game

Slate’s Anti Copyright rant sounds like a letter from your psycho ex. | AdLand.Tv

The rationale by Silicon Valley that we already have the DMCA and it’s working just fine– seems positively Right Wing in its rabid belief system of law. Conservatives say much the same thing about guns. “We don’t need new laws, we need to enforce the existing ones.” It amusing to me that this backward sentiment is the same. Really though, it’s neither left nor right wing. It’s just pure cynicism by people who think we’re stupid.

To blame Hollywood copyright lobbyists for trying to influence law when google does the exact same thing is either ignorant or hypocritical. And to ignore the fact it isn’t just “Hollywood Copyright Lobbyists” but entire countries that are reacting to what they see is Big Tech run rampant, suggests once again the narrative is being controlled in Big Tech’s favor.

No surprise, really. The blog post was written by Marvin Ammori. He is a lawyer and Future Tense Fellow at New America. New America Foundation is a nonprofit and (ha-ha) nonpartisan public policy institute. Wanna guess who chairs the board of directors? Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of google.

READ THE FULL STORY:
http://adland.tv/adnews/slates-anti-copyright-rant-sounds-letter-your-psycho-ex/256965859#KdyGl5zIdACdgSvs.99

#SXSW REWIND : Venture Capitalist Admits Artists Can Not Make A Living Streaming

The grand irony here is that the panel which asked the question “”Will Artists Make Money on Big Music Platforms?” not only reported that artists could not, but also suggested that artists needed to focus on selling concert tickets and merchandise. You know, things artists did BEFORE the internet.

We admire the honesty of Hany Nada, Managing Partner GGV Capital who bluntly and glibly admitted during the SXSW Panel “Will Artists Make Money on Big Music Platforms?” that he believed that they would not be able to do so. He also added that he the point of digital streaming platforms such as Pandora, Spotify, and others was promotion to help the artists tour, sell t-shirts and offer other non-digitally distributable “experiences” to fans (why is this sounding more and more like prostitution?).

At least Mr.Nada is honest, which is refreshing given that the man has more integrity than most of the executives at that streaming services who claim the problem of royalties is one of scale and not sustainability. Mr. Nada (ironically named in this context) may be well intentioned and honest but he is also grossly misguided.

Mr. Nada’s statement and philosophy that streaming sites should be viewed by artists as a promotional platform more so than a financial one are an admission of the failure of these unprofitable start ups to serve musicans. As such, let artists decide if there is a value proposition in these companies that benefits the artist and allow them to opt out. Not every album should be on streaming services. Not every artist should be on streaming services. And if streaming is nothing more than promotion with little value proposition, than artists need to rethink their relationships and strategies regarding those businesses.

To be fair, it’s not just Mr.Nada who has promoted this philosophy. It appears that many of the music streaming company executives on panels at SXSW alternate between two talking points. First is that these services will support musicians when they scale (which we can find no evidence of). And second, when pressed on the first point, that streaming platforms offer promotional value for artists to make money in other ways. Oddly, other than “t-shirts and touring” no one seems to have any idea how to translate an artists participation on streaming services into a sustainable revenue stream.

In almost every way streaming companies represent the worst of both the old boss and the new boss.

So here’s the take away, which was put forth by a series of questions from the floor that largely went unanswered.

1) If artists can’t be expected to make a living from streaming music why should streaming executives make a living from streaming businesses at the artists expense? These are essentially, artists subsidized corporations.

2) As artist’s are bringing the audience to the platform, why should the platform profit, but not the artists? Test this theory, No Music = No Business. Done.

3) Artists have been able to sell t-shirts and tour long before the internet and without streaming platforms, but streaming platforms can’t exists without the artists music. Again, No Music = No Business. Done.

4) Given that the streaming music thought leaders believe that the”new revenue model’s” for musicians are “touring and t-shirts” when are the streaming company executives going on tour to sell t-shirts to support their businesses? We find it odd that the executives running companies that are not profitable are giving business advice to musicians.

Why Streaming Music Isn’t Like Bottled Water… | Digital Music News

Streaming music is just like bottled water, right?  Not all, actually.

1. People happily pay outrageous premiums for bottled water (a glass of tap water costs about $0.001).
Relatively few people actually pay for streaming music.

2.  People are convinced that there’s a difference between bottled water and tap water.
Not enough people feel there’s a difference between ad-based (free) streaming and premium (paid) streaming.

3. Sometimes, tap water tastes funny.
Free streaming always tastes good!  You just have to wait for it a little longer.

4. Bottled water is a proven, $100 billion industry that’s been around for decades.
Streaming music isn’t a profitable industry, hasn’t been around for more than a decade, and remains financially speculative.

READ THE REST OF THE 11 POINT LIST AT DIGITAL MUSIC NEWS:
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2014/02/26/bottledwaterstreaming

Camper Van Beethoven’s 2013 Net Profit Was $645 Million Dollars Higher Than Twitter.

Technologists in Silicon Valley love to tell artists we need to update our business model.

This is hilarious since each of my businesses have been profitable for decades. Stunning when you look at just how unprofitable these Silicon Valley Companies actually are.  Twitter for instance lost $645 million dollars last year.   Jaw dropping when you consider that their total revenues were $646 million dollars.   They spent 2 dollars for every 1 dollar of revenue.  And if you look at their losses they are accelerating.

Screen shot 2014-02-19 at 10.59.36 AM

Source: https://investor.twitterinc.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=823321

Now consider the fact that the City of San Francisco also gave them approximately $56 million in tax beaks.  This is while the city has been pushing to slash benefits to city workers. 

Yes maybe Camper Van Beethoven needs to update our business model to include tax breaks and political cronyism.

RELATED:

http://irespectmusic.org

Internet Consultants Are Wrong : Confused About Musicians, The Internet and Piracy

My Song Got Played On Pandora 1 Million Times and All I Got Was $16.89