Finnish pop artiste Anssi Kela has gone public with his earnings from content streamed via the popular commercial music streaming service Spotify.Kela claims that on average he earns an underwhelming fraction of a cent for each song played via Spotify’s free service. The precise sum is 0.002 euros, or considerably less than one cent.
Read the full story at YLE:
http://yle.fi/uutiset/finnish_pop_musician_earns_mere_pennies_on_spotify/6921281
Shannan Ferry interviews ECR Music Group owner Blake Morgan on his music career and Pandora royalties.
Watch the Full Interview at Fox News:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2834264097001/a-chat-with-blake-morgan-/
It’s not just mainstream artists like Tom Yorke and Beck who are speaking up about the challenges facing the new generation of musicians. We’re seeing more artists are speaking up as they face the financial reality that music piracy is having on their careers. We applaud Tashaki Miyaki for taking a public stand in an effort to educate and inform their fans about the challenges musicians are facing today.
the large number of people who are okay with uploading music which one does not own, is truly unfortunate. many musicians have multiple jobs in order to be able to tour and make recordings without becoming homeless. aside from it being copyright infringement, which is an illegal act, uploading tracks onto these torrent sites is robbing the artist of money which would otherwise allow him or her to continue to work. it doesn’t matter the level of the artist. more successful artists support more people, and often successful acts support their label, which then allows the label to take a chance on signing smaller, unknown artists.
please stop pirating music.
Support the band and read the full post here on their Facebook Page:
https://www.facebook.com/tashakimiyaki/posts/744509558897013
The model doesn’t work, so we have to come up with ways in which people can help us to make music for free, or at least for much less. But the current way isn’t working, something’s gotta give.
If I tried to make my albums with that Spotify pays me, I wouldn’t make them. I couldn’t hire other musicians or someone to master it; I’d have to do everything myself.
Read The Full Story at Digital Music News:
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2013/11/14/beckspotifywork
David Israelite, the president of the trade group, said that his organization was filing take-down notices against what it called the 50 “worst offenders” based on a web search conducted by David Lowery, a researcher at the University of Georgia. Mr. Lowery, best known as the lead singer of the alternative rock bands Camper Van Beethoven and Cracker, has become an outspoken advocate for artists’ rights in the digital age, which has often put him at odds with technology companies large and small.
“These lyric sites have ignored the law and profited off the songwriters’ creative works, and N.M.P.A. will not allow this to continue,” Mr. Israelite said in a statement, referring to his organization. “This is not a campaign against personal blogs, fan sites or the many websites that provide lyrics legally. N.M.P.A. is targeting 50 sites that engage in blatant illegal behavior, which significantly impacts songwriters’ ability to make a living.”
READ THE FULL STORY AT THE NEW YORK TIMES:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/business/media/in-music-piracy-battles-lyrics-demand-respect-too.html
We’ll be running more of the artist feedback and commentary from last week’s Virgin Disrupters roundtable. Here’s Amanda Palmer,
“Can I speak up here? I’d like to just add to what Zoe [Keating] was saying. There’s also – the other kind of general problem that I think we’re seeing that doesn’t really get addressed very much because it’s so big and possibly un-fixable is that as bad and clunky as the major label system was, you still had a constant influx of capital back from those giant, sometimes soul-sucking systems, back into content creation.
And one weird thing is that iTunes, Apple, Spotify, Google, whatever, all of the people who are profiting – [and] YouTube – who are profiting off the artists from the small level to the huge levels aren’t really feeding very much back into the creation of new content.
READ THE FULL STORY AT DIGITAL MUSIC NEWS:
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2013/10/29/palmeritunesspotify
The entire infrastructure that supported the world of music for a century has been dismantled, and in its place we’ve got these little things, these little handheld devices. The worldwide web was supposed to give everybody access and democratize everything. It was supposed to create a level field and increase the middle class and everybody had more access and more information. But now anybody can say anything and nobody cares. This is the problem of ubiquitous data.
And what’s happened in reality is that the power’s been consolidated in very, very few companies, and the middle class of musicians really has just been wiped out. I mean, the Internet has been an honest-to-God con.
READ THE FULL STORY AT THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER:
http://m.hollywoodreporter.com/earshot/t-bone-burnett-silicon-valley-652114
The origin of the outrage is telling: Sweden is widely regarded as a model country for streaming and access, thanks to massive adoption and recovering recording revenues. The threatened suits suggest that not everyone is celebrating or, more importantly, enjoying the early spoils.
Regardless of the locale, the issue comes ahead of very difficult juncture for Spotify. Mega-artists like Thom Yorke continue to raise uncomfortable questions about paltry payouts, but more perilous questions are dangling on the financial side. Recent financial figures show an unsustainable level of cash burn at Spotify, and potentially serious problems attracting more capital as a result. And after burning through hundreds of millions of dollars, Spotify is getting dangerously close to depleting its funding tranche.
READ THE FULL STORY AT DIGITAL MUSIC NEWS:
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2013/10/25/swedishartists
If we are to explore the digital marketplace for both streaming and transactional downloads the music business might do well to look at what the film business is actually doing in the same space. We will quickly see that Spotify is not Netflix, but maybe it should be.
Readers will note the film business has not bought into the faulty logic that the only way to combat internet piracy is to make every film ever made, available instantly, on an all you can eat service for $9.99 a month. Some might argue that is what Netflix is, but people making that argument are obviously not current subscribers!
One thing that has struck us in the comparisons between Spotify and Netflix is that Netflix does not have every film, or even every current film, or even a large percentage of popular films. For the vast inventory that Netflix has, you also realize the service has a lot missing. But then again, what do you expect for nine bucks a month?
This is not to say that most in demand films are not available, somewhere (and legally). It’s just not available on Netflix. Other services such as Itunes, Vudu and Cinemanow (to name just a few) offer some films for rental while they are still in the theater, some for streaming rental prior to a home video “dvd” date, and there are constantly new variations and options.
Generally speaking films arrive at Netflix last in the distribution chain, if at all. This is a problem for Netflix in a lot of ways so they have responded to this by 1) offering competitive advances to film producers to get films earlier (generally in the cable window) and 2) they have begun investing in producing original content to differentiate themselves from the competition (this strategy worked particularly well for HBO).
Netflix in responding to their needs in the marketplace is actually investing capital directly into content creation in a meaningful way. Perhaps some artists should charge an advance for high profile new releases that will attract listeners to the service. Likewise, perhaps Spotify should provide funding for the financing and development of new artists.
So here is the question, is the record business really utilizing the new digital platforms correctly to address the current market place? Perhaps by looking at the options available to consumers from movie streaming, rental and download businesses we can find more robust and flexible opportunities for artists.
One thing we’ve noticed absent from the current offerings for example, is say, a $1 a day transactional streaming rental for an album. Why doesn’t this exist?
FILM RELEASE WINDOWING
The movie business releases films in what is known as “windows”. A typical feature length film is generally released in a pattern that looks something like this:
1 Film Released in Theaters
2 Film Released later on Video on Demand (Rental)
3 Film Released later on Cable and/or Broadcast
3 Film Released Later on Home Video (Rental and Purchase)
4 Film Released Later on Netflix (Subscription)
There are variations on the above, but the point being that you can not buy the DVD of a blockbuster film the day it opens in theaters, nor can you view it on TV that night from the usual cable movie channels. Today these windows are being rethought as the film industry explores different release models including how digital platforms are utilized as part of a theatrical release.
RECORD RELEASE WINDOWING
We’ve heard people say that the record business historically has not windowed releases. This is only sorta true. It is true that a record is released to all outlets in all configurations more/less simultaneously on a single release date. There may be some exceptions with the availability of say vinyl, but mostly it is true that labels do not withhold music releases from different markets or distribution channels. But maybe that’s not exactly either right if we look at it closer.
Generally speaking, a historical record release “window” looks like this:
1 Radio Airplay prior to a commercial release of the single
2 Commercial Single Release
3 Album Release at Full List Price, but “Discounted” at Retailers
There’s not much more that is done until the album gets to be a catalog title, which the record industry would refer to as a mid-line title. Some records, drop one more step from midline to budget. Records that generally make the last drop may have been albums by artists who had one hit on the album.
Today, these traditional old physical model windows built around pricing incentives don’t really make sense on digital platforms. New Releases on Itunes are not discounted on release date and then return to their suggested list price a week or two later when the discounting ends. So if record release windowing is not based in pricing incentives, perhaps it should be based in accessibility incentives.
DIGITAL PLATFORM MUSIC RELEASE WINDOWING
What comes next is the starting point for a discussion to break free from much of the current controversy over whether or not Spotify is fair and sustainable. It is an attempt to rethink the digital music distribution landscape in the same way the film business has with varied consumer offerings and options.
We’d love to see some new players in the marketplace for music that function much in the same way that Vudu or Cinemanow do for films. These would be transactional streaming rentals.
1 Single Release Digital Transactional Download 99 cents
2 Single/Song Release Digital Transactional Streaming Rental 10 cents for 24 hours
3 Album Release Digital Transactional Download 9.99
4 Album Release Digital Transactional Streaming Rental $1 for 24 hours
5 Select Songs Released to Subscription Streaming Services, not whole albums.
6 Album Release Subscription Streaming Services
The key to a future where streaming may be the preferred delivery method is dependent upon more variations and flexibility in the the business model than currently offered by Spotify. There are a range of opportunities in exploring business models that allow for streaming rentals, and limited access to different material at different times.
If every decision we make is based upon the extortion of illegally operating and infringing businesses, surely we will pay the price in a race to the bottom where eventually everyone loses except the companies getting our labor for next to nothing.
We’re not sure how The London School Of Economics (LSE) could get something so basic so wrong as to suggest that because a some contemporary major label and heritage artists may be making more money from live shows (arena concert grosses) that somehow basic artists rights are not important for protection.
The New Music Express reports that Radiohead producer Nigel Godrich get’s it right in response the the LSE’s shortsighted misunderstanding about artists revenue streams.
“T-shirts and tickets are nothing to do with ‘copyright and creation’, which is the supposed subject of this document.
I hope the government sees how ridiculous this document seems to people who make records.
The authors are ‘pro piracy’ and they wish to influence the UK government’s upcoming review of digital copyright law.
It’s madness.”
Indeed.
It appears that the LSE report would be suggesting that artists never should have been paid royalties from the distribution of recorded music because there have always been other ways to make money from music.
If one were to truly let this logic sink in, it would appear that the LSE is making a general argument against all copyright because the distribution of copyrighted works is only a loss leader to live performances, synchronization fees or endorsement deals. This is of course absurd on every level.
This lopsided logic from LSE seems to favor illegally operating internet corporations distributing music without consent or licenses. We know that there is a lot of money being made in the illegal distribution of music online and the LSE’s report seems aligned with the economic interests of those who knowingly exploit artists for profit.
We expect better from such a respected institution then to ignore the economic interests by companies and corporations that are profiting illegally from advertising supported music piracy.
Perhaps it’s this report in DigiDay (parent company The Economist) that says it best.
Visit the top torrent search engines, and you’ll find ad calls from Yahoo, Google, Turn, Zedo, RocketFuel, AdRoll, CPX Interactive and others.
According to AppNexus CEO Brian O’Kelley, it’s an easy problem to fix, but ad companies are attracted by the revenue torrent sites can generate for them. Kelley said his company refuses to serve ads to torrent sites and other sites facilitating the distribution of pirated content. It’s easy to do technically, he said, but others refuse to do it.
“We want everyone to technically stop their customers from advertising on these sites, but there’s a financial incentive to keep doing so,” he said. “Companies that aren’t taking a stand against this are making a lot of money.”
Thankfully Jonathan Taplin and the USC Annenberg Innovation Lab did some fantastic work earlier this year researching and studying how Ad Networks profit from piracy.
RELATED:
The Trichordist 
You must be logged in to post a comment.