Don Henley Talks Google Versus Musicians | LA Times

In the technocratic world of Google (which owns YouTube), my musical brethren and I are no longer artists; we’re not creators — we are merely “content providers.” Copyright and intellectual property mean nothing to the technocracy. They’ve built multi-billion-dollar, global empires on the backs of creative, working people who are uncompensated. They’re wrecking entire industries.

…

There might be a legislative fix, but there seems to be no political will. Google alone has about a dozen lobbyists on Capitol Hill. Google spent over $11 million last year on lobbying and over $18 million the previous year. They spread the money and the propaganda around like manna, employing their favorite buzz words like “innovation.” Regulation, they say, will “stifle innovation,” and the legislators all nod in agreement. It’s an oligarchy, plain and simple.

READ THE FULL INTERVIEW AT THE LA TIMES:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-don-henley-qa-20140115,0,5745299.story

Google Receives Its 100 Millionth Piracy Notice. Nothing Changes… | Digital Music News

“After 100 million piracy notices, it’s time for Google to take meaningful action to help curb online copyright infringement.

Google, with its market capitalisation of more than US$370 billion, is directing internet users to illegal sources of music.

This is not only harming a recording industry whose revenues have fallen by 40 percent in the last decade to US$16.5 billion, but it is also harming the more than 500 licensed digital music services worldwide that offer up to 30 million tracks to internet users.”

READ THE FULL STORY AT DIGITAL MUSIC NEWS:
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2014/01/14/googlereceives

RELATED:

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

 

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


How to DMCA : Google Web Search, De-Listing Infringing Links

 

 

Goldieblox Case Reassigned to Judge Hearing Google Privacy Case

Interesting News. (from Chris Castle)

Music Technology Policy

In an interesting twist, the Goldieblox case has been reassigned to a judge currently hearing one of the many Google privacy cases–that is, someone who is very, very familiar with Silicon Valley shenanigans.  And she’s not afraid to threaten the attorneys with sanctions.

If you believe as I do that the Goldieblox attorneys are walking a very, very fine line in bringing this case in the first place, this is good news.  A case that appears to be clearly “marketing by lawsuit” is a prime candidate for nice juicy sanctions for wasting the court’s time.

Judge Koh recently expressed some exasperation with one of the Apple lawyers in a different case:

“Come on,” Koh told Bill Lee, one of Apple’s lawyers. “You want me to do an order on 75 pages? Unless you’re smoking crack, you know these witnesses aren’t going to be called.”

Judge Koh also recused herself from…

View original post 86 more words

Early Results and Evolution of the UGA Undesirable Lyric Website Study to Include Advertisers. | UGA

As a result of the publication of the UGA Undesirable Lyric Website List and action taken by the National Music Publishers Association there have been a number of noteworthy updates. Many sites have come forward wishing to obtain licenses and others updated their licensing compliance. We updated our database accordingly. We also learned of at least one website that now has an expired licenses.

In addition we are now ready to expand the study to examine which brands are advertising on these unlicensed sites.

Finally the next iteration of the list will be followed by a list of brands which appear on the top 10 Undesirable Lyric websites.

READ THE FULL REPORT AT UGA LYRICS:
http://ugalyricwebsitelist.org/2014/01/01/early-results-and-evolution-of-the-uga-undesirable-lyric-website-study-to-include-advertisers/

Is Google Trying to Expand Its Smartphone Domination Using Our Music?

Some of you may be aware that Google and Microsoft don’t like each other (which probably explains why Eric Schmidt didn’t include Microsoft in his gift to antitrust regulators–the Gang of Four cartel interview).  They have been involved in some extensive wrangling for some time now.   But check this out: It seems that Google is purposely blocking the YouTube App on the Windows Phone, Microsoft’s smartphone.

Yes, when artists post your videos on YouTube, Google uses access to all of our videos through the YouTube app as a stick to beat up on competitors for Android–from which we do not benefit at all. (Granted there’s an iOS YouTube app, but Google also gets to be the default search setting on iPhones–which I’m sure they don’t get for free.  There’d also be a revolt if artists couldn’t get their own videos on artist-friendly Apple products.)

Bear in mind that Google has essentially created YouTube as a monopoly in video search (mostly using music and movies):

Artists need to be particularly concerned about inadvertently creating monopoly-like companies that leverage our music to their own benefit.  We’ve had lots of experience with what happens to our take home pay when in practice you end up with “one of everything”.  MTV? Clear Channel?  Live Nation?  Pandora?  and now YouTube?  We don’t need to make the Anti-Artist,  Wifi-spying, data gobbling,  privacy sucking Google any more powerful.   It’s particularly ironic that back in the day Microsoft was prosecuted for using similar tactics with Internet Explorer while Google gets away with it with Android (as well as search, YouTube, maps, Safari shenanigans…shall I continue?)  Artists should also note that Microsoft has a long history of respecting artists’ rights and paying us fairly.  Xbox music is one of the highest paying music services per stream on my statements.

Of course, Google will come up with the usual Google-de-goop, slow no answers to explain themselves–we know all about that since Google got over 200 million take down notices for links to infringing sites in search last year alone.  You would think that after telling someone 200 million times there’s something wrong with their product, they’d get it?  Not Google.

Here’ another beef on Google’s leveraging our music so that YouTube can’t be played on a whole class of smartphones:  We aren’t getting paid the YouTube crap royalty on those phones.  Not because of anything we did, but because Google wants to screw a competitor!  I don’t recall ever telling Google they could withhold my music on YouTube to line their own pockets–maybe that’s what Google’s famous “permissionless innovation” looks like.

Now I’m not a lawyer but I think I understand some of the basic purposes of anti-trust law.  It isn’t fair to use your dominance in one market (online video search/YouTube) to leverage your dominance in another market (Android OS).  Isn’t this what Google is doing by blocking YouTube on the Windows phones?  Why does Google get away with this kind of blatantly anti-competitive BS?   Is it their political connections?  Is it those frequent dinners at The White House?   Or we could call it what it really looks like:  Political Corruption and Crony Capitalism.

A Kim Dotcom For All Seasons

This seems timely…

The Trichordist

Come on, guys, I am a computer nerd. I love Hollywood and movies. My whole life is like a movie.

That’s Kim Dotcom in an “open letter” to Hollywood that he penned last week. Dotcom is the owner and CEO of Megaupload and is currently facing federal criminal charges, along with six other individuals, for allegedly operating a “mega-conspiracy” that made him a very wealthy man using other people’s work without permission.

Since his indictment and arrest, Dotcom has been waging a PR campaign to cast himself, not as an opportunistic hack who exploited thousands of creators through his spammy, scammy website, but as some sort of internet freedom fighter — in his latest “music video”, he portrays himself as no less than Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Strangely, in the topsy-turvey world of the internet, Dotcom’s efforts appearto beworking.

You can fool some of…

View original post 919 more words

More misleading statements about Pandora. This Time in NY Post.

In this piece in the NY post about “independent”  artists gaining more market share,  there is a very misleading statement about what Pandora plays.  We can only assume that this information came from Pandora as the New York Post would have no knowledge of what Pandora’s spins or the contents of it’s servers.  Here is the statement:

  Songs from outside the major labels make up 50 percent of the content streamed on the 14-year-old service. On broadcast radio, it’s 13 percent.

So on first glance the  takeaway is that in aggregate 50% of the total spins on Pandora are by independent artists while 13% of the artists on commercial radio are independents.

Yay! Pandora!  The indie musicians’ true friend!

But wait. Did you read that really carefully?  This is a statement that you would expect a defense attorney to concoct. It’s very carefully constructed. The statement is not saying that 50% of the total spins on Pandora’s service are from independent artists,   it’s essentially saying that the content on Pandora’s servers are made up of more than 50% independent artists. And at some point they’ve been streamed.

Of course that’s true.  There are many more unpopular bands than popular bands. And an overwhelming percentage of these “unpopular” bands are independent.

But Necrophagist is not being played nearly as often as a Miley Cyrus. Comparing YouTube views I’d say Cyrus is probably being spun ten thousand  times more often than Necrophagist.  Yet Necrophagist and Miley Cyrus have a similar number of tracks on Pandora’s servers.  So we all see how this statement is totally misleading. Right? It’s not really saying 50% of the spins are indie artists.

Further the distinction between “independent artist” and “major label artist” is somewhat arbitrary and frankly no longer useful.   Although Taylor Swift might be considered technically “independent” it’s not exactly edgy underground DIY music.  Further like many of the “independent” artists in the count, these artists are promoted and distributed by major labels.   That is major labels are actively working these titles and taking large percentages of the revenue!

The more important distinction to look at is how much “unknown” or “non radio friendly” tracks a music service plays.

As I’ve demonstrated with my own catalogue Pandora doesn’t really play that much more music from my “Long Tail” of popularity than commercial radio.  For my catalogue it’s more like 20%.  That is only 20% of my spins on Pandora are songs that weren’t also hits on the radio. Looking at other artists’ royalty statements I have observed the same approximate percentage.

While it’s true with my catalogue Pandora does marginally better than commercial terrestrial radio, Satellite radio and college radio play more music from my “Long Tail” than Pandora.  A LOT MORE. 

We’d be really surprised if Pandora’s total spins are any different from any other 80/20 model where 80% of the spins come from the top 20% of artists/songs while the remaining 80% of artists/songs only account for 20% of spins. This is where Openess and Transparency by those with the data would truly be informative to artists and musicians. Maybe we’re wrong, and we’d like to be, so let’s see the actual numbers…

Oh, and one might also just look at the promoted genre’s on Pandora’s homepage, doesn’t look like indies to us (well, Contemporary Gospel, maybe)…

Screen Shot 2014-01-08 at 6.31.28 PM

Spotify, YouTube, Streaming Services Are Killing Digital Downloads | TIME.com

Since the iTunes Store launched in 2003, digital music sales have been viewed as the music industry’s saving grace in the face of declining physical album sales and rampant online piracy.

“What we were thinking about was having full track download sales somehow replace the lost revenues from the rapid decline of physical [sales],” says Larry Miller, a music business professor at New York University’s Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development. “What wasn’t so widely anticipated five or six years ago was that full-track download sales would begin to decline as rapidly as they have this year, especially given how nascent the streaming services still are.”

READ THE FULL STORY AT TIME:
http://business.time.com/2014/01/03/spotify-and-youtube-are-just-killing-digital-music-sales/?iid=biz-article-mostpop1

RELATED:

Music Streaming Math, Can It All Add Up?

No, Streaming is not more profitable than Transactional Sales… Not Today, Maybe Not Ever…

60 Minutes Reports on Kim Dotcom…

By selling advertisements and premium subscriptions, Megaupload brought in an estimated $175 million. It became one of the most frequented sites on the Internet. How did it get so popular and profitable? According to federal authorities, by also allowing users to illegally share the hottest new movies, or hit songs, or TV programs, including some CBS shows.

Shawn Henry: Megaupload knowingly created and facilitated the distribution of stolen property.

Shawn Henry is former executive assistant director of the FBI. He was responsible for the Megaupload investigation.

Shawn Henry: No different than if somebody has a warehouse where stolen property is being dropped off. If you created the environment that facilitated it, and you encouraged it, and you incentivized people by paying them to drop off stolen property, I think that you are complicit.

In its indictment, the Justice Department calls Megaupload a “Mega Conspiracy”… a “worldwide criminal organization whose members engaged in criminal copyright infringement and money laundering on a massive scale…”

WATCH THE EPISODE HERE AT CBS NEWS:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kim-dotcom-60-minutes/

RELATED:

The case against Kim Dotcom, finally revealed

Kim Dotcom Parody Video Appears on YouTube

My Songs = Your Instagram Photos. A New Trichordist Statement of Purpose.

For the past 20 months or so the Trichordist has been almost exclusively focused on artists rights in the digital age.  In particular we have zeroed in on two main issues and suggested solutions.

#1 Government Mandated  Digital Uses and Pricing of Songs and Recordings Should be Ended

The Government and  institutional mechanisms that  limit artists’ choice over how to monetize their recordings and involuntarily collectivize their songs and recordings for the benefit of wealthy technology firms should be ended.

The compulsory licenses and antiquated DOJ consent decrees have become massive subsidies from songwriters (especially) and performers to webcasters and on demand streaming services.  Spotify and Pandora have market caps well in excess of $4 billion!  (EMI was recently sold for $2.1 billion.)  Apple and Google  recently started webcasting services and are the largest tech companies in the world.  Why do these companies need help from the US Government?

While many songwriters find it personally insulting that they are often paid micropennies per digital spin the truth is that no one  can really tell you the fair rate per spin for any particular song. Songwriters and artists can’t.  Spotify can’t. Pandora can’t.  Neither can BMG,  Sony nor the US Congress.  This is because  there is not really a free market in songs and recordings in the US to set those fair prices.  This is easily solved: Create one.

That is why we are simply asking our government to dismantle the regulations that prevent a free market in songs and recordings from developing.  We are asking our government to dismantle the biggest impediment to a free market:  The rate courts and consent decrees that keep a free market from developing for songwriters.   At a minimum, our government could at least allow an “opt out” for artists and songwriters so that compulsory rates become a “floor” rather than a “ceiling”.

It should be noted that contrary to what some in the  technology press have been saying, we are not  asking for special treatment,  handouts or subsidies for artists and songwriters.   We aren’t asking for special legislation to protect prices for our industry. We are not asking to be protected from the disruptions caused by technological innovations.  To the contrary, it’s the webcasters, broadcaster and Silicon Valley giants that have lobbied Congress for royalty fixing legislation to prevent “disruption” of their business models.

#2 Ad Supported Piracy.  Payment Processor Supported Piracy.

The second thing we have focused on is ad  and payment processor  supported piracy.   Virtually every major music piracy website seems to sell their inventory for some kind of advertising . Some sites proudly display advertising  from Fortune 500 companies.   Others sites charge premium subscriptions for faster downloads with the complicity of companies like Paypal, Mastercard, Amex and Visa.

Screen Shot 2014-01-01 at 12.43.33 PM

This is ridiculous–massive banks and credit card companies (that got a huge taxpayer bailout which we’ve never asked for or gotten) profit from massive theft.  It is very easy to find out which sites are likely involved high levels of infringement–just ask creators if they ever licensed the site.  Credit card companies do all kinds of checking on creditworthiness, why don’t they check on dishonesty?

If asking doesn’t “scale,” Google helpfully provides The Google Transparency Report on number of DMCA takedown notices (copyright infringement notices) associated with each site–notices that Google has acknowledged are over 90% accurate.  An advertiser or payment processor need only look at this link.

I am not a lawyer but I understand  that mass copyright infringement is a predicate for federal prosecutors to bring a case under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act or “RICO”–which is the law that the government used to take down white collar criminals like Michael Milken (a Gordon Gekko figure who may have done a lot of things but who wasn’t engaged in global advertising fraud).  I believe that at the very least the federal government should be investigating the online advertising industry and the payment processors  to see if they are knowingly involved in any criminal conspiracies associated with these sites. (Processing payments? Paying ad revenue to pirates? How could they not be? Don’t the accountants and bankers who “move” money for the mob usually go to jail? Orange Is The New Black?)

But this is unlikely to happen.  The Federal Government, in particular the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission seem unwilling to give even slaps on the wrists to the companies involved in these practices. In particular frequent White House dinner guest Eric Schmidt and his company Google.

While this may seem like a wild accusation to some,  it seems to be supported by objective facts.  If the federal government will  fine Google a measly $25,000 dollars in the NSA-like Google Maps “WiSpy” data vacuuming scandal why would they bother with a silly thing like RICO criminal acts? $25,000 dollars? Think about it.   This is a $370 billion company. They make $25,000 in seconds.

Well that’s just one isolated case right? Google doesn’t get special treatment.  Right.

Sadly it looks like they do.

Ever heard of the Google drugs case?   This was a CRIMINAL international drug trafficking case brought against Google by the Rhode Island US Attorney’s office.   Google paid a $500,000,000 dollar fine in that case to avoid CRIMINAL prosecution.

Well that sounds better. They didn’t get away with that!

Really? Since when do people pay fines instead of going to jail for being key part of promoting organized international drug operations?  Since when does the  DOJ purportedly offer an apology for prosecution, as the Wall Street Journal reports? 

This Is What Corruption Looks Like

So after 20 months of arguing for artists rights in the digital age I’ve come to the conclusion that this goes way beyond a few thousands artists losing 2/3 their revenue to shady websites with the complicity of multi billion dollar  corporations.  This is much worse.

We have monopolistic companies doing bad things on a scale we haven’t seen since the days of the Robber Barons. And getting away with it.   The most positive spin I can put on it? We have the same old “Pay to Play Democracy” except this time instead of picking our pockets they are only picking our data.  We should call it what it is:

Corruption.

We need a new Teddy Roosevelt to “Bust these Internet Trusts”.

Our love affair with the internet has left us blinded to the enormous power that these companies hold over our government and our daily lives.  It has blinded us to the massive invasions of privacy and and attempts to collectivize our private data, personal information and  even our photos with no protection from our federal government.

Why are we letting these giant monopolies develop?  Has anyone considered that a single search engine controls nearly 70% of all web searches in the US.   Recently Google “demoted” both JC Penny and  Rap Genius in search results for using “black hat”  search engine optimization techniques. These are not laws that were broken. This is a private company’s arbitrary rules (they “black hat” their own properties like YouTube)  What’s to stop them “demoting” one political candidate and “promoting” another one?  How would you ever know if they have already done it?

What’s to stop them from sharing their vast store of data on us with government spy agencies or the political candidates they favor.  How do we know they haven’t already done this, too?

My Songs = Your Instagram Photos.

Remember the Instagram Terms of Service changes?   They get to use your photos for advertising? Without your permission?  The Internets went crazy.   That’s exactly the same thing these Silicon Valley companies (that are essentially just big advertising agencies) have been doing with my songs and lyrics for years.   They slather advertising on sites that don’t ask my permission to use my songs or lyrics.  I don’t get any of the revenue and no one will stop them because they are too politically powerful.

If they can do this with my songs they WILL do it with your Instagram photos. Your FaceBook profile, your Google+photos.  (Heard of “shared endorsements”?)  It’s just a matter of time!

Oh, wait–they’ve already done it.  Facebook sponsored stories. And Google plus shared endorsements.  These “services” probably weren’t part of the deal when you first signed up for these “convenient” and “free” services.  Right?  Facebook and Google just changed their terms of service. And then helped themselves to your identity and photos. “Permissionless Innovation” is what the suits in Silicon Valley call it (as if that’s a good thing).

Here’s The Washington Post succinctly on the subject:

“But critics say tactics that further exploit the data people leave online amount to a bait-and-switch. People signed up for Google’s services because they were free and convenient. They probably never thought their words and identities would be put in front of strangers to sell a product.”

New Statement Of Purpose.

Well I’ve oversold this a little. There isn’t really a new statement of purpose.  Just simply we are expanding the blog to cover more than just artists rights.

Why?

Your average Internet user is being exploited in exactly same way that the artists are.  You are being exploited by exactly the same companies.  Ad supported piracy?   What’s the difference from “shared endorsements”? They take something that belongs to you without your permission.  They then sell advertising against it and keep all the money without letting  you set the price–much less paying you a share of the revenue.

It’s time that the average Internet user understands that the web is something we collectively created.  And when it doesn’t work the way we want it to?  We can change it. We can make it better.  We can upgrade it.  The web doesn’t belong to these multibillion dollar internet behemoths. It belongs to all of us.  And these companies need to play by the same set of rules that the rest of us play by.