Five Things Congress Could Do for Music Creators That Wouldn’t Cost the Taxpayer a Dime Part 3: Create an Audit Right for Songwriters

Music Technology Policy

[This post originally appeared in the Huffington Post]

Once a song is distributed to the public with the permission of the owner of the copyright in the song, the U.S. Copyright Act requires songwriters to license songs for reproduction and distribution under a “compulsory license.” This license is typically called a “mechanical license” because it only covers the “mechanical reproduction” of the song and does not, for example, include the right to use the song in a YouTube video or a motion picture, create a mashup or reprint the lyrics of the song.

When the Congress first developed the compulsory mechanical license in 1909, the concern was that “the right to make mechanical reproductions of musical works might become a monopoly controlled by a single company.” This monopoly never came to pass, and given the fragmentation in music licensing in the current environment, is unlikely to ever come about.

View original post 1,115 more words

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

University Of Georgia Music Business “Undesirable”Lyric Website Study

Lyric searches drive huge traffic on the web.  They may not be quite as popular as “Lady Gaga Download”  and other similar searches but they are right up there.

There are lots of licensed sites and as usual lots of what appears to be unlicensed sites.  Almost all of these sites have major brand advertising.

Many of you may not realize this but I’m also on the faculty of The University of Georgia.  I teach in the Music Business Program.  I spent considerable time this summer studying these sites as part of my official research duties. It’s part of a bigger project whereby I’m studying and cataloguing many of the “lesser known” kinds of copyright infringing websites.

Here is a short paper listing this months top 50 “undesirable” lyric websites as well as my methodology and further comments. It is my hope that brands and advertising agencies will consult this list when planning advertising campaigns. Suggestions are truly welcome.

You may download/view  it here:

UGA Music Business Undesirable Lyric Website List*

If you don’t want to download it and read the whole thing (I’m talking to you generation tl/dr) here are the Top 50 “undesirable” lyric websites.  (If for some reason you believe your website was mistakenly included in the list follow instructions in the paper. )

(Ranked by search result rankings.)

Top 50 Undesirable Lyric Websites.

(This list has been corrected.  7 sites from original list turned out to have been licensed. Thanks to Andrew Stess at LyricsFind for doing deep dive into this over a holiday weekend).

Rank Website Final score Major brands

1

http://www.songlyrics.com

7.445

yes

2

http://www.lyricsmania.com

6.18

yes

3

http://www.stlyrics.com

6.055

yes

4

http://www.lyricsreg.com

4.485

yes

5

http://www.lyricstime.com

4.435

yes

6

http://www.lyricsdepot.com

4.395

yes

7

http://www.elyricsworld.com

4.33

yes

8

http://www.songonlyrics.com

4.285

yes

9

http://www.lyricstranslate.com

4.13

yes

10

http://www.karaoke-lyrics.net

3.89

yes

11

http://www.lyrics.astraweb.com

3.325

yes

12

http://www.kovideo.net

3.13

yes

13

http://www.oldielyrics.com

2.93

yes

14

http://www.poemhunter.com

2.825

yes

15

http://www.maxilyrics.com

2.675

no

16

http://www.lyricsboy.com

2.54

yes

17

http://www.anysonglyrics.com

2.27

yes

18

http://www.lyricsmansion.com

2.185

yes

19

http://www.absolutelyrics.com

2.11

yes

20

http://www.videokeman.com

2.105

no

21

http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com

2.055

yes

22

http://www.musicloversgroup.com

1.94

no

23

http://www.urbanlyrics.com

1.915

yes

24

http://www.asklyrics.com

1.895

yes

25

http://www.bmusiclyrics.com

1.885

yes

26

http://www.nomorelyrics.net

1.865

yes

27

http://www.plyrics.com

1.855

yes

28

http://www.lyricsforsong.net

1.805

yes

29

http://www.hotnewsonglyrics.co

1.795

yes

30

http://www.hitslyrics.com

1.73

yes

31

http://www.sasslantis.ee

1.705

yes

32

http://www.lyricspinas.com

1.68

no

33

http://www.cowboylyrics.com

1.655

yes

34

http://www.guitaretab.com

1.62

yes

35

http://www.songtextemania.com

1.54

yes

36

http://www.lyrics59.com

1.5

yes

37

http://www.golyr.de

1.495

yes

38

http://www.lyricsera.com

1.49

yes

39

http://www.justsomelyrics.com

1.47

yes

40

http://www.allthelyrics.com

1.44

yes

41

http://www.6lyrics.com

1.365

yes

42

http://www.lyricsfeast.com

1.33

no

43

http://www.hiplyrics.com

1.32

yes

44

http://www.lyricsprint.com

1.265

yes

45

http://www.paroles-musique.com

1.25

yes

46

http://www.muzikum.eu

1.235

no

47

http://www.alivelyrics.com

1.13

yes

48

http://www.lyrster.com

1.13

yes

49

http://www.guitarparty.com

1.115

yes

50

http://www.azchords.com

1.095

yes

*songmeanings.Net was mistakenly included in first list.  This was a typo we compared it to songmeanings.com. 

** Over the weekend we were notified that these sites are also licensed:

http://www.musicsonglyrics.com

http://www.songmeanings.net

http://www.lyriczz.com

http://www.lyricsondemand.com

http://www.tabs.ultimate-guitar.com

http://www.lyricsg.com

http://www.songfacts.com

May I humbly suggest that Lyric sites begin putting a notice on their sites clearly explaining which organizations and publishing companies have licensed them.   At least until we manage to create a master list.

*update 10/22/2013  new list: UGA Music Business Undesirable Lyric Website List Oct 22nd 2013

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.

Why Copyright is a Right and Fair Use is a Privilege | Law Theories

In this post, I’ll explain why copyright opponents have it exactly backwards when they claim that copyright is a privilege and fair use is a right. At the outset, I note that these terms can have various, nontechnical meanings that possibly overlap. For example, Black’s Law Dictionary defines “right” to mean, inter alia, a “privilege,” and it defines “privilege” to mean, inter alia, a “right.”2 But copyright opponents are not using these terms interchangeably; they are using them in contradistinction to each other. In other words, they are saying that right and privilege are mutually exclusive terms. It’s this technical usage of these terms that I’ll address.

READ THE FULL STORY AT LAW THEORIES:
Why Copyright is a Right and Fair Use is a Privilege

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

Stop short-changing songwriters | The Hill

Web streaming is quickly becoming the preferred method for listening to music in this country. And Pandora, with more than 70 million active listeners and about a 70 percent market share, is by far the nation’s most popular service.

That’s why we’re deeply troubled by the pitifully low royalty Pandora pays to songwriters, composers and music publishers for the rights to stream their creative works online.It makes sense that one of Pandora’s core input costs should be royalties paid to the creators of the music they stream.

But right now, Pandora only pays about 4 percent of their annual revenue in performance rights royalties to songwriters, composers and music publishers.

READ THE FULL STORY AT THE HILL:
http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/314531-stop-short-changing-songwriters

Does Sirius and “Piped in” Airline Music Lead to More Music “Discovery” than Pandora? PT 2

After one get’s past the debate about whether webcasting and streaming pay artists fairly, you find there is a more complicated question.  How much of webcasting and streaming is “discovery”  and how much is just plain old consumption.  Listening to familiar tracks we already know.  This is not an academic question.  This fact can be taken into consideration by Copyright Royalty Board judges when they set the rates for webcasting. (Yes believe it or not in the year 2013 the prices to webcast songs and music are set by the US government!!).

Clearly all forms of broadcasting and webcasting are a little of both consumption and discovery (or promotion).   But the Webcasters have been arguing that they are better suited for “discovery” and thus are giving unknown artists and listeners something of value.  That argue they are better for music “discovery” than traditional broadcasters. Is that really true?

Yesterday I took my top 5 bonafide radio hits from the 80’s and 90s and subtracted their spins from each service then I looked at the percentage of spins “left” on each service.  The idea being the more a service plays the non hits the more likely listeners are discovering music.  I found something surprising.   Sirius XM and “Piped in” Airline Radio played more deep tracks or non-hits  than any other format.  Thus listeners were more likely to discover songs they didn’t know on these two services.  At least from my catalogue.

Following up with yesterdays post.  I’m digging deeper into my catalogue and subtracting spins for the minor hits, regional hits and tracks that otherwise garnered significant popularity from other sources.

Yesterday I subtracted spins for just the Top 5 tracks.

Low, Teen Angst, Get Off This, Take The Skinheads Bowling, Eurotrash Girl.

We will now subtract the spins for an additional 10 tracks.

All these tracks garnered significant radio promotion and sales through the years.

Eye of Fatima pt 1*  (Minor National  Rock/Modern Rock success)

Happy Birthday to Me*  (Minor national alternative paly, Minor recurrent play).

Turn On Tune In Drop Out With Me.  (#13 AAA radio.  Minor format.  Featured in Californication.)

Sweet Thistle Pie* (Mid-Atlantic, Chicago,  South Florida, Texas regional)

Good Guys And Bad Guys* (MTV Specialty and College Radio)

Big Dipper ( Coastal Carolinas regional).

Cracker Soul (Virginia, Carolinas and Chicago regional).

Turquoise Jewelry* (KROQ Los Angeles only)

I See The Light  ( Indie 103.1 Los Angeles Only. Daily airplay for nearly 3 years because DJ Steve Jones of Sex Pistols just decided to play the shit out of it on his popular afternoon show!)

Yalla Yalla  (Armed Forces Radio, mildly viral YouTube remix.)

* Promotional CD or Vinyl serviced to radio. 

This is not subjective.  These tracks were selected after looking at various royalty statements and airplay reports.  These are the top 15 tracks that still generate significant spins and individual sales.  There are certain tracks that were worked as singles like “I Hate My Generation” that generated a brief period of airplay but have never sustained spins.   Nor have they sustained individual sales over the long term.  These tracks are not included.  As further evidence please note that the aggregator of web simulcasts Live 365 pretty much agrees that these are the top 15 tracks.  See last screenshot.

Now the question is “Who plays the largest percentage of my catalogue outside the Top 15 tracks”

Airlines 39.27% broadcast
Sirius XM 28.57% broadcast
College Radio 25.02% broadcast
Pandora Radio 17.28% webcast
Live 365 16.91% webcast/broadcast
Rhapsody Radio (not on demand) 10.19% webcast
Terrestrial UK 8.81% broadcast/webcast?
Terrestrial US 1.07% broadcast

So for music discovery your best bet is a little air travel!  Followed by Sirius and then College Radio.  To be fair Pandora moves up a notch and it’s relative percentage of songs in the “tail” of my catalogue hardly changes.  This seems to argue that at least 17% of the time Pandora seems to be true music discovery.  It’s not just playing what the crowd says is already popular.  Again that 17% is nothing to sneeze at.  This suggests  that at least some significant portion of the time Pandora is playing you some artists or songs you would have likely never encountered.   That is encouraging.

Tomorrow let’s look at the On-Demand streaming stats.

Live 365 shows 13 of the 15 tracks in it’s top 25.

13 of tracks in top 25