Billy Corgan Exploited By… Citi Bank, AT&T, Target, Virgin Atlantic, Mazda, Neiman Marcus, Musicians Friend, Hertz, BMW, Audi, Boston Market, Urban Outfitters, Williams Sonoma

At SXSW in 2012 Billy Corgan shared his thoughts about the music business from his perspective, including his thoughts that you can’t really make money in the music business anymore. Billy is probably right that musicians can’t really make money in the music business anymore, but it appears there is plenty of money being made by internet sites dedicated to infringement as well as the ad networks and payment processors who allow the sites to profit from the musicians work.

Surely these advertisements are not appearing without being paid for, and there actually is money is being paid to finance and support the operation of major piracy sites (as reported by Google’s own transparency report). What’s worse is that the money financing these major piracy sites ripping off artists and creators are being paid by well know major consumer brands and corporations. See below…

Citi Bank – 4Shared
AT&T – 4Shared
AT&T – Mp3Skull
Target – Mp3Skull
Virgin Atlantic – IsoHunt
Mazda – Mp3Raid
Neiman Marcus – Mp3Skull
Hyundai – Mp3Skull
Musicians Friend – 4Shared
Hertz Rent A Car – 4Shared
BMW – 4Shared
Audi – Mp3Skull
Boston Market – 4Shared
Urban Outfitters – 4Shared
Williams Sonoma – IsoHunt

SP_4sharedAudioCitiATT

SP_ATTTargetMP3Skull

SP_ishunt_VirginAtlantic

SP_mazdapumpkinsmp3raid

SP_mp3skullHyndai

SP_MusiciansHertsBMW

SP_pumpkinsAudioMp3Skull

SP_UrbanOutFitters4Shared

SP_WilliamsSonomaIsoHunt

Ending Decade Old Arguments : How the Promise of the Internet has Failed Artists and Musicians…

As Jaron Lanier tells it, Ted Nelson envisioned his version of the internet (Xanadu) as a single walled garden where everyone could be both a consumer and a producer. Ideas and art could be exchanged in a frictionless environment where a truly free market would emerge. People could make their wares available for free, or charge for them. However, once a price was set, the market would then determine the demand for that information be it a song, poem, movie or software. This truly free and open market would have empowered creators of all kinds access to a marketplace the likes of which we’ve never seen. Ted’s vision would have truly empowered creators and democratized distribution. Unfortunately, Ted’s vision has not come to be.

Much has been written about the record industry in particular failing to “adapt and evolve” to the new online digital economy. Whereas this may have been a valid argument in 2002 it holds little water a decade later in 2012. In the past decade we’ve seen many new offerings to consumers for legal and licensed music services tailored to many different consumer lifestyles. The tip of the iceberg includes such well known offerings as Itunes, Spotify, Pandora, Rhapsody and literally hundreds of others. And yet despite there being over 500 legal music services neither sales nor revenue have begun any significant rebound. The one thing these services still require, that piracy does not, is payment.

Let’s take a look back. In 1999 in the USA there were probably ten thousand retail points of sale for physical music, Tower, Sam Goody, Target, Walmart, etc. At the time they were selling $20 dollar physical discs – much of the overhead due to physical packaging, manufacturing, shipping, stocking fees and the overhead of real human beings being employed in record stores who need to eat, have shelter, etc.

These physical retail locations also had all the problems of supply side inventory management – a band would be on tour, and no stock would be in that market, a song would be played on the radio and the album would quickly be out of stock, etc. An artist could get placed on a TV show or featured in a commercial and suddenly there is demand, but no availability. These supply side inventory issues combined with limited points of sale were a massive problem for the artists and the record industry.

Digital distribution has none of these problems. Today someone can walk from their living room to their computer (or it may be on their lap) to purchase the latest hot song, featured in Gossip Girl. Or not even, they can buy the song/album on their iphone while watching the TV show or in a movie theater or at a club or concert.

So today in 2012 there are an estimated 500 million retail points of sale for prerecorded music via itunes alone. Just stop and think about this for a second. We went from ten thousand points of sale to five hundred million points of sale in less than a decade and removed all of the supply side inventory issues… wow. The promise, size and scale of the internet should have seen sales of pre-recorded music increase, massively.

There is frequent argument made that if music cost less, it would sell more… well, we now have 99 cent songs and $9.99 albums and sales have dropped by half in a decade…

So the recording industry adapted by:
1) removing inventory problems
2) making music instantly available
3) allowing for songs to be sold individually at a price never before possible and…
4) dropped the price of the album by half of the retail list price of a decade ago

All of this should be a net positive, not a net negative except for one very big thing, payment is now optional to everyone, and there are no consequences for not paying… So let’s be clear about what the problem is when talking about potential solutions.

The problem is not a lack of viable new business models, the problem is the proliferation of illegally distributed recordings being monetized by advertising on infringing websites. There is money in the distribution of recordings on the internet, the problem is the majority of that money is being made illegally and not paying the artists a penny.

Music Technology Policy

[Editor Charlie sez:  Given that the Google Party in Europe is jamming a new orphan works on steriods bill through the UK and EU Parliaments, this is a good time to repost this history of orphan works from last year.  See “UK’s Brazen Copyright Landgrab Sneaked Into Enterprise Bill” and Photography Organisations Raise Objections to EU Orphan Works Law]

In the aftermath of the Google Books debacle, we are starting to hear noises that Google will back a new orphan works bill in this Congress.  There are some commentators—truly misguided in my view—who are calling for Congress to bring back the failed legislation from 2008 known as the “Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act”.  (The late Shawn Bentley was a tech industry lobbyist and former Senate Judiciary staff counsel.)  Let’s review that legislation in light of what we now know.  (For a more detailed account, see Unhand That…

View original post 1,631 more words

Weekly Recap News & Links Sunday December 9, 2012

Grab the coffee!

Happy Holidays, it’s been a slow week at The Trichordist following the ongoing IRFA and RSC meltdowns…

FROM AROUND THE WEB:

The Drum:
* New international reports will name and shame brands which advertise on websites that feature pirated film and music content

Background Briefing with Ian Masters:
* Is the Door Closing for Musicians in Digital Age?

AdLand:
* Selling the Canadian government and wives on the same networks : demand accountability now
* Let the social media Cola Wars begin
* Istagram pulls twitter integration, need to puff their own site stats to ‘monetize’ and keep investors happy

Paid Content:
* If you want to hurt pirates, target their ad money says rockstar

Seeking Alpha:
* Pandora, The Underpants Gnomes, And Sirius XM

Vox Indie:
* (Another) Misleading Study (Sort of) Claiming Piracy is Good for the Movie Biz…
* Google Search #FAIL Means More $$$ for Them

Copyhype:
* Does Copyright Involve Scarcity?

Ethical Fan:
* Torrent Freak: US BitTorrent Traffic Grows 40% from 2011 (Sandvine)

Torrent Freak:
* NZBMatrix Shuts Down Citing Piracy Troubles
* Record Labels go to High Court to Force More ISPs to Block Pirate Bay
* Pirate Bay Proxy Loses Domain Name to Anti-Piracy Boss

Digital Music News:
* US Album Sales Down Just 4% On the Year…
* iTunes 11: Be Very Afraid, Spotify…
* Major Labels: We Spend Up to $1.4 Million Developing a New Artist…

The Illusion of More :
* The Opaqueness of Transparency
* Why isn’t the Internet breaking?
* Google Protects IP (its own)

The Washington Post:
* Justice Department meets with firms seeking Google antitrust probe

Business Insider:
* Google Is One Vote Away From Being Slammed With A Massive Anti-Trust Suit By The FTC

Music Technology Policy

I was struck by a continuing theme during the recent hearing on “Music Licensing Part One: Legislation in the 112th Congress” before the House IP Subcommittee (the “IRFA hearing”).  Mr. Chaffetz wants to do the right thing but he got some really bad advice.  There were flickers of connections between Mr. Chaffetz’ questions and other statements by the usual suspects (and many Google Shill Listers) none of whom really know anything about the music business but all of whom “make stuff up” (to paraphrase the classic words of David Lowery at the Future of Music policy conference).

For example, Mr. Chaffetz asked Jimmy Jam whether Jimmy thought that the allocation of royalties among the sound recording owners, featured artists and nonfeatured artists was “fair.”  Now why would he ask that question and why was he surprised that Jimmy did think the allocation was fair?  The issue was not part of the bill and to my knowledge…

View original post 742 more words

Weekly Recap & News Sunday Dec 2, 2012

Grab the coffee!

Recent Posts:
* Lars Was First And Lars Was Right
* Zoë Keating’s Request for Internet Transparency met w/ usual Hypocrisy
* The Most Important Fact Academics and The Copyleft Neglect to Mention: Copyright is Optional.
* Giving Thanks for Creators Rights and Copyright
* Congressional Research Service Memo on Constitutionality of IRFA Section 5
* Other Than That Mr Westergren, How Was The Play? IRFA Gets An Ass Whupping
* Or Pandora Could Add Another Minute Of Advertising And Raise Their Revenue 50%
* Video of the “Radio Active” panel at The Future of Music Summit 2012.
* The Internet Radio Fairness Act’s Attack on Free Speech
* This photo says it all
* Google’s Serial Obfuscation: Music Canada,BPI, Billboard Question Whether Google Has Really Lowered Pirate Sites Search Rankings
* IRFA is the Broadcast Industry’s SOPA. Censors Free Speech
* IRFA and the Future of Music Policy Summit: Why Would FOMC Miss An Opportunity to Defend Artist Rights?

IRFA-APLOOZA:

Seeking Alpha :
* The Internet Radio Fairness Act Will Fail

Ars Technica :
* Pandora’s Internet radio bill hits a wall of opposition in Congress

CNET :
* Pandora’s Web radio bill is doomed — well, for now

House Judiciary Committee – Video of the Hearing:
* Music Licensing Part One: Legislation in the 112th Congress

WELL, THIS IS EMBARRASSING – OOOPSIES! THE RSC’s FICTIONAL LOOK AT COPYRIGHT IS RECALLED IN LESS THAN 24 HRS:

Techdirt:
* House Republicans: Copyright Law Destroys Markets; It’s Time For Real Reform
* That Was Fast: Hollywood Already Browbeat The Republicans Into Retracting Report On Copyright Reform

Precursor Blog:
* The Copyright Education of Mr. Khanna — Part 2 Defending First Principles Series

Copyhype:
* Republican Study Committee Policy Brief on Copyright: Part 1
* Republican Study Committee Policy Brief on Copyright: Part 2

Music Tech Policy:
* Critiquing The “Free Culture” Book Report or “The Copyright Education of Mr. Khanna”

FROM AROUND THE WEB:

Mercury News:
* German lawmakers call Google campaign ‘cheap propaganda’

“The campaign initiated by Google is cheap propaganda,” said conservative lawmakers Guenter Krings and Ansgar Heveling.

“Under the guise of a supposed project for the freedom of the internet, an attempt is being made to coopt its users for its own lobbying,” the two said in a statement.

Stereogum:
* Deconstructing: Pandora, Spotify, Piracy, And Getting Artists Paid

Pitchfork:
* Making Cents – Damon Krukowski of Galaxie 500 and Damon & Naomi breaks down the meager royalties currently being paid out to bands by streaming services and explains what the music business’ headlong quest for capital means for artists today.

The Cynical Musician:
* Reco’nize: The Original Cynical Musician (Lars Ulrich)

Billboard:
* Songwriters Are Left Out of Pandora’s Royalty Plan: Guest Post by Downtown Music’s Justin Kalifowitz

The National Review Online:
* Myths and Facts about Copyright

VoxIndie:
* How Are Google’s Anti-Piracy Search Policies Working?

Digital Music News:
* We’ve Written Some of the Biggest Songs In History. And This Is What Pandora Pays Us…
* If You Stream a Song Once a Day, When Does It Pay the Same As a Download?
* My Song Was Played 3.1 Million Times on Pandora. My Check Was $39…
* Finally: A Solution for Pandora’s Financial Problems…

Torrent Freak:
* IMAGiNE BitTorrent Piracy Group “Sysop” Jailed 40 months
* BitTorrent Site Owners Fear European Domain Name Seizures
* Canada Set For Mass BitTorrent Lawsuits, Anti-Piracy Company Warns

Music Tech Policy:
* The Artists, United, Can Never Be Defeated
* Too Big to Fix Part 1: YouTube’s Thimblerig, or What’s Inside Your Black Box Today Mr. Schmidt?

Copyhype:
* Friday’s Endnotes – 11/30/12
* A Brief History of Webcaster Royalties
* The Purposes of Copyright Law and “Anti-Copyright” Arguments

Worth an encore, Lars Ulrich predicts the demise of Artists Rights to Internet Robber Barrons in 2000 on The Charlie Rose Show.

Congressional Research Service Memo on Constitutionality of IRFA Section 5

Senator Ron Wyden and his staff director Jayme White were kind enough to ask the Congressional Research Service to conduct a legal analysis of the concerns regarding Section 5 of the so-called “Internet Radio Fairness Act” that we have raised on Trichordist and that David Lowery raised directly with Senator Wyden at the Future of Music Coalition Policy Summit in Washington on November 13.

You can read the entire memo here, but the part that interests us the most is this section:

David Lowery, writing for the Thetrichordist.com, has argued that “Section 5 of IRFA is perhaps the most pernicious part of the bill, for it would make it illegal for anyone to criticize digital sound recording licensees. If IRFA becomes law, artists and artist organizations will need to watch what they say in public in opposition to [certain licensees’]direct licensing efforts.”  It seems that Lowery takes issue with the use of the words”any action” that would”prohibit, interfere with, or impede”negotiations.

He argues that these terms are too broad and could apply even to those who would criticize licensees for attempting to negotiate direct licenses with copyright owners. Another concern cited by Lowery in opposition toSection 5 is the ambiguity inherent in the language “any copyright owners acting jointly.”

This language does not necessarily seem to be limited to large member-based royalty collection organizations like SoundExchange. It may be broad enough to encompass, for example,the members of an individual band, who might be considered to be individual copyright owners, acting jointly. Under this broadreading of the language, an argument could be made that a band, posting its criticisms of direct licensing negotiations between a licenseeand a copyright owner, would betaking an action that would interfere with a direct licensing negotiation, therebyviolating Section 5.

Though this hypothetical presents a broad interpretation of the language of Section 5, it is not an implausible one. It is possible that the language may be broad enough to cover a blog post by a band expressing their opinion regarding contract negotiations between a licensee and a copyright owner. Nonetheless, it seems unlikely that, in practice, Section 5 would impinge upon First Amendment rights….

But it’s not “implausible.”

Other Than That Mr Westergren, How Was The Play? IRFA Gets An Ass Whupping

Yesterday the Internet Radio Fairness Act got a hearing before congress and promptly got it’s ass kicked.  I mean there is really no polite way of saying it.  Democrats and Republicans alike were scornful and clearly not interested in hearing Pandora’s ginned up unfairness crap. Not only did they seem to disagree with Pandora’s argument for lower royalties the committee went completely off the reservation and began to question why terrestrial radio doesn’t pay royalties to performers.  At one point Rep John Conyers asks:

“I’m still trying to figure out why artists and performers who play 24-7 on terrestrial radio don’t get a dime.”

Oops.

My favorite  part was Virginia Republican Bob Goodlatte’s scornful reproach to Pandora’s CEO Joe Kennedy

“Here we are again,  Mr Kennedy, when is a deal a deal?”

The Congressman was referring to the fact that just 3 years ago Pandora was crowing about the deal they had made with record labels, publishers and artists for royalties.  Now instead of trying to increase their paid subscribers, or increase advertising revenue, they are back asking congress for a handout.

And doesn’t congress have better things to do?  A fiscal cliff or something?

Or Pandora Could Add Another Minute Of Advertising And Raise Their Revenue 50%

Silicon Valley tech gurus  love to tell musicians that they “need new business models.”  This is kind of funny when you consider that most of these folks work for companies that have never shown a profit. Never!  Whereas my web-enabled businesses Cracker and Camper Van Beethoven  (like many bands) have been profitable for decades.  So can someone please tell mewhy we’re supposed to  listen to these serial failures with their snake oil schemes?

I think it’s high time that artists turn the tables.  We should tell these folks how to run their businesses for a change.  Quit whining and bootstrap it! Just like we had to when we were starting our bands.  Sell T-shirts or something!

For instance here’s how Pandora can increase their revenue 50%:

1. Pandora plays one minute of commercials per hour.  Satellite radio plays about thirteen minutes an hour. Pandora could easily double the number of ads and still have a very pleasant consumer experience.

2. Pandora made approximately $86 million from advertising on total revenues of $101 million last quarter.  Let’s say they double the amount of advertising and they only generate another 65 million from doubling ads.  This gives them a minimum of $151 million in revenue. And that is an increase of 50%.

But seriously folks, have investors considered that the so-called Internet Radio Fairness act could take years to pass?  And then once it passes it requires the President to appoint new judges that would have to be approved by the Senate.  Does that sound like a quick fix to you folks?  But that’s not all . These new judges would then have to convene new hearings on the royalty rates under the new below fair market value standards.    This would take years.

On the other hand Pandora could start increasing revenue tomorrow by simply airing more ads.  This is what most main street businesses do.  They need more revenue?  They generate more revenue.  They don’t run to the federal government to force their suppliers to lower their prices!  Adapt or die Pandora!

Of course we know the IRFA is about more than royalty rates.  This is about agency capture.  It’s about replacing current judges with judges that are more friendly to the the Tech and Broadcast industry’s agenda.  It’s about not allowing artists and their representatives to speak out when mega-broadcasters propose direct licensing deals that benefit labels at the expense of artists.   We artists could be prosecuted under The Sherman Act if this bill passes!

Let’s just hope that congress sees this for what it is: Crony Capitalism.