Hypebot noticed this Facebook post from Rosanne Cash which echoes the sentiments of many artists, that streaming in it’s current form and economics is pretty much legitimized piracy…
READ THE FULL POST AT HYPEBOT:
Amazon is trying to bypass US Copyright law and define its own royalty rates
Section 115 of the US Copyright Act is the rate, set by the government, that defines the mechanical royalty rates. Most people know that the statutory mechanical royalty rate is currently 9.1 cents per download or physical “phonorecord” under 5 minutes (and then 1.75 cents per minute thereafter), but few know what the rate is per stream. That’s because the streaming rate is based upon the streaming service’s number of subscribers and users. More subscribers to the service equals higher mechanical royalty rates.
For the record, Spotify, Beats and the other streaming services all follow Section 115 of the US Copyright Act and follow the defined mechanical royalty rates.
READ THE FULL POST AT DIGITAL MUSIC NEWS:
Is this the future of music? We continue to look at artist revenue streams.
If you’re heading out to any panels at SXSW this week, you might want to keep this handy when you’re being told how much money you can make… And if the services at the top of the list like Nokia, Google Play and Xbox Music can pay more per play, why can’t the services at the bottom of the list like Spotify and YouTube?
We’ll give you a hint, the less streams/plays there are the more each play pays. The more plays there are the less each stream/play pays. Tell us again about how these services will scale. Looking at this data it seems pretty clear that the larger the service get’s, the less artists are paid per stream.
So do you think streaming royalty rates are really going to increase as these services “scale”? No, we didn’t either.
* YouTube payment includes gross payable to single party uploader claiming 100% of rights including video, master and publishers. There should also be additional PRO money earned however we haven’t been able to get any reporting to date.Our YouTube pay rate calculations can be found here:What YouTube Really Pays… Makes Spotify Look Good!
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:
Billboard Magazine is reporting that Beats Music has hired long time artist bully Dave Allen as their so called Artist Advocate. This is fantastic news for artists rights bloggers and music journalists as they were close to running out of ways to imply Dave Allen is a shill for streaming services. By taking this job at Beats Dave Allen has made it easy for all of us. Now we can just come out and say he’s paid by the streaming services!
If you don’t know, Dave Allen is the former bass player for the Marxist Rock band Gang of Four. Allen has made a name for himself by rudely lecturing songwriters like David Byrne, Thom Yorke and myself on streaming, globalization and the inner workings of free markets. Rich right?
And it looks like he intends to continue. Check the featured quote from the Billboard story announcing his hiring:
“It is hard for me to understand why intelligent people like David Byrne and Thom Yorke do not appear to understand that we are in the midst of new markets being formed,” Allen wrote. “I have concluded that we can only look to what internet and mobile users are doing or want to do, and then note how their actions drive technologists to provide platforms for them. Put very simply, that is how markets work.”
(Wow. This is his first day as Artist Advocate? Off to a bad start-Ed)
No Dave. It’s the opposite of markets. By Government mandate our songs have been “collectivized” for use by these streaming and webcasting services. Further government rate courts set the prices. There is no “market” for songs. He’s purposely leaving out the part where the government forces us to license our songs to the technologists at below market rates!
Allen knows this. Everyone in the business knows this. I mean that’s why U.S. Rep Doug Collins of Georgia introduced this week this bill to establish fair market pricing for songs!
While we have some generally positive things to say about the Beats service (the lack of a free tier means their effective per spin rate to songwriters and performers will be higher than many other services) we note that the appointment of Allen does not bode well for Beats Music.
This is a ham-fisted move that won’t solve the fundamental PR problem that all streaming services have with the general public: low payouts to artists and a lack of transparency. No amount of shouting and name calling by Allen will fix that problem. Quite the opposite.
* Move adds to speculation about IPO
* Senior banker says firm to be valued at $7-8 bln
* Spotify doubled revenue but registered loss in 2012
STOCKHOLM, Feb 17 (Reuters) – Online music streaming service Spotify is recruiting a U.S. financial reporting specialist, adding to speculation that the Swedish start-up is preparing for a share listing, which one banker said could value the firm at as much as $8 billion.
Meeting U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) standards for filing financial disclosures is essential for any firm planning to go public and bankers and lawyers said they inferred from the job ad that the company is getting ready for an initial public share offering (IPO), possibly next year.)
READ THE FULL STORY AT REUTERS:
Here ya go, the world of micro-decimal math.
“Google are not music people, and that scares me.” This single quote from Colin Daniels, of Australian independent music firm Inertia, summarised a whole conference worth of anti-Google unrest at this year’s Midem, which spilled over onto YouTube too.
Whenever a YouTube exec appeared in a panel session, they were put on the defensive about the company’s approach to music and creators, often by pointed questions from audience members – and on one occasion, angry heckling.
After the last year of Spotify taking constant flak over streaming’s value to artists, at Midem that company was being praised – “everyone there are music people,” said Daniels before making his Google comment in a session on indie label strategies – while YouTube (and, more surprisingly, Facebook) were being attacked.
Music good, Big Tech evil. We’ve been writing about this clash for years now, but it was more open and more emotional than we remember at any previous Midem. Yet we also found a more positive, if challenging takeaway from this year’s conference: the music industry can shed its victim status and make these Big Tech platforms work better for rightsholders and creators.
READ THE FULL STORY AT MUSIC ALLY:
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: