@ashleyjanamusic’s Video Tells You All You Need to Know About Spotify’s Attitude Toward Artists

Mansplaining, anyone? If you remember Spotify’s 2014 messaging debacle with Taylor Swift, we always suspected that the Spotify culture actually believed that artists should be grateful for whatever table scraps that Spotify’s ad-supported big pool model threw out to artists. They were only begrudgingly interested in converting free users to paid subscribers, which still pays artists nothing due to the big pool’s hyper-efficient market share revenue distribution model.

And then there was another one of Spotify’s artist and label relations debacles with Epidemic Sound–Spotify’s answer to George Orwell’s “versificator” in the Music Department that produced “countless similar songs published for the benefit of the proles by a sub-section of the Music Department.”

The common threads of most of Spotify’s crazy wrong turns–and they are legion–is what they indicate: An incredible heartless arrogance and an utter failure to understand the business they are in. A business that ultimately turns on the artists and the songwriters. As long as there is an Apple Music and the other music streaming platforms, artists can simply walk across the street–which is why Taylor Swift could make Daniel Ek grovel like a little…well, let’s just leave it at grovel.

But–this long history of treating artists and especially songwriters poorly is what makes it so important to preserve Apple Music as a healthy competitor to Spotify and the only thing that stops Spotify from becoming a monopolist. A fact that seems entirely lost on their boy Rep. David Cicilline’s anti-Apple bill that “seems aimed directly at Apple and has Spotify’s litigation against Apple written all over it.” (Mr. Cicilline runs virtually unopposed in his Rhode Island elections, which if you know anything about Rhode Island politics is just the way the “Crimetown” machine likes it.)

Why are ostensibly smart people given to such arrogance? Mostly because they are rich and believe their own hype. But never has that reality been on such public display in all its putridness than in a truly unbelievable exchange at the Sync Summit in 2019 in New York between home town independent artist Ashley Jana and former Spotify engineer Jim Anderson who was being interviewed by Mark Freiser who runs that conference who doesn’t exactly come off like a prize puppy either.

Ashley recorded the entire exchange in (what else) a YouTube video and Digital Music News reported on it recently. Here’s part of the exchange between Ashely and Mr. Anderson after Ashely had the temerity to bring up…money!

Jana: We’re not making any money off of the streams. And I know that you know this, and I’m not trying to put you on the spot. I’m just saying, one cent is really not even that much money if you add 2 million times .01, it’s still not that much. And if you would just consider —

Anderson: Oh, I’m going to go down this road, you know that.

Interviewer (Mark Frieser): This is really not a road we’ve talked about before, but I’m gonna let him do this —

Jana: Thank you again.

Anderson: Do you want me to go down this road? I’m gonna go down this road.

Frieser: Well, if you need to.

Anderson: Wait, do I go down the entitlement road now, or do I wait a minute?

Frieser: Well, you know what, I think you should do what you need to do.

Anderson: Should we do it now?

Frieser: Yeah, whatever you feel you need to do.

Anderson: So maybe I should go down the entitlement road now?  Or should I wait a few minutes?

Frieser: Do you want to wait a few minutes? Maybe take another question or two?

Anderson: [to the audience] Do you guys want to talk about entitlement now? Or do we talk about —

[Crowd voices interest in hearing the answer from Anderson]

Jana: I don’t think it’s entitlement to ask for normal rates, like before.

Anderson: Normal rates?

Jana: No, the idea is to make it a win-win situation for all parties.

Anderson: Okay, okay. So we should talk about entitlement. I mean, I have an issue with Taylor Swift’s comments. I have this issue with it, and we’ll call it entitlement. I mean, I consider myself an artist because I’m an inventor, okay? Now, I freely give away my patents for nothing. I never collect royalties on anything.

I think Taylor Swift doesn’t need .00001 more a stream. The problem is this: Spotify was created to solve a problem. The problem was this: piracy and music distribution. The problem was to get artists’ music out there. The problem was not to pay people money.

You really should listen to the entire video to really comprehend the arrogance dripping off of Mr. Anderson’s condescension.

Riding the Third Rails: Making the case at WIPO for performer streaming remuneration — Music Technology Policy

One potential solution to the crisis with performer compensation from streaming is an expanded remuneration right paid directly to performers and featured artists by streaming platforms. Remember–the session musicians and vocalists you hear on streaming platforms get nothing and all but a handful of featured artists get next to nothing.

Endless babble about how streaming saved music industry is unmoored from reality. And revenue has demonstrably resulted in lower pay to music workers. 

U.S. Recorded Music Revenues Are Still 46% Below 1999 Peaks https://t.co/wmyAiCV9iB— David C Lowery (@davidclowery) June 17, 2021

Thanks to the support of the American Federation of Musicians and the International Federation of Musicians, the World Intellectual Property Organization commissioned a policy study on this subject for consideration by WIPO’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights that I co-authored with the noted economist, Professor Claudio Feijoo.  (The study is available here.)  WIPO has never before commissioned a study on the economic effects of streaming on performers, and I think we should all be appreciative of WIPO’s response.

I was pleased to see the study quoted in the recent letter to UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson from the Rolling Stones, Sir Tom Jones and many others calling on the PM to support streaming remuneration according to the BBC.

We considered the pros and cons of a number of potential solutions, which are summarized in this table from the study. Streaming remuneration paid by platforms was the main recommendation for a number of reasons:

–streaming remuneration helps to balance the extraordinary growth in share price by companies like Spotify. (Apple is approaching a $2 trillion market capitalization and still pays session players nothing for streams on Apple Music).

–enterprise playlists are increasingly a substitute for radio by Spotify’s own admission yet pay nothing to non-featured performers.

–streaming remuneration does not expand the compulsory license and leaves private contracts in place.

SolutionProConFurther comments
Streaming Remuneration Paid By Platforms Through CMOsDoes not require additional transaction cost as matching and payment information already exists at CMOs; does not require renegotiation of licensing agreements or disrupt current licensing practices; platforms are already paying similar royalties in certain territories; recognizes value transfer from all performers to platforms; helps to preserve local culture by compensating both featured and nonfeatured performersPlatforms may seek to offset streaming remuneration payments against catalog license revenues; platforms may seek to expand compulsory licenses; additional operating cost for platforms; Flexible solution that Member States may elect to implement.  Benefits both featured and nonfeatured performers. Mandate may exclude deduction from existing licenses and may make payments non-waivable.
Status Quo—continue market-centric model unchanged with voluntary experiments in fairness-making royalty methods (SoundCloud and Apple, for instance)No disruption to streaming ecosystem, locks in market-centric royalty model, allows market forces to drive change (e.g., SoundCloud fan powered royalties and Apple messaging pro-artist royalty rates)Favors major labels and their featured performers, nonfeatured performers paid zero, does not respond to grassroots campaigns by featured and nonfeatured performers; burdens local repertoire and local culture (see concerns about streaming music raised by Heritage Canada and Canadian Parliament in current consideration of Bill C-10[1])Do not change and allow market forces to impact royalty rates through grassroots protests against streaming royalties like #BrokenRecord and #IRespectMusic campaigns and potentially litigation
Voluntary change in label streaming rate policy and Beggars (for instance) style forgiveness of unrecouped balancesFairness making move so that producer unilaterally updates all legacy contracts to current rates.  Simple to pay more than contract requires, can be implemented quickly, low transaction costs.  Forgiveness of unrecouped balance occurs after a fixed period of time.  (Beggars model forgives 25% after 15 years).  Does not change the underlying payments to featured performers, does not compensate nonfeatured performers. Might be arbitrary and subject to sudden changes.Labels should consider before legislation requires a change in response to grassroots protests (see DCMS Inquiry). Nonfeatured performers are not benefited. Compatible with other models. 
SolutionProConRecommendation
Mandate review of royalty statements and systems by independent accountants or “special masters”Biggest point of failure in royalty reporting is at the platform, so review of systems by independent accountants and experts would increase transparency and help to reduce third party fraud.  Expert review would be in addition to SSAE 16 type review.  At a minimum, public accounting firms should be required to publicly disclose systems reviews undertaken as part of audited financials.Biggest negative would be cost, but in the long run would potentially reduce the cost and increase the efficiency of individual audits.  Might be accomplished through disclosure and rebalancing of duties of public accounting firms.Member States may consider legislating transparency. Nonfeatured performers are not benefited. Compatible with other models.
Adjust corporate governance at streaming companies to make them more responsive to shareholders (such as eliminating dual class stock in publicly traded companies)Allows shareholders a meaningful voice in corporate governance denied by “supervoting” shares such as Spotify’s 10:1 insider shares, allows fans or users an opportunity to be heard by board of directorsDoes not by itself change underlying payment issues for either featured or nonfeatured performersMember States may consider as a general matter depending on existing corporate governance laws and exchange rules.  Nonfeatured performers may not be benefited. Compatible with other models.
Voluntary User Centric Share of Revenue Royalty methodsLikely to allow users to have transparency as to where their money goes; perceived greater fairness for featured performersCostly to implement due to transaction costs of renegotiating all licenses.  May just reallocate revenue without increasing the pie; does not recognize the value transfer from performers to platforms in market valuation and share price. Does not compensate nonfeatured performers.Allow platforms to experiment with different models.  Nonfeatured performers are not benefited under models tried to date.
Fan-to-performer Direct Digital GiftsDoes not require changing licensing agreements for services and producers; payments to performers can be made directly outside of recording or distribution agreements; if broadly established, could include both featured and nonfeatured performers. Excludes producers from compensation scheme; requires performers to sign up to accept payment; some services take a cut some do (like Tencent) and some (like Apple) do not take a cut if true gift and not disguised in-app purchase Allow platforms to experiment with different models.  Nonfeatured performers could be benefited.  Member States may consider legislation to curtail platforms taking a cut of digital gifts.
Extended collective licensing of the exclusive right of making available on demandRebalance relations between stakeholders; guarantee a remuneration for all categories of performers through collective managementLimited protection for performers when opt-out is possible; needs conclusion of new licensing agreements; will affect the perimeter of licensing agreements concluded between labels and platformsWould conflict with existing contracts, increasing litigation with uncertain results; non-retroactive application with limited effects
Compulsory collective management of the exclusive right of making available on demandRebalances relations between stakeholders; guarantees a remuneration for all categories of performers through collective management; protects all performers from unbalanced transfer of rightNeeds conclusion of new licensing agreements; will affect the perimeter of licensing agreements concluded between labels and platforms; deprives featured performers of their direct capacity to negotiate with labels through individual contractsWould conflict with existing contracts, increasing litigation with uncertain results; non-retroactive application with limited effects

[1] House of Commons of Canada, House Govt. Bill C-10 (43rd Parl, 2nd Sess., Nov. 3, 2020) available at https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=e&Mode=1&billId=10926636&View=1

Performer Payments for NFTs

Well, it’s happened again.  The Internet has spoken—all extra cash is going to be devoted to curing cancer, distributing COVID vaccinations, world peace, child health and…oh, no wait.  It’s going to be devoted to NFTs and getting rich on the latest bubble.  It’s bespoke, not woke.

You’ve all heard about them:  NFTs are going to save the music business or at least artists.  You do have to ask yourself how much would we have to pay them to leave us alone.  But NFTs are definitely all the rage, and we have to ask if NFTs are the new SPACs—meaning a heavily promoted financial instrument that is a function of too much money chasing too few scams.  

If the copyright being licensed happens to be a motion picture or television program or sound recording created by a union signatory under a collective bargaining agreement with the Screen Actors Guild-AFTRA Basic Agreement, it may–may–qualify as a “reuse” which requires direct negotiation with any performer whose performance appears in the material being licensed.  If it does and if you don’t clear the use, this is the kind of thing that can ruin your whole day.  (See SAG-AFTRA Basic Agreement paragraph 22.) Paragraph 22A of the 2014 Basic Agreement states:

No part of the photography or sound track of a performer shall be used other than in the picture for which he was employed, without separately bargaining with the performer and reaching an agreement regarding such use. The foregoing requirement of separate bargaining hereafter applies to reuse of photography or sound track in other pictures, television, theatrical or other, or the use in any other field or medium. Bargaining shall occur prior to the time such reuse is made, but performer may not agree to such reuse at the time of original employment. The foregoing shall apply only if the performer is recognizable and, as to stunts, only if the stunt is identifiable.

The higher the prices go in the NFT bubble, the more likely it is that someone will be in this situation and that a performer—or their estate—may well ask for the payment to which they are entitled under the union agreement.  But here’s the kicker—the union obligation applies to signatories to the collective bargaining agreement.  That’s likely to be the studio or record company, which is why those licenses almost always include language about the buyer’s (or licensee’s) responsibility to make all third party payments including union payments.

The more the NFT transaction trades on the name of the actors or musicians involved, the more convincing the case.  This is very fact specific, but it’s not all that fact specific.  It’s going to come up.  (But see Brown v. 20th Century Fox)  If you are hearing about reuse negotiations for the first time, don’t feel bad, it’s often overlooked even by the smart people.

Even so, I fully expect that we are going to suffer through another round of loophole seeking behavior regarding copyright that we saw in the 1990s and 2000s when there was just too much money to be made on the Internet (reminiscent of the “49ers” who came to California in the 1849 Gold Rush).  The greed factor of 99ers gave us very long and protracted excuses for theft such as the trilogy by the very well-funded Lessig as well as seemingly endless litigation that goes on to the present day over loophole seeking behavior that distorts the DMCA and fair use, as well as the controversial Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.  There’s just too much money being made with NFTs, cryptocurrency and blockchain to think otherwise.

It must also be said that the same kind of willfully blind hucksters are at work in the NFT market that were and still are engaged in massive copyright infringement online.  NFT’s can easily be tokenized without the owner of the underlying copyright having any idea that their work is being infringed, much less consented. The same could be said of right of publicity claims, palming off, and trademark infringement.

The more that performers are excluded, the more likely it is there will be a reaction. So says Newton with that Third Law of Motion thingy, but what did he know?

Stay tuned, the 99ers are back in the Wild West this time with added Ether.

Must Read by @thatkatetaylor: Dishonest censorship scare may torpedo Bill C-10, a chance to update broadcasting laws for the modern era

[MTP readers may recall that I lived in Toronto and Montreal for many years and played with some of the Quebec and English Canadian artists as a member of Local 406. I try to keep an eye on what’s happening in the North. I can’t help noticing that Google lobbyists and fanboys are running the same old “but censorship!” play in Canada that they tried in Europe and the US. This is kind of ridiculous for the Kings of Algorithms at the Chocolate Factory. This post from Kate Taylor writing at the Globe and Mail sums it up nicely.]

If you believe my current Twitter feed, the Liberal government in Ottawa has misplaced its mind along with all democratic norms and is about to pass a law that will censor Canadians’ internet activity. Apparently, no funny cat video, let alone sneaky political GIF, will ever be safe again as Big Brother Justin rips page after page from China’s notoriously intrusive internet policies. One defiant wit, in the dying days of his free expression, recently posted an old socialist realist painting of Mao onto whose head he had cleverly morphed Justin Trudeau’s face. Meanwhile, in an opinion piece published in the National Post Saturday, Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole began quoting George Orwell, telling Canadians the Liberals might start monitoring their Facebook groups and their comments on news stories.

Well, the truth is that Trudeau and Mao share neither the same hairline nor the same politics. The alarm over supposed censorship is overblown and misplaced. It is fuelled by dishonest politicking from O’Toole and the Conservatives, and predictable paranoia from technological fundamentalists, those who believe the heaven-sent internet should not be subject to any human law – disinformation and election interference be damned.

Read the post on Apple News

Who Are These Law Clerks, Anyway?

If you’re not a lawyer, you may not be that familiar with law clerks. The title sounds very…well, clerical. But make no mistake, they are very powerful people who are largely unknown to clients but who are in the room with their judges, often every step of the way. As Wikipedia tells us:

law clerk or a judicial clerk is an individual—generally an attorney—who provides direct assistance and counsel to a judge in making legal determinations and in writing opinions by researching issues before the court. Judicial clerks often play significant roles in the formation of case law through their influence upon judges’ decisions.

Yet, we know virtually nothing about them from the outside. If your case is heard, wouldn’t you want to know about everyone who was influencing the outcome of your case?

There are ethical rules that cover judicial clerks, such as Maintaining the Public Trust: Ethics For Federal Judicial Law Clerks issued by the Judicial Conference Committee on Codes of Conduct which admonishes clerks that the rules apply to them, too:

During your clerkship, you will provide valuable assistance as your judge resolves disputes that are of great importance to the parties, and often to the public. The parties and the public accept judges’ rulings because they trust the system to be fair and impartial. Maintaining this trust is crucial to the continued success of our courts. That’s why, although you have many responsibilities that demand your attention, you must never lose sight of your ethical obligations.

While that all sounds good, how would anyone ever know exactly what the story is with the clerks who are writing opinions with their judge or justice that directly affect the outcome of your case. As the ethical rules clearly state:

Although many of your obligations are the same as those of other federal judicial employees, certain restrictions are more stringent because of your special position in relation to the judge. Some obligations continue after your service to the court concludes.

But again–how would you ever know? If you go to the bible of the revolving door, Open Secrets, you’ll notice someone is missing…the entire judicial branch of our government.

Let’s take the easy one: Conflicts of interest. When does a law clerk have a conflict of interest? The rulebook tells us:

Canon 3F(1) of the Code of Conduct advises judicial employees, including law clerks, to avoid conflicts of interest. Conflicts arise when you—or your spouse or other close relative—might be so personally or financially affected by a matter that a reasonable person would question your impartiality. 

Note the disjunct: “personally or financially affected.” Either can give rise to a conflict or a question as to the clerk’s impartiality.

Conflicts come in several flavors, but two biggies are actual conflicts and potential conflicts, very routine inquiries in any conflict check. The ethical rules for clerks give examples of each: For example, an actual conflict is “The firm where you plan to work after your clerkship serves as counsel in a matter before your judge”. “Firm” in this case presumably applies to the situation where a company where the clerk plans to work appears before the judge.

A potential conflict includes “An attorney you met and talked with at a social function appears to argue a motion before your judge.” It’s not a far reach to think that the example would include a former professor, amicus, or author of an amicus brief filed or to be filed in a case before your judge.

But the point is, how would the litigants ever know any of these situations were an issue. Who keeps track of who knows whom among the clerks cloistered away in the ivory tower?

Let’s take a concrete example from the Above the Law Supreme Court Watch blog which handicaps U.S. Supreme Court clerk hires:

Joshua Revesz (Yale 2017/Garland) will be clerking for Justice Kagan in OT 2020. If his distinctive surname rings a bell, perhaps you’ve heard of his famous father: Professor Richard “Ricky” Revesz, former Dean of NYU Law School, and a former Supreme Court clerk (OT 1984/Marshall).

Readers of ARW may also recognize the name from a different place: The deep and abiding controversy over the American Law Institute’s failing Restatement of Copyright project. Professor Revesz joined the ALI in 2014 right after the noted Lowery insulter, Spotify lawyer, Lessig mentee and all round anti-copyright advocate Christopher Jon Sprigman joined the NYU faculty in 2013, presumably under then-Dean Richard Revesz.

Somehow–we don’t know exactly how–of all the lawyers in all the world, how ALI Director Revesz chose Professor Sprigman to run the Restatement of Copyright project, an undertaking that by all reports is devoted to weakening copyright and expanding loopholes for Big Tech. How do we know this? Because Sprigman pitched Revesz on the idea very soon after Revesz took over at ALI.

 

And the rest is history with everyone from authors to the Congress criticizing the very idea of a Restatement of Copyright; indeed, Professor Peter Menell of the UC Berkeley law school and Professor Shyamkrishna Balganesh of Columbia law school wrote an extensive critique that “explains why perfunctory extension of the common law Restatement model to copyright law produces incoherent, misleading and seemingly biased results that risks undermining the legitimacy of the eventual product.”  (“The Curious Case of the Restatement of Copyright“).  In other words–it’s bad.

It will come as no surprise that I would go further–I think that is exactly the purpose of the Restatement (and Professor Samuelson’s Copyright Principles Project it descends from).

Hold on, you say–what does this have to do with Clerk Revesz and his judge, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, the former Dean of Harvard Law School (whose remarks at the 10 year anniversary celebration of the Berkman Center are illuminating (home to both Lessig and poker aficionado and alleged counsel to copyright infringer Mr. Tennenbaum, Charles Nesson)).  Maybe nothing.

But isn’t it the kind of thing you might want to know about someone who was in close contact with someone who was deciding the outcome of your case?  Or was in close contact with other clerks who were deciding the outcome of your case?  How would you ever know what contacts the clerks had with anyone who might be influencing their case or who had donated money to an institution that benefited the family member of someone who had influence over your case?  Either directly, over cocktail party conversation or the dinner table?  I am not implying any skulduggery here, it could all have been very innocent or appear so as conflicts often do.  

Did it happen?  We don’t know, because when we go to Open Secrets there’s no judicial branch disclosure.  Now certainly judges have to file public financial disclosures.  (That’s how we knew about Judge Ware’s employment by Santa Clara Law School when he presided over the Google Buzz cy pres and ordered $500,000 be given to that university–“now-retired federal district judge James Ware rewrote the settlement to direct $500,000 to Santa Clara Law School, where he taught. The money went to fund a center for ethics.”)

While their judges are obligated to public financial disclosures, clerks do not have such obligations to litigants, much less to the public.  Disposition of conflicts disclosed by clerks seem to be handled in chambers without consulting the litigants.

Given the number of clerks in chambers across the country, the possibility for conflicts are significant.  When a lawyer has a conflict of interest that is waivable, she must give the client the option to waive the conflict with informed consent.  But if the conflict is not waivable or the client refuses to waive, the lawyer must decline the representation.  

Is there a corollary for law clerks?  There definitely are rules and there definitely are processes.  But are the litigants ever asked if they consent to a conflicted clerk working on their case?

I’ve never heard of it.  Maybe there should be such a process.