Here we go with the current year update. This data set is isolated to the calendar year 2019 and represents a mid-sized indie label with an approximately 350+ album catalog now generating over 1.5b streams annually. Streaming is now a fully mature format, and it is also the number one source of revenue for recorded […]
[Editor Charlie sez: Welcome back to the Super Bowl of Whack A Mole. This is a huge issue and shows again how little the services pay attention to infringing content because of the fake “DMCA license”.]
Spotify and other major platforms like Apple don’t publicly disclose their processes for ranking podcasts, but industry experts believe the calculation involves a combination of factors like play count, number of subscribers, and listener ratings. The regular appearance of apparently pirated material on the music podcasts ranking raises the possibility that a song like “In My Feelings (Spanish Version)” is a minor hit that isn’t being formally accounted for.
[Editor Charlie sez: The Oracle v. Google case is going to be the most important copyright case in a very, very long time. Oracle won the case on appeal twice and Google got the Supreme Court to review. The case is about two issues being copyright in software and whether Google’s taking of Oracle’s code is fair use and permissionless innovation. Because of the fair use argument, this is not just some battle of tech companies because no one knows better than us that Google will take any win on fair use and push it even farther.
So all artists, songwriters, photographers, film makers, authors–all of us–are in the same boat with Oracle on this point. Sure Oracle is a big company, but Google is an even bigger company with a trillion dollar market cap and Google is trying to roll over Oracle the same way they roll over us.
In a must read “friend of the court” brief, Helienne Lindvall, David Lowery, Blake Morgan and the Songwriters Guild of America make this case as independent artists, songwriters and labels all harmed by Google’s policies that are out of touch with the market starting with YouTube.
As Beggars Group Chairman Martin Mills put it, “[P]olicing the YouTubes of this world for infringing content is a herculean task, one beyond all but the largest of companies. For my community, the independents, it’s a game of whack-a-mole they can only lose.”
Helienne, David, Blake and the SGA put that case squarely before the U.S. Supreme Court in this must-read friend of the court brief.]
Independent creators rely on copyright protection to safeguard their works. This is true not just of songwriters and composers, but of countless creators, including recording artists, photographers, filmmakers, visual artists, and software developers. Copyright is, in fact, of existential importance to such creators, who would be utterly lacking in market power and the ability to earn their livings without it.
Google’s business model is a prime example of the need for strong copyright protection. Since Google’s founding, Amici have experienced, observed and believe that Google has used its unprecedented online footprint to dictate the terms of the market for creative works. By tying together a set of limited exceptions and exclusions within the U.S. Copyright Act and analogous laws in other countries, and then advocating for the radical expansion of those exceptions, Google has amplified its own market power to the great detriment of copyright owners. Thus, where fair use is meant to be a limited defense to infringement founded on the cultural and economic good for both creators and the public, Google has throttled it into a business model.
[Editor Charlie sez: Read this interview and it will but some beauty in your day.”
It still comes as a shock to some people that The United States is the only democratic country in the world where artists don’t get paid for AM/FM radio airplay. Stations are allowed to broadcast my music, without my permission, and without paying me. I’m not sure what your definition of “stealing” is, but that’s mine.
My best advice is to remember that copyright is a human right, supported by reason, history, and the United States’ Constitution. That like all human rights, it’s worth fighting for––even in the face of seemingly hopeless odds. The corporate and unethical forces applying downward pressure on artists’ ability to make a living may seem invincible at times, and the downward trajectory may feel inevitable. But it isn’t. Their side is only fighting on behalf of greed. We’re fighting on behalf of justice, and truth, and for an elemental part of what makes each of us human.
Read the post on Unite4Copyright Creator Spotlight with Blake Morgan
[Welcome Senator Tillis to shining sunlight on the astroturf “Restatement of Copyright”, which in our view is a epitoma suprema of Silicon Valley shillery. The letter that Senator Tillis refers to is the December 3 letter his colleagues and he sent to the American Law Institute asking some questions about the proposed Restatement (which isn’t all that proposed anymore as the drafting is moving along briskly). I gather from Senator Tillis’s op ed that he hasn’t gotten a reply yet. Which must mean that the mumbletank in the Silicon Valley policy laundry hasn’t quite figured out how to reply. But here’s the question that no one seems to have asked yet: Who is paying for the Restatement of Copyright? I don’t mean which non-profit accountability blocker wrote the check, I mean who is the ultimate donor who is the source of donor directed funds?]
With millions of jobs and over a trillion dollars at stake, as lawmakers, we must ensure copyright laws continue to protect the livelihoods of our nation’s creators.
It is for this reason that we have sent a letter questioning the effort by a well-established legal organization to “restate” and reinterpret our copyright laws for the nation’s judicial system. Last time we checked, Article I of the Constitution specifically grants Congress the authority to make laws to allow for individuals in the creative industries to be fairly compensated – not law professors.
You might also be interested in these MTP posts from 2018:
And from 2013 about the Copyright Principles Project, the precursor of the Restatement of Copyright:
[Must read takedown of the “long tail” (aka utter shite) by the erudite Terry Matthews]
Unless you spent a lot of time listening to early ’00s techno-utopian babble, the Theory of the Long Tail probably means nothing to you. Yet if you live in the US or Europe and you run a digital music label, you’re living it – or the fallout from it – almost every day.
In 2004, Wired magazine editor Chris Anderson proposed The Long Tail, an economic theory blown up by futurist steroids. It theorized that with the introduction of the internet, blockbusters would matter less and everyone would sell “less of more.” The Long Tail prophesied “How Endless Choice Is Creating Unlimited Demand,” according to the subtitle of Anderson’s later book, which if true would turn the field of economics on its head.
For a practical example of what this all means, compare a brick-and-mortar record store like the old Tower Records vs. an online retailer like Traxsource. Your local Tower Records had to limit its inventory to take into account a finite shelf space. Their stock might have consisted of a couple hundred records. And each record didn’t get equal shelf space: your hippie boomer parents were going to buy more copies of Beatles records than all your Belgian techno records, so the store would stock and give more attention to the former. This “artificial” scarcity of physical products taking up physical space and depriving it from other products had bent consumer behavior out of shape for basically all of history.
Criticising Big Tech can feel redundant at a time when many chief executives in Silicon Valley are doing such a good job of making the public sceptical about their business models and their executive competence all by themselves. Even so, Mark Zuckerberg’s speech at Georgetown University and his testimony on Capitol Hill last week are worthy of note. Facebook insists it does not want to be responsible for false political advertising. So I’d like to help Mr Zuckerberg out by fact checking a few of the points of disinformation in his own communications.