@reuters: Google to invest $550 million in Chinese e-commerce giant JD.com [Owner of TenCent/Spotify]

[Editor Charlie sez: Isn’t this what Google is being fined billions for in Europe?  Why does Google need to invest $550 million in the parent company of Ten Cent, the Spotify investor that bailed Spotify out of its idiotic convertible debt?]

SINGAPORE (Reuters) – Google will invest $550 million in Chinese e-commerce powerhouse JD.com, part of the U.S. internet giant’s efforts to expand its presence in fast-growing Asian markets and battle rivals including Amazon.com.

The two companies described the investment as one piece of a broader partnership that will include the promotion of JD.com products on Google’s shopping service. This could help JD.com expand beyond its base in China and Southeast Asia and establish a meaningful presence in U.S. and European markets.

Read the post on Reuters

 

@robertblevine_: Legacy Artists File Brief in Lawsuit Against Pandora Over Pre-’72 Recordings

[Editor Charlie sez: Failing to pay pre-72 artists the digital royalties they are entitled to is another example of how Big Tech forces wasteful lawsuits–and cons the industry into false choices on “omnibus” legislation!]

A veritable supergroup’s worth of sixties musicians on Friday (Jan. 12) filed an amicus brief in a California lawsuit against Pandora for its use of sound recordings made before 1972, and thus not covered by federal law. Although the issue in the case — originally brought by Flo & Eddie, Inc., which owns the Turtlesrecordings, and currently before the California Supreme Court — is fairly obscure, the artists are anything but. The amici artists include Carole King, Melissa Etheridge and Doors drummer John Densmore; the estates of Hank Williams and Judy Garland; and companies like the Beatles’ Apple Corps., Grateful Dead Productions and Experience Hendrix.

At stake is whether, and how, non-interactive streaming services like Pandora need to compensate performers and labels for their use of older recordings that are still covered by state law. The music industry has also been lobbying for a legislative answer to the question, and the recently introduced CLASSICS Act (Compensating Legacy Artists for their Songs, Service, & Important Contributions to Society Act) would require digital services to pay for the use of recordings made before 1972. On Jan. 26, the Friday before the Grammy Awards, the House Judiciary Committee will hold a “field hearing” in New York on this and other copyright issues, according to multiple sources.

Read the post on Billboard

@musictechpolicy: Shocker: Is Spotify Lawyer Leading “Scholarly” Project to Create Fake Treatise?

The anti-copyright crowd have a few different ways to turn astroturf into deceptively scholarly work product.  One way is to take over otherwise credible brands to insert their own truthiness.

In a highly predictable move, the American Law Institute, a reliable old brand in the law, appears to have had some sudden interest in writing up a “Restatement of Copyright” treatise.  The ALI’s restatements of the law have been around a very long time, but they mostly deal with bodies of law that rely heavily on judge-made law such as agency, property or contracts.

The advantage of having a Restatement that says what you want it to say is that those toiling against artists and songwriters can cite it as an authoritative source in legal briefs, scholarly writings, amicus briefs, etc.  Handy, eh?

The ALI Restatement of Copyright seems to have been the brainchild of one Pamela Samuelson, she of the Samuelson-Glushko technology and policy legal academic centers–Silicon Valley’s answer to the Confucious Institutes.  The project is nominally under the watchful eye of Professor Christopher Sprigman, from whose intellectual loins sprang Spotify’s defense of “sorry just kidding” in the Bluewater lawsuit for Spotify’s alleged nonpayment of mechanical royalties.  Sprigman is trying to convince the court that mechanical royalties don’t exist, don’t you know.

The Restatement of Copyright has been on the horizon for quite some time as it takes a lot of effort to produce one of these treatises.  So naturally, one must ask–why the sudden interest at the American Law Institute in such a costly project that we’ve struggled along without for a hundred years or so?  You don’t suppose someone is…paying for the costs of this work?  And who might be interested in picking up the tab for the project?

Perhaps the same company that paid for five–count ’em–five–research projects by Professor Sprigman.  That we know of.

According to the useful “Google Academics, Inc.” database created by the Google Transparency Project, Google funded these articles co-written by Sprigman (two of which criticize moral rights):

Valuing Publication And Attribution In Intellectual Property: Sprigman, Christopher, Christopher Buccafusco, and Zachary Burns. “Valuing Publication and Attribution in Intellectual Property.” (2012)

What’s A Name Worth?: Experimental Tests Of The Value Of Attribution In Intellectual Property:  Sprigman, Christopher Jon, Christopher Buccafusco, and Zachary C. Burns. “What’s a name worth?: Experimental tests of the value of attribution in Intellectual Property.” (2013)

What’s In, And What’S Out: How IP’s Boundary Rules Shape Innovation:  McKenna, Mark P., and Christopher Jon Sprigman. “What’s In, and What’s Out: How IP’s Boundary Rules Shape Innovation.” (2016)

Experimental Tests Of Intellectual Property Laws’ Creativity Thresholds, Buccafusco, Christopher, Zachary C. Burns, Jeanne C. Fromer, and Christopher Jon Sprigman. “Experimental tests of Intellectual Property laws‰Ûª creativity thresholds.” (2014)

Innovation Heuristics: Experiments On Sequential Creativity In Intellectual Property:  Bechtold, Stefan, Christopher Buccafusco, and Christopher Jon Sprigman. “Innovation heuristics: experiments on sequential creativity in Intellectual Property.” Ind. LJ 91 (2015): 1251

And speaking of astroturf, what’s also interesting is that Sprigman appears to have filed comments in Copyright Office moral rights study that incorporated concepts in Google-funded papers and cited to one of them without disclosing Google’s funding as far as I can tell. (https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=COLC-2017-0003-0019).

So a perfect lawyer to advance the interests of Spotify, the savior of the music business and to gift the legal community with the Restatement of Copyright, a crystalization of his genius.

Lucky us.

Meet the New Boss, Worse Than the Old Boss: YouTube says “All Your Video Are Belong to Us”

Exposure Bucks

Hypebot reports that:

YouTube has yet again raised the threshold that a creators and musicians must meet to make any money on the videos they post. YouTube says that the changes are designed to “prevent bad actors from harming the inspiring and original creators around the world who make their living on YouTube.” [Yes, just looking out for your best interests.] But the result is that it will take musicians and creators a lot longer to make a dime on the video service.

Starting today, YouTube is changing its eligibility requirement for monetization to 4,000 hours of watch time within the past 12 months and 1,000 subscribers per channel.

As YouTube’s public policy flack told the U.S. Senate today:

At YouTube, we believe the world is a better place when we listen, share, and build community through our stories. Our mission is to give everyone a voice and show them the world. With this comes many benefits to society — unparalleled access to art and culture, news and entertainment, and educational materials.

Yes, that’s right.  That’s what she said.  She left out the data scraping part.

So if you’re a new artist, enjoy those exposure bucks.  Might cover the cost of DMCA notices.

 

@songpreneurs: Why Is Tom Petty Suing Spotify and How Does This Relate to the Music Modernization Act?

[Editor Charlie sez:  Another songwriter group against the controversial Music Modernization Act! See the Songwriter’s Guild opposition letter here  and read the legislation here.]

The end of 2017 and beginning of 2018 has seen a flurry of activity as headlines reveal another $1.6 Billion Dollar Lawsuit against the tech streaming online distribution company, this time by Wixen Music Publishing, who represent compositions by Neil Young, Tom Petty, Rage Against the Machine and others.

This latest lawsuit joins nearly half a dozen other class action / lawsuits against Spotify by independent music creators and rights administrators filed in the past two years.

“The Trichordist” blog collaborator, Cracker and Camper Van Beethoven front man, David Lowery of Athens, Georgia and songwriter Melissa Ferrick successfully sued Spotify and settled with a $43.4 Million Fund for unpaid songwriter and publisher royalties last year.

Around the same time the NMPA (National Music Publishers Association) also stepped in and made their own $30 Million settlement with Spotify as reported by Robert Levine in Billboard in May of 2017.

Nashville / Texas based Bluewater Music Services Corp filed a lawsuit against Spotify in 2017, led by champion of the underdog attorney Richard S. Busch, the same lawyer who represented the victorious Marvin Gaye estate in their “Blurred Lines” infringement case, and helped Eminem successfully stand up to EMI when his rights were being squashed in the name of commerce.

The Bluewater suit and yet another Spotify lawsuit by an independent music publisher, Rob Gaudino are both detailed in this Variety article “Spotify Faces Two New Lawsuits From Music Publishers” by Janko Roettgers in July 2017.

 These lawsuits highlight Spotify’s ongoing battle to do business with its suppliers, the songwriters and music publishers who are forced through federal regulation to make their material available to Spotify and other streaming companies against their will through a practice known as Compulsory Licensing, whereby the rights owners are not permitted to deny usage of their intellectual property.

What kind of negotiation can actually happen if one party cannot walk away?  Not much, we are proving.

Read the post on Songpreneurs

@neilturkewitz: Disruption, Fear and Slippery Slopes: Baby Steps in Building a Better Internet

The biggest story of 2017? To my mind, there is no contest — the broad emergence of an awareness that the irresponsibility masquerading as Internet freedom represented a threat to global societies and to cherished aspects of our humanity, and that a course correction was badly needed.

While recognition of the fact that rewarding lack of accountability would likely incentivize anti-social and illegal conduct took longer than it should have, such an awareness came to fruition throughout 2017. Whether motivated by concerns about sex trafficking or the prevalence of other internet-enabled crimes, fake news, foreign government interference in elections, monopoly or monopsony power, or the perceived political or cultural biases of platforms, the question at the end of 2017 wasn’t whether the current legal framework for platform responsibility should be amended, but how.

It became clear that the twin pillars upholding the current lack of accountability in the internet ecosystem — Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and Section 512 of the DMCA, each of which was adopted at the dawn of the commercial internet, would need to be reexamined and a new framework established.

Read the post on Medium

@brentknepper: No One Makes a Living on Patreon

Last January, I was broke. I lived in a car, and that month I had to choose between paying my cell phone bill or buying food. Two years before that I was a freelance photographer in Chicago, but walked away from that life to travel around the country. My travels had given me a collection of stories and photos I was proud of, and more than 9,000 people were following me on Instagram. I loved what I was doing, but I didn’t make a dime doing it. I’d hit bottom at the worst time, mid-winter, far away from my comfortable network of jobs and connections back in the city. I decided to take a shot at Patreon, a crowdfunding site that encourages artists to “regain creative freedom” by raising money directly from fans. I knew friends had made Patreon accounts over the years, selling their art and music, funding their writing and podcasts, and figured if I could make $400 to $500 a month, I could continue doing photography full time.

Patreon is basically a payments processor designed like [or maybe disguised as] a social network….“Finally, ‘starving’ and ‘artist’ no longer need to be joined at the hip,” according to Patreon, in one of its many positive blog posts about its successful creators. But Patreon seems to know that most of its creators are actually making a pittance.In 2016, Patreon boasted that 7,960 users were now making over $100 a month, which struck me as such an insignificant monthly income to brag about. Around the same time, the company reportedly had 25,000 creators, meaning only 31 percent of Patreon’s users were making over a hundred bucks….

Even if creators are struggling to make money, investors see Patreon as a goldmine. In September, Patreon announced a $60 million dollar investment from venture capital firms, bringing its total funding to $107 million, according to Crunchbase, which tracks startup investment. Investors are excited about Patreon’s business model, which takes 5 percent from the money raised by creators, because subscriptions represent steady revenue, Wired reported.

Read the post on The Outline

Follow Bren Knepper on Instagram