Archive

Archive for December, 2017

News from the Goolag: NYT Fails to Connect the Dots

December 16, 2017 Leave a comment

News from the oblivious…New York Times reporter Charles McDermid offers us a demonstration of myopia.  In his December 13 “Briefing” column (subtitled “Here’s what you need to know”), Mr. McDermid inadvertently tells us exactly what we need to know, albeit probably not for the reasons he thought.

First, we get a critique of the use of the term “fake news” which he claims is “now in heavy rotation with autocrats and dictators from Venzuela to Cambodia.  In China, Russia, Turkey, Thail and and many other countries, leaders are using it to silence critics and thwart media scrutiny.”  But then Mr. McDermid breathlessly tells us that “Google is opening an artificial intelligence lab in Beijing–a small but symbolic attempt to tiptoe back into the world’s biggest online arena.  Other big technology names have also set up A.I. shops in China to capitalize on growling skills and lavish state support.”

Really.  Any possible connection between these two news items you can think of?

But he goes on:  “Stunned by Beijing’s sudden, rapid campaign to teaer down apartment buildings and evict migrants from poorer sections after a devastating fire, an artist began shooting and posting dozens of videos documenting the forced removal of thousands of people.  Now Hua Yong is on the run from the police, moving from city to city, but still posting.”

Well, then.  How’s that AI lab going to work out for Hua Yong?

Stump the Band: Robots Gone Wild Movie Quotes

December 16, 2017 Leave a comment

It’s that time of year again–time  for readers to stump the band with obscure movie quotes.  This time of year when reorders are filled, shows are booked, playlists are frozen and Congress is slouching toward Bethlehem, it passes the time.

Here’s a few we’ve received, if you have some quotes leave them in comments or tweet at @musictechpolicy.  Next week:  Spy movie quotes.

I think these are correct, but defer to Alexa.

Quote:  The minds that planned the Tower of Babel cared nothing for the workers who built it.

Movie:  Metropolis, (Directed by Fritz Lang)

Quote: The mission is too important for me to allow you to jeapordize it.

Movie:  2001: A Space Odyssey (Directed by Stanley Kubrick)

Quote:  Corporate society takes care of everything.   And all it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone ever,  is not to interfere  with management decisions.

Movie:  Rollerball (Directed by Norman Jewison)

Quote:  And all the manufacturers knew I was doing it, too. But they couldn’t accuse me without admitting they were doing it themselves.

Movie:  Ex Machina (Directed by Alex Garland)

Quote:  Dick, you’re fired.

Movie:  Robocop (Directed by Paul Verhoeven)

 

SoundExchange Scores 41% increase in SiriusXM artist royalties — The Trichordist

December 16, 2017 Leave a comment

Billboard reports today the government’s decision on the performance royalties SiriusXM pays to artists (effective January 1, 2018):

The Copyright Royalty Board [“CRB”] has determined that Satellite Audio Radio Services, i.e. SiriusXM will pay 15.5 percent of revenue for the next five years beginning in 2018 to 2022, although the full determination has yet to be posted on the CRB’s website while the participants scrutinize the document to make sure proprietary data is not publicly revealed.

That represents a nearly 41 percent jump from the 11 percent the service was paying in the current year, although it’s short of the 23 percent that SoundExchange was advocating to the CRB judges, who are appointed by the U.S. Librarian of Congress. But its better than the static rate that Sirius was hoping from the judges.

SoundExchange press release says:

The CRB increased the rates for Sirius XM by more than 40%, from 11% of revenue to 15.5% of revenue, effective January 1, 2018. Sirius XM is the only satellite radio service in the United States and reported revenues of $5 billion in 2016. By contrast, the CRB reduced the rates for Music Choice’s and Muzak’s services from 8.5% to 7.5% of revenue. SoundExchange advocated on behalf of its artists and rights owners in this rate litigation, which spanned 24 months.

“We thank the CRB for its work and appreciate their consideration of the case we laid out,” SoundExchange President and CEO Michael Huppe said. “SoundExchange is dedicated to our mission of ensuring that creators are properly recognized and compensated for the use of their work. And while the Copyright Royalty Board did not adopt the rates we proposed for Sirius XM, its ruling demonstrates an important step in the right direction toward valuing the contributions of the music creators represented by SoundExchange.”

Yesterday’s decision confirms the need to change the so-called Section 801(b) rate standards under which satellite radio and the “grandfathered” cable radio services operate, and which permit the CRB to adopt rates different than what the market would provide. As a result of that rate standard, Sirius XM has paid below-market rates for years, and the recording artists and rights owners SoundExchange represents have subsidized the company’s growth.

Major score for artists, musicians, vocalists, as well as major and indie labels.  More to come when the Copyright Royalty Board releases its written opinion.

Read the post on The Trichordist

A Guide to the Department of Justice Ruling on “100% Licensing”

December 11, 2017 Leave a comment

[Editor Charlie sez:  This is a repost of the original from September 2016 in light of the recent appeal by the Department of Justice.]

By Steve Winogradsky and Chris Castle, all rights reserved.

The recent ruling by the U.S. Department of Justice in United States v. Broadcast Music, Inc. and United States v. American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers has left many songwriters, publishers, motion picture and television producers and, yes, even lawyers scratching their heads to understand the import of the ruling.  Not to mention Texas Governor Greg Abbott who has written to Attorney General Loretta Lynch asking her to reconsider the DOJ ruling.

The authors have summarized the ruling in the chart that follows.  The thing speaks for itself.

As you will see, the left hand column lists the various roles of a music creator (starting with “Songwriter”) or music user.  The rows describe some of the potential combinations of co-writers who will run afoul of the DOJ’s ruling.  The chart is followed by a list of descriptions of what rule will apply to your situation.

If you find yourself in the left hand column, scan across the rows to see if you fit in any of the co-writer positions.  Then look for which note applies to you in the list of notes below the chart.

For example, if you are an ASCAP songwriter who has co-written with a BMI songwriter (1st box in column and 6th row across), Note E applies to you.

This chart is based on the authors’ interpretations of the DOJ’s statement and is not dispositive or based on a court ruling as there has been none as of this writing.  Obviously, this is not meant as legal advice and you should not rely on it.  This is a complex area that has gotten even more complex, and you should consult with your own lawyers.

For further background, listen to the MTP podcast with Steve Winogradsky, David Lowery and Chris Castle and read Steve’s book Music Publishing–the Complete Guide.  And essential reading on the issue is that evergreen resource for legal research on takings and other government behavior in the digital age, The Trial, by Franz Kafka.

By popular demand, download a copy of this post with the chart here.

 

100% ASCAP or 100% BMI (single writer or all co-writers belong to the same PRO) 100% SESAC and/or GMR

(single writer or all co-writers belong to one of these PROs)

100% Foreign PRO/ASCAP Collects in US 100% Foreign PRO/BMI Collects in US Co-write

ASCAP & BMI

Co-write ASCAP or BMI with Other U.S. PRO Co-write foreign writers, where 1 is represented in the U.S. by either ASCAP or BMI and the 2nd is represented by a different PRO
Songwriter Note A, below Note B, below Note A, below Note A, below Note E, below Note E, below Note E, below
Publisher Note A, below Note B, below Note A, below Note A, below Note F, below Note F, below Note F, below
TV Producer Note C, below Note B, below. Note C, below Note C, below Note G, below Note G, below Note G, below
Film Producer Note C, below Note D, below Note C, below Note C, below Note G, below Note G, below Note G, below
Webcaster Note A, below Note B, below Note A, below Note A, below Note G, below Note G, below Note G, below
TV Broadcaster Note A, below Note B, below Note A, below Note A, below Note H, below Note H, below Note H, below
Radio broadcaster (terrestrial or satellite) Note A, below Note B, below Note A, below Note A, below Note I, below Note I, below Note I, below
Interactive Streaming (Subpart B&C) Note A, below Note B, below Note A, below Note A, below Note J, below Note J, below Note J, below

Notes

A. All songs may be licensed under either ASCAP or BMI’s blanket licenses

B. All songs may be licensed under both SESAC and GMR’s blanket licenses

C. Obtain synchronization licenses from each party for their respective shares, as is current custom and practice. All songs may be licensed under either ASCAP or BMI’s blanket licenses

D. Obtain synchronization licenses from each party for their respective shares, as is current custom and practice. All songs may be licensed under both SESAC and GMR’s blanket licenses

E. Songs may not be licensed under a blanket license from ASCAP or BMI unless the co-writers agree to have only one PRO administer a particular song, which may require restructuring their co-writer agreement and PROs setting up a structure for paying non-member writers. Depending on their songwriter/publisher agreements, writers could issue direct licenses to users upon request and collect performance royalties directly

F. Songs may not be licensed under a blanket license unless the co-publishers agree to have only one PRO administer a particular song, which may require restructuring their co-publishing agreement and PROs setting up a structure for paying non-member writers & publishers. Publishers could issue direct licenses to users upon request (which might include the writer’s share) and collect performance royalties directly

G. Obtain synchronization licenses from each party, as is current custom and practice. Songs may not be licensed under a blanket license unless the co-publishers agree to have only one PRO administer a particular song, which may require restructuring their co-publishing agreement. TV, film or webcaster producer could request directly performance licenses and pay parties directly. If no direct licenses are available and songs are not covered under the blanket license, producer may not include songs in their productions.

H. Songs may not be licensed under a blanket license unless the co-publishers agree to have only one PRO administer a particular song, which may require restructuring their co-publishing agreement. Broadcaster can either require TV & film producers to obtain direct licenses or broadcaster can obtain them directly from publishers (which would include the writer’s share of royalties. If no direct licenses are available and songs are not covered under the blanket license, producer may not include songs in their productions.

I. Songs may not be licensed under a blanket license unless the co-publishers agree to have only one PRO administer a particular song, which may require restructuring their co-publishing agreement. Broadcaster can obtain direct licenses from publishers (which would include the writer’s share of royalties). If no direct licenses are available and songs are not covered under the blanket license, broadcaster may not include these songs in their broadcasts.

J. Songs may not be licensed under a blanket license unless the co-publishers agree to have only one PRO administer a particular song, which may require restructuring their co-publishing agreement. Streaming service can obtain direct licenses from publishers (which would include the writer’s share of royalties). If no direct licenses are available and songs are not covered under the blanket license, broadcaster may not include these songs in their streaming service.

 

 

@krsfow: @theblakemorgan on The Future of What Podcast Talks #IRespectMusic

December 8, 2017 Leave a comment

A real treat, Portia Sabin talks with Blake Morgan about the #irespectmusic campaign and more, two of my favorite people on the best music business podcast!

 

Must Read Post by @rhettmiller: The Loneliness of the Long Distance Rocker

December 7, 2017 Leave a comment

Rhett Miller’s important “meet the new boss, worse than the old boss” critique.

In the days of the old business model, there were successful predators at the top of the food chain, but the kids who made the music were hiding down in the bushes with our friends. The local model of music delivery, unlike the giant streaming info-combines that lord over today’s music world, had a strikingly flat hierarchy of striving characters: the club owners, record store clerks, college radio DJs, and rock critics who owed a thousand words to the local weekly. At closing time on any given night in the ’90s you could find any or all of these satellite scenesters mixed in among the proper musicians at the Art Bar in Dallas, behind Club Clearview. We all knew that there was a cutthroat cabal of music industry execs waiting on the top floor of a tower in Rockefeller Center to offer us a lopsided contract, but we also knew that we were the good guys, the proletariat to their bourgeoisie, the Rebel Alliance to their Empire. We had each other’s back. The worst thing we could be expected to do was steal a girlfriend from one of the Buck Pets or envy the Toadies their unexpected national radio play. Those were, as they say, the days.

The Talent Scouts are Bots

It’s all different now. My own observation of the current music industry is colored by my history with the extinct model. I can’t begin to imagine what it must be like to come up in this world of SoundCloud rappers and Swedish hit factories churning out auto-tuned EDM or whatever. Believe me, I’m keenly aware that even these two meager examples must make me sound impossibly old. My point is that if I was a fourteen-year-old depressive nowadays, I’m not sure what would even draw me into the world of music to begin with. The ability to record oneself in a bedroom represents an impressive flash-forward advance in technology, but it also is profoundly isolating. For starters, it negates the very human necessity of convincing small-time investors to fund a session, or the simultaneously joyful and agonizing experience of collaborating with the requisite technicians to make such a recording happen. In short, it eliminates people from the equation. And more to the point, it eliminates all the good people from the equation.

You’ve still got the execs in the tower in Rockefeller Center—only now all the lower floors that used to house the junior execs and the young A&R kids are crammed with barbed wire and land mines. The Artists & Repertoire department has been replaced by a bot that alerts the label chief when an artist reaches a predetermined number of Twitter followers or Facebook likes. This sort of micro-market calculation was once anathema to creativity—it’s the origin of the old punk-rock contempt for “the suits” who moved product on the AM airwaves. Today, however, an obsessive attention to online clicks and listens is all that an independent artist can rely on to outfox the system. Writing a song might now be less important to your success than paying for a hundred thousand imaginary account holders to follow you on social media.

Read the post on The Baffler

Tags:

Must Read from @schneidermaria: Thoughts on “Net Neutrality” From Down Here in the Coal Mine – Guest Post Maria Schneider

December 6, 2017 Leave a comment

Maria Schneider is a 5-time GRAMMY-winning composer/bandleader in jazz, classical and for her work with David Bowie. An outspoken advocate for the rights of musicians, she has testified before Congress, and teaches and performs throughout the world. 

When Google really really wants something, it’s a marvel to watch how it hides its own greedy motives, while using surrogate groups, political polarization, and their own power over information networks to whip up a national outcry – all as Google feigns concern for the “public good.” Google has now orchestrated just such a public outcry over the vague phrase “net neutrality.” It’s a phrase that has most of us, including John Oliver (see John Oliver’s piece), biting hook, line, and sinker. I smell something rotten.  As musicians, we’re the canaries in the proverbial coal mine. We’ve long been taken on this ride by the world’s biggest data lord, and we’ve developed a keen nose. We’ve been coughing up blood down in this damn mine for too long to not take notice when new wafts of rotten stench make their way down here – especially when we look up the dark shaft and see rainbows spelling the word “Google” beneath radiant blue skies.

So I figured it was time to dig into this phrase “net neutrality” and see what it’s all about. And sure enough, as I’ll explain below, this appears as just another typical Google scam where they systematically create mass hysteria that the little guy is going to somehow be hosed. I’m afraid to say, the public is being duped.

Read the post on The Trichordist:  Thoughts on “Net Neutrality” From Down Here in the Coal Mine – Guest Post Maria Schneider — The Trichordist

%d bloggers like this: