Archive for the ‘Spotify Meltdown’ Category

You Can’t Find What You Don’t Look For: @theDavidCrosby Gets Screwed Twice by Big Tech

From Spotify’s F-1:  “Spotify was founded on the belief that music is universal and that streaming is a more robust and seamless access model that benefits both artists and music fans.”

Now bend over for that truly seemless access.

David Crosby is one of the most influential musicians, songwriters, vocalists and performers of his generation.  From The Byrds to Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, to his duo with Graham Nash and his solo work, David Crosby is truly one of the most gifted artists you will ever encounter.  If you don’t know his work, he’s not hard to find–start with the move Woodstock and go from there.  And, of course, his music is readily available on any streaming service or the decade-themed channels on SiriusXM.

But David Crosby has a problem–he recorded much of his seminal work in the wrong year for the digerati and for the warm hearted folk like Jim Meyer at SiriusXM, Tim Westergren while at Pandora, the Digital Media Association and the MIC Coalition who oppose treating pre-72 recordings like all others for digtial sound recording performance royalties.

So David gets screwed on the sound recordings.  Not being content with one sleazeball move, Spotify, Google, Amazon and iHeart also screw him on his songs by filing “address unknown” notices with the Copyright Office.  (And, it must be said, the Copyright Office gets their licks in, too, by allowing this to happen.)

Here’s a run on David Crosby’s recordings for which these monopolists have filed at least 156 “address unknown” NOIs:

David Crosby

In a recent interview with Rolling Stone, David Crosby said:

Spotify’s plan to go public, filed last week, could generate $23 billion and make the world’s biggest record labels hundreds of millions of dollars richer — but the Swedish streaming giant has yet to soothe grumbling and litigious artists and songwriters who say its royalty payments are unfairly low. “They rigged it so they don’t pay the artist,” David Crosby tells Rolling Stone. “I’ve lost half of my income because of these clever fellas. I used to make money off my records, but now I don’t make any.”

This gives doubling down a whole new meaning.

But Daniel Ek is about to make serious bank while he has many outstanding bills to songwriters and artists, including David Crosby.  And the one thing we know for sure when Spotify files an NOI is that they can’t say “but we paid the labels” or “we paid the publishers”.  They are not paying at all because they use a loophole to get out of any royalty obligation–while getting all the liability insulation of the compulsory license.

Thanks, Copyright Office.

Here’s another thing that’s about to happen to Daniel Ek.  Remember old “million a month” Tim Westergren who sold Pandora stock every month netting him over $1 million a month?  Want to bet that Daniel Ek does the same and that he’s going to make way more than $1 million a month?

We will be happy to bring you that news that you won’t read in the mainstream media as soon as Ek’s filings start to go through the SEC.  Then he can explain to David Crosby how it feels to be a billionaire off the backs of the songwriters and artists he stiffs.

You Can’t Find What You Don’t Look For: Spotify Still Can’t Find the #5 Record in the US — Artist Rights Watch

Blocboy Look Alive SX

The more things change…great news for BlocBoy JB, he made the Top 5 on Billboard’s Hot 100. The bad news…Spotify, Google and Amazon filed “address unknown” NOIs for his song which means these saviors of the music business just helped themselves to a royalty-free license for who knows how long. Yes, it’s right […]

via You Can’t Find What You Don’t Look For: Spotify Still Can’t Find the #5 Record in the US — Artist Rights Watch 

@andreworlowski: Spotify wants to go public but can’t find Ed Sheeran (to pay him) — Artist Rights Watch

The Slippery Slope of Censorship: @HuffPost Pulls Story Critical of @Spotify Ahead of IPO — The Trichordist

January 9, 2018 Comments off

Artists Rights advocate Blake Morgan (#IRespectMusic) published a story in the Huffington Post this morning critical of Spotify. The story was rapidly gaining traction when it was suddenly deleted and Morgan received this email from the Huffington Post telling him he’d been censored From: Bryan Maygers Subject: Spotify’s Fatal Flaw Exposed Date: January 8, 2018 at 11:43:41 AM EST […]

Here’s Blake’s piece in its entirety.

Spotify’s Fatal Flaw Exposed: How My Closed-Door Meeting with Execs Ended in a Shouting Match

I love streaming.

I love making playlists, I love being able to download streamed music so I can listen when I’m offline, and I love being able to bring that music with me. In short, I think it’s a great distribution method.

What I don’t love is how little musicians get paid for all that streaming. It’s not fair––not even close. What’s more, middle-class music makers are the ones who are hit hardest, whose businesses are threatened, and whose families are put at risk. So how can I be against the way streaming companies treat musicians but not be
against streaming itself?

The same way I’m against the electric chair, but not against electricity.

Read the complete post on The Trichordist:  The Slippery Slope of Censorship: @HuffPost Pulls Story Critical of @Spotify Ahead of IPO — The Trichordist

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

January 8, 2018 Comments off

[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


@eriqgardner: Spotify Hit With $1.6 Billion Copyright Lawsuit Over Tom Petty, Weezer, Neil Young Songs [Music Modernization Act Fallout]

January 2, 2018 Comments off

In a curious twist, Eriq Gardner reports that the controversial Music Modernization Act has already prompted the inevitible litigation from a publisher seeking to beat the bill’s new safe harbor deadline applicable to lawsuits filed after January 1, 2018.  Wixen Pubilshing filed the new lawsuit on December 29, 2017, two years to the day after David Lowery filed the first class action against Spotify, but before the  Music Modernization Act legislation is even available on



The new safe harbor on p. 82 of the Music Modernization Act


As the new year begins, the music industry could be set for an epochal moment. Hopes are running high for the first significant reform of music licensing rules in decades. The coming year may also see Spotify go public. But before any of this happens, the Stockholm, Sweden-based streaming giant must now contend with a massive new copyright lawsuit from Wixen Music Publishing, which administers song compositions by Tom Petty, Zach De La Rocha and Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine, The Black Keys’ Dan Auerbach, Steely Dan’s Donald Fagen, Weezer’s Rivers Cuomo, David Cassidy, Neil Young, Sonic Youth’s Kim Gordon, Stevie Nicks and many others.

On Friday, Wixen Music Publishing filed a lawsuit in California federal court that alleges that Spotify is using Petty’s “Free Fallin’,” the Doors’ “Light My Fire” and tens of thousands of other songs without a license and compensation. The plaintiff is seeking a damages award worth at least $1.6 billion plus injunctive relief.

Wixen’s lawsuit is being revealed here for the first time, but the move will come as hardly a surprise to those who have been paying attention to Spotify’s growing copyright problem….

[T]he Music Modernization Act would impact copyright holders suing over mechanical reproduction after Jan. 1, 2018, which helps explain the New Year’s Eve filing.

“We are very disappointed that these services will retroactively get a free pass for actions that were previously illegal unless we actually file suit before Jan. 1, 2018,” said Wixen president Randall Wixen in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter. “Neither we nor our clients are interested in becoming litigants, but we have been faced with a choice of forfeiting rights and damages, or taking action at this time. We regret that this otherwise admirable proposed bill has had this effect, and we hope that Spotify nonetheless comes to the table with a fair and reasonable approach to reaching a resolution with us. We are fully prepared to go as far forward in the courts as required to protect our clients’ rights.”

Read the post on The Hollywood Reporter

Read the Wixen complaint here

Read the Music Modernization Act here

@TaylorSwift13 Thinks Outside the Stream to Bridge the Value Gap

November 25, 2017 Comments off

There are several myths about streaming, but none so prevalent as the “savior” trope, which streaming services are doing their best to splice into the DNA of the music business.  Without streaming, we are told, then piracy: “Streaming stops piracy”.  Piracy, of course, is a constant, and is factored into sales these days as a limiting factor.  Also factored in is the cost of the faux legality of piracy on DMCA-protected services which also must be managed in order for windowing to work.

Streaming is now baked into the charts, which is the first step to becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy: “Streaming is radio”.  Artists must stream or be lost:  “Windowing punishes fans” (just like selling albums “punishes” fans).

All these myths ignore the basic proposition that windowing, exclusives and other contract based rights are simply ways to divide up our property rights–no more, no less.  And contracts take two to tango–if the deal is bad, no one will take it which undermines the myth.  And like all myths that fall apart when reality diverges from dogma, the curia fights back.

Given Spotify’s monopoly, or certainly dominant, position in their streaming market, it should not surprise that they push all of these myths, and they seem to do it like clockwork whenever Taylor Swift releases a new album.  Why?  Because Taylor Swift has four–count ’em–four albums that sold over one million copies in their first week of US release.  And–she’s the only artist ever to have done so.  And–she windowed every one of them, pre and post Spotify’s US launch.

Title Year Sales
Reputation 2017 1,290,000
1989 2014 1,287,000
Red 2012 1,208,000
Speak Now 2010 1,046,000

Let’s be clear–any distributor getting a Taylor Swift record in the fourth quarter sure makes up for a multitude of commercial sins in their year.  At least that’s true of profit-making companies whose executives actually have consequences for commercial sins.  Loss-making companies, on the other hand, are not motivated by pesky things like profits if they are on the “get big fast and exit” track.  You may say, oh, that’s so 1999, surely they have learned their lessons from the Dot Bomb debacle.


The exit is still the thing for these venture backed tech companies.  The problem with exits is that the people who are only in it for the money move on to self-driving cars, climate default swaps, bitcoin or whatever.  People who are in it because they love it are stuck with the consequences.  The music business will be picking up the pieces from the streaming exit for decades because of a simple logic:  You cannot take away something that sold at a $10 price point and replace it with something that “sells” at a $0.005 price point and expect to have a business.  Remember–the trendline since 2008 is predominantly flat so while streaming may be a bigger piece of the pie, the pie itself is not growing much.  That’s cannibalization.  We’ll see how much that trend changes this year–and how much of that change is Taylor Swift.

Recorded Music 1973-2016

Source: RIAA

It must be said that there’s a real question of how many Taylor Swifts the business will sustain going forward if we don’t listen to the lesson she is teaching for those who care to pay attention and think outside the stream.

Remember that salted in the 1,290,000 units that reputation sold in week 1 are quite a few units that were sold as a fan package on an exclusive–there’s that word again–at a higher price point than the general release CD.  That should mean that the gross revenue to the distributor conservatively averages around $8 after discounts or something like $10 million in distributor gross for the week (in the US alone).

Producing that amount of streaming revenue would require approximately 2,000,000,000 streams in a week depending on whose average streaming royalty you buy into.  “Call It What You Want”, Taylor’s first single from reputation, entered HITS song revenue chart at #4 with 9,259,698 streams earning $66,186 (a chart with revenue metrics I have a quibble with due to averaging of free/sub streaming revenue, but that’s another subject).

Regardless of the underlying math, you can see that there is no way that streaming is going to put much of a dent in the revenue from the physical release.  If you are in a future oriented profit making business and not an exit oriented loss making business, you like those numbers.  Why?

Because it tells you that you could probably keep doing this for a while.  That’s called a career, and it’s what managers were supposed to foster.

How was this received at the dominant streaming platform?  Spotify hired the former Lady Gaga manager, Troy Carter, as its “global head of creative services” reporting to one Stefan Blom.  (Mr. Blom was formerly chairman at EMI Nordic, but songwriters will recognize Mr. Blom as the Spotify executive who can’t seem to find millions of songwriters despite Spotify’s vast technical abilities and signs Spotify’s “address unknown NOI” filings with the Copyright Office denying royalties to millions of songs.)

Mr. Carter did not take well to Taylor Swift’s decision to hold the reputation album off of Spotify (notwithstanding reports of Spotify’s recent agreement to accept windowing as a condition of closing its Universal license).  Variety reports:

Taylor Swift’s decision to keep her new album “Reputation” off streaming services like Spotify will drive people back to piracy, said Spotify’s global head of creator services Troy Carter at the Internet Association’s Virtuous Circle Summit Monday morning. [The Internet Association is antagonistic to artists as a general proposition.]  “A lot of it is going to be pirated,” he said. “It kind of sets the industry back a little bit.”

However, Carter also said that he understood Swift’s decision: “Taylor is super smart. We are not mad at her for the decision she made,” he said. Swift and Adele, who sold millions of copies of her “25” album while waiting seven months to release it to streaming services, are among the few artists who can withhold an album from such platforms without significantly impairing its exposure.  [Emphasis mine–note the “among the few” rationalization of the “streaming is inevitable” narrative.  If you shame everyone away from windowing, how will you ever know that it’s a “few”?]

Carter, who managed artists including Lady Gaga and Meghan Trainor before joining Spotify in 2016, was also critical about the music industry’s past business model. “We screwed over consumers for years,” he said, arguing that consumers were forced to buy highly priced albums for years that only included one or two songs they wanted. Carter drew a direct line from this attitude to exclusives on streaming services.

So we have Mr. Carter trotting out several myths at once here–although it must be said that Mr. Carter’s former employer from 2007-2013 is herself not without experience in the rarified air of the First Week Million Club–Lady Gaga herself has one record in that group with her 2011 release, Born This Way.  Of course, with its May 23, 2011 release, Lady Gaga did not have to address the Spotify new release windowing issue as the service had not yet launched in the US at that time.

Even though Mr. Carter was clearly wide of the mark with his advice to Taylor Swift, his messaging was a vast improvement over Daniel Ek’s mansplaining to Taylor on 1989 which was one of the more bizarre public encounters between an artist and a retailer in history.  Can you imagine Tower Records chief Ross Solomon saying any of these things in public?

I still hold the view that the windowing issue changes depending on whether the artist concerned has a fan base that wants their physical record.  If they do, then streaming services become like record clubs.  Nobody ever wanted the clubs to get their record until they’d had at least a 90 day holdback, more frequently 6 months or even a year.  So it is with streaming services, including Spotify.

The bigger questions are what effect windowing has on the ability to sell physical at all.  I’m still waiting to see the consumer research suggesting one drives the other, and based on industry revenues over time, it seems far more likely that streaming cannibalizes physical.  Another question is how much elasticity is there in the subscription price?  If we are expected to welcome low margin streaming as a replacement for higher margin physical and downloads, please don’t tell me that the answer is we’ll make it up on volume, t-shirts or touring.

For now, we have to acknowledge that for artists who anticipate large sales of physical and permanent downloads, singles-only streaming releases combined with physical sales is probably the principal way their distributor can afford to breach the value gap and send enough DMCA notices to keep the album off of YouTube.




%d bloggers like this: