Music industry signs up Taylor Swift and U2 to fight YouTube

[Paulie]

http://www.recode.net/2016/6/20/1197451 ... sic-letter

Technically, Swift and her co-signers are complaining about the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the 1998 law that has governs the way big internet companies can use material uploaded by their users. But like other complaints about the DMCA that the industry has made this year, this one is really about YouTube.

In short: Musicians and companies that own music are complaining that Google’s video site doesn’t give them enough money for the use of their music, and that YouTube doesn’t give them a real choice about whether and how their music is used. YouTube argues that it generates billions for the music industry (and that pirate sites don’t pay bupkis) and that it has created sophisticated tools that make it easy for music owners to control their works.

[mojobone]

Yeah, well, Google's abuse of creatives under the DMCA is well-documented, but they're not alone. Not only does piracy still exist, but it's supported by advertising, taking money from some of the largest american corporations, including Coke, Dow, General Motors, Proctor & Gamble and even Disney. I'll give Spotify some credit for reducing music piracy in the countries where it's been widely adopted, but their royalty structure is hardly what I'd call transparent and their sweetheart deals with major labels disadvantage the smaller ones. Our PROs aren't much better, though it appears some changes will be forthcoming, either from within or without. As data management and infrastructure have matured, we no longer need crutches like statistical sampling, and Shazam-style recognition software will soon be able to keep even the most obscure nightclubs and cafes honest in their reporting, but...it's gonna take businesses a while to catch up to the technologies.

[Len911]

Why would you sign up a couple of the richest acts, that are least affected if your point is about struggling musicians? Isn't it obvious what's gonna happen? The big acts get all the money and exposure, and the little guys will disappear off the platform. And just to add to the irony, Bono and his poverty crusades.

Another irony, yesterday I watched a movie on netflix called, "Poverty, Inc." that's how I am aware of the Bono crusades,lol!

So let me see if I understand correctly, it's okay to hand out some things like free food and water to the poor, and it's okay to exploit the poor for music sales, however it's taboo for them to "pirate" your music, or listen on youtube for free??

Anyone that's ever become famous has relied on free media. Then once they cross a threshold of wealth, they demand payment and royalties. But it's a double-edged sword, if the media dumps you, you'll drift off into obscurity. That'll probably never happen because I'm sure the big labels own a piece of the mediums, so they don't get shut out.

These bills and laws are not for struggling musicians.

[mojobone]

It's not the poor that are profiting from piracy. If people can't afford internet access, I doubt they're stealing much music.

[Len911]

It's not the poor that are profiting from piracy. If people can't afford internet access, I doubt they're stealing much music.

http://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-to-be ... to-africa/
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We- ... -Libraries
http://a4ai.org/



So who really buys music in the states, kids who are technically poor but spend their disposable income on music, cars, beer and cigarettes? Times have probably changed since I was a kid I'm sure,lol! Or how do all of those small children afford to go see the predominately children's movies at the theater??

[mojobone]

They don't; they're illegally downloading Game Of Thrones. Beer, I'm pretty sure they still have to pay for.




Here's Irving Azoff putting his finger directly on the problem: http://bit.ly/28MnqSB If you don't know him, he's only maybe the greatest artist manager in the history of the music business.


BTW, free media and free publicity are not the same thing, and so-called free media is a relatively new thing; newspapers, radio and television are advertiser-supported, except for what amounts to about two subscription-supported premium channels, satellite radio and pay-per-view.

[Len911]

Here's Irving Azoff putting his finger directly on the problem: http://bit.ly/28MnqSB If you don't know him, he's only maybe the greatest artist manager in the history of the music business.

Being as some have said, "one of the most powerful persons in the industry", he must bear his share of the responsibility as being part of the problem.

Azoff's efforts now also includes this campaign signed by 180 major artists.Azoff said. “We should work together to solve the root of the problem” — fair compensation. Azoff noted. “How can you sit there and say we can’t afford a couple of hundred millions of dollars for your industry, when their market cap is worth a half a trillion dollars?”

-180 major artists
-fair compensation ...for whom?
-market cap ... Has nothing to do with profitability, it's only the price of all the shares, and there's probably more shares outstanding than those they own.

He also had his finger in Ticketmaster and Live Nation and the merger.

It brings me back to the point I made before;

Why would you sign up a couple of the richest acts, that are least affected if your point is about struggling musicians? Isn't it obvious what's gonna happen? The big acts get all the money and exposure, and the little guys will disappear off the platform.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/0 ... ef=24hours

The Ticketmaster-Live Nation merger plan has drawn criticism. The Justice Department launched an investigation of the proposed merger in February, which came just days after a protest by fans and lawmakers over Ticketmaster's pricing arrangements for a Bruce Springsteen show. Springsteen himself accused Ticketmaster of "in effect 'scalping' " the tickets. Ticketmaster CEO Irving Azoff apologized to Springsteen after that incident.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/busin ... .html?_r=0

[Len911]

I didn't mean to devote so much space to Irving Azoff,lol!

It isn't about him, it's more of a comment on the system and how it affects various points of view. In reality I suppose it's politics, who gets what piece of the pie. I've pretty much lost my taste for pie as most societal dropouts probably have,lol!

[mojobone]

Why sign up a couple of the richest acts? That's pretty simple; without well-known artists onboard, it's hard to get any ink for the cause.

There's also a matter of perception; if they tapped Don Henley or Jackson Browne or Bonnie Raitt, no conservatives would pay attention, and the current bills will need bipartisan support, which is why I think they're probably doomed, even though equity is good for everybody-tech, publishers and writers. They've been artificially tilting the table in favor of the Googles and the Apples, and it stinks exactly like 'trickle down' and Wall St. I think history shows we get better music when we have a vibrant middle class of musicians.

Bono and Taylor both have international reputations and at least an aura of integrity, as long as you don't look to closely at some of Bono's causes, though he's done some good work fighting AIDS. (and really, any relief in Africa, or most of the third world is likely to see maybe ten percent of donations actually spent for the stated purpose, due to wholesale graft)


Come to think, they probably couldn't get Henley; he's way too cynical about the industry to even bother, at this point and for some very good reasons. And as far as Azoff's concerned, I'll paraphrase Henley; "He may be the devil, but he's our devil."

[Len911]

Good points Mojo!

I think in this case everyone's hearts are in the right place, with good intentions, even "the devil",lol, I just believe that it ends up with unintended consequences.

Like rice in Haiti
https://youtu.be/OVVRoWxFB1s?t=23m1s