
Do You Love Music? Silicon Valley Doesn’t - tysone
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/opinion/do-you-love-music-silicon-valley-doesnt.html
======
6stringmerc
I got four paragraphs in before I said to myself "This reads like a hit piece,
who is this guy?"

A quick search of the author reveals a slant and bias so strong you'd think he
was a lobbyist writing legislation instead of an Op-Ed.

Whatever points he's trying to make about the "value gap" he runs right to the
absolute same party-line Azoff, the RIAA, and multi-national conglomerate
rights-holder firms want: Fiddle with safe harbors, and get the US government
to jack up the rates streaming services pay for music by way of tweaking the
rules for terrestrial radio. It's all very clear for anybody who is keeping
track of this debate.

So, if you want a consolidated, heavily biased stump speech designed to raise
sympathy ("Think of the poor musicians! Think of Prince!") and deflect from
the more customary benefactors of such changes, multi-billion dollar
companies, here you go. It is what it is.

And, while I'm a fan of Prince and his successes, I think the guy isn't an
icon to be emulated when it came to rights management and his approach to "the
music business" in some ways. As a musician he had just as many flops - if not
more - than actual hits. He also wanted to completely ban cover songs, which
is a really shitty and selfish attitude in my opinion. Guys like Prince and
the author would, by logical extension, want to kill off "remix culture" and
some of the changes that are pushing toward real, useful Copyright Reform in
time.

I don't think SV and VC doesn't love music, and I don't think the whole
intention is to rip off music artists. The industry already rips off music
artists to an insane degree. The music industry doesn't have a lot of high
ground to get preachy until it cleans up its own accounting (Eminem's
successful lawsuit regarding digital royalties for licenses vs. sales) and
contract issues (Kesha and Kemosabe) that reflect poorly on the motivations,
actions, and long-term vision of the industry.

~~~
jdquey
What if the music industry saw the sales of their music more as a marketing
awareness play than an income generator?

Songs played on Youtube, Spotify, Pandora, etc. and their covers drives little
direct revenue to the artist. I doubt that will change anytime soon.

However, that drives serious brand awareness to the artist, who could then
sell other add-ons (music tickets, t-shirts, limited edition releases, etc)

Maybe I'm naive to the industry. But most business owners I know would kill
for marketing that paid them and returned an ROI.

~~~
whatok
> However, that drives serious brand awareness to the artist, who could then
> sell other add-ons (music tickets, t-shirts, limited edition releases, etc)

Not all genres lend to live performance. Not all audiences buy t-shirts. Not
all audiences purchase music at all.

~~~
jdquey
What genres have artists that do not sell anything outside of their music?

------
bproper
"The song “Drag Me Down” by One Direction appeared on YouTube 2,700 times
after the service was asked to take down unlicensed copies. These 2,700
pirated uploads allowed Google to continue profiting from advertising while
the artists got nothing."

That is objectively not true. Labels are very strict about issuing takedown
notices. The only videos that stay up are those using content ID, in which
case the artist gets paid.

I know this is an op-ed, but shame on the NYT for allowing such a blatant
falsehood to be published.

~~~
forgottenpass
Didn't Google make participation in music content id contingent on
participation in an unrelated music program through youtube that artists
weren't keen on? I seem to recall seeing a artist blog about it posted here
months ago.

------
WalterSear
And by music, we mean only the radio-friendly corporate pop and top 40 that
used to have a stranglehold on music revenue.

~~~
awesomerobot
>radio-friendly corporate pop and top 40

This also happens to be the most popular music in history, so I don't know
that it's worth completely brushing off with angst.

~~~
nihonde
Which came first: the Top 10 hit, or the media blitz to convince you that it's
what everyone else is listening to?

~~~
6stringmerc
The hit, which is why stuff out of left field like Len's "Steal My Sunshine"
instantly got pushed by KROQ and the record label and to this day rakes in
tons and tons in royalties for a guy who absolutely hated being a pop
sensation and to this day thinks the song is a horribly twisted joke and can't
believe it was a hit:

[http://www.stereogum.com/1877413/behind-the-music-steal-
my-s...](http://www.stereogum.com/1877413/behind-the-music-steal-my-
sunshine/franchises/weird-90s/)

~~~
nihonde
This week's "number one" song by Rhianna has "moved" 54,000 copies, and those
numbers are almost certainly as inflated as possible.

From Forbes:

"Anti rules the Billboard 200 with just 54,000 equivalent units moved. If that
figure was comprised only of actual sales, it would make it one of the lowest-
selling number one albums of all time, but it’s actually a combination of both
pure purchases and streams. When looking solely at sales, Anti sold a paltry
17,000 copies. Yes, that’s right—the number one album in the largest music
market in the world sold just 17,000 units."

~~~
6stringmerc
Funny story with Rihanna and "moving" copies: Jay-Z struck a deal with Samsung
to "buy" the 1 million download credits and give them away to people on the
internet so her album would go Platinum by RIAA standards in its first week
(provided they all got downloaded, which they did). Talk about a joke.

~~~
nihonde
Yeah, if you read Hit Men by Fredric Dannen, you can learn about how they used
to skew the numbers for record sales by counting every copy that shipped,
regardless of whether it was sold or returned.

And today, we are told that 1,500 streaming plays equals an album sale, which
is presumably because they tell us that royalties are something like $0.0017
per play and the artist's cut should be around $2.25 per album sale? Who
knows.

~~~
6stringmerc
Not so much the "Who knows" bit at the end because I think your numbers are
exactly right on the Billboard/RIAA counting process. It was recently revised.
Having worked in a big box US media retailer I can still recall putting 27
DVDs on the shelf of the Johnny Knoxville flop "The Ringer" and taking the
same 27 DVDs off the rack later to ship...somewhere else. A lot of 'eat these
and we will cut you a better deal on the ones you REALLY want' type deals were
made, I'm pretty sure - no hard evidence, but fits the industry profile.

------
dkopi
"The song “Drag Me Down” by One Direction appeared on YouTube 2,700 times
after the service was asked to take down unlicensed copies. These 2,700
pirated uploads allowed Google to continue profiting from advertising while
the artists got nothing."

When an average music video has hundreds millions of views, 2700 views is
actually an incredible proof of how quick google is to take down pirated
music. For comparison, the original "Drag Me Down" video has over 459,286,538
views.

~~~
CocaKoala
It's not 2700 views. It's saying that "Drag Me Down" was uploaded to YouTube
2700 different times, which each time getting its own distinct view counter.

~~~
dkopi
That's a reasonable interpretation. In that case - it just goes to show how
much work and effort is required to remove pirated copies.

Also - I'm pretty sure a lot of these so called pirated versions don't really
include the original, unaltered audio track, or just include a few snippets
from the video.

------
nicole_express
> First, Congress should update the safe harbor rules of the copyright act to
> achieve the balance that was intended... That means strong, well-defined
> consequences for repeat offenders, easing the process for filing notices and
> ensuring that services are using the best technology to take pirated
> material off their sites and keep it off.

Is it really too _difficult_ to file a DMCA claim? Especially since most
content holders seem to use automated, mass report systems these days.

Also, I bet YouTube could get behind the "best technology" requirement, since
it would likely make it impossible to make a user-uploaded-video site unless
you already have the technology resources and content databases of someone
like Google...

------
soundwave106
Anecdote: I have been to musician forums where you will find plenty of threads
bitching about The Evils Of Youtube Destroying the Industry. Without a hint of
irony, they are often nearby to "What Are You Listening To Now?" threads full
of Youtube videos of other musicians' favorite music.

This is what the article reminds me of. The big music industry sometimes seems
clueless to how people actually experience music. They instead want to blame
the (visibly public) tool, and think that drastically tightening up the tool
will be the solution to their problems.

As seen above, music is a natural part of communication and identity etc.
People naturally like to share music with others. Even in the "record
industry" days, people traded tapes all the time (for instance, tape trading
popularized many of the speed/thrash metal bands in their day. Such as
Metallica, which is one of the big reasons why their anti-Napster attitude was
so ironic).

For this reason, I believe far more in content ID type solutions than
strengthening the takedown weapon. If 2700 people upload One Direction songs,
so what as long as One Direction is correctly identified and paid for all
videos and views?

Certainly there is work to be done on effective monetization models for
streaming, and the mechanics of content ID, and other challenges. But actually
_calling_ Google and streaming services pirates (as this article did) is
completely wrongheaded.

I think Google and streaming services are legitimate businesses. If the
industry tightens the noose too much on the legitimate businesses, consumers
absolutely _would_ go back to underground, the new Napsters.

------
pmikesell
Back in the day, just after Napster went down, Courtney Love wrote a really
great piece about what the actual economics look like being an artist under
the major labels, and has some interesting insight into the imminent changes
in distribution:

[http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/](http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/)

Keep in mind that this was written in 2000.

------
whatok
Biggest problem of tech disrupting the music industry is that it has
completely devalued recorded music for several generations of people who
typically were large paying consumers of music. No regulation will fix this
and the long term effects of this will likely kill off a few genres that do
not lend to current monetization strategies.

~~~
tonecluster
Those genres won't be killed-off, they'll be driven underground and further
into the background from the pop genres that are much more easily monetizable.
Where jazz and classical are now (not dead, but not profitable) will go
various categories of metal, world, and other eclectic-mashups that require
more attention from the listener than does, say, a Sailor Twift radio-hit.

~~~
whatok
Assuming that pop music is more easily monetizable is an iffy assumption.
There's much more money to be made in pop music but the number of slices in
the pie are far fewer. I don't understand how the rest of your comment will do
anything but predict more homeless musicians.

------
kordless
Just came in here to point out that we've allowed a title with a double bind
in it on our site, which is not cool. I love music and I'm part of the SV
culture, or at least on the fringes.

How about a "this is a double bind" argument button next to stories?

~~~
_rpd
The article should be titled "The traditional music distribution industry
wants its revenue back."

------
joesmo
Is there that much difference between getting paid say $2 a year from Spotify
or other services and getting paid nothing from pirated works? As a musician,
I'd rather people listen to my tracks regardless of how they're distributed
rather than trying to get a few dollars out of them and severely limiting
their distribution. It seems like the music industry was fucked over by
Spotify way more than it was by Napster/piracy in general. Piracy is still
pretty niche while Spotify, Youtube, etc. are all mainstream. Perhaps artists
will start rethinking the benefits of such distribution channels.
Unfortunately, for the vast majority of music whose copyright is in the hands
of giant corporations, it's already too late. Let's be clear that most money
being lost wasn't money going to artists but money going to big corporations.
The artists who supported such systems were just too stupid to see this. Now
they can't make a living with music anymore.

~~~
relaytheurgency
I don't see how your argument makes sense. Spotify is worse for artists than
piracy? Could you elaborate?

~~~
ae_keji
Spotify pays artists as much as piracy does, in many cases, while be socially
acceptable and normalized.

For example, I got a book at Barnes and Noble the other day, and when I
responded to the cashier's pitch for a Barnes and Noble card with something
like "No thanks, I get most of my books through torrents", they looked at me
like I was trying to talk about the taste of baby meat. Your average content
consumer pays for media, and there is no definitive evidence pirates would pay
for music and media if free downloads were not available. Spotify, on the
other hand, is targeted at those people who would normally buy music, and
offering a cheaper alternative that also pays the artist substantially less
(almost nothing, in some cases).

~~~
relaytheurgency
I see your point and I guess I hadn't thought of it like that. In my case, I
pay for Spotify as a replacement for pirating. I probably buy more music now
in a physical form now that cassettes and records have become available. I
would point out that the reason I pay for Spotify is not due to the access to
music (I could get most of it for free online), but for the convenience... I
can't store all the music I want to hear on my phone and I don't want to run a
Plex server or whatever 24/7 to deal with that problem (let alone buy a bunch
of drives and fill them with music!). I also appreciate the curation they
provide (the Discover Weekly is a regular source of artists I've never heard
of before), so I think there are some intangible benefits to the artists from
Spotify beyond the meager pay. I've definitely gone to shows based solely on
having heard an artists on Spotify.

I'm not sure how sold I am on the idea that Spotify converts more people away
from buying music "the old fashioned way" than it does convert former pirates
into now (meager) paying customers, but I can definitely see it as a
possibility. Unfortunately buying music sucks. Having to keep track of,
discover, and store music (in any medium!) sucks. Especially if you aren't a
collector of some kind. Spotify/Google Play/Apple music make that easier and
that's why people are going to pay for it.

------
mikek
Not mentioned: YouTube is a break even business. They already pay all they can
to license content.

[http://marketingland.com/report-youtube-roughly-break-
even-e...](http://marketingland.com/report-youtube-roughly-break-even-even-
billion-users-119735)

------
ae_keji
While I agree tech is hurting music, the recording industry has been ripping
off artists since records were popular. The entirety of Lola Versus Powerman
and the Moneygoround, for example, is about artists not making any money off
their music[1], and it was released shortly after the ARPANET was created. The
biggest change with digital music piracy is that record companies are also
earning less.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lola_Versus_Powerman_and_the_M...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lola_Versus_Powerman_and_the_Moneygoround%2C_Part_One?wprov=sfla1)

~~~
6stringmerc
Another case that I think shows the music industry likes to have things both
ways was the Eminem digital sales vs. licenses lawsuit that got settled
privately (I mention elsewhere but here's a link):

[http://www.spin.com/2012/10/universal-settles-influential-
em...](http://www.spin.com/2012/10/universal-settles-influential-eminem-
digital-revenue-lawsuit/)

Not to mention the industry wants all its aging / legacy acts to not think
about how sound recordings before 1972 may be eligible for return to the
creators rather than the business enterprise that owns them currently. It's
complicated but financially worth the trouble for some!

------
egypturnash
The Internet loves music! It just doesn't love paying for it.

~~~
bluejekyll
Replace music with anything served over the Internet: news, movies,
photography, art, etc.

Will this become unsustainable at some point? Money is definitely flowing on
the Internet, but not necessarily into the pockets of the content producers.

In fact, this article glosses over the fact that the RIAA used to have such a
huge stranglehold over the industry that they were the ones profiting off the
musicians, wasn't this why Prince was "formerly known as" for a long while?

~~~
6stringmerc
Yes, Prince was very clear that he felt his recording contract was unfair. To
the point of going out in public with "Slave" written on his cheek[1]. Not
surprised the author left out that kind of musician-industry relationship when
bringing up Prince.

[1]
[http://esq.h-cdn.co/assets/16/16/640x320/landscape-146126259...](http://esq.h-cdn.co/assets/16/16/640x320/landscape-1461262593-prince-
avedon-1.jpg)

------
Spooky23
Do you love musicians? The record industry doesn't.

~~~
tonecluster
The recording industry LOVES musicians. But the musicians they love most of
all are the musicians who don't know how to negotiate.

~~~
6stringmerc
Every entertainment book I've ever read by a successful and intelligent
musician or writer has emphasized, time and again, to get a really, really,
really, really good lawyer. Or, in the case of Willie Nelson, two of them.
Thomas Lennon (Reno 911, The Odd Couple) wrote a screenplay guide and said,
paraphrased, "Oh our lawyer is a really nice guy and we like him - he's just
not afraid to rip your heart out and eat it in front of you."

~~~
tonecluster
Amen.

------
donretag
While the article is primarily about piracy, the existing pay models are
fairing no better. Here is one musicians take:
[https://medium.com/cuepoint/streaming-music-is-ripping-
you-o...](https://medium.com/cuepoint/streaming-music-is-ripping-you-
off-61dc501e7f94#.n1lxwtqlh)

------
fwn
I'd love to see evidence how the US has a history of undervaluing musicians.
You'd normally observe that through a decline on the supply side. However,
supply is not an issue at all.

The author probably just wanted to say that he wants more money for his own
work. ..that's understandable, but meaningless.

------
PhillyPhuture
So build a better systems. Super successful artists have the ability to create
better and "fairer" platforms for other artists and consumers (if that's your
belief). We are all open to new models. Let's see how Patreon does, for
example. I hated this article.

~~~
6stringmerc
Yeah lots of eyes are on Tidal and its grand statement of purpose.

Deadmau5 kind of has taken your approach with a direct-to-fan subscription
service that might be an interesting case study.

~~~
whatok
The biggest problem with any new "system" I've seen is that none of the
facilitate artist discovery. Especially now that the bar to produce and
distribute music is at the lowest it's ever been, there is no easy way to
discover new artists.

~~~
tonecluster
Sure there is. Join the communities that support the genre(s) of music you
enjoy. Listen to the various internet radio programs that feature the music
you enjoy -- those curators will introduce you to new music, and new-to-you
music.

~~~
whatok
As many flaws as the major labels previously had, they did discover and
nurture artists. Internet radio is not going to discover a random lounge cover
singer in the middle of flyover US. You are not going to have an internet
radio station that features random unknown artists that has widespread reach.
The bar to discovery is much higher and arguably requires less on the music
end and more on the promo end than it has in the past. This leads to more of
the chaff rising to the top.

~~~
6stringmerc
That's been true but there are some artist examples that are showing new
artists can embrace the new dynamic and reach fans. CHVRCHES got their start
on SoundCloud. Chance the Rapper still is in the "mixtape" game. Pretty much
any "viral" hit that isn't actively on a Major Label at the time of the
release can be considered, I think, to be a case study in how the dynamics are
changing. Edit: Forgot Run The Jewels as well.

------
kaareje
Funny how musicians complain. We all steal from what we love. Intential or
not. Musicians earn there living by PLAYING their music. Real musicians that
is.

~~~
ssharp
Why is it any less of an art to record something than to perform it?

~~~
6stringmerc
Honestly it's a scarcity thing, aside from the art point. It goes back to the
tradition of the bards - walk around, play a tune in a new place, get some
food and a place to stay, move on. Live entertainment has very strong
traditions. Regarding "less of an art" \- there's a lot of things that can be
done in a studio to make a musician/act seem superior.

~~~
kaareje
I'm both a producer and musician, so i get what you are saying. Never the less
dj's make most mobey today so i dont see your point. Yes there are lots of
talented producer who dont play live, but in regard to music and musicians in
general, the mobey is and has always been in live performance. Most good
producers i know and live also has the ability to create stunning live
performances. For the rest i can see the problem offcourse; they deserve the
gain from online play, but i suspect they actually earn more plays and buts
and streams from piracy based advertisement than without. Regardless i agree
the topic is a problem in general.

~~~
6stringmerc
Fair point, I do see DJs making the big money but again it's for the
experience of the show or festival. I agree the money has always been in live
performance. Making recordings is really a way to get people interested - and
how those people get those recordings is sometimes less important to musicians
than it is to business people. If the recordings are free, but the musician
makes money live, then the musician wins - the only people who don't win are
the ones trying to get a piece of money from distributing the music recording.
Good to chat with you, best of luck with your music!!

