Benefits of the Internet for Musicians and Fans are Under Threat

by Helen Charles 

This blog post was originally written for the LSE Media Policy Project blog

Former radio music promoter and LSE Alum Helen Charles warns that some of the digital era’s creative and economic benefits are under threat and could be lost if artists and fans are not attentive and involved in policy debates about music and the digital economy.

Back in 2001, when I started working as a radio plugger, we would send music to radio stations for them to add to their playlist and play on-air. By 2008, people were calling stations to request for un-released music. Artists found it easier to make, record and share music through sites like Soundcloud, and I could choose potential music clients based on their popularity on music download sites.  Today new music is being released at an astonishing rate.  But with Google expanding its digital music services and with increased investor pressure for music streaming services like Spotify to go public, artists and fans need to be alert to the possible implications of alliances between powerful technology and music industry interests

These recent developments could mean that artists may lose the benefits that the digital age has accorded to artists, such as lower entry barriers to the music industry, unless their voice is heard in policy debates. 

Old gatekeepers and new income models

Digital technology has thus far managed to erode the power of established industry gatekeepers by creating new and free avenues for fans to access and discover a whole range of music online. It is no wonder then that major music companies assert that copyright infringement is the primary cause of falling music sales.

But a recent Techdirt report argues that overall sales of music have not fallen at all. This claim is backed by data showing that the sector’s total revenue has remained the same, although major labels now take home smaller slices of it. Thus, the real reason for the music industry’s gripes appears to be its decreased control and increased competition for each release it puts out, which means a smaller share for those at the top of the chain. As a report from LSE Media Policy Project previously argued, copyright infringement is only part of the larger package of changes brought by the Internet to the music industry business model.

Over the past decade, more and more artists have been able to sell 100,000 or so records and fill 3,000 seat venues in 30 to40 cities worldwide. These artists make a living without first being played on mainstream radio or having a large record label’s marketing budget.  As Martin Mills of UK indie record label group Beggars said in 2010: “We’ve got a bunch of bands like that, they’re not necessarily seeking stardom or riches.  That’s incredibly healthy.”

One musician who has been recording and touring for decades has remarked that his income has, contrary to the industry’s claims, been on the rise: “I’ve never made any real sum of money off of record sales. Usually the level of sales we see is more about keeping the cycle of pressing/distribution alive so we can make another record and have stuff at the merchandise table.”

He also points out that musicians who haven’t been on the ‘hits’ charts instead set their sights on ticket sales, merchandise and licensing, which depend on exposure: “I have to think that the reason [audiences, especially teenagers] are listening is because they were easily able to check it out in the first place, not because of any marketing but because they heard about it from a friend who shared it with them.”

But this hasn’t stopped music companies from blaming technology and steering policy debate towards involving ISPs and search providers in identifying and punishing suspected copyright infringers.  And while music and technology companies have been odds with each other, a whole generation of music fans was free to discover and purchase without going through the traditional gatekeepers.

Technology & music companies: from argument to alliance?

This situation could change with the recent speculation that Google will soon launch its iTunes rival, Google Music, outside the US.  This follows the search giant’s decision to downgrade websites that have received the highest number of takedown requests from music firms in its search results. This in turn could be detrimental to the artists who benefit more from the exposure they get from allowing people to share and recommend music than from tightly controlled sites favouring major music companies’ releases.

Meanwhile, some emerging artists are having an even harder time getting their music on legal sites where large audiences are found (such as big name streaming sites and digital stores). Those who are successful are often subject to disadvantageous deals.  While the exact terms of each deal are confidential, indie labels and artists at all levels of successes have criticised Spotify for its compensation scheme.  Major music companies have been accused of licensing their entire musical catalogues to digital services, securing a tidy profit for the label while generating very little for their popular artists.

After it was accused of giving independent labels a raw deal for plays on its digital music service, Spotify sought to rectify the issue by leveling its deals with both major and indie labels.  Now both major music companies and Merlin, the body representing independent labels, have a stake in the digital service, meaning they make money both from plays and if applicable, from their business interest in the company.  Good news?  Not necessarily.  If Spotify goes public it is only the labels that will gain.  To ensure fair compensation artists must engage with the way lawmakers are classifying these services and be alert to what changes in the industry may mean for them.

Lack of artist involvement in policy

Very few artists were heard from during the policy debate leading up to the Digital Economy Act, even though their perspective would have helped to shed light on digital economy’s benefits for both artists and fans.  Even now there are still very few artists who come forward with alternative suggestions in the UK discussion despite recent opportunities such as IPO’s Digital Copyright Exchange feasibility studyand related areas of discussion taking place as part of DCMS’s Communications Review.

DCMS’s seminar series could have been an opportunity for artists to be more involved in policy discussion.  Instead, the focus is predominantly on consumer and businesses interests with very little consideration of the impact of these areas on creativity or those who create.  While in the USA organisations such as Future of Music Coalition are championing artists’ voices in related debates, organisations like the Musicians Union and Featured Artists Coalition in the UK have only tend to come forward when asked. Artists and fans need to start joining the debates about the future of copyright, convergence and digital content distribution – whether or not they are invited.

 

 

Overheard in Washington DC

“I’m in a suit on K Street. It’s like one day I woke up and all of a sudden I had become the biggest tool in the world.” – Some dude on cell phone at K & 14th.

No Laughing Matter

By Aneurin Roosevelt

At Netroots UK this weekend Media Matters for America‘s speaker, Ari Rabin-Havat, begged the audience to mobilise against Rupert Murdoch’s proposed buy out of BSkyB. 

He demonstrated the seriousness of Fox News’s deterioration into a rhetoric-fuelled propaganda channel through a series of Fox News clips and closed with a warning: don’t let this happen in the UK.

The audience laughed at classic Fox moments like this one where Glenn Beck compares Nazis and Soviet Communists to the current American left, but after a few clips it began to dawn on delegates that this was really passing for news in the U.S.  Hours later thousands of miles away a man shot US Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and killed six others at a constituency event in Arizona.  Among the factors widely thought to have contributed to this unhinged individual’s attack: the vitriolic nature of American political discourse.   

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/player.swf

U.S. media didn’t get this way overnight. One day Fox was a right-leaning news network: a few years later they were prematurely calling the election for George W, and now it’s finally transitioned to a full-on 24/7 promotional arm of the Republican party.

One Netroots delegate exclaimed that Sky could never take off in the UK as the British were just ‘too reasonable’.  But in America most citizens were shielded from the subtle moves made by Fox News, as well as to changes to surrounding media as the news environment gradually changed around them.  The effect was people didn’t realise what was happening until it was too late – much like lobsters in a boiling pot.  Ari might have done well to emphasis the gradual nature of the change in Fox News, which was not apparent to the British audience. 

So could a NewsCorp-owned BSkyB lead to Fox News UK?  Rumour has it that Murdock wants one, but News Corp gaining the controlling stake in BSkyB won’t by itself allow Sky News to do the same thing in the UK. 

Even if the merger is allowed to go through, there are other barriers preventing Sky evolving into a UK version of Fox.  At present Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code requires ‘due impartiality’ from news broadcasters.   Further, politicians are explicitly prevented from filling a newsreader/anchor or reporter role unless their affiliation is made explicit to the audience.   That is not to say that these rules could not be relaxed in the future, but this is where progressive groups online have a lot to contribute. 

The key then is engaging with the community, recognising the risks to all types of media, and then influencing MPs and the regulator on a range of media policy issues, not only about the proposed take over. It’s often too easy for politicians to dismiss media policy as an important secondary area while online activists shrug their shoulders to ‘old media’ issues, but the stakes are high.  In America left-leaning and moderate U.S. politicians have difficuilty communicating any kind of reasoned policy argument through mainstream media.  As a result in-depth discussion is hard to find for people who aren’t looking.  To be sure there are a range of places where people can get news from all parts of the political spectrum, but for those without a partisan agenda, television news still plays a powerful role in presenting different sides of the debate.  

On the whole, Netroots discussions downplayed the importance of linking the progressive grassroots online with influencing mainstream media which is a shame.  As Ari’s presentation demonstrated, when but when parts of the news media loose a grip on the truth, all other forms of political and policy discussions are jeopardised. 

The missed opportunities for Republicans in 2010

By Maggie Palin

Having now allowed some time for reflection of this years’ primary season, I’ve come to a few conclusions about this year’s primary wins.

I’m looking at November with rose-colored glasses. I’m excited about our opportunities in many key seats, such as the U.S. Senate seat in my home state of Pennsylvania. I truly hope we take back the House, and if we don’t win the Senate, come within a few seats of doing so. But as a pragmatist, I do believe that we had some opportunities to pick up seats in swing and/or Democratic-leaning states that we will not win because of the caliber of candidate we nominated in the primaries.

Take Sharron Angle in Nevada for example. Angle is running against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is widely unpopular both nationally and in his home state. Reid is so unpopular that he cannot even protect his own son, Rory, from certain electoral defeat to the state’s chief executive office. This is most evident in the fact that Rory campaigns on a first-name basis only to separate himself from his father!

Yet we nominated a Tea Party activist who has no verbal control and rotates through campaign teams as quickly as some people change their dirty sheets.  As a State Senator, Angle voted in favor of domestic abusers and Scientologists, and has even said publically that she uses her Fox News appearances as fundraisers. The political environment is very favorable for Republicans in Nevada this election cycle, and I’m not saying that any of the other candidates were that much better, but if Harry Reid is re-elected in November, it is because we nominated Angle in the primary last June.

Recent polling results clearly show that this race has the potential to be a lost opportunity for us: Pollster.com’s overall average for the race has Reid up one percent in the polls, while a late August poll conducted by Mason-Dixon on behalf of the Las Vegas Review-Journal found that two-thirds (68%) of voters—including 71% of Republicans—would have preferred that another candidate had been nominated instead of Angle.

More recently, Christine O’Donnell’s win in the Delaware Senate primary against Representative Mike Castle is another example of a prime target we lost as a result of the nominee we chose. Video footage of O’Donnell discusses her dalliances into Wicca and witchcraft as a teen, and the comments that she has made about many social issues as the founder of the Savior’s Alliance for Lifting the Truth (SALT) would make many Republicans roll their eyes back into their sockets.

While she may not rank as high on the “crazy” scale as Sharron Angle, the fact that she was nominated in a liberal Northeastern state where the Democrats outnumber Republicans in voter registration 3 to 2 is just as painful. Her Democratic opponent—New Castle County Executive Christopher Coons—is so liberal that he is affectionately known by Senator Reid as “my pet.” With the seat open for the first time in decades as a result of Joe Biden’s ascendency into the Vice President’s mansion, this would have been a prime pickup for Republicans and instead we are merely giving Reid his “pet” in November according to several recent polls.

Don’t get me wrong—I want to take back Washington just as much as any other Republican out there. And admittedly I’m a fiscal conservative—I am rather liberal when it comes to most social issues. But I am disappointed in my party at the fact that they chose candidates who do not help the Republican cause, and hope that it won’t stop us from retaking at least one of the chambers in November.

Spinnit’ To Winnit’ – Australia Is Having An Election!

By: Nick Rodham Churchill

For those of you who don’t closely follow the news in Australia (so most of you) there is an Election on!  While there are many parties full of many “ideas,” the “big two” seem to be doing all they can to say as much as possible and yet seem to be saying nothing at all.  This year is a bit different for Oz – there is a woman at the top of the ticket.  While this is something that would stun, shock, and inspire Americans (or probably even Canadians) Australians claim it matters very little to them.  Still, when I get to my “Election spinning – I mean winning – themes in a second, you’ll see why I simultaneously don’t believe that’s the case.

There’s been the usual kissing babies (no, literally, the news has a “baby-kissing” counter and they’re keeping a running tally of which leader – Gillard or Abbott – kisses more babies) and moral-filled proclamations of the highest refuditude (did you see what I did there?  I made up a word.  It’s all the political rage now).  On paper these two leaders seem quite different.  Gillard is an un-married, childless red-head who has been at the heart of Labour’s left for 20 years.  Abbott is a devoutly Catholic, short, balding man who just competed in a major triathlon and says curse words on a regular basis.  He’s wildly entertaining.  So then, you’d think their policies would be quite different as well.  Well, they’ve been spun as such.  Labour is all about “Moving Australia Forward” while the Liberals are “Standing Up For Australia.”  See.  Quite different.  And on the issues, well…

Jobs:

Labour: We’ll create them.  We promise.

Liberal: We’ll reduce taxes.  That’ll create them.

Labour Laws:

Labour: We invented them.

Liberal: We won’t change them.

Green Energy:

Labour: Tax Carbon.

Liberal: That’s not the answer, but we’re not going to tell you what is.

Immigration:

Labour: You’re not racist for hating asylum seekers.  Lets secure our borders.

Liberal: We’re pretty-much racist.  Lets secure our borders.

Outfits:

Labour: “Gillard was out today in a lovely polka-dot ensemble complete with red chiffon top.  The pearls were back, as were the high heels.”

Liberal: <Cue Silence>

So then, what’s the difference?  Well, one of them is a lady and she’s wearing pretty clothes.  Oh, and her partner is a former hair stylist who does a mean blow dry at 4:30am.  And that is how you win an Election!

Photo Courtesy Of: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/kristinas-stinky-government-wont-make-julia-on-the-nose-20100719-10gxt.html?rand=1279507516610

Spinning Football (Soccer) As Communist

By: Nick Rodham Churchill

In the good old US of A, football (from here on out referred to as soccer – it’s name in the good old US of A) has never found an audience like it has in the rest of the world.  We have a slew of our own sports that we play seriously on our own, and we don’t want anyone else to join in, so stay away!  We call our championships things like “The World Series,” despite the fact that the whole world doesn’t participate.

The interesting thing about soccer, however, is that it remains the “most played” game in America for children.  Why is that?  It’s cheap!  There’s no real equipment or uniforms, save for cleats and shin guards.  As more and more people found themselves hard up in the late 80’s and early 90’s, participation skyrocketed.  “Come on little Jimmy, I know you want to play baseball but soccer is just as fun [and way cheaper, which means we can also buy that new TV I had my eye on].”  Needless to say, my generation – early 80’s babies – grew up knowing all the rules and understanding “The World’s Game.”  Now here we are, mind-twenties, and the World Cup is happening!  We’ve probably traveled outside North America, which means we “get” that there are more countries beyond Canada and Mexico, and we LIKE the idea of participating with them.  Imagine that!  To top it off, Team USA is actually quite good!  So we watch, and we watch in HUGE numbers.  In fact, more people watched Soccer than watched the NBA finals!

This seems like a good thing, right?  People coming together, supporting their country, rallying behind something, and engaging with the world.  This is true, of course, unless you’re Fox News.  In fact, Fox News – who aired many of the games on cable – used the newfound popularity of Soccer to launch an anti-Democratic tirade about how Soccer is part of a broader Democratic Communist plot to turn America into a “World Country,” asking poignant questions like “why do we want to play with the rest of the World anyway?”  I know what you’re thinking – HUH?  But it’s true, according to Glen Beck (who has literally millions of viewers every night).  Now THAT is spin.

I’m gonna go with no.  I’m gonna go with the notion that this is good for America, especially in the current context of unemployment, recession, and general sadness.  I don’t know why Glen Beck is so hateful and so wildly angry at the notion of Americans being proud and patriotic, but I’d like to see him watch this clip and tell me he doesn’t feel just the slightest bit of patriotism, pride, and exhilaration.  Well done America.  WELL DONE!

Same Story, Different Storyteller

By: Nick Rodham Churchill

For those of you who don’t [shockingly] follow Australian politics, arguably the biggest political kung fu in years took place one week ago today.  Kevin Rudd, the once most popular Prime Minister (PM) in Australian history was ousted by his Deputy, the brilliant and masterful Julia Gillard.  It was a brilliant execution (the whole thing unfolded in less than 12 hours) and the first of it’s kind; Kevin Rudd was still a first-term Prime Minister and ousted not by the Opposition, but by HIS OWN PARTY.

The reasons given were simple.  K-Rudd, has he was called, had been straying off course.  It was a government that had “lost its way.”  True, the evidence was there.  in 6 months K-Rudd had tanked in the polls faster than almost any PM in history.  A general election loss was at stake against the Liberals, which would have meant a horrific change of course.  A few recent decisions really hadn’t gone over well with the public, and K-Rudd was pretty terrible when it came to dealing with the media.

Okay, so Special K is out, big J Gill is in.  First, history is made.  First female Prime Minister.  Woohoo!  Next, major policy changes, right?  Not so much.  Immediately we heard there would be changes to the mining tax, the most controversial leftover from Mr. Rudd.  Oops, not so fast.  The government is just “swinging open its doors” to negotiation.  Certainly we’d refocus other key issues.  Instead, it’s all about “consultations” and “new approaches,” but not a whole lot of change in terms of real policy (most of which J Gill was central in creating with Captain K).

Regardless, the press and the country seem to be eating up every last word, believing wholeheartedly that this is a “new direction” for the party, the government, and the country.  So then, what changed?  The spin.  The packaging.  The perception of reality is what changed.  All it took was a new face and a thesaurus and BOOM, a “brand new day.”  You do have to take your hat off to Madame Prime Minister though.  In one foul swoop she cut off the past, reinvent the present, spin the futre, and creat a whole new headache for the opposition.  Well done Julia.  Well done.

Photo Courtesy of: http://images.theage.com.au/2009/01/02/338501/gillard-420×0.jpg

Why I Hate: The Fake Mission To Mars

By: Nick Rodham Churchill

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for space programs.  In fact, when President Obama spoke seriously about completely handing over NASA to the private sector (a move that would have promoted the commodification, commercialization, and ownership of space and space exploration) I spent weeks attempting to convince friends that it was a bad idea (their argument being that America is broke, so space should go).  The problem with space exploration is that it’s intangible for most people.  The “real returns” are difficult to see, but the intangible, emotional, subconscious “bang for your buck” is literally invaluable for people and for society.

Having mapped our entire planet and worked tirelessly to make it uninhabitable recently (BP Oil Spill, Climate Change Denial, etc.), space is something that has the potential to leave us inspired, hopeful, and believing there is more to life than what lies before us.  It’s mysterious, adventurous, and unknown.  With an annual price tag of just under $20 Billion (compared to the Defense Department’s $660 Billion), I’m wondering how we can really afford to cut the budget at all.

Still, I’m kind-of hating this fake mission to mars at the minute.  Why?  Because it denigrates the mystery, the adventure, the legitimacy, and the grandeur of space travel.  This may comes as a shock since I am so pro space, but this “project” is not pro-space in the slightest.  Despite every attempt to spin the story to “prep work for a visit to Mars,” the sponsoring countries have neither the finances nor the technology to actually get there.  The real spin is that the applications to participate were sent out globally and anyone could apply (by anyone, I mean MEN ONLY, as women were not allowed to participate).  You did not have to have any special skills.  In fact, the “flight captain” has never flown a plane before.  Good one.

What is the simulation, you ask?  These six men are going to be locked into a small corrugated metal shack with no windows for 519 days somewhere in downtown Moscow.  They won’t experience weightlessness or radiation, which are the two biggest hurdles.  They will, however, be given video games and the internet (which they would obviously have on their way to Mars).  They have to figure out how to ration their food and will be in constant contact with a “control center.”  To be honest, it sounds like a space-themed extended version of “Big Brother.”  In fact, one of the coordinators of the project said the following:

“Imagine them all flying off to Mars together.  At first they are friends, concentrating on the mission. But then one lands on Mars while the others wait … Jealousy and conflicts flare up on the way home.”

I mean, WHAT?  This just sounds like more fodder for celebrity magazines like In Touch and Hello.  “Oh my gosh, did you see last night’s episode of Space Shack: Mars Edition?”  Yeah, Eddie got so mad at Bobby for using the internet longer than his allocated hour so he BROKE one of the Wii remotes.  Now how are they going to exercise?!?!”

I hate it.  I really really hate it.

Why I (Would) Hate if the Coalition Government Fails…

By Maggie Palin

I’ll admit—I’ve personally been a bit skeptical of the new Coalition government since its inception last month. As a Conservative at heart, it has been exciting for me to see David Cameron become Prime Minister and watch the Conservative MPs in Westminster sit once again on the Government benches. But as a follower of Adam Smith’s laissez-faire economic philosophy, the tax reforms and proposed reductions to the size of Government that Cameron needed to cede to Nick Clegg and his Liberal Democrats to form a coalition does worry me. And if I’m worried about this, I can only wonder what other Tory voters from the mold of Maggie Thatcher think as well.

It’s probably too premature to discuss this, and hopefully it turns out to be just an image in the back of my mind and not actual reality, but I have to ask myself—and you alike—what would happen if the Coalition government does fail. Yes, we’re just in the early days of the new government and Cameron’s just had his first PMQs merely a few hours ago. But we do have to remember that history has a funny way of repeating itself. If the coalition fails, and another election is called, it will leave a blemish on David Cameron and the Conservative Party’s legacy in the twenty-first century that may not be insurmountable in another poll.

Let’s flash back a year in time when the Conservatives were winning 45 percent in the polls. Had a snap election been called back then, the party would have then had the requisite seven percent swing to win 325 seats in Westminster and control the Government outright. Yet this did not happen. And instead, while the Conservatives managed to win the largest share of the vote in last month’s election, they were forced to share power with the Liberal Democrats in order to form a Government.

So if this coalition does not work, will Cameron have to relinquish his title? How will the swing fall—will it fall in favour of the Tories, or perhaps bring Gordon Brown’s successor to 10 Downing Street. Now that Clegg and the Liberal Democrats have some power, what impact will they have on the electoral landscape in future elections? All of this is yet to be seen, but I can say with some certainty that for a party that had hoped to coronate its fearless leader in style last month, this Coalition Government is not the outcome for which we hoped and will hopefully be the start of a new era in British politics, and not the end of the Conservative party as we know it.

Why I Hate…Debating Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

By Nick Rodham Churchill

It has been 17 years since Don’t Ask Don’t Tell passed through Congress and was signed by the President of the United States.  While the legislation was still absurd then, it’s even more out of place, out of character, and out of tune with American values now.  Dozens of countries now allow gay men and women to serve openly, including progressive gems like Uruguay and Peru.  Meanwhile, those countries that disallow gays and lesbians from serving include Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and Yemen (among others).  Dear god, which club would you rather be in?

While I do hate the legislation as a whole, what I almost hate more is the ridiculous fact that – in 2010 – we have to even consider debating whether the legislation should be repealed or not.  Statements include things like “we have to study the impact of such measures on troop moral” and “we don’t straight troops to feel uncomfortable.”  On that first point, isn’t it slightly more demoralizing to have to hide your identity to die for your country?  It’s like, “okay, you can take that bullet or fight that war but only if you pretend you’re not yourself.”  On the latter point, why are we only concerned about the straight troops feeling uncomfortable?  They’ll inevitably be the majority regardless of whether people can serve openly in the military.  They’ll still dominate the armed service and – AND – if they’re that scared and emotional about a few homos, shouldn’t we be reconsidering whether they’re really fit to serve?  It’s like, “yes sir, I am ready to face down a terrorist wearing a bomb but a homosexual?  Preposterous!”

These past few weeks it seemed all would be made right in the World as Congress finally moved toward a repeal (something an overwhelming majority of Americans AND Service Members agree with).  Then suddenly, without warning, it emerged that Obama may not have enough votes to seal the deal.  A few thoughts:  1. WHAT?  2. SERIOUSLY?  3. COME ON!

I HATE that anyone thinks there is possibly an alternative debate to this issue, and it remains a real problem in the media sphere as well.  In a constant pursuit of “balance” every side is given a voice, legitimizing every side regardless of whether or not they make any sense, can back up their claims, or are even supported by a significant number of people.  Not everything is black and white (or in this case, camouflage and rainbow).  Sometimes one side is actually more right and the other is just flat-out bigoted, discriminatory, and wrong.

Even this group of STRAIGHT soldiers in Iraq agrees, and put together this little number in protest of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.  Git it girl!