AndrewF's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
from the new-model-vs-the-old-model dept
Oh hey, it's my turn to pick my favorite Techdirt posts of the week! Woot!
Let's start with the continuation of the David Lowery saga, of which there is absolutely nothing to write about. Nope, nothing at all. Moving on.
Oh wait, I did want to highlight the post on the Spotify numbers though, partly because of the entertaining (and persistent) AC who conflated downvoting with censorship. I'm hoping one of the posts on that thread gets funniest comment.
I was also fascinated by this statistic: "When compared to iTunes, the average listener spends $60 dollars a year into the creative community, whereas Spotify Premium users spend $120 per year." If that's the case, then why does our AC think Spotify is such a bad deal for artists? Here's my guess. If I spend $60 on iTunes, I'm listening to only 60 songs. If I spend $120 on Spotify, I'm listening to way more than 60 (or 120) songs. Therefore, although the average Spotify user contributes more money to artists, that money is also being distributed across more artists than before.
What does that mean? Well, if you were doing well under the old system, then Spotify may not be all kittens and sleigh bells. But if you're one of the vastly larger group of artists who failed to win the record label lottery, then Spotify (and similar streaming services) is a great deal! Before you got nothing; now you get something. The real problem our AC has with Spotify isn't Spotify's lack of contribution to the creative community; it's that Spotify is changing the distribution of wealth within that community. As Zac Shaw points out, that redistribution may be more ethical than the previous one.
So if what you're advocating is essentially the re-concentration of wealth, how do you justify that? Easy. Describe the content produced by the masses as "pink slime". Because the stuff the top talent churns out is solid gold, like Battleship.
That's my speil on that, but while I have the floor, I'd like to highlight a few other super important topics:
- The tension between physical property and intellectual property. Because of the ambiguous language of the copyright statute, some courts have ruled that the First Sale Doctrine doesn't apply to goods manufactured abroad. If that's so, the copyrighting of everything from labels on bottles to the firmware on electronics threatens to kill the resale rights of almost everything.
- Patents may not be necessary to encourage disclosure. One of the underlying assumptions of the patent system is that without patents, companies would (1) keep everything they could a trade secret, and (2) only invest resources in research if they could keep it a trade secret. So it's nice to see some research poking holes in that hypothesis.
- HIPAA may be killing people. I like my privacy to a degree, but it's important to recognize that privacy is not some unmitigated social good, and that mandating privacy comes with it own set of costs.
- Two posts on granting greater copyright powers to actors. My prediction: An actor will (mis)use these powers to go after a person making fun of him, Charles Carreon style.
- Craigslist cuts off Padmapper. As someone who will be moving within the year, I am saddened by this. So if you personally know Craig, do us all a favor and tell him to loosen up, okay?
Finally, to round out the hilarity quotient this week, we have Long John Silver's attempt to partcipate in Taiwan's political process, mega screw-ups in New Zealand, and a basketball player who doesn't want other people monetizing unibrows.
That's it from me. Until next time, Techdirt readers!
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
While the amount of money a single users contributes to a single artist may decrease—from $ 0,10 per Itunes song to $ 0,006 per Spotify play—many more of his peers will also contribute to this artist, because each user listens to many more artists than on Itunes, and plays each song far more often than the single time he buys a song on Itunes. Because the total volume of user-to-artist contributions goes up tremendously (could very well be x20 or much more), the lower amount per contribution can be compensated.
In fact, if you look at the $ 120 v. $ 60, it seems likely that the higher volume can more than compensate for the lower amount per contribution. If we assume that the percentage taken by middle men is equal, the money paid to artists should double. However, since artists get only 10 % of a $-0.99 Itunes song ("for major label artists, Apple collects 34 cents and the label keeps 55 cents"), perhaps artists get a bigger cut out of Spotify plays, although there, too, both the label and Spotify take significant shares. If that should be so, artists would get even more than double the Itunes income if they go through Spotify.
http://trustmeimascientist.com/2011/09/05/how-much-does-spotify-pay/
http://blogcritics .org/music/article/q-how-much-of-a-99/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/digital-and-mobile/business-matters-is-spotify-labels-2-so urce-1007443752.story
If all of this talk about the economics of spotify are so good for artists why is there such a lack of transparency? No wonder Jeff Price likes it so much. Ahhhh... there's nothing like Black Box accounting, right?
Everyone knows Itunes takes a 30% margin flat on each transaction. Why doesn't Spotify just show everyone the revenue's and sharing? I mean, if everything they are saying is true, their greatest weapon is completely transparent accounting...
Unfortunately all we are getting is a lot of unverified claims, speculation, projections and mix and match stats that compare Apples to Airplanes...
But hey, if you guys can actually show transparent independently verified accounting, I'd love to see it.
Until then continue the choir preaching circle jerk of supporting your buddies at the RIAA ripping off artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://musictechpolicy.wordpress.com/2012/07/01/how-much-do-artists-earn-online/
I suppose you get what you get when you start listening to Jeff Price... but then again, if you're not seeking accuracy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
since you mentioned Carreon...
Oatmeal update:
Operation BearLove Good, Cancer Bad has ended. Now what?:
Accidently found via clicking on the Wil Wheaton link, out of curiosity, on Popehat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: since you mentioned Carreon...
http://www.techdirt.com/submitstory.php
And submitting it just in case Mike or one of the other writers wants to put up a post regarding it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: since you mentioned Carreon...
Including Carreon including the CA Attorney General in his Ammended Complaint:
http://www.loweringthebar.net/2012/06/carreon-complaint-amended-still-odd.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: since you mentioned Carreon...
Does the Story Submission form allow HTML code, if I were to have future stuff to submit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: since you mentioned Carreon...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: since you mentioned Carreon...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: since you mentioned Carreon...
Also, there's no preview button when making submissions, so I couldn't use the code & check if it'd work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: since you mentioned Carreon...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part VII: Charlie The Censor Files A Motion
The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part VII: Charlie The Censor Files A Motion
1st Paragraph:
Some relavent links (via Adam Steinbaugh, as he scooped Ken):
Carreon’s declaration | exhibits | memorandum of points and authorities | the Proposed Order
& both have been updated already w/ Indigogo's opposition, declaration of Indiegogo’s counsel (with an earlier copy of Carreon’s application), & declaration by Indiegogo’s CEO.
Then Adam links to Popehat.
Both Adam & Ken look to break it down, but I haven't taken the time to read anything yet... though, as expected, it still doesn't look like Carreon has a case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part VII: Charlie The Censor Files A Motion
I've now read Adam's write up (I'll start Popehat's VII after posting this), & Charles donated his $10 to Inman's fundraiser THE NIGHT BEFORE HE FILED THE LAW SUIT. I can't see how that's going to go over well w/ a judge. Also, since by that point, Carreon's paperwork for filing the case had to be done, he lied about what he was supposedly led to believe he was donating his money for. He complains about the possiblity that the money won't go where it was originally intended, but he had written up at least some of the paperwork to argue that before donating. & I'll point out, & I could be wrong about this, but if the lawsuit was filed after Update 2 was posted (which I'm pretty sure it was), then Carreon had donated AFTER Inman had said he'd add 2 more Charities, invalidating Carreon's entire complaint.
& his own Exibits demonstrate ALL of that!
Oh, & it looks like some of the money may have already been transfered to the ACS & NWF, but neither how that works nor how much has yet to be clarified.
Oh, & the reason for Part VII to be written, Carreon filed for a Temporary Restraining Order to prevent the money going to ANYONE until a court sorts things out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part VII: Charlie The Censor Files A Motion
IndieGoGo only had whatever was donated by credit card (looks like about 1/2), which has already been sent to the Charities, & Charles was told that. Anything donated by PayPal went directly to Inman, so he may be able to take a pic w/ just the PayPal donations.
Also, the Temporary Restraining Order was filed AFTER IndieGoGo had sent the money it had.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EFF Opposition to Carreon's TRO
It seems Carreon, having filed the case in CA, doesn't even have the decency to attend the court proceedings in person. He's asked to attend the hearing on the TRO telephonically.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Inman's Opposition to Carreon's TRO
Inman's opposition to application for temporary restraining order (.pdf?)
The EFF also has a page w/ links to various filings under Carreon v. Inman: https://www.eff.org/cases/carreon-v-inman
I'm not sure what Ars linked to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Inman's Opposition to Carreon's TRO
From the EFF's filing of Inman's Opposition (link in previous post)
So, there you have it. All the money is out of Carreon's reach (though, I wouldn't put it past him to argue to get the money back from the charities at this point), & The Oatmeal got the pic it promised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]