GEMA Gets Bailed Out By Germany's Parliament; Allowed To Proceed With Venue-Killing Rate Hikes

from the your-shakedown-is-GO! dept

The threat posed to Germany's underground club scene by all-around IP thug GEMA is no longer just a threat. Back in July, GEMA decided to "streamline" its convoluted fee structure. Naturally, it decided to smooth things over in a upward motion, raising the fees charged to these clubs by up to 1,400%. This sparked protests against GEMA's tactics and a petition with 60,000 signatures was brought to the Deutsches Bundestag (Germany's parliament). Unfortunately, the Deutsches Bundestag punted, suggesting those unhappy with the new fee structure negotiate directly with GEMA. [However you spell "LOL" in German goes here.]

The petition itself deployed an interesting tactic, targeting the legality of the "GEMA presumption."

The petition, which began circulating in August, specifically protested the so-called "GEMA presumption," i.e. GEMA's method of deciding tariffs for clubs and festivals based on the assumption that they own rights to 100% of the music being played there. The reasoning behind this is that it would be too difficult to sort out which tracks were or weren't written by GEMA members. This method is part of what allows GEMA to decide their tariffs based purely on the amount of space in a venue and the duration of its events, without necessarily knowing what music was played.

Not much of a "method," is it? It's exactly what the protestors call it: "presumption." Rather than make any attempt to even make a ballpark guess at the percentage of music GEMA might actually be able to collect on, GEMA has bullied its way to a supremely privileged position that allows it to claim tariffs on 100% of any music played in nearly any venue. The duration of the events works against the underground clubs as well, as their extended hours drastically increase the fees GEMA collects.

The audacity of this claim (and the unwillingness to do any legwork) is astounding. Whatever hold GEMA has over the government, and by extension, Germany's music consumption, far surpasses the power of other PROs, labels and IP groups around the world.

Resident Advisor points out that this isn't the first time GEMA's "presumption" has been challenged.

The GEMA presumption has been contested before. One study by Berlin's Club Commission sampled everything that was played at Berlin clubs like Watergate and Weekend over one weekend, and found that as many as 35% of the records played were unknown to GEMA...

While GEMA could still claim that its artists provide a larger share of the records played in these clubs, it's still a long walk from 65% to 100%, that latter percentage being what determines the fees assessed. Unfortunately, the Bundestag sided with GEMA in this earlier action, stating that any alternative would be "too cumbersome" for the PRO to utilize for its collection efforts.

This second concession to GEMA by the Bundestag effectively allows GEMA to set rates with impunity and frees it from having to determine actual music usage. In addition to granting GEMA even more power, it likely dooms several iconic Berlin clubs to extinction, thanks to rate increases that reflect only GEMA's self-serving "streamlining" rather than the actual music played or the clubs' actual income.

Organizations like GEMA are supposedly "protecting artists" by imposing these fees. There's some "protection" going on here, but it's got nothing to do with art.

Filed Under: germany, music, rates
Companies: gema

Epic's 'Music First' Approach: Delay Album Release; Drop Band When They Leak It

from the uh-what? dept

Last month, we wrote about how the band Death Grips, an indie sensation who had signed with Epic Records (owned by Sony Music), had decided to release their latest album for free all over the internet, after some sort of dispute with Epic over the release date. The band was already considered one of the top authorized downloaded bands on BitTorrent due to earlier releases it had put online for free itself. However, with Epic trying to take a standard "slow down and wait" approach, the band posted its new album to various file lockers and started tweeting out links, noting that "the label will be hearing the album for the first time with you."

Last week, the band posted a screenshot of an irate email from the label about this. Epic notes not only that is it absolutely furious about the leak, but that (1) the release is a breach of contract; (2) since Epic owns the copyright, the label considers the leak to be infringing; (3) the band's decisions have "financially damaged Epic"; (4) even though Epic still intended to release the album, the album would not count towards the recording commitment in the band's contract and (5) while Epic still intended to collect money for the sale of the album (which, again, would not count towards the recording commitment), Epic would not cover the cost of recording the album. Those last two points are the really interesting ones to me. If it's not counting the album towards the recording commitment, and it now refuses to pay for the cost of the album, it seems wrong to then still consider it something that Epic gets to sell and to keep all the revenue from.

Either way, it appears that won't be an issue, because just a few weeks after that email was sent, Epic officially began the process of dropping Death Grips from the contract. This probably won't surprise many people, though it will be interesting to see if Epic retains "ownership" of the work in question or if Death Grips is able to get back control of its masters. That said, Epic's "statement" about this move is absolutely hilarious for being obviously, blatantly, false:

Epic Records is a music first company that breaks new artists. That is our mission and our mandate. Unfortunately, when marketing and publicity stunts trump the actual music, we must remind ourselves of our core values. To that end, effective immediately, we are working to dissolve our relationship with Death Grips. We wish them well.

First of all, Death Grips had already "broken" without Epic's help. Second, since when has a major label ever really cared about "the actual music" as compared to the ability to make money off of it with marketing and publicity stunts? And, really, if it were just about "the music," then why would it have freaked out so much when the band made "the music" available for free?

Filed Under: breach, contracts, death grips, free, music, releases
Companies: epic records, sony music

Next Time Someone Suggests Piracy Will Kill Music, Remind Them That Music Survived The Last Ice Age

from the a-little-perspective dept

Music predates agriculture. That's something I suppose I always knew, but had never thought about in such clear terms until Bryan Kim illustrated it in a talk at SFMusicTech with a photo of a 35,000-year-old bone flute. This places music before farming and written language on the timeline of humanity, right alongside the earliest known cave paintings in Europe, at the very least. By comparison, recorded music has only been around for a little over a century.

Viewed in that light, the idea that recordings are the central, defining aspect of music or the music industry is just plain ridiculous. Between that ancient flute and today, there have been plenty of different successful models for funding music. Kim points out that the one common thread throughout, which continues today, is that music's primary function is more community-building than anything else:

For most of human history, music was a public and participatory experience, inextricably linked to a plural of people synched in a real-time experience. As a binding agent of dancing and singing bodies, music could literally manifest community. And lest you think our modern society has evolved beyond the tribal utility of music, just think of religious services, major sporting events, weddings, nightclubs, road trips… when was the last time you attended one of these without some sort of collective music ritual?

...

In many ways, music is the original social network. This makes musicians founders of community. In a networked world, that’s powerful.

I found all this especially fascinating because of the conclusion Kim reached, and the model he's dubbed "crowd patronage" for supporting music going forward, combining the traditions of busking and of wealthy patrons that have been dominant in virtually all periods of history and, likely, pre-history. The idea is that you need an "ecosystem of fans" and then they will support you in exchange for "relationship access". It is, essentially, the same as what we've been calling CwF+RtB here at Techdirt. Using Kickstarter as an example, Kim elaborates:

Just like in the era of patronage, pledgers are usually not buying a commodified product. The most successful music Kickstarter projects sell you one or more of three “values”: 1) access to artist (as discussed above), 2) exclusivity and 3) recognition/participation (especially for artist’s creation).

So we’re going to see more artists open up the creation process to their fanbase. Everything from crediting fans in the liner notes, to tracking fans' recorded sounds as real stems, to skyping and polling fans during studio sessions.

As a musician, it’s already technically possible to do this. In the next few years, we’re going to find it become more culturally acceptable on both the artist and fan side. More importantly, artists are going to start finding which sorts of packages their fans actually buy, etching out the contours of a new crowd patronage “model”.

It's great to see more people reaching this conclusion, and especially interesting to see it approached from a broader historical perspective: crowd patronage or CwF+RtB is only a new or radical concept when viewed through the narrow lens of recorded music's few decades of dominance. In the bigger picture, it's actually a return to music's roots as a community tool and a tribal experience. Recorded music is still a fantastic thing that has enriched our lives and our culture in its own way—but the notion that music cannot thrive without the commoditization of discrete units doesn't withstand an ounce of scrutiny. The next time someone suggests such a thing, remind them that humans were carving flutes out of bone 20,000 years before the last ice age ended, when glaciers were still creeping towards the Great Lakes and consuming all of the British Isles, and the last few Neanderthals were still roaming around Europe. It sure makes CDs and records seem a tad less significant.

Filed Under: cwf+rtb, fan funding, history, music, opportunities, patronage

Universal And Fox Sued Over Simpson's Theme Park Ride... By A Musicians' Union

from the if-we-didn't-think-of-it,-it-must-be-illegal dept

The Simpsons has had a long run (perhaps overly so) and, despite being Fox's cash cow for the last quarter century, has never been targeted with a lawsuit. It took the show being turned into a theme park ride to do it and even then, it took over four years from the ride's debut before something Simpson's-related became suit-worthy.

And it's not about licensing, trademarks, copyright or any of the usual suspects. It's about the music. The Simpson's theme music that runs nonstop from entrance to exit is the problem. While it would seem obvious that the rights would be cleared on an officially licensed theme ride, the American Federation of Musicians says it isn't.

[T]he union is objecting to a Simpsons roller coaster attraction at Universal Studios Theme Park in Hollywood that has been featuring the recorded music soundtrack from the show. The plaintiff union filed the lawsuit in California federal court, alleging that Universal obtained the recording without providing any notice.

According to the complaint, both Fox and Universal are parties to a 2010 agreement with the musicians guild that "include(s) a broad restriction on new uses" of music recorded for TV shows...

The lawsuit states, "Universal's use of music sound track from The Simpsons at its park does not fall within any of the new use exceptions enumerated in Article 8 of the Agreement and, thus, is not an authorized new use under the Agreement."

As far as statements go, AFM's allegation that Universal's use of the theme music for its ride does not fall within the "defined new uses" is true. It doesn't. Universal's counterclaim, that the use of the soundtrack is "promotional" and therefore, not subject to AFM's royalty demands, could also be considered largely factual. After all, a theme park ride is a giant advertisement for the franchise. But when all the crosstalk dies down, what it really looks like is a royalty grab by AFM, whose contractual language failed to nail down specific rates for use of its music by a theme park attraction.

The filing notes that Fox originally "engaged the professional services of AFM musicians" when recording the theme song. But Universal skipped an important step, at least according to AFM, by putting the theme song to use on the Simpson's ride without notifying the union. Why should AFM been notified? It's tough to say. From the lengthy listing of various permutations that should result in a royalty payment to AFM, it appears the musicians' union feels it should be involved even in situations the contract never directly addresses.

Because Universal, with Fox's permission, used Simpson's theme music to soundtrack an amusement park ride, AFM feels it should get paid (again). But it seems to have no standing based on the quoted contractual wording. Universal's use of the soundtrack doesn't fit into the "PAY UP" bin and, according to AFM, it doesn't fit into the "EXCEPTIONS" bin, either. Unable to pin down exactly why Universal should be paying more royalties, AFM instead recasts this "new" usage as a violation of its members' rights, accusing Univeral of "breach of labor agreement."

Not paying for something no one's asked for (yet) is hardly "breach of contract." Universal's claim that the use is "promotional" puts it back in compliance with the contract, but AFM doesn't want Universal in compliance... or at least not under that heading, which would result in no further royalty payments. Instead AFM has asked for an injunction against Universal to prevent it from further "exploiting" the Simpson's music and is suing both Fox and Universal for "breach of contract" and any owed royalties. And all of this over a development AFM didn't see coming: a theme park ride.

Considering the principals involved in this suit are IP-behemoths Fox and Universal, it's hard to believe that either of the companies deliberately avoided running this plan past AFM simply to avoid paying some royalties. Sure, Universal's music arm has this problem, but this case deals with one of Fox's most successful IPs turning into a theme park attraction with Universal's expertise on that end. Some IP was transferred from Fox to Universal, presumably to cross all t's and dot all i's. This lawsuit, coming as it does more than four years after the ride's debut, feels more like some overactive lawyering/rent-seeking rather than a case of deliberate shafting by Fox and Universal. 

Filed Under: copyright, music, simpsons
Companies: afm, fox, universal

Songkick Helps Fans Bring Their Favorite Musician To London

from the working-the-other-way-around dept

When we talk about alternative business models for music, one that always is discussed is live performances. Like it or not, this is a very big (and growing at a rapid rate) part of the market. We've never argued that live performance is the only alternative business model (though some pretend we've said that), but it's hard to deny that it is an area of opportunity for many artists. Now, many people -- quite rightly -- point out that the aggregate data on touring doesn't tell the whole story. Big acts with massive tours can take in lots and lots of money, while it can be quite difficult for acts that don't have that level of support. We've heard the story plenty of times of bands going on tour in a crappy old van, only to show up in places and play for 5 people who don't care, having spent much more on gas to get to the venue than they make from the door. This absolutely happens. And it sucks for bands. But there's no reason that needs to happen.

We've talked about alternative ways of touring, and even how artists like Jonathan Coulton used tools like Eventful to have fans prove there was enough demand at a location before he'd perform there. We've also talked about how there were a growing number of tools that can make touring/live efforts more effective and less likely to lose money. And one of those tools is Songkick, which already helps alert people to concerts they may be interested in, with evidence that services like that, alone, help drive more people to shows. But now Songkick is expanding even more, with a new effort called Detour -- which has some similarities with Eventful. Songkick talks about how they were able to "crowdfund" getting musician Tycho from his home in San Francisco to London for the first time to perform, by gathering up a ton of his fans to prove that there was demand.

Tycho's manager had been worried about doing any sort of European tour, because it's expensive to get there, and if the fanbase wasn't there, you're making a huge bet. Enter Songkick Detour:

We chatted to Tycho and his team and it seemed like they’d need to sell a few hundred tickets to make it feasible to come to London, so we created a simple website, Detour to allow Tycho fans to pledge. What happened next was pretty insane! We emailed the fans on Songkick who were tracking Tycho, and over 100 of them pledged money for a ticket. Gideon was pretty thrilled to see how many other people shared his passion for Tycho. But 100 or so wasn’t enough to get the show confirmed so the Songkickers took it into their own hands & started to contact friends and music fans who were either into Tycho or should be! Within a short while we hit our target and the gig was on! Wow.

Boom. But it didn't end there. As Ian Hogarth notes in the post, because the show was crowdfunded, it also changed the nature of it. Just as we've seen with other crowdfunding efforts, it gives supporters some sort of effective feeling of ownership and thus making the event successful isn't just about going to a cool show, but about really being a part of a success story. And that can take things to another level:

To be honest at that point I didn’t think things could get much cooler. To see fans rise up to help their favourite artist go and tour in a new country was overwhelming. The sense of community and excitement was really special. But then I went to the concert itself and realised the real power of this concept. Everyone at that show was there because they made the gig happen and the atmosphere reflected that. It was beyond intimate and the connection between the band and the fans that started online carried into the gig itself. One of the fans that came made this lovely video of the show and you can get a feel for how special the atmosphere was. Tycho was so appreciative of the fans that made it happen, and brought over some beautiful signed posters for the event which he gave to some of the first fans who pledged.

No one has ever claimed that there's a magic bullet for success in the music business (or any business). But the status quo does not need to be the way things stay. There are all sorts of opportunities to make live music better, more efficient and more enjoyable for everyone. And it seems like this little effort from Songkick is a nice step in that direction.

Filed Under: crowdsourcing, detour, music, touring, tycho
Companies: songkick

Worth Noting: Amanda Palmer's 'Free' Album Debuted At Number 10 On The Billboard Charts

from the oh,-look-at-that dept

We've written plenty about Amanda Palmer and the various cool things she's done to connect with fans and give them a reason to buy. She's stopped by on occasion to do some guest posting as well. Obviously, a lot of the recent attention has been about her Kickstarter campaign, but there was one tidbit that seemed worth calling attention to. A week and a half ago, when the album was officially released... it debuted in the number 10 spot on the Billboard charts. This is much more impressive than it might sound. You may recall when Dan Bull tried to reach the charts with his free single. It worked in the UK, but in the US, they calculate the charts in a convoluted way that includes radio airplay as well as sales. Getting airplay is very, very difficult if you're not on a major label who pays crazy money to "promoters" in the latest attempt to do payola that doesn't run afoul of the law. So to get on the charts with a totally independent album, with no label at all, is really quite amazing.

And, to do it with an album that is available for free for those who want it is just as amazing. Yes, that's right, free. While there's been plenty of talk about the Kickstarter aspect, there's also the fact that she's offering it as a pure pay what you want model off of her site, where there's even a button to click to get the album for free... and this part where she explains why it's okay to get the album for free (though she wouldn't mind if you paid too...) in which she also encourages people to share it: If you can't see that, it says:

DEAR DOWNLOADER of MUSIC

i firmly believe in music being as free as possible. unlocked. shared and spread.

i believe that in order for artists to survive and create, their audiences need to step up and directly support them. honor system.
no judgment.
if you’re broke – take it. if you love it, come back and kick in later when you have the money.
if you’re rich, think about who you might be karmically covering if you really love this record.

the store below has two versions of the record. one is totally free, and one has a minimum price of $1.00 so that i can cover the cost of covering other artists’ songs.

once you have it, SHARE SHARE SHARE! COPY COPY COPY! SPREAD THE EVIL!!!
we are the media.

LOVE, afp

But, you know, it's impossible to make money when people share your stuff, right? Maybe if you actually spend time connecting with fans, you'll discover that they're more than happy to support you, as they're supporting Amanda.

Filed Under: amanda palmer, billboard charts, crowdfunding, free, music, sharing

Bob Dylan: People Claiming I Plagiarized Them Are Pussies

from the meow dept

I know two things about Bob Dylan. First, my father loves him and thinks he's the kind of lyrical mastermind that makes puppies weep or something. Second, man does that guy like to contradict himself. Mike recently wrote up a more general piece about how copyright law goes against how we as a people create and mentioned in passing how Bob Dylan is often cited as a gift bestowed upon the masses by copyright, despite his appropriation of others' work in his lyrics. Well guess what, Mike? Bob Dylan thinks you're a pussy!

Yes, reader redrum writes in about a wonderful story in which Bob Dylan flatly states that those who have accused him of plagiarism are "wussies and pussies."
"Meow I would not feeeeel, so all alooooone!"
Image source: CC BY 2.0 No, not like that. He meant it in the demeaning ignorant way, proving his power over prose with such eloquence I haven't seen since college, when a stoned fraternity brother explained to me how awesome hazing is. In any case, the interview apparently went much deeper than simple misogyny.

In an interview with Rolling Stone magazine for its Friday edition, the influential singer-songwriter made his first public comments on the accusations, saying that in folk and jazz music "quotation is a rich and enriching tradition."

"Everyone else can do it but not me," he complained. "There are different rules for me."

It's a fair point by Dylan, I think. I mean, so what if he appropriated lyrics like "I'm not quite as cool or forgiving as I sound" almost verbatim from the biography of a Japanese mobster? That seriously isn't a big deal. And, yes, perhaps it seemed kind of strange when Dylan offered the world a painting exhibit he said was from scenes of his travels, when they were actually scenes from other people's photographs. But big deal. That's often how culture works. No harm, no foul.

The problem, of course, is that there are some people who think this kind of appropriation isn't okay. That it takes away from culture, rather than adding to it. That words have the right to be owned and art should be protected. One such person, who would disagree with Bob Dylan in this case, is Bob Dylan. As we've previously discussed:

He didn't just filch songs from other people's repertoires; he stole their arrangements. (As late as 1992, he lifted Nic Jones's arrangement of Canadee-I-O, wholesale and without acknowledgment.) He did this on both sides of the Atlantic. The great Martin Carthy, who has also just turned 70, taught him Scarborough Fair, which Dylan then recycled as Girl from the North Country. 

But he treated his own songs as private property: what's yours is mine and what's mine is my own. The assertion of his individualism involved in "going electric" was in part a way of defining Dylan entirely as an individual artist and therefore as the sole owner of his own songs. 

And that's the Bob Dylan we disagree with. Of course appropriating words, or photographs, or whatever as pieces to a larger cultural output is the way folk music works. And art. And writing. And film. We all stand on the shoulders, to some degree, of those that came before us. It's a good thing. As much as Dylan is contradicting himself, he's correct to push back on those accusing him of plagiarism. But he might also have to revisit his own views on the way people use his work as well.

Filed Under: bob dylan, copying, culture, music, plagiarism

EMI Universal Deal Cleared, Giving One Company Veto Rights On Pretty Much Any New Music Service

from the well-that-could-be-a-problem dept

This isn't a huge surprise, but EU and US regulators both approved Universal Music's deal to buy EMI today. Under the terms from the EU, they will have to sell off some EMI assets, including the iconic Parlophone label. There is a part of me that thinks that the complaints against this deal are a bit overblown, seeing as it's about linking up two dinosaurs who've failed to adapt -- and bringing them together won't fix any of the major problems those two labels face. But there are some very real concerns about how this could impact innovation online. For better or for worse, setting up digital music services today requires doing deals with the major labels. If you're just doing webcasting (i.e., broadcast) there are agreed upon -- but insanely high -- rates you can use (more on that later today). However, if you're doing anything interactive or offering digital downloads, then you have to cut deals.

A story earlier this week at the Huffington Post, does a really nice job laying out how this deal effectively gives a few Universal Music execs veto power over any new music startup. Because if you're launching a music service today, you generally want it to offer a lot of popular music, and between Universal Music and EMI, they control a huge portion of that market -- much of it historical back catalog stuff, but also some of the more popular mega-acts today. The HuffPo writeup notes that Steve Jobs played the labels off of each other to get them to sign on to iTunes. But, today, the new UMG could control that process.

According to Paul Vidich, a former Warner Music executive who closed the iTunes deal, the pending merger between Universal and EMI could put an end to that state of affairs.

"Without a UMG-EMI license, they won't have a business," said Vidich, referring to new digital startups. "Within the new UMG-EMI there will be only a handful of senior executives who make these key licensing decisions. So this small group will become the gatekeepers for music startups that require these licenses. The psychology, pay packages and strategic interests of these executives will have an outsized impact on diversity and innovation in the entire online music industry."

Remember, Universal is the company whose former CEO, Doug Morris, once gleefully explained how he didn't understand technology and didn't even try to hire someone who did, because he wouldn't know how. Amazingly, his board let him keep his job for many years (he's since moved on to head up Sony Music). Morris' replacement at UMG, Lucian Grainge, has talked about how the CD format is important to the company's future. And he's now basically the guy with veto power over any new music service.

That does not bode well for the online digital music marketplace.

Filed Under: consolidation, digital music services, major labels, music
Companies: emi, riaa, universal music

If The RIAA Was Innovative: An Alternate Universe Timeline

from the an-alternate-history dept

1999: Realizing the inevitable, the RIAA convinces member labels to set up all-you-can eat buffets. All music available as DRM-free downloads, $5/mo. 100M of storage, additionally available for increased monthly fee. The RIAA uses superior marketing muscle to "drown out" competing "free" alternatives, insists people should only download from "legitimate" sources to ensure data integrity and security. It recommends the gradual reduction in the production, marketing, storage and sales of CDs, vinyl and tape, keeping only a small reserve capacity*.

2000: RIAA negotiates a small increase in financial support from labels' substantial savings from physical media reductions to create the Online Strategy Group (OSG), hiring engineers, programmers, technologists, musicologists and a futurist or two. The OSG's first suggestion is FoM, Future of Music, which the RIAA incorporates, initially to handle the growing subscription business.

2001: On OSG's advice, the RIAA convinces member labels to cross-offer artists by genre in sites with fun names like, "soultology.com", "hitsnmisses.com", "netrockstar.com", "eargasm.com", etc. A marginally increased monthly fee ($1 more for each sub-site) gets download access and membership in forums, discounts on t-shirts, tickets, posters, etc. FoM takes over all revenue-generating ventures and negotiates equitable profit-sharing deals with the labels and reaches out to independent artists. FoM buys Creative and, with help from the OSG brain-trust, designs and sells a fantastically popular line of MP3 players.

2002: Capitalizing on the psychology of "sharers", OSG introduces memberships that encourage people to find and upload obscure and out-of-print audio. Uploaders compete for discounted memberships, back-stage passes, artist access and the most important prizes: minor fame, street-cred and a custom avatar. The RIAA creates work-arounds for copyright issues removing limits on fan's abilities to upload, modify and share work.

2003 - 2005: Recognizing the growth of social media, the OSG introduces groups and messaging. Higher-access users get expanded pages on OSG sites and are encouraged to rate and critique music. OSG makes available interaction with music journalists, holds contests for album & t-shirt art, gives prizes for mashups with highest votes by the communities. The OSG makes "Locker" space available, 1G free, $1/mo for each additional gigabyte. OSG introduces "Rip Me" - user puts a factory CD in the computer drive tray, and is given the option to rip/upload tracks or have recording company copies put in his/her locker. (Subsequent attempts to upload the same CD from another computer is allowed with a minimum new subscription)

2006 - 2010: FoM buys Pandora, iTunes, YouTube, RIM, Turntable.fm, Facebook and a controlling interest in Sirius. OSG helps FoM branch the Blackberry, creating the "Rockberry", a consumer-oriented "mobile media sharing device". OSG solicits auditions from all musicians everywhere, showcasing the best on YouTube. FoM makes record profits from tours, downloads, streams, hardware, music licensing and merchandise. Cary Sherman becomes fifth richest man in the US.

2011: *FoM introduces choice "retro" vinyl, CD and tape catalogue for hipsters worldwide. OSG and RIAA move into "palatial" FoM office campus in Los Angeles, work begins on 30-story FoM tower in Manhattan.

Cross-posted from botaday.com

Filed Under: alternate history, music, recording industry
Companies: riaa