There’s a new bill that harmonizes penalties for illegal streaming services with penalties for illegal download services. FMC has long supported harmonization while wanting to make sure policies don’t have unintended consequences. So how is this bill?
Turns out, it’s pretty narrowly tailored to deal with truly bad actors! Even more narrow than previous attempts to deal with the problem. Unfortunately one of the problems with internet policy is that rhetoric gets heated.
The last couple times bills dealing with these issues were floated, some people made outlandish and frankly dishonest claims, like that it would have sent Justin Bieber to prison.
There was a time when some recording industry groups pursued infringement claims against individual users. We don’t want a return to that. But going after companies that profit from running illegal streaming services? That’s reasonable.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
THREAD: one factor leading to low payouts on streaming services is that the market is distorted by competitive services that pay artists nothing at all. At the top of that list is FM radio. This impacts every artist, even those that would never get radio airplay.
Artists love noncommercial, public, college, community stations that serve their communities with diverse music and news programming, but they may never give commercial radio much thought. It's easy to understand why.
Since the 1996 telecommunications act, we've seen rampant ownership consolidation in radio broadcasting, and with that, more and more cookie-cutter playlists, homogenous formats, less diversity, and less local music.
The @FTC is suing Facebook, along with State attorneys general. This is an important move that could help musicians.
Over time, have you noticed that Facebook has gotten less useful for musicians? Features that allowed you to easily communicate with fans slowly replaced with advertising tools you have to pay for? FB can get away with it because of monopoly power.
The lawsuit argues that FB has maintained its monopoly position with an anticompetitive “buy or crush” strategy.
Quick thread on Spotify discontent: in any kind of corporate accountability work, activists usually end up making demands of companies, including things they know the targeted companies are unable or unwilling to do. It’s a pretty standard tactic and can help shift the discourse.
Some observers are going to look at “impossible demands” as a reason to dismiss activists, or claim that those calling for change don’t understand the issues. This is also a pretty standard tactic, and a risk of that approach.
With streaming royalties & music licensing, the details of agreements are complex, and often deliberately intransparent. Same is true of the business structures behind venture capital, private equity, revenue vs stock price--people get advanced degrees so they can understand it.
People may disagree about what changes to the model are possible, and what the impact of changes would be. But it's clear that the full-catalog on-demand pro-rata $10 subscription ad-supported/ surveillance-based model of music streaming still isn't working for a lot of artists.
Some folks call for voluntary reforms, others call for development of better alternatives. It's also helpful to look at public policy choices that encourage businesses to center investors' goals over sustainability for diverse creators.
But this much is clear: artists collectively aren't going to accept arguments that the current state of affairs with dominant streaming models is inevitable, that it's the best we can reasonably expect, or that it's actually working great for everyone.
Ownership consolidation and monopoly dynamics cause problems for musicians, but they also amplify existing problems. When too few companies have too much power, that means if a business model isn’t working for you, you may not have alternatives.
Here’s an example: in the 90s, it was challenging for independent music to get radio play or coverage in big mainstream magazines. Altweeklies and niche publications played a crucial role in encouraging the modern independent music movement, at local and national levels.
But ownership consolidation has been a disaster for local journalism. We’ve seen many altweeklies shuttered, page counts radically diminished, local coverage cut back, critics laid off. Pressure has also come from ad tech monopoly dynamics online.
Quick thread on what today's @senjudiciary hearing on Notice and Takedown in the DMCA is about. (1/?)
We often say that musicians typically need 2 basic things: the ability to reach audiences (in ways that make sense for them) and the ability to be fairly/sustainably compensated when their work is used.
Musicians and composers typically work with a variety of business partners in pursuit of those two goals. Those partners can include digital services that host user-generated content. Ideally, a digital service can help creators make their work available and help them earn money.