grammys – Techdirt (original) (raw)

from the oh-look-at-that dept

Back in December, we wrote about how Rep. Jerry Nadler, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, which is in charge of any copyright reform proposals, was hosting a party for music industry lobbyists at the Grammy’s this year (along with Chair of the Democratic Caucus, Hakeem Jeffries). To party with Nadler and Jeffries at the Grammys — the recording industry’s biggest event of the year — you “only” had to pay $5,000 per ticket. A bargain.

Whether or not you believe this is outright corruption, it certainly meets Larry Lessig’s definition of “soft corruption.” That is activity that may be perfectly legal, but to the vast majority of the public certainly feels corrupt, and raises questions about who’s influencing our elected officials. Nadler, of course, has long been deeply in the bag for the recording industry. Years back, he pushed a bill that was little more than a bailout for the RIAA, and he’s attacked the idea that if people buy something, they then own it as “an extreme digital view.”

But it appears that the more mainstream media is beginning to notice Nadler’s conflicts. His hometown NY Daily News has a whole article that talks about Nadler’s money grab at the Grammys as well as much, much more.

Jerry Nadler is rockin’ and rollin’ in campaign cash from the music industry and other intellectual property businesses that he oversees as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, a review of recent federal records reveals.

Nadler, who is one of the point men pounding the drums against President Trump?s various improprieties, banked at least $65,000 from corporate music industry political action committees, industry executives, and their lobbyists and lawyers, a Daily News search of Nadler?s campaign receipts found.

He also spent more than $30,000 to hold his own Grammy Awards party ? at the Grammy Awards in Los Angeles in February.

Yeah. The Daily News doesn’t mention that tickets to the party were advertised to lobbyists at $5k a pop. The Daily News points out that this is all legal, but does certainly suggest it appears pretty freaking sketchy:

A spokeswoman for Nadler?s campaign insisted there was nothing improper in dropping 27,250forasuiteattheStaplesCenterwheretheGrammysareawarded,27,250 for a suite at the Staples Center where the Grammys are awarded, 27,250forasuiteattheStaplesCenterwheretheGrammysareawarded,2,290 for food and drinks, 1,835attheBeverlyHillsHiltonandanother1,835 at the Beverly Hills Hilton and another 1,835attheBeverlyHillsHiltonandanother2,650 at the Sheraton Grand, all so industry execs could fill Nadler?s campaign coffers and schmooze with the chairman.

The article notes that “in a perfect world” members of Congress who run committees regulating industries probably wouldn’t be allowed to host parties at those industry events, selling expensive tickets to get in. But, hey, it’s not a perfect world.

?For many Americans, our corrosive fund-raising system calls into question whether members of Congress are acting in the public interest, or for some private financial interest,? Scherb said.

You don’t say.

There are still a number of important copyright issues likely to come before Congress in the near future. Does anyone actually believe that Nadler will take the interests of all sides into account? Or does he have at least 65,000 reasons to focus mainly on the views of the RIAA in determining what copyright bills are even considered?

Filed Under: copyright, copyright reform, grammys, hakeem jeffries, jerry nadler, soft corruption
Companies: riaa

Grammy's Can't Get Streaming Or Audio Right, But Assure You That Free Spotify Is Kinda Like ISIS

from the say-what-now? dept

We already wrote about how CBS fucked up internet streaming of the Grammy’s on Monday night, but a few folks have sent in the various stories about how Grammy’s boss Neil Portnow did his now annual whine about how evil tech companies don’t pay musicians enough, and how if we don’t start giving musicians more money ISIS will win and the 12 year old who just performed on piano might starve or something. The crux of his talk was to whine that when people stream a song it might earn those associated with the music “a fraction of a penny” and somehow that’s unfair:

“So, what does hearing your favorite song mean to you?” asked Neil Portnow, the president of the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, which awards the Grammys.

He then explained that when people use streaming-music services, the artists and others behind those songs earn “a small fraction of a penny” per song.

“Isn’t a song worth more than a penny?” he asked, as the audience cheered. “You bet. Listen, we all love the convenience and we support technologies like streaming that connects us to that music. But we also have to make sure the creators and artists ? like Joey over there ? grow up in a world where music is a viable career.”

Behind him as he said this, was this fabulous clip art visual aid (seriously, can’t the Grammy’s come up with something a little better as a graphic?)

And, yes, there was a weird reference to ISIS and the Paris attacks as a reason for paying musicians more. While there may have been applause inside the theater, the line seemed to flop everywhere else:

…did the RIAA guy just slam Spotify and ISIS in the same sentence?? #GRAMMYs

— ToddInTheShadows (@ShadowTodd) February 16, 2016

grammys have now turned into a spotify attack ad

— josh lewis (@thejoshl) February 16, 2016

Oh my god. This anti Spotify ad at #GRAMMYs is so ridiculous.

— Christina Warren (@film_girl) February 16, 2016

Oh the #GRAMMYs just took a turn down anti-streaming. Doesn't Joey deserve more than a penny? C'mon Larry & Mark!

— Danny Sullivan (@dannysullivan) February 16, 2016

What would the Grammys be without Neil Portnow berating a portion of its audience?

— Chris Barton (@chrisbarton) February 16, 2016

Not sure what that guy at the Grammys is talking about?when I was a kid CDs were 8 for a penny and artists did great pic.twitter.com/FA91DwI5vV

— Dan McQuade (@dhm) February 16, 2016

Of course, the whole penny thing is misleading and ridiculous. It’s emotional bullshit that Portnow is using because the truth makes the recording industry who pay his salary look terrible. And it’s this: streaming actually pays artists more per listener than other forms of music acquisition. Multiple studies have shown that when you figure out the cost per listen, streaming is higher than radio, CDs or paid downloads. Sure a fraction of a penny sounds like a small amount, but the missing implicit suggestion is that the streaming companies like Spotify are making much more than that per stream. They’re not. Spotify pays significantly more than half of their revenue towards licensing (and often the reason musicians aren’t getting paid is because the record labels are keeping most of it from the artists.

It also ignores how free streaming services have actually helped bring revenue back into the music industry by decreasing piracy rates drastically and getting people to move to legal options. Demanding ever higher rates only serves to cause these kinds of companies to fail. And all that will do is drive people back to totally unauthorized services where artists and copyright holders don’t get any money directly.

Of course, this is the way things always work for the legacy recording industry. They see a new technology — a technology they didn’t support, don’t understand, and fought against initially — suddenly making them some money and they start demanding more and more and more until they kill the golden goose. They do this over and over again. Remember how ringtones were suddenly making the industry money? They kept demanding more money for them, and no one cares about ringtones any more. Or how about music video games? Once again, the record labels started insisting that they weren’t getting paid enough, and look at what happened to those games?

It’s one thing to negotiate different payment structures, but the constant whining and bullshit about “fairness” when “fair” appears to be something like 200% of any revenue any music tech company makes is beginning to wear a bit thin, don’t you think? Once again, these are the same people who fought tooth and nail against any of these technologies, and now that they actually got built AND are helping the industry and musicians actually make some money, these same talking heads whine that it’s not enough? Really? Go build your own damn technology service, and you’ll quickly discover that it’s not that easy. And then maybe they’ll stop whining with bullshit claims. But that seems unlikely. The whining never ceases. And yet they call fans “entitled”?

Filed Under: fairness, grammys, neil portnow, rates, royalties, streaming
Companies: spotify

CBS Streaming Service Chokes On The Grammys, But YouTube Takedown Apparatus Works Just Fine

from the not-really-innovatin' dept

Tue, Feb 16th 2016 10:40am - Karl Bode

CBS had the perfect opportunity over the extended weekend to show that the company had evolved and was ready to embrace the modern streaming era. CBS had announced that users could watch the Grammy Awards live online on Monday Night — but only if customers signed up for a trial of CBS’ $6 per month “All Access” streaming service. And while not necessarily a bad promotional idea on its surface, it appears that CBS choked completely on the opportunity, with numerous customers reporting that they couldn’t even get the stream to start:

Wow. @CBS All Access lasted about 30 seconds before totally crashing. Cool product.

— Dashiell Bennett (@dashbot) February 16, 2016

Some of the problems were thanks to the fact that users eager to watch the stream didn’t live in the service’s 130 launch market territory. CBS ultimately indicated that the problems that occurred with the stream were thanks to their systems being unable to determine user location, effectively causing the company’s authentication systems to implode for many users:

“Some users experienced temporary difficulty accessing the live online feed of the Grammys. Our location services provider had a brief issue verifying user location. That issue has since been resolved and all users are back online,? a CBS Interactive spokesman said.”

And while technical glitches happen, this is the same company that has waged war on companies trying to deliver a more innovative, efficient and modern TV viewing experience for decades. This behavior has included suing and whining about Aereo; suing to stop Dish’s Hopper ad-skipping technology (and ignoring editorial firewalls over at CNET to hurt said product in the press); whining about Netflix; suing Star Trek fans for expressing their fandom; and constantly threatening to bury over-the-air TV behind the cable paywall unless everybody does exactly what CBS wants.

And indeed, while CBS couldn’t get its own streaming service to work, the company’s copyright shutdown apparatus worked perfectly well, so that fans of the awards show couldn’t watch it anywhere:

@brianstelter and CBS just shut down a bunch of streams on YouTube pic.twitter.com/veGfbj6j7Y

— Austin Blumenfeld (@apblumenfeld) February 16, 2016

CBS' Grammy live stream is a disaster but instead of fixing it they're taking down all the YouTube streams and now I'm missing it ?

— Abby Dockum (@AbbyDockum) February 16, 2016

So in short, CBS has fought tooth and nail to stop other companies from offering a next-generation viewing experience. And when presented with the opportunity to highlight why CBS should be considered the innovation gold standard, the company tripped on its shoelaces and fell flat on its face. Perhaps CBS should stick to the space in which it’s clearly the most innovative: being anti-innovation.

Filed Under: all access, grammys, streaming, takedowns, tv, tv streaming
Companies: cbs, youtube

CBS Reporter Posts YouTube Video Of Grammys… Only To Have CBS Send Takedown Notice

from the left-hand,-right-hand dept

Adam Singer has the news of how a reporter for CBS News, reporting on the Grammys, posted a YouTube clip to a story he had written… except soon after it was posted, CBS issued a DMCA takedown on the video, leading to this bizarre situation, put into image form by someone at Reddit (of course):

Both reports claim that this is CBS filing copyright claims against itself, though that’s not really accurate. It’s CBS filing a YouTube takedown (or doing a content ID match, more likely) and not realizing that its own reporters were making use of the YouTube video. The real question is why CBS wouldn’t make legit clips available as easily as the YouTube clips were available. As it stands now, the video embed has been pulled down, and the reporter apologizes that no clips are available. That scenario seems even more ridiculous than the original takedown. This is the same company, and he can’t get a legit clip to put with the story?

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, grammys, takedown
Companies: cbs