Monthly Archives: October 2023

A to Z of Making It, Copyright, Music, My Stories, Stupidity

Four For Friday

It’s a SPOTIFY and HIPGNOSIS special today.

The article I am referencing is from Music Business Worldwide.

NEW ROYALTY MODEL

There will be an annual stream count that artists must meet in order to start generating Spotify royalties.

Spotify is targeting a tiny proportion of tracks on its service that are very low in popularity.

In total, the tracks Spotify is targeting, generate royalties that when combined add up to tens of millions of dollars a year. If no action is taken, these tracks accumulated together will generate around $40 million.

SO WHAT HAPPENS TO THE $40 MILLION?

It will go back into Spotify’s ‘Streamshare’ royalty pot.

And the monies in the pot will be re-distributed amongst the tracks that are, more popular.

Take from the poor so that the rich get richer.

Spotify is telling the world that this targets the royalty payouts whose value is being destroyed or who are not even being paid to the creators because they haven’t met the digital aggregator minimum level for payments. And they are sitting in their bank accounts, earning interest.

Spotify seems to forget that every artist begins with low plays/streams.

MMM. SO THIS HELPS THE ARTISTS HOW

So while Spotify is thinking of keeping streaming money in their bank account to pay the larger artists, Hipgnosis who is an investment fund is doing something fishy.

As you probably are aware, Hipgnosis purchased a lot of rights to valuable intellectual properties. It’s share price doesn’t reflect what the company believes it’s worth.

It wanted to do something sneaky to inflate or boost its share price by selling a stake of the company to another entity owned by Hipgnosis and to use the profits of the sale to pay down debt.

This was all contingent on some mathematical equations about retroactive Copyright payments from the US.

Hipgnosis estimated they were due USD$21.7M however when all the dust settled they are only getting $9.9 million.

So they had this share but back scheme which they have now shelved and their share price went down even further.

All of these schemes and creative accounts on the backs of the rights they own from artists.

And Yes, I do know that the artists sold their rights to Hipgnosis for a large fee.

Standard
Classic Songs to Be Discovered, Copyright, Derivative Works, Influenced, Music, My Stories

Four For Friday

I’ve written posts about songs which sound similar to songs which came before, with the lens solely focused on hard rock and heavy metal.

Like.

One Riff To Rule Them All

The Kashmir Effect

The Kashmir Effect 2

The While My Guitar Sleeps Effect

Sanitarium Debate

Just to name a few.

And I’ve always thought that Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath shared a connection musically but I’ve never verbalized it or wrote about it.

The viewpoint came from a 1995 documentary called “History Of Rock and Roll”, which has Ozzy recalling how “Led Zeppelin I” had a huge impact on him and his bandmates.

Let’s see what kind of impact.

DAZED AND CONFUSED (1969) vs PARANOID (1970)

The authorship of “Dazed and Confused” is heavily disputed and there are various pages out there specifying who wrote what and when.

But, for the sake of this post I will focus on the Led Zeppelin version.

There is a section in “Dazed and Confused” at the 5.02 mark that sounds very similar to the Intro in “Paranoid”.

COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN (1969) vs PARANOID (1970)

Then the verse riff in “Paranoid” has a running E pedal point played over an E5 power chord for two bars, then a D5 power chord for the third bar and the fourth bar ends with three chords G, D and E at the end.

“Communication Breakdown” has a running E pedal point playing for one bar with three chords of D to A to D played in the second bar.

The similarities here are evident. In the way the three chords are played at the end of each bar and the running E note.

It’s basically musicians influencing each other.

But if the entities who hold the Copyrights to Marvin Gaye’s music had a hold of these rights, then there would be litigation everywhere.

HEARTBREAKER (1969) vs THE WIZARD (1970) and IRON MAN (1970)

These ones are a bit different sonically but they all have a common element, which is the Minor to Major transition.

For example, if it was in the key of E minor, it would be an Em to G transition. If the key was in A minor, it would be Am to C transition.

It’s a common element and a building block for creating but I’m sure if the rights of these songs landed with the heirs of Marvin Gaye there would be a lawsuit.

Bonus – SUNSHINE OF YOUR LOVE (1967) vs NIB (1970)

Check it out and let me know.

The same elements here are also heard in the song “Cocaine” which came out in 1976.

Standard
A to Z of Making It, Classic Songs to Be Discovered, Copyright, Influenced, Music, My Stories, Stupidity

Four For Friday

PET SHOP BOYS vs DRAKE

The Pet Shop Boys need to relax.

The lyric in question is “the west end boys and east side girls”.

The lyrics are the main Chorus words for “West End Girls” by Pet Shop Boys and those same words are said three times in Drake’s song “All The Parties”, which is a shit song by the way.

And the words are not said with any sense of melody or to a backing track of music. They are just said. Spoken like and then auto tuned.

But “East End Girls” is at 239 million streams on Spotify so the Pet Shop Boys are very protective of their intellectual property.

COPYRIGHT TERMS

John Naughton writing for the The Guardian said the following;

…especially copyright – have been monopolised and weaponised by corporate interests and that legislators have been supine in the face of their lobbying.

Authors and inventors need protection against being ripped off.

It’s obviously important that clever people are rewarded for their creativity and the patent system does that quite well.

But if a patent only lasts for 20 years, why on earth should copyright last for life plus 70 years for a novel?

Yes why should it.

When the songs from the 60s were recorded, the Copyright terms for the songs was 28 years with the chance to renew for another 28 years. A total of 56 years.

And yet those songs got retroactively locked up for a long time by a 1978 Amendment to the Copyright Act by Disney which changed the terms to “life of the creator plus 70 years”.

This would mean that Disney’s “Mickey Mouse” created in 1928 and based on the laws of the time, should have been out of Copyright by 1984 however it would be locked up until 2003.

But in the late 90s and with the 2003 date looming, another Disney amendment was made that extended this law for Corporate works to 95 years. So the Mickey Mouse work from 1928 would finally be out of Copyright in 2023.

And 10 months in, Disney hasn’t suffered the financial losses they said they would if they lost the rights to Mickey Mouse.

SITE BLOCKING

In Australia, the Labels and the Movie/TV networks can go to the Federal Court with a list of sites they want blocked and the Federal Court will just approve the lists and the ISPs will then need to block their users from accessing these sites

The Federal Court is meant to review the lists (which they don’t) before rubber stamping the lists (which they immediately do). Because hey, these entities are the good guys, trying to protect Australians from pirates. And the ISPs need to do their bit to protect the business models of the labels and studios.

WHAT I’M CRANKING RIGHT NOW

Savior from Rise Against.

I became a fan because of the Guitar Hero game this song featured on many years ago.

And at 618 million streams it’s definitely making money for whoever holds the rights to it.

Standard
Copyright, Derivative Works, Music, My Stories, Piracy, Stupidity

Four For Friday

When I started these weekly posts it was a means to keep me blogging during a hectic schedule.

And there was no definitive structure as to what I would cover. But I can see that Cooyright issues keep appearing.

And here is another week devoted to that beautiful term. Copyright. Which was designed to give the creator a limited monopoly on their works so they could create more works.

LETS GET IT OVER WITH

Ed Sheeran can’t get a break. Last week, the case against him from the daughter of Ed Townsend was dropped.

But this week, an organization called “Structured Asset Sales”, (SAS) have started their own litigation.

They control a different one-third stake in Townsend’s copyrights. They “own” the basic notation (musical score) filed at the Copyrights Office decades ago.

When the original case was happening, (SAS) was also a part of it, seeking a “monopoly over a basic musical building block.”

Their case was also thrown out.

But they are appealing their part. Because hey, they created nothing and believe they should be paid for creating nothing. And they want a monopoly on a feel and style.

A big reason why Copyright had expiry terms initially was to stop all this crap. Politicians had a foresight back in the early 1900s to see this coming.

And that changed in the 60s when the labels and book publishers started to amass intellectual property and then started to lobby politicians to change laws and bring in new laws to give these corporations a monopoly on the works.

It’s funny now, how the labels are also getting sued from the very laws they sponsored to benefit them.

124 WEEKS

In April 2021, UFC fighter Jake Paul knocked out Ben Askren in less than two minutes.

Soon after, the popular H3 Podcast on YouTube commented on the fight and showed a clip of the fight.

Event promotor Triller wasn’t happy and issued a copyright infringement lawsuit demanding $50 million in damages.

H3 opted for a fair use defense.

The case is now in its 124th week.

The clip of the fight was 119 seconds long.

Who are the real winners here?

URUGUAY

The Uruguayan Government has a bill in motion which would allow artists to go direct to internet platforms like Spotify and social media sites like Facebook for compensation.

Spotify would still need to pay the existing licensing agreements and if this bill goes ahead could be forced to pay again to the artists direct.

I’m all for artists getting paid but the problem lays with the entities who hold the rights to the songs. They get the majority of the streaming pool and they don’t distribute it back to the artists.

This is a perfect example.

Spotify still needs to honor the licensing agreements with the labels and publishers so these organizations will receive their cut.

And if they are aware of the artist going direct, I am sure that some creative accounting will take place to hold back any payments to the artists.

Anyway. Spotify isn’t happy with the bill and unless it’s changed they will pull out of Uruguay.

As a byproduct, the local music industry which has been growing 20% from streaming revenue will have this source of income come to zero.

ALBERT NAMATJIRA

Albert Namatjira died in 1959. He was an Aboriginal artist, painting the Australian landscapes in watercolors.

The copyright in his art is due to expire in 2029, 70 years after his death.

This means the works will be part of the public domain and anyone can use them in their works moving forward.

But lawyers for the family are arguing that Copyright should last in perpetuity. Forever. Never expire.

And they are pissed.

The issue here is that the family were getting royalties for his art up until 1983. At that point in time, the government trust that administered the rights sold them to a private organization and the royalties ceased.

It took the family 34 years to get the rights back in 2017, with the proviso they need to relinquish them again in 2029.

Furthermore in the last 5 years, Namatjira’s art has exploded in popularity and has become a valuable intellectual property.

But Copyright was never meant to be a reversionary pension fund.

Standard