Grab your aux cord, because there’s a possibility that your favorite radio station is about to lose the rights to a lot of music.

A legal dispute between music rights organization Global Music Rights (GMR), which represents songwriters for artists such as Pharrell, Drake, and The Beatles, and the Radio Music Licensing Committee (RMLC), a group that represents commercial radio stations in music licensing matters, could pull a lot of songs by major artists off of radio stations nationwide.

GMR, a performing rights organization founded by former entertainment executive Irving Azoff, claims in its lawsuit that current licensing fees are too low, causing songwriters to be under-compensated. GMR’s suit against RMLC reportedly accuses radio stations of acting as a “cartel” that works to keep payments to songwriters low. The lawsuit demands that these fees be raised.

In its dueling lawsuit against GMR, RMLC accuses the organization of trying to “force the radio industry into paying exorbitant prices for a license to the musical works it claims are covered by its repertory, with a credible threat of financially ruinous copyright infringement litigation.” Calling GMR’s objectives “unlawful,” the lawsuit claims that GMR has been luring away songwriters from other performance-rights organizations ASCAP and BMI with promises of higher compensation. This would force radio stations to give in to demands of higher licensing fees, or else risk losing a whole roster of songs.

ASCAP and BMI have agreed to pay royalty rates to artists at rate of 4 percent of stations’ revenues, according to Rolling Stone.

If the dispute is not resolved, it could mean that many stations would be unable to afford the licensing fees for songs written by many of the top songwriters of today. Songwriters represented by GMR are reportedly responsible for 7.5 percent of all songs on the radio.

In the midst of RMLC’s legal battle with GMR, the organization also just signed an agreement with ASCAP to increase royalties for ASCAP members. The agreement seemed to be reached amicably, and the RMLC chairman seemed to aim a subtle jab at GMR in a statement to Billboard: “This agreement demonstrates how the creative and music user communities can work together in good faith to produce an outcome that is positive for both sides.”

This legal battle could potentially turn out to be a big one for the radio industry, as it struggles to survive in the era of digital music.

Editor’s Note: This article has been modified to make a correction to the names of artists with songs written by GMR-represented songwriters.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Radio Stations vs. Songwriters: Will Your Favorite Music Be Affected? appeared first on Law Street.

In the 21st century, African-Americans enjoy more equality and freedom in the United States than ever before. However, in just the past few years, issues of civil rights have once again come to the forefront. The ruinous relationship between young black men and law enforcement has rapidly ascended to the height of public discourse and consciousness–at a level not seen since the 1960s and 1970s. Although there has been robust discussion regarding police-minority relations, a more comprehensive discussion of institutional racism in the media and the black identity it contrives has seldom been had.

Many theorize that this black identity may be a significant impediment to economic mobility within the black community, especially when many black boys will grow up either wanting to be like Michael Jordan or Tupac Shakur. Achieving that level of fame in athletics and music is clearly difficult to accomplish, so when these boys don’t make it, criminality can become a third path that is both viable and desirable. Critics of the black identity argue that possibly it is the legacy of the past that is reinforcing these career paths and preventing progress. Read on to learn about this criticism of the modern black identity, its roots in slavery, and its perpetuation in the media.

Athletics

Courtesy of Cliff via Flickr

Succeeding in sports, particularly basketball and football, is a status symbol in American society as a whole, but even more so in the black community. As John Milton Hoberman states, “the celebration of black athleticism as a source of clan pride exists on a scale most people do not comprehend.” Athletic greats like Muhammad Ali, Michael Jordan, Jim Brown and many other black athletes enjoy a high level of reverence in their cultural community and function as role models for young black males. From a young age black males, many of whom live in areas of poverty, view these athletes and their humble backgrounds as a way out of poverty and the ghetto. They then begin to define themselves in terms of their athletic ability.

As Professors S. Plous and Tyrone Williams of Wesleyan University point out, this emphasis on athletic prowess today is predicated upon the emphasis on physical capabilities which once made slaves valuable. Slaves who were stronger and more physically capable were more proficient in their labor. Similarly, in the 21st century, many argue that too many black teens are infatuated with physical abilities through the medium of sports. The importance of African-Americans being physically more capable began in slavery, but has since evolved into a norm and a source of pride in the black community. There’s a worry that today it amounts to deluding young black male teens into undermining their education in favor of an improbable athletic career. These critics of the modern black identity point out that slaves did not enjoy the luxury of an education. Therefore, quality education is the necessary first step to reform these stereotypes and place black youth on attainable paths to success.

Music

Courtesy of Alex Const via Wikimedia Commons

Musical endeavors in the black community are also very common, however, as with sports, the music industry is a difficult field to break into. Nevertheless it is pursued vehemently by black youths. This emphasis on music, according to some, is also rooted in slavery. Slaves used music as a way to retain their African culture and as a coping mechanism to numb the pain of slavery. Author Megan Sullivan describes their negro spirituals as a type of “musical rebellion” in an essay writing,

Subsequent generations of Africans gradually became African-Americans as a rich culture infused with music developed under the harsh conditions of slavery. White Americans considered African-Americans separate and unequal for centuries, going to extraordinary lengths to keep Negroes oppressed and apart. Yet behind the strict, segregating curtain hung between ‘Black’ and ‘White,’ African-Americans created a distinctive music that sank its roots deeply into their American experience and drew from it an amazing evolution of sound that has penetrated that racist fabric and pervaded the entirety of American culture. Music became a way to remain connected to their African heritage while protesting the bleak conditions African Americans faced throughout history. Musical protest took on assorted forms and functions as Blacks strove to advance their social station while simultaneously retaining their cultural heritage.

These songs of slavery create an interesting parallel with rap and hip hop music, which also was conceived in a furnace of racial inequality and oppression, although in inner cities rather than cotton fields. Yet these critics of music’s preeminent role in black culture argue that we must acknowledge that the inner cities require a more nuanced approach to success, and not an insistence on past principles. They argue that historically music was utilized as a means of rebellion and defiance because it was absolutely necessary as millions were treated as subhuman. The argument follows that today’s music, specifically rap, is often used as a means of defiance, but is less needed as there are more constructive outlets now than in the time of slavery. This is especially true as some rap music continues to glorify and condone the third principle, criminality.

Criminality

Criminality is certainly not praised and revered in the black community as musical or athletic pursuits. However, according to black identity reformers, when the two fail, criminal behavior in many black communities is not only seen as palatable, but glorified, as it represents a form of rebellion against oppression. The emphasis on music, particularly rap music, perpetuates this glorification of criminality and further validates the lawlessness.

Interestingly, this is directly analogous to the conditions of slaves. As Sullivan mentioned, music was a means to organize rebellions and protest for slaves. Indeed the act of responding to oppression through crime as a justification for the lawlessness is also rooted in slavery. In the days of slavery, it was criminal for a black slave to seek liberty and equal rights as delineated in the Declaration of Independence. Since black slaves were strong willed and conscious of their inalienable rights, many valiantly and fearlessly sought liberty even though at that time this constituted criminal behavior. In the same manner that criminality was conceivably deemed desirable by the black slaves seeking liberty, criminality continues to be deemed acceptable by some black Americans today fed up with their disparate equality of liberty, relative to other members of American society. Of course, according to proponents of fundamentally altering the black identity, there is a difference. They argue that in the past civil disobedience and criminality were morally justified, but today are morally ambiguous if not reprehensible.

The Role of Media

According to reformers, media plays a big role in the black community’s continued emphasis on physical and musical capacities, as well as criminality. Possibly some of the most prevalent black individuals on television are athletes and rappers, that latter of whom then-Senator Barack Obama stated, “move our young people powerfully.” Given that poor children–many of whom are black– watch significantly more television than their peers, the types of people they see on television play a more imperative role in their process of socialization.

Media also plays a role in reinforcing the criminality of black males. Stephen Balkaran describes this bluntly saying, “media have divided the working class and stereotyped young African-American males as gangsters or drug dealers.” The portrayal of black males as criminals is already destructive enough in the context of news and film, but it becomes further amplified when artists choose to focus on themes which are criminal in content.

These three identities are not mutually exclusive, making it difficult to eradicate one without eradicating the other. This is observable with rappers who also serve as gangster icons, or black athletes who emulate criminals and rappers themselves. Making distinctions between the three becomes exceedingly difficult, as they are in some ways monolithic and unified; seemingly cornerstones of black culture.

Yet the individuals who embody each precept hardly pay the price, because they are rich, successful, and most of all, lucky. It’s the young teen who attempted to act out the rap lyrics to his favorite song that gets tried as an adult, and it is the 25-year-old former high school basketball star who gets stuck working a low wage job who ultimately suffer. Therein lays the deceptiveness of media portrayal of the three principles. These figures on television are conspicuously wealthy and successful, yet when young impressionable teens attempt to emulate the behavior, they end up disappointed and disadvantaged.

Conclusion

No one is suggesting that a complete rejection of athletics or musical pursuits is necessary or welcomed. Obviously music and athletics are essential components of black culture and of American culture, generally. However, according to this theory of the black identity, the black community may need to recognize that the ubiquitous emulation of athletic ventures, music, and criminality, is not helpful.

In the face of the widespread institutional racism that continues to pervert Americans culture and disadvantage blacks, a more inclusive definition of blackness is needed–one which leaves room for black intellectuals and professionals to serve as apt role models. Once children expand their horizon and realize they are not limited to a binary decision, we will begin to see a widespread economic ascension in the black community that is advantageous to all members of society. America is a multicultural society and there exists social tensions; but no group rises or falls on its own accord.

Resources

Primary

Stanford Ethics of Development in a Global Environment: Portrayal of Minorities in the Film, Media and Entertainment Industries

Cornell: African-American Music as Rebellion: From Slavesong to Hip-Hop

Wesleyan University: Racial Stereotypes From the Days of American Slavery: A Continuing Legacy

Darwin’s Athletes: How Sport Has Damaged Black America and Preserved the Myth of Race

              History is a Weapon: Slavery and Prison – Understanding the Connections

Additional

              History is a Weapon: Slavery and Prison – Understanding the Connections

CBS News: Barack Obama Clarifies Views On Rap

Huffington Post: Watching TV Can Lower Children’s Self Esteem, Study Finds

The Atlantic: The Data Are Damning: How Race Influences School Funding

NCAA: Probability of Competing in Sports Beyond High School

Mother Jones: Obama Encourages Students to Abandon Hopes of Becoming Great Rappers

    City Journal: How Hip-Hop Holds Blacks Back

John Phillips

John Phillips studied political science at the George Washington University. His interest are vast, but pertain mostly to politics, both international and domestic, philosophy, and law. Contact John at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Legacy of the Past? Slavery’s Impact on Modern Black Identity appeared first on Law Street.

Pharrell isn’t happy. Last month the hit song “Blurred Lines,” created by Pharrell Williams and singer Robin Thicke, was officially found to be in violation of copyright law. A California judge ruled that the track was too similar to Marvin Gaye’s well-known song, “Got to Give It Up.” Williams and Thicke were ordered to pay $7.4 million to Gaye’s family. Was the judge’s ruling too harsh? Not harsh enough? Have a listen for yourself.

Marvin Gaye’s sister, Zeola Gaye, was also featured on the song “Got to Give It Up.” Amid controversy surrounding the lawsuit, Zeola Gaye clarified that she did not receive any of the $7.4 million reward. In fact, she never desired or requested any of the money from the case; compensation was always meant to go solely to Marvin Gaye’s heirs.

You may have heard “Blurred Lines” played ad nauseum on radio stations during the summer of 2013. You’ve probably also heard about (or seen) the song’s controversial music video featuring a few scantily clad ladies. I’d wager you probably haven’t heard the opening arguments of the lawyer who defended Williams and Thicke in court. Howard King began his case by telling the jury that creativity could not be owned:

We’re going to show you what you already know: that no one owns a genre or a style or a groove. To be inspired by Marvin Gaye is an honorable thing.

Although the judge’s final ruling ultimately disregarded King’s premise, Williams has echoed King’s sentiments regarding the ownership of ideas. The Grammy winner claims that the outcome of his case has implications for the music industry and creativity at large:

The verdict handicaps any creator out there who is making something that might be inspired by something else.

Harsh judicial penalties may cause confusion as to what materials artists can and can not use, leaving them in creative limbo.

Courtesy of Giphy.com.

Artists who have creative discrepancies do not always head straight to the courtroom—soulful crooner Sam Smith recently settled a lawsuit with Tom Petty out of court. Musicians and artists who side with Williams fear that the litigation blitz surrounding “Blurred Lines” will start a wave of similar cases wherein artists are unduly penalized for emulating their idols.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Pharrell Williams Fears For the Future of Creativity appeared first on Law Street.

How would you feel about a music streaming service with CD quality sound, video and editorial content, full offline capabilities, and exclusive tracks from your favorite artists? Sounds amazing, right? But is it worth ditching your free Spotify account for a $20-a-month fee? Rapper and business mogul Jay Z thinks that it is, and has enlisted a crew of Illuminati grade artists to back him.

The new music streaming website Tidal, also known as TidalHiFi, promises to revolutionize the music industry by becoming the first “artist owned” music streaming platform of its kind. That sounds like a great way to solve some of the problems artists have with the music industry, like getting next to nothing for music royalties. But it’s not solving a problem for consumers–it’s creating one. Tidal subscriptions will end up costing listeners $20 for high-definition streaming and $10 for regular quality, with no free ad-supported option.

The fact of the matter is that music listeners don’t want to pay for music, especially when they can easily get it for free. Spotify, which is the current leader in online streaming, attempted to solve that problem by starting out with a free ad tier in its service that allows listeners to enjoy their music mixed with ads first before deciding whether or not to upgrade to the premium benefits of its subscription version, which costs $10. That worked for Spotify, but with no free version to entice listeners, convincing anyone to pony up $20 for Tidal is a tough sell.

One thing Tidal does have working for it is a list of top names in the music industry invested in it, including Nicki Minaj, Beyonce, Daft Punk, Rihanna, Kanye West, Madonna, Alicia Keys, and Taylor Swift. Convincing Swift to come back to online streaming is impressive, especially after the singer famously broke up with Spotify last year over a disagreement with how artists on the site are compensated. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, she stated “valuable things should be paid for.” Tidal’s plan to offer a few exclusive tracks is nice, but still not a huge selling point. If Tidal were somehow able to make it so people could only listen to music from these artists on its site, they would really be getting somewhere.

You can watch some of the platform’s celebrity supporters below in Tidal’s press conference:

Not every artist supports the new platform. Singer Lily Allen was pretty vocal about her apprehension by voicing her first impressions of the site in a series of tweets that posed some valid concerns. Allen writes:

i LOVE Jay z so much, but TIDAL is soon expensive compared to other perfectly good streaming services, he’s taken the biggest Artists

— lily (@lilyallen) March 30, 2015

made them exclusive to TIDAL (am i right in thinking this ?), people are going to swarm back to Pirate sites in droves

— lily (@lilyallen) March 30, 2015

sending traffic to torrent sites. up and coming (not yet millionaires) artists are going to suffer as a result.

— lily (@lilyallen) March 31, 2015

Making content exclusive to Tidal may in fact push people only interested in hearing these artists’ music for free back to pirating sites as an alternative, which would make all artists suffer. While Jay Z’s idea sounds cool, I’m not convinced it will somehow revolutionize the music industry. A greater quality music experience is definitely something to strive for, but it’s also important to keep in mind consumers’ desires and not just artists’ pockets.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tidal: Music Industry Revolution or Expensive Setback? appeared first on Law Street.

The grunge-pop diva we all know and love (or love to hate), Kesha, filed a lawsuit this week against her long-time producer claiming that he sexually and emotionally abused her for years. The producer, Lukasz Gottwald — “Dr. Luke” — was the one who discovered her at age 17 and convinced her to drop out of high school to pursue a career in music.

According to Kesha, the abuse started early and for the last ten years has kept her from moving to a different label, having control over her own music, and caused her to develop an eating disorder and subsequently enter rehab. She cites at least one count of rape following the consumption of a date rape drug, and alleges that Gottwald sexually assaulted her multiple times while forcing her to drink alcohol and take drugs. Gottwald has since filed an opposing suit, claiming defamation and breach of contract.

This is not the first time Kesha and Gottwald have been the subject of controversy. In 2013, around the time Kesha’s documentary “My Crazy Beautiful Life”  came out, fans started a petition to release Kesha from Gottwald’s control. The petition claims that  “Dr. Luke is controlling Ke$ha like a puppet, feeding her what she doesn’t want, and her creativity is dwindling and affected negativity (sic)” and that Kesha had little to no creative control over her most recent album.

In the short time since the lawsuits became public, skeptics have asked why Kesha waited so long to complain, or if she is just doing this to get out of her contract, and even saying she is lying because how can a sex symbol accuse someone of sexual assault?

These negative allegations aside, the majority of Kesha fans have shouted their support for the singer’s case, using the Twitter hashtag #StayStrongKesha.

An argument could be made for the idea that Kesha is making it all up to get out of her contract, but I just don’t think this is the case here. Her complaint has pages and pages filled with detailed and disturbing accounts of assault that span years. Accusing someone of sexual assault and rape are serious allegations that are not taken lightly, and if the victim is found to be lying the consequences are severe. Kesha is a smart woman, and by many accounts a near genius who was bound for lofty academic achievement before joining the music industry. Her intelligence does not protect her from being taken advantage of, since even the smartest men and women can be overwhelmed when in unfamiliar territory. It seems Kesha’s “mentor” knew this.

Saying that Kesha is lying because of her style, her sex symbol status, or her music is an argument that has no basis in logic. It stems from the idea that because someone dresses a certain way, or shares their sexuality more than others, they can’t cry “rape” when sexual predators target them.

It will be interesting to see how this case plays out, but Kesha and Gottwald obviously have some sort of toxic relationship that needs to end. Regardless of whether her claims are true or not, they need to be taken seriously. It doesn’t matter how famous a person is, or how long they waited to speak up; sexual assault is never okay and victims of it should be supported. Reacting negatively to cases like this discourages people in similar situations from coming forward, and encourages a society in which rape is covered up. Unfortunately, due to her fame and Gottwald’s counter case, Kesha’s fight has just begun.

Both Kesha’s lawsuit and Gottwald’s counter suit can be found here.

—

Morgan McMurray (@mcflurrybatman) is a freelance copywriter and blogger based in Savannah, Georgia. She spends her time writing, reading, and attempting to dance gracefully. She has also been known to binge-watch Netflix while knitting scarves.

Featured image courtesy of [rocor via Flickr]

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kesha Lawsuit: Victim Of Assault Or A Bad Contract? appeared first on Law Street.

Every country music fan knows Brad Paisley to be the funny guy. A naked baby photograph serves as his Twitter profile picture and his tweets are often witty wise cracks at fellow country celebs (with Carrie Underwood seemingly a favorite to tease). Paisley’s work is creative and, at times, just plain comical. His song “Online” details the life of a “sci-fi fanatic, mild asthmatic,” Pizza Pit employee who still resides with his parents. You can’t help but chuckle as you sing along to that one.

Paisley’s free spirit didn’t have everyone at Sony Music laughing this month, however. Paisley employed various characters and personalities to help him leak his new album Moonshine in the Trunk. One song at a time, the artist leaked the music with help from people like Ellen DeGeneres, the web-famous Annoying Orange, and a NASA astronaut. Paisley originally announced his intentions over Twitter.

I’m going rogue. The label doesn’t know I’m doing this. Seriously. But I made a Moonshine Preview teaser. Don’t tell. http://t.co/8zZ4obKG4n

— Brad Paisley (@BradPaisley) July 26, 2014

Sony Music Nashville, Paisley’s record label, then sent disconcerted emails to the artist. Paisley promptly took screenshots of those emails and posted them online. Label executives and managers warned that there was a lack of permission for leaks of this sort.

Paisley tweeted this email that he sent to the reps:

I really do love my record label.Especially for puttin’up with my $h@t. But I love ya’ll even more. Ha! Priorities. pic.twitter.com/n8FFzuRNQ1

— Brad Paisley (@BradPaisley) July 26, 2014

Here’s one exchange between Sony and the Grammy Award winning artist:

Let me say: I love recording at Sony. I love my manager, my publicist, my agent. But yes, I’m doing this largely on my own. — Brad Paisley (@BradPaisley) July 30, 2014

Got this from the head of the label.. Seems pretty clear to me. pic.twitter.com/FmwPWRkFj4 — Brad Paisley (@BradPaisley) July 30, 2014

So you heard the man. Promote the song “Moonshine”. Here we go. Buckle up. http://t.co/MG9KUGFIbm

— Brad Paisley (@BradPaisley) July 30, 2014

And then when the label pulled the song off the Internet, Paisley tweeted:

Darn darn darn darn Darny darn darn!!!!!!! — Brad Paisley (@BradPaisley) July 30, 2014

It seems Sony Music Nashville was a good sport about the whole thing, in the end. The label retaliated in good fun, leaking Paisley’s personal email address. Overton admits, “Working with Brad is like riding a roller coaster: you know you’re going to scream, smile and have a wild ride… and it’s generally safe.”

However, in a time when record labels are fighting back against intellectual property theft, are intentional leaks like Paisley’s a sign that a new business model is in order?

For decades, the music industry operated with one business model: it sold enormous numbers of albums. With the profits it produced, released, and promoted projects. In fact, record companies would be able to negotiate contracts with artists through their access to radio time and studios.

Today, with the Internet as the most valuable tool in the music business, production and release costs are dramatically altered. Single songs are available for purchase, independent of the entire album, and music streaming subscription services allow consumers to listen without purchasing any content at all. Illegal downloads and digital piracy thrive all over the globe and the music marketplace is unrecognizable as compared to decades ago.

Artists like Brad Paisley just get it. His audience can most likely torrent his music for free; however, he undoubtedly won brownie points with fans, allowing for heightened audience interaction and valuable hype. This kind of communication with a fan base that must be convinced to purchase music as opposed to stealing it is just plain smart.

In a video posted to his Facebook account, Paisley explains his reasons for releasing his album early. “It really came down to me wanting to present these songs to the world in the best way possible,” he explained. “It’s all about connecting dots and letting you hear this record the way I intended.”

The new album was officially released on Tuesday, August 26 by Sony Music Nashville. We already knew all the words to almost every song but that’s what makes the moonshine taste so much sweeter.

The post Brad Paisley is a Rebel With Some Moonshine in His Trunk appeared first on Law Street.