YouTube is facing renewed pressure from musicians and their lawyers over the share of revenue that artists receive from the site compared to other music platforms.

The issue stems from the fact that artists receive $1 per 1,000 plays on YouTube, but $7 per 1,000 plays from companies like Spotify or Apple Music, according to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

Earlier this Spring the RIAA claimed that YouTube, which is owned by Google, “wrongly exploits legal loopholes” to minimally pay musicians, according to NBC News. It is able to do this because of its standing as a third-party resource, which is protected by federal laws that distance the company from what its users post on the site.

YouTube is not liable due to the “safe harbor” rules, which state that platform sites are not liable if someone uploads a copyrighted song until the copyright holder files a complaint.

“It isn’t a level playing field,” said one music executive who spoke with Washington Post on the condition of anonymity. “Because ultimately you’re negotiating with a party who is going to have your content no matter what.”

The issue has become particularly relevant since the European Union decided to crack down on the issue within its territory. Noting the “value gap” between music services, the E.U. plans to release new regulations that can close the gap and provide artists the royalties that they want. So, the battle against YouTube is heating up.

YouTube’s main argument against these claims is that it provides exposure to musicians who wouldn’t normally get that publicity. The company also notes that it already spends $1 billion in royalties each year. The company claims that if it removed music from its website 85 percent of people would flock to services that offer even lower, or no, royalties. One issue with the validity of this claim is that it is based on a study that was commissioned by YouTube.

YouTube mainly generates its revenue from advertisements and sponsored content, but that money stream has dried up to some degree in recent months. Mega corporations such as Verizon, AT&T, and Enterprise recently pulled ads from YouTube after being displeased with their ads coinciding with videos they didn’t approve, according to Recode. So even though the company has had the money in the past to pay for expensive royalties, they may not have that much extra cash in the coming years.

Artists and those representing them have ample evidence that they are being ripped off by YouTube. Irving Azoff, who has represented musicians like Christina Aguilera, told the Washington Post that one of his other clients gets 33 percent of her streams from YouTube but that yields only 10 percent of her streaming revenue.

Another example: Cello player Zoe Keating showed the Washington Post that she earned $940 from 230,000 streams on Spotify and only $261 from 1.42 million views on YouTube. She said that the YouTube money is so negligible she barely pays attention.

Another issue is that even when YouTube signs licensing agreements with music labels they are signed begrudgingly. When Warner Music Group signed a new deal with YouTube, a memo from chief executive Steve Cooper leaked out revealing his feelings on the “very difficult circumstances”–his company caved instead of continuing to pay $2 million to remove its music from the site.

“There’s no getting around the fact that, even if YouTube doesn’t have licenses, our music will still be available but not monetized at all,” the memo said.

Just as the music industry struggled to adapt to emerging software in the 1990s with the emergence of Napster and Limewire, artists are once again trying to navigate a murky situation with music and video streaming services. Whatever the European Union chooses to do going forward could pave the way for what the American industry will do.

For now, you can still enjoy your favorite music on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Music, or any number of other services, but it’s worth noting how the service you choose affects the money going into the pockets of your favorite musicians. It may not make a difference for well-known artists like Pharrell or Arcade Fire, who have both complained, but it certainly matters for less popular artists like Keating.

Read More: Streaming Music: Good Business or an Attack on Artists?

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post YouTube Faces Pressure From Music Artists To Pay Up appeared first on Law Street.

R. Kelly, the R&B singer known for his outlandish, sometimes criminal behavior, is again embroiled in controversy. On Monday, BuzzFeed News reported that the 50-year-old is manipulating a group of young women, controlling everyday aspects of their lives as they stay at one of his properties, apparently by their own free will.

The report features testimony from the parents of some of these women, as well as three former members of Kelly’s entourage who corroborated the details. After luring young, attractive women into his inner circle by inviting them backstage and flying them out to concerts, Kelly would convince them to live in one of his properties in Atlanta or Chicago.

“Puppet Master”

According to the report, Kelly “controls every aspect of their lives: dictating what they eat, how they dress, when they bathe, when they sleep, and how they engage in sexual encounters that he records.” 

The famous artist, who recorded “I Believe I Can Fly” for the Space Jam soundtrack, purportedly uses his lavish lifestyle to attract women before using his verbal skills to convince them to stay with him, according to Cheryl Mack, Kelly’s former personal assistant.

“[Kelly] is a master at mind control. … He is a puppet master,” Mack told BuzzFeed.

One issue with police intervention is that the law allows consenting adults to participate in any relationship they wish, even when it is nontraditional. So when police in Illinois and Georgia performed welfare checks over the past year, no charges were filed. Instead, one 19-year-old aspiring singer staying at Kelly’s mansion in Atlanta, told authorities that she was “fine and did not want to be bothered.”

Some of the parents have spoken with FBI detectives but the bureau could not comment on the investigation to the public.

Mack, along with other former entourage members, said they wish they had documentation to prove their claims. They said Kelly controlled their cell phone usage and barred them from taking pictures of him or his homes. Kelly reportedly has the women call him “Daddy” while he calls them “babies.” He also has them request permission to contact other people besides himself.

For example, the parents of the 19-year-old singer, who last saw their daughter on Dec. 1, 2016, have only received two texts from their daughter since then. The first, sent on Christmas Day said, “I hate Christmas has to be this way this year.” The other came on Mother’s Day: “Happy Mother’s Day from me and Rob,” it said, referring to Kelly’s given name of Robert.

Kelly’s lawyer, Linda Mensch, defended her client’s actions and asked for privacy when BuzzFeed approached her with the allegations. In an email to BuzzFeed, she wrote:

We can only wonder why folks would persist in defaming a great artist who loves his fans, works 24/7, and takes care of all of the people in his life. He works hard to become the best person and artist he can be. It is interesting that stories and tales debunked many years ago turn up when his goal is to stop the violence; put down the guns; and embrace peace and love. I suppose that is the price of fame. Like all of us, Mr. Kelly deserves a personal life. Please respect that.

Criminal Past

Kelly is no stranger to criminal activity and sexual misconduct. In addition to being charged with assault and battery multiple times, Kelly has been accused of sexual relations with underage girls. He settled a dozen or more cases outside of court.

Here is one example of his clear indifference to age-related consent laws:

R Kelly said this but we still bumped “I Believe I Can Fly” at every Kindergarten graduation

pic.twitter.com/O9hlzbmclc

— (@Dr_Sweets23) July 17, 2017

Kelly is perhaps most infamous for a 2002 video which featured him having sex with, and urinating on, an underage girl. During a raid on his property, police found images of the girl on a camera hidden inside Kelly’s duffle bag. Since those images were ruled ineligible in court, Kelly was ultimately found not guilty on 14 child pornography charges. But the stain on his fame and public perception has never disappeared.

And while it’s not criminal, Kelly created the 33-part, 133-minute music video series titled “Trapped in the Closet,” which features a cheating husband, a bisexual pastor, and plenty of gun violence.

“Robert is the Devil”

According to Kelly’s former partners, the women staying at Kelly’s home, or in his Chicago recording studio last summer, include a songwriter, a singer, and a model. There is also a woman known as the “den mother” who teaches newcomers “how Kelly liked to be pleasured sexually,” according to BuzzFeed. All of the women are between the ages of 18 to 31.

Kelly reportedly keeps a black SUV stationed outside each of his properties with a “burly driver” to keep a watchful eye. This is just part of the psychological warfare Kelly wages against his “babies.”

Kelly makes the women wear jogging suits to minimize their attractiveness to other men, Mack said. If the women break one of his rules, Kelly is known to physically and emotionally abuse the women, according to Mack and fellow insider Kitti Jones. Jones said Kelly once pushed her against a tree and slapped her after she was too friendly with a male cashier at a Subway sandwich shop.

“R. Kelly is the sweetest person you will ever want to meet,” Asante McGee, another former Kelly insider said. “But Robert is the devil.”

Kelly wasn’t perceived positively by the public even before this report, but these allegations carry new weight. Every few years Kelly seems to get himself into legal trouble, so this is no surprise, but it is a horrifying portrait of a formerly well-liked artist.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post R. Kelly is Reportedly Controlling a “Cult” of Young Women appeared first on Law Street.

Fyre Festival has officially been dubbed the new “Hunger Games” or “Lord of the Flies” by the media and may go down in history as one of the worst music festivals ever. Now, it’s being slammed with a $100 million lawsuit. Fyre Festival, organized by artist Ja Rule and entrepreneur Billy McFarland, promised white beaches, Victoria’s Secret models, and top notch live music. Instead, visitors were met by nonexistent infrastructure, sparse food, and some rickety tents.

On Sunday, attendee Daniel Jung filed a lawsuit against the organizers through the law firm Geragos & Geragos. It seeks to be a class action lawsuit, as the festival chaos affected more than 1,000 people. Jung paid $2,000 for his ticket and airfare. But his attorney Ben Meiselas tweeted that just refunding the ticket price would not be enough. The suit seeks more than $100 million in damages for Jung and the other guests.

Fyre Festival organizers Ja Rule and Billy McFarland are being sued for $100 million in a class action lawsuit: https://t.co/0taHRmeAnh pic.twitter.com/mJNIjGx3oh

— E! News (@enews) May 1, 2017

The lawsuit describes in detail just how bad it was on the island for the guests, and it does really sound like something out of a movie.

Attendees’ efforts to escape the unfolding disaster were hamstrung by their reliance upon Defendants for transportation, as well as by the fact that Defendants promoted the festival as a ‘cashless’ event — Defendants instructed attendees to upload funds to a wristband for use at the festival rather than bringing any cash. As such, Attendees were unable to purchase basic transportation on local taxis or busses, which accept only cash. As a result of Defendants’ roadblocks to escape, at least one attendee suffered a medical emergency and lost consciousness after being locked inside a nearby building with other concert-goers waiting to be airlifted from the island.

The suit also described the event as a “post-apocalyptic nightmare” and said that people had to survive on bread and slices of cheese. The tents were exposed on a sand bar, rain soaked, and wind battered.

The “gourmet cuisine” this weekend was included in the ticket cost. We are being fed salads and ham and cheese sandwiches out of this tent pic.twitter.com/MRv7U0RiyM

— dylan (@DylanACOP) April 28, 2017

But the worst part is that organizers, according to the lawsuit, knew all about the state of the festival area beforehand but didn’t warn attendees. They had allegedly been aware for months that the area was not ready for a festival and that it could be dangerous. There was no infrastructure for food or accommodations and contractors left the site, as they hadn’t been paid.

Defendants were knowingly lying about the festival’s accommodations and safety, and continued to promote the event and sell ticket packages. The festival was even promoted as being on a ‘private island’ once owned by drug kingpin Pablo Escobar–the island isn’t private, as there is a ‘Sandals’ resort down the road, and Pablo Escobar never owned the island.

To make matters worse, Ja Rule and McFarland started reaching out to artists and celebrities personally to warn them not to come. But they still didn’t let attendees know until the morning of the first day of the festival. By then, many guests were already on the island, without sufficient food or water or any way to get back. The lawsuit goes so far as to call the situation “tantamount to false imprisonment.”

However, many people online were amused by the fact that only rich people could afford to attend. Tickets started at $1,500 and went up to $250,000 for a special VIP package. Also, the Wall Street Journal warned a month ago that it didn’t seem like everything was alright, as the organizers still hadn’t paid performers or confirmed booked flights.

Ja Rule took to Twitter to “apologize” after all the outrage on social media last week, although he claimed it wasn’t his fault.

pic.twitter.com/KuJYxfsQJ4

— Ja Rule (@Ruleyork) April 28, 2017

McFarland said in a Rolling Stone interview that their vision of the festival “took on a life of its own” and that they “were a little naïve in thinking for the first time we could do this ourselves. Next year, we will definitely start earlier.”

And yes, there will actually be a “next year.” As if this year’s total fiasco wasn’t enough, the duo said they will have a festival on an American beach next year. On the online form where attendees could sign up to receive a refund for their tickets, there was the option to receive VIP passes for the next festival in 2018 instead of a cash refund. It’s unknown how many people jumped at that offer.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Fyre Festival Fiasco: Ja Rule Hit With $100 Million Lawsuit appeared first on Law Street.

Frank Ocean’s estranged father is suing him…again. According to a TMZ report, Ocean’s father, Calvin Cooksey, is filing a defamation lawsuit against his son. The $14.5 million lawsuit is a response to a Tumblr post that Ocean wrote after the Orlando nightclub shooting that had the “Blonde” singer, who infamously took to Tumblr to discuss his sexuality in 2012, recounting the time his dad used a homophobic slur. In the post that led to the defamation lawsuit, Ocean wrote:

I was six years old when I heard my dad call our transgender waitress a f****t as he dragged me out a neighborhood diner saying we wouldn’t be served because she was dirty. That was the last afternoon I saw my father and the first time I heard that word, I think, although it wouldn’t shock me if it wasn’t.

Cooksey, who considers himself to be somewhat of a multihyphenate, claims that the story never happened, and that it has caused damages to his aspiring career in film and music. This isn’t the first time Cooksey has filed a lawsuit–in fact, it’s not even the first time he’s filed a lawsuit against his son.

In 2012, Ocean took to his since-deleted Twitter account to reveal that his father was suing him for $1 million. “Father wanna sue me for a million. Like I owe him back child support. Weak individual bought me a swiss knife at 6yrs old then dipped on me,” Ocean tweeted.

In 2014, TMZ reported that Cooksey hit rap mogul Russell Simmons with a $142 million lawsuit, claiming that Simmons’ hip-hop culture website GlobalGrind unfairly painted him as horrible father. Like his current lawsuit, Cooksey sued Simmons for damages to his future income. In the lawsuit, according to TMZ, Cooksey claimed that Ocean’s “Money Grubbing mother” hid his own son from him and didn’t give Cooksey the chance to be a father. Ocean, who is notoriously private, maintains a close relationship with his mom. In October, Ocean brought her as his date to the final Obama White House state dinner.

This isn’t the first time a celebrity has been sued by their own father. Just last year, actor Christian Slater was involved in a $20 million lawsuit that his father, who is also an actor, filed against him for defamation of character. In the suit, as Entertainment Tonight reported, Slater’s father claimed that comments his son made in an interview claiming that he suffered from mental health issues “ruined his career in the stage, motion picture, and television industry.” The lawsuit was tossed out in July.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Frank Ocean’s Father Sues Him for Defamation appeared first on Law Street.

After a four-year hiatus and seemingly endless teases of new music, Frank Ocean delivered a cryptic gift to fans on August 18 in the form of a mysterious visual album titled “Endless” on Apple Music. While lovers of “Nostalgia Ultra” and “Channel Orange” didn’t hesitate to stream the 45-minute musical project, many audiophiles couldn’t help but wonder if Frank was still yanking our chains with what appeared to be his version of a woodworking performance art piece. But their suspicions were quickly answered.

Two days later Ocean dropped his album “Blonde” via his independent label Boys Don’t Cry. Equipped with genre-bending sounds, famous collaborations, and accompanied by a striking music video for the song “Nikes,” this was the album fans had been waiting for. But why two albums?

As it turns out the double debut was actually part of a well-calculated move on Ocean’s part that allowed him to independently release his album “Blonde” sans the involvement of former label Def Jam and its parent company Universal Music Group (UMG). By dropping “Endless” a few days prior, Ocean effectively fulfilled his contractual obligations, freeing him from the label.

Not only was this strategy lucrative (it’s estimated that Ocean has already earned over $1 million from the album in its first week), but it was essentially a big f**k you to the industry execs who were left what amounts to a very long music video.

According to Billboard, “UMG chairman/CEO Lucian Grainge reacted swiftly by informing the heads of his labels that Universal was done with streaming exclusives on one platform and on a global basis, which has been at the center of the streaming services’ arms race in the last 18 months.”

But is Ocean completely off the hook after staging his grand coup?

Well, it’s hard to say. In July, Billboard reported that Def Jam had spent $2 million on recording costs for Ocean’s album, at the time thought to be called “Boys Don’t Cry.” It’s speculated that Ocean payed this advance back with money from his new deal with Apple, effectively releasing him from any recoupable claims from Def Jam. But if Ocean’s “Endless” failed to meet the label’s quality standards, or if “Blonde’s” release violated contractual time stipulations, Def Jam could have grounds to sue.

UGM hasn’t announced if it is planning to file a lawsuit, so most of this is pure speculation, but if I were Frank, I’d have my legal team keep an eye out over the next couple months.

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 Could Frank Ocean Be Sued Over ‘Blonde’ Album Switcheroo? appeared first on Law Street.

Joe Scarborough, one of the hosts of the show “Morning Joe” really hates Donald Trump. Scarborough has slammed Trump on multiple occasions, beginning earlier this year, but seems to really have hit his stride with Trump-bashing this week. In honor of Trump’s constant nicknaming of his political opponents, Scarborough has given Trump a moniker of his own: #AmnestyDon.

On the show Monday morning, Scarborough clearly mocked Trump’s speaking style and his flip-flopping on immigration issues in one go, saying:

They’re calling him Amnesty Don. Amnesty Don, that’s what people are calling him, I’m not calling him that. Amnesty Don. Hashtag Amnesty Don. For 14 months, Amnesty Don has been putting illegal immigration at the center of Amnesty Don’s campaign… And, yet, nobody in Amnesty Don’s own campaign can tell you what Amnesty Don’s position is after Amnesty Don won the primaries promising to deport 11 [million illegal immigrants].

Scarborough said that he would write a song about his new nickname for Trump, and he followed through. Today Scarborough put up a music video on Facebook in an attempt to continue his trolling of the Republican nominee:

The feud between Trump and Scarborough (and Scarborough’s cohost Mika Brzezinski) has been on and off since February. While Scarborough used to be friendly with Trump, Trump’s hesitance to disavow KKK leaders who were supporting him soured their relationship, and since then Scarborough has hit Trump on a number of issues. Last week that feud spilled over to Twitter (although not for the first time):

Tried watching low-rated @Morning_Joe this morning, unwatchable! @morningmika is off the wall, a neurotic and not very bright mess!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 22, 2016

Joe Scarborough has officially descended into a professional Trump troll, and I can’t want to see what he comes up with next.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Joe Scarborough Makes Awesome and Bizarre #AmnestyDon Music Video appeared first on Law Street.

Even in death, details into Prince’s larger-than-life persona have been shrouded in mystery.

Prince, 57, was pronounced dead on April 21 after being found unresponsive at his Minneapolis home. An autopsy was conducted, but the coroner has withheld the results for weeks, allowing speculations to flourish. Information from anonymous sources and rumors have pointed to the flu, painkillers, and even AIDS as all being possible causes for the singer’s death.

But while we continue to wonder what caused the notoriously soft-spoken and private artist to die so suddenly, we can turn our attention to the chaos surrounding his multi-million dollar estate.

On Monday, Tyka Nelson, Prince’s sole full sister, and his half siblings headed to court for a probate hearing to begin the long and inevitably messy process of determining how to divide up his assets.

With no living parents, wife, children, or found will, Prince’s estate is up for grabs. Conflicting media reports have estimated it to be worth anywhere between $100-$500 million, and to include thousands of unreleased songs that are almost impossible to put a price tag on.

Monday’s hearing concluded with Bremer Trust, National Association being appointed the temporary special administrator of the estate. As an administrator, the bank will be tasked with valuing Prince’s image, and his monetary assets (including real estate, bank accounts, music royalties, etc.) It will also handle paying off his remaining debts, and hunting for a possible will, if there is one, as well as any unknown potential heirs.

Sadly, the biggest inheritor of the estate could end up being the government.

According to CNBC, “his estate will owe taxes on whatever the IRS and the administrators agree on as its value, and with a federal estate tax rate of 40 percent and a Minnesota tax rate of 16 percent, roughly half the estate could go to the government.” Unfortunately, with proper financial planning, Prince could have significantly reduced this tax bill.

While no one knows exactly what the outcome will end up being, this is a tragically ironic fate for the artist who was notoriously protective over his intellectual property rights and personal life.

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 What Will Happen to Prince’s Estate? appeared first on Law Street.

Kesha’s contract dispute with Sony Entertainment is off to a rough start after a New York judge denied a preliminary injunction against her alleged rapist and music producer Dr. Luke on Friday. This is inevitably a huge blow for the “Timber” pop star, whose career has been on an indefinite hiatus while she’s battled to be released from her recording contract with Sony and Luke’s Kemosabe Records.

New York Supreme Court Justice Shirley Kornreich sided with Dr. Luke, born Luke Gottwald, and Sony stating, “You’re asking the court to decimate a contract that was heavily negotiated and typical for the industry.” Even though Kesha claims Dr. Luke drugged, raped, and verbally and physically abused her for 10 years, the judge determined there wasn’t sufficient evidence present to support her claims, or release her immediately from the contracts.

During the proceedings Sony stated that, contrary to belief, it has offered to let Kesha work with other producers in order to fulfill her contractual duties, but the singer refused the option saying she feared the label wouldn’t promote her music as heavily if she wasn’t working with their biggest hitmaker, Gottwald. However, it’s highly unlikely that Sony would intentionally sabotage its $60 million investment in Kesha’s career by refusing to promote her work.

Dr. Luke, who has been relatively silent over the scandal, finally broke his silence and publicly denied Kesha’s sexual assault allegations Monday on Twitter.

Imagine if you or somebody you loved was publicly accused of a rape you knew they didn’t do. Imagine that.

— Dr. Luke Doctor Luke (@TheDoctorLuke) February 22, 2016

Kesha and I made a lot of songs together and it was often good but there were creative differences at times. — Dr. Luke Doctor Luke (@TheDoctorLuke) February 22, 2016

But I feel confident when this is over the lies will be exposed and the truth will prevail.. — Dr. Luke Doctor Luke (@TheDoctorLuke) February 22, 2016

Even if Kesha’s case isn’t off to a good start in court, she’s already winning in the court of public opinion. Several singers and celebrities, including Lena Dunham, Demi Lovato, Lady Gaga, and Taylor Swift have already begun to come to the singer’s defense and lend their support. Swift even donated $250,000 to Kesha to help with her legal fees, but was later criticized by Lovato who argued that speaking out on the issue would have had more of an impact.

Even though Kesha lost the preliminary injunction hearing, the case is hardly over–in fact it’s just starting. Kesha is still free to try her case in court. If she does end up losing the case she will have to continue recording with Sony, but if the association with Dr. Luke is still too much, her only option may be to buy herself out of her contract.

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 Dr. Luke Breaks Silence, Denies Ever Sexually Assaulting Kesha appeared first on Law Street.

Pop singer Kesha will appear in court next week to hear the judge’s decision on her contract with her producer Dr. Luke. In October 2014, the singer filed a lawsuit against the producer for sexual, physical and emotional abuse. He responded by filing charges against her for defamation–which were dismissed by a New York judge earlier this month (although the suit Dr. Luke filed in Tennessee is still active). As the legal battle has played out over the past two years, Kesha has suspended her musical career, not by choice, but because her contract with Dr. Luke’s company prevents her from recording with another label. The social media campaign #FreeKesha has picked up considerable momentum in the past several months and has raised questions about how much power managers and producers have over the artists they work with. Controlling a musician’s contract means control not only over their creative process, but often over their finances. Read on for a look at who controls royalties in the music industry.

Contracts in the Music Industry

When an artist signs a contract with a record label, they usually give the company ownership of the copyright on their music for the full life of the copyright. This leaves artists vulnerable because it designates even unreleased music as the property of the label. One notable artist who has secured a reversion of this copyright is Robbie Williams, who managed to secure the return of his “masters” in the contract he signed with EMI–ownership of his albums will eventually return to Williams rather than the label. In exchange for relinquishing their copyright, artists are given royalties–which are based on record sales. Artists receive a full royalty rate for any album they sell through normal retail channels but may receive only a fraction of that royalty for records that are sold at a discount rate or through a record club. Artists are also often expected to pay a producer’s royalty out of their own royalty share. While record companies aim to make royalty rates as attractive as possible, as attorney Anthony N. Luti explains, there are hidden cuts to royalties that all artists may face:

Artists normally get no royalties on records given away free for promotional purposes ‘All-in’ royalty rate deductions: most royalty rates are ‘all-in.’ This means that you must pay the producer out of your royalties. Typically, a producer will take 3 points (3%) which lowers your royalty rate even further. ‘Packaging’ deductions: the theory behind this deduction is that the band pays for the packaging of the CD and tape. Typically, these deductions range from 15 to 30 percent of your royalty rate. As a result, a 12% royalty rate and a 25% packaging deduction lowers your actual royalty rate to 9%.

A recording contract is more than just the exchange of recorded music for royalty payments. Recording contracts almost always require the artist to sign an exclusivity agreement with the label. If an artist wants to collaborate with another artist (particularly one on a different label) they will need to have a “sideman” clause built into their contract. The contract also dictates the territory where an artist can distribute music, tour support, and promotion of the music once it is released. Terminating the contract is a complex process. Hyper successful artists can sometimes afford to break their contracts or renegotiate them to a better financial position, but most artists are locked into an initial contract. A 12 month contract may not seem like a major commitment but when a record label constantly renews the contract, the company can retain the rights to years worth of creative work, even if the album is never released to the public.

Technology Changing The Game

Music royalties and administration are becoming more equitable thanks to technological advances, and now online companies help close the gap between artists and other services. One prime example is Music Reports, a global music administrative rights platform that has created a neutral transaction platform where music producers can handle rights administration and accounting.  In a recent interview with Law Street, Bill Colitre, Music Reports’ VP of Business & Legal Affairs, discussed how recording houses once controlled the relationship between buyers and sellers. Thanks to the advent of the Internet, the music publishing community can now set rights and prices via online platforms.

Colitre also described how the Internet has tapped into worldwide creativity, letting new entrants participate in a market that they traditionally took a backseat in. The global connectivity of the twenty-first century is making a historically rigged game increasingly equitable.  The assemblage of music rights and information online let artists and producers have greater control over their products while online financial services help them get paid faster and more efficiently. However, even with access to better accounting, most artists are still vulnerable to exploitation if they have not negotiated their contracts correctly.

Promoting Music Without a Record Label

Choosing to forgo a record deal does let artists retain control of their copyright but it also cuts them off from the promotional power that only an established label can provide. Self-released albums often rely on a marketing agency to promote them. Without the infrastructure of a traditional record company, artists have no way to meet DJs and promoters who can connect their album with the listening public.

British rock band Enter Shikari cracked the U.K.’s top five charts in 2007 with a self-released album and rapper Dom Kennedy reached the U.S.’s top five in 2013 but have neither have maintained that level of commercial success over time. Macklemore and Ryan Lewis made a name for themselves by promoting their album “The Heist” without signing onto a record label but their claim to indie fame is not entirely factual. The duo hired Alternative Distribution Alliance (ADA), a branch of the Warner Music Group, to promote their album.

Numerous artists who achieved commercial success with a major label chose to build their own record companies after their contracts expired, but they only were able to establish their own brands once they had built a significant popular following. OK Go was fortunate enough to break with their initial record label right as they released their third album–they were able to re-release the album off of their new label, using the publicity they had received from their original label to kickstart their own enterprise. Cyrus’ recent Dead Petz album was created without financial or creative assistance from her RCA team, but she is fortunate enough to be in a position where she did not need that kind of support from the label (and the label did go on to promote her album, despite its lack of involvement in its creation). Both Peter Gabriel and the Who have self-released albums, but the success of those records was built on the fame they had already garnered from the years during which they were tied to a label.

 Conclusion

There are a host of reasons why a record label might delay or block an album’s release but no matter how it happens, gagging a musician is usually legal under the contract they signed. The shifting metrics of the music industry–from physical records to digital albums to streaming–provide new opportunities for artists but don’t necessarily guarantee more relaxed recording contracts. Kesha is not the only artist to speak out about restrictive contracts–Jojo, who only returned to creating music recently, has stated that she was unable to release music for years because of a contract she had signed when she was a minor and Sky Ferreira‘s label pushed her album release date back again and again. For major artists who have already built a successful brand, record labels may be more willing to provide them with flexible contracts that they can renegotiate or terminate without massive legal penalties. However, for artists who are just breaking into the music scene or who are looking to retain a degree of creative and financial control, recording contracts can still be so restrictive that they undermine that artist’s ability to work.

Resources

People: Legal Win for Kesha in Dr. Luke Lawsuit: Judge Dismisses Claims

Sound on Sound: Recording Contracts Explained

The Wall Street Journal: Pop Star Robbie Williams Signs a Massive EMI Deal

Luti Law Firm: Recording Contracts 101: The Basics

NPR: The Real Story Of How Macklemore Got ‘Thrift Shop’ To No. 1

NPR: To Sign Or Not To Sign: Artists Big And Small Face The Label Question

Billboard: U.K.’s Enter Shikari Scores Without Label

Fobres: How Rapper Dom Kennedy Made It Without A Record Deal

Paste Magazine: 14 Artists who Launched Their Own Labels 

Music Times: Miley Cyrus’ Surprise New Album Surprised Her Label RCA Records

Huffington Post: OK Go Talk Creative Music Videos and Life Without a Label

US: JoJo Claims ‘Bad Contract’ Meant She Couldn’t Release Music, ‘Didn’t Legally Own’ Her Own Voice

Buzzfeed: What It’s Like When A Label Won’t Release Your Album

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post When The Show Can’t Go On: Dissecting Music Industry Contracts appeared first on Law Street.

After years of having her career suspended in legal limbo, pop star Kesha will finally learn her music’s fate Tuesday when her sexual assault injunction hearing goes before the New York Supreme Court.

The singer announced the update on Instagram with an image of an overpass with “life’s full of bumps” graffitied on it. She captioned the photo with the following message,

The universe is speaking to me today. I am filled with so much anxiety and hope and nerves and doubt and all my emotions are going crazy. if u pray, I could use one this week. I find out the fate of my career Tuesday…

In October 2014, Kesha filed a lawsuit against estranged producer Dr. Luke accusing him of sexually assaulting her for 10 years. Despite the allegations, Sony refused to release the singer from her contract with Kemosabe Records label that obligates her to complete three more studio albums with Dr. Luke. As a result Kesha’s career has been put on pause since she has been unable to to release any new music for over two years because she refuses to work with her alleged abuser.

The pop star has been keeping her eager fans updated on her plight with regular posts on her social media accounts.

Kesha posted this on Instagram #FreeKesha https://t.co/yUS7HwZZ0G/ pic.twitter.com/uNksnN3fSP

— Kesha | FOTP (@FOTPKesha) January 25, 2016

Over the weekend the fan account @KeshaTODAY distributed a cellphone video message in which Kesha sings “Amazing Grace” telling fans, “I can’t put out new music, but I can sing a little something of someone else’s songs.”

Despite the lack of new music, Kesha’s fans have stood by her side and supported her fight. They even created an online petition with over 110,000 signatures and viral hashtags such as #FreeKesha, #FreedomforKesha, and #SonySupportsRape  to protest the injustice. In support of her upcoming court case, her supporters have also planned a protest outside of the New York courthouse for the day of her hearing.

Despite the circumstances, Kesha has put on a brave face for the public by trying to keep a positive outlook on the proceedings, but it’s unclear how the court will decide in her injunction hearing. Unfortunately for fans, if a resolution can’t be made, this could spell the end for her career.

Update:

Winter storm Jonas has pushed Kesha’s hearing back a couple weeks. The singer informed supporters Monday afternoon with a picture of a heart on her Instagram captioned,

I love everyone. Thank you for your support. Due to travel problems with the weather it’s been postponed until feb 19.

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 Sexual Assault Legal Battle: Kesha Will Find Out Her Fate Soon appeared first on Law Street.

This 2016, Spotify should make a New Year’s resolution to not get slammed with any more lawsuits. The digital streaming network finished off 2015 with 75 millions users worldwide, over 25 million who pay for premium services, and a $150 million dollar lawsuit. David Lowery of the bands Cracker and Camper van Beethoven recently issued a class action lawsuit against Spotify for failure to properly pay royalties to its artists.

NPR posted the court filing from Lowery, which states,

Spotify’s egregious and willful violations of Plaintiff’s and the Class Members’ rights are highlighted in Spotify’s recent admissions regarding its failure to: (1) obtain licenses for the musical works it distributes and reproduces (thereby infringing multiple copyrighted works); and (2) compensate copyright owners for its use of their Works.

This lawsuit is just one battle in an ongoing debate between music publishers and streaming services., and the digital age may be transforming our music consumption too quickly for the law to keep up. There are usually two different types of copyright owners for every song streamed. The owner of the song is one, so usually the artist or the record company, and the other is the person who wrote the song or has rights as the publisher of the song. Undeniably, streaming services lack transparency as royalties get passed along to several middleman, then hopefully find their way into the hands of these different owners. Streaming services continue to strive for transparency however, citing most of their issues as the difficulties of obtaining rights.

David Lowery. Image courtesy of [Zopheus via Wikimedia]

Spotify openly admits to potential challenges in its royalty payment system. The company sets aside royalty funds for when a user streams a song and Spotify cannot immediately identify the rights holder. The suit argues that the retroactive compensation from the fund clearly shows Spotify’s negligence in obtaining proper license agreement and authorization prior to streaming songs. However, Spotify does make the claim that in the United States, “the data necessary to confirm the appropriate rightsholder is often missing, wrong, or incomplete” for songwriters.

In the U.S, the legal framework for songwriters has been around since 1941. Songwriters license their work to Performance Rights Organizations (BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC), who collect and negotiate songwriting royalties under a consent decree in a special rate court. Spotify seemingly does not have to negotiate with songwriters because the government sets the rates, but the framework is still admittedly complicated.

Lowery isn’t the first to have an issue with Spotify–in previous years, artists like Taylor Swift have taken the measure to remove their work from Spotify in protest of royalties. On Spoitfy’s Artists website, the streaming service explains its artist payout formula, which includes Spotify’s monthly revenue, artist and total Spotify streams, publishing owners, and royalty rate. The artists still have other deals they’ve agreed to with the record label, so they’re ok taking down their music from Spotify.

The payment of royalties admittedly is complicated. Maybe it is time for the court to modify the legal framework behind licensing music. The David Lowery case will undoubtedly reveal more about the future of music streaming as the ownership of music continues to change.

Read More: Streaming Music: Good Business or an Attack on Artists

Dorsey Hill

Dorsey is a member of Barnard College’s class of 2016 with a major in Urban Studies and concentration in Political Science. As a native of Chicago and resident of New York City, Dorsey loves to explore the multiple cultural facets of cities. She has a deep interest in social justice issue especially those relevant to urban environments. Contact Dorsey at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Spotify Faces a Class Action Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement appeared first on Law Street.

If you were wondering why pop star Kesha hasn’t put out any new music since being featured on Pitbull’s 2013 smash hit “Timber” there’s an unsettling reason. The singer has put her career on the line in an attempt to free herself from being forced to work with producer Dr. Luke, who she says sexually and emotionally abused her for ten years.

Kesha Pushes For Injunction Against Dr. Luke, Citing Her … : https://t.co/hLMkLRoulq . pic.twitter.com/91NftKq9yR

— BINGBING Play (@BINGBING_PLAY) November 2, 2015

In October 2014 Kesha, whose birth name is Kesha Rose Sebert, filed a lawsuit against producer Lukasz Sebastian Gottwald, aka Dr. Luke, for alleged sexual assault and battery, sexual harassment, gender violence, emotional abuse, and violation of California business practices during their 10 years of working together. The lawsuit states,

For the past ten years, Dr. Luke has sexually, physically, verbally, and emotionally abused Ms. Sebert to the point where Ms. Sebert nearly lost her life. Dr. Luke abused Ms. Sebert in order to destroy her self-confidence, self-image, and self-worth so that he could maintain complete control over her life and career.

In Kesha’s graphic account of some of the alleged abuse, she says on one occasion she woke up naked in Dr. Luke’s bed, sore and sick, and with no memory of how she got there after he allegedly gave her “sober pills,” that she now believes to have been the date rape drug GHB.

Dr. Luke responded to the allegations with a lawsuit of his own against Kesha and her management, alleging that Kesha fabricated the rape allegations in an attempt to breach her contract.

A spokesperson for Dr. Luke told the Hollywood Reporter,

If Kesha now regrets her career being mired in legal proceedings, it’s entirely her making. It was Kesha who chose to file a lawsuit falsely alleging abuse to gain advantage in contract negotiations, and now she must accept the consequences of her improper actions. As long as she continues to stand by her false claims of abuse against Dr. Luke and remains in breach of her contracts, he will continue to protect his professional and personal reputation, as well as his contractual rights, in a court of law. He looks forward to obtaining judgments in his favor.

Now, it’s one year later and Kesha says she’s struggling to keep her career afloat, because she refuses to continue recording new music with her alleged abuser. Kesha is still locked in a contract obligating her to complete three more studio albums with Dr. Luke and his Kemosabe Records label, which is owned by Sony.

This summer she expanded her lawsuit to include Sony, alleging that they supported and “ratified” his behavior. Despite the serious allegations against Dr. Luke, Sony reportedly has no plans to allow her to record with another producer. Clearly you can see Kesha’s dilemma: she can either (a) finish out her contract with her alleged abuser, or (b) watch her career tik-tok away.

Supporters have rallied behind her with the help of trending hashtags #FreedomforKesha and #SonySupportsRape.

Kesha’s lastest solo single was released 915 days, 130.7 weeks, 30.5 months, 2.5 years ago… #FreedomForKesha #SonyMusicSupportsRape — KESHA FACTS (@musicnews_kesha) November 1, 2015

Ppl wonder why rape victims nvr speak up. Kesha did & now she has to work w her rapist or not at all #SonyMusicSupportsRape #FreedomForKesha — woke princess (@zmjr_) October 31, 2015

A record company should be concerned about their artists careers and well-being. Not defending rapist scum #sonysupportsrape #freeKesha — Trevor Wolff (@SnarkyWolff) October 31, 2015

Kesha recently filed another preliminary injunction in the hopes of pushing a judge to rule on her case. According to the LA Times, Kesha’s attorney, celebrity lawyer Mark Geragos, notes in the new filing that Kesha’s “brand value has fallen” and that if the court doesn’t do something soon her career might fall “past the point of no return.”

If the court doesn’t rule on her case soon Kesha may have no other option than to fulfill her contract with Dr. Luke. But any music made under that kind of duress will most likely never measure up to her previous success.

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 Sony Reportedly Refuses to Let Kesha Record New Music Without Her Alleged Rapist appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this month, Aerosmith lead singer Steven Tyler became the third person this year to hit Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump with a cease-and-desist letter for his use of music on the campaign trail. A month earlier, R.E.M. bassist Mike Mills voiced his displeasure at Trump’s use of one of his group’s songs and in June Neil Young asked Trump to stop using his music.

American presidential campaigns have a long history of using music to evoke emotions in audiences. It’s a practice that dates back to the early 1800s and possibly earlier, all the way back to George Washington. Perhaps the most famous example is Dwight Eisenhower’s “They Like Ike” advertisement, which yielded his famous campaign slogan “I like Ike.”

Over the past few decades, however, there’s been a growing trend among songwriters and artists who have come out against campaigns for using their music. The reasons for artists issuing cease-and-desist letters range from disagreeing political views or presenting an image of false endorsement to simply not wanting music played without their permission.

Securing the appropriate legal permissions to use particular songs on the campaign trail is not always enough. Copyright law and fair use are only part of the equation when it comes to a politician’s right to use music. Many states provide protections for famous artists in regards to their image and false endorsement. In fact, it is possible for a politician to legally possess the minimum permissions to use a song and still face a lawsuit from the artist. Read on to learn about the history of music in campaigns and the legal questions that come up time and time again on the campaign trail.

A Brief, Recent History of Campaign Music Fights

Reagan and Springsteen (1984)

As Ronald Reagan campaigned for reelection in the summer of 1984, much of the nation, and in turn Reagan’s presidential campaign, was swept away by Bruce Springsteen’s hit “Born in the USA.” Conservative columnist George Will made a claim to “Born in the USA,” calling it a patriotic, hardworking man’s anthem. Reagan quickly pounced on the opportunity to use the song in his campaign. He was promptly denied the rights to play the song but invoked Springsteen in a speech nonetheless. In a 1994 speech Reagan said,

America’s future rests in a thousand dreams inside your hearts. It rests in the message of hope in songs of a man so many young Americans admire: New Jersey’s own Bruce Springsteen.

The left responded by saying that Reagan and conservatives had misinterpreted the song, claiming that it was a form of protest against the changes that Reagan brought about. Democratic candidate Walter Mondale even believed that Springsteen supported him. However, the song was intentionally crafted to contain both arguments and to be a conflicting piece of music. Ultimately the piece proved to be about disconnection, not belonging to any side, and as a result, probably not the most appropriate campaign tune.

Bush, Petty, and Hall (2004)

The trend in bands and songwriters protesting the political use of their music greatly increased in the 21st century, particularly within the last several election cycles. In 2004, George W. Bush used the songs “Still the One” and “I Won’t Back Down” by John Hall and Tom Petty, respectively. Both artists took offense to the use of their songs for President Bush’s campaign. Hall, later elected as a Democratic congressman in New York, publicly noted that neither he nor his music supported Bush’s reelection efforts.

McCain, Browne, and Mellencamp (2008)

John McCain received several complaints from artists concerning his use of their music, most notably from John Mellencamp for the use of “Our Country,” and  Jackson Browne for “Running on Empty.” Browne went so far as to sue the McCain campaign claiming that the usage of the song was not only without permission, but it also suggested that Browne supported the McCain campaign. As a Democrat, Browne naturally objected to supporting the campaign in any way. McCain would eventually settle with Browne and apologize.

Palin and Heart (2008)

Sarah Palin, John McCain’s running mate in 2008, faced a backlash from the band Heart for her use of their song “Barracuda.” Ann and Nancy Wilson (the band’s lead singer and guitarist), asked the campaign to stop using its music, noting, “Sarah Palin’s views and values in NO WAY represent us as American women. We ask that our song ‘Barracuda’ no longer be used to promote her image.” Despite their desire to be left out of the campaign, the use of their song continued, most notably at Palin’s introduction at the Republican Convention in 2008. After its repeated use, the sisters issued a statement saying,

The song ‘Barracuda’ was written in the late ’70s as a scathing rant against the soulless, corporate nature of the music business, particularly for women. (The ‘barracuda’ represented the business.) While Heart did not and would not authorize the use of their song at the RNC, there’s irony in Republican strategists’ choice to make use of it there.

Charlie Crist and The Talking Heads (2010)

During his senate campaign against Republican candidate Marco Rubio, Charlie Crist used the song “Road to Nowhere” by The Talking Heads on his campaign website and in video advertisements. The group responded with a lawsuit that culminated with Crist issuing a formal apology.

Walker and the Dropkick Murphys (2012)

Both Wisconsin governor Scott Walker and Speaker of the State Assembly Jeff Fitzgerald used the Dropkick Murphys cover of “I’m Shipping up to Boston” at tour stops in 2012 for their campaigns. The band responded to Fitzgerald’s use of their song at the Wisconsin GOP Convention by comparing it to the use of a gangsta rap by a white supremacist.

In 2011, Scott Walker led a campaign to eliminate collective bargaining rights for most state workers, which led to a massive backlash from pro-union organizations and Democrats. A recall election was held in 2012 in which Walker retained his post. Earlier this year, Walker played the same song prior to his speech at the Iowa Freedom Summit resulting in a backlash from the band. Dropkick Murphys, a notably pro-union band, tweeted their response:

@ScottWalker @GovWalker please stop using our music in any way…we literally hate you !!! Love, Dropkick Murphys

— Dropkick Murphys (@DropkickMurphys) January 25, 2015

Obama, Moore, and Lauper (2008 and 2012)

The Obama campaign faced some backlash from Sam Moore, of the band Sam & Dave, for its use of the song “Hold On! I’m Comin'” at rallies. Moore objected to the use of his song by the Obama campaign because he had not publicly endorsed Obama’s election bid, noting that his vote is a private matter. However, Moore did send a letter to Obama proudly noting the historic nature of his campaign.

In 2012, the Obama campaign used Cyndi Lauper’s song “True Colors” in an ad criticizing Mitt Romney and his record. While Lauper was not a Romney supporter, she did not agree with the use of her song in a negative advertisement.

When Can Campaigns Use Music?

To use music in advertisements (television and internet), a campaign needs to receive legal permission from both the song’s publisher and the artist’s record label. The use of music at a live campaign event requires a “public performance” license, generally attained from one of the United States’ performing rights organizations. These organizations track the use of music and help distribute royalties from such events.

Technically, campaigns do not need to receive explicit permission from the artist to use their work, but it should be noted that even if a politician has all the requisite legal permissions the artist can still sue the campaign. The author(s) could make a claim to their “Right of Publicity,” which is a legal protection many states give celebrities and artists. The right of publicity generally protects the use of someone’s name and likeness for commercial reasons. However, this right is not yet nationally recognized. On the federal level, the Lanham Act protects an artist’s trademark or brand by offering protection against false endorsement in which the use of an artist’s work can imply the artist’s support. Politicians and their campaigns also need to acquire proper licensing from the publisher, record label, and venue.

What About Fair Use?

One of the most crucial pieces of U.S. copyright law, created to ensure the protection of free speech, is the doctrine of fair use. Fair use is defined as the copying of copyrighted material done for a “limited and ‘transformative’ purpose,” which may legally be done without the artist’s or license holder’s. However, fair use is loosely defined and limited by various court decisions.

There are two general categories of fair use. The first is commentary, in which a copyrighted work can be used in limited instances to provide examples and clarity–this is most commonly seen in scholarly works. The second category of fair use is parody, in which large sections of an original work may be copied and used in a satirical manner. When fair use claims make it to court, judges employ a four-point test to evaluate how the material was used and what the consequences were. Fair use claims are particularly strong when the use was for educational or informative purposes, or when the original work has been significantly modified to create something new.

When used to set a mood or accompany a politician’s platform, the use of music on a political campaign is generally not protected under fair use. The parody of a popular song for a campaign may constitute fair use, but otherwise artists would still be entitled to the protections established above. Although campaigns are not often afforded fair use protections, these claims are looked at on a case-by-case basis. While there may be some cases in which fair use protects campaigns, generally speaking, that is not the case.

Conclusion

Musicians’ recent outcry against the use of their work for political campaigns is nothing new. However, the number of complaints issued by artists has grown significantly over the past election cycles. These issues may have arisen over the evolution of the fair use and its interpretation in the courts, particularly for music and film. However, it is important to note that political campaigns often do not meet the transformative requirements to constitute fair use when playing music at events or in advertisements. Even if the proper licenses are granted by publishers and record labels, the performing groups themselves may be entitled to protections under the right of publicity and the Lanham Act, meaning their permission is essentially required as well.

In short: if you want to use a song to promote your campaign, talk to the song’s artist, and his or her record label first.

Resources

ASCAP: Using Music in Political Campaigns: What you Should Know

Daily Kos: When Politicians use Music Without Asking Permission

Jefferson R. Cowie: Stayin’ Alive: Book 2, Chapter 8: “Dead Man’s Town”

USA Today: Candidates Carry a Tune on Campaign Trail

BBC: Aerosmith Protest over Trump Campaign Using their Hit Dream On

The Guardian: REM blasts Donald Trump for Using their Music in US Presidential Campaign

NY Times: In Choreographed Campaigns, Candidates Stumble over Choice of Music

Time: A Brief History of Campaign Songs

Boston: Wisconsin Recall Battle Finally Goes to Voters

Kevin L. Vick and Jean-Paul Jassy: Why a Federal Right of Publicity Statute is Necessary

Stanford University Libraries: What is Fair Use?

Cornell University Law School: The Lanham Act (15 U.S. Code), Subchapter III, Provision 1125: False Designations of Origin, False Descriptions, and Dilution Forbidden

Battlefield Sources: 1952 Eisenhower Political Ad – I like Ike – Presidential Campaign Ad

HardMusicTV: Bruce Springsteen vs Ronald Reagan

Law12345100: Charlie Crist Official Apology to David Byrne for Copyright Infringement

Samuel Whitesell

Samuel Whitesell is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill having studied History and Peace, War, and Defense. His interests cover international policy, diplomacy, and politics, along with some entertainment/sports. He also writes fiction on the side. Contact Samuel at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Campaign Music and Fair Use: What are the Rules? appeared first on Law Street.

About a year ago, MTV started “Look Different,” an online and on-air campaign with the goal of erasing the hidden racial, gender, and anti-LGBT bias that remains in our society. A new ad that is a part of Look Different was just launched this week and has left many people feeling uncomfortable. The campaign posted a faux advertisement called “White Squad” Wednesday evening on YouTube where it has well over 100,000 views so far. The ad aims to lessen racial prejudices but may be creating more controversy than conversation.

The commercial acknowledges the fact that white privilege exists and tries to make it comical by encouraging minorities to call the “White Squad” to help them in situations where they are often treated unfairly–like to win court cases, buy better homes, and receive scholarships. The ad says White Squad will “give the full benefits of being white in the legal system.” Although this was a satirical ad, most first time viewers had no clue it was fake and couldn’t believe what they were seeing. The campaign even went so far as to make a fake website for White Squad which links to the Look Different online site.

As expected, Twitter has had a field day with the commercial. There was a pretty broad range of reactions:

I’d literally forgotten ALL about MTV til #WhiteSquad. Of ALL the desperate promo attempts I’ve seen, when ALL else fails, use Black People.

— Black Reign (@KockTailz) July 16, 2015

Bruh I’d call White Squad YESTERDAY.

— Jer’Maine Montiel (@JerMaineMontiel) July 16, 2015

White Squad…. How yall feel about this? I think it’s great because you see what people of color go through on a daily basis.

— Fonzio (@alphcee) July 16, 2015

You don’t CHALLENGE #WhitePrivilege by making a joke of it. Nothing is funny about being discriminated against. #EpicFail#WhiteSquad

— Black Reign (@KockTailz) July 16, 2015

Yes, the ad does shine a light on issues that people of color have to face. But, people are offended and uncomfortable because they feel that the commercial is making fun of real life struggles minorities deal with every day–struggles that can’t just easily be fixed by calling someone who is white to come out and help. For decades people have known that racial privileges exists, but simply showing a commercial will not make it go away. MTV acknowledging that white privilege exists was a very small step toward working to solve this huge problem.

This isn’t the only example of MTV addressing racial issues head on in a controversial manner. MTV is planning to air a documentary called “White People” which shows how it feels “to be young and white.” Network executives say the show’s aim is to “challenge ‘whiteness’ and help ‘address racial bias through honest, judgment-free dialogue.'”

This documentary promises to elicit some interesting reactions as well–I for one am looking forward to hearing everyone’s opinions on the topic. With MTV’s decrease in ratings over the past few years, people are questioning if it has started talking about racial discrimination to draw attention back to the network. While that may or may not be the case, MTV’s attempts to spark social conversations promises to be an interesting (and controversial) move to watch.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post MTV’s “White Squad”: Funny or Offensive? appeared first on Law Street.

Taylor Swift recently wrote a controversial open letter to Apple Music about its new music streaming feature. Apple Music was offering a free three month trial as one of the new streaming site’s hottest features, but during that period artists and record companies would not be paid. That policy sparked Swift’s wrath, and opened up a conversation about the ethics of streaming sites.

Swift said on her personal Tumblr account:

I’m sure you are aware that Apple Music will be offering a free 3 month trial to anyone who signs up for the service.

I’m not sure you know that Apple Music will not be paying writers, producers, or artists for those three months. I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company.

Apple acquired Beats Electronics last year for $3 billion, and on June 8 it announced details about its new streaming music service and radio station at the Worldwide Developers Conference. 

One day after Swift’s letter, Apple’s Senior Vice President of Internet Software and Services, Eddy Cue, tweeted a response that Apple will change its royalty policy. 

#AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming, even during customer’s free trial period

— Eddy Cue (@cue) June 22, 2015

We hear you @taylorswift13 and indie artists. Love, Apple

— Eddy Cue (@cue) June 22, 2015

Swift responded in  kind to the policy change:

I am elated and relieved. Thank you for your words of support today. They listened to us.

— Taylor Swift (@taylorswift13) June 22, 2015

While Swift and Apple Music got rid of their “Bad Blood” pretty quickly, this isn’t the first time that she has challenged streaming services. Back in November 2014, Swift famously pulled her music from Spotify and kept “1989” off of steaming services.

I’m all for making money and handling it in whatever way you want, but to me, Swift seems a little selfish. She’s one of the most prominent artists to remove her music from Spotify, and certainly one of the richest. Her letter went so far as to say,

This is not about me. This is about the new artist or band that has just released their first single and will not be paid for its success.

But Swift may be in the wrong with that argument. When the issue between Swift and Spotify arose, Spotify stated that the purpose of its streaming site was to prevent music lovers from downloading music illegally. Although artists aren’t being paid as much as they would if they were selling a song or album, they certainly receive more money through sites like Spotify than if their songs were pirated.

So, it’s easy to question whether Swift’s intent is truly so generous. Furthermore, it’s easy to imagine that she removed the music for her personal gain because she wasn’t making as much money–just because Apple played along and fixed the problem for everyone doesn’t absolve her. If she gets into any other arguments with streaming sites down the road, hopefully she uses her prominent status to benefit all artists involved, not just for her own personal gain.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Taylor Swift: Continued “Bad Blood” With Streaming Sites appeared first on Law Street.

Is Beyonce leaving Jay Z’s Tidal? What did a family’s massive charity actually spend its money on? ICYMI, check out the best of the week from Law Street.

#1 Music Streaming Site Tidal Could Be Losing Its Queen

Here’s an update for my music lovers on Jay Z’s new Spotify-esque streaming site Tidal. As expected, the $20 a month service isn’t exactly revolutionizing the music industry like Hov and his famous friends had hoped. Despite boasts that they pay the highest percentage of royalties to music artists and songwriters within the music-streaming market, Tidal still continues to face waves of criticism from music experts and other artists. Read full article here.

#2 The Best Legal Tweets of the Week

The excitement over finals and the latest round of bar exam results has died down and now lawyers and law students are back to the daily grind of being overworked and over-caffeinated. Check out the best legal tweets of the week. See the slideshow here.

#3 Your Donation to This Cancer “Charity” Funded Online Dating Subscriptions

Every few years, a scandal breaks where it is discovered that a charity isn’t donating as much as it claims of the funds that it raises. But a new story coming out of Tennessee puts pretty much any other misbehaving charity to shame. A civil complaint filed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) revealed that four related charities, all run by members of the same extended family, donated only three percent of the $187 million they raised from 2008-2012. The rest of the money went to items for the family. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Art education can benefit students in different ways, including improving student performance across the whole curriculum. But art programs in schools are often the first to be cut, if budget cuts are necessary. As a result, many students are missing out on the benefits of art classes. So, is it important to provide art education in schools? Read on to learn about art programs’ benefits and the issues with funding them for public school students.

What is the current state of art education in American schools?

Art education in public schools usually includes any combination of dance, music, drama/theatre, and visual arts classes. It’s usually funded by the federal, state, and local governments, but not all schools provide their students with art education.

Budget Cuts

Following the recent recession, budgets cuts were consistent in schools across the U.S., with more than 95 percent of students attending schools with significantly reduced budgets. It’s estimated that since 2008, more than 80 percent of schools nationwide experienced cuts to their budgets. As a remedy in some instances, art programs were partially or completely eliminated from affected school districts. Dance and theatre classes in particular were cut drastically. During the 1999-2000 school year, 20 percent of schools offered dance and theatre classes, but in the 2009-10 school year, only 3 percent of schools allocated funds for dance classes, and only 4 percent taught theatre. The number of schools that offered music classes didn’t change significantly over the last decade, indicating no budget cuts in that subject area, with 94 percent of schools still offering music classes. But the number of schools offering visual arts programs dropped from 87 percent in 1999-2000 to 83 percent in 2009-10. In 2013, public schools in major cities, including Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and Washington, DC, are still struggling with budget cuts, resulting in the continued elimination of art programs across affected school districts. Due to budget constraints, fewer schools offer art classes today than a decade ago.

Emphasis on Core Subjects

In addition to less money being spent on education because of the recession, various government policies, including the No Child Left Behind Act and the Common Core State Standards have placed greater emphasis on core subjects, such as math and reading. In doing so, they have sidelined arts education. In light of these policies, school districts began re-directing funds toward subjects that require standardized testing in order to increase the overall scores of their students.

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act was signed into law in 2002 by President George W. Bush. The act was then re-authorized to ensure better access to high-quality education for all children, regardless of religion, race, ethnicity, or class. As the emphasis was placed on core subjects, such as math and reading, funding for art programs decreased significantly, especially for those art classes that required studio materials. As a result, art education in some schools was completely eliminated, although children still sometimes had the option to take certain art classes after school with volunteer teachers. In some school districts, art classes were still offered, but only with a limited number of seats.

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) is a current state-wide initiative that emphasizes the development of skills needed for students to succeed in college and future careers. As of now, 46 states have CCSS and are working on implementation. Similar to No Child Left Behind, CCSS focuses on those subjects that require standardized testing, and doesn’t include art education in its core. As a result, many schools choose to allocate funds for math and English language classes, often at the expense of art education. However, the Common Core Standards references arts in the curriculum, by some estimations, 75 times. In this regard, some art educators and advocates believe that art education can be aligned with the Common Core standards. To promote integration of art classes, the new National Core Arts Standards were developed and released to the public in 2014 as a conceptual framework. In 2015, a model cornerstone assessment pilot project was launched “to demonstrate the type of standards-based evidence needed to show student achievement.” These assessments will continue in 2016.

Disparities in Accessing Art Education

Even though art programs were slashed nationwide, schools with higher concentrations of impoverished students or minority students suffered the most. According to 2008 data, African-American and Hispanic students were two times less likely to have access to art programs in their school districts in comparison to their white peers. Interestingly, the rates of African-American and Hispanic students who have received art education while in school have been declining since the beginning of 1990s. In 1992, 50.9 percent of African-American 18-24 year olds received art education in childhood, while in 2008, only 26.2 percent of the same demographic had access to art classes in schools. Similar numbers are true for Hispanic children: 47.2 percent had art education in 1992 and only 28.1 percent had the option in 2008. In comparison, there were no comparable rates of decline in art education for white 18-24 year olds.

Most of the schools that serve low-income students already have reduced budgets due to the recession and its aftermath. In addition, as many schools in poor neighborhoods are considered low-performing, they face an intense pressure to meet Common Core standards through math and English language tests. If a school fails these standards it may be placed into program improvement status. In this situation, art classes become even less of a priority, and may be significantly reduced or completely cut from the curriculum. Art programs in schools that have a large number of low-income students are also rarely restored. While more affluent school districts can rely on private funding to still provide art education for students, or parents can simply pay for after-school art classes, children in poor neighborhoods most likely don’t have those options. This scenario creates disparities in access to art education between communities.

What are the benefits of art education?

It’s evident that art classes are the first to be cut from the budget, the last to be restored, and often unavailable for low-income students. But why do we need art classes at all?

Improved Performance

First and foremost, art education improves the overall performance of students, including in the core academic subjects that are often emphasized by standardized testing requirements. Students who took four years of art classes scored 91 points higher on their SAT exams than those who took half a year or less. Multiple studies also confirmed that there is a correlation between art engagement and students’ other achievements. Students who regularly participated in art classes were four times more likely to be recognized for their achievements.

Higher Graduation Rates

Art education can help keep students in school. Schools with long-standing art programs have higher graduation rates. In many instances, art classes motivate students to stay in school, especially low-achieving students, by fostering closer ties with peers and creating community-oriented environments.

Inspiration and Creativity

Art can inspire students to create and express themselves in a variety of forms. It provides the spark that keeps children engaged and allows them to have fun while exploring the world through different art forms. Art education develops creativity and problem-solving skills, improves judgement, and shows children that there are multiple perspectives. Finally, it encourages inventiveness, helping foster innovative thinkers.

Child Development

Children in elementary schools can greatly benefit from art classes, as they are still growing physically and mentally. Visual arts classes are highly recommended for developing motor skills in young children. Every time a child holds a paintbrush or cuts with safety scissors, his motor and dexterity skills improve. The same is true for developing language skills. Young children can learn colors, shapes, and descriptive words while making simple art projects and discussing them with their peers and teacher. In fact, 33 percent of children are visual learners, meaning they absorb information from images. Art classes can help to improve visual-spatial skills and hand eye coordination.

Music education at a younger age is also very beneficial as it helps to connect both hemispheres of the brain, producing long-lasting improvements in communication and listening. In fact, children who play musical instruments just thirty minutes a week have more developed brains than their peers.

Art also makes children aware of different cultures, traditions, and customs, providing a foundation for understanding racial diversity, which is an important part of American society and history. All in all, art education has tremendous benefits for elementary school students, as it helps children to develop physical skills, brain functions, and ideas.

At-Risk Youth

Art classes are beneficial for students in many ways, but especially for children who are low-income and live in impoverished neighborhoods. Art programs can keep at-risk youth off the streets, and, consequently, away from correctional institutions. Not only can art programs provide incentives for these children to stay in school, but it can also improve their academic performance, including reading and math. At-risk students with a history of art involvement have higher college enrollment rates than their at-risk peers who didn’t pursue art education. They are three times more likely to earn Bachelor’s degrees than their peers. Students who didn’t take art classes are five times more likely to drop out of school before graduation. Art can help disadvantaged children to realize their full potential as it provides a safe harbor for those students who may lack a supportive environment at home.

How can we bring art programs back to schools?

It’s clear that art education is extremely important for children of all ages. As a result, many schools have begun to rely upon private funding or combinations of private and public funds when financing their art programs. Besides private donors, non-profit organizations have begun to play a leading role in funding art classes in local schools. For example, in 2013, the Eugene Education Foundation (EEF) allocated 30 percent of its grants to art education in schools. Those grants are funded by community members. EEF has also created an Artists in Residence program. This practice of bringing art experts into a classroom for a limited amount of time has proven to be very rewarding. For example, students at Awbrey Park Elementary in Oregon were able to experience Mexican arts and crafts for one month with an expert from Eugene Arte Latino. There are also many parent-teacher organizations that are fundraising for art education.

Charter schools can be also a leading force in art education. New York City has 210 charter schools, some of which have already implemented in-depth art curriculums. Ascend Learning is a network of seven charter schools in Brooklyn, modeled after elite private schools with famous paintings in the hallways to expose children to art.

On a larger scale, state initiatives can greatly improve art education in schools. California’s Core Reforms Engaging Arts to Educate (CREATE) is a large-scale project to bring arts back to the classroom, bridging the gap of budget cuts.

Conclusion

Art education is an important component of childhood development. It also can pave the way for a child’s academic and future success as a professional. While the picture is not that bleak across the nation, it does in some cases fall across racial lines. In this regard, non-profits, communities, teachers, private individuals, and states are already creating a wave of change, moving from perceiving art education as expendable costs toward an overall realization of its benefits. The recent development of National Core Arts Standards is a promising step, as alining art eduction with Common Core Standards can hopefully bring arts back to the classroom.

Resources

Primary

Common Core State Standards Initiative: What is the Common Core?

National Center for Educational Statistics: Arts Education in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools: 1999-2000 and 2009-10

Additional

Americans For The Arts: Decline of Arts Education in Undeserved Populations

Americans For The Arts: Uneven Education Opportunities Nationwide

College Board for the National Coalition for Core Arts Standards: The Art and The Common Core

National Coalition for Core Arts Standards: Model Cornerstone Pilot Project 2014

Huffington Post: Is Federal Money The Best Way To Fund The Arts? Join The Debate

The Washington Post: Will Less Art and Music in the Classroom Really Help Students Soar Academically?

EugeneWeekly: Budget Cuts Affect Music, Arts

Think Progress: Public Schools Slash Arts Education And Turn To Private Funding

PBS Parents: The Importance of Art in Child Development

Artsz: 20 Reasons Why Art is Important for Children

US News: Extracurriculars Are Central to Learning

Seattle PI: Budget Cuts to Art Programs in Schools

The Hechinger Report: Do the Arts Go Hand in Hand With Common Core?

EdSource: Effort to Revive Arts Programs in Schools Gains Momentum

Art & Education Exchange: Where the Arts and Common Core Intersect

The AEP Wire: No Child Left Behind: A Study of its Impact on Art Education

The Notebook: NCLB: Taking a Toll on Arts and Music Education

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post School Art Programs: Should They Be Saved? 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.

Hey y’all!

I’m a big music fan–especially good music. In my opinion though, “Blurred Lines” by Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke does not fall into that category. Sure the tune is catchy but listen to the words. Really listen to them, and of course watch the music video. I’m sure it was a just a fun thing for these guys to do one night but I bet they are regretting it now.

A jury in California found that the song was a rip off from Marvin Gaye’s “Got To Give It Up” — a song I know and love. The jury awarded Marvin Gaye’s family $7.4 million. That’s a lot of dough for one song!

I know both songs pretty well; one because its fun to listen to and the other because radio stations don’t know how to take a song off of repeat when it is released. I’m no music expert, just an enthusiast, but I have to wonder what is considered plagiarism and what is considered influence when creating music.

Pharrell claims that he grew up listening to Marvin Gaye so I am sure “Got to Give it Up” was included. It was probably one of those songs he listened to all the time and perhaps that catchy tune stayed with him and he wanted to express his love for it through the creation of his own with a little bit of a similar beat.

According to an expert supplied by Gaye’s family, there are “eight distinct elements” from ‘Got to Give It Up’ used in ‘Blurred Lines’. Eight elements. Is that like eight notes used consecutively that made it sound like it was ripped right from Gaye’s song? Or was it eight different pieces of ‘Blurred Lines’ that could possibly be the same as Gaye’s song because they are presented in the same manner or located at about the same point in the songs? I don’t get it.

I also have a tiny issue with the fact that jurors were subjected to hearing the entirety of ‘Blurred Lines’ on several occasions but none of those jurors got to hear Gaye’s song. It was taken apart and only played based off of sheet music. If that were the case then why didn’t they pick apart ‘Blurred Lines’ and present it to the jury solely based off of the sheet music? Again, I am not a fan of ‘Blurred Lines’ but I feel like this should have been a fair fight and it wasn’t.

I do feel bad for Pharrell because he is the one who signed a document stating he was the sole responsible party for any copyright claims. Kiss $7.4 million goodbye, Pharrell. But then again that just might be chump change to  him these days. On another note, Thicke had to fess up to not having a single thing to do with writing the song, so he looked like a fool.

Seems to me like “Blurred Lines” would have been best left on a shelf in some producer’s office instead of forcing its awfulness on to the masses and then creating all of this pain and anguish for Gaye’s family, Pharrell, and Thicke.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Blurred Lines Was a Rip Off appeared first on Law Street.

Today music streaming sites like Spotify seem ubiquitous, but the truth is that they’re fairly recent innovations. As much as consumers appreciate streaming sites, they’re not always as beloved by artists and their collaborators. Read on to learn about music streaming sites, their history, and the legal foundation behind the popular products.

Where did streaming sites come from?

Since the mid-1990s and the era of Napster, the relationship between music and the internet has been rocky. Before most homes in America had a Wi-Fi connection, the only way to get a copy of a song or album was to go to a store and purchase a CD or cassette tape, or go through the painstaking process of recording the song off of the radio. As soon as more and more homes started getting access to the internet fans realized that sharing music with others could be an easy and cheap way to listen. File sharing networks were a dime a dozen, and anytime you wanted a song or an album, you could download the songs and burn them onto a recordable CD.

This obviously meant that many musicians, songwriters, and rightsholders lost money at an alarming rate, and record companies saw a decline in sales, profits, and even advertising. The response was abrupt: lawsuits against file sharers, program developers, and those who downloaded the songs. Lawsuits ranged anywhere from a few dollars and cents to millions of dollars. Of course, that led to bad PR from the general public and made people share music even more while being even sneakier about it. Eventually, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) stopped filing lawsuits and instead turned to internet service providers to monitor illegal usage.

All seemed to be going better, for at least a short time; however, streaming music came to the forefront of the industry and everyone started to get their music for free from websites like Pandora, then Gooveshark, Rdio, YouTube, and Spotify.

Streaming music sites are paid services–or sometimes free, as long as you’re okay with waiting through ads–that enable you to stream music. With Spotify, for example, you start the program, suggest your favorite artist or song, and then you listen to artists and songs that are similar. On some services, you can mix genres, so you can listen to the Broadcast Cast, Nicki Minaj, and Mozart combination radio station, if you really want. Every time someone listens to a song or an album, the artist gets paid by Spotify.

Musicians used to make money in a fairly simple model based off of album sales through record stores and online. It was convoluted at times, due to percentages and contracts, but at its core it was like any other retail endeavor–producers were paid for their product. Today, however, artists make money on everything from iTunes downloads to on-demand streaming to YouTube videos. Unfortunately, many of these methods generate little-to-no money for the actual artists.

Now these services have a responsibility to the artists and those working on the songs. The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) has just granted Spotify a license to stream more than 8.5 million musical works. Cloud-based music services, which Amazon, Google, and Apple have recently introduced, allow users to store music online and play back the music on any device.

In addition, there are fights among the bigger names in music. Entertainment giants like Disney have fought to extend copyright protection on some of their most popular and lucrative pieces of intellectual property, and musicians and songwriters would certainly love to have a longer period to milk royalties out of their creations before the tunes hit the public domain. With Disney leading the way, we might just see some big reforms on the horizon.

So, how do artists make money off streaming?

There are a few different ways musicians make money. If listeners don’t pay for their subscriptions, they get money from the ads that play every few songs. That revenue goes to the streaming site, which then pays the artists their share. Some users get annoyed with the ads, so then they purchase a premium subscription. According to Spotify, this means that the average user now spends $9.99 a month instead of the $5 a month they would spend without it. This chart from Spotify shows the relationship between money earned and music sales in the digital and physical formats. Spotify says that it “pay(s) out nearly 70 percent of (its) total revenue to rights holders.“

Artists no longer make money from the sale of albums or singles, but rather the play of songs. Many people think that this is making artists “up their game” and make albums with better songs, while many artists view it as not being paid for their art. Here is the official description of how they figure out what “per stream” means, right from Spotify’s website:

An artist’s royalty payments depend on the following variables, among others:

• In which country people are streaming an artist’s music

• Spotify’s # of paid users as a % of total users; higher % paid, higher “per stream” rate

• Relative premium pricing and currency value in different countries

• An artist’s royalty rate

Recently, these variables have led to an average “per stream” payout to rights holders of between $0.006 and $0.0084. This combines activity across our tiers of service. The effective average “per stream” payout generated by our Premium subscribers is considerably higher.

So while artists do get compensated when a streaming site uses their work, it’s not as dependable or as lucrative as brick-and-mortar album sales used to be.

Current Debates

When Spotify streams music, it of course takes a cut so that it can stay in business and pay employees. Everyone is happy, right?

Not so fast. It still doesn’t stop illegal download of music, nor does it stop people from piling on the same account, much like people do with Netflix. There has also been some backlash from the musicians themselves. The most notable is Taylor Swift, who refuses to let her album 1989 be played on the service, but also includes Garth Brooks, The Black Keys, AC/DC, The Beatles, and Led Zeppelin. Bette Midler, in particular, is against the services, with Billboard claiming she gets “microscopic micropayment of .00002733076 cents per track.”

Courtesy of Bette Midler/Twitter.

Pandora responded to the Billboard story, saying:

We love Bette’s music and certainly respect her advocacy for fair compensation for artists. But we must clarify an important fact: Pandora paid more than $6,400 for those 4+ million plays, based on our 2014 rates which are published publicly. In terms of compensation to the creative community Pandora remains by far the highest paying form of radio. Pandora pays songwriters a greater percentage of revenue than terrestrial radio. And Pandora paid 48% of our revenue in performance royalties to rights-holders in 2013 – more than $300 million – while terrestrial radio was required to pay nothing.

Of course, Bette Midler probably has enough money to last her, as do many of the other artists mentioned above, but what about artists who do not have as much commercial success? They may not be able to get by on such low payments.

Taylor Swift wrote an Op-Ed on the matter and defended her opinion to Time, saying to those who criticized her choice:

Well, they can still listen to my music if they get it on iTunes. I’m always up for trying something. And I tried it and I didn’t like the way it felt. I think there should be an inherent value placed on art. I didn’t see that happening, perception-wise, when I put my music on Spotify. Everybody’s complaining about how music sales are shrinking, but nobody’s changing the way they’re doing things. They keep running towards streaming, which is, for the most part, what has been shrinking the numbers of paid album sales.

Some musicians are defending the services, however. Bono recently said:

I see streaming services as quite exciting ways to get to people. In the end, that’s what we want for U2 songs. The real enemy is not between digital downloads or streaming. The real enemy, the real fight is between opacity and transparency. The music business has historically involved itself in quite considerable deceit.

Essentially, artists want a fair price for their music. But in a world where almost no one pays full “iTunes” prices for their music, is it worth it for those celebrities to take a stand? As long as there are only a few artists standing against streaming services, it will probably be a losing battle.

Trickle Down Effect?

Swift also defends her choice because she sees her music as an “art.” This begs the question, if the stars are complaining about what they get, what does that mean for everyone else? Alex Anders, a music producer and engineer who has worked with many artists, including the cast of Glee (which charts multiple songs on iTunes and Spotify when the show is in season), had this to say:

@NoelDiem It is the songwriters, engineers, producers, and studios, etc that are paying the price with their livelihood. They can’t tour!

— Alex Anders (@alxanders) January 14, 2015

So who is missing out on money when it comes to streaming? Those who fall into the “other” category, and they have to share a small piece of the puzzle. The Songwriter writes the actual melody and lyrics of the song; the Publisher pays for the music to be recorded; and the Engineer sets up and mixes the music.

The move away from a traditional model of selling music means that these people are sometimes cut out of the equation, or don’t receive as much money as they used to. Can this problem be solved with a restructuring of the music business? Maybe. But it will take artists working together with record labels, streaming services, and internet providers to make a real change.

Conclusion

Streaming music is still in its relative infancy, so it has the potential to improve for everyone in the equation. There have already been many changes in just the last few years. Apple is still in its first year of streaming, and more and more artists are paying attention to cash flow. Is it perfect yet? Hardly. Not by a long shot. But it is a much better alternative than the era of pirated music and zero artist compensation.

Sources

 Primary

Spotify: Spotify for Artists 

Pandora: Artist Support

Additional

Billboard: Bette Midler Disparages Pandora, Spotify Over Artist Compensation

Independent: Music Streaming: The End for iPods?

Time: Taylor Swift on 1989, Spotify, Her Next Tour and Female Role Models

Reuters: U2’s Bono Defends Under-Fire Music Streaming Services

Independent: Why Musicians Hate Spotify

Wall Street Journal: For Taylor Swift, the Future of Music is a Love Story

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Streaming Music: Good Business or an Attack on Artists? appeared first on Law Street.

For bubbly blonde girls like myself, YouTube is an amazing tool. Within it lie countless videos of wondrous hair curling, and cat eye and contouring tutorial videos. As I watch the Carli Bybels of the world teach me how to enhance my cheekbone structure, there’s always a little music in the background to keep it interesting.

YouTube knows the importance of music inclusion in these online masterpieces. This week the social video platform launched a new feature in the YouTube Audio Library that detects and reacts to the music uploaded in these videos.

Before this feature, when a YouTube guru (or any video uploader, for that matter) created and uploaded content, the Content ID system would attempt to detect whether copyrighted music was being used. If copyrighted music was indeed found, the artists would decide whether the piece should be blocked from sharing, the audio should be muted, or in the cases where there was money to be made, whether advertisements would be attached to the video.

With this new feature, uploaders are given a heads up. They can see what will happen to their video with any given song. Though they still have little control of the outcome, having the information beforehand means quicker uploads and hopefully even more content for the more than 1 billion users who visit YouTube each month.

For anyone wanting to upload some clips without the hassle of any of this, YouTube offers many 320kbps tracks and sound effects, royalty-free.

But what does this move tell us (besides that there may be more makeup how-tos)?

Every day, more and more average users share content. These are children, adults, tech nerds, and technologically challenged people. They go on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, Vine, Tumblr and Flickr. They have intellectual property at the tips of their fingers, probably every hour.

Companies, as we saw last week with Facebook, need to be clearer about the legal aspects of sharing content and provide services that make it easier for everyday users to enjoy, share, and interact with copyrighted material. Instead of merely listing a bunch of rules and instructions in the legal section of its Terms of Policy, YouTube is being proactive and providing an online infrastructure that does the work for us.

More companies should look to YouTube as an example of how to play IP offense instead of defense. The results are inarguably win-win: user experience is enhanced, artists are protected, and the entire process is streamlined. As users, it’s important for us to take note of subtle changes like this one as they not only alter our navigation of these sites, but provide us with a signal in this Information Age: IP knowledge is power, people!

The post YouTube Simplifies Copyright With New Feature appeared first on Law Street.

Taylor Swift made waves this week when she pulled all of her music from the popular streaming site Spotify. The 24-year-old singer-songwriter’s newest album, “1989,” was never put on the site, and her older music can no longer be found there.

Spotify is a music streaming site that was launched in the United Kingdom in 2008, and has been in the United States since 2011. It is able to stream music so effectively because of deals it has worked out with various record labels. Labels and artists are compensated for Spotify’s use, although to be fair probably not as much as they would if they had actually sold the songs or albums; however, as Spotify explains it, there is tangible benefit for the artists. Spotify provides a service that’s convenient, relatively cost-effective, and easy to use. It hopes to divert those who would otherwise pirate or get songs illegally. In Spotify’s eyes, artists are better joining up with them and making a little money than not making anything because of piracy. Spotify explains its success:

Spotify has already made considerable progress towards restoring the value lost to piracy and other less well monetized forms of music consumption. As of March 2013, Spotify had over 24 million global users. 18 million of them were using our free tier, wherein listeners pay for their consumption by viewing and listening to advertisements. At that time, as well, more than 6 million users were paying a $9.99 / £9.99 / €9.99 monthly subscription to use Spotify’s Premium tier.

However, if an artist or its label does not want to have music on Spotify, they can take their music down. T-Swift is by no means the first artist to do so, and others simply never allowed their music on the site in the first place. The Black Keys, Beyonce, and Radiohead are all good examples of other popular artists whose music is not available to stream through Spotify. The argument is that services like this are predatory and take advantage of artists. Swift has long been against services like what Spotify offers. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed this summer, she wrote:

Piracy, file sharing and streaming have shrunk the numbers of paid album sales drastically, and every artist has handled this blow differently. Music is art, and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for. It’s my opinion that music should not be free, and my prediction is that individual artists and their labels will someday decide what an album’s price point is.

To its credit, Spotify has handled this marvelously. It’s capitalized on Swift’s retreat from the site by using it as a social media marketing opportunity. The music streaming site tweeted at the singer with a pretty creative message:

We love @taylorswift13 as much as you do. Here's a message we hope brings her back http://t.co/yRm5bfNV23 #justsayyes pic.twitter.com/1lj2JB1SMI

— Spotify (@Spotify) November 3, 2014

It also got some fun and creative use out of one of T-Swift’s more famous songs, again on Twitter:

We were young when we first saw you but now there’s 40MM who say stay, stay, stay. It’s a love story baby #justsayyes pic.twitter.com/n6tHkG8GCq

— Spotify (@Spotify) November 3, 2014

Spotify’s actions on Twitter really kind of sum up what this debate is all about–the Internet has changed how we do all of this. From how we listen to music, to how we respond to scandals, to how we are able to interact with the public, technology has completely radicalized all of it. T-Swift and other artists’ dedication to their art is admirable, to be sure, but is it really the smartest course of action? Spotify, and all other streaming services, are on to something here. There will always be ways to find this stuff illegally; you’re better off getting people to pay a little for it than nothing at all.

Now, T-Swift is rich enough and has good enough brand recognition that my guess is that this is more of a political statement than a financial decision. It’s a decision that she can afford to make, but I don’t know that it will create any real change in the industry. While it’s a shame that the music industry is no longer what it once was, I highly doubt that it will end up going backward and we’ll all revert to purchasing music. T-Swift may just do better shaking it all off and going back to Spotify.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Taylor Swift and Spotify: Never Ever, Ever Getting Back Together? appeared first on Law Street.

Electronic Dance Music (“EDM”) is here and it has taken the United States by storm. The popularity of EDM shows, combined with their mind-numbing music and effervescent visual superiority has transformed ordinary concert goers into multi-day event attendees. Lately however, much of EDM’s glitz and glamour has been tarnished by young adults held firmly in its clutches. The music is one thing: everyone loves a good beat, some vocals, and beautiful people to enjoy it with. It’s when the beat doesn’t stop and the shows become more about the drugs inherent to them that one wonders whether EDM shows are promoting drug use. Read on and decide for yourself.

What is EDM?

Electronic Dance Music or “EDM” is a music genre that evolved around the sound-system scene. The underground movement transformed from hip-hop crazed fans to other genres such as house, trance, and dub step. Originally, the scene started in warehouses, but quickly spread to massive productions and stadiums filled to the brim for the entertainment needs of 300,000 plus fans. However, the scene itself seems so much more. It’s a lifestyle, similar to the sex, drugs, and rock and roll of the 80s.

As the internet expanded so did the potential of this newly popularized genre. Part of EDM’s growth is attributed to the inner workings of social media, allowing DJs to post music and have others listen to and comment on it. Moreover, with word-of-mouth marketing outdated (at least in the music popularity sense), fans keep to apps such as Pandora and SoundCloud. SoundCloud, for example, allows users to listen to multi-day festival sets (multi-hour mixes) from their favorite DJs. Although fans listen to these mixes, this makes no sense to old-school rockers like Tom Petty. In a recent interview by USA Today, this is what he had to say about EDM festivals:

“Watch people play records? That’s stupid. You couldn’t pay me to go. I’m not oversimplifying it,” he seethed. “That’s what’s going on. I don’t think it would be any fun without the drugs. It’s a drug party.” 

Maybe Petty is right, but his subjective views would be harshly rebutted by some of house music’s longtime fans. Fans — especially old-timers in the dance music industry — may characterize his opinion as hypocritical, considering that he criticized the genre by equating the style to drug use. Instead, Forbes Magazine described EDM as the following:

“As for live performances, electronic dance music artists perform live by deejaying, playing their own songs and, again, the songs of other artists, at a range of events held at stadiums or clubs around the world. They are not playing an instrument or singing a song, but instead controlling the crowd’s emotions through expert song selection and sound mixing.” Forbes

To most EDM observers, Petty’s opinion is probably antithetical and Forbes’ is accurate. Although the lifestyle may be a stretch into the imaginative, perhaps getting dressed up to go to a club or festival has a cultural feel to it. Is it really any different than the way attendees dressed and partied at Woodstock? Doesn’t our culture encourage lavish outfits with a dash of creativity? Denouncing creative passion seems unfair, which is why evaluating EDM’s transformation is critical.

When did EDM become popular?

EDM shows sprung to popularity over the last five years. But society has witnessed changes in music tastes over the decades. In the 1980s and 90s, dance clubs like Twilo and Limelight lit up NYC streets. The underground scene was alive, creating its own sub-culture of “Club-Kids,” forever eternalized in the movie Party Monster. Throughout the 90s the scene dissolved, but starting in early 2009, there was a sudden re-emergence of the flashing lights, thumping bass, and of course, flamboyant outfits. But where did this come from? Did the music ever really die out? Maybe it was a long overdue awakening.

In 2009, David Guetta catapulted to fame by releasing tracks like “When Love Takes Over” and “Sexy Bitch.” Although he was relatively unknown to the majority of EDM enthusiasts, his presence took underground music and launched it onto the national stage. Electronic music, a favorite of fans all over Europe, suddenly swept through the States. Asked about the roots and influence his music has had on the States, Guetta said,

“I’ve created a bridge between European electronic culture and urban American culture, and I’ve worked with established brands. So media has given us a chance, an opportunity that I never had before.”

For once, artists no longer needed to compete against each other because Hip-Hop and Techno finally started to both co-exist and merge. In addition to the music, which was uncharacteristically played on HOT 97 Hip-Hop radio stations, television shows vied for the opportunity to capitalize on the music’s popularity. The end-result: shows like “Jersey Shore” captivated young audiences, teaching them the proper way to fist pump, tan, and do their laundry.

European music culture is largely accredited with the emergence of Techno and EDM in the United States. However, many fans don’t appreciate the roots of the music they listen to, considering that ingrained in the soul music of Chicago in the 1980s lay the humble beginnings of EDM’s underground culture. Except thirty years ago, a Deejay wasn’t someone with a laptop, but rather someone who sifted through dusty boxes of oldies and mixed songs using turntables in the back of restaurants.

After announcing his retirement in 2012, superstar underground/resident DJ Danny Tenaglia explained the modern phenomena as compared to the 70s gospel and deep house from which his inspirations flowed. When asked about the grand venues and music that have revolutionized today’s dance scene, he was honest.

“[Some DJs] make so much money selling out nightclubs,” Tenaglia says, referring to the scene’s current stars. “But I’m sure [they realize] the immaturity factor and the silliness of some of these melodies. It’s so preschool; it’s like listening to Sesame Street!”

In Tenaglia’s heyday, successful DJs needed rhythm, soul, and timing. Unlike today, they couldn’t syncopate sounds with the push of a button. It wasn’t uncommon for DJs to dance in the crowd and make small talk with their fans. Moreover, the crowds weren’t little kids on drugs. Drugs existed, but they were secondary to an underground culture of misfits and alternative folk. Today, it seems the music has taken a backseat to the drugs involved in EDM concerts. How did this happen? Is this just a modern spin-off? Or is this a culture, a newly-minted version of a dying fad?

Is EDM for real?

The younger generation may be changing the meaning of Dance Music in EDM. Directors Dan Cutforth and Jane Lipsitz are on the forefront of understanding the why and how factors of EDM in their new documentary “Under the Electric Sky,” which showcases the “community” feeling of EDM culture. One of the six subjects the documentary, Jose, a wheelchair-bound young man, accredits the success of EDM to this community. He treats these festivals as therapy for his terminal condition.

“If people could just treat each other the way they treat each other at EDC … the world would be a much better place.”

The majority of people would agree with his assertion. Most people want to feel part of a community because isolation has its own social stigmas. Regardless, drug use at music concerts is nothing new. However, these days it seems like the old dog has learned a few new tricks, and playing with “Molly” is one of them. Sebastian Ingrosso, long-time DJ/producer and original member of Swedish House Mafia, addressed the surge in EDM drug-related injuries.

“It’s a terrible thing that kids need to take drugs to enjoy something. I enjoy music without any kind of substance and I wish that all other people could do the same, because when you’re sober and you get high on the music you can really feel it and get what’s going on.”

From a professional standpoint, Ingrosso may have hit the issue on its head, and he’s not the only one. In fact, more vocal proponents like DJ/Producer Kaskade, use internet outlets like blogs to advocate social responsibility among EDM festival attendees.

“It’s important to take a step back and realize the importance of life. Like, hey we’re all here to have a good time. Let’s do it in a way that’s smart so we don’t have to have these conversations.”

---

Who or what is Molly?

According to the Week, Molly is methylenedioxymethamphetamine, but it is commonly known as MDMA — the active ingredient in the party drug Ecstasy. Specifically:

“Whereas Ecstasy is frequently combined with other, potentially more dangerous drugs — including speed, ketamine, or even LSD — Molly is a fairly recent rebranding effort that is said to contain pure MDMA. Molly is often ingested in a powder of crystal form, and is available illegally for $30 to $50 a dose.” The Week

Molly boosts serotonin in a user’s brain, neuroepinephrine, and dopamine, allowing a user to feel elevated moods and feelings of empathy. In fact, the drug produces heightened emotions and perceptions. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the drug boosts:

Serotonin and triggers the release of the hormones oxytocin and vasopressin, which play important roles in love, trust, sexual arousal, and other social experiences. This may account for the characteristic feelings of emotional closeness and empathy produced by the drug; studies in both rats and humans have shown that MDMA raises the levels of these hormones.

Although a single dose is relatively non-fatal, many users “stack” more than a single dose in an evening in order to reignite Molly’s earlier effects. As one user told The New York Times, “It makes you really happy. It’s very loose. You just get very turned on — not even sexually, but you just feel really upbeat and want to dance or whatever.” Michael C. Gerald, explored Molly’s effects in The Drug Book. He described Molly as a stimulant that, “produces euphoria and physical energy, increasing feelings of empathy and intimacy with partners” that makes users feel as if “all is right in the world.”

After nonstop frenetic dancing for hours in hot, crowded surroundings, some participants experience hyperthermia, a dangerous rise in body temperature that can cause kidney and liver failure. Drinking excessive volumes of water, coupled with dehydration due to sweating, can cause a steep drop in blood sodium levels, potentially resulting in confusion, delirium, and convulsions. The Drug Book.

That’s right. Even Molly, inherently known for its good effects, can have serious consequences. MDMA boosts one’s internal temperature, interfering with the body’s self-regulation of temperature. In turn, this can lead to hypothermia, cardiac arrhythmia, muscle breakdown, and renal failure. The more serious consequences include brain damage, and in some cases death. But why has the Millennial sub-culture become so involved with the drug? Only exploring its use at festivals can give a genuine answer to this question.

Why do people take Molly at festivals?

EDM shows are the perfect playground for experiencing both Molly’s visual and emotional perceptive enhancements. Festivals are fashioned for Molly users. Big-Screen animations, thundering sound systems, and thousands of people, provide both the visual and emotional stimulations for enjoying the drug.

In fact, using Molly has transcended across all age groups, even inciting interest in adults in their thirties and forties. “Typically in the past we’d see rave kids, but now we’re seeing more people into their 30s and 40s experimenting with it,” said Dr. Glatter. “MDMA use has increased dramatically. It’s really a global phenomenon now.”

The problem is these festivals are heating up the debate as to whether they promote drug use. In 2011, “hospitals across the country reported more than 22,000 MDMA-related emergency-room visits, which according to the Drug Abuse Warning Network, is a 120 percent increase from 2004.” This spike has led to public scrutiny regarding the efforts festival management implemented to combat the rampant use of drugs at their shows.

What has EDM management done to combat drug use at their shows?

If the DJs producing and playing the music are opposed to “kids” using drugs for their musical enjoyment, then what have festivals done to account for these concerns? Last year two fans died after overdosing on Molly at New York’s Electric Zoo Festival despite having 70 emergency medical technicians, 15 paramedics, five ER nurses, two physicians, and numerous other medical personnel on hand at Randall’s Island. According to Rolling Stone, “during a press conference after the tragedy, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg praised promoter Made Event for putting in ‘as good procedures as we could think of.'” In response to and after heavy public opposition, the third day of the festival was cancelled. This year, festival-goers were required to watch this two minute video before gaining admission into the Zoo.

It seems American health concerns have taken cues from their U.K. counterparts, where BBC reported only 27 out of an estimated 500,000 Molly users died last year. This isn’t to suggest that the number isn’t high, but only to display the concerted effort by festival management and attendees alike. This proactive approach is demonstrated by Electric Daisy Carnival’s website, which provides guidelines on health and wellness detailing everything from medical stations, to water intake suggestions, to buddy system traveling. The formula seems simple: take care of each other and we will continue hosting EDM events. Providing this ultimatum and instituting these changes supports that festival management has finally recognized the dangerous concoction of drugs and the kids taking them that attend their shows.

Conclusion

Whether or not canceling the final day of a multi-day festival or creating the aforementioned PSA video helped combat the drug-related deaths at this summer’s events is debateable. After beefing up security and teaming with local officials to search bags for contraband, there were no deaths to report at Electric Zoo this past summer. Maybe festival goers finally got the message. Either that, or a few too many Mollies threatened a $6.2 billion dollar market, forcing the hand of festival management to play safe or bite the bullet.

Resources

Rolling Stone: Drugs, Death, and Dance Music

Billboard: EDM Biz Worth $6.2bn (report)

ElectricDaisyCarnival: Tickets

National Institute on Drug Abuse: Drug Facts: MDMA

Forbes: Is Electric Dance Music the Ticket to Reach Millennials?

Evangelos Siozios

Evangelos Siozios is a student at New York Law School focusing on family law and real estate transactions. He is a 2012 Baruch Honors College Graduate whose interests include writing, exercising, and solving TV mysteries. Contact Evangelos at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post EDM Stands for Electric Dance Music, Not Eating Dem Mollies appeared first on Law Street.

Did you know that you can get a scholarship to not go to law school? Last year, Matthew Willens, a Chicago attorney and part-time legal professor at Loyola Chicago Law School, created a $1,000 scholarship to be awarded to a winning undergraduate student who chooses to pursue any post-graduate path other than law school. This scholarship, which was just awarded for the first time in 2014, is offered as part of the “Anything but Law School” campaign started by Willens.

This may seem a bit odd, given that Willens is an attorney himself, but he firmly stands behind the belief that law school is no longer a smart post-graduate option due to the lack of available jobs. According to Willens, “too many of our best and brightest are pursuing a career where there just aren’t any more seats at the table.”

Willens announced his “Anything but Law School” program last year because he believes that too many people think that going to law school is their ticket to a secure job–they see it as a sure thing. Now, he says, the market is saturated and there are not enough jobs to go around. He says:

If part of your reason for going to law school is that, well, there’ll be a good job that you like and will pay well afterwards, then you’re maybe mistaken. There’s more than 90,000 lawyers in Illinois, and I’m not confident there’s enough jobs.

He also believes that the saturation of lawyers is having a negative effect on the growth of current attorneys, as well as a negative effect on the clients of these attorneys. He explained:

Lawyers don’t finish their education when they graduate. They need extensive training and mentoring to develop their skills. But when new graduates hang a shingle because they can’t find employment, their clients are wronged and their own growth is stunted. They never reach their potential and the profession suffers. Many will never be employed in the profession at all.

There were dozens of applicants for the inaugural “Anything but Law School” scholarship, which was open to students pursuing an advanced degree in anything but law. Applicants were asked to write an essay explaining why they are doing something other than going to law school. The first recipient of the scholarship was Louise Kelly, a 37-year-old music teacher and performer from Chicago. She plans to use the scholarship to help pay for a course at VanderCook College of Music in Bronzeville, Illinois. According to Kelly, a graduate degree will earn her better pay, which will help her to provide for her two children.

While Willens is confident in his stance, not everyone agrees. There has been significant pushback from other attorneys in response the scholarship. Many are offended by the premise of the scholarship, which is completely understandable. This scholarship is essentially a slap in the face to the creator’s own profession. I personally agree with those attorneys. While law school is certainly not for everyone, those who have done the research and have put a great deal of thought into it should not be discouraged from applying. Willens, however, does not consider the scholarship to be “anti-law school.” Rather, he sees it as a statement about suppy-and-demand.

While Willens is certainly making a point with his “Anything but Law School” campaign, in reality, it is unlikely that this scholarship will have a significant impact on the number of people that apply to law school. It will be interesting to see if this movement can gain any more traction in years to come.

—

Brittany Alzfan (@BrittanyAlzfan) is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [jridgewayphotography via Flickr]

Brittany Alzfan

Brittany Alzfan is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chicago Attorney Continues Scholarship for “Anything But Law School” 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.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of: [Alertjean via WikiMedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Entertainment Law: #8 Villanova Law School appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [Jonathan Yu via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Entertainment Law: #10 Stanford Law School appeared first on Law Street.