Today is Jared Kushner’s birthday, and apparently he got quite the gift from his father-in-law! Read our rants of the day to find out exactly what that was, and have a great Tuesday! Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump Names His Son-In-Law as an Adviser

Yesterday, President-elect Donald Trump’s aides said that he would make his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, a White House adviser. Trump himself didn’t confirm this news explicitly, but told reporters who asked him, “We’ll talk about that on Wednesday,” when he is scheduled to hold a news conference. “The president has the right to appoint who he wants if you look at the law,” said Kellyanne Conway.

Best News of the Day. Trump Son-in-Law Jared Kushner to Be Named Senior White House Adviser https://t.co/GGmpeUq2oA

— Kellyanne Conway (@KellyannePolls) January 9, 2017

Kushner is only 36 years old, and has been married to Ivanka Trump since 2009. This move could create some conflicts of interest, as Kushner is a media mogul and real estate developer. He also has no experience in foreign policy. It’s not entirely clear what exactly the law says about the situation, as it is formulated vaguely, but it is sure to be analyzed closely in the coming weeks. And there have already been a lot of strong reactions:

Jared Kushner, a moron, has been hired to explain things to Donald Trump, who is even dumber in a game of telephone that ends in apocalypse.

— Matt Christman (@cushbomb) January 9, 2017

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 RantCrush Top 5: January 10, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Trying to get an artist’s latest album nowadays is like playing a game of musical chairs with streaming music services’ subscriptions.

For example if you want Taylor Swift’s 1989 album, forget about trying to stream it on Spotify, you need to head over to Apple Music in order to “Shake it Off.” Now let’s say you then wanted to watch Rihanna’s pre-release of her latest “Kiss it Better” music video or wanted to anxiously stalk Beyoncé’s highly awaited album release, well then you’d need a subscription to her hubby Jay Z’s subscription service Tidal.

The promise of exclusivity from these sites/apps is so powerful in fact, that it has managed to convince many money-conscious millennials to forego their beloved free versions, for monthly paid access.

So when Kanye declared to consumers that his 7th solo studio album would appear exclusively on Tidal, some Yeezy fans shelled out the $9.99 monthly fee no questions asked, and easily doubled Tidal’s subscribers from 1 million to 2.5 million almost overnight.

My album will never never never be on Apple. And it will never be for sale… You can only get it on Tidal.

— KANYE WEST (@kanyewest) February 15, 2016

Tidal quickly became the most downloaded app in the App Store, and Tidal reported that the album was streamed 250 million times in the first 10 days of its release.

The only problem is, “The Life of Pablo” didn’t actually stay exclusive to Tidal. A couple weeks after its debut, the album appeared on Apple Music,  Spotify, and then finally West’s website–and Tidal subscribers took notice.

One California man is so angry that he’s filed a class action lawsuit against both Kanye and Tidal. Justin Baker-Rhett alleges that Tidal used its one month free trial and West’s “exclusive” album to boost sales for the service the he says was “quietly teetering on the brink of collapse.”

“Kanye has the power to send one tweet out into the world and get 2 million people to act on it. This suit is about holding him accountable when he abuses that power,” said Jay Edelson, the founder and CEO of Baker-Rhett’s law firm Edelson PC, in a statement to Rolling Stone.

The lawsuit is asking that Tidal delete the “private information” of both Baker-Rhett and anyone else that joins with the class action suit, claiming that they swindled subscriber’s card information could amount to as much as $84 million for Tidal.

So far neither Tidal, nor West have released public statements addressing the lawsuit’s allegations that they tricked fans into subscribing.

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 Did Kanye West Trick Fans Into Signing Up for Tidal? appeared first on Law Street.

When Tidal launched it was supposed to be the next big thing in music streaming. Unfortunately, it has had some pitfalls and interesting diversions along the way–the latest is news of a lawsuit that Jay Z is filing against Tidal’s previous owners, claiming that they misled his team about the streaming company when he purchased it.

According to a Nordic business news outlet, Jay Z’s team recently wrote to some of the executives of WiMP; Tidal is a spinoff of that Scandinavian streaming service. The letters accused the shareholders of exaggerating how many subscribers Tidal had when Jay Z purchased it. While WiMP put the number at 530,000, the letters allege that that number was inflated.  While it’s unclear how WiMP may have inflated those numbers, it could have been because it counted people who were subscribers as a result of “bonus subscription deals” worked out with cable and phone companies.

Jay Z bought Tidal (and its parent company Aspiro) for approximately $57 million last year, and is filing suit seeking $15 million now as a result of the supposedly misrepresented numbers.

The Verge reports Tidal’s motivation for filing the lawsuit:

The growth in our subscriber numbers has been even more phenomenal than we’ve previously shared. It became clear after taking control of TIDAL and conducting our own audit that the total number of subscribers was actually well below the 540,000 reported to us by the prior owners. As a result, we have now served legal notice to parties involved in the sale.

However, it’s not all bad news for the streaming service–Tidal also shared some good news about its growth this week as well:

We are excited that one year after TIDAL launched, we have surpassed 3 million subscribers globally. The growth in our subscriber numbers has been even more phenomenal than we’ve previously shared.

Additionally, Tidal may be getting into the video streaming business. The company has already picked up a scripted series from YouTube, and reportedly wants to stream outside films as well as exclusives that it would produce. The new video features could be up and ready to go as early as June.

Tidal has had some bumps along the way since it launched last year. But it’s certainly disrupted the music industry, and may now be disrupting video streaming services. While Jay Z may be looking to the past for some retribution, it’s what is potentially ahead for Tidal that promises to be, at the very least, interesting.

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 Jay Z is Suing Former Tidal Owners appeared first on Law Street.

The National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, known best for hosting the Grammys, is getting political this year, and not in a “Formation” kind of way. The Academy has created a Political Action Committee intended to support and protect recording artists by attempting to influence Congress on important bills.

Currently, the Academy’s PAC, called ‘the Grammy Fund for Music Creators’ is taking aim at getting the Fair Play Fair Pay Act passed. Like most bills, the name sounds appealing, but the drafting and passing of this bill has become quite contentious. The core of the bill would require radio stations to pay additional fees in order to play songs, and other parts of the bill would concern payments from online streaming.

When you buy a song on iTunes, or stream a song on Spotify, the money spent is split between Apple or Spotify, and then then between the artists, producers, and songwriters, according to their agreement. When music is used in another work of art, such as in a film or TV show, or sampled in another song, royalties are similarly distributed. There’s one major exception to this trend: when music is played on the radio, the stations pay royalties to the songwriters, and no one else.

The reasoning behind this is that airtime on radio stations is considered “promotional,” and is argued to drive sales of music and build popularity of artists. Even in our streaming-saturated music scene, most Americans still go the the radio for new music. Of course, the recording artists see it differently. They claim that with record sales dropping year after year, radio is an increasingly weak promotional force, and shouldn’t be exempted any more than Rdio, Spotify, Pandora, or Apple Music. Some criticize this new bill as a ‘cash grab,’ calling to mind Taylor Swift’s ongoing boycott of Spotify.

Proponents of local radio worry that these potential regulations would be stifling to small radio stations. The Free Radio Alliance explains why on its webpage:

The multinational record labels want a bigger slice of the pie and they want Washington to give it to them. The record labels have made several attempts to impose a performance tax, or fee, on free and local radio stations through Congressional legislation in the past and now they are back at it. A performance fee would require radio stations to pay the record labels yet another fee to air music free, over-the-air to listeners. Congress has continually rejected the notion that imposing a new fee is appropriate, based on the tremendous promotion value radio stations provide to labels and performers.

The Academy claims that the proceeds will benefit the artists, adding a specific claim in the statement by one of the Grammy Fund’s officers, Harvey Mason Jr.:

We represent everybody, not just superstar artists. So we are careful in how we disseminate our message, and when we go to D.C. or have events, it is with a variety of people from the bottom to the top.

While the effort to give money to the artists and creators is noble, it may be difficult to achieve this goal, given that it would need to overcome the precedent of radio stations being able to inexpensively play music. It’s worth learning more about the process to evaluate whether you support the bill. I’d recommend checking out Rolling Stone’s in-depth analysis of how royalties are divided in various music listening formats. And if you tune in to this year’s Grammy Awards, you’ll likely notice a more nostalgic tone, with David Bowie and Lemmy tributes planned. But you should know that behind the scenes, the Academy is taking a political stand with far-reaching implications.

Editor’s Note: This post was updated on 2/17/2016 for clarity. 

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Grammys Get Political Behind The Scenes 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.

Last week, Spotify released its Year in Music, naming the song “Lean On” by Major Lazer and DJ Snake featuring MØ as the most streamed song of 2015, or, as the Atlantic called it, the “most 2015 song of 2015.”  This was incredibly shocking to me.

Does that mean that cultural appropriation is the most 2015 thing about 2015? Because if that’s the reality of this year in review, I’m not okay with it.

Let’s talk about this song for a second.

Yes, the song is catchy.  It is considered to be a cross between electronic pop and dance music, and that hook definitely gets stuck in a person’s head. When I first heard it, I thought it sounded almost tribal.  And then I had a life experience that changed how I heard the song.

In the early autumn of 2015, I spent five weeks abroad in Pune, India for work. It was an amazing experience, something I’ll never be able to duplicate. I heard “Lean On” once while I was in India, and it made me stop in my tracks. It suddenly sounded to me like Americans (and Europeans) were trying to imitate the signature sound of Bollywood music. My immediate feelings were both outrage and sadnes–what kind of world is this where people think it’s okay to stereotype cultures so badly?

And I hadn’t even seen the music video yet.

There is a segment of a BuzzFeed video titled “Indians React to American Pop Culture Stereotypes” that discusses this song. There are many responses, but two of the most notable are:

That’s not even an Indian dance step.

and,

Palaces and poor people?  Yes, that is exactly what India comprises of.

I actually thought those reactions were pretty tame, and some of the other reactions were even more forgiving. When I saw the video, all I could focus on was the continual thrusting movement that MØ makes with her hips throughout the entire song. That is not something that is usually appropriate in India, no matter who is dancing around you. And don’t even get me started on the fact that MØ is wearing tiny shorts throughout most of the video–another consistently big no-no in Indian culture, where modesty is practiced and expected from foreigners as well as natives. We are hypersexualized in the United States, and this music video is a perfect example of that.

Say the Atlantic is correct in saying that this was the most 2015 song of 2015–does that mean that our year was marked with cultural appropriation?  Actually, it kind of was–the Atlantic even published a helpful dos and don’ts article about it.  Cultural appropriation–and Hollywood is constantly guilty of this–was a big deal this year. From critiques of the costumes worn to music festivals to Aziz Ansari’s show “Master of None,” cultural appropriation being brought to light was a big marker of the year 2015.

While it can be said that most perpetrators of cultural appropriation don’t realize that they are being offensive, I like to hold the optimistic belief that they genuinely don’t understand what they’re doing.  To me, that means there is hope yet. People can learn. People can grow.  There is the chance that bringing all of this to light will make for a better 2016–that is my hope.

Amanda Gernentz Hanson

Amanda Gernentz Hanson is a Minnesota native living in Austin, Texas. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in Chemistry from Hope College and a Master’s degree in Technical Communication from Minnesota State University, where her final project discussed intellectual property issues in freelancing and blogging. Amanda is an instructional designer full time, a freelance writer part time, and a nerd always. Contact Amanda at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Success of “Lean On” Shows that Cultural Appropriation is Alive and Well in 2015 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.

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. However, none of that compares to the potential embarrassment Tidal may face if Jay Z’s wife and co-owner Beyoncé is forced by Sony to remove her music.

In an extensive look at Tidal’s shortcomings by Bloomberg Businessweek, writer Devin Leonard calls the service “a complete disaster,” highlighting one huge problem threatening Tidal’s future. After a PR blunder ruined financial backing talks with Sprint, Tidal was short on the cash it needed to pay hefty royalty requests from Sony and Warner.

Leonard writes,

When [Jay Z] acquired Aspiro, the change of ownership meant he had to renegotiate its streaming contracts with the three major record companies: Universal, Warner, and Sony Music Entertainment. Universal distributes the records of some of Roc Nation’s artists, so Jay Z was able to quickly reach an agreement with that company. But music industry people who are familiar with the negotiations and forbidden from discussing them publicly say that Sony and Warner are asking Tidal for large advances in return for the right to feature their artists’ catalogs.

If Jay Z can’t come up with the cash for Sony, he faces the possibility that Tidal might lose albums from some of its co-owners, most painfully Beyoncé, a Sony artist.

Not Beyoncé! Of the 15 mega stars sharing the stage during Tidal’s illuminati-worthy launch, Beyoncé and her promised Tidal-exclusive content (i.e. “Feeling Myself” music video ft. Nicki Minaj) was one of the bigger selling points for people asking themselves “why pay.”

But would Sony really pull all of Beyoncé’s music catalogue from her own company? Well it wouldn’t be a first for the music industry giant, which recently removed artists including Adele, Hozier, and Miguel from SoundCloud due to a similar licensing impasse.

Another big issue threatening the fate of Tidal is its user base. Tidal advertises having 900,000 users, but analysts who spoke with Bloomberg suspect that many of them signed up for free trials and will cancel when they have to start paying.

All in all it’s not a good look for Jay Z if he loses his wife’s music or if he loses the majority of his users after their free trials expire. Despite having shown an affinity for business in other pursuits including a highly successful clothing line and record label, Jay Z might be drowning with Tidal.

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 Music Streaming Site Tidal Could Be Losing Its Queen appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— lily (@lilyallen) March 30, 2015

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

— lily (@lilyallen) March 30, 2015

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

— lily (@lilyallen) March 31, 2015

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

Alexis Evans

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

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

America’s red-lipped singing sweetheart Taylor Swift is at the center of another intellectual property dispute, this time with vendors on Etsy. The dispute is over several items, including t-shirts using her likeness and candles adorned with her lyrics. Swift’s legal team sent several vendors on the online DIY marketplace cease and desist letters demanding the immediate removal of their trademark-infringing products.

This takedown spree comes just one week after Swift registered phrases from her album “1989” with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The phrases include:

• “Party like it’s 1989”
• “This sick beat”
• “Nice to meet you, where you been?”
• “Could show you incredible things”
• “Cause we never go out of style”

If you’re wondering why her hit song’s title “Shake it off” didn’t make the list, that’s probably because it’s because the phrase was already trademarked by a diet company.

The singer already holds a slew of other trademarks related to her music, which she has been notoriously protective over. She made headlines back in November when she pulled all of her music from the popular music streaming website Spotify, claiming the site didn’t adequately compensate artists for their work. Swift’s label is also quick to have users on YouTube take down lyric videos because they can be converted into mp3s that violate copyrights.

The Etsy vendors who received the cease and desist letters were shocked to have been singled out by the singer’s camp for making what they thought were just fan items. One anonymous vender told Buzzfeed:

We originally made the item for fun, we love Taylor and we had friends that love Taylor. We never intended for it to be a profit making item. The cost of the item covered shipping costs, and production costs with very little left over.

When we got the e-mail that the trademark infringement occurred, we were pretty shocked because while our item was popular we didn’t feel as if it had become popular enough to cause harm to Taylor Swift’s empire. We were shocked. And we were scared. We didn’t even make enough money for a lawyer and this had seemed like such a harmless and fun idea.

If you’re a T-Swift fan don’t fret, there’s still plenty of other merchandise with “1989” lyrics being sold on the site that Swift has yet to legally claim, like this classic coffee mug.

Taylor Swift is trademarking lyrics, but you can still buy plenty of T-Swift garbage on Etsy: http://t.co/pjAq73NDy0pic.twitter.com/9CLOSY94yE

— Fusion (@ThisIsFusion) January 29, 2015

Many are wondering how it’s even possible for Swift to trademark popular phrases like “Nice to meet you, where you been?” in the first place. Richard Rochford, a partner in New York’s intellectual property litigation group Haynes and Boone, explained to Billboard that unlike copyright law, trademark rights don’t require the phrases to be absolutely unique or for the applicant to have coined them personally. This makes it easy for artists like Swift to acquire rights to these phrases if they can prove that they’re profiting off of a phrase associated with their brand. Britney Spears attempted to do the same thing, trying to trademark her popular song title “Toxic,” as well as Beyonce with her alter ego “Sasha Fierce”.

Ultimately this is smart move by Swift, showing that the 25-year-old singer doesn’t want to messed with. By marking her territory now, she can ensure others won’t be able to profit off of her brand if and when she decides to produce her own merchandise using the phrases.

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 Taylor Swift vs. Etsy Vendors: Singer Trademarks Song Phrases 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.

The midterms are finally over (thank God/the universe/Oprah) so now we can all go back to real life. Just kidding — it’s practically presidential election time. Your attention span and patience are ready for that, right? Well before you get into that, take a look at some of the top stores from Law Street last week that you might have missed in all the excitement. It was a clean sweep for writer Anneliese Mahoney who wrote all three of the top articles on Law Street last week. Number one is Mahoney’s take on Taylor Swift’s latest album and her decision to pull all her work from popular streaming music site Spotify; number two is an in-depth look at the three states with major marijuana legislation on last Tuesday’s ballots; and number three was a shout out who is generally accepted as the country’s youngest new elected official, Saira Blair of West Virginia. ICYMI, take a look at Law Street’s Best of the Week.

#1: Taylor Swift and Spotify: Never Ever, Ever Getting Back Together?

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. Read full article here.

#2: States to Watch Today: Marijuana on the Ballot in Oregon, Alaska, and DC

It’s been a truly whirlwind few years for marijuana legalization. In 2012, voters in Washington and Colorado voted to legalize marijuana use in those states. Others continue to decriminalize marijuana and allow its use for medical purposes. Today Oregon, Alaska, and the District of Columbia will vote on whether or not to legalize marijuana. How do these laws stack up? Read full article here.

#3: Saira Blair Youngest Elected Official in America: Snaps for Her

Saira Blair is an 18-year-old West Virginia University freshman majoring in economics. She’s also believed to be the youngest elected lawmaker in the United States. At 17, Blair actually beat a 66-year-old Republican incumbent in a primary, and on Tuesday she beat a 44-year-old Attorney, Democrat Layne Diehl. She will represent a district of just under 20,000 people located in the West Virginia panhandle, close to Maryland, as one of 100 members of the Virginia House of Delegates. 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.

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.