tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca/topics/record-labels-26927/articlesRecord labels – The Conversation2024-03-18T12:32:12Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2234152024-03-18T12:32:12Z2024-03-18T12:32:12ZAs the US government and record labels go after TikTok, musicians get the squeeze<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/582257/original/file-20240315-16-a1ogtt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C24%2C8243%2C5462&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Thomas Raggi of the band Måneskin performs a concert that streamed live on TikTok in 2021.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/thomas-raggi-of-the-band-maneskin-performs-at-a-live-news-photo/1233487624?adppopup=true">Fabian Sommer/Picture Alliance via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>For much of the year, TikTok has been on the defensive. </p>
<p>On March 13, 2024, the House of Representatives <a href="https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-ban-house-vote-china-national-security-8fa7258fae1a4902d344c9d978d58a37">voted to approve a bill</a> that would force the short-form video app to be sold off from its Chinese parent company to non-Chinese owners or face a ban in the U.S. The Senate will still have to vote on the legislation, which received broad bipartisan support due to beliefs that TikTok creates risks to national security.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Universal Music Group, one of the biggest record labels in the world, <a href="https://www.universalmusic.com/an-open-letter-to-the-artist-and-songwriter-community-why-we-must-call-time-out-on-tiktok/">stopped licensing its music to TikTok</a> at the end of January 2024. Since then, songs by Taylor Swift, Billie Eilish and scores of other artists can no longer be used on the platform, while millions of TikTok videos that had incorporated tracks from Universal artists were muted.</p>
<p>Universal Music Group has an estimated <a href="https://seekingalpha.com/article/4580695-universal-music-group-buy-the-leader-of-the-music-industry-ahead-of-earnings">37.5% market share</a> in the music industry, so its songs likely make up a significant portion of the clips used on TikTok prior to the ban.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/tiktok-begins-removing-universal-music-publishing-songs-expanding-roya-rcna140713">The record label claims</a> its artists account for a majority of songs on the platform, and therefore, Universal artists should be better compensated and have guardrails against the harmful effects of artificial intelligence. TikTok, in its response, has said that it has come to amicable agreements with other record labels and that Universal is being unreasonable to the detriment of the artists it seeks to protect.</p>
<p>In the end, both companies simply want to have a larger piece of the pie.</p>
<p>But each of their interests, I believe, should be secondary to the creators that sustain them. Over the past two decades, as the internet and streaming have disrupted the music industry, wage gains for music professionals have been far more pronounced at the top of the income ladder. However, most composers and performers have seen their income and employment prospects dwindle.</p>
<p>TikTok has become a beacon in an otherwise dismal digital streaming landscape, and while musicians increasingly need TikTok, TikTok also needs music. </p>
<h2>Gains have gone to the top</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.proquest.com/openview/bc01f8f80efe2e8d006b26520064d146">My research explores the impact of technology</a> on music professionals in the internet era.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/91040797/what-the-digital-streaming-revolution-of-the-2000s-can-teach-us-about-the-ai-revolution-today-according-to-a-former-musician">Technology was supposed to democratize the music industry</a>, allowing more artists to more easily gain access to new markets.</p>
<p>Artists no longer needed a record deal to record their music and get it out to the world. They can record music cheaply using their computers, upload it to YouTube, Spotify, BandCamp, SoundCloud, Tidal or any number of platforms for music distribution, then promote their work on social media to build their audience.</p>
<p>But this didn’t lead to more music professionals making a living off their work.</p>
<p>That’s the conclusion I came to by analyzing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which includes two categories of music professionals: performers, who record songs and put on live shows, and composers, which includes musicians who conduct performances or create original works of music but do not necessarily perform that music. A performer would be someone like Dua Lipa, whereas a composer might be someone who is credited for writing a track on Dua Lipa’s album. </p>
<p>From 1999 to 2022, composers saw a strong 85.3% boost in employment, reflecting a gain of 5,380 jobs. This alone suggests that technology has helped music professionals gain employment.</p>
<p>However, when we look at performers – whose employment numbers shrank by 14,690, or 31.6% – it tells a different story. </p>
<p>Put together, the total number of music professionals fell by 9,310 people from 1999 to 2022, reflecting a 17.6% drop. All the free promotion of social media and the lowered barriers to entry that the internet provided were not enough to sustain artists’ livelihoods.</p>
<p><iframe id="ELUqs" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/ELUqs/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Wages tell a more complex story. </p>
<p>While more people have earned a living from composing music since 1999, their wage gains paled in comparison to that of performers. In short, there are fewer people working as performers now, but those who can cut it are making more money. </p>
<p>This would seem to show that technology has helped most working music professionals.</p>
<p>However, there were outsize gains among the top 10% of music professionals – so the bulk of the rewards from technological advancement went to those at the top. The average wage gain for music professions rises as you climb the income ladder.</p>
<p><iframe id="5G9kt" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/5G9kt/4/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>Artists first, or artists last?</h2>
<p>Artists, then, are having an increasingly difficult time making a living, especially independent artists who comprise the lower income brackets. </p>
<p>The promises of technology <a href="https://hbr.org/2024/01/is-genais-impact-on-productivity-overblown">are often overblown</a>; in the case of music, the winners and losers have ended up mirroring <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/articles/rising-inequality-a-major-issue-of-our-time/">broader societal inequalities</a>.</p>
<p>Even as technology hasn’t deliver what it promised to artists, artists are increasingly reliant on technology to make a living. </p>
<p>They’ve increasingly turned to TikTok to do so.</p>
<p>TikTok, with <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/">more than a billion active users</a> worldwide, has revolutionized music promotion and discovery. Unlike traditional social media, TikTok’s unique format, algorithm-driven content discovery and collaborative features supposedly democratize fame. </p>
<p>Lesser-known artists can go viral, shaping the Billboard charts and propelling songs into the mainstream. Lil Nas X <a href="https://www.grammy.com/news/lil-nas-xs-no-1-run-began-tiktok-now-music-industry-taking-notice">rose to fame on TikTok</a> with “Old Town Road” and promptly signed on to Columbia Records. Oliver Anthony, the creator of the populist hit “Rich Men North Of Richmond,” <a href="https://www.billboard.com/music/chart-beat/oliver-anthony-music-rich-men-north-of-richmond-number-one-debut-hot-100-1235396681/">went viral</a> in summer 2023, eventually reaching the No. 1 spot on the Billboard Hot 100.</p>
<p>In this era of virality, TikTok has become an essential promotional tool for musicians and record labels alike, transcending the boundaries of conventional social platforms.</p>
<p>By cutting ties with TikTok, Universal Music Group is not only depriving its artists of these opportunities, but it’s also alienating a large and loyal fan base who use TikTok to interact with their favorite artists and their songs. </p>
<p>TikTok also loses in this situation, since music is such a critical part of its audiovisual experience. <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-22/tiktok-lost-customers-when-it-took-away-music-in-australia">In a 2023 test conducted by TikTok</a>, the platform limited the music that some users in Australia could use in posts. For three straight weeks, the number of users, along with the time users spent on the app, declined. </p>
<p>Both parties say they want to protect the artists, <a href="https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/tiktok-statement-in-response-to-universal-music-group">with TikTok arguing</a> that it has reached “artist-first agreements with every other label” and that “Universal’s self-serving actions are not in the best interests of artists, songwriters, and fans.”</p>
<p>TikTok is banking on the perception that platforms provide opportunities for cultural producers by saying that the power of the platform lies in it being “a free promotional and discovery vehicle” for artists. Some members of Congress who opposed the TikTok ban cited the platform’s <a href="https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/tiktok-bill-ban-house-vote-af4d0800?mod=hp_lead_pos1">utility for maintaining creators’ livelihoods</a>, so this is a common refrain.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Woman holds sign reading 'I'm 1 of 170 million Americans on TikTok.'" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/582253/original/file-20240315-28-ytsbjo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/582253/original/file-20240315-28-ytsbjo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582253/original/file-20240315-28-ytsbjo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582253/original/file-20240315-28-ytsbjo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582253/original/file-20240315-28-ytsbjo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582253/original/file-20240315-28-ytsbjo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582253/original/file-20240315-28-ytsbjo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A protester holds a sign in support of TikTok at a news conference outside the U.S. Capitol on March 12, 2024.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/participants-hold-signs-in-support-of-tiktok-at-a-news-news-photo/2079160123?adppopup=true">Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In response, Universal Music Group has declared that TikTok has an “outdated view” of the modern music business due to the app’s insistence that it provides exposure for artists – and that this exposure is good enough. As my research shows, this free promotion has not grown the ranks of artists who can make a living off music.</p>
<p>TikTok still holds out hope that it can reach “<a href="https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/umpg-update-february-28-2024">an equitable agreement with Universal Music Group</a>,” but the record label hasn’t budged.</p>
<p>The two media companies say they want to protect artists. But I believe the artists are the ones who will end up hurt the most in a divorce.</p>
<p>In other words, TikTok and Universal need to stay together for the kids.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/223415/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ediz Ozelkan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>For some musical artists, TikTok has become a beacon in an otherwise dismal digital streaming landscape.Ediz Ozelkan, Lecturer of Media Studies, University of Colorado BoulderLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1940692022-11-14T19:00:23Z2022-11-14T19:00:23ZChokepoint Capitalism: why we’ll all lose unless we stop Amazon, Spotify and other platforms squeezing cash from creators<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/494947/original/file-20221113-18-5ebjcc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=29%2C245%2C3580%2C1928&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In 2020, the independent authors and small publishers whose audiobooks reach their readers via Audible’s <a href="https://www.acx.com/">ACX platform</a> smelled a rat.</p>
<p>Audiobooks were booming, but sales of their own books – produced at great expense and well-reviewed – were plummeting. </p>
<p>Some of their royalty statements reported <em>negative</em> sales, as readers returned more books than they bought. This was hard to make sense of, because Audible only reported net sales, refusing to reveal the sales and refunds that made them up. </p>
<p>Perth-based writer <a href="https://www.susanmaywriter.net/single-post/audiblegate-the-incredible-story-of-missing-sales">Susan May</a> wondered whether those returns might be the reason for her dwindling net sales. She pressed Audible to tell her how many of her sales were being negated by returns, but the company stonewalled. </p>
<p>Then, in October 2020, a glitch caused three weeks of returns data to be reported in a single day, and authors discovered that hundreds (and even thousands) of their sales had been wiped out by returns. </p>
<p>Suddenly, the scam came into focus: the Amazon-owned Audible had been offering an extraordinarily generous returns policy, encouraging subscribers to return books they’d had on their devices for months, even if they had listened to them the whole way through, even if they had loved them – no questions asked. </p>
<p>Encouraged by the policy, some subscribers had been treating the service like a library – returning books for fresh credits they could swap for new ones. Few would have realised that Audible clawed back the royalties from the book’s authors every time a book was returned.</p>
<h2>Good for Amazon, bad for authors</h2>
<p>It was good for Amazon – it helped Audible gain and hold onto subscribers – but bad for the authors and the performers who created the audiobooks, who barely got paid.</p>
<p>Understanding Amazon’s motivation helps us understand a phenomenon we call <a href="https://scribepublications.com.au/books-authors/books/chokepoint-capitalism-9781761380075">chokepoint capitalism</a>, a modern plague on creative industries and many other industries too.</p>
<p>Orthodox economics tells us not to worry about corporations dominating markets because that will attract competitors, who will put things back in balance. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/five-ways-to-boost-australian-writers-earnings-110694">Five ways to boost Australian writers’ earnings</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But many of today’s big corporations and billionaire investors have perfected ways to make those supposedly-temporary advantages permanent. </p>
<p>Warren Buffett salivates over businesses with “<a href="https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/warren-buffett-moat-etf-simple-explanation-for-how-he-invests-and-its-easy-to-replicate-2017-10-1005613232">wide, sustainable moats</a>”. Peter Thiel scoffs that “<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competition-is-for-losers-1410535536">competition is for losers</a>”. Business schools teach students ways to lock in customers and suppliers and eliminate competition, so they can shake down the people who make what they supply and buy what they sell.</p>
<h2>Locking in customers and creators</h2>
<p>Amazon is the poster child for chokepoint capitalism. It boasts of its “<a href="https://feedvisor.com/resources/amazon-trends/amazon-flywheel-explained/">flywheel</a>” – a self-described “<a href="https://fourweekmba.com/amazon-flywheel/">virtuous cycle</a>” where its lower cost leads to lower prices and a better customer experience, which leads to more traffic, which leads to more sellers, and a better selection – which further propels the flywheel. </p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/494907/original/file-20221111-21-lnbmh1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/494907/original/file-20221111-21-lnbmh1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/494907/original/file-20221111-21-lnbmh1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=379&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/494907/original/file-20221111-21-lnbmh1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=379&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/494907/original/file-20221111-21-lnbmh1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=379&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/494907/original/file-20221111-21-lnbmh1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=477&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/494907/original/file-20221111-21-lnbmh1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=477&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/494907/original/file-20221111-21-lnbmh1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=477&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>But the way the cycle works isn’t virtuous – it’s vicious and anti-competitive. </p>
<p>Amazon openly admits to doing everything it can to lock in its customers. That’s why Audible encourages book returns: its generous offer only applies to ongoing subscribers. Audible wants the money from monthly subscribers and wants the fact that they are subscribed to prevent them from shopping elsewhere. </p>
<p>Paying the people who actually made the product it sells a fair share of earnings isn’t Amazon’s priority. Because Amazon founder Jeff Bezos’ famous maxim is “<a href="https://www.marketplacepulse.com/articles/the-cost-of-your-margin-is-my-opportunity">your margin is my opportunity</a>”, the executive who figured out how to make authors foot the bill for retaining subscribers probably got a bonus.</p>
<p>Another way Audible locks customers in is by ensuring the books it sells are protected by <a href="https://www.fortinet.com/resources/cyberglossary/digital-rights-management-drm">digital rights management</a> (DRM) which means they are encrypted, and can only be read by software with the decryption key.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-us-government-is-trying-to-stop-the-merger-of-two-of-the-worlds-biggest-publishers-but-will-it-help-authors-188364">The US government is trying to stop the merger of two of the world's biggest publishers – but will it help authors?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Amazon claims DRM stops listeners from stealing from creators by pirating their books. But tools to strip away those locks are freely available online, and it’s easy for readers who can’t or won’t pay for books to find illegal versions. </p>
<p>While DRM doesn’t prevent infringement, it <em>does</em> prevent competition. </p>
<p>Startups that want to challenge Audible’s dominance – including those that would pay fairly – have to persuade potential customers to give up their Audible titles or to inconveniently maintain separate libraries. </p>
<p>In this way, laws that were intended to protect against infringement of copyright have become tools to protect against infringement of corporate dominance. </p>
<p>Once customers are locked in, suppliers (authors and publishers) are locked in too. It’s incredibly difficult to reach audiobook buyers unless you’re on Audible. When the suppliers are locked in, they can be shaken down for an ever-greater share of what the buyers hand over.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/494908/original/file-20221111-16-pua9cp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/494908/original/file-20221111-16-pua9cp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/494908/original/file-20221111-16-pua9cp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/494908/original/file-20221111-16-pua9cp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/494908/original/file-20221111-16-pua9cp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/494908/original/file-20221111-16-pua9cp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=474&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/494908/original/file-20221111-16-pua9cp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=474&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/494908/original/file-20221111-16-pua9cp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=474&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<h2>How a few big buyers can control whole markets</h2>
<p>The problem isn’t with middlemen as such: book shops, record labels, book and music publishers, agents and myriad others provide valuable services that help keep creative wheels turning. </p>
<p>The problem arises when these middlemen grow powerful enough to bend markets into hourglass shapes, with audiences at one end, masses of creators at the other, and themselves operating as a chokepoint in the middle. </p>
<p>Since everyone has to go through them, they’re able to control the terms on which creative goods and services are exchanged - and extract more than their fair share of value.</p>
<p>The corporations who create these chokepoints are trying to “monopsonise” their markets. “Monopsony” isn’t a pretty word, but it’s one we are going to have to get familiar with to understand why so many of us are feeling squeezed. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.wallstreetmojo.com/monopoly">Monopoly</a> (or near-monopoly) is where there is only one big seller, leaving buyers with few other places to turn. <a href="https://www.wallstreetmojo.com/monopsony/">Monopsony</a> is where there is only one big buyer, leaving sellers with few other places to turn.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/theres-an-obvious-reason-wages-arent-growing-but-you-wont-hear-it-from-treasury-or-the-reserve-bank-122041">There's an obvious reason wages aren't growing, but you won't hear it from Treasury or the Reserve Bank</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In our book, we quote William Deresiewicz, a former professor of English at Yale University, who points out in his book <a href="https://www.chicagoreview.org/william-deresiewicz-the-death-of-the-artist/">The Death of the Artist</a> that “if you can only sell your product to a single entity, it’s not your customer; it’s your boss”.</p>
<p>Increasingly, it is how the creative industries are structured. There’s Audible for audiobooks, Amazon for physical and digital versions, YouTube for video, Google and Facebook for online news advertising, the <a href="https://www.liveabout.com/big-three-record-labels-2460743">Big Three record labels</a> (who own the big three music publishers) for recorded music, <a href="https://pluralistic.net/2022/09/12/streaming-doesnt-pay/">Spotify</a> for streaming, Live Nation for live music and ticketing – and that’s just the start. </p>
<p>But as corporate concentration increases across the board, monopsony is becoming a problem for the rest of us. For a glimpse into what happens to labour markets when buyers become too powerful, just think about how monopsonistic supermarkets bully food manufacturers and farmers.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/494912/original/file-20221112-11-u879gw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/494912/original/file-20221112-11-u879gw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=966&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/494912/original/file-20221112-11-u879gw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=966&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/494912/original/file-20221112-11-u879gw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=966&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/494912/original/file-20221112-11-u879gw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1214&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/494912/original/file-20221112-11-u879gw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1214&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/494912/original/file-20221112-11-u879gw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1214&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://scribepublications.com.au/books-authors/books/chokepoint-capitalism-9781761380075">Scribe Publications</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A fairer deal for consumers and creators</h2>
<p>The good news is that we don’t have to put up with it.</p>
<p><a href="https://scribepublications.com.au/books-authors/books/chokepoint-capitalism-9781761380075">Chokepoint Capitalism</a> isn’t one of those “Chapter 11 books” – ten chapters about how terrible everything is, plus a conclusion with some vague suggestions about what can be done. </p>
<p>The whole second half is devoted to detailed proposals for widening these chokepoints out – such as transparency rights, among others. </p>
<p>Audible’s sly trick only finally came to light because of the glitch that let authors see the scope of returns. </p>
<p>That glitch enabled writers, led by Susan May, to organise a campaign that eventually forced Audible to reform some of its more egregious practices. But we need more light in dark corners. </p>
<p>And we need reforms to contract law to level the playing field in negotiations, interoperability rights to prevent lock-in to platforms, copyrights being better secured to creators rather than publishers, and minimum wages for creative work. </p>
<p>These and the other things we suggest would do much to empower artists and get them paid. And they would provide inspiration for the increasing rest of us who are supplying our goods or our labour to increasingly powerful corporations that can’t seem to keep their hands out of our pockets.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Chokepoint Capitalism: how big tech and big content captured creative labour markets, and how we’ll win them back is published on <a href="https://scribepublications.com.au/books-authors/books/chokepoint-capitalism-9781761380075">Tuesday November 15</a> by Scribe.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/194069/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rebecca Giblin receives funding from the Australian Research Council and state and territory libraries for the Author's Interest Project (authorsinterest.org), the eLending Project (elendingproject.org) and Untapped: the Australian Literary Heritage Project (untapped.org.au). She is a Fellow of the CREATe research centre at the University of Glasgow, and a member of the Author's Alliance and the Australian Digital Alliance. She has occasionally and intermittently used Audible's service since its inception (though has not been a subscriber for a very long time),buys goods and services from Amazon when she really has to, subscribes to Spotify (where she sometimes listens to music controlled by the Big Three record labels, and published by their Big Three music publisher subsidiaries), and sometimes watches videos on YouTube.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Cory Doctorow is a consultant to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. He co-founded the UK Open Rights Group. He is a visiting professor of practice at the University of North Carolina's School of Library and Information Science. He is a dues-paying member of the Free Software Foundation and FSF Europe. His books and audiobooks are published by Random House, Macmillan, Beacon Press, McSweeney's, HarperCollins, Hachette, and many other publishers. These are for sale on Amazon, Excerpts of his work are for sale on Audible. He runs a personal ebook store (craphound.com/shop) that compete with Amazon and Audible for ebook and audiobook sales. One of his books was favorably reviewed and endorsed by Jeff Bezos.</span></em></p>Rebecca Giblin and Cory Doctorow’s new book reveals the tricks behind ‘Chokepoint Capitalism’ – how big corporations use low prices to lock in users and creators, while locking out real competition.Rebecca Giblin, ARC Future Fellow; Associate Professor; Director, Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia, The University of MelbourneCory Doctorow, Visiting professor of computer science, The Open UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1645322021-07-19T12:06:38Z2021-07-19T12:06:38ZWhat MPs’ plans for music streaming mean for artists and listeners<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/411696/original/file-20210716-27-1h2rjv1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=43%2C94%2C5708%2C3733&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/man-on-couch-watches-movie-mobile-326420261">LDprod/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Musicians, including session players and instrumentalists, would receive a fairer share of revenues from streaming platforms under reforms being considered in the UK.</p>
<p>If implemented, <a href="https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/6739/documents/71977/default/">new recommendations from a select committee</a> of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport would involve a “complete reset” of the industry with wide-ranging implications not just for artists, but for record labels, streaming platforms and listeners.</p>
<p>One of the committee’s main recommendations is a more equitable division of royalties and rights payments from the streaming economy, which has earned <a href="https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/6739/documents/71977/default/">£3.5 billion since 2009</a>. Presently only 8% of UK musicians derive 5% or more of their income from streaming. </p>
<p>Under the current system, musicians and songwriters receive revenue every time their music is played by broadcasters – namely on radio stations and in TV programmes and films. This type of play is regarded as “communication to the public”, fixing the distribution of revenue from the relevant copyright collecting society at 50/50 per song for record labels and performers. </p>
<p>Conversely, a stream through services such as Spotify or Apple Music is considered a means of “making available” a song, a status which does not provide a fixed rate of revenue. This makes most musicians’ payments dependent on negotiations between the streaming platforms and the major record labels. </p>
<p>In the case of the major streaming platforms, this generally results in a <a href="https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18910/pdf/">percentage breakdown</a> of around 55/30/15 for record labels, streaming platforms, and performers and publishers, respectively. Under this arrangement, session musicians (who are not part of the band but contribute to a song) usually do not receive royalties. Their loss of revenue has been exacerbated due to lack of live performances during the pandemic.</p>
<p>To remedy these inequities, the select committee propose adding something akin to a “communication to the public” right alongside the existing “making available” one. The World Intellectual Property Organization <a href="https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_41/sccr_41_3.pdf">proposed something similar</a> earlier this year.</p>
<p>This could be similar to the current model in Spain. In 2006, the Spanish government introduced a scheme where, each time a song is performed in public (which includes streaming), all the musicians and songwriters involved in its performance and composition will receive a small payment. These payments are collected and distributed to artists, including those outside Spain.</p>
<h2>Copyright, licensing, and the Big Three</h2>
<p>Another committee proposal – to tighten regulations on copyright protection – has the potential to generate additional money for all sectors. </p>
<p>Focusing on platforms such as YouTube, which host user-uploaded content, the committee agrees that streaming services should be compelled to obtain licenses for the music they allow on their platform. </p>
<p>One <a href="https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/15315/pdf/">proposed way to encourage this</a> would be for the UK to adopt a version of an EU directive on copyright that would weaken the <a href="https://completemusicupdate.com/article/dissecting-the-streaming-inquiry-09-safe-harbour/">“safe harbour” justification</a> used by online platforms. This is the notion that online services should not be held responsible for copyright infringement in content uploaded by third parties.</p>
<p>The committee suggested that this makes it harder for artists and record labels to strike favourable deals with platforms. If unlicensed music continues to appear on platforms such as YouTube, those platforms will have less incentive to make a deal with the artist or label to host official content. </p>
<p>In turn, the popularity of various “freemium” options – where users can access some content for free, with additional content accessible by subscription – means there is no incentive for the main streaming platforms to raise their subscriptions above the £9.99 per month ceiling that has existed for more than a decade.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1415451045338177540"}"></div></p>
<p>The committee also wants the Intellectual Property Office to take on the task of improving industry metadata – information attached to music files that identifies all people who have rights to a song. </p>
<p>Currently, streaming services and record labels can claim that they cannot identify rights-holders, resulting in a “black box” of unclaimed revenues (<a href="https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5802/cmselect/cmcumeds/50/5006.htm">amounting to US$2.5 billion in 2019 alone</a>. These are often misallocated or ploughed back into the industry, disproportionately benefiting the wealthiest record companies and performers. </p>
<p>The committee is also calling on the government to use its authority to investigate the impact of the oligopoly formed by the three biggest record labels – <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/features/universal-sony-warner-music-profits-covid-1085112/">Warner, Universal and Sony</a>. There is also evidence of not insignificant cross-ownership, with Sony and Universal having financial stakes in Spotify, and the <a href="https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/16721/pdf/">Big Three owning the three biggest music publishers</a>.</p>
<h2>Listen closely</h2>
<p>This raises tough questions for everyone who listens to music. Paying a low monthly subscription to major streaming platforms for access to virtually all songs that have ever been recorded is an attractive option, but only the most popular musicians benefit from the existing model. </p>
<p>There are smaller, specialist platforms, including <a href="https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/15420/pdf/">Sonstream</a> and Bandcamp, which provide a more intimate connection between artists and listeners. These services pay the artists more, but have higher fees for listeners.</p>
<p>East Asian schemes to <a href="https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/15109/pdf/">monetise the relationship between fans and their favourite bands</a> could be adopted in the UK. The nascent market in <a href="https://twitter.com/fhvln/status/1322180518780260353">livestreaming</a> also has great potential to pay money directly to artists.</p>
<p>Consumer behaviour is the missing link in all these discussions. After all, piracy and low-fee subscriptions exist, ultimately, because consumers expect not to pay so much for music. Any reform of the streaming industry must take this into account, even if current discussions leave this out.</p>
<p>As the chair of the DCMS committee, and many of its members, are Conservative MPs, it is likely the government will respond positively to the report. Future legislation will hopefully raise the pay of the average musician in the UK, even if that means that we will all pay a little more for music.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/164532/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew White does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Musicians, record labels and listeners could all be affected by sweeping changes to the music streaming industry.Andrew White, Visiting professor, University of NottinghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1519692020-12-16T16:00:18Z2020-12-16T16:00:18ZEven famous musicians struggle to make a living from streaming – here’s how to change that<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375111/original/file-20201215-15-10laej2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=44%2C62%2C5946%2C3916&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/rostovondon-russia-july-8-2019-screen-1445277104">nikkimeel/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>If you’re a music lover, chances are you’ll have used streaming services of some kind. Music streaming accounts for more than half of the global music industry’s revenue in the UK, bringing in more than £1 billion in the last year. </p>
<p>But while the three major labels – Sony, Universal and Warner – are reporting <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/news/musics-big-three-labels-19-million-a-day-from-streaming-798749/">record high profits</a>, a poll by <a href="https://ivorsacademy.com/news/8-out-of-10-music-creators-earn-less-than-200-a-year-from-streaming-finds-survey-ahead-of-songwriters-and-artists-giving-evidence-to-a-select-committee-of-mps/">The Ivors Academy and Musicians’ Union</a> found that eight out of ten music creators earn less than £200 a year from streaming. According to <a href="https://www.nme.com/news/music/new-figures-show-how-many-streams-artists-need-to-earn-minimum-wage-2649715#:%7E:text=With%20an%20average%20payout%20of,average%20rate%20of%20%C2%A30.0012.">one report</a>, artists earn on average only £0.009 per stream.</p>
<p>The UK government is now carrying out an <a href="https://committees.parliament.uk/work/646/economics-of-music-streaming/">inquiry</a> into music streaming, looking at how to make it fairer and if there’s a way musicians and songwriters can get a greater cut. Artists who have given evidence include Ed O'Brien from Radiohead, Elbow’s Guy Garvey and disco legend Nile Rodgers, while Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin also <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CIllodOjqvU/">published a letter of support</a>.</p>
<p>Singer-songwriter <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/nov/24/nadine-shah-i-cant-pay-the-rent-on-unfair-music-streaming-revenues">Nadine Shah</a> also gave evidence at the inquiry, saying artists and songwriters are struggling to pay their rent. And the inquiry heard how Fiona Bevan, who has written songs for One Direction and Lewis Capaldi, only received £100 in royalties for co-writing a track on Kylie Minogue’s number one album, Disco. </p>
<p>But there could be a way to make streaming work for musicians - if it was more like how they already earn money from their songs being played on the radio. </p>
<h2>So how did we get here?</h2>
<p>The music industry has always made more money for record labels than it has artists. And now that streaming is the main way that many of us consume music, there’s even less money left for musicians. </p>
<p>Streaming services such as Apple Music and Spotify make money from subscription fees and advertising. They make deals with record labels to get access to songs. Platforms keep about 30% of the revenue from streaming, 15% goes to what’s known as a music publisher - who represent songwriters – while the record label gets 55%. And the label then pays a percentage of this to the artists – after they’ve paid back the label’s investment in them. </p>
<p>But while artists get money whenever their songs are played on radio, streaming does not work in the same way. This is because radio is considered a “passive” broadcast, meaning you don’t select the music. Whereas streaming is seen to be an online “transmission”, with people choosing songs and listening at their leisure. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Woman holding phone looking at spotify" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375112/original/file-20201215-21-48n3ld.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375112/original/file-20201215-21-48n3ld.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375112/original/file-20201215-21-48n3ld.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375112/original/file-20201215-21-48n3ld.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375112/original/file-20201215-21-48n3ld.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375112/original/file-20201215-21-48n3ld.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375112/original/file-20201215-21-48n3ld.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Thank you for the music, but who gets the money?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/penang-malaysia-29-aug-2018-close-1773091049">TYLIM/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But a big part of streaming platforms are the playlists, which people listen to in the same way as they do radio. This issue is complicated by the fact that some people actually <a href="https://medium.com/@jessicafrech/this-is-how-you-get-added-to-spotifys-curated-playlists-7f01f2f6b891">earn money</a> for creating playlists. But, neither the users or the artists are told about the deals made to get music onto these playlists. </p>
<p>As part of the evidence I’ve given to the goverment’s inquiry, I recommend playlisters should be considered influencers. And so they should be regulated by the UK Advertising Standards Agency – much in the same way as <a href="https://theconversation.com/instagram-influencers-no-having-30-000-followers-does-not-make-you-a-celebrity-120686">promotional social media posts</a> are. </p>
<h2>A possible solution</h2>
<p>As I explain in my book, <a href="https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/gbp/copyright-in-the-music-industry-9781839101281.html">Copyright in the Music Industry</a>, copyright law is supposed to ensure that creators get paid for their work, which enables them to continue to create and disseminate that creativity – benefiting society as a whole. </p>
<p>While the music industry and streaming services are being very well rewarded for their dissemination of music, copyright is failing artists and songwriters. But luckily, copyright is not set in stone and where it’s not working, the law can be changed – it’s always updated to adapt to new technologies and now it needs to adjust to music streaming. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Musician Nadine Shah singing into microphone." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375108/original/file-20201215-17-bu0t2w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375108/original/file-20201215-17-bu0t2w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375108/original/file-20201215-17-bu0t2w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375108/original/file-20201215-17-bu0t2w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375108/original/file-20201215-17-bu0t2w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375108/original/file-20201215-17-bu0t2w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375108/original/file-20201215-17-bu0t2w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Nadine Shah makes so little money from streaming that she’s struggling to pay her rent.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/bbc-6-music-festival-march-8th-1668422911">CJS Media/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One solution that could help struggling musicians would be “equitable remuneration” for streaming. This is where a third party collecting society takes a royalty from the label and gives it to the artist for the streaming of their music – just like what already happens when a song is played on the radio.
This puts money straight into the artist’s pocket. Something similar to this already exists in other countries such as Spain and the Netherlands.</p>
<p>This would allow artists to be fairly paid which is vitally important, because without a fair income, many artists will be unable to sustain themselves in music. Change is needed not only for artists, but for music to survive.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/151969/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hayleigh Bosher does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Musicians and songwriters are struggling to survive while record labels are reporting record profits – here’s why this is happening.Hayleigh Bosher, Senior Lecturer in Intellectual Property Law, Brunel University LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1033042018-09-19T08:51:17Z2018-09-19T08:51:17ZNew Prince album: why posthumous releases can sell both artist and fans short<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/236910/original/file-20180918-158213-1ru06oq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Northfoto via Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Two years after Prince Rogers Nelson’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/prince-20207">untimely 2016 death</a> in Minnesota from a fentanyl overdose, the Prince estate and the music industry are seemingly ramping up their efforts to keep the Purple One in the forefront of our minds with a slew of posthumous releases and re-releases. But with 100m records already sold, would Prince have approved of all this activity in his name – and is it really fair to fans?</p>
<p>In August, Sony <a href="https://variety.com/2018/biz/news/prince-estate-and-sony-release-23-long-unavailable-albums-digitally-1202908647/">released 23 hard-to-find albums</a> for streaming and download that were originally from the period 1995 to 2010. One of the records in the package is a powerful 37-track compilation called <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-album-reviews/review-princes-anthology-1995-2010-shows-years-of-genius-hiding-in-plain-sight-714147/">Anthology 1995-2010</a> which functions as a “best of” from this period. “Years of Genius Hiding in Plain Sight”, ran the headline of <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-album-reviews/review-princes-anthology-1995-2010-shows-years-of-genius-hiding-in-plain-sight-714147/">Rolling Stone magazine’s review</a>.</p>
<p>Tracks include Emancipation, Prince’s anthem celebrating his sense of liberation from the tyranny of his record companies, and Black Sweat, a mechanistic slice of industrial funk that both objectifies and celebrates black male sexuality.</p>
<p>But more controversial is a new nine-track posthumous album of unreleased Prince recordings. Announced on the date of what <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-44401051">would have been his 60th birthday</a>, Prince & A Microphone 1983 was recorded on September 21, 1983 in the artist’s home studio in Chanhassen, Minnesota onto cassette tape. It features Prince singing and playing the piano. Tracks will include an early version of Prince classic Purple Rain, a cover of Joni Mitchell’s A Case of You, and the spiritual Mary Don’t You Weep from the soundtrack of director Spike Lee’s comedy-drama movie BlacKkKlansman. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/srwfAeXaTM8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Troy Carter who works as an entertainment adviser for the Prince estate <a href="https://thevinylfactory.com/news/new-prince-album-piano-and-a-microphone/">is quoted as saying</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This raw, intimate recording – which took place at the start of Prince’s career right before he achieved international stardom – is similar in format to the Piano & A Microphone Tour that he ended his career with in 2016. </p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Uncut diamonds</h2>
<p>So does the quality of the tracks and this bookending of Prince’s career justify the release of what could be described as some home noodlings recorded onto a less than satisfactory audio recording medium? It’s certainly a long way removed from the carefully choreographed planning behind <a href="https://theconversation.com/which-lazarus-was-bowie-really-referring-to-in-his-mesmerising-swan-song-53127">David Bowie’s final releases</a>.</p>
<p>Ahead of the release, the record company has drip-fed fans with three songs. I’m looking forward to hearing the whole album, but here is my impression of what I have heard so far. </p>
<p>Mary Don’t You Weep is a gospel classic covered by artists including Aretha Franklin, The Swan Silvertones, Pete Seeger and Bruce Springsteen which was originally recorded by gospel pioneers The Fisk Jubilee Singers in 1915. Prince reinvents it as a deep minor blues track that focuses on the secular blues theme of male abandonment rather than the African-American Christian narrative of resistance that the song traditionally embodies. Prince’s voice swoops and growls through the octaves with the sparse rhythmic piano accompaniment providing the perfect backdrop for his impassioned vocal.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/pop-life-how-prince-played-the-music-industry-58299">Pop Life: how Prince played the music industry</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>At six minutes 22 seconds, the song 17 Days is a more self-indulgent number based around a repetitive two-chord vamp that at times strays into “jazz odyssey” territory with an ill-advised piano solo that doesn’t come off. In an almost shockingly intimate exchange that smashes through the fourth wall, we hear Prince say to the sound engineer, “Is that my echo?” and “Can you turn the lights down?”</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/M8dhVxcQAaE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Why The Butterflies is the third of the tracks released so far. There are several false starts until Prince settles into a key and rhythmic shape. You can hear him playing with melodic and rhythmic ideas gradually teasing out lines from what was maybe just an initial lyrical concept – it certainly isn’t a fully developed song at this point. </p>
<p>So is this hard-nosed critical appraisal is really fair? And will his “true” fans really care if the finely wrought production that is the hallmark of the best of Prince isn’t present here? Is this album selling both artist and audience short?</p>
<p>The tracks do give some insight into Prince’s work process and offer fans an intimate seat next to the piano as Prince plays through his ideas. But, for an artist who was so notoriously controlling about his product, it’s unclear whether this is something he would have wished for.</p>
<h2>Everyone loves you when you’re dead</h2>
<p>Posthumous albums have had a mixed reputation over the years, ranging from the essential, such as Nirvana’s five-times platinum <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/12/nirvanas-tense-brilliant-em-unplugged-in-new-york-em-20-years-later/282040/">MTV Unplugged in New York</a> or Otis Redding’s 1968 classic <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/inside-otis-reddings-final-masterpiece-sittin-on-the-dock-of-the-bay-122170/">(Sittin’ On) The Dock Of The Bay</a>, to the controversial – there was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/aug/24/michael-jackson-may-not-have-sung-lead-vocals-on-posthumous-album-sony">legal action</a> to determine whether all the lead vocals on Michael Jackson’s 2010 release Michael were performed by the artist or by Jackson family friend Eddie Cascio. </p>
<p>Sometimes, artists miss out on their own success – no material recorded by legendary blues pioneer Robert Johnson was released until after he died in 1938, while Washington DC-based balladeer <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/12/arts/death-shy-singer-finally-grabs-spotlight-cd-s-carry-eva-cassidy-s-voice-wider.html">Eva Cassidy</a> only came to international prominence after her untimely demise from melanoma.</p>
<p>Too often an artist’s death gives their record companies or the artist’s estate an opportunity to cash in. Old demos, song fragments, B-sides and other sonic paraphernalia are corralled into something that is meant to resemble a coherent and worthwhile collection. Reviewer Jon Pareles <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/arts/music/from-amy-winehouses-archives-lioness-new-music.html">commented in The New York Times</a> that Amy Winehouse’s 2011 posthumous release Lioness: Hidden Treasures, “ekes out all it can from the archives” being “just the scraps of what might have been”. </p>
<p>But what of Prince? We will never know what he really thinks but in a <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/prince-talks-the-silence-is-broken-58812/">2004 interview</a> in Rolling Stone magazine he spelled out his desire for independence and the power to define himself, away from the influence or pressure of the music business: “Despite everything, no one can dictate who you are to other people.” In my opinion, perhaps the record companies and the people who run Prince’s estate should reflect on that.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/103304/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adrian York does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There’s a new Prince album coming out, two years after his death. Would the artist approve?Adrian York, Senior Lecturer in Commercial Music Performance, University of WestminsterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/815782017-08-18T10:35:00Z2017-08-18T10:35:00ZIndependent music labels are creating their own streaming services to give artists a fair deal<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182560/original/file-20170818-30785-jesw1b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/young-woman-listening-music-while-lying-197145230?src=jPmNBIfkVknnyfIo1bmLeA-3-25">Kaspars Grinvalds/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Music streaming services are hard to beat. With millions of users – Spotify alone had <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/31/spotify-vs-apple-music/">60m by July 2017</a>, and is forecast to <a href="https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/spotify-is-set-to-end-2017-with-70m-subscribers-and-5bn-in-revenue-but-how-much-money-will-it-lose/">add another 10m</a> by the end of the year – paying to access a catalogue of more than 30m songs, any initial concerns seem to have <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/cd99b95e-d8ba-11e6-944b-e7eb37a6aa8e">fallen by the wayside</a>.</p>
<p>But while consumers enjoy streaming, tension is still bubbling away for the artists whose music is being used. There is a legitimacy associated with having music listed on major digital platforms, and a general acknowledgement that without being online you are not a successful business operation or artist. </p>
<p>Even the biggest stars are struggling to deny the power of Spotify, Apple Music and the like. Less than three years after pop princess Taylor Swift announced she would be removing her music from Spotify, the best-selling artist <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/jun/09/shaken-it-off-taylor-swift-ends-spotify-spat">is back online</a>, as it were. Swift’s initial decision came amid concerns that music streaming services were not paying artists enough for using their work – a view backed up by others <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2013/7/15/4523978/thom-yorke-pull-albums-from-spotify-and-rdio-calls-them-unfair-to-new-artists">including Radiohead’s Thom Yorke</a>.</p>
<p>But while Yorke and Swift can survive without the power of streaming, independent production companies with niche audiences may not be able to. </p>
<h2>Struggling artists</h2>
<p>Though the music industry is starting to get used to streaming – streamed tracks count towards chart ratings, and around 100,000 tracks are added every month to Spotify’s distribution list – it is still proving difficult for independent music companies to compete for exposure on these platforms. </p>
<p>Coping with diminishing sales of CDs and other physical copies of music, independent labels are already in a tough place. Independent labels and artists are also unable to negotiate with large digital aggregators such as Spotify or Deezer for more favourable rates, and are forced to accept the terms given. Independent labels lack the expertise, but mostly lack the catalogue size for bargaining power. Major record labels, backed by industry organisations, on the other hand can and have <a href="https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/major-labels-agree-to-better-streaming-deal-for-artist-group/">successfully negotiated</a> more favourable terms for their artists based on the share of the catalogue that they represent.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182561/original/file-20170818-30750-sdd7rj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182561/original/file-20170818-30750-sdd7rj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=300&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182561/original/file-20170818-30750-sdd7rj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=300&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182561/original/file-20170818-30750-sdd7rj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=300&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182561/original/file-20170818-30750-sdd7rj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182561/original/file-20170818-30750-sdd7rj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182561/original/file-20170818-30750-sdd7rj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Digital sounds.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/music-multimedia-sound-entertainment-concept-520914415?src=jPmNBIfkVknnyfIo1bmLeA-1-1">rawpixel.com/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There’s also been a shift in industry approach that some independent labels may find difficult to do. These days, major labels are focused less on the artists themselves and more on which music will do best on new platforms. This undermines the ethos for many culturally rich independent labels who work hard to safeguard niche areas of their market. For them, it is about building up different genres, not simply releasing songs that will generate the most money.</p>
<p>So if niche labels can’t get a strong footing on large services, what can they do?</p>
<h2>Independent streaming</h2>
<p>Where once there were free sites <a href="https://theconversation.com/soundcloud-survives-but-its-bad-news-for-musicians-82454">such as SoundCloud</a>, which gave emerging and niche musicians a place to share their music, indy labels are now developing their own streaming services to make sure their artists get the best exposure – and the best deal.</p>
<p>Wales in particular is leading the way for the minority language independent music scene. Streaming service <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiNiJTTqN7VAhUrBcAKHf3rDi8QFggmMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fapton.cymru%2F&usg=AFQjCNH6xzRtnVTEfewm-c1jYKftGD_KPQ">Apton</a>, launched in March 2016, provides a curated service to its music fans. It operates at a competitive price point, with a more selective catalogue representing several Welsh labels. More importantly, it returns a much fairer price to its recording artists than Spotify’s reported <a href="http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2017/01/spotify-pays-0-00429p-per-stream/">0.00429p per stream</a>.</p>
<p>By using a specialist, curated and targeted music service – such as Apton, or similar services <a href="https://theoverflow.compresents">The Overflow</a> and <a href="https://www.primephonic.com">PrimePhonic</a> – consumers are better able to find the music they are looking for. Listeners are also more likely to value the service, as they can access and experience a greater percentage of a label’s catalogue or remain within a niche genre of music, compared with mainstream mass-market streaming services, where mass market recommendations are generated via popular playlists. Users of these streaming sites and apps also value the knowledge that the money they spend is being used to support the artists they follow. </p>
<p>Though they are certainly doing well as is, streaming services at all levels need more work to become the default for music listening. In addition, it is vital that music publishers start using streaming as a gateway for consumers to engage with the music they want to hear, rather than what they want to sell. If the former strategy continues to be followed, it may have a devastating effect on budding artists.</p>
<p>Likewise, listeners need to feel that streaming offers a level of transparency, value and that there is a two-way relationship worthy of their time and attention – something the major players could certainly learn from the independents.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81578/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steffan Thomas was previously affiliated with Sain Records. ApTon is owned by Sain Records and was developed in response to research produced during his PhD. However, I have no ongoing role within the company and retain no commercial interest in the service. </span></em></p>Spotify, Apple Music and the like aren’t working for indy artists.Steffan Thomas, Lecturer in Film and Media, Bangor UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/786982017-06-28T14:55:51Z2017-06-28T14:55:51ZTo sign, or not to sign? That is the question for South African musicians<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175014/original/file-20170621-9586-9uza9k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Brenda Fassie performing in her hey day.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Instagram</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>There is a persistent narrative in South Africa of famous, bestselling musicians “dying as paupers”. A prime example is <a href="http://www.sahistory.org.za/people/simon-nkabinde">Mahlathini</a>, the lead vocalist who performed with the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEWYFkjH2jc">Mahotella Queens</a>, a 1960s <a href="http://www.theartsdesk.com/new-music/south-african-sound-mbaqanga">mbaqanga</a> group that attracted global recognition. </p>
<p>Similar stories were told after the more recent deaths of the legendary pop singer <a href="http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/what-happened-to-mabrrrs-money-299579">Brenda Fassie</a> and local kwaito star <a href="http://www.sundayworld.co.za/news/2012/05/14/pauper-s-grave-for-dash-unless-music-friends-cough-up-for-funerals">Brown Dash</a>.</p>
<p>Built into this narrative is a suspicion that record labels and producers take advantage of musicians, enriching themselves at the expense of the artist. </p>
<p>Despite this, many musicians are eager to sign a contract with a recording label as soon as the option opens up. Most view a record deal as a sign that they have made it in the industry and believe that a contract will guarantee continuous income. </p>
<p>My <a href="http://www.palgrave.com/us/book/9781137562319">research</a> into contracts and patronage in the South African music industry highlights how important it is for artists to understand how the industry works – at the formal, legal level of contracts, as well as at the more hazy and unofficial level of favours and gifts. </p>
<h2>Know your contract</h2>
<p>Until recently, there were two main <a href="http://www.bizcommunity.com/Article/196/367/90553.html">types of contracts</a> available to artists: recording agreements and licensing agreements. The main difference between them is in the ownership of the product and in the royalty share. </p>
<p>With a recording deal, the music company pays for the recording-related costs and from then on owns the product. The artist receives royalties on record sales and (nowadays) on radio play. But it’s common that the artist gets only a small amount or no recording royalties because the company first deducts various production costs.</p>
<p>A licensing deal means that the artist produces her or his record. They then authorise the music company to manufacture and distribute it. The artist gets a larger royalty share than in the recording deal and eventually holds the ownership for their record. So, in terms of ownership and incomes, licensing deal is often a better option. </p>
<p>Recently music companies have increasingly moved to what are called 360 degree deals. In these contracts, the company promises to enhance all aspects of an artist’s career development. In return, the music company is entitled to a share of all the artist’s income streams. These include publishing, booking, touring and ticket incomes, TV and video appearances, merchandise sales, endorsement deals and management fees – in addition to the usual record sales.</p>
<p>Whatever the type of the contract, the more established and popular the artist, the better deal she or he can negotiate. That is why, when it comes to signing a contract, timing is important.</p>
<p>A relatively new and unknown musician doesn’t have much bargaining power in negotiating the conditions of their contract. For this reason, music industry advocate <a href="http://www.bizcommunity.com/Article/196/367/90553.html">Nick Matzukis</a> encourages emerging musicians to consider initially releasing their music on their own – or with the use of crowd-funding. The point is that they should prove their popularity before entering into negotiations with music companies.</p>
<p>Whether self-releasing or signing a contract, an artist is bound to fare better when armed with as much knowledge as possible about the music business and laws. This can be learnt through books, the internet or courses. And because contracts are complicated legal documents, it’s also advisable to consult an entertainment lawyer or advisor before signing one. </p>
<h2>Be weary of favours and gifts</h2>
<p>Beyond the complexities and pitfalls of the legalistic world of contracts, there are also some hazy practices that I call “patronage practices”. They can replace contracts or they can work alongside contracts. </p>
<p>Whereas contracts very specifically demarcate the shares of the diverse proceeds for each party, in a patronage relationship proceeds are negotiated through a more inexact give-and-take and they are often rewards in kind rather than money. </p>
<p>The record producer can, for instance, give food, accommodation or instruments, and some free records to the artist. For a famous artist, a flashy car and a fancy house can be given. </p>
<p>These arrangements seem casually negotiated rather than carefully calculated. And they may feel convenient for a time. They appear as flexible arrangements entered into by people who view each other as creative partners rather than legal subjects. This is both the beauty and the danger of patronage arrangements.</p>
<p>The danger for musicians is that they may understand the received items as gifts or compensation for their creative accomplishments. But the company usually views them differently. It considers them debts or “advances” that will be deducted from the artist’s ensuing royalties. Often the artist would not know how much or which expenses are being deducted from the royalties and this eventually leads to confusion and irritation. </p>
<p>When the situation turns into an open dispute, the contracts are pulled out. These tend to protect the company because companies thoroughly consider their contents in advance. </p>
<p>Artists should therefore do likewise and not forget that the relationship is underpinned by a legal agreement.</p>
<p>The advice for a musician who wants to avoid becoming another line in the narrative of famous but impoverished artists is to be very careful with the contracts they sign, to acquire as much knowledge as possible about the music business and contracts, to be very active in promoting themselves even when signed, and to be weary of patronage arrangements.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78698/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tuulikki Pietilä does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There are a few things that musicians should understand about the music industry if they are to avoid being taken for a ride.Tuulikki Pietilä, Lecturer of Social and Cultural Anthropology, University of HelsinkiLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/761872017-04-21T10:30:35Z2017-04-21T10:30:35ZPurple Reign: the sublime mystery of Prince<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165915/original/file-20170419-2392-140onma.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/budapest-hungary-aug-9-rock-pop-89857048">Northfoto/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A year on from his death and Prince remains firmly in the public consciousness as an iconic force in the world. Ever since the news that he was found dead at his Paisley Park estate of an <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36436767">accidental drug overdose</a> aged just 57, the music world, fans and public alike have sought to mark his contribution both to music and wider culture. </p>
<p>Prince once <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/music/2006/feb/19/urban.popandrock">told the Guardian</a>:
“What’s missing from pop music is danger. There’s no excitement and mystery.” Reflecting on his death and the public reaction and media coverage since April 2016, this may well be key to his iconic status. Perhaps he provided just that which he said was missing. He gave us danger, mystery and excitement in a way no other artist did. </p>
<p>And in a culture where oversharing is standard, Prince remained an elusive star. It appeared that few people really knew him. He was reluctant to discuss anything but music with the media. He didn’t allow interviewers to record him and responded in ways that tended towards the cryptic, which many found frustrating.</p>
<p>As someone who has admired his career for decades, it is also his ability to access the sublime that was so captivating. To transcend boundaries throughout his career that cemented his status in life and perhaps even more so in death. Once <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/a-final-visit-with-prince-rolling-stones-lost-cover-story-20160502">describing himself</a> as “music” itself, Prince was the embodiment of being oneself and expressing that through music.</p>
<h2>Sublime</h2>
<p>The concept of the sublime – the quality of greatness or grandeur that inspires awe and wonder – emerged in the 17th century. The emotions it inspires have been a source of inspiration for artists and writers ever since. While not easily applied to many figures in contemporary popular culture, this term is fitting for an artist as prolific as Prince. </p>
<p>First and foremost, this was evident through his musical output. A virtuoso musician, Prince was adept at revealing the elegance in many genres of music. He presented exquisite melodies and lyrics wrapped up in an ornate and often dramatic package. His 2007 Super Bowl halftime show – widely considered to the best of any artist – exemplifies his performance style.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IAVQGtOxOhI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Prince’s Super Bowl show.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>His performance aesthetic was unlike anyone else’s and he pioneered an approach that has been much copied but never rivalled. Prince was bold, unapologetic and mesmerising. His approach was not to self-censor but to celebrate his preoccupation with sex – in songs like Cream and Sexy MF – and let the public decide whether or not they liked it.</p>
<p>Another aspect of Prince’s sublimity was evident in the way he displayed a distinct disregard for boundaries. His refusal to accept limits or preconceived ideas surrounding genre, race or gender was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/apr/21/prince-broke-expectations-black-american-men-musical-genius-performances">evident</a> in almost every part of his work. In so much of his musical output, race and gender struggles were front and centre.</p>
<p>Prince transcended gender norms in ways that had rarely been seen in mainstream music. He played with racial, sexual and gender signifiers in such a bold way and rejected black patriarchal stereotypes and cliches.</p>
<p>His sensual style left a subversive mark upon popular culture and certainly one that expanded expressions of gender and eroticism for both performers and the consumers of his image and music far beyond the conventional. He was <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/04/23/prince-gender-masculinity-femininity_n_9760080.html">both macho and feminine</a> and embraced gender ambiguity. There are many examples where this is evident, not least the cover for Prince’s 1988 Lovesexy album in which he poses nude.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166259/original/file-20170421-12655-1r87476.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166259/original/file-20170421-12655-1r87476.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166259/original/file-20170421-12655-1r87476.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166259/original/file-20170421-12655-1r87476.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166259/original/file-20170421-12655-1r87476.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166259/original/file-20170421-12655-1r87476.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166259/original/file-20170421-12655-1r87476.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Prince’s 1988 Lovesexy album.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/emsef/27043295701/in/photolist-axPoQ-GokyYB-drgp57-29pNU-drfDdk-dodTuN-qvPiWy-2BDy6X-pydE8G-2JPwNG-vDVDD-2JKcWn-Fy7Efz-drfCUH-vThrG-DeN9p-HcHXCZ">Matt Sephton/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Time magazine <a href="http://entertainment.time.com/2012/04/20/top-10-controversial-album-covers/slide/prince-lovesexy/">declared it</a> “One of the most controversial album covers of all time”. Not only does Prince present himself naked but he incorporates conventionally feminine iconography. Flowers burst into bloom all around him, his arm covers his chest and he gazes demurely into the distance. </p>
<p>Then, in 1993, he changed his name to an unpronounceable symbol that fused the male and female symbols together.</p>
<p>Prince was a <a href="http://www.independent.ie/style/celebrity/celebrity-news/mentor-prince-a-champion-for-women-singer-janelle-monae-35442094.html">champion of women</a>. He worked with many female musicians and engineers throughout his career. He produced and mentored numerous female groups and wrote songs that became hits for female pop stars, including Chaka Khan, Sinéad O’Connor, Sheena Easton, and the Bangles. </p>
<p>His rebellion against music industry straight-jacketing was one of the defining elements of his artistry. Just after turning 18, Prince signed a six-figure deal with Warner Bros. The contract stated that Prince would produce his own albums, starting his career with a highly unusual degree of artistic control. </p>
<p>In the mid-1980s, after the multimedia success of Purple Rain, he convinced Warner Bros to help him launch the Paisley Park Records label from his Minneapolis estate. But by the 1990s, he was appearing in public with the word “slave” on his cheek as a symbol of his <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/aug/10/history-prince-contractual-controversy-warner-paisley-park#img-1">dispute with the record company</a>.</p>
<p>It is rare that the term sublime can be used to truly describe an artist. But Prince was so brilliant and impossibly prolific that – whether loved or despised – it is hard to argue against it. He offered us new ways of seeing ourselves and those around us through his life and his music. And for that, he will remain forever sublime.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76187/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kirsty Fairclough works for University of Salford. Purple Reign: An interdisciplinary conference on the life and legacy of Prince is a three-day international academic conference hosted by the School of Arts and Media at the University of Salford and the Department of Recording Industry, Middle Tennessee State University, USA. The conference, taking place between 24th-26th May will provide fresh perspectives on the creative and commercial dimensions of Prince’s career, re-examining the meanings of his work in the context of his unexpected death.</span></em></p>A year after Prince’s death, fans the world over are still coming to terms with the loss of an uncompromising musical and cultural visionary.Kirsty Fairclough, Senior Lecturer in Media and Performance, University of SalfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/553722016-04-26T10:01:51Z2016-04-26T10:01:51ZWhy Prince’s music will become more accessible after his death<p>Last Thursday, the world was shocked by the untimely death of Prince, the highly prolific, Grammy-winning music icon who not only transformed music and the record industry but also provoked questions about <a href="https://theconversation.com/princes-gift-was-that-he-stepped-right-out-of-racisms-symbolic-logic-58308">race</a>, gender and <a href="https://theconversation.com/an-elusive-virtuoso-who-embraced-ambiguity-and-female-desire-58274">sexuality</a>.</p>
<p>Apart from his songs, musical genius and virtuosic skills, the “Purple Rain” singer is also widely recognized for his fierce <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-princes-quest-for-complete-artistic-control-changed-the-music-industry-forever-58267">protection</a> of artistic freedom and his longstanding fight with his first record label, Warner Bros.</p>
<p>It seems only a few years ago that he performed in concerts with the word “slave” <a href="http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-prince-tidal-spotify-20160422-story.html">written</a> on his face. Partly as an act of protest, he also changed his name to an unpronounceable symbol, causing people to refer to him as “the artist formerly known as Prince.”</p>
<p>In the past few years, the singer remained reluctant to work with internet streaming platforms. Today, his music remains largely <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/21/why-you-can-t-listen-to-prince-s-music-after-his-death.html">unavailable</a> on Spotify and Apple Music. A rare exception is Jay Z’s <a href="http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6656697/prince-tidal-exclusive-hitnrun-album-release-stream">Tidal</a>, which released his “HITnRUN” albums.</p>
<p>Commentators have been quick to discuss Prince’s positions on <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-its-tough-to-find-princes-songs-online-and-other-musicians-are-thankful-58321">intellectual property rights</a> and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-princes-quest-for-complete-artistic-control-changed-the-music-industry-forever-58267">music business</a>. Yet, few have explored whether Prince’s music will become more readily available after his death.</p>
<p>Although it is difficult to predict how his unreleased materials will be handled – considering that he does not have any apparent <a href="http://news.sky.com/story/1683495/will-we-ever-hear-the-music-in-princes-vault">heir</a> – a quick review of what happened after the death of other famously reclusive artists may offer some useful hints.</p>
<h2>The vault</h2>
<p>It is a well-known secret that Prince accumulated a large trove of unreleased materials in a <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/22/media/prince-vault/">vault</a> – or <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/princes-lost-rolling-stone-interview-i-dont-think-about-gone-20160422">vaults</a> – in his Paisley Park studio complex.</p>
<p>In interviews conducted last year by <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/mar/19/i-would-hide-4-u-whats-in-princes-secret-vault">The Guardian</a> and the <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31962180">BBC</a>, Brent Fischer, Prince’s longtime collaborator, suggested that this vault contained about 70 percent of the material the singer had ever produced. This figure is mind-boggling considering that Prince <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_albums_discography">released</a> close to 40 studio albums.</p>
<p>Moreover, because of Prince’s widely publicized fight with his record label in the 1990s, many <a href="http://news.sky.com/story/1683495/will-we-ever-hear-the-music-in-princes-vault">believe</a> that the vault will contain some of Prince’s finest work – material that the singer might have chosen not to release amid that struggle. The last album released by Warner Bros. in the 1990s was ironically titled “The Vault: Old Friends 4 Sale.”</p>
<h2>The King of Pop</h2>
<p>To some extent, the materials in Prince’s vault remind us of an equally valuable trove of unfinished tracks Michael Jackson left behind following his unexpected death in 2009.</p>
<p>As an avid “MJ” fan, I still remember the suddenly much wider use of his music in movies and TV programs shortly after his death – “Bad” in the movie “Megamind” being a notable example.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qacYOQKd4Rw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Controversies also arose over the posthumous release of his unfinished tracks – as part of the albums “MICHAEL” and “Xscape.” While some – such as <a href="http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/the-juice/6092238/quincy-jones-on-michael-jacksons-xscape-its-about-money">Quincy Jones</a>, Jackson’s former producer – questioned the motives behind the release of these albums, others were disappointed by the extra production and packaging that had <a href="http://the-artifice.com/michael-jackson-xscape-posthumous-album/">gone</a> into the original material without the artist’s input. </p>
<p>Regardless of one’s views, however, the much wider use of Jackson’s music, along with increased merchandise sales, quickly catapulted the singer back to eye-popping commercial success. Today, Jackson is at the top of Forbes’ <a href="http://www.forbes.com/dead-celebrities/#17ef7fad6a51">list</a> of “top-earning dead celebrities,” bringing in US$115 million in last year alone.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120090/original/image-20160425-22360-cyhw9j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120090/original/image-20160425-22360-cyhw9j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120090/original/image-20160425-22360-cyhw9j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120090/original/image-20160425-22360-cyhw9j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120090/original/image-20160425-22360-cyhw9j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120090/original/image-20160425-22360-cyhw9j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120090/original/image-20160425-22360-cyhw9j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Michael Jackson’s music had a renaissance after his death.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Franz Kafka</h2>
<p>Estates and their lawyers have been widely criticized for being greedy and for taking aggressive legal actions to limit public access to the works of the deceased. While property owners have unrestricted rights to dispose of their property – including inheritance – copyrights have become particularly problematic considering that they last for 70 years after an author’s death.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, some estates have managed to make the works of the deceased more widely available. A leading example concerns Franz Kafka. Before he died at the young age of 41, he left specific <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/26/magazine/26kafka-t.html?_r=0">instructions</a> to his friend and executor, Max Brod: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>My last request: Everything I leave behind me … in the way of diaries, manuscripts, letters (my own and others’), sketches and so on, to be burned unread.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120091/original/image-20160425-22383-ohdafd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120091/original/image-20160425-22383-ohdafd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120091/original/image-20160425-22383-ohdafd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120091/original/image-20160425-22383-ohdafd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120091/original/image-20160425-22383-ohdafd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120091/original/image-20160425-22383-ohdafd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1134&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120091/original/image-20160425-22383-ohdafd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1134&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120091/original/image-20160425-22383-ohdafd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1134&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Much of what Kafka wrote would never have been read had his friend followed his wishes.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Kafka statue via www.shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Having already verbally declined his friend’s request in person, Brod refused to burn the manuscripts after the writer’s death. Had he followed Kafka’s instructions, we would never have read some of Kafka’s masterpieces, such as “The Trial” and “The Castle.” We might never even have known Kafka’s talents, as he published <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/26/magazine/26kafka-t.html?_r=0">less</a> than 450 pages in his lifetime!</p>
<h2>J.D. Salinger</h2>
<p>A more recent example is J.D. Salinger, the author of “Catcher in the Rye.” Despite his wildly successful novel about teenager Holden Caulfield, he withdrew from public life shortly after the novel’s publication in 1951.</p>
<p>Although Salinger continued to write – and had publicly <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/aug/25/salinger-authors-claim-posthumous-works-published">admitted</a> to doing so – the lack of publications since the early 1960s created a longstanding mystery. </p>
<p>Salinger died in 2010. A few years later, a biographer revealed that he might have left instructions to his estate to <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/sep/03/new-jd-salinger-fiction-documentary">publish</a> as many as five novels after his death. The release of these novels would not only shed light on the author’s reclusive life but also help us understand better Holden Caulfield’s character.</p>
<h2>Posthumous releases</h2>
<p>It remains to be seen what materials from Prince’s vault will be finally released. If past experience with recently deceased music superstars provides any guide, a considerable quantity of these previously unreleased materials will eventually become commercially available – whether Prince would have liked it or not.</p>
<p>Although some will certainly argue that these materials should have been kept hidden given the artist’s lifetime choices, strong support can be drawn from his longstanding fight with record labels, not to mention his 2012 video clip <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/mar/19/i-would-hide-4-u-whats-in-princes-secret-vault">teasing</a> to release “every good thing in the vault.” </p>
<p>Hopefully, Prince’s estate will be able to go through the vault carefully to develop a plan to disseminate the unreleased materials in ways that will honor the artist’s legacy – perhaps as <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/princes-lost-rolling-stone-interview-i-dont-think-about-gone-20160422">“time capsule”</a> albums. After all, if these materials remain locked up in a vault, it will be a loss to not only his estate but also his many fans around the world.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/55372/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter K. Yu does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>What happened after artists such as Michael Jackson, J.D. Salinger and Franz Kafka died suggests it’ll be hard to keep Prince’s unpublished work out of the public eye, regardless of his wishes.Peter K. Yu, Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Law and Intellectual Property, Texas A&M UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/583212016-04-22T21:56:57Z2016-04-22T21:56:57ZWhy it’s tough to find Prince’s songs online – and other musicians are thankful<p>Legendary music icon Prince Rogers Nelson <a href="http://www.startribune.com/jon-bream-prince-was-a-once-in-a-generation-artist-who-never-rested-on-his-laurels/376594221/">died unexpectedly</a> on April 21, 2016, sending shock waves through the lives of many music lovers. With a career spanning nearly 40 years and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_albums_discography">even more albums</a>, Prince was one of the most prolific musicians of this generation.</p>
<p>Naturally, as Prince fans process his death, they will also search for his music online to purchase and play while they mourn the loss of a music titan. But most of these searches <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/21/why-you-can-t-listen-to-prince-s-music-after-his-death.html">will be futile</a> because American law provides strict protections to copyright owners, and Prince was a pioneering advocate when it came to asserting copyright protections for his creative works.</p>
<p>As an intellectual property and entertainment law professor (and avid Prince fan), I believe Prince’s legacy as a musician must include the mark he made on the American copyright law landscape. </p>
<h2>Songs as intellectual property</h2>
<p>Prince was fiercely protective of his music and rejected most online dissemination of his copyright-protected work. </p>
<p>Copyright law is meant to <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1674246">protect original, tangible works</a> like music and videos. It gives the original creators the right to copy, distribute and remix that work. And it prohibits others from doing any of these things without the creator’s permission.</p>
<p>Prince famously feuded with Warner Bros. Records over ownership of his music because his early contracts signed over much of his music’s ownership rights to the record company. After a <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/prince-fought-big-labels-ownership-artistic-control-n560161">nearly 25-year feud</a>, which included a name change and regular uses of the word “slave” to describe his perceived role in the relationship, Prince received ownership of his catalog back from the company and the legal rights stemming from that ownership. </p>
<p>And Prince wasn’t shy about asserting his rights against others online. He felt that <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/you-cant-find-prince-songs-7809292">only large corporations</a> such as Apple and Google, and not artists, made money from online music sales. He battled with YouTube in 2007, which resulted in more than 2,000 videos being <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/prince-sues-internet-sites-for-breaching-his-copyright-402336.html">removed from the website</a>.</p>
<p>Beyond his business beef with the online side of the music industry, Prince had artistic aversions to some of the technology as well. He often expressed a view that digitization negatively affected music, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/music/2011/jun/23/prince-interview-adele-internet">stating in one interview</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I personally can’t stand digital music… You’re getting sound in bits. It affects a different place in your brain. When you play it back, you can’t feel anything. We’re analogue people, not digital.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Such views even led Prince to file a <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2014/01/why-prince-is-suing-his-fans/">short-lived lawsuit</a> against 22 fans who posted links to bootlegged copies of his music on Facebook. He was, by all accounts, staunchly opposed to online uses that he felt marred his work. </p>
<p>So, you won’t find most of Prince’s catalog on popular services Apple Music, Google Play, Spotify or the like as you seek to reminisce over your favorite Prince tracks. Subscribers to rapper and businessman <a href="http://www.wired.com/2015/03/jay-z-tidal-streaming-service/">Jay Z’s streaming service</a> <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/jul/02/prince-pulls-music-from-all-streaming-services-except-tidal">Tidal</a>, however, <a href="http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/prince-songs-streaming-links-youtube">can stream everything</a> from 1984’s iconic Purple Rain album through to HITNRUN Phase Two, an album released in December of last year. In 2015, Tidal <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/jul/02/prince-pulls-music-from-all-streaming-services-except-tidal">was spared</a> Prince’s treatment of every other streaming platform, apparently because he felt it had a friendlier model for artists that gave him <a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11481888/prince-streaming-tidal-spotify">much more control</a> over his music and paid better. </p>
<h2>Signing away copyright to score a deal</h2>
<p>Control over music, based on copyright ownership, is a huge part of the entertainment industry. And the deck is stacked against new artists seeking a traditional record deal. A record label holds all of the cards: money, access to production, manufacturing, distribution and marketing channels, and legal expertise.</p>
<p>If an artist wants to sign with the label, he typically enters into <a href="http://www.academia.edu/533323/The_evolving_relationship_of_record_label_and_artist">notoriously one-sided contracts</a> which sign away all of his rights and control over the music he ultimately creates. It has happened to the best of them, from the <a href="http://musewire.com/deconstructing-pop-culture-the-beatles-contract-history-with-capitol-records-1665/">Beatles</a> to <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmessitte/2015/04/30/five-truly-terrible-record-deals-compiled-for-your-convenience/#7bdcc6794919">TLC and Michael Jackson</a> to Prince himself.</p>
<p>Congress had the potential for exploitation in mind when it updated the copyright law in 1976 to include something called <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/docs/203.html">termination rights</a>. Now <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#203">Section 203 of the Copyright Act</a> allows artists to terminate contracts made after January 1, 1978 if <a href="http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2091&context=facpubs">certain requirements</a> are met after 35 years. </p>
<p>These rights recognize that an artist has almost no bargaining power at the outset of his or her career and also that the value of a piece of music is hard to predict before it is created. Artists who successfully assert their termination rights will no longer be limited to the bad deal they signed before they achieved fame and commercial success. They can either buy back the rights to the music 100 percent to take advantage of new opportunities and technologies, or negotiate a much better deal based on past successes.</p>
<p>Termination rights formed the basis for Prince’s legendary reclamation of his music catalog. Other artists, including <a href="http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/7263857/paul-mccartney-beatles-songs-publishing">Paul McCartney</a> and <a href="http://allaxess.com/news/ownership-rights-of-%E2%80%98eye-of-the-tiger%E2%80%99-in-dispute/">Survivor</a>, have also used the law to regain ownership of their own music.</p>
<h2>Musicians wresting back control</h2>
<p>Newer artists have learned from the mistakes of these pioneering legends. </p>
<p>Prince often encouraged younger artists to <a href="http://www.inquisitr.com/2321515/prince-compares-music-industrys-record-contracts-to-slavery-gives-warning-to-younger-artists/">resist the Draconian restrictions</a> set up by record labels, and many took heed. For example, Macklemore and Ryan Lewis famously won four Grammys in 2014, including the highly coveted best rap album award, for “The Heist,” which was made <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2014/01/28/how-macklemore-tapped-major-label-muscle-to-market-an-indie-album/">without traditional record label support</a>. </p>
<p>Other artists have taken a page from Prince’s songbook and openly criticized and shunned traditional music-streaming services. Taylor Swift <a href="http://taylorswift.tumblr.com/post/122071902085/to-apple-love-taylor">wrote a letter to Apple</a> explaining she would hold back her blockbuster “1989” album because Apple Music would not pay artists during an initial three month trial of the new music-streaming service. In addition, Swift and others, including Adele, David Byrne and The Black Keys, do not allow their music to be <a href="http://www.fastcompany.com/3054479/can-spotify-lure-back-taylor-swift-and-adele">streamed on Spotify</a> based on what they perceive to be an unfair revenue model for artists.</p>
<p>These efforts have, in many ways, shifted the music industry in a different direction. The success of Macklemore and Ryan Lewis encouraged artists to remain independent and grow success online organically. <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/music/2015/06/22/taylor-swift-apple-music/29094853/">Apple responded</a> to Swift’s letter by quickly announcing it would pay artists during the trial period, and thousands of independent artists then allowed Apple Music to stream their music after initial staunch resistance. Though Tidal <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2015/09/10/great-business-model-or-not-tidals-sheer-number-of-exclusives-is-impressive/#319fb3d12c19">has had its challenges</a>, it has garnered an impressive <a href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tidal-one-year-has-jay-zs-music-streaming-service-been-success-failure-1552082">2.5 million subscribers</a> since Jay Z’s purchase and relaunch in 2015. Prince’s early efforts, while often viewed as restrictive and resistant, have encouraged today’s artists to recognize and protect the value of their work. </p>
<p>Even though fans will jump through some hoops in the short term to find Prince’s work online, his legacy of artist vigilance will continue to influence the music industry for years to come.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/58321/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Shontavia Johnson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Gifted musician, peerless showman – and fierce protector of his copyrighted work. Prince fought battles that changed the direction of the music industry and are helping the next generation of artists.Shontavia Johnson, Associate Professor of Intellectual Property Law, Drake UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.