Below are various article summaries taken from RSS feeds at the bottom of my blog page, on regulation, technology, and music industry case studies.
Believe, a global digital music conglomerate, CEO Denis Ladegaillerie said: “We do not wish to distribute and we are not to distribute any content that is 100% created by AI.” He announced that the company has launched an “AI detection algorithm”, that can detect the use of Artificial Intelligence on a song, currently stands at a 98% success rate, and deep fakes at a 93% rate. Ladegaillerie emphasised the importance of “control of the content and protection to our artists as AI becomes more widely adopted.”
While some artists, such as Grimes, are enthusiastic for the musical possibilities of AI, most artists, such as Bad Bunny, Drake, the Weeknd, and Ariana Grande, are less than enthusiastic about the new technology. The viral success of these covers has led them to being uploaded to streaming platforms, with artists and platforms pushing for their hasty removal. The many copyright and royalties complications, as well as artist ownership of their works are heavily debated topics, with one of the big 3, Universal Music Group (UMG) demanding streaming platforms such as Apple Music and Spotify to block access to their content on AI training platforms. Spotify has now blocked content from AI music platform Boomy, and UMG along with Concord Music Group (CMG) are suing AI company Anthropic due to copyright violations.
Iconic artists such as Madonna, Britney Spears, and Taylor Swift are returning with worldwide tours and memoirs, highlighting the retromania (Reynolds) prevailing in the modern music industry. Madonna and Swift’s “Eras” tours allow them to re-live and allow their fans to re-experience their favourite moments of their careers. Spear’s highly anticipated memoir “The Woman In Me” has recently been released, as well as Swift’s re-recording of the album “1989”, one of the many out of her re-recording project. Often, new music never performs as well as back-catalogue products (Swift is a clear exception), but here newer generations, and older fans, can remember their love for these artists and their music, who achieve maximum reward with minimal effort. Through each defining decade, these women have represented the archetypal all-American pop star, yet instead of maintaining their relevancy through new products, they are re-hashing past successes.
However, this could be an attempt from the singers to regain control over the narratives previously used by labels and media to control them. Madonna and Spears were surrounded by body-shaming tabloid culture, and constantly shamed for their sexuality, much like Swift and her boyfriend obsessed reputation. For perhaps the first time, these women are able to express themselves freely, Swift by re-recording the albums who’s rights were stolen from her, and Spears by finally addressing her conservatorship in her memoir. Post #MeToo era, society is allowing women to re-write their stories, and reminds us all of the importance of media literacy.
"Barbie the Album" review – a cynical exercise in corporate synergy
The article discusses the soundtrack of the highly-anticipated Gerwig blockbuster, featuring over 14 coloured variants of cassettes, CDs, and vinyl with different covers available on streaming and in-person stores. Brands such as Target and Urban Outfitters have partnered with Warner Bros. subsidiary Atlantic Records for limited shades and pressings, an example of the horizontal integration of the conglomerate, as well as cross-media synergy. The soundtrack itself is composed mainly of Warner Bros. artists, such as Dua Lipa, Charli XCX, and Ava Max, furthering the marketability benefits from the album. The songs are also inevitably tied to Barbie, with the lyrics centering around the doll, and not having much ground to stand alone own. While the Barbie film is arguably a long form advertisement for the dolls, these physical products allow for collections to also be acquired by those outside of the target age of the toys.
Spotify’s audiobook streaming vs Society of Authors
Spotify has expressed interest in creating availability for 150,000 audiobook titles on their platform. The Society of Authors (SoA) has expressed a “deep concern”, fearing “the devastating effect that music streaming has had on artists’ income” could affect authors similarly. The SoA stated that “the streaming of audiobooks competes directly with sales and is even more damaging than music streaming because books are typically only read once, while music is often streamed many times.”
It was reported that major book publishers had agreed a limited streaming deal with Spotify, and since October 4th, UK and Australian Spotify premium subscribers have been able to access 15 hours of audiobooks per month from the 150,00 titles offered. However, no authors have been approached for or given permission for this licensing, creating a possible contractual breach as streaming was not invented when contracts were signed. Many authors are speaking out about this lack of consultation as they only discovered this implementation when browsing the platform, and claiming there are no benefits for them. At a time where there are many discussions around changing the royalties and digital streaming rewards, and the disastrous effect on music artists is clear, authors are outraged and refusing to follow the same path. This move has sparked debate on audio and written rights, royalties, and copyrights within the publishing world, in addition to previous licensing concerns surrounding AI.
Publishing house Penguin and Spotify have made statements regarding this change, but have not yet directly addressed the concerns of the SoA.
AI flagging on social platforms
YouTube has issued new guidelines allowing record labels to request song removal of AI generated songs made under their artists’ voices. Content can now be flagged for “mimicking an artist’s unique singing or rapping voice”. The release of “Heart on My Sleeve” created through the AI generated voices of Drake and the Weeknd both represented by UMG, was removed from streaming platform Spotify, but is still accessible on YouTube. The Google subsidiary is aiming to trial new control to detect these technological imitiations. In addition, deepfakes can also be reported through this system. Creators will be required to disclose if it is “manipulated or synthetic” content, and will have to flag this footage, which when ignored could result in removal or de-monetisation of the content. Prominent labels will also be included when discussing political or sensitive content.
Meta, the conglomerate of subsidiaries Facebook and Instagram, the most prominent social media platforms, have stated they require political advertisements to acknowledge when AI is used in advertisements.
Digital music streaming platform Deezer is planning on launching an “artist-centric” royalty model, which would impact artists payments if signed to record companies like big 3 UMG, or indie Wagram, who have agreed to participate in the scheme. UMG announced that the 3 core pillars of the model were based on: artists that attract over 1,000 listens a month acquire a “double boost”, if the artists music is actively searched rather than algorithmically suggested this is then doubled again, and de-monetizing “noise” content. However, Deezer, has now added a fourth pillar: “In addition to the mentioned boosts, there is a monetization cap of 1000 streams per individual user per month. This means that every single user’s contribution to the royalty pool is counted as 1000 streams, no matter what the actual amount is. This way available royalties are shared more fairly between the artists the user is listening to each month and fraudulent behavior is discouraged.” All of this meaning that the Deezer model will in fact not be user centric.
Another digital music platform, Soundcloud, deploys a “fan-powered royalties” model, where the individual subscriber’s monthly payment is equally divided to the artists the individual has streamed. Instead, Deezer aims to limit each individuals streams to 1,000 monetizable, in order to stop artists creating accounts to boost their wn streams, The calculation for streams is now 1000/x, where x is the number of streams, so if there are 2000 streams they are valued as 0.5 streams each, and if there are 5000 streams they are valued at 0.2. As Deezer says: “This way available royalties are shared more fairly between the artists the user is listening to each month and fraudulent behavior is discouraged.”
After 14 years of a stable $9.99 price, streaming giant Spotify has increased its price by 10% in 50 territories, including the US and the UK, which has been welcomed by many in the industry, but still criticised for not solving wider economic industry issues. The company told subscribers the rise was to “invest in and innovate our product offerings and features, and bring you the best experience”, but avoided mentioning any positive effects for recording artists and songwriters. While record deals also affect streaming payouts, Spotify has opposed an increase in royalty rates for songwriters, which ultimately failed. Paul Clements, the chief executive of the Music Publisher’s Association has said that “failure to increase subscription pricing for some 15 years has arguably depreciated the value of music per paid user”, which would make something costing $9.99 in 2001 cost $17.87 today.
Apple Music has increased its prices last year in the US to $10.99 as did YouTube Music. The streaming market is now faced with the difficulty of pleasing artists and users, while compensating them correctly.
Spotify phasing out service in Uruguay following new copyright bill
Streaming giant Spotify is removing it’s service from Uruguay, after a new music copyright bill requiring “fair and equitable remuneration” for authors, composers, performers, directors and screenwriters has been introduced in October.
In response, Spotify said that due to this law they “will, unfortunately, begin to phase out its service in Uruguay effective 1 January 2024” and cease trading in the market in February 2024.
The platform seeks confirmation on whether additional costs to be paid to musicians are the responsibility of rights holders or the streaming platforms, arguing that the latter means that it would be required “to pay twice for the same music”. Spotify further stated they “already pays nearly 70% of every dollar it generates from music to the record labels and publishers that own the rights for music, and represent and pay artists and songwriters. Any additional payments would make our business untenable.” This removal is unfortunate, as Spotify also claims they had contributed to a 20% growth in Uruguay’s music industry in 2022. That year, the South American nation was the 53rd largest market for music.
No comments:
Post a Comment