11/6/03 1:25 – 2:20 / JKP 212 / Alex Rofman / Director of Business Development; Snocap (new venture of Shawn Fanning of Napster fame)
You saw that back in Janury, 2004, if you did a search under Fanning and Snocap. There was a site — http://www.snocap.com/ — with a logo. But that was it, and that was all.
And now the wheel has come full circle because today, when you go to the site, once again you get nothing —
— just like thousands of indie artists who sold their music through imeem’s Snocap music storefronts on MySpace, says Wired.
Snocap, a DRM-based venture, was hyped to the gills, but nothing came of it and it was ultimately sold to Imeem for an undisclosed price.
Then in November, “They say a fool and his money are soon parted and with that in mind comes the news Rupert Murdoch is apparently on the verge of scarfing up iMeem,” I wrote.
Now MySpace owns imeem and not only artists, but other sites “won’t be paid what’s owed even after MySpace Music’s acquisition of some — but not all — of imeem,” says Wired, going on:
“MySpace Music bought ‘certain assets’ from imeem, and they do not include imeem’s liability to more than 110,000 independent artists with Snocap storefronts, according to a source with inside knowledge of the deal. Those artists’ contracts mandate they be paid each month if they’re owed more than $20. Some artists have been owed money for more than a year, and the chance of them seeing any money now is, for all intents and purposes, zero, the source says.
“Artists attempting to get paid for songs sold through Snocap stores — many or most of which were on MySpace itself — must get in line with imeem’s bank and other creditors. MySpace Music paid less than $1 million for imeem, so it’s doubtful much will remain for the artists.”
Adds the story
“One source with inside knowledge of the deal said MySpace Music’s rushed purchase of imeem’s assets forced it to ‘leave behind anything that either had explicit liability or potential liability,’ including Snocap and its debts to thousands of independent artists and bands.”
Jon Newt0n
December 14th, 2009 at 10:26 am
This illustrates one inherent problem with the corporate world – the perpetual, annoying takeovers, mergers, insolvencies and rebrandings.
This makes it very difficult to count on anything staying “built as designed”, leaving investors and customers out in the cold everytime it happens, and magically erasing contracts, financial obligations, debts, and liabilities.
A lot of times, I wonder how much of it is intentional.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:55 am
This is exactly what would happen with licensing websites. “Smart” companies would buy them up and avoid paying the artists.
If you license a site, you’ll have to legislate against mergers/takeovers or force any/all liability to not be “dropped” by mergers/takeovers.
December 14th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
@Robert:
That’s exactly where I was headed.
Only thing is, you can’t legislate against any of it, as the very status of “corporate personhood” protects them from pretty well all liabilities, except to those of any shareholders, when they dissolve. Once they settle with the shareholders, there’s usually nothing left (that the public ever knows about) for the rest.
Similar protections are given to “new” arrangements arrived at through mergers/rebranding. The “new companies” somehow arbitrarily get “new status”, and are never asked to address their founding companies’ breached commitments.
It’s a bloody racket.
December 14th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
I think that problems like these are the whole point of perhaps introducing a licensing system so that artists would avoid this kind of problem. In a case where websites pays the license fees, the artists wouldn’t have to worry about dodgey businesses practices because the money would be collected regularly by the collection societies (IMO).
December 15th, 2009 at 11:24 am
on another note, did any of your see the announcement about Australia filtering: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091215/tc_afp/australiainternettechnologycensorship
December 15th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
@ Indy ‘did any of your see the announcement about Australia filtering’
Yup. – Australia set to become net censor – http://www.p2pnet.net/story/32588
Cheers!
December 15th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
ta Jon:)
December 16th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
” I think that problems like these are the whole point of perhaps introducing a licensing system so that artists would avoid this kind of problem. ”
I think that problems like these are part and parcel for any kind of general licensing system .. like an ISP tax, levy etc ..
This kind of corruption and abuse is encouraged and enabled by such systems. This is why solutions that get artists paid directly by the fans need to be more imaginatively and aggressively pursued, not dismissed out of hand as unworkable.
Any system that involves a third party licensing agency or corporate entity WILL be abused. This is just another in another long line of proof of abuse.
December 16th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
@dreddsnik I hope not, because now we’re digital. We can pre-empt those previous mistakes. We actually do have the power simply by exposure. (until that power gets taken away.. which we have to NOT let happen). I hope not. In fact, I don’t think that we will allow that old system to do that. If not why would we be here working on solutions and hashing out the debate. If we don’t believe it’s possible, then, we’re just wasting our thoughts and finger tips. I don’t think you believe that it isn’t possible. Otherwise, you wouln’t leave a comment or even care to participate. You want to see a different world. Well, I think so anyway. So do I and I think that everybody does. There is a big huge ‘hole’ that nobody knows how to fill and the landslide is beginning to ‘bury’ that ‘old model’ that you know didn’t work. Now we have a new digital one. So, we don’t need to think about why the old analog model got taken advantage of anymore. We can only think of how darned transparent all the new models need to be as long as we’re ‘allowed’ to be here and as long as we all wipe out these huge corporate and government ‘control’ interests. We gotta put together a consensus and motivate that army. Don’t we?
December 17th, 2009 at 2:01 am
@ Indiana “the artists wouldn’t have to worry about dodgey businesses practices because the money would be collected regularly by the collection societies”
They’ve discovered their scrupples?
http://www.briancharlesclark.com/soundexchange-cant-find-django-reinhardt/
December 17th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Collection societies have done nothing but harm music lovers and artists. Their executives don’t do too poorly though, and seem to enjoy shaking down charities and individuals for having the audacity to enjoy music or sing while stocking shelves without paying a hefty fee.
December 17th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
” You want to see a different world. Well, I think so anyway. So do I and I think that everybody does. ”
I do.
If you do, then why continue to keep collective societies around, even suggesting that they get handed even MORE cash via some ISP tax ? That’s not a different world. That’s simply extending the current corrupt world to the internet.
Steels’ statement ..
” Collection societies have done nothing but harm music lovers and artists. Their executives don’t do too poorly though, and seem to enjoy shaking down charities and individuals for having the audacity to enjoy music or sing while stocking shelves without paying a hefty fee. ” ..
isn’t nearly harsh enough.
Besides, they HAVE been exposed, repeatedly, most recently with the ’surprise’ revelation about all of the artists that ‘can’t be found’. They are exposed repeatedly. It’s artists that continue to go along with them as a viable idea that keep them in business. That will be especially true if they are given a new cash cow via the internet, since boycotting them will be meaningless.
December 18th, 2009 at 8:53 am
Right, so, basically, you are knocking back Bennett’s proposal as well (even though it would basically stop all this ‘copy-infringing’ nonsense). You’re more worried about the potential corruption of the societies (who weren’t bound by a new digital rights scheme/law before but who would now going forward be forced into transparent accounting in order to operate).
December 18th, 2009 at 9:20 am
I’m slowly realizing that the only solution to shutting down these collection societies and trade organizations for good is just preventing new people from signing up. If anything, the discussions on this site have demonstrated how difficult it is to free minds. Even so, new artists that know what’s good for them are avoiding these groups and their supporters like the plague they are, and working with people like Clark.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
@bill the link you sent me to is simply a ‘comment’ made by someone. Is there an actual news source? Otherwise, Soundexchange has made this announcement http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/news.php?id=46305 if you read the last two lines, it looks like an effort to find some of these artists who are not registered with the societies so they CAN pay them. This was their incentive to partner with Reverbnation, for example.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
You might find this article interesting from Wired: http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/12/4-ways-one-big-database-would-help-music-fans-industry/ “One big database”.. If everyone had the same numbers, etc. etc. One way to help transparency. (it also mentions the Soundexchange deal with Reverbnation and how they were able to find 5,500 artists to pay royalties to whom they were previously unable to find simply because those artists didn’t exist in the database because they hadn’t registered any of the collecting societies)
December 18th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
” I’m slowly realizing that the only solution to shutting down these collection societies and trade organizations for good is just preventing new people from signing up. If anything, the discussions on this site have demonstrated how difficult it is to free minds. Even so, new artists that know what’s good for them are avoiding these groups and their supporters like the plague they are, and working with people like Clark. ”
Yup.
Eventually, they’ll have no one to sell except Elton et. al.
If they are given what they want .. a nice perpetual cash machine .. which makes consumers voting with their wallet irrelevant , all that’s left is to convince new artists to not sign, and help them find a way to do it themselves. I wonder if politicians will notice if the labels keep getting money, and have virtually no artists left ?
@indiana,
” You’re more worried about the potential corruption of the societies (who weren’t bound by a new digital rights scheme/law before but who would now going forward be forced into transparent accounting in order to operate). ”
There’s no ‘potential’ about it. It’s well known, and has been for a long time. And there’s that ‘ forced into transparent accounting ‘ thing. Which legislator ( that they haven’t paid ) is going to ‘force’ them into transparency ? In case you haven’t noticed, all the laws relating to the entertainment industry have been in THEIR favor, not ours and certainly not the artists. Can you honestly believe that paid off politicians will ‘force’ them to do anything ? You’re damn right i’m worried about corruption, and justly so. If it were my money in their hands ( like so many artists ) I would be even more so. But let’s go ahead and hand them a lot more cash to play with. I’m sure someone, somewhere, sometime in the very near future will ‘force’ them to be honest and ‘transparent’ . I’m going to dance among the daisies in my fantasy world now.
December 18th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
@dreddsnkik First of all, we’re talking about a ‘new’ model which is meant to introduce transparency (something that didn’t exist before because there were too many ‘physical’ means whereby the sytstem could be ‘cheated’ in the past… now, with the ‘potential’ for a clear-cut database, there is no need for fear… however, beyond that can you please site me some examples of this “It’s well know, and has been for a long time” quote you’ve given. I’d like to know where that comes from. Societies are non-profit organisations. (hmmm… much like the Pirate Bay claimed to be). They’ve also subject to fairly strict accounting even in the past. But, the real problem was that artists were not registering their works (either out of incompetence or maybe out of sheer laziness.) You say “all the laws have been in ‘their’ favour not ours” What does this statement mean? Clearly, When copyright law came into being, there weren’t any ‘major’ labels in existence.
It’s one thing to worry about ‘corruption’, which is fine and admirable (and I agree with you to some extent, however, I haven’t seen any situation where societies actually have ’shafted’ people. It’s simply a case of artists not registering and making claims against the societies for their works. Apathy simply doesn’t work. If artists are too apathetic in this new digital age to actually do a search and claim for their work, then, who’s to blame?
However, it’s another thing altogether if we continue to dwell upon the corruption of the past. It can inhibit what is feasible and possible for the future. If those societies who collected in the past are truly corrupt, they won’t be very difficult to replace, right?
December 19th, 2009 at 6:35 am
@Indiana #15
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/business/worldbusiness/29iht-music.3317335.html
Sound Exchange can put out any kind of tripe they want. Their board of directors is almost identical to the RIAA. Their honesty is questionable. (I’m being kind.) I don’t know where you were 3 years ago, but the effort to find musicians who Sound Exchange owed money to was a grass roots effort, not the result of any extraordinary effort by Sound Exchange to find and disribute money to the musicians for whom they collect. If I’m not mistaken, they still use unpaid interns or voluneers to do their research. Fred Wilhelms was an early contributer to a2f2a and may still be lurking. If you are, Fred, please bring us up to date. (Fred knows a lot more about this than I.) But I can tell you this – I, like Fred and many others – were able to find contact information for many, many artists within a few days that Sound Exchange claimed they could not find in 6 years. Sound Exchange sat on their hands for years and tried to keep the list of unpaid artists a secret until they were forced to disclose the info mere months before the deadline. And not forced by any government entity. And certainly not by their own moral compass. But by the stink raised in the press by fans. To portray Sound Exchange in a sympathetic light here is insulting.
December 19th, 2009 at 8:53 am
Thanks Bill.
If it comes from me it’s mocked because i’m just trying to justify my thieving ways with paranoid drivel. There are more examples than that out there, but I suspect somehow ’someone’ here will compare them to the pirate bay (‘apples’ oranges’) and dismiss those claims.
” If those societies who collected in the past are truly corrupt, they won’t be very difficult to replace, right? ”
You have got to be kidding me ?
This is either extreme naivete, or totally willful blindness.
I’m not going any further with you on this. There is no point.
Can someone else please explain this clearly enough that even Kelly Pickler could understand ? I give up.
December 20th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
@bill I think perhaps your view of Sound Exchange as one example of all the collecting societies may not be a truly representative ’sample’ from the entire culture. It looks however thought, like Sound Exchange has been ‘called out’ (even it were they themselves who made the announcement that they were looking for those artists etc.) Nonetheless, if would be good to have some links to the societies that most artists and composers go through like BMI, ASCAP, SESAC, PRS, MCPS, SACEM, etc. etc. (there are a few in every country.) It is indeed like taking one example or some sort of ‘corrupt’ entity and then calling all of them ‘corrupt’. (Like as if you were to call all Catholics IRA supporters or all Muslims terrorists. It’s simply not the case)
December 21st, 2009 at 7:41 am
Dredd, I’ve certainly tried but like you I’ve lost the will to continue. “There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.”
December 21st, 2009 at 10:33 am
SteelWolf, irrespective of whether Indiana is ‘blinded by her refusal to see’, one should consider that she presents a particular viewpoint which may well be held by many other artists. We are here to argue with that misinformed viewpoint, not necessarily to brow-beat Indiana into enlightenment – though it is inevitable that it will appear so.
Pretend Indiana is like an Elizabot that continuously responds with “I remain unconvinced and don’t understand many of your points, please provide further justification and explain more fully in simpler terms”.
Until we get feedback from artists who have that Eureka moment when the scales fall from their eyes and they finally SEE, we have to consider that our arguments don’t have sufficient calibre and need further honing.
I’ve found it takes about a year of continuous beating with a clue stick before someone finally undergoes the paradigm shift. And I’m always looking to hone the arguments that most facilitate that shift.
Even so, far better than laborious argument is demonstration. When we can demonstrate artists being paid by their fans for their art, then the dichotomy between selling copies vs selling art will be far clearer. Then it’ll be obvious to all as to whether there’s more money in copyright constrained sale of copies vs copyleft manumitted sale of art.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:20 pm
anyone have some links (regardless) or am I to ‘blindly’ take your word for it?
December 21st, 2009 at 2:36 pm
@Crosbie Fitch “Even so, far better than laborious argument is demonstration. When we can demonstrate artists being paid by their fans for their art, then the dichotomy between selling copies vs selling art will be far clearer. Then it’ll be obvious to all as to whether there’s more money in copyright constrained sale of copies vs copyleft manumitted sale of art.” (unquote)
The dicotomy between selling ‘copies’ vs selling “art” ? (or do you mean “selling recorded masters”… or do you mean selling the ‘rights’- you seem to be using all three interchangeably. But, even though this thread is about imeem and then turned towards the collection societies, you’re a wee bit off topic… Nonetheless, Fact: since there is no difference between a copy and the master once you’ve made a ‘copy’, you could only sell that master to ONE entity before it simply becomes a ‘copy’.
In this thread, we were discussing the alleged ‘corruption’ of collection societies. Since there is only one society being mentioned here (out of 100s world-wide) all I’ve ‘blindly’ asked for was to see some newslinks about this ‘corruption’ because I haven’t heard about it. Sound Exchange announced that they were trying to locate some artists. So, they’ve done deals with online service providers to help find those people. But, it’s actually not their job to find artists, it’s the artist’s job to keep their address and payment information up-to-date. I had this happen with SACEM when I changed addresses and suddenly realised I hadn’t received a statement from them (because I had moved house). But, everyone here seems to know something about the societies that I don’t know and I haven’t found information about this ‘corruption’ outside of the Sound Exchange link. Any links?
December 21st, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Of course not, i’m just making shit up indiana. That’s how we thieves roll. We’re all just making it all up. Nothing to see here, but you knew that.
December 21st, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Indiana, I am advocating that artists sell their art to their fans. I have never advocated artists selling copies, and I have always argued that rights cannot be sold. Privileges can be sold, but ethically should be neutralised.
Why do you want to suggest that I am using art, copies, and ‘rights’ interchangeably when in nearly every comment I make I have to take pains to point out to you the fundamental difference between them?
And then you start trying to persuade me that there’s no difference?
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:33 pm
@Dreddsnik Is there a reason why nobody has at least a link to one news story about this collection society corruption that you all keep going on about? What’s this ‘thieves’ line all about in your @26? I’m only asking for a link or at least something other than conspiracy theory. You’ve asked me for links on various threads. If you’re saying I’m ‘blind’ about it, then, you could at least point me to some information & links about these “corrupted collection societies”. If they were corrupt, it would leak out or get investigated by at least someone, wouldn’t you think?
@Crosbie Fitch How am “I” persuading you that their is no difference? Huh? Confused.com It’s a fact that once a recording is ‘copied’ all the rest of the copies made after that are indeed ‘copies’. No persuasion necessary.
On the topic of societies and royalties, it is necessary that you remember that some of us are composers and songwriters who work and write songs which they may not perform or sing themselves. Some of you are talking about selling ‘recordings’, other’s talk about making ‘copies’, other’s talk about music being ‘free’.
http://www.fairplayforcreators.com/
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:00 am
” Is there a reason why nobody has at least a link to one news story about this collection society corruption that you all keep going on about? ”
Probably because you’ve already shown that you will simply dismiss any proof provided out of hand like you did with Bill’s link above. You won’t accept any proof shown, regardless of source or content. Proof doesn’t matter to you, what you want to sell us does. If anyone else wants to show you more links, they will, there are plenty out there. I think most feel as I do .. what’s the point ? You can’t see what’s already in front of you because you’re too busy looking at your own hands.
It’s as pointless as trying to explain to my dog why she can’t eat chocolate.
December 24th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
@dreddsnik The link that he provided from the NY times only mentions one society (out of hundreds) and it only speaks of Sound Exchange. So, it’s similar to you saying that all Muslims or Catholics are bad because one tiny group of them are terrorists.
December 24th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Well, it’s not that she CAN’T.
It’s just that she SHOULDN’T.
But, seriously, there’s been a great deal of discussion this year on the Internet about these collection societies (not just SoundExchange). Surely, some links can be dug up.
(Yes, I’m gonna look, too!)
December 26th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
@Dreddsnik My dog ate all of the chocalate (and the foil around it) off the Christmas tree. But, she probably enjoyed the chocolate more than the foil
lol
December 27th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
” So, it’s similar to you saying that all Muslims or Catholics are bad because one tiny group of them are terrorists. ”
Perhaps it’s also like saying that the entire internet should pay a tax because some sites use copyrighted media.
December 27th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
” @Dreddsnik My dog ate all of the chocalate (and the foil around it) off the Christmas tree. But, she probably enjoyed the chocolate more than the foil
lol ”
Ours did that last year. Since chocolate is actually toxic in large quantities to dogs we almost lost her that year. She was critically ill for 5 days.
December 27th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
@Dreddsnik I guess maybe we should not put Chocolate on our Christmas trees in the future!!!
but, in your number 33, I don’t think anyone wants to have the entire internet pay a tax. That idea hasn’t been introduced. The idea was about websites who use media paying a contribution and that the ISPs would perhaps pay a contribution based upon the usage. It is similar to what I think DA pointed out in Canad about the Cable stations who were fighting with the local TV stations. The cable stations were selling the local TV’s programs via their subscriptions, however, the local TV stations were going out of business even though the cable companies were making money through advertising from those station’s local programs. The ISP situation is somewhat similar. The idea wasn’t to tax the entire internet and specifically, in the case of the cable companies, they shouldn’t be able to raise the cost of cable to their customers because they were selling those packages to their customers.
December 27th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
@Indiana:
You’ve got the details to the TV provider feud a bit wrong. Because it has somewhat of a direct relationship to this discussion, I’m going to straighten this out…
The networks that broadcast over the air want the cable companies to pay them for the use of their broadcast signal. The advertisers pay these networks for the broadcasted ads – NOT the cable companies. The debate is over whether or not the ad revenue properly levels the playing field. That part’s neither here nor there in our discussion here.
I mentioned this squabble over TV dollars because of the similarity to an issue raised by your aspirations to have ISPs and/or websites pay a license for simply “using musical works”.
There’s a slight difference though…
TV networks want money from the cable companies, not for using the content, but for using the broadcast streams themselves. This should, theoretically, give the networks a stronger argument for license than yours (based on content), as the networks ARE the creators of the signal. But even at that level of “ownership”, it’s not clear to anyone if what they’re asking for is fair.
The other main concern this shares with your license scheme is that additional license fees will just be passed on to the consumers, but I think the comparative arguments are already enough even without that.
The bottom line is, the TV licensing argument is a very messy one. Your argument for similar fees placed on ISPs/websites hasn’t even got the same merit as that of the TV networks, and would, therefore, be even more impossible.
In the TV argument, each network is the SOLE broadcaster of a particular signal, and they can’t figure out what’s fair. In the Internet argument, there would be ENDLESS, MULTIPLE SOURCES of content to consider, from ISPs to websites. The complexity would not only be staggering, but beyond reason.
Here’s an interesting twist to the TV feud…
If the use of a broadcast deserves an additional license, what would stop the content producers from wanting to apply your principle for themselves, and charge a “usage license” on a “per program” basis to BOTH the networks and the cable companies??
(Might as well toss the TV in the trash!)