Boing Boing: Taylor Swift's latest record deal contained a clause in which Universal finally committed to sharing any gains from a future sale of Spotify (which the company invested in along with Sony and Warner) with all its artists, not just those whose accounts are in the black.
It's a major victory that closes a loophole that let Universal promise to give money to artists without ever doing so, and still reaping the PR benefits.
3 comments:
The one thing I could not help thinking while reading this article was that artists make millions already what do they need with more. However, I kept needing to remind myself that there’s more than the big names out there and it was only the connection to Taylor Swift in the headline that had me stuck on the mainstream artists whose accounts are probably heavily in the black. If her deal truly does help out the smaller folks, I think it’s great when people realize their power and influence and privilege and figure out how to actively leverage it to truly help those with less of a voice. It’s interesting that it’s Taylor Swift as people we so recently complaining about her reluctance to take a stand politically and years ago talking about her reluctance to join Spotify as it may lose her money. I can’t decide if these events make it make more sense this was a goal of hers or less sense...depends on how selfish the intent might have been.
I commend Taylor Swift for sticking up for artist, but I also find this entire article dramatic and one sided. I hate how the music industry is completely monopolized by large companies, but I also remember that these companies hire thousands of people. I think that Spotify needs to stop cutting corners and pay artists what they deserve, but the artists should also realize that having their work on Spotify is publicity and an incredibly impactful social media platform. Oh the flip side, Spotify is such a big company that they should be able to pay the artists what they deserve especially smaller artists that are just starting out and need Spotify’s help to grow and be successful. Big companies are big companies because of the choices they made to be successful. They should support those who helped them grow and help curate the next generation of artists and set an example to future companies.
Yikes. I never really thought much about the monopoly that big tables hold over the music industry, and that when it is said and done, artists are really being poorly treated by a select few. We associate singers often with tons and tons of money, and while that probably is still true, it sounds like royalties still aren't being paid in a way we'd expect. I think Taylor Swift should be thanked for her work to force the hand of Universal. People with power and privilege should utilize their benefits to help those without, hopefully to better the lives of there artists, and setup the next generation for success. The article outlined the problem in detail, and I especially appreciated the author's take on how copyright protection can fall short. Amy Wang writes, "As artists, we're taught to recognize this lever called "copyright" and assured that yanking on it hard enough will make the machine pay out, and little is made of the fact that the payouts from yanking on this lever are heavily taxed by the corporations we work for, sometimes at a rate of more than 100%. No one teaches us where the lever labeled "antitrust" has been hidden, and whenever we go looking for it, there's a slick exec with a fancy car steering us back to that "copyright" lever and assuring us that it's all the leverage we'll ever need." Clearly artists need to look out for their interests, but there is something quite insidious about the people who are supposed to protect and represent them misleading them and profiting in ways that feel like they are taking advantage of talent and work that is not their own.
Post a Comment