Eddie Nicholas Debuts his Incredible Do You Wanna Dance LP

Click on the link below to listen + buy the "Do You Wanna Dance LP" today!
eddienicholas.bandcamp.com/album/do-you-wanna-dance


ALBUM DESCRIPTION:

Mixtape Sessions and Dekmusique Imprint is proud to present the release of the 16 track digital debut LP from Eddie Nicholas, entitled "Do U Want to Dance?" This magnificent LP is a collection of original and previously unreleased and remixed material from both internationally and locally recognized producers, combining Eddie's vocal talent with elements of Gospel, Jazz, Rock and soul. The "Do You Wanna Dance?" LP includes a little something for everyone to DANCE to.

For bookings, please contact: dekmusic@aol.com


EDDIE NICHOLAS ESPECIALLY THANKS:

Spiritual grounding, family, Carol Tart, Adam Cruz, Glenn Thornton, Rasmir Mantree, Dawn Tallman, Tanja Dixon, Kim Beachum, Anetra Tilley, Carolyn Byrd, Humble family, DJ Hutch, Paul Scott, Ace Mungen, Phillip Ramirez, Karla Brown, Victor Dillard, DC Underground, 95 North, Mijan Owens, Taka Boon, Rob Da Noize Temple, Chris Flowers, ThinkSoul, Sunday Tea Party, Koffee The Floetress, Anthony Smith, Theresa Randolph, Susu Stewart and the Lincoln Park family, Tanya Veltz and the Orange Music Festival, Rudy Turner, Otis and the Trenton House Music Festival, Charles Mitchell and the Weequahic Park House Music Festival, Justin Imperiale, John Crockett, Willy Lubisi, Fale Hood Natives, Clown Dallas, Dario Martino, Callogero Scalia, 3 Kings, Lawrence Kenibrew, Sakaki Nakamura, Jacquelyn Graham, Flora Cruz, Deidre Covington, Anthony Wiggins, Lou Alvarez and the Sol Deep family, BKS1 Radio, Frankie Vibe and WFDU (The House of Inspiration,) Barbara Tucker, Sammy Rock and the Cyberjamz family, The Neighborhood Childcare Center, Harley and Muscle, Josh Milan, Venus Ka, DJ Del, Ron Carroll, Charles McDougald and the Warehouse family, Andre McPherson, Eugene Williams, Jean Sermons, Clay Hollaman, Tony Humphries, Slaag Records, Mantree Records, Mixtape Sessions, Cabana Recordings, Acebeat Music, Strictly Rhythm Records, Dek Musique Imprints, Shani Stephens, Crystal Dinero, Shaheed Shaheed, Rodney Gilbert, John Murray and The CC family, Lee Simmons, Fred Pierce, Ken Terry, Joe Flame, Joe Smith, Abbie Adams, Gladys Pizzaro, Duce Martinez, Richard Thomas (RIP,) Stuart Pearman, Randy Hutchinson (RIP,) Nate Dance, Yorel, Mark Mendoza, CeCe Peniston, Marcia Carr, Deli G, T.O. Sweet, Kevin Hedge and Louie Vega of Roots NYC, WBLS, Eric Livesly, Hassan Love, James Germany, Moncef Belyamani, Tee Mallory, DJ Gabe, DJ Melodious, Lou Gorbea, Danny Krivit, Ali Coleman, Michael Fossati (Spirit of House,) NJPAC, The Italian Music Conference, ADE, WMC. . . and to all of my supporters out there in the dark (in my Nora Desmond voice) thank you! And to all of my Mr. Demille’s out there. . . I’m ready for my close up!


MUSICAL CREDITS:

01. Do You Wanna Dance? (Introduction)
Written by Bobby Freeman. Vocals performed by Eddie Nicholas.
Produced by Adam Cruz.
Published by Bobby Freeman Music (BMI) and Clockus Music Co (BMI)

02. Groovin (Mixtape Sessions Album Version)
(E. Nicholas)
Written by Eddie Nicholas.
Produced by Adam Cruz.
Lead vocals performed by Eddie Nicholas.
Background vocals performed by Eddie Nicholas and Adam Cruz.
Mixed at Ebbnflow Studios, Bloomfield, NJ.
Published by D E K MUSIQUE (ASCAP).

03. Fall In Love (Justin Imperiale's Album Version)
(E. Nicholas, A. Cruz)
Written by Eddie Nicholas and Adam Cruz.
Produced by Justin Imperiale.
Lead vocals performed by Eddie Nicholas.
Background vocals performed by Eddie Nicholas and Adam Cruz.
Vocals mixed at Ebbnflow Studios, Bloomfield, NJ.
Published by Cabana Global Music (BMI), D E K MUSIQUE (ASCAP) and Mixtape Sessions Music (ASCAP).

04. Hear A Song Sing (Willy Lubisi's Album Version)
(E. Nicholas, A. Cruz)
Written by Eddie Nicholas and Adam Cruz.
Produced by Willy Lubisi.
Mixed by Willy Lubisi, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Published by D E K MUSIQUE (ASCAP) and Mixtape Sessions Music (ASCAP).

05. Missing You (Rasmir Mantree's Album Version)
(E. Nicholas, R. Temple)
Written by Eddie Nicholas and Rob 'Da Noize' Temple.
Produced by Glenn Thornton and Rasmir Mantree.
Lead vocals performed by Eddie Nicholas.
Background vocals performed by Eddie Nicholas and Tanja Dixon.
Published by D E K MUSIQUE (ASCAP) and Fabu's Dream (ASCAP).

06. Was That All It Was (Rasmir Mantree's Album Version)
(J. Butler)
Written by Jerry Butler, Linda Iris Conlon and John L. Usry, Jr.
Produced by Rasmir Mantree.
All music performed by Jalal Johnson.
All vocals performed by Eddie Nicholas.
Published by Jerry Butler (ASCAP), Linda Iris (SOCAN), John Usry (SOCAN) and Warner-Tamerlane Publishing Corp. (BMI).

07. You Left Me (Sterling Void & FatFly's Album Version)
Written by Eddie Nicholas and Glenn Thornton.
Lead vocals performed by Eddie Nicholas.
Background vocals performed by Eddie Nicholas and Dawn Tallman.
Remixes produced by Sterling Void and FatFly.
Published by D E K MUSIQUE (ASCAP) and SLAAG COMPOSE (SESAC).

08. Time Marches On (John Crockett's Album Version)
Written by Harry Dennis and Marshall Jefferson.
Originally produced by Adam Cruz.
Vocals by Eddie Nicholas.
Trumpet solo by Moncef Belyamani.
Conga solo by John Mendoza.
Remix produced by John Crockett.
Published by Sanlar Music (BMI) and Mixtape Sessions Music (ASCAP).

09. Shake (FTL's Album Version)
Lyrics written by Adam Cruz and Eddie Nicholas.
Lead vocals performed by Eddie Nicholas.
Background vocals performed by Eddie Nicholas and Adam Cruz.
Vocals produced by Eddie Nicholas and Adam Cruz in Bloomfield, NJ.
Remix produced by Jeremias Santiago for FTL Music.
Published by Mixtape Sessions Music (ASCAP), D E K MUSIQUE (ASCAP) and Dario Martino (SUISA).

10. Feel This Groove (Clown Dallas' Album Version)
(E. Nicholas)
Written by Eddie Nicholas.
Originally produced by Glenn Thornton at SLAAG Dungeon, Burlington, NJ.
Remix produced by Ayanda Clown Dallas, South Africa.
Lead vocals performed by Eddie Nicholas.
Background vocals performed by Dawn Tallman and Eddie Nicholas.
Published by D E K MUSIQUE (ASCAP) and SLAAG COMPOSE (SESAC).

11. Is There Love? (Mixtape Sessions Album Version)
(E. Nicholas, A. Cruz)
Written by Eddie Nicholas and Adam Cruz.
Produced by Adam Cruz.
Lead vocals performed by Eddie Nicholas.
Background vocals performed by Eddie Nicholas and Adam Cruz.
Mixed at Ebbnflow Studios, Bloomfield, NJ.
Published by D E K MUSIQUE (ASCAP) and Mixtape Sessions Music (ASCAP).

12. I Know A Man (Ace Mungen's Album Version)
(E. Nicholas)
Written by Eddie Nicholas.
Produced by Ace Mungen for Acebeat Music.
Published by D E K MUSIQUE (ASCAP).

13. Ghumbah (3 Kings' Album Version)
Written by Adam Cruz.
Remix produced by 3 Kings, South Africa.
Lead vocals performed by Eddie Nicholas.
Background vocals performed by Eddie Nicholas and Adam Cruz.
Published by Mixtape Sessions Music (ASCAP).

14. U Can Do Anything (Lawrence and Sakaki's Album Version)
(E. Nicholas)
Written by Eddie Nicholas.
Produced by Lawrence Kenibrew and Sakaki Nakamura.
Published by D E K MUSIQUE (ASCAP).

15. Groovin (Harley & Muscle's Album Version)
(E. Nicholas)
Written by Eddie Nicholas.
Produced by Harley & Muscle, Milan, Italy.
All vocals performed by Eddie Nicholas.
Published by D E K MUSIQUE (ASCAP).

16. This Must Be Love (Hood Natives' Album Version)
(E. Nicholas, A. Cruz)
Written by Eddie Nicholas and Adam Cruz.
Produced by Fale Hood Natives, South Africa.
Lead vocals performed by Eddie Nicholas.
Background vocals performed by Eddie Nicholas and Adam Cruz.
Published by D E K MUSIQUE (ASCAP) and Mixtape Sessions Music (ASCAP).

Mastered by Adam Cruz at EbbnFlow Studios in Bloomfield, NJ.

Cover art design by Adam Cruz.
Executive Produced by Eddie Nicholas and Adam Cruz.

©2017 Mixtape Sessions Music, LLC / Dekmusique Imprint. All Rights Reserved.
Distributed by The Cruz Music Group, a Division of Mixtape Sessions Music, LLC.

Give to the 22nd Annual Jersey Cares Coats Drive through Wed Dec 13, 2017

Give to the 22nd Annual Jersey Cares

COAT DRIVE

November 1 through December 13

For drop-off locations, more information, or to make a financial contribution visit www.jerseycares.org

Have you checked out our podcasts? Subscribe and listen for FREE :)

Written by Adam Cruz — Haven't check out all of our episodes of the Freedom Radio Hour and the Mixtape Sessions Master Class? You're in luck! All of our episodes are available for your listening pleasure for FREE! Subscribe below!




Subscribe FREE to the Freedom Radio Hour podcasts on iTunes at: http://tinyurl.com/FRHiTunes

Watch the show at: http://youtube.com/freedomradiohour

The Freedom Radio Hour has established itself as THE most comprehensive music business news show with topics covering music streaming, copyright, publishing, royalties and more. The Freedom Radio Hour is your #1 source for the latest scoop in the music industry.

The Freedom Radio Hour is a weekly DJ mix and talk radio program hosted by DJ Adam Cruz and Eddie Nicholas. The show features a fresh DJ mix and a 15-minute informative talk segment, covering music business news and trends from around the globe. The program airs on FM radio on Capital Radio 91.6FM The Heartbeat of Sudan and on the web at: dwildmusicradio.com

In addition to the launch of the new season, The Freedom Radio Hour premiers its beta version mobile app. Music business news and trends from around the world, including breaking news, music business minute, video episodes, DJ mixes and much more can be accessed through the Freedom Radio Hour App. The continued development of this new segment calls for feedback from those who access the show through the app as developers work to improve functionality to maximum efficiency and enjoyment

Download the app to mobile devices!

iPhone users:
https://itunes.apple.com/gm/app/freedom-radio-hour/id977647474?mt=8

Listen to the show at: http://freedomradiohour.com

TUNE IN ALL DAY FRIDAYS 12PM EST >> FREEDOMRADIOHOUR.COM

About Adam Cruz:
As a DJ, Adam spins an energetic blend of Jazz, Funk, Latin, and soulful Dance music. As a virtuoso, Eddie brings a fantastic spin to the program, based on his experiences as a recording artist, performer and host. When they're not hard at work promoting their partners or their projects, Adam and Eddie continue to build a solid base of loyal listeners, broadcasting their weekly "Freedom Radio Hour" and "Mixtape Sessions Master Class" shows live on Capital Radio 91.6FM The Heartbeat of Sudan and on the web at: dwildmusicradio.com. For more information, visit: freedomradiohour.com, djadamcruz.com and mixtapesessions.com.

For press inquiries and for bookings, contact: bookings@mixtapesessions.com

About Eddie Nicholas:
Eddie Nicholas is an incredible vocalist, stage performer and event promoter. Since his 1995 break out hit “You Make Me Carry On” on Strictly Rhythm was released, Eddie has performed all over the world. When he’s not performing, Eddie can be seen co-hosting many annual music festivals including the Lincoln Park Music Festival, the Trenton House Music Festival and the Orange Park House Music Festival, just to name a few. For 2017, Eddie is finalizing songs for his debut “Do You Wanna Dance?” LP.

For more information, visit: eddienicholas.com and for bookings, contact: dekmusic@aol.com




Subscribe FREE to the Mixtape Sessions Master Class podcasts on iTunes at: http://tinyurl.com/MMCiTunes
Every week, Adam Cruz hosts the Mixtape Sessions Master Class, a tasty yet tasteful radio program, featuring an energetic blend of Jazz, Funk, Latin, and soulful Dance music. The Mixtape Sessions Master Class broadcasts weekly Fridays at 2pm EST and 11pm Sudan Time in Africa on Capital RADIO FM 91.6 The Heartbeat of Sudan and on the web at: dwildmusicradio.com.

On this week's episode, host DJ Adam Cruz features fantastic music from Tuxedo, Breakbot, CLASSIXX, Jesse Kivel, Holy Ghost!, Calvin Harris, Pharrell Williams, Katy Perry, BIG SEAN, DāM-FunK, Flea, Computer Jay, Mndsgn, SHIGETO, Kaleena Zanders, Sango, Xavier Omär and Kaytranada!

Visit Adam Cruz and Mixtape Sessions on the web at: djadamcruz.com for more of this fantastic music!

Justice Department charges Iranian man for HBO hacking allegations

Written by Colin Lecher — The Justice Department announced today that it has charged an Iranian man with this year’s hack of HBO, a high-profile security breach that led to the early release of TV episodes and scripts.

In an indictment, prosecutors allege that Behzad Mesri gained server access to HBO by hijacking employees’ accounts. With that access, according to the indictment, Mesri stole unaired episodes of shows like Ballers and Curb Your Enthusiasm, as well as scripts for other shows, including Game of Thrones. Financial documents and logins for social media accounts were also taken.

When he had the data, prosecutors allege, Mesri reached out to HBO and demanded about $5.5 million — and later $6 million — in bitcoin as a ransom for the stolen data. Mesri, who prosecutors claim has worked as a hacker for the Iranian military, faces charges of computer fraud, wire fraud, identity theft, and extortion.

The charges are the latest chapter in an embarrassing story for HBO. In August, as the hack was unfolding, the company reportedly offered a $250,000 “bug bounty” payment to the hacker, although it’s unclear whether it actually intended to pay the ransom.

“Because Mesri is in Iran, we are unfortunately unable to arrest him today,” acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York Joon Kim said during a press conference livestream today.

“While Mesri remains at large, there will be some real consequences for him,” Kim continued. “For the rest of his life, and he’s a relatively young man, he will never be able to travel outside of Iran without fear of being arrested and brought here to face these charges.”

Click here to read more from this article's source.

Private Investors Are Buying Up Royalties

Written by Andy Hermann — Like a lot of independent artists, Mickey Shiloh was struggling to make ends meet. An L.A.-based professional songwriter now focused on launching her solo career, she had run up a lot of credit card debt on various expenses — promotion, Facebook ads, forming her own LLC (called Michaela, after her full first name). At one point, she even wrote herself a personal check for $20,000, trying to manifest the money she needed into existence.

Despite having numerous songwriting credits with such top-tier artists as Janet Jackson, Pitbull and Britney Spears, the royalties on her back catalog were netting her only about $2,000 a year. "I was in a really terrible publishing deal," says the 25-year-old San Mateo native, who signed with producer Rodney "Darkchild" Jerkins and his wife when she was just 17. "And that’s not a reflection on them," she is quick to note. "I learned a lot of great things from Darkchild and I always consider him a great mentor." But for songwriters who started their careers in the mid-2000s, when the industry as a whole was struggling with declining revenues, her situation is not uncommon. "It was just the business [at the time] was not good."

Having been through the industry wringer, Shiloh was naturally skeptical when a colleague told her about Royalty Exchange, a company that enables songwriters to auction off portions of their back catalogs to private investors, often for ample sums. “I was automatically like, this is not real. This is a scam," she says. But after researching the company and concluding that it sounded legit, she decided to give it a shot. After a three-day auction, her back catalog sold for $20,500 — the equivalent, as she puts it, of a 10-year advance on future royalties.

"Now tell me that's not manifestation!" Shiloh declares, recalling the check for $20,000 she had written to herself just a few weeks earlier. "It was like I got a $500 signing bonus," she jokes.

Royalty Exchange was founded in 2011 as a sort of auction house for copyright holders, particularly in music. Although it completed some high-profile auctions early on, selling off the rights to everything from Coolio's "Gangsta's Paradise" to the catalog of Disney composer Frank Churchill, it struggled to raise enough capital to stay afloat — likely because the music industry as a whole, at the time, was not seen as a smart investment.

But since relaunching under new ownership and management in March 2016, Royalty Exchange seems to have found its footing. The "world’s first online marketplace for buying and selling royalties," as the Denver-based company now describes itself, has completed "about 200 deals" since the relaunch, according to president/chief financial officer Jeff Schneider, and claims to have an active pool of more than 22,000 investors looking for a chance to buy up the rights to a potentially lucrative song or catalog.

Though the songs being put on the auction block are often familiar (a 25 percent songwriter's share of Barry White's "You're the First, the Last, My Everything," for example, sold in July 2016 for $73,000), the names of the actual rights holders are not. Schneider describes them as the "ecosystem" surrounding the artists whose names are attached to the hits — behind-the-scenes people, including professional songwriters like Shiloh as well as managers, producers, studio musicians and independent labels and music publishers, who don't have the luxury of leveraging their fame to pay the bills.

"If [the big-name artists] needed capital today, they can go on tour; they could sign a new publishing deal with an advance," Schneider explains. "We’re servicing a lot of the people who don’t necessarily have all those same financial options available to them.”

Some rights holders, like Shiloh, opt to sell off their entire back catalog. Others may choose to auction off only a percentage of their royalties, or sell some songs and hold on to others. “We provide songwriters a flexible solution," Schneider says.

The goal, according to the company's director of communications, Antony Bruno, is to "make music royalties an investible asset." And his company's auction model, he argues, is only the beginning. "We’re at the early stages of it, but eventually this could be an asset class where millions, even a billion dollars of capital could be deployed ... which would really change the way music in general is financed.”

Hearing song catalogs described as an "asset class" can be a little unnerving — and historically, selling off or otherwise rescinding the rights to one's catalog has generally been viewed as a mistake. The music industry is littered with tales of artists, from George Clinton to John Fogerty, who signed away rights to their publishing and lived to regret it. But Schneider argues that such stories are largely relics of an old music industry, which companies like Royalty Exchange aim to supplant. “If you look at who those buyers were [in the past], they were usually the labels or the publishers," he notes. "These rights holders — songwriters, producers — had no other viable option. What we do is, by bringing competition into marketplace, we make sure that the songwriter gets the fair and best deal that’s available in the market."

Songwriters and other rights holders choose to sell for any number of reasons, Bruno says. Many, like Shiloh, are looking to pay down some debt and invest in other areas of their career, like new recording equipment or promotion for their latest music. (Shiloh, among other things, spent some of the money on a music video.) In the case of some independent labels and publishers, he says, they may use the money to invest in the software needed to track royalties for all the catalog they own or manage on behalf of their artists — a process that, in the age of streaming, has become increasingly complex.

Occasionally, rights holders turn to Royalty Exchange simply to cut the cord from that complexity. One songwriter, after a successful auction, sent Bruno a photo of the keyboard on which he composes his music. "It was covered in paperwork," Bruno says. "It was literally a visual example of, ‘This paperwork is getting in the way of my creating music.'”

That was partly the motivation for Shiloh, as well — a clean break with her songwriter-for-hire past, so she can focus on her future as a truly independent, DIY artist. “I’m just really happy that a company like Royalty Exchange exists and it enables artists like me and songwriters that have a dense back catalog to just sell it off," says Shiloh, who now claims to make more than $100,000 a year through Sound Better, a sort of Task Rabbit for music industry professionals. "Because the new industry is on the way and it’s not gonna matter in 10 years."

Click here to read more from this article's source.

Ideology or Free Speech: What Does YouTube Value More?

Written by Jared Cummings — YouTube is under fire for allegedly discriminating against conservative content creators whose political opinions differ from the company’s own left-wing bias. Prager University (PragerU), a conservative nonprofit that produces brief educational videos on current events, is suing YouTube and its parent company, Google, for allegedly violating PragerU’s free speech rights by censoring 37 videos that express conservative opinions.

If this is true, then it follows a disturbing trend of YouTube and Google’s censorship of conservative content creators like Ron Paul, Steven Crowder, Michelle Malkin, Pamela Geller, and Dave Rubin.

Whatever your beliefs, arbitrary censorship of free speech is wrong and alarming.

YouTube claims “free expression” is one of its “core values.” YouTube esteems itself as “a metaphor for the democratizing power of the Internet and information” where anyone can “Broadcast Yourself.” This will no longer be the case if PragerU can prove YouTube demonetized and restricted viewer access to videos on subjects like religious persecution, abortion, and gun rights based solely upon PragerU’s conservative ideology.

These demonetized videos are removed from the company’s advertisement pool, ensuring the video can no longer earn revenue for PragerU. When YouTube restricts a video it becomes inaccessible to viewers at a public library or school, and users under 18. Critically, all viewers not signed into the website are assumed to be under 18—meaning anyone without a YouTube account is prevented from watching the video.

Put simply, YouTube’s alleged actions cripple PragerU’s mission to educate young Americans about history and politics.

PragerU’s Compelling Evidence

In the last twelve months, YouTube has “restricted” and “demonetized” at least 18% of PragerU’s public video library (37 / 196 videos as of Oct 2017). However, other left-leaning political channels with videos on the same or similar topics were not penalized.

The lawsuit points to “uncensored videos discussing the same issues by speakers and channels like Crash Course, NowThis, AJ+ (Al Jazeera), Buzzfeed, Bill Maher, TedTalkx, the History Channel” some of which “contain profanity and graphic depictions of mature content.” According to the lawsuit this evidence,

"leaves little doubt that Google/YouTube are… censoring PragerU because of its political identity or viewpoint not the content of its speech."

PragerU’s situation is unique. Unlike forms of speech which are harmful and not protected by the First Amendment—including pornography, copyright infringement, and terrorism—PragerU “videos do not contain any profanity, nudity, or otherwise inappropriate ‘mature’ content,” the lawsuit claims. Pete Wilson, the former California governor and legal representative for PragerU, adds, “The censored videos fully comply with the letter of YouTube’s Terms of Use and Community Guidelines.”

YouTube’s Catch-22

From YouTube’s perspective, this situation is lose-lose. If the company tightens its ad-pool algorithms to exclude potentially controversial videos in order to appease the interests of certain advertisers, content creators lose out on revenue and the company is accused of “economically censoring” free speech. If it refuses to change its algorithms, though, advertisers might walk away.

This past March, AT&T, Verizon, and Johnson & Johnson—three of the biggest advertisers in the U.S.—along with 250 other brands pulled “hundreds of millions of dollars in business” over concerns that YouTube was not doing enough to police “offensive and extremist content.”

Phillip Schindler, Google’s Chief Business Officer, responded immediately by ensuring ad-buyers will have more control over which videos are paired with their advertisements:

"[W]e’ve been conducting an extensive review of our advertising policies and tools, and why we made a public commitment last week to put in place changes that would give brands more control over where their ads appear.  

…

We know advertisers don’t want their ads next to content that doesn’t align with their values. So starting today, we’re taking a tougher stance on hateful, offensive and derogatory content. This includes removing ads more effectively from content that is attacking or harassing people based on their race, religion, gender or similar categories [emphasis added]."

But who determines what content is “hateful, offensive and derogatory?” The answer is multi-faceted.

Inherent Liberal Bias

Google and YouTube are subsidiaries of the publicly traded corporation Alphabet Inc., which, understandably, is accountable to shareholders and business partners to earn a profit. It needs both advertisers and content creators to make money from search results, video hosting, and other services. Unfortunately, due to the near infinite supply of content creators, YouTube tends to cater to the very specific demands of its advertisers – many of whom have more liberal or centrist political views. So do many of the executives and employees of Alphabet.

Google co-founder Sergey Brin and Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt both personally donated to and expressed support for Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns. Alphabet’s employees reportedly donated $1.6 million to Hillary Clinton, and $359,000 to Bernie Sanders, in their 2016 presidential campaigns. Donald Trump got a paltry $23,000 from them.

Most recently, Google fired James Damore after his 10-page memo, “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber,” was leaked to the press.

The software engineer challenged Google’s gender- and race-based diversity initiative, which calls for more women and minorities to be hired. Damore, who characterizes himself as a classical liberal, suggested that biological and personality differences between men and women contribute to the gender gap in Google’s hiring. Google then fired Damore for “perpetuating gender stereotypes.”

Google and YouTube deny that political views influence their algorithms.

Click here to read more from this article's source.

Sean Parker says Facebook was made to exploit human 'vulnerability'

Written by Olivia Solon — Facebook’s founders knew they were creating something addictive that exploited “a vulnerability in human psychology” from the outset, according to the company’s founding president Sean Parker.

Parker, whose stake in Facebook made him a billionaire, criticized the social networking giant at an Axios event in Philadelphia this week. Now the founder and chair of the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, Parker was there to speak about advances in cancer therapies. However, he took the time to provide some insight into the early thinking at Facebook at a time when social media companies face intense scrutiny from lawmakers over their power and influence.

Parker described how in the early days of Facebook people would tell him they weren’t on social media because they valued their real-life interactions.

“And I would say, ‘OK. You know, you will be,’” he said.

“I don’t know if I really understood the consequences of what I was saying,” he added, pointing to “unintended consequences” that arise when a network grows to have more than 2 billion users.

“It literally changes your relationship with society, with each other. It probably interferes with productivity in weird ways. God only knows what it’s doing to our children’s brains,” he said.

He explained that when Facebook was being developed the objective was: “How do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible?” It was this mindset that led to the creation of features such as the “like” button that would give users “a little dopamine hit” to encourage them to upload more content.

“It’s a social-validation feedback loop … exactly the kind of thing that a hacker like myself would come up with, because you’re exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology.”

Parker, who previously founded the file-sharing site Napster, joined the Facebook team in 2004 five months after the site had launched as a student directory at Harvard. Parker saw the site’s potential and was, according to Zuckerberg, “pivotal in helping Facebook transform from a college project into a real company”.

In 2005, police found cocaine in a vacation home Parker was renting and he was arrested on suspicion of possession of a schedule 1 substance. He wasn’t charged, but the arrest rattled investors and he resigned shortly after.

Thanks mostly to his brief stint at Facebook, Parker’s net worth is estimated to be more than $2.6bn. He set up the Parker Foundation in June 2015 to use some of his wealth to support “large-scale systemic change” in life sciences, global public health and civic engagement.

Parker is not the only Silicon Valley entrepreneur to express regret over the technologies he helped to develop. The former Googler Tristan Harris is one of several techies interviewed by the Guardian in October to criticize the industry.

“All of us are jacked into this system,” he said. “All of our minds can be hijacked. Our choices are not as free as we think they are.”

Click here to read more from this article's source.

Should YouTube views be counted on the Billboard charts?

Written by Claire Atkinson — Under pressure from the music labels and Apple Music, Billboard magazine is ending its practice of giving equal weight to paid streams and free streams in its music charts.

Currently a single that is bought from Apple’s download store or streamed on its paid subscription service is viewed the same as a free stream on YouTube for the purposes of Billboard’s “Hot 100.” Next year, Billboard said it will prioritize paid streams, meaning artists might be more inclined to promote their songs on paid services such as Apple's to boost their chances of rising up the charts.

The decision is a blow to Google’s YouTube, which had hoped to broaden its representation and was in talks with Billboard about being included in the album charts. YouTube has a gigantic free ad-supported video streaming business.

Billboard said late Thursday on its website that it is retooling the formulation of its charts, which are compiled by Nielsen Music. “Beginning in 2018, plays occurring on paid subscription-based music services (such as Amazon Music and Apple Music) or on the paid subscription tiers of hybrid paid/ad supported platforms (such as SoundCloud and Spotify) will be given more weight in chart calculations than those plays on pure ad-supported services (such as YouTube) or on the non-paid tiers of hybrid paid/ad-supported services," Billboard said.

The statement went on the clarify that video streams would not count into the album chart calculations.

Jimmy Iovine, who is head of Apple Music, has been arguing against YouTube growing its influence.

He told NBC News that artists say they work with YouTube to promote their records because it currently counts the same as a paid stream. “How can the record industry let that go down? It is not in their interest to promote a free tier.” He also described YouTube as “fake news,” meaning that its traffic is open to manipulation.

Iovine said he’s been in discussion with Billboard on the topic and says the music industry should be all pulling in the same direction, supporting ways of getting artists paid.

The music labels receive a much bigger cut from paid streaming services than they do from YouTube’s advertising. Independent labels have also been agitating for change.

Darius Van Arman, who is chairman of the A2IM coalition of independent labels and also has his own company, Secretly Group, agrees with Iovine. “YouTube streams should not count towards music consumption charts, because when someone streams a video, it is not clear whether they are doing so for the visuals or for the audio. Something that has nothing to do with music could be driving the views.”

“If there is consensus that YouTube streams should count towards music consumption charts, then at the very least it should be weighed significantly less than those streams from properly licensed, on-demand services that reflect more active choosing by consumers.”

YouTube didn't return several emails for comment.

The Billboard charts receive enormous press and give artists and their teams a big ego boost that goes with a top position. Billboard, owned by Eldridge Industries, which also houses Hollywood Reporter, blends music sales with consumption via the radio, Apple Music and many other outlets to generate its rankings. But the company explained in its statement on Thursday that it has to juggle the changing ways of listening to music to reflect popularity.

Music label executives are already irked by YouTube streams inclusion in the Billboard’s singles chart, “The Hot 100.” These executives point out how easy it is to increase traffic via bots and that YouTube decides what to serve up to users after they select a video. YouTube requires no login information, making it extremely easy to access. There is however no evidence that anyone has manipulated views on YouTube, though Google has admitted to fake traffic in some parts of its ad network.

To give some idea of the scope of YouTube’s influence on music, Luis Fonsi’s “Despacito,” hit one billion streams worldwide within 100 days of the song’s release. In October, it hit four billion streams making it the most streamed song of all time. The song spent a record 16 weeks at number one in the summer.

On the front line of the pitch for Google is Lyor Cohen, YouTube’s global head of music. Cohen is a well-known figure to the labels. He is a former CEO of Warner Music's recorded music division before going on to launch his own music label, called 300, with Google's financial backing.

He and Iovine were once fierce rivals in the world of rap music. In the '90s, Cohen ran the record label Def Jam and Iovine was co-founder of Interscope Records.

The backdrop of the charts conflict is a long-running dispute between the music labels and YouTube over payment for music played there.

The music labels are arguing in Brussels in front of the European Commission and at the U.S. Copyright Office for a change in the provisions of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which essentially gives tech platforms protection from legal action for distributing illegal content. It was enacted to help protect the growth of the internet — largely AOL at the time — and well before anyone envisaged a YouTube with a billion views per month.

Of the three big global music companies, only Warner Music Group has struck a new license with Google for use of its music this year. And even then it complained loudly about its poor deal, after the fact. Universal Music Group and Sony Music Group are still haggling about a fairer cut of revenue from songs played on YouTube, with or without a license.

YouTube’s ad revenue is estimated at $3.5 billion in 2017, according to eMarketer, and while it also has a small subscription business, YouTube pays out micro-pennies for plays. The music labels call it the “Value Gap.”

YouTube has argued that its system identifies most violations and in turn has helped create a huge new revenue stream for the music labels.

Officials at the three music labels didn't comment.

Click here to read more from this article's source.

Is Facebook Eavesdropping on You from your phone or not?

Written by Rob Pegoraro — One of Facebook’s (FB) top executives on Tuesday denied many users’ worst fear about the social network — that its apps surreptitiously listen to your speech to target you with ads.

“No, we’re not using anyone’s microphone to do any of that,” Messenger head of product Stan Chudnovsky told CNBC’s Laurie Segall at Web Summit, a tech conference in Lisbon, Portugal. “None of that is happening.”

But many Facebook users won’t believe him or Facebook’s earlier denials. History and the available evidence make it not crazy to suspect the social network, while the sophisticated tracking systems that inventory our interests online remain too opaque for normal humans to decipher.

So it’s easy to go with the simplest theory for a frighteningly accurate ad: An app has been tuning into your everyday chit-chat without permission.

The “Facebook is listening” meme

The story goes like this: Soon after having a seemingly private conversation with your phone nearby, Facebook began showing ads for something you mentioned—something you hadn’t liked or mentioned on Facebook.

The idea that an app you trusted to connect you with friends would violate your confidence like that should horrify anybody. Sadly, there are precedents for such a profit-driven privacy invasion.

Think of the mobile apps shipped with “SilverPush” code that listened to high-frequency audio beacons in TV ads so mobile marketers could know what commercials you watched. Or the Lenovo apps that shipped with “Superfish” software to serve ads matching images you saw online.

To add to the paranoia, once an app has permission to use the microphone—which Messenger needs for calls to friends and Instagram requires to record video—you won’t see a further indication that it’s listening when the app’s open.

If you’re really worried, you can yank Facebook’s apps’ access to the microphone: Open your phone’s Settings app, then tap Privacy (in iOS) or Apps (in Android). But that will make Messenger and Instagram less useful, and it doesn’t rule out Facebook exploiting some vulnerability to bypass those restrictions

My own attempts to test this theory—by talking to myself about travel destinations with its app open, an exercise that left me feeling like a dork—have yet to yield matching ads.

Ad tracking is a giant black box

In his Summit appearance, Chudnovsky offered a different explanation for these uncanny ad matchups: “People spending a lot of time on Facebook and in Messenger.”

But you and your friends don’t need to spend time on Facebook for it to sense your interests, as the company touts in pitches to advertisers for tools like its Pixel cross-site tracking code.

“Facebook lets you define and reach the exact target audience you want,” one page brags.

Advertisers can’t target you by name—something I’ve seen when running ads on Facebook for posts on my public page—but they can set such precise targeting criteria that knowing a potential customer by name becomes unnecessary.

“They do use many other signals, so it’s likely that in these cases, the ads are simply eerily accurate,” Jules Polonetsky, CEO of the Future of Privacy Forum, wrote in an e-mail.

To its credit, Facebook does let you see what advertisers know about you if you click through to your ad preferences. When did you last look at that? Don’t worry, Facebook knows.

‘Can you imagine the outcry?’

There’s one easy reason to disbelieve the Facebook-is-listening thesis: Legally and politically, such a thing would be suicidal for Facebook.

“Facebook has very publicly and specifically denied using the microphone for ad targeting, so they would face significant FTC liability if they were,” Polonetsky said.

And keeping such activity from the Federal Trade Commission—which already has Facebook under a 20-year settlement over alleged misconduct that includes regular monitoring of its privacy practices—would be an immense challenge with massive downside risks.

“Can you imagine the outcry?” e-mailed Rich Mogull, CEO of the security-research firm Securosis. “You couldn’t keep something like that secret for long.”

Besides, he added, covert audio recording in the background “would also kill your battery and violate App Store terms of service.” To a mobile-app vendor, Apple (AAPL) may represent a higher authority than the FTC.

Click here to read more from this article's source.

Subscribe and listen to all of our episodes for FREE

Written by Adam Cruz — Haven't check out all of our episodes of the Freedom Radio Hour and the Mixtape Sessions Master Class? You're in luck! All of our episodes are available for your listening pleasure for FREE! Subscribe below!




Subscribe FREE to the Freedom Radio Hour podcasts on iTunes at: http://tinyurl.com/FRHiTunes

Watch the show at: http://youtube.com/freedomradiohour

The Freedom Radio Hour has established itself as THE most comprehensive music business news show with topics covering music streaming, copyright, publishing, royalties and more. The Freedom Radio Hour is your #1 source for the latest scoop in the music industry.

The Freedom Radio Hour is a weekly DJ mix and talk radio program hosted by DJ Adam Cruz and Eddie Nicholas. The show features a fresh DJ mix and a 15-minute informative talk segment, covering music business news and trends from around the globe. The program airs on FM radio on Capital Radio 91.6FM The Heartbeat of Sudan and on the web at: dwildmusicradio.com

In addition to the launch of the new season, The Freedom Radio Hour premiers its beta version mobile app. Music business news and trends from around the world, including breaking news, music business minute, video episodes, DJ mixes and much more can be accessed through the Freedom Radio Hour App. The continued development of this new segment calls for feedback from those who access the show through the app as developers work to improve functionality to maximum efficiency and enjoyment

Download the app to mobile devices!

iPhone users:
https://itunes.apple.com/gm/app/freedom-radio-hour/id977647474?mt=8

Listen to the show at: http://freedomradiohour.com

TUNE IN ALL DAY FRIDAYS 12PM EST >> FREEDOMRADIOHOUR.COM

About Adam Cruz:
As a DJ, Adam spins an energetic blend of Jazz, Funk, Latin, and soulful Dance music. As a virtuoso, Eddie brings a fantastic spin to the program, based on his experiences as a recording artist, performer and host. When they're not hard at work promoting their partners or their projects, Adam and Eddie continue to build a solid base of loyal listeners, broadcasting their weekly "Freedom Radio Hour" and "Mixtape Sessions Master Class" shows live on Capital Radio 91.6FM The Heartbeat of Sudan and on the web at: dwildmusicradio.com. For more information, visit: freedomradiohour.com, djadamcruz.com and mixtapesessions.com.

For press inquiries and for bookings, contact: bookings@mixtapesessions.com

About Eddie Nicholas:
Eddie Nicholas is an incredible vocalist, stage performer and event promoter. Since his 1995 break out hit “You Make Me Carry On” on Strictly Rhythm was released, Eddie has performed all over the world. When he’s not performing, Eddie can be seen co-hosting many annual music festivals including the Lincoln Park Music Festival, the Trenton House Music Festival and the Orange Park House Music Festival, just to name a few. For 2017, Eddie is finalizing songs for his debut “Do You Wanna Dance?” LP.

For more information, visit: eddienicholas.com and for bookings, contact: dekmusic@aol.com




Subscribe FREE to the Mixtape Sessions Master Class podcasts on iTunes at: http://tinyurl.com/MMCiTunes
Every week, Adam Cruz hosts the Mixtape Sessions Master Class, a tasty yet tasteful radio program, featuring an energetic blend of Jazz, Funk, Latin, and soulful Dance music. The Mixtape Sessions Master Class broadcasts weekly Fridays at 2pm EST and 11pm Sudan Time in Africa on Capital RADIO FM 91.6 The Heartbeat of Sudan and on the web at: dwildmusicradio.com.

On this week's episode, host DJ Adam Cruz features fantastic music from Tuxedo, Breakbot, CLASSIXX, Jesse Kivel, Holy Ghost!, Calvin Harris, Pharrell Williams, Katy Perry, BIG SEAN, DāM-FunK, Flea, Computer Jay, Mndsgn, SHIGETO, Kaleena Zanders, Sango, Xavier Omär and Kaytranada!

Visit Adam Cruz and Mixtape Sessions on the web at: djadamcruz.com for more of this fantastic music!

Why is YouTube Struggling to Place Ads On Music Videos?

Written by Ed Christman — Music companies are sure about one thing when it comes to YouTube: They wish it would pay more to stream their tunes. But they're far less certain about the reason so few of the video streams containing their music carry ads these days.

"We have been MacGyvering this all year trying to find the smoking gun," says one label executive. "Something just doesn't add up."

In what's becoming one of the music business' most perplexing mysteries, the percentage of music-filled video plays that are monetized with advertising has fallen during the past five years in the United States, the world's most robust advertising market, according to dozens of music executives interviewed by Billboard with similar accounts.

While that percentage has stabilized in 2017, and some report higher YouTube payments this past summer, data compiled from interviews with more than 24 executives -- including 18 at labels and in management representing over 60 percent of the U.S. recorded-music market -- ​still shows that only between 35 percent and 45 percent of music video streams in the United States carry ads, down from 60 percent in 2012, taking into account both official music videos and user-uploaded clips containing their music. That means 55 percent to 65 percent of domestic YouTube music plays pay nothing to content owners, though YouTube pays labels a share of its ad revenue, and not on a per-stream basis. Free services such as Pandora and Spotify, by contrast, pay for every play.

It's easy to see how YouTube's aggressive expansion into developing, hard-to-monetize markets such as Africa is diluting average monetization rates globally, as YouTube head of music Lyor Cohen pointed out in an August blog post.

Some in the music industry don't mind the low monetization rates linked to overseas growth, because their artists are getting exposure and at least making money in markets where they never earned anything before.

But in the United States, "a lot of people are wondering why YouTube isn't doing a better job at selling advertising against music," says an indie-label executive.

YouTube declined to provide any data on the percentage of music videos that carry ads, but the company disputed the validity of Billboard's findings.

"We are not seeing any meaningful difference in the percentage of views with ads for music content, year over year. Moreover, pulling together data based on off-the-record conversations with industry sources and hearsay lacks data science and credibility," a spokeswoman said in an email. "In the U.S., YouTube pays out more per thousand streams on its advertising-supported platform than any other advertising service," delivering over $1 billion to the music industry every 12 months while introducing new mobile and desktop ad formats in recent years. "All indicators are strong, and both ad revenue and subscription revenue are growing at a healthy pace," she added.

Record company sleuths are investigating a wide range of possibilities for the shrunken slice of music clips getting monetized, from potential miscalculations by advertisers to a new filter intended to screen for "hate" videos. They are hoping that solving the mystery could help them understand how to eke out more revenue from the video behemoth. In 2016, YouTube parent Alphabet said its Google and YouTube properties generated $79 billion in advertising revenue.

Less advertising on YouTube's free music videos gives viewers less incentive to subscribe to its ad-free tier, YouTube Red, the type of paid service that is fueling most of the music industry's growth.

One possible cause for the growing proportion of unmonetized music-video streams in the United States on YouTube is that YouTube's advertisers didn't expect smartphone use to explode as quickly as it did, resulting in a faster-than-anticipated consumption of their high-priced premium and reserved ads, and leaving many videos ad-less, according to music executives.

While no one doubts that rapid growth in mobile video viewing is at least one factor squeezing the fraction of views that get monetized, one music executive expressed skepticism that Alphabet "wasn't ready for this unexpected buildup of views," given it's a "company that has built its foundation on data and can build cars that drive themselves and contact lenses that can detect diabetes."

When the premium ads on a music video are consumed, YouTube says it auctions off the available ad space to other bidders, though generally at lower rates that depend less on the song and more on the user. But this process doesn't always result in sales, with plenty of music video plays containing no ads at all, executives say.

"I still haven't got a clear answer on why the auctions don't capture everything that the reserve that [premium advertising] doesn't fill," complains one label executive. YouTube says "auction-based advertising does kick in," and that "it plays a significant role in the growth of music monetization globally and will only improve as digital ad markets evolve." YouTube adds that auction information is provided in detail to content owners in their "YouTube Analytics" tools.

Another possible reason for the ad-free videos in the United States: YouTube is focused on user experience and may be trying to avoid serving up too many ads in order to expand its base beyond 1.5 billion monthly users, a growth strategy that other music services have employed.

"I understand their need to be sensitive to that issue," says one music publishing executive. "But why can't you put a pre-roll on every video, and after five seconds the user can skip it?"

Apps known as "ad blockers," which can be downloaded from Google's app store and allow music fans to skip ads, may be another culprit, while some music executives worry about a new technology that identifies content as ad-friendly or not. YouTube installed that filter in 2017 to appease advertisers that had their commercials placed against what some considered to be hate videos. Labels say they are watching closely to see if their videos are filtered out of the ad-friendly pool by mistake, since some music clips are laden with violence, sex and drugs.

"All genres of video were impacted by brand safety concerns. However, we're seeing these categories, including music, recover," said the YouTube spokeswoman.

At least one music company "regularly studies" the possibility that YouTube is steering advertising to other content on which YouTube makes a higher profit margin, an exec says -- a widely held suspicion -- but the YouTube spokeswoman says this is "flat-out not true."

The music business doesn't have much leverage to demand answers to its burning questions, let alone larger payouts.

Warner Music Group extended its licensing deal with YouTube this summer, with CEO Stephen Cooper writing in an internal memo that WMG had secured the best possible deals under very difficult circumstances, including the "safe harbor" laws that shield YouTube and other sites from liability when users upload content without rights-holders' permission. Sony Music Entertainment and Universal Music Group are still in renegotiations with YouTube.

For labels, withdrawing from their agreements would mean forfeiting the ability to monetize, block or mute their music on YouTube, which has generated over $4 billion for the industry since its launch in 2005.

Though YouTube spent an estimated $60 million to build the content identification system that lets labels claim their copyrighted material, and many millions more to build an advertising ecosystem that benefits music industry, YouTube "doesn't have to pay the industry anything," digital media consultant Jim Griffin pointed out at a music-law seminar in October. "The law is on YouTube's side." Still, he predicts that the already significant share of the payout coming from user-generated content -- which he sees as "found money" for the music industry - will become a much bigger revenue source in the future, already dwarfing the music industry's annual output of 50,000 to 70,000 albums per year in volume terms.

Managers are less concerned with cracking the monetization mystery and more focused on using YouTube to break artists, sell concert tickets and promote album presales. "We get massive exposure when we have a hit on YouTube, and we can see how that impacts in other, better platforms; that's why we all put our music up," says an executive who works with artists and managers. "Maybe YouTube can do a better job at explaining to people what they bring to the table, in addition to monetization."

Some music executives believe the shrinking proportion of monetized videos is impacting overall U.S. play rates. YouTube says payouts averaged $0.0030 per stream in the U.S., or $3.00 for every thousand U.S. plays in 2016; some label sources agree they have earned about that much during the fourth quarter and for top-viewed clips, but calculate the average rate per stream for official music videos and user-generated content over the course of the year to have been between $2.00 to $2.50 per 1,000 streams. Other record companies said they were only receiving $1.00 to $1.50 per 1,000 plays, resulting in a consensus YouTube rate of $0.00225 per stream, or $2.25 per 1,000.

Spotify's ad-supported tier, by comparison, paid $1.50 per 1,000 streams, or $0.0015-per-stream, in the U.S. in 2016, sources say, while its subscription tier paid about $0.0060 per-stream, or $6 per 1,000 streams, according to Spotify data supplied to Billboard. Other digital services like Amazon, Apple, Napster and Tidal have per-stream pay rates north of Spotify's paid tier, sources say.

But YouTube says the industry's fixation on its effective payout per stream "doesn't make sense," likening it to "using a yardstick to measure carbon in the atmosphere." "Comparing a blended pay per stream rate derived from platforms whose revenue is predominantly subscription-based with platforms that are primarily ad-supported is misleading," YouTube says.

One tech lawyer tells Billboard there's a simple answer to the advertising puzzle. "Young people have more distractions for their time and money, " this lawyer says, "and to blame that loss on YouTube is not fair."

Click here to read more from this article's source.

Mixcloud's New Licensing Deal with Warner Music - what are the details?

Written by Music Business Worldwide — London-born streaming startup Mixcloud has inked a milestone deal – a direct licensing agreement with Warner Music – which will enable it to start building new subscription products.

SoundCloud rival Mixcloud attracts around 17m monthly users. It hosts 12m radio shows, podcasts and DJ sets which have been uploaded by more than a million ‘curators’ – including the likes of Carl Cox, Moby, Erykah Badu and David Byrne.

The service, which was founded in 2008, now says it is negotiating with Universal and Sony in a bid to tie up licensing deals with all three majors.

It has previously relied on statutory radio licenses for its music usage.

The expectation is that direct deals like the one struck with Warner will allow Mixcloud to offer more on-demand services to listeners – and charge for them.

MixCloud co-founder Nico Perez told the Financial Times: “We don’t want to do the $9.99 a month. That’s done. That market is served. What we’re building is going to be very customised.”

The FT reports that ‘details of [Mixcloud’s] subscription product are still being worked out’, but that it won’t replicate Spotify’s $9.99-a-month all-you-can-eat approach.

Last month, Nikhil Shah, Co-Founder and Commercial Director of Mixcloud, wrote in an op/ed for MBW: “[We believe] more streaming music companies ought to be built and managed in a responsible way.

“A lean team, careful management of costs, and effective monetization of the platform can go a long way in keeping streaming services afloat.”

He added: “Silicon Valley often preaches “scale first, revenue second.” This is simply not the right approach in music.

“It’s not fair for creators and creates too much risk for young companies, which in turn imperils the creators who feed them.”

Click here to read more from this article's source.

Eminem Wins Music Copyright Fight in New Zealand

Written by Reggie Ugwu — A political party in New Zealand must pay Eminem's music publisher $413,000 (600,000 New Zealand dollars) for infringing on the copyright of his hit song "Lose Yourself," a court in Wellington ruled.

The National Party of New Zealand had been sued in 2014 by the publisher, Eight Mile Style, over a song featured in one of its campaign ads that echoed the rapper's Grammy and Oscar-winning 2002 smash.

The name of the song? "Eminem Esque."

A representative for Eminem said that the artist was not himself a party to the lawsuit and has no comment.

The case had received international attention this year, spawning a viral video of stone-faced lawyers silently listening to "Lose Yourself" in court, and serving as fodder for John Oliver's satirical news show "Last Week Tonight."

In court, a lawyer for the National Party argued that "Eminem Esque" didn't substantially copy "Lose Yourself," and that the latter was itself derivative of other earlier works. Under New Zealand law, copyright infringement claims are valid only if the infringing song bears "sufficient objective similarity" to original components of the work alleged to have been copied.

Justice Helen Cull said that standard had indeed been met. "‘Eminem Esque' is strikingly similar to ‘Lose Yourself' with minimal discernible differences," she wrote in a lengthy judgment.

The National Party obtained "Eminem Esque" through a company that licenses stock music for use in television and films, part of a lucrative but below-the-radar cottage industry in the music business. In 2012, in the United States, both Pizza Hut and Home Depot were sued by The Black Keys for using songs in their advertisements that the rock group said infringed on its copyrights.

In a statement, a lawyer for Eight Mile Style said that the judge's ruling would set a new precedent in New Zealand and should serve as "a warning to soundalike music producers and their clients everywhere."

Click here to read more from this article's source.

Here's the video where "Eminem Esque" is used/heard.

Wanna own shares in Eminem's catalog?

Written by Nick Reilly — Royalties for some of Eminem‘s most famous songs are set to go on sale to the public, after a new deal was established by a production duo who worked with the rap icon on his rise to global fame.

Mark and Jeff Bass, collectively known as the Funky Bass Team, are considered to be two of the most influential figures in Eminem’s career, after initially releasing 1997’s The Slim Shady EP before he signed to Interscope for 1999’s The Slim Shady LP.

The duo, who also produced ‘Without Me’ and ‘Lose Yourself’ are now auctioning all their future earnings from his music released between 1999-2013 after teaming up with a new company called Royalty Flow.

If the move is approved by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Royalty Flow will reportedly permit investors to buy 150 shares or more at a minimum price of $2,250.

Royalty Exchange has previously offered similar shares for artists including Chris Brown, Wiz Khalifa, and Ariana Grande, but Eminem’s shares are believed to be the most valuable yet – due to songs such as ‘My Name Is’ and ‘Lose Yourself’.

Describing the deal, Royalty Exchange’s Matthew Smith told Rolling Stone: “If you own any Apple stocks, for instance, it’s exactly the same,”Not only do you potentially get to earn along with Eminem’s catalog, but you also win the ultimate bragging rights to say ‘hey, I own that!’ anytime you hear one of his songs.”

Eminem, meanwhile, returned to the UK last summer after a four year absence for two triumphant shows at Reading & Leeds festivals.

Click here to read more from this article's source.

Indie Music is being sucked into the major label ecosystem. Is this good or bad?

Written by Music Business Worldwide — The idea has very much come of age that artists are able to build independent music businesses as entrepreneurs by plugging in to the global digital music system through a series of service deals that enable them to keep full control of their rights.

But does the sales pitch actually deliver for these self-releasing artists and smaller independent labels? What is the true cost of doing business?

Many calculations in the music industry today are based on a company’s market share, but not enough people recognise that this calculation is often based on the proportion of market share distributed by a company, rather than the actual share of the market for which it owns rights.

This is fine when the value passes through the distributor efficiently and its clients (labels and artists) benefit properly from the full value generated by their work – but there are questions here that need to be answered.

As has been well documented, Spotify is expected to list on the New York Stock Exchange in the coming months. This is expected to generate a sizeable windfall back to the music industry as music companies who picked up equity stakes when licensing the platform in its early days have the opportunity to cash in those holdings by selling them on the open market.

However, as an independent label or self-releasing artist, your choice of distributor could well be the deciding factor in whether or not you get your fair share of that particular pay day as the major labels have taken a tranche of Spotify equity that includes the value of the independent share of market they distribute.

Independents have long signed up to share the proceeds of these sorts of deals with their artists through initiatives like the Fair Digital Deals Declaration (FD3) of 2014.

Pressure from artist organisations such as the Featured Artists Coalition (FAC) has also succeeded in securing commitments from at least Sony and Warner to share the proceeds of the Spotify IPO with artists signed directly to those labels. (Universal is yet to make a public commitment to do the same.)

However, independent labels and self-releasing artists who distribute through majors and whose catalogues make up an important part of the value coming back to the industry are unlikely to benefit as things currently stand.

Artists and Independents using services such as ADA (owned by Warner), The Orchard (owned by Sony) or Caroline (Universal) look like they will miss out – whereas independents who are either direct members of Merlin or use a distributor that is a Merlin member (the independents’ licensing body) will share in the benefits of all of the deal terms with platforms.

On the one hand, it might be argued that small players taking advantage of the enormous global infrastructure available to them when distributing through a large corporation will inevitably have to pay a considerable cost, but the Merlin examples proves that this does not have to be the case.

However, this article does not seek to assess fully the pros and cons of independent vs major distribution but to look at the key question of whether independent entrepreneurs are free to choose their channel to market – and whether can they can opt to change suppliers with relative ease when their deals come up for renewal?

If customers can’t realistically change suppliers in a market, then the market is in danger of becoming stagnant and uncompetitive, stifling innovation.

This is in stark contrast to a fluid and healthy market that competes on the basis of service and price.

This question is especially relevant right now in the wake of a swathe of acquisitions by major labels of independent distributors – such as The Orchard, Essential, Phonofile and Finetunes.

Many entrepreneurs that deliberately chose an independent distribution channel are now sucked into the major label ecosystem whether they like it or not.

Distribution is often considered a pretty dry area of the supply chain and many entrepreneurs in music are often much more focussed on the music than they are on the nether regions of back office processes, but in the digital supply chain, dereliction in this area could become very costly indeed.

The problem in the distribution market is that, having signed up to a service, it can be extremely difficult to move. Metadata is not always registered correctly and can muddy the chain of title. Some distributors may change or issue new ISRC Codes, and fragmentation in the neighbouring rights landscape complicates matters even further.

Distributors should compete on pricing of course, but also the data they are able to provide from services and stores, which is not always standardised. They should compete on their ability to analyse and present this data – through dashboards or other user interfaces.

Some distributors punch above their weight in specialist markets and others in terms of other added-value services they offer so although size can matter, biggest is not always best. It is also worth considering whether or not you want a potential competitor to have more data on your business than you yourself have access to.

A key conclusion is that too many independents are currently trapped by the invisible handcuffs of the sheer scale and difficulty of the task of switching services. Ultimately, this delivers poor value back down the value chain to artists.

The situation reminds me of the bad old days of the retail banking sector, where it was almost impossible to switch banks as the nightmare of moving Direct Debits and other payments made the task herculean.

That sector was revitalised by the banks’ cooperation and commitment to helping customers move if they wanted to through the ‘Current Account Switch Service’. This unleashed an era of competition through service and innovation which could serve as a salutary lesson to the music distribution market.

For my part, I would suggest the time is coming for distributors to subscribe to pre-agreed standards by which they facilitate a healthy switching market, using standardised data feeds like DDEX to enable the transfer of services by customers giving the chance for both Majors and Independents alike to benefit from a thriving, creative and diverse music market that encourages creativity and entrepreneurship to flourish.

This is all the more important in a landscape made up of increasing numbers of micro-labels and self-releasing artists who may come to rely on this flexibility in the future as their businesses grow and prosper.

The music market should be there to service them and to articulate a healthy value proposition for the services on offer.

If the desired future is a democratic and meritocratic music industry offering open and fair access to the market, a key pillar must surely include a transparent and efficient digital supply chain.

We should all remain committed to delivering exactly that.

Click here to read more from this article's source.

Duce Martinez & Adam Cruz at Central Park's Skaters Circle 3-7pm Sunday 10/22

Fri Oct 27 Don't Miss The Newark Public Library Halloween Fundraiser Party!

The Newark Public Library Halloween Fundraiser Party

Friday, October 27, 2017

Live Music 6:00 – 7:30 pm – The Velvet Trio

DJ and dance Party – 8:00 pm – Midnight

DWild Music Radio Featuring Duce Martinez, Adam Cruz with Special Guest DJ Punch

$20.00 Online

Visit https://app.mobilecause.com/f/1j5y/n

$25.00 At The Door

Free Food + Snacks

Provided by

Whole Foods + El Jibarito

Available While It Lasts

CASH PRIZES FOR BEST COSTUMES!

1st Place – $250.00

2nd Place – $150.00

3rd Place – $100.00

Click here to pick up your ticket today!

More are paying to stream music - demand's there; compensating artists is another issue

Written by Andrew Orlowski — With Google's user-generated content loophole firmly in lawmaker's sights, global music trade body IFPI has published new research looking at demand for music streaming.

The research confirms YouTube's pre-eminence as the world's de facto jukebox. 46 per cent of on-demand music streaming is from Google's video website. 75 per cent of internet users use video streaming to hear music.


The paid-for picture is bs: 50 per cent of internet users have paid for licensed music in the last six months, in one form or another, of which 53 per are 13- to 15-year-olds. Audio streaming is split between 39 per cent who stream for free and 29 per cent who pay.

Although mobile is massive, with 91 per cent using phones to access music in Mexico, the UK is a laggard at 59 per cent.

So what's the problem? European policy makers have become convinced by the "value gap" argument: compensation doesn't reflect usage. Google finds itself with a unique advantage here, thanks to YouTube's "user-generated content" exception, as we explained last year.

It's really twofold. Firstly, Google's supply chain of uploaders might not deliver quality – you never know what you'll get on YouTube – but despite notice-and-takedown orders, (dubbed "notice and shakedown" by musicians) the supply continues uninterrupted. And Google's promotion of advertising over paid subscriptions also depresses the market price for music, they argue.

In its defence, Google argues that ad-supported free streaming reaches demographics that the music industry found hard to monetise anyway, particularly children. The IFPI found that of audio streamers aged 13-15, 37 per cent paid and 62 per cent listened for free. Of the paid group, 33 per cent paid for their own (versus 63 per cent for 16-64) while 36 per cent were members of a family subscription plan.

The data has crumbs for both sides – music demand remains incredibly strong, and teenagers are increasingly paying.

Proposals to narrow the value gap by plugging the UGC loophole are under discussion as part of tweaks to the European Copyright framework. Internet companies without a music licence would have to take more care over what they serve and filter uploads. Services with a licence wouldn't have to. It's arguable whether this plugs the YouTube loophole at all, but it received strong support from UK digital and culture minister Matt Hancock last week.

"We are supporting further copyright reform, to support rights holders and help close the value gap. Where value is created online, it must be appropriately rewarded," Hancock said.

The European Commission has said (PDF) the proposed filtering obligation "does not alter the provisions of Directive 2000/31/EC, nor does it provide a new interpretation of Article 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC (communication to the public)", but it's likely to be amended to protect ISPs later this year.

The survey polled users in 13 countries worldwide. You can find more here (PDF).

Click here to read more from this article's source.

Microsoft Dumps Their Own Streaming Service for Spotify

Written by Janko Roettgers — Microsoft is the latest company to exit the streaming music business: The software giant announce Monday that it was shuttering its Groove Music service at the end of this year. Existing Groove Music subscribers are being encouraged to transfer their playlists and libraries to Spotify.

“As we continue to listen to what our customers want in their music experience we know that access to the best streaming service, the largest catalog of music, and a variety of subscriptions is top of the list,” wrote Microsoft Groove GM Jerry Johnson in a blog post Monday.

The company will stop serving subscription customers and selling music downloads at the end of December, but maintain the app as a way to play local music libraries. Existing Groove Music subscriptions won’t automatically transition to Spotify subscriptions, but the two companies are trying to sweeten the deal for Groove Music users by giving them 60 days to try Spotify’s premium service for free.

Microsoft first launched its Xbox Music subscription service in 2012, and was initially focusing heavily on Xbox users as its target audience. In 2015, the company rebranded the service as Groove Music, hoping to broaden the service’s audience and also reach users on mobile platforms. However, Groove Music never really caught up to Spotify or Apple Music, and ultimately competed among a list of second-tier services.

Microsoft isn’t the first major tech company to try, and then give up on competing with Spotify. Samsung tried a number of different service models before ultimately settling on a partnership model with existing services. And Sony replaced its own music service with Spotify in early 2015.

Click here to read more from this article's source.

Join us this Friday 9/29 for the Library Music Sessions - and it's Adam's birthday Friday!

It’s the Friday night party you don’t want to miss! Enjoy live performance and live bands! Free entry!
Salsa! House! Merengue! Freestyle! Dance! Wepa!

• REGISTER TO VOTE BY OCTOBER 17TH
• DONATE ESSENTIAL GOODS TO THE HURRICANE AND EARTHQUAKE RELIEF EFFORTS - water, diapers, non-perishable food

Every Friday in September in the Courtyard!
Time changed to start at 6. Join us from 6-11pm

Presented by Dwild MusicRadio and Butchie Nieves of the Puerto Rican Day Parade