sábado, setembro 20, 2014

Why Major Labels Are the Best Thing That Happened to Artists... - Digital Music NewsDigital Music News

Why Major Labels Are the Best Thing That Happened to Artists... - Digital Music NewsDigital Music News

Why Major Labels Are the Best Thing That Happened to Artists…

In this article entertainment attorney Steve Gordon, author of the Future of the Music Business, explains why the decline of the major labels is a bad thing for artists.

I. The Decline

declinegordon

Source: Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)

The above graph shows that accounting for inflation, income from recorded music has declined approximately 65% from its high point in 1999.  Since the major labels (Sony, Warner and Universal and their wholly owned affiliates such as Atlantic, Capitol, Def Jam, Interscope, Motown, Epic and Columbia) distribute 85% of recorded music, they've been hit the hardest.

But so have the major indies such as Beggars Group, Mute, SubPop and Domino.  As a result they have less money to sign and support new artists.

II. Why This is Bad for Artists

Nobody ever accused the majors of being saints. In fact, they used to, and continue to do a number of really shitty things.  For example;

- strip the artists of their copyright interest in their recordings under "work for hire" clauses;

- reduce the artist's royalty with inflated or totally unjustifiable deductions such as an inflated 25% packaging deduction, and a 10% "net sales" deduction based on no expense at all;

- they reduce the artist's mechanical royalty for songs they write by 25% (the infamous "controlled composition" clause);

- they pay the artist a royalty equal to the royalty for normal retail sales (generally around 15%) for paid downloads, even though the labels do not sell any records to iTunes or other download stores, but rather authorize, that is, provide a license to such stores to sell downloads, and artists have traditionally received 50% of income from licensing income; and

- most artists signed to majors (and many indies) are receiving absolutely nothing from advances payable to the labels from Spotify and other interactive streaming services.

Yet for all these sins and others, the declining fortunes of the majors and leading indies is a bad thing for artists.  That's because the labels help artists, but not as many as before, by doing all these things:

- they get them on commercial radio, which is still a key to mainstream success;

- pay for tour support and arrange for them to play as opening acts for already established artists and stars;

- pay for production costs, including hiring star producers;

- pay for top line video directors and video production costs;

- book them on popular TV shows; and most crucially

- pay advances so an artist can quit their day gig and focus full time on music.

An Ad Age article published today, in which I am quoted, drives my point home.  The article is "Capitol Music Unit Holds First New York Upfront" and describes how Capitol Records organized an event at Manhattan's City Winery to introduce three of their new artists, and got brands such as HBO and advertisers such as Ogilvy and Mather to attend.

This is the kind of priceless marketing that most unsigned artists can't do on their own, and usually can't get anyone else to do for them — unless they have the financial means to pay for it.

In this case, Capitol paid the bill.  Yes, the label may deduct a portion of that bill from future income, but at least the event provided three new artists with a real opportunity for financial success.

Sadly, although the Internet allows unsigned artists to potentially reach a worldwide audience via aggregators who can get their records on digital music services, none of these players offer any of the benefits above.  Not the aggregators – such as TuneCore and CD Baby, both of which actually takes money out of the artists' pockets; not the digital services such as iTunes and Spotify, which will usually do nothing to promote an unsigned artist; and not social networks like Facebook, which like the aggregators will take money from an artist in exchange for "boosting" their songs.

So maybe the bad old record companies were not that bad after all.  Or maybe the new "opportunities" that the Internet provides are much worse for artists than the labels ever were.

III. Conclusion

Think of this, the great executives of the glory days of major labels, and the artists they were most closely associated with:

Clive Davis of Columbia, Arista and then Sony: Janis Joplin, Simon and Garfunkel, Santana, Aretha Franklyn, Whitney Houston and Lou Reed;

Ahmet Ertegün of Atlantic and then Warner: Ray Charles, Nat King Cole, Otis Redding, Crosby, Stills and Nash, and Neil Young;

Berry Gordy of Motown and later Universal: The Jacksons, Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye, the Temptations, The Supremes and James Brown;

Walter Yetnikoff of CBS Records and later Sony: Bruce Springsteen, Billy Joel, Bob Dylan, and Michael Jackson.

What name would you associate with TuneCore or Facebook?




Sent from my iPad

sexta-feira, setembro 12, 2014

Sued As A Young Startup? Don’t Surrender | TechCrunch

Sued As A Young Startup? Don't Surrender | TechCrunch

Sued As A Young Startup? Don't Surrender

Editor's note: David Soofian is an associate at Kaye Scholer LLP, where he regularly defends technology companies against allegations of patent infringement by competitors and trolls.

Patent trolls are on the offensive, using weak patents to go after young tech startups with the hopes of securing licensing deals. These trolls bank on the assumption that these young companies will pay without putting up a fight in order to avoid the high cost of a long drawn out litigation.

However, two recent changes in patent law are turning the tables and giving the accused the opportunity to attack the validity of these weak patents—the most valuable assets a patent troll has—without having to go through the cost of a full-blown litigation: (1) the Supreme Court's recent Alice opinion paved the way for early challenges to patents that try and monopolize algorithms or basic ideas; and (2) the America Invents Act created a quick mini-trial in the United States Patent Office for challenges to the inventiveness of a patent (e.g. did someone else invent it first, or was it obvious based on what others were doing at the time).

These developments can fundamentally shift the narrative in a typical troll lawsuit, by giving the troll something to lose (their patent) and giving the accused a quicker path to vindication.

Know Your Enemy: Patent trolling starts with investors looking to turn a (relatively) quick buck. They pool their money together and form a shell company to hide their identities. The shell company, typically with an advisor, then hits the open patent market to find a patent. There, patents are sold in packages designed for trolling—with detailed suggestions and strategies (e.g. infringement charts) on how to target specific companies / products with patent infringement lawsuits. The essential partner of the patent troll is the law firm that will act as the public face of the company by sending threatening demand letters and filing lawsuits. This law firm is often a small shop that works on contingency, aligning the interest of the investors with the interests of the law firm—spend as little as possible and bring in as much money as possible.

  • Demand Letters: Patent trolling typically begins with a first wave of letters that accuse companies of patent infringement and invite them to discuss licensing opportunities. Because the cost of sending a letter is negligible, the troll sends these letters out to a wide swath of companies. In this phase, the troll hopes that a small number of companies respond to these letters by taking an early license at a low price. Those early licensing fees can be put aside to fund the more expensive phase two—lawsuits.
  • Lawsuits: Lawsuits are expensive, even for trolls. But the upfront cost of merely filing a lawsuit is not prohibitively expensive, so often-times trolls will file waves of lawsuits against big companies with the hopes of pressuring them into licensing negotiations to settle the lawsuit. Like the demand letters, the troll will be able to use those early settlement payments to fund the lawsuits against the companies that fight back.

Fight Back: Being on the receiving end of a demand letter isn't fun, and the prospect of being caught up in an expensive lawsuit can be daunting. That is why many companies take an early license at a reduced rate to make the troll go away. But for many companies—especially young technology startups whose reputation is built on innovation and disrupting entrenched interests—the idea of settling out or taking a license is unacceptable. For those companies, their only choices are to persuade the troll to go away or to vindicate themselves in court. Luckily, recent changes in patent law have given these companies two new weapons with which to fight back and attack the validity of the troll's prized patent without incurring the costs of a full-blown litigation.

1. Consider Challenging the Eligibility of Software Patents: Recent cases have paved the road for early challenges to software patents as abstract ideas: in Ultramercial v. Hulu (later called Ultramercial v. Wildtangent), the patent was successfully challenged in the district court shortly after the case was filed (the case is now being reviewed for a third time on appeal); and in a case called Alice v. CLS Bank International ("Alice"), the patents were successfully challenged in the district court before extensive and expensive discovery took place. (Note: The author represented CLS in district court and during the initial appeal of the Alice case.)

The underpinnings of this "abstract idea" exception are rooted in the patent bargain. A patent is an exchange—the governments grants a monopoly over an invention for a limited time and, in exchange, the inventor makes their invention public by disclosing all of their secrets and details in a patent. The idea of the exchange is that it is worth stifling innovation in the short term by granting a monopoly, if society can benefit in the long term by getting free rights to use the invention after the patent expires. The abstract idea exception focuses on one instance when that bargain is unfair—when the invention that is being patented is an idea that is so fundamental and basic that it does more harm to society by granting a patent than the good of making that invention public.

Software patents became a favorite for patent trolls because, in effect, they allowed trolls to monopolize abstract ideas as long as they were implemented on a computer or the Internet. The trolls relied on the argument that an idea cannot be abstract if it involved a physical machine like a computer. But in hearing the Alice case on appeal this year, the Supreme Court rejected that argument by holding that an abstract idea is not patentable merely because it was implemented on a general purpose computer in a generic way ("each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions").

While the exact contours of this brand new decision are still being fleshed out, the important thing for companies to understand is that the case has opened up the floodgates to challenges of software patents as abstract ideas. To successfully make a case that an invention is nothing more than an abstract idea based on Alice, you and your lawyer should follow the following steps:

  • Strip away the technical jargon (e.g. ignore generic physical computer components such as "a communications controller" or "a data storage unit) and determine what is the "invention."
  • Determine whether the "invention" in an "abstract idea." In doing so, ask: whether the invention can be executed on a generic computer, in the human mind, or with a pen and paper; whether the invention is "fundamental" to, "long prevalent" in, or a "building block" of society; and whether the invention is an economic practice.
  • Assuming there is an abstract idea at play, look to the technical jargon that you previously ignored and ask yourself whether they add anything meaningful, or if the patent is really trying to cover nearly every possible way to perform the abstract idea on a computer or the Internet.

2. Consider Challenging Novelty and Non-obviousness in an Inter Partes Review at the Patent Office: A second way to attack a patent is to challenge whether it is innovative. The most commonly invoked requirements for a patent are that the invention be novel and not obvious. An invention is not novel if it was already public knowledge at the time of invention. Similarly, an invention is not patentable if it would have been obvious to someone in the field based on what was already public knowledge at the time.

The problem with this type of challenge is that it was traditionally only available late in the litigation process, after the accused had to go through most of the expense of discovery and expert reports (everything except for trial). But in 2011, President Obama signed the America Invents Act, which created a mini-trial in the Patent Office called Inter Partes Review ("IPR") where almost anyone can challenge whether an issued patent is really novel and not obvious.

Based on my experience helping to obtain four favorable IPR decisions, IPR challenges to novelty and non-obviousness at the Patent Office appear to have many benefits over making those same challenges in district court: (a) IPR challenges can brought at almost any time, making it a great option for an accused company to make an early challenge to a troll's patent; (b) IPR trials are quick, and are typically complete within 12-months of being instituted; (c) there is very little discovery; (d) the review is focused solely on novelty and non-obviousness; (e) the judges have technical backgrounds; (f) the words of the patent are interpreted according to a better standard (i.e. broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification); (g) the challenger's burden of proof is lower (i.e. preponderance of evidence); and (h) if the Patent Office agrees to the review, any pending district court case may be put on hold (i.e. stayed) while the review takes place.

IMAGE BY Shutterstock USER justasc



Sent from my iPad

terça-feira, setembro 02, 2014

Non-Tech Businesses That Created Their Own Tech

Non-Tech Businesses That Created Their Own Tech

Innovation by Necessity: 3 Non-Tech Businesses and the Technology They Created

Tech.jpg

The story of modern tech innovators typically follows a well-mapped path: A scrappy group of entrepreneurs gathers in a garage, warehouse or loft. They iterate and reiterate. Investors kick in funds. And then, eventually, our heroes either emerge with the next hot technological tool — be it an online marketing platform, a hip social-networking app, wearable tech, etc. — or they fold.

But what about innovators who end up making new technology because they have to have it for their non-tech business? Or those who are selling a physical product in the brick-and-mortar world, but don't have the critical software or app-based solution that their company needs to keep going?

In the case of the examples that follow, the answer is: They build it. Let's look at another side of technology innovation — the kind that happens because a business' future depends on it.

Invention based on necessity — Benjamin Franklin knew this well.
Invention based on necessity — Benjamin Franklin knew this well. He created bifocals when he realized he needed multiple kinds of eyeglasses to keep doing his work. Likewise, the following innovators solved practical problems by stepping outside the activities of their everyday business; they created the tools they needed to keep growing.

1. Re-Imagining Real-Estate Leads: Leads2Listing

leads2listing copy

Travis Thom and his fellow real-estate agents at Venture Realty Group in New Mexico, mined for new leads by cold-contacting owners of expired for-sale listings. However, it occurred to Thom, Venture's owner, that his company was spending too much time and money on an often-frustrating effort. What he needed was a way of bringing better leads to his staff for less outlay. He imagined a web-based tool that would attract homeowners who were more assuredly primed to sell.

Assembling a team of coders, Thom built just that. "I don't write the actual code," he said. "I knew just enough to know how it should function, and whether it was doable or not." Under his guidance, Leads2Listing emerged as a query-based agent's landing page, one that entices homeowners into envisioning what their property might be worth by getting them to answer a series of questions. Once they've entered their information, Thom and crew can then inform the potential client of possible selling prices, and they're starting with a prospect that's already warmed-up to the idea of listing their house.

Turns out plenty of other agents think Leads2Listing is a helpful tool as well. For $57 a month per site, agents in places such as Chicago, Denver, San Diego and Palm Beach are now using the tool Thom has built.

2. Mobile Coat Check, Mobile Tracking: CoatChex

3172003953_f9b85610e4_o Cropped

Indie entrepreneur Derek Pacqué started a mobile coat-check company in Indiana — keg-shaped racks that can be brought to venues — but soon found he had to build something to manage of all the rack's inventory. With his company, he designed and implemented an app that used photos and QR codes to track garments at each event. Hence, CoatChex was born.

And, as Pacqué told Entrepreneur, the potential of the software now exceeds even its night-of-event practicality. "We realized that venues want data on their customers," he said. "Data that comes from our app." With the information CoatChex collects, it's now working to help venues to further engage their clientele.

3. From Grain to Silicon (Valley): FarmLogs

Farmlogs team

What if the "need" in question was that your own family was trying to run its farm more profitably? That was the case for 25-year-old Jesse Vollmar, working on a fifth-generation Michigan farm where he grew up. He'd already used his knack for coding to build smaller-scale tools for the Vollmars' silos, but one day a neighboring farmer asked the young man when he'd make crop-management tools for everyone else.

"That was just a light-bulb moment,"
"That was just a light-bulb moment," Vollmar said. "This is something that was needed by the market. I'd already seen that we were struggling without it."

And so, with the help of his business partner, and a boost from Y Combinator, Vollmar went on to create FarmLogs. The software, currently free, monitors crops, costs, revenue, weather and other factors of farm operation. Today, it's in the hands of more than 5% of the row farmers in the United States, and it's used in 130 countries worldwide. As for Vollmar, he may now work in the world of tech, but he still goes back to the family farm. "It's kind of funny," he says. "We take our team touring all day, riding in tractors, learning all about how the work is done, firsthand."

What all three stories have in common is drive and an underlying concept: Innovate to survive as a business; invent to solve a challenge, to spur a brick-and-mortar operation on to the next level.

And whether it's finding new ways to lure home-sellers to an agent's office, or better managing inventory, or bringing big data to the farm, the world of tech invention often thrives on these moments of need — even if technology isn't the first business of the innovating owner.




Sent from my iPad

segunda-feira, setembro 01, 2014

7 Ways to Impress Your Potential Investors | Inc.com

7 Ways to Impress Your Potential Investors | Inc.com

7 Ways to Impress Your Potential Investors

Looking for investors for your business is the entrepreneur's version of job interviews. You have to look the part and be able to say the right things when asked to earn capital from them. Investors come from all walks of life, and you have to be able to tailor your pitch to each of them to make your business more prominent to their interests. However, there are some things that remain constant and will work to impress investors and garner the funds you need to take your business to the next level. Here are seven ways that you can impress your potential investors:

Clearly Presenting Your Margins

Investors are not investing in your business simply because they believe in your vision (though they do have to believe in it to invest), they are investing in you to make a little bit of extra money as well. Having promising margins is going to be the best way to impress your investors, but having the numbers themselves is not everything. They have to be presented in a pleasing, professional manner as well.

Show Them Growth Potential

Investors like to see longevity and a stable marketplace full of consumers, so you should be able to show them the value of your business and how that value will only continue to grow. Explain how your business applies to a group of people and how much growth potential your brand has, both in terms of new markets and in revenue streams. Investors want to see that their money is going to keep working for them, so you should look to show them that your business can help them do that.

Have A Clear Business Model

Investors like things that they can work in as well, so having a clear and replicable business model is going to be one of the linchpins to getting an investor to sign on to your business. Ideally, your business model will be scalable and as detailed as possible, as investors are not looking for a static business, but one that will show lots of growth and has a good plan for how to achieve it.

Tell Them What Problem You're Aiming To Solve

A successful business has a clear vision and a problem that they aim to solve with their products or services. This problem should be something that affects a large group of people, as a niche problem will have fewer business opportunities or room for growth. But regardless of the size of your target market, it's imperative that you have a clearly defined problem and a product that promises to solve it.

Prove That You're Different From Your Competitors

Having proprietary ownership over some part of your business is going to be the best way to have a competitive edge--nobody can replicate it, because you own it. These come in the forms of patents, trademarks, and copyrights, but trademark and copyright laws are less favorable for small businesses, so they don't hold as much weight as a patent does. If you don't have any of these things, you can still establish an edge with an innovative outlook instead.

Show Them That Your Team Is The Best

Investors also look at the team behind a potential investment opportunity and want to know that the people that are running the show are passionate, talented, and the best at what they do. So, it's important that you not only hire talented employees, but that you also make sure to show investors that you've got the best team for the job at hand. After all, an idea can look great on paper, but if it doesn't have a great team backing it up, it can still fail pretty easily.

Show Them How You Connect With Your Customers

Having repeat customers is a good sign of a successful business. In addition to this, having personal connections with customers through all avenues is always a good sign to a potential investor. Make sure that you cultivate positive relationships with your customers and that you can prove to potential investors that you have loyal fans that will always be there for your brand.

Every investor is different and will certainly look for different things in each business that they're looking to invest in. As such, you should do your research, know who you're talking to, and figure out how to best capture their attention and persuade them to fund your company. However, despite the inherent differences between individual investors, there are a handful of traits that every investor wants to see in a business before offering to fund it. By following these seven steps and proving your company's value, growth potential, and individuality, you will be able to impress any investor and get the funding you need to take your business to the next level.




Sent from my iPad