The ability to stream a vast array of music straight to a device has grown immensely in recent times, but in doing so has irritated artists who claim to receive a small percentage of royalties in return. To highlight this, an electronic pop band by the name of “Ohm & Sport”, whose name sounds as if a Cambridge University student has just won 44 points playing Scrabble, has invented an App which plays any song on repeat for 30 seconds.
The App is called Eternify and is a direct demonstration against the paying structure of royalties by music streaming site Spotify. The App artificially generates royalties by meeting Spotify’s minimum time with which a song has to be played for it to be classed as a listened to song, in this case 30 seconds. The App also makes handy use of Spotify’s public API – Application Programming Interface which assists App developers to incorporate the streaming site’s impressive archive.
As a protest this App worked very nicely, the band requested fans play Ohm & Sports new album on repeat while they snoozed, the results garnered around $20,000 (£12,700) in royalties. Spotify Spotted this and removed the album and stated this App may have violated the terms and conditions of the site.
The App has highlighted a growing resentment towards streaming sites from artists who believe Spotify is imposing to small royalty fee. I do think there needs to be cooperation between both parties if streaming is to flourish, otherwise we will be in groundhog day for many more times to come.
Thank you BBC for providing us with this information
Amazon will soon implement a plan which will essentially sell eBooks page-by-page, paying its authors for every page read. From 1st July, authors who self-publish through the Amazon Kindle Direct Publishing Program – an eBook only outlet that gives authors 70% royalties on their works – will earn money for every page that remains open long enough to be read on an e-reader, making page-turning cliffhangers a revenue generator. Dan Brown is said to have ordered a case of Bollinger in anticipation.
The scheme, however, could be seen as Amazon finally rewarding authors of longer works, since it was previously seen as pushing novellas and short stories. As The Atlantic puts it:
Amazon’s letter to writers who publish through its Kindle Select program explained that the formula was changing because of a concern “that paying the same for all books regardless of length may not provide a strong enough alignment between the interests of authors and readers.” Amazon is being clever: While the authors of big, long, and important books felt that they were shortchanged by a pay-by-the-borrow formula, they probably didn’t expect that Amazon would take their proposal a step further. Instead of paying the most ambitious, long-winded authors for each pagewritten, Amazon will pay them for each page read.
A market in which authors are constantly fighting and searching for new ways to coax readers into turning that page could change the future of written fiction forever. What would entice you to turn the page?
Thank you Gizmodo for providing us with this information.
The music industry was in the spotlight earlier this month when Taylor Swift pulled her hot new album release from Spotify’s digital streaming service. Claims were made from Taylor and her record label that the artists weren’t getting a big enough payout from having their music available on the service, but today Spotify’s CEO Daniel Ek has hit back. Mr Ek announced that the company has now paid out over $2 billion in royalties to the music industry – which includes record labels and artists and their encompassing surrounds.
Mr Ek also made mention that the services userbase isn’t slowing down either – making note that the first billion dollars of payments came spanning the years of 2008-2013, whereas the second billion was paid just over the last 12 months. Another incredible figure that Mr Ek noted was that Spotify has more paid subscribers than all of it’s music streaming competitors combined.
“[Taylor Swift] is the only artist who has sold more than a million copies in an album’s first week since 2002. In the old days, multiple artists sold multiple millions every year. That just doesn’t happen any more; people’s listening habits have changed – and they’re not going to change back.”
The CEO also went on to exclaim that because Swift had pulled her entire catalogue from the service, she is set to lose over $6M is profits in the short term from not being on Spotify’s streaming service. At the end of the day, it would seem that Swift and her management pulled her catalogue from Spotify because they’re one of the last remaining artists who wields enough power to afford to manoeuvre such a stunt. In the meantime, I’m sure many of you have other tunes and artists to listen to and enjoy.
Thanks to The Verge for providing us with this information.
Microsoft hasn’t had as much luck and success in the mobile sector as they had hoped for. Lucky for MS they rake in more than 5 times the money they make on their own phones in royalties from Android handsets. Yes, you read right there. Microsoft makes 5 times as much money from Android as they do from their own Windows Phone line. To put a number on it, Microsoft makes $1.6 billion on Android handsets every year.
After a lot of disputes between Samsung and Microsoft back in 2011, the two giants reach an agreement where Samsung would pay the royalties for the patents Microsoft held and at the same time share classified device information with Microsoft for the purpose of marketing and development. It wasn’t an issue at that time, as Microsoft wasn’t a hardware manufacturer themselves. In return, the fees would be lowered if Samsung could keep up specific sales targets for Windows phones.
This has however changed since Microsoft acquired Nokia and now Samsung doesn’t want to pay those fees anymore. Microsoft’s purchase of Nokia makes them a direct competitor and it would void the previous agreement according to Samsung. So they refuse to pay the huge bill and in return Microsoft wants another 7 million dollars in damages for the late payment.
One can surely see both sides of the story here. Samsung doesn’t want to be held to an agreement that’s no longer valid and would force them to share company secrets with a direct competitor. On the other hand, Microsoft wants the money that is rightfully theirs based on the patents they own.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Will the two giants reach another settlement outside of the courtroom, or will this be another lawsuit in the world of technology, like we’ve seen so many before.
Thanks to Reuters for providing us with this information