Techdirt. Stories filed under "drake"

You Only Live Once, So Why Not Demand Payment For The YOLO Acronym You Didn't Invent?

Mike Masnick — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 11:53:00 PST

The singer Drake has, at times, been good about not being an IP absolutist, blasting his own label (Universal Music) for taking down the music he was leaking. However, it appears that he's not above demanding money for ideas he didn't come up with. According to Mashable, Drake has been tweeting at various retailers, demanding that they send him money for selling clothing that include the word "YOLO," recognized as an acronym for "You Only Live Once." Drake posted to his Instagram feed a picture of YOLO hats at Walgreens and said:

Walgreens....you gotta either chill or cut the cheque

He sent a similar message about YOLO clothes at Macys.

Drake, along with Rick Ross, are credited with popularizing YOLO in the song "The Motto" released in late 2011. The acronym became so popular since then that the Oxford English Dictionary had it as a runner up for word of the year.

So, if Drake came up with YOLO, does he deserve money? Well, there's a problem. A look at the etymology of YOLO suggests it predates Drake's song by many years -- and, in fact, a YOLO clothing line was launched back in 2004 following the use by one of the characters in the NBC TV show Average Joe. Similarly, the term went into the Urban Dictionary way back in 2004 as well. A search of the US PTO trademark database, shows a bunch of trademarks (and applications) related to the word "Yolo," some of which date back before Drake's song. Drake may have popularized it, but he didn't come up with it, and to now claim ownership of it seems pretty rich. Though, I guess, if "you only live once," perhaps his feeling is he might as well make an obnoxious cash grab for something someone else came up with.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Pandora: We're Helping Artists Make Millions & We'd Like To Keep Doing That

Mike Masnick — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 07:02:05 PDT

For all the talk of new music platforms not paying artists enough, we keep hearing counter stories. The latest is that Pandora has revealed that two artists -- Drake and Lil' Wayne -- will make somewhere close to $3 million in royalty payments from Pandora this year. Lots of other artists make many thousands of dollars as well:

Have you heard of Donnie McClurkin, French Montana or Grupo Bryndis? If you haven't you're not alone. They are artists whose sales ranks on Amazon are 4,752, 17,000 and 183,187, respectively. These are all working artists who live well outside the mainstream - no steady rotation on broadcast radio, no high profile opening slots on major tours, no front page placement in online retail. What they also have in common is a steady income from Pandora. In the next twelve months Pandora is on track to pay performance fees of $100,228, $138,567 and $114,192, respectively, for the music we play to their large and fast-growing audiences on Pandora.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. For over two thousand artists Pandora will pay over $10,000 dollars each over the next 12 months (including one of my favorites, the late jazz pianist Oscar Peterson), and for more than 800 we'll pay over $50,000, more than the income of the average American household. For top earners like Coldplay, Adele, Wiz Khalifa, Jason Aldean and others Pandora is already paying over $1 million each. Drake and Lill Wayne are fast approaching a $3 million annual rate each.

Of course, while all of this is happening, Pandora is not yet profitable, and may never be profitable -- as it is required, under current webcasting rates, to pay about 50% of its revenue out as royalties (while terrestrial radio and satellite radio get to pay much, much less). As Tim Westergren has pointed out, because of the crazy rates, plenty of other webcasting operations have just left the business entirely -- meaning that there just aren't that many players in this space, because it just isn't profitable for the companies, even as they're developing important new revenue streams for artists.

I'll have more on this later, but it often seems that legacy players really have no concept of "the golden goose." They assume that any tech company, who is moderately successful in getting users, simply should be bled dry, paying out just about everything to artists, with nothing left for the companies themselves. They think that the music is the entire value, and the service provided is not very important. And yet, without that service, none of that money would come in at all. At some point, the legacy guys are going to have to realize that they're better off having a healthy ecosystem of services, rather than squeezing the absolute highest rates out of these companies, in a way where they can't survive.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Universal Music Uses Bogus DMCA Claim To Take Down Negative Review Of Drake's Album

Mike Masnick — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:50:56 PDT

We keep talking about how the DMCA takedown process, all too frequently, is used to stifle speech, and defenders of the system claim that it's ridiculous to bring up the First Amendment in a discussion on copyright. But here's yet another (in a very long list) of examples. Henry Adaso wrote a short, but marginally negative review of Drake's album Take Care. The review was posted to About.com last November. The entire review reads:

Drake - 'Take Care'

A briefly entertaining, occasionally ponderous, sometimes lazy, sometimes brilliant, slow-rolling, rap-singy, bulls-eye missing, kitten-friendly, runway-ready, mega corny, lip-smacking, self-conscious, self-correcting, self-indulging, finely tuned, Houston infatuated, crowd pleasing, delightfully weird, emotionally raw, limp, wet, innocuous, cute, plush, brooding, musical, whimsical, exotic, pensive, V-necked, quasi-American, strutting, doting, cloying, safe alternative to sleeping pills.

Best Song: "Lord Knows"

Release Date: November 15, 2011

Not particularly positive, but not particularly scathing either. He also posted another post on About.com that merely pointed to that review, but included no additional content other than that he wrote a 50-word review.

Either way, both of those links are gone from Google's search. Why? Because just as someone filed a bogus DMCA to take down one of our key SOPA posts, Universal Music, via the BPI (British RIAA) filed a DMCA notice with Google claiming that both of those pages were infringing. That's clearly a false takedown, and pretty clearly designed to stifle a negative review. Adaso discusses all of this in his own blog post, in which he suggests that perhaps Universal and BMI are purposely trying to take down negative reviews, though it's equally likely that they're just incredibly incompetent. Still, whether incompetence or malice, it's clear that the DMCA is being used to censor and stifle speech, and in this case it just so happens to be speech in the form of a negative review of a Universal Music Artist (a Universal Music artist who has also expressed displeasure with how Universal has used copyright law against his own best interests).

But, no, there's no free speech concerns around the DMCA, right?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Website Censored By Feds Takes Up Lamar Smith's Challenge: Here's Your 'Hypothetical'

Mike Masnick — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 12:40:42 PST

So, remember Lamar Smith's claim that all of the problems of SOPA are "hypothetical" and no one has shown any language as to what's wrong with the bill? Yeah, it seems that one such "hypothetical" has decided to take Smith up on his challenge. Enter Dajaz1, the American music blog that was censored for over a year and denied due process... under SOPA's predecessor, the Pro-IP Act (which many of us tried to warn about at the time it was being debated). Yes, it appears that Dajaz1 (finally relaunched) has a thing or two to say to Lamar Smith about his "hypotheticals."

Before I get into SOPA and PIPA, let’s go backwards and discuss the language of Pro-IP. Since Mr. Smith is so concerned about the language I’m hoping he can point me to the language in the Pro-IP Act covering criminal forfeiture where it states or even insinuates that it can be used to seize DOMAIN NAMES. That language doesn’t exist, what does exist is broad confusing open ended wording that apparently covers a wide spectrum of things the legislators who passed this bill never considered it could be used for. With all the assurances the bill he co-sponsored back in 2008 wouldn’t be misused coupled with the fact I’m writing this post on a factual representation of its misuse, it seems pretty rich that he’d have the guts to come out talking “show me the language.” Who cares about “language” when it’s written specifically to be vague enough to allow for a free for all?

Lets be honest here: What the worlds population hasn’t caught onto yet (and all the (‘Big Content’ owned versions of Self Serving State TV are not going to tell them) is much of the things in SOPA/PIPA that people are against, the authors and many of the co-sponsors of SOPA/PIPA already snuck into Pro-IP. The internet is already being censored, it’s already being misused, abused, free speech has already been stifled and there has already been collateral damage. All with the same open ended broad definition type language that exists in SOPA/PIPA that they absolutely refuse to narrow down as evidenced by not approving even the most common sense amendments. Many of which would have likely taken away or reduced their ability to misuse Pro-IP.

If Mr. Smith and his colleagues are genuine and sincere, why don’t they show US the language where it specifically states you cannot do all the things everyone is concerned about, make the language clear and concise, and then correct the language in Pro-IP so it can no longer function as the free for all that is already doing everything opponents of SOPA/PIPA are afraid of. Then, perhaps, I can take you somewhat seriously in your position that you believe you are doing the right thing and not just doing the bidding of corporations that bought you lock stock and barrel even at the detriment to your own reputation. One scenario makes you easy to manipulate, but genuine and willing to correct mistakes; the other just makes you corrupt. Pro-IP must be repealed and corrected immediately

But the folks at Dajaz1 are just getting warmed up. After discussing Pro-IP, they discuss how the industry has a ridiculously broad definition of "rogue website" by pointing to the infamous GroupM "rogue website" blacklist put together by Universal Music and others -- which included a bunch of hip hop blogs (including Dajaz1 itself and another of the seized blogs, OnSmash, which is still in purgatory somewhere). They also note that hip hop superstar Drake not only used the internet and free music to turn himself into a superstar... but that he did so via the exact same blogs listed on the GroupM "rogue website list.". From a press report at the time:

"You’ve gotta credit Drake, especially with NahRight and other sites, He was well-connected to those guys."

The use of the Drake example becomes pretty important, because back during the House Judiciary Committee's SOPA hearings, Rep. Ted Deutch of Florida, rather stunningly, used Drake as an example such sites. See the video here, which highlights how insane that is: In fact, that's the topic of Dajaz1's third post in the series: just how out of touch Ted Duetch is that he thinks that, for there to be the next Drake, he needs to shut down the very sites that Drake directly used to promote his work.

REALITY CHECK: On February 12, 2009, Drake released a Mixtape called “So Far Gone” for free on the internet. This mixtape garnered so much buzz for him that he ended up touring (making a reportedly 5 figures per night), and getting several singles on the radio in the top 10 on Billboard. Drake accomplished all of this as an independent artist. A bidding war ensued by the major labels and Drake signed to a major a few months later. Despite the fact that he’d given away “So Far Gone” for free 7 months prior on the internet and it had well over a million downloads, the tape was re-released as an EP by his label in Sept. 2009 and still managed to go Gold. He was nominated for 2 Grammy Awards.

Drake came from the internet, making relationships with and utilizing the blogs, most of which are listed as so called “ROGUE WEBSITES” that have been targeted by “Private Rights of Action” in the form of a blacklist by advertising giant, Group M. Two of those “rogue sites” had their domain names seized with banners calling the operators criminals by The Dept. Of Homeland Security. (While this domain was returned last month, OnSmash is still in purgatory). No hypothetical here,this is the reality of the misuse that is happening now and will only get worse with the passage of SOPA and PIPA.

Dajaz1 also points out that the other example Deutch uses -- Adele -- also came up through the internet, and was discovered on MySpace -- just the type of site that would be significantly burdened under SOPA/PIPA. Furthermore, the post highlights numerous other top music acts directly thanking the various sites listed as "rogue sites," including some of those seized and censored by the US government under ProIP.

In the final installment, Dajaz1 points out that SOPA and PIPA are not about "saving the artists," they're about saving the big, slow legacy players who fear innovation that allows artists to succeed without them.

When Congress and the RIAA says “Rogue Websites” do they mean the tools the artists are using to connect directly with their fans and distribute their own music? I mean I’m just wondering because I could make this post 20+ pages of screen shots showing examples of artists utilizing these “ROGUE WEBSITES” the RIAA is trying to get Congress to pass legislation and scrub from the internet.

And, in fact, Dajaz1 then shows a ton of tweets from famous artists to the very same blogs that were targeted as "rogue sites" (some of which were taken down). So just as clueless Congressional Reps. like Lamar Smith, Bob Goodlatte, John Conyers, Mel Watt and Ted Deutch insist they're "protecting the artists," it appears those very same artists are using those darn "rogue websites" to not just promote themselves and their careers, but to make a ton of money doing so.

So who exactly is Congress trying to protect? The content creators or trade groups with deep pockets who become obsolete if the majors fully embrace technology and innovate? Truth be told there are some incredibly smart people in the urban internet world who’d be amazing assets to the legacy industry in adapting to the marketplace. If only they’d utilize them.

One of the most disturbing things to come out of the SOPA hearings is how gullible many members of Congress appear to be and how technically inept many are in Washington. If you don’t understand the technology it is not OK to say you don’t get it while turning around and saying you don’t believe the people who do. (I’m looking right at you Mr. Watts) Generation Gaps are no excuse, you’re in what amounts to a management position and you should be qualified to hold that position when you are dealing with my generation and our children’s generation economic future. Your lack of knowledge is not an excuse for the loss of any American’s Constitutional Rights. To essentially shoulder shrug like you’re cute when something that important is at stake is reprehensible. If anyone in Congress, The White House, DOJ, ICE, Homeland Security, or any other branch of Government’s knowledge in technology stops somewhere around 1997 then it is time to retire as you are no longer qualified to hold your position in 2012.

This is the crux of the matter here. The complaints that Lamar Smith so wants to dismiss are not "hypothetical" to sites like Dajaz1. And, they're not hypothetical to artists like Drake. The idea that these artists need such laws to protect their interests is simply laughable when you see how these artists rely on those sites to market their works, make a name for themselves, and leverage that publicity into huge piles of money from live shows or later recording deals. These aren't hypotheticals. These are all very, very real... and Congress, in its ultimate cluelessness, is trying to break the internet to "stop" these sites. And not because it will protect artists, but because it will protect the major record labels and movie studios from up-and-coming competition. The major labels don't want Drake to come up through the internet. They don't want people like Mac Miller creating best selling albums, without a major label, by using those same sites to get publicity.

So they start this huge campaign to label these new forms of distribution as "rogue sites," get the US government -- in its admitted cluelessness -- to support them, and then (to make the insult even worse) pretend that it's all about protecting the very artists who rely on these new forms of distribution.

Sorry, Lamar Smith: the threat isn't "hypothetical." It's very, very real, and Dajaz1 is living proof.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Drake, Once Again, Shows That It Makes Sense To Embrace Your Fans Who Infringe, Too

Mike Masnick — Wed, 9 Nov 2011 15:10:00 PST

A few months back, we wrote about how famed singer Drake was angry at Universal for sending takedown notices and getting his leaked tracks taken down. Given Drake's history of building up a lot of popularity through releasing mixtapes, it's not a surprise that he realizes that getting content spread far and wide creates more benefits than it does "downsides." Now he's confirmed that point of view even further, tweeting his somewhat enlightened views on file sharing: If you can't see it, it says, "Listen, enjoy it, buy it if you like... and take care until next time." In other words, don't attack fans for wanting to hear and share your music, learn to recognize that these are fans, and they have their reasons for doing what they do. But connecting with the artist directly also builds up significantly more goodwill. It's nice to see someone of Drake's stature willing to speak up about these things. The thing that he seems to realize is that even if people are "pirating" leaked material, that's no reason why they might not give him money in the future -- and one way to make that more likely is to really connect with fans. Threatening them with lawsuits is kind of the opposite of connecting, and it's backfired on more than a few artists.

Hopefully more artists will make their position on such things much more clear than it is today.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Drake Tells Universal Music To Stop Taking Down The Music He's Leaking

Mike Masnick — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 11:54:37 PDT

It's been an interesting week for Universal Music. The company was outed for their secret war on various hiphop blogs, including some of the sites of their own artists, such as 50 Cent, whose personal site was declared a "pirate" site on a list that Universal helped put together. Now, super popular Universal artist Drake is lashing out at Universal for issuing takedowns over his own music. Apparently, like many artists who value the promotion, he's been leaking his own tracks to the various hiphop sites and blogs that Universal has declared evil. And Universal has been taking them down, leading Drake to tell them to stop: Now, as I'm sure people will quickly point out, he signed a contract with Universal, and that means he almost certainly handed over the rights to the music in question. To some extent, you can argue that if he was doing it for the people instead of for Universal Music, he shouldn't have signed a deal that gave all the rights to Universal Music.

However, even granting that, this shows yet again how far out of touch Universal Music is, and how its claims that it's protecting "artists" are full of it. The artists know how promotion works these days. Universal Music, apparently, does not.

And this raises a much bigger issue: as ICE continues to seize domains and the PROTECT IP Act continues to move forward, are these really "rogue sites"? After all, if the artists themselves find them valuable as a means of promotion, and disagree with their own labels about whether or not these sites are useful, why is the government solely relying on the labels' definition of "rogue" sites?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story