It's official: streaming is an important part of the music industry. In fact, it recently overtook CDs in overall revenue making it the business model to beat. However, not everyone is happy with this change in the way business is done. Take, for example, Taylor Swift, who very publicly
removed her music from streaming services with an annoying message, and attacked Apple when they re-launched Beats Music as Apple Music.
This week, a new voice in the debate was revealed. You have likely never heard of Kevin Kadish, but you were unable to avoid his 2014 megahit
All About That Bass, which he co-wrote with author Meghan Trainor. He said at a roundtable discussion at Belmont University and led by the House Judiciary Committee, that he received just $5,679 for 178 million streams of the song. That works out to about $32 per million streams.
So, why was Kadish there, speaking to members of the US Congress? Because, for reasons beyond any rational comprehension, they set the rates for what is paid per play. Yes, you read that right - the rate is not negotiated with the artist or with the publisher as it is for Netflix or Hulu, but instead is a set rate decided upon by the federal government. As a result, for the height of this guy's career, he was paid essentially nothing.
These laws date back to 1911, when music was distributed on piano rolls, and in fact the industry term is still "mechanical licenses" in reference to those automated pianos. Kadish, along with others, believes that a law like this is not only outdated but ridiculous, and has urged Congress to do away with it. In its place, he is asking for the Songwriter Equity Act to be passed, that would establish a "fair rate standard" for these licenses.
It seems surprising that these musicians are still asking that their rate be regulated, as opposed to allowing their representatives to negotiate on their behalf. I guess the musicians believe that they are worth more than $32 per million plays, but not enough that they should have a say. No wonder Netflix, Hulu and Amazon have no issues with their business and music services seem to be under constant fire.
Many years ago, a US judge deemed that Facebook "friends" were not real friends, and could not be admitted in court. That ruling made sense, especially for the time, when friends would have included celebrities and the like, with Facebook having not implemented personality Pages quite the way they exist today. Either way, even today, many of us can list off people in our Facebook "friends" list that we do not actually know. Personally, I have dozens, and that's okay.
An Australian Tribunal decided this week that the service has changed enough in the past few years, and made a very different ruling. In fact, it turns out that the act of "unfriending" someone on the social network can be considered humiliation. This ruling comes in a case between Rachael Roberts, an employee of a real estate agency in Tasmania. She claims that she was "belittled and humiliated" by sales administrator Lisa Bird and her husband James.
The listed offenses were horrible, including not being able to change the AC in the office and being referred to as "a naughty little schoolgirl running to the teacher." Clearly this was a serious case of harassment that deserved the government's attention, but was overshadowed by being unfriended on Facebook. That was enough to push it over the edge of acceptable. The commission said,
This action by Mrs. Bird evinces a lack of emotional maturity and is indicative of unreasonable behavior.
Nicole Wells, a member of the commission, added,
I am of the view that Mrs. Bird took the first opportunity to draw a line under the relationship with Ms, Roberts on 29 January 2015, when she removed her as a friend on Facebook as she did not like Ms. Roberts and would prefer not to have to deal with her. I am satisfied that the evidence of Ms. Roberts, as to the incident on 29 January 2015, is to be preferred and that the allegation of unreasonable behavior by Mrs. Bird in Allegation 17 is made out.
Okay, let's try and sum this up. A couple works with someone they truly do not like. In an attempt to not have to infect their personal lives with this person, they removed her on Facebook, keeping them from having to see her posts, likely about the barista at the coffee shop humiliating her by spelling her name Rachel. This act, which would be similar, I suppose, to not answering a phone call from a co-worker in your personal time, was considered workplace bullying.
In the end, I suppose the only solution is to not add your co-workers on Facebook. In Australia.
It was a shock to many of us when Activision announced support for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 in their upcoming
Call of Duty: Black Ops III. It seemed likely that the end of AAA titles on legacy hardware was a thing of the past, yet here we had Activision promising a flagship product still in development for older hardware. There was always a catch coming, though, we just didn't know what it might be.
This week Activision let the air out of the sails of many people who have yet to upgrade their hardware: the title will be only half of the full game on legacy hardware. In fact, the game itself will be missing; there will be absolutely no campaign mode when played on Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3. Instead, players will only have access to multiplayer and zombie survival mode.
Obviously, since the title will be limited in capability as well as graphics and power, the title will not sell for full retail on the older consoles. Unfortunately, the game will only be discounted by $10 for the lack of content and capability. That is certain to get owners of last generation consoles to really think about their decision to purchase the title. It is also possible that this is the game that will finally drive these gamers to upgrade their hardware.
It is also likely that, since this game is not capable of running on older hardware, it is the end of new games coming out on the 360 or PlayStation 3. We will likely only see next year's entry in franchise, as well as other high-profile games from Activision, bypass the last generation and only support current generation hardware: Xbox One, PlayStation 4 and PC.
Call of Duty: Black Ops III enough to get you to upgrade from your older console to current generation gaming? Will bundles possibly play into your decision? Let us know in the comments.
Last week, Google was
charged with antitrust in Russia. The charge was in regards to how Google treats its own services in Android, and how they force their policies on manufacturers through contracts. The way they best enforce these policies is by denying access to the Play Store on devices that don't give preferential treatment to Google's services, even above the manufacturer's.
This week, Bloomberg has reported on a new threat to Google's Android policies, stating,
FTC officials have met with technology company representatives who say Google gives priority to its own services on the Android platform, while restricting others, added the people, who asked for anonymity because the matter is confidential.
This means that 2 years after
the FTC ended their search investigation in Google's practices, the organization is once again ramping up its investigation into Google. The previous investigation was mostly solo in the global market, while this one, which began earlier in the year, is matched in countries worldwide, including the charges in Russia.
Meetings between the FTC and Google indicate that the FTC is gathering physical evidence to support a possible case against the company. While it might seem like a slam-dunk, being as they have already been charged elsewhere, Google seems to be good at getting out of trouble. We do remember the
slap on the wrist when they actively stole data from unsuspecting homes via their StreetView cars. Because of that, anything is still possible.
We collect non-personal data to make money from our free offerings so we can keep them free, including:
- Advertising ID associated with your device;
- Browsing and search history, including meta data;
- Internet service provider or mobile network you use to connect to our products; and
- Information regarding other applications you may have on your device and how they are used.
There are two important things to note here. First, I do commend AVG for proactively putting up a blog post before implementing the policy, allowing users to decide whether or not to use their service moving forward. The second thing to mention is merely a friendly reminder that whenever a product is free, almost every time it is because the end-user is a product for the company. This is the case here, as it is with Facebook and many other services that have no charge to the consumer on the web.
AVG did say that even though it won't sell your address, age, IP and the like, that the info may still be shared with its partners if they ask. The Czech-based company also said that things like credit card details will never be sold, but they might be leaked inside your browsing history that AVG will send to advertisers. Those two facts alone should be enough for anyone to deter from using these products, so long as those people are concerned with their data. Again, the policy goes into effect on October 15th, giving you enough time to uninstall any AVG-related product and replace it with something else, if you so choose.
The ability to unlock your smartphone may be beneficial to some people who want to switch carriers and take their device with them. But what would happen if your phone was being illegally unlocked, without your permission, using malware on AT&T's computers? Well, if you're AT&T, those actions have resulted in a lawsuit against the offending parties.
AT&T has filed suit against three people who formally worked for the company, along with a business that paid the employees to install malware on AT&T's computers that allowed them to unlock thousands of phones without consent of AT&T or the customer. Marc Sapatin, Nguyen Lam and Kyra Evans were all served this week with the suit papers, as well as Prashan Vira, who owns the company Swift Unlocks. AT&T alleges that the four conspirators were involved in the illegal operation in 2013 when the three employees were working at an AT&T call center in Washington.
AT&T says in the filing documents that by unlocking all of these devices, the employees have cost AT&T a ton of money from the disabling of pre-installed software.
"Unlocking" a phone disables certain software pre-installed by the phone manufacturers, which is designed to limit the activation of the phones exclusively to AT&T's network. Once a phone is unlocked, it can be used on multiple carrier systems rather than exclusively with AT&T.
The software is vital to AT&T's business because it allows AT&T to subsidize the cost of the phone to consumers while protecting AT&T's investment in the phones through term contracts. The software also protects AT&T's goodwill with respect to phones that carry AT&T's brand, because some of the phones' functionality may not work as effectively on non-AT&T networks.
Whether or not you believe that unlocking a phone disables a phone's functionality, the fact of the matter is Evans was paid $20,000 and Sapatin paid over $10,000 for the unlocking of the devices by Swift Unlocks. AT&T did not accuse Lam of receiving money but did accuse the employee of installing the malware to the workstations. Lam was fired by AT&T. Evans and Sapatin both quit.
AT&T clarified that the individuals involved in this did not access customer information not did their actions impact customers other than having their phones unlocked.
We're seeking damages and injunctive relief from several people who engaged in a scheme a couple of years ago to illegally unlock wireless telephones used on our network. It's important to note that this did not involve any improper access of customer information, or any adverse effect on our customers.
The accused parties will have 21 days to respond to the summons issued this week, with AT&T demanding a jury trial.