Facebook (FB) tanked again on Tuesday to $31, a nearly 9 percent drop on the day. That's roughly 24 percent off the $38 strike, and falling. Which still means billions in Facebook's coffers, but not the glamorous, cash-soaring IPO that most expected.
It also means plenty of blame, allegations, and the early stages of governmental investigations. Of particular concern was a series of warnings issued by underwriters Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, and JPMorgan Chase, all of whom issued downgrades to closely-held clients. That could be kosher, though decisions to juice the strike-price and grossly boost available shares are also getting a second look.
Eddie Blazonczyk, dubbed the 'King of Polka,' has now passed. Blazonczyk suffered from heart-related conditions, and was 70.
Universal Music Group has now filed responses to a class action suit brought by the Temptations, Rob Zombie, Chuck D and the estate of Rick James (among others). On the issue of whether downloads should be treated as sales or licenses, UMG says the former was a rational and reasonable business decision.
In or around Oakland? The California Music Industry Summit is happening at the Stork Club on June 8-9, with Slacker, NARIP, E-40, BandPage, and the mayor of Oakland among the attendees.
A few realignments are emerging following Alliance Entertainment's acquisition of digital-to-physical distributor Audiolife. In particular, Audiolife partner Topspin will be shifting its physical fulfillment to Alliance, and expanding its suite of services in the process.
Spotify just landed in Australia, sure, but MOG? This was unexpected, though MOG has recently tied with ISP Telstra, with a launch touted 'within weeks'.
Actually, there's even more Facebook news to care about, though we're unclear how much work this means for bands. The company is now tweaking a few Timeline changes, and many of these alterations could become permanent. These appear to be cosmetic to the average user (though quite possibly, a headache for everyone else).
Take twenty file-sharing studies, put them together, and what do we find? That's exactly the 'meta-research' undertaken by Zeropaid, which found "no scientific basis for laws such as a 'graduated response' or censorship of the internet."
Deborah Newman Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Why do journalists insist on pressing Spotify to reveal what they are paying artists? The large majority of artists get their royalties from their record label based on negotiated royalty rates in their individual contracts. These are (or should be) confidential by contract, and are clearly not the same for every artist or label. Although there may be a few artists who have direct deals with Spotify, that is a very small percentage. And what about all the other digital music services -- should the public know what Rhapsody, MOG, Rdio and Slacker pay the labels for subscription/on-demand streaming? This whole topic is a waste of time, and it has put Spotify on the defensive when it should be 100% focused on growing their paid user base and scaling the service to tens of millions of music consumers. A bigger issue, in my mind, is the major labels' ownership position in Spotify (and other services), and whether/how/should the profits that may be generated from this investment (e.g., future IPO) flow back to the artists.
A manager Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Agreed. The issue should be more about major labels having equity stakes, and why Spotify is the only streaming service that has a free ad supported option. The per stream pays on the paid service are not so bad. On the ad supported service they are about one tenth from royalty statements that I have seen. So should we be concerned that the only service that has been granted the right to have a free version has a large part of equity owned by majors? And that these shareholders will be mroe concerned about post IPO stock prices than revenue?
FarePlay Wednesday, May 23, 2012
You can't seperate the equity shares that the labels have and the licensing deals that Spotify has been able negotiate with the labels. Most of the other services list their licensing fees and the potential for Spotify establishing the floor for a future compensation model is downright scarry.
Intersting that you bring up illegal file sharing sites, because what Spotify has been able to accomplish is a Napster based file sharing model legitimized by paying pennies on the dollar.
There is no coincidence that Shawn Fanning and Sean Parker are involved and the irony of the situation is that Spotify was able to negotiate uber low licensing deals after a decade of illegal file sharing set in motion by Napster.
Not to mention Spotify's ability to broker a deal with Facebook, a company where Mr. Fanning has a "historic" relationship.
Spotify does have an achillies heel. Some artists can demand that their music be removed and by "law" Spotify must comply.
Visitor Wednesday, May 23, 2012
... that Spotify has been able negotiate...
It's not so hard when you're the left hand of the entity you're "negotiating" with.
Visitor Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Ummm there's nothing about the issue you're speaking of in this article.