Opinion
SHOHAM GEVA
EDITOR IN CHIEF
CLAIRE BRYAN
AND REGAN DETWILER
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS
LAURA SCHINAGLE
MANAGING EDITOR
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s editorial board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
T
here’s a big difference
between paying to stream
music and streaming for
free.
Calculations
from
the
Recording
Industry
Association
of
America’s annual
data report show
that each paid
music subscriber
contributes
about
$100
annually to the
music
industry.
That is 25 times as much as people
using
free
streaming
services
supported
by
advertisements.
Each person using those services
generates around $4 for the music
industry annually. Unfortunately
for the music industry, way more
people stream music for free
rather than purchase streaming
subscriptions.
Streaming’s
takeover
is
inevitable, but a free model
doesn’t seem to work because it
generates only one-third of the
revenue of paid subscriptions. On
top of that, less of the money from
free ad-supported streaming is
getting passed along to artists.
Royalties — what the artists earn
per stream — differ depending
on whether it’s a free stream or
a paid stream. As of December
2015, free streaming royalties
paid 23-percent lower rates to
artists than paid subscriptions.
So while a majority of users are
generating a small fraction of
total streaming revenues, less
of that fraction is getting passed
along to the artists.
The industry is struggling to
grow, but there’s an opportunity
to change that by converting all
these millions of free streamers
into
paying
subscribers.
It
shouldn’t be a hard sell — pay
$10 per month and you get access
to a library of 20 million songs.
More than fair — I think it’s our
obligation to the artists to pay.
There are tens of millions of
people using Spotify, SoundCloud,
Pandora and YouTube to stream
music for free. A lot of money is
being left on the table and major
labels need to better monetize
these platforms. Fortunately, that
process has begun.
SoundCloud has been working
for months to finalize licensing
deals
with
Warner,
Universal
and Sony — the three parent
companies
that
represent
the
majority of music produced in
the country. After SoundCloud
finished a licensing deal with
Sony in March, it immediately
rolled out a paid-subscription
service named SoundCloud Go.
Now, certain tracks will only be
available to paying SoundCloud
Go users. For example, a band and
their label can choose which songs
to release for free and which songs
to keep exclusively for premium
users. The transition toward a paid-
subscription model will help nudge
SoundCloud’s large user base to
start paying to stream music.
SoundCloud’s new business
model
is
categorized
as
“freemium”
—
offering
both
free and premium subscription
service options. It’s the same
freemium model that Spotify
uses and, according to their
recent
billion-dollar
funding
round, it has worked for them
so far. Spotify has been great
at converting free users into
paid users. Their CEO Daniel
Ek announced the company has
been adding one million paid
subscribers per month since last
June — that’s 10 million new
paying subscribers in the last nine
months. Hopefully, SoundCloud
will yield similar results.
Those paying subscribers are
needed now more than ever. The
industry’s 2015 growth is barely
even growth at all. If streaming
is going to come to the rescue,
it’s not going to be just any
streaming. A small percentage
of paying subscribers are doing
a bulk of the work. The current
model might benefit streaming
services
and
help
stimulate
industry-level
growth.
We
should ask, though, does it work
for artists?
Even
with
more
paying
subscribers, the current system
for compensating artists is flawed.
Do you think it’s fair that your
monthly
subscription
payment
goes to artists you don’t listen to?
That’s how the royalty system is
currently set up. Your subscription
payment goes into a large pool
that then pays artists fractions
of a penny per stream. Instead of
your money going directly to the
artists you listen to, some of the
money is used to pay bigger artists
generating greater royalties.
A proposed alternative to the
current system is a “subscriber
share” method that addresses this
issue. A subscriber share system
would pay artists based directly
on how much users listen to them.
This would refocus payments from
a system only concerned with
the number of listens to a new
system concerned with accounts
for percentage of time spent
listening to the artists. If you only
listen to one artist this month,
your subscription payment would
only be used to pay that artist.
This proposal would not affect
the streaming services. It would
only redistribute royalties among
artists, from those you aren’t
streaming to the ones you actually
are. If compensating artists fairly
is a concern, maybe this is a better
way to do so. Otherwise, we are
perpetuating a music industry
with massive inequality.
Like our tax system, royalties
are very complex and systematic
changes are hard to come by. The
first step toward a fairer system
is
understanding
the
current
one. And the current one is this:
Most users don’t pay to stream
music and don’t contribute to
compensating
artists.
Those
who do pay to stream are being
taken
advantage
of
and
the
artists they listen to are not being
compensated accordingly. Not all
streams are created equal, nor are
they created fairly.
— Zach Brown can be reached
at zmbrown@umich.edu.
Not all streams are created equal
ZACH
BROWN
Dear
University
Elections
Commission,
Please do your job.
With another year of Central
Student
Government
elections
behind us and another set of
representatives
and
executives
set to be sworn in soon, many
students on campus want to let
the memory of CSG elections fade
to the past. This election cycle,
like many before, has brought a
number of candidates, parties
and campaign promises to the
Diag. However, unlike in prior
years, this campaign season has
brought an onslaught of extreme
campaigning
and
more
than
$4,500 in campaign spending
between the two major parties.
I
have
no
problem
with
campaigning for CSG. Chalking
the Diag in favor of a given
party is as old of a tradition as
any. However, I begin to have
problems when an unending
assault on my privacy occurs.
While much of this is unavoidable,
as candidates are allowed to
enter residence halls and go
door to door, the University
Election
Code
specifically
prevents
“Irresponsible
Use
of Email Privileges.” Article
6 of the CSG Compiled Code
specifically prohibits candidates
from
“harvesting
student
email addresses for campaign
purposes,” assigning a 3-percent
vote
reduction
per
recipient,
per e-mail. With this in mind, I
became concerned when I started
receiving e-mails from candidates
I had no relationship with.
On
March
23,
I
filed
a
complaint with the University
Election
Commission
against
LSA Representative candidates
Craig Motola and Seth Schostak,
who had e-mailed my name as
part of a potentially harvested
listserv
advertising
their
campaign. A hearing was held,
and
despite
overwhelming
evidence to the contrary, both
Motola and Schostak were found
not guilty of an election code
violation,
a
violation
which
would
have
most
certainly
disqualified both of them from
the election.
In response to this injustice,
I urge the UEC to look to their
own prior decisions. In the 2015
case Brenner v. George, the
commission found CSG candidate
Stevin George guilty of a code
violation and disqualified him
from the election. The offense in
this case occurred when George
sent an e-mail to a listserv
he didn’t own. What makes
spamming
a
private
listserv
worse than creating a listserv
out of nowhere to spam?
Even more laughable about
the
UEC’s
decision
was
their
standard
of
evidence
for
conviction,
noting
they
would
be
“hard-pressed
to
think
of
any
conceivable
circumstance, perhaps short
of video evidence, in which
a complainant would be able
to prove email harvesting.”
Aside from the unbelievably
high standard of evidence that
comes with demanding video
proof of criminal activity, the
UEC’s decision is extremely
contrary to their own prior
findings. There was no video
evidence present in the ejection
of Stevin George, nor was
there in the 2015 case Email
Harvesting, in which the UEC
established
a
three-pronged
test to determine if harvesting
had occurred.
Why have rules if there is no
reason to follow them?
In the majority opinion, delivered
by election commissioners Mallory
Andrews and Emily Rosenthal,
the commission agreed that 823
people had been e-mailed by Craig
Motola, and that 455 people had
been e-mailed twice by Seth
Schostak. Despite eight victims
coming forward, all swearing they
had no affiliation with the listserv,
the UEC still suggested harvesting
had not occurred, suggesting it
had been “a prank” or “a simple,
innocent typo.”
This type of treatment from the
body slated to protect the students
from out-of-control campaigning
is unacceptable. By letting people
the commission even admitted
had “probably harvested emails”
off the hook, the commission
opens the door for unlimited
spamming of innocent students.
As
dissenting
commissioner
Dylan Bennett reported: “We
will now have representatives
on our student assembly who
the entirety of this Commission
believes have likely cheated the
democratic process.”
Cheating the democratic process
is not something I’m looking for
in a CSG representative. With a
budget of more than $450,000, I
need to know that those in control
are capable of being trusted.
Having every commissioner of
the UEC think that two LSA
representatives “probably” broke
a basic rule destroys that trust.
Ignoring the election code isn’t
something I’m looking for in CSG
either, as the UEC is responsible
to
enforce
the
code
on
the
candidates. Without having full
faith that those who won the
election did so honestly and can be
trusted to make decisions on the
student body’s behalf, the $7.19
that every Michigan student pays
in CSG taxes may have been better
off saved.
Though
the
decision
in
Pearlman v. Motola et. al has
been made, I hope future CSG
candidates
are
more
honest
regarding
the
election
code
and choose to follow the rules,
even if they can get away with
breaking them. I also call on the
UEC to stop the harvesting of
e-mails for campaigning during
election season, even if it means
ejecting candidates.
— Kevin Sweitzer is an
Editorial Board member.
Why have rules?
KEVIN SWEITZER | OP-ED
Make baseball fun again
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and
op-eds. Letters should be fewer than 300 words while op-eds
should be 550 to 850 words. Send the writer’s full name and
University affiliation to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.
E-mail Dan at Dancp@umich.EDu
DAN PARK
CHRIS
CHOWDER
Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Gracie Dunn, Caitlin Heenan,
Jeremy Kaplan, Ben Keller, Minsoo Kim, Payton Luokkala,
Kit Maher, Madeline Nowicki, Anna Polumbo-Levy,
Jason Rowland, Lauren Schandevel, Melissa Scholke,
Kevin Sweitzer, Rebecca Tarnopol, Ashley Tjhung,
Stephanie Trierweiler, Hunter Zhao
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
4A — Monday, April 11, 2016
I
magine if Michael Jordan in his prime
said basketball was boring. It would be
sadder than the frequency with which
we use the crying Jordan
meme.
Washington
Nationals
star
Bryce
Harper — arguably one of
the top two young players
in
the
game
—
said
baseball is tired. Last
week, he sported a hat
that read, “Make Baseball
Fun Again.”
I know from playing
baseball for more than a
decade of my life that it
can be really fun or really
boring. Making a diving catch in the outfield
attempting to impress the softball team? Fun.
Taking down stats and tracking the pitch
count on the bench while eating a Subway
sandwich with chips on it in 40-degree
weather? Not fun.
As for Major League
Baseball,
the
reason
it
isn’t fun is because there
are unwritten rules that
are too uptight. Not all of
these rules are bad — my
particular favorite is giving
the opposing team a taste
of its own medicine. If the
opposing pitcher sends a
mid-90s fastball to your
teammate’s
dome,
you
as a pitcher are basically
contractually obligated to do the same thing
in the next half inning. It’s like an honor
code. If the benches clear, bonus. If you throw
down the batter who charges at you like a
sack of potatoes, even better. Here’s to you,
Rick Porcello.
But the one unwritten rule I find
incredibly stupid is that bat flips are a no-no.
For those of you who don’t know, a bat flip is
when the batter obliterates a ball over the
wall with no doubt, and instead of setting
the bat down like a gentleman, they toss the
bat in the air as to say, “Won’t be needing
this anymore.” If you haven’t seen it before,
it’s majestic. The Toronto Blue Jays’ Jose
Bautista did it so beautifully in the playoffs
last season that a fan had the scene tattooed
on his leg. I get goosebumps when I watch
the replay as popcorn rains down from the
upper deck of Rogers Centre.
However, players in Korea make bat flips an
art form. Choi Jun-seok even did one off of a
foul ball. You’re not supposed to do that, but
more props to him. If that happened in the
MLB, benches would no doubt clear, because,
of course, it’s in the unwritten rules. The Fake
Unwritten Rules Of Baseball, section eight,
article seven: No bat flips, and if you flip your
bat on a foul ball, Babe Ruth will haunt your
dreams for eternity.
The problem with baseball purists —
which include former and current MLB
players and fans — is that hating bat flips
is more about hating personality. Baseball
purists want every player to act the same: to
shut their mouths, hold onto their bats and
not showboat. But some of the most beloved
players were different from the norm. Ozzie
Smith did backflips in the ‘80s. Ty Cobb put
fear into middle infielders in the first two
decades of the 20th century by sharpening
his spikes. Prince Fielder will eat a fan’s
nachos and Justin Verlander used to eat
Taco Bell before every game. Those are
accepted behaviors — well, except for Ty
Cobb’s sharpening spikes (his opponents, as
well as their fans, hated that).
But why do we hate when a player just
wants to be himself? Let Ty Cobb be Ty Cobb.
There shouldn’t be any griping when Yasiel
Puig of the Los Angeles Dodgers wants to
catch a fly ball behind his back or does a bat
flip. Who are fans and opposing players to
say what an individual should or shouldn’t
do in a sport that needs flair because it’s so
long and can be boring at times? Different
is what makes baseball cool. Baseball is the
best sport when its quirkiness from its fans
and players come alive. There needs to be
more things like fans trolling Hunter Pence
with signs like, “Hunter
Pence wears socks with
sandals,” or how I noticed
the
Oakland
A’s
made
the
Oakland
Coliseum
the rowdiest and most
rambunctious
stadium
come playoff time. The
drums and noise makers
were
never
enough
to
beat my Tigers every year,
though.
Baseball needs crazy. It
thrives off it. Fans love it.
Like no other sport, it drives millionaires
off their rocker to throw temper tantrums
like little leaguers. ’Roid rage is a different
story. Steroids have no place in the game.
Though they led to more home runs, which
lead to a higher probability of bat flips, it’s
cheating, no matter how impressive the
amount of work the players put in is.
Baseball is at its best and more fun
when the players are free to be themselves.
Baseball
needs
weirdos,
outcasts
and
villains. It needs players who are way too
cocky for their own good and will not be shy
to tell you that.
Baseball needs the charm it had while
I was playing baseball in high school. We
clotheslined each other off walk-off hits,
danced in the dugout while we mixed
Gatorade and called it Slow Motion Potion.
We despised kids on certain teams, my best
friend threw knuckleballs in games for the
hell of it, and we even got in yelling fights
with opponents where benches cleared.
As Bryce Harper who at 23 years old is
a kid in the game, wants, the MLB needs
to play the sport like they are kids again.
Baseball is not adult, it’s not perfect and
it’s not vanilla normal. It’s a game when
it’s being treated more like a business.
How will we make baseball fun again?
We will build a wall keeping the purists
out. How are we going to fund it? They
will pay for it. I can’t explain how, but
they’re going to, and I’m going to make
sure of it.
— Chris Chowder can be reached
at ccrowd@umich.edu.
“Baseball needs
weirdos, outcasts
and villains.”