Irving Azoff: so many questions (well maybe a couple?)

Maybe y'all have already talked about this and if you have, kindly please link me to it but I know you all have probably heard about the YouTube controversy that was started by Irving Azoff. Does it seem like he suddenly started his publishing firm around the same time YouTube was starting their Music Key service, which probably won't be fully available until the beginning of next year and how he claims he owns 20,000 "copyrights" of songs from artists like Pharrell, Christina Aguilera, the Gershwin Brothers, Eagles and Boston.

My first question is when did he start his licensing firm?

Second is how did he manage to get all these songs? One of the artists he claims he owns songs from (Aguilera) is still on BMI's site (and articles talking about Irving sending threats to YouTube/Google including a possible $1 billion lawsuit).

Third is does he really thinks he has a winning hand in this fight for "control"?

Usually if a label or a publishing company didn't want an upload of a copyrighted song on YouTube, the channel would either block the video or delete it from the servers and give you a warning. Let's not even act that's still not effective.

So what is Irving's deal? Is it because of the streaming issue in general or is he just mad at YouTube in general? Just weird...to me at least.

 

He's an opportunist who is sizing up a company with a very fat wallet.

The question with Irv is always is it about the artist or about Irv?

 

blocking videos on YouTube is futile. The minute you block it, a thousand illegal uploaders are waiting in the wing to re-upload it.

The tech geeks have won out over those of us who wish to hold the rights to our work and be compensated for it.

 

Azoff's performance rights company is Global Music Rights. It was started in 2013. Azoff/GMR has those songs because artists signed up: Azoff lured artists saying he could get better royalties for them than ASCAP or BMI. Main problem for ASCAP and BMI is that they are bound by regulatory decrees that prevent them from negotiating better royalties.

Azoff is basically saying that GMR has not licensed its songs to Youtube. Youtube says it has a license to those songs from ASCAP or BMI. One of the many complicated issues in this battle is that ASCAP and BMI issue multi-year licenses. If Pharell signed up with GMR this year, his songs may still continue to be covered under long term licenses previously issued by ASCAP/BMI. That may be why you are seeing artists with GMR still listed on BMI's site.

 

^ Got you. Didn't know he had started it in 2013 but it does seem like he has a losing battle since many of the artists or songs he claims he owns are still technically owned by BMI and ASCAP. So if he wanted to sue, he probably would have to prove he owns it or it won't go through.

 

None of us on the outside really know who owns what. GMR has said that ASCAP, BMI and Youtube refuse to let them or the artists know exactly what the situation is with their songs as between ASCAP/BMI and Youtube. Maybe Youtube really has rights to those songs. Maybe Youtube does not, and these are delaying tactics to call GMR's bluff on its threat of a lawsuit. Either way, if I were ASCAP, BMI or Youtube, I probably wouldn't want to show my cards to GMR.

 

^ They won't, I don't think. I don't think they're that stupid lol that would fall into Azoff's hands. To be fair, I don't think he's anymore a speaker for the artists as BMI/ASCAP/YouTube are.

 

searching my mind to recall anyone who speaks for the artist anymore.

 

^ Don't. You'll hurt your head.

 

Azoff is very much like Allen Klein, in terms of ruthlessness, unpleasantness, etc. He shares a little better with those he represents than did Klein, which is why he manages to hold on to some of them. But they're cut from very similar cloth in a lot of ways.

 

I think the right lawyers can make a case for contributory infringement against You Tube. You cannot just provide a means for people to routinely upload copyrighted materials and "publish" it to millions of viewers and feign ignorance. The law is just lagging behind the technology.

If it takes an unpleasant man like Azoff to achieve Justice for creators then it will be truly ironic.

 

big tech has bought of more politicians than record labels execs have, methinks. Will be interesting to see how the sharply-divided Supreme Court views this.

 

Did anyone other than their own managers/agents? Certainly not record labels.

 

I'd argue that record labels cared more about the wellbeing and living wage paychecks of bands in their roster than the millions of fans who watch a few YouTube clips and download hundreds of albums for free do.

even if record sale royalties were poor, even mid-tier artists could count on at least 20-30k per year in "salary" from sales of their albums. They could live a base existence without having to constantly tour and hawk T Shirts to merely get by.

 

The artists themselves, perhaps?

 

what a sick, sad world when patrons of the arts have been relegated to the dustbins of history.

 

Yep. The next potential McCartney or Dylan will chuck the guitar and instead enroll in law or business school.

 

Azoff is a very unpleasant man, but there's no denying that he goes to bat for the artists he represents.

As in indication of how disliked he was by the labels, many years ago MCA sent a Christmas card to everyone on its media mailing list. Inside the card was Azoff's home phone number.

 

Azoff has done more for musicians in one day than Steve Jobs (or any other internet entrepreneur) has done in their lifetime.