After more than twenty years of horrific and reprehensible allegations, to this day. .
Almost immediately after reading the verdict, observers began to ask: Now that he has been convicted, will his music be removed from major streaming services such as Spotify and Apple Music? Although representatives of both organizations did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the diversity, the question raised ethical, legal and logistical questions that arose three years ago when Spotify tried to approve Kelly’s music by banning it from the platform’s official playlist (still in service. While)
In May 2014, allegations of sexual misconduct that led to Kelly’s arrest led Spotify to try to introduce a playlist-ban policy against music, including “hate speech” (such as racist songs), and a more loosely defined “hate speech,” an artist. Or directed towards their conduct in the personal life of the Creator, and clearly aimed at Kelly. Yet almost immediately after the policy was strangely announced, many mentioned that Kelly had not been convicted of anything, so why should his music be punished? Rapper XXXTentacion (who will be killed in a robbery just a few weeks later) was accused of suffocating his pregnant girlfriend, shouldn’t his music also be allowed? Spotify quickly added XXXTentacion to the list.
But what about Phil Specter’s music, a convicted murderer who made and co-wrote some of the best hits of the early 1960s, including “You’ve Lost That Love” from “The Du Ron Ron” and “Spanish Harlem” “Feelings” and “Do you know him or do you love him”? What about Jim Gordon, co-author of the 1970 classic “Layla” with Eric Clapton, who was convicted of killing his mother during a psychotic episode in 1983 and imprisoned at a California medical facility? All of their music remains and remains and has been playlisted on major streaming services – such as the music of countless musicians, songwriters, producers and others – accused or convicted of major or harmful crimes.
As the hype escalated, Spotify moved away from the policy (at least verbally, Kelly’s music wasn’t shown in most cases, though not in most Spotify playlists). The company quickly learned that it was a slippery opal that it was trying to climb, and later that month Spotify co-founder and CEO Daniel One admitted that “we made a mistake and could have done better.”
Yet a year ago, indie-rock band Pwr Bttm, one of whose members was accused of sexual misconduct, had his music immediately removed from the streaming service and virtually unavailable. So what was the difference?
This includes legal and logistical issues. While streaming services retain control over their music management, music is uploaded to the platform by rights holders, usually record companies. Following the allegations against Pwr Bttm, the band’s labels almost immediately removed the band’s music and their management also dropped them, leaving the group with little refuge.
Similarly, in January 2019 – shortly after the premiere of the documentary “Surviving R. Kelly”, which aroused public opinion against the singer – Lady Gaga Kelly with her 2013 bad themed sexual theater, “My Body with” Do What You Want “),” Streaming Service Removed from, saying “What I hear about the allegations against Kelly is absolutely horrific and unsafe. “His labor, Interscope, clearly supported the move and adhered to the streaming services (although it is easy to find the song posted illegally on the Internet). Separated from the singer, after months of criticism, in January 2011. With the exception of Gaga Duet, it is easily available on streaming services.
Should it be there? This question brings up more challenging moral – and legal – questions. Banning Kelly’s music is a form of censorship, and all rights must be exercised against others to ban all metrics that are used. But where to draw that line?
Kelly’s music continues to earn royalties, probably millions every year, such as Specter, such as “Layla”. And the question extends further, exactly who should be punished? Should every lyricist, producer, or instrumentalist convicted of a particular criminal offense be banned from each of their songs? (We didn’t even discuss Michael Jackson, who was widely accused of sexual misconduct but was not convicted.)
It’s a broad view of wild complex issues involving “forbidden” music from streaming services. And while such bans are a powerful statement – Spotify was clearly trying to ban his playlist on Kelly – it’s effectively them. If Kelly’s music is removed from one streaming service, another will post it এবং and if it is removed from each major, her fans will upload their old CDs to the Internet in a growing game hack-a-mole that will cost thousands of dollars and continue. It will take thousands of hours to go.
To illustrate the situation in the most extreme light: Adolf Hitler’s Manifesto, “Main Camp” is widely available for anyone to read. Although the proceeds from its sale were donated to Jewish charities and at least to Amazon, its message of hatred remains, as are thousands of other hateful tricks. People can easily buy them, and guns and cigarettes and many more that are far more harmful than a song.
Which leads to the main point: great art is sometimes made by horrible people and whether a person is morally comfortable to accept that art and making money for that horrible person depends on them.