This episode of With A Voice Like This is the conclusion of how I’d like to see things work in regard to music and the Internet and distribution of both responsibilities and money.

• Some quick clarifications from statements made last show.
• A brief recap of Episode 057‘s (Part 1) major points

Music and the Internet is a Virtual Venue

• Performers perform (Streaming)
• Consumers pay (e.g. cover charge, all inclusive charge)
• Consumers can also buy recordings and other merchandise above entrance fees
• Venues (ISPs,  applications) are responsible for reporting and payment

Database

• With new code, all streams, downloads, etc. are tracked and put in a database (Who holds the DB TBD)
• No more sampling needed, just a direct pull of tracks from the database

Collecting

• Performance Rights Organizations (PRO) could still collect, but pay based on actual numbers, not samplings
• No PRO could collect for non-members and keep money if the performers either don’t join, can’t be found or don’t claim their money
• Artists, Authors, Lyricists and Publishers responsibility is to secure a code so they are credited and paid for their works or not paid by their choice.
• Any music without the code is flagged in database and action taken (example of software recognition at EveryZing.com)

Comments From The Podcast Gallery

The Down side

This discussion is an overly simplistic layout of a very complex idea. Currently the Orphan Works Act almost passed in Congress and it seems very similar to what I’ve outlined here. You can hear it discussed at great length on Webcomics Weekly #38 from a visual artist’s point of view and its major weaknesses. I feel I’ve taken some of the things into account that were ignored in the Orphan Works Act and although not exactly the same, the pitfalls could be very similar.

On A Lighter Note

Here are examples of some voiceover work I had just recently done.

Listen above or download by right clicking and saving.

058 – My View – Music And The Internet Part 2: The Implementation originally appeared on With A Voice Like This on 23 June 2008.

Originally this episode was to feature an ASCAP representative, but the timing didn’t quite work out for this show. so the discussion turned to an overview what issues were facing on the Internet with music and content in general.

Topics discussed are:

• ASCAP’s take with the Songwriter’s Bill of Rights using rickrolling as an example.
  
• Music leads the Internet charge in content and how it delivery is being monetized and even moving toward regulation
• Why does the same free content on the web suddenly become worth charging for and being paid for in a different format?
• Content on the web isn’t really free? Someone’s making money on content.
• Protection versus Statements of rights by a subset of people
• The different factions involved in the music on the Internet trying to stake their claims
• Limited past delivery systems versus the Internet’s near limitless capabilities
• Protections versus Control
• Net Neutrality
• Selling your Privacy for convenience
• The double-edged sword of easy access
• Comments from the Podcast Gallery
• What’s Freedom without responsibility?

Links discussed in the show:

ASCAP’s Songwriter’s Bill of Rights

My previous post The Perception of Value

Podcasting Legal Guide wiki and in PDF format

Listen above or download by right clicking and saving.

049 – Is This the Rights Thing to Do? Part 3 originally appeared on With A Voice Like This on 18 April 2008.

This episode of With A Voice Like This is the conclusion of the discussion with Independent Singer/Songwriter Samantha Murphy of SMtvMusic.com stemming from the April 10 release of ASCAP‘s Songwriter’s Bill of Rights.

topics in this episode include:

• Government’s role in resolution of these issues
• Sound Exchange, its background and methodology
• What Samantha is doing to put action behind her viewpoints
• The role of Education in music and the Digital Age – meisa.org
• Questions and Comments from the Podcast Gallery
• Creative Commons

Links discussed in this episode:

Samantha Murphy at SMtvMusic.com

Samantha’s e-mail is sm@smtvmusic.com

Performance Rights Organizations: ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, Sound Exchange

Samantha Murphy’s article written for a Princeton Symposium

Samantha also works with DigitalFreedom.org/

SaveNetRadio.org

Fading Ways Online

MEISA.org – Music & Entertainment Industry Student Association

Lawrence Lessig article – Commons Misunderstandings: ASCAP on Creative Commons

Listen above or download by right clicking and saving.

048 – Is This the Rights Thing to Do? Part 2 originally appeared on With A Voice Like This on 14 April 2008.

Thursday, April 10, just in time for their big ‘I Create Music’ ASCAP Expo in LA, ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers) released their Songwriter’s Bill of Rights. In this episode and the next, recorded live on April 10, I discuss this with Samantha Murphy, an independent singer/songwriter and outspoken proponent of change for how music is delivered, monetized and protected in the digital age.

Topics covered in this episode include:

• Samantha’s unique experience as a professional performing musician since the age of six
• The Songwriter Bill of Rights read
• Transparency of PROs and their methods
• How this affects Net Neutrality
• The effect of the Internet on music delivery
• One PRO’s line in the sand
• Who do we turn to, the Government?

The conclusion of this discussion with Samantha Murphy can be heard in episode 048.

[Additional Note: At the beginning of this episode, I made the statement that ASCAP's Bill of Rights was to benefit performers. As Samantha pointed out, while you can have a performer account with ASCAP, it is a completely separate entity of its own and this Bill of Rights deals only with Songwriters.

Edit: A further clarification from Samantha is that the two types of accounts are Writer and Publisher, not Performer .]

Links from this episode:

Samantha Murphy at SMtvMusic.com

Performance Rights Organizations:ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, Sound Exchange

ASCAP Songwriter’s Bill of Rights

Portfolio.com article about the ASCAP Bill of Rights by Sam Gustin

Portfolio.com article Paying the Piper by Sam Gustin

Samantha Murphy’s article written for a Princeton Symposium

Samantha also works with DigitalFreedom.org/

Listen above or download by right clicking and saving.

047 – Is This the Rights Thing to Do? Part 1 originally appeared on With A Voice Like This on 10 April 2008.

Equally important as what is regulated is how it’s made compliant

The first question is what is regulated? The knee jerk response is the technology, but that’s not what would be most effective here. The technology is already regulated at least partially, by what is and isn’t allowed beyond certain borders. The technology also changes so quickly, trying to regulate it solely isn’t feasible.

In the United States efforts have been made to both regulate and control Internet usage. You need only to look as far as existing governing bodies, such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). They have the blueprints of the what needs to be regulated, but their regulations are based on delivery systems much more limited than the Internet so they aren’t as effective as they could be. As for control, just look at the RIAA and the ongoing battle against Net Neutrality. This “Carve out our piece of the pie” approach fails because it doesn’t take into account the rights and relationships of the Business Partners, Clients and Customers and protects no one but the interest group that’s pushing its own agenda.

So start with the what of regulations, based on the rights and relationships and the existing blueprints. Some things will need to be thought of internationally and some nationally, asking the experts in their fields for input. And it needs to be mandated (yes, that means government). This is possibly the easier of the tasks, but by no means will it be simple.

Where regulating the Internet will succeed or fail will be in compliance. Compliance needs to be scalable and seriously determined by those implementing the regulations. In turn the implementing parties will be held accountable on every level for being compliant. And what is the basis for the scalability? Ability and Resources. There are three main reasons/examples of this.

1. If you’ve ever been involved on any front of bringing a legacy system into compliance with new regulations, you know it’s a completely different process than building a new system to compliance. Both ability and resources come into play on this. So two different companies have two different methods of compliance based on the systems they have and how they have to reach compliance. In some cases that answer is to start from scratch.
2. Different types of service providers have different needs and concerns toward compliance. ISPs, whether they be DSL, Cable, WiFi or other delivery systems need to approach compliance differently from Application Service Provider, so Verizon, AT&T and Comcast, et al. have a different set of needs than Facebook, Netvibes, Microsoft and Apple.
3. Those with with most resources have the most to protect through the regulation, multibillion dollar corporations as compared to startups. Any acquisitions of smaller companies will automatically scale compliance based on the gains by the acquiring company/corporation. Those protections will also be shaped by the relationships between business partners, clients and customers.

How does all this happen? By an implementation period as a part of the regulatory process. During this period all the parties responsible for implementing regulations must document what they determine to be compliance based on the best of their ability and resources. Then meet those standards of compliance by the end of the implementation period. The implementing company/partner/corporation will be held accountable to those standards. If they cannot provide the proper documentation or their standards through documentation are found to be inadequate or inappropriate, they are held responsible and are open to any and all penalties for non-compliance. For example, if a Terms of Service Agreement written as a part of compliance is found unreasonable or unenforceable, it’s non-compliant. It serves everyone to be as thorough as possible and it will also provide a basis to be proactive. Anything developed after the implementation period needs to either be compliant to existing documentation or have new documentation completed prior to its roll-out.

It’s not a new approach, nor is it quick, simple or easily understood. It is workable and scalable even as new technology replaces old. It all comes down to this: Publicly available doesn’t mean unprotected and we need to get started on this as soon as possible.

That’s a 30,000 foot view, what do you think?

Regulation, Like the Internet, is a Tool originally appeared on With A Voice Like This on 18 March 2008.

Never has the chasm between ability and responsibility been so wide as on the Internet.

The Internet is a tool. For me personally, it gives me the ability to create and sell my music and any other merchandise without the responsibility of having to carry an inventory through Print on Demand (POD). It gives me the ability to reach an audience with a podcast without the responsibility of owning a 1000 watt transmitter, an FCC license (Actually, I have a 3rd Class license, but I don’t need it for a podcast) or being employed by a licensed broadcast entity. The internet gives me the ability to publish a blog without the responsibility of owning a printing press or having to maintain a supply of printing necessities which is much more than anything I could do prior to the internet and its capabilities. That’s a powerful tool and I’m not even scratching the surface of its capabilities by using myself as an example.

But like any tool, it depends on how it’s used. The Internet gives the ability of an Internet business/application to release a public statement along the lines of “We are cooperating fully with authorities and encourage our members to report any activities…” without the responsibility to fix the underlying, bigger issue that caused the problem in the first place. It also gives the ability to use journalanteism to push an agenda or spread a conspiracy without the responsibility having to provide a factual basis (The Internet hasn’t cornered the market on this, it’s just far more prolific due to easy access). The Internet ironically, also gives the ability to create an unedited, recorded live podcast where the host talks about the abuses of monitoring telephone calls without court order and then turns around, sometimes even in the same show and call a person without notifying them of either being recorded or broadcast live without the responsibility of understanding the correlation between the two and acting on it. Don’t get me started on copyright infringement, that’s another three or four blog entries on its own. That’s a powerful tool and I haven’t even scratched the surface of its capabilities.

So it seems now that whenever there is an issue on the Internet, as a whole we’ve reverted to the elementary school defense of “They started it!” and all the finger pointing and snapping at each other, choosing sides and a slap fight commences until everyone is tired and forgets about it. The real problem is that these individual battles have a cumulative effect and we’re quickly approaching the saturation point. So the topic is starting to roll around to Regulation of the Internet, as it should.

Just remember Regulation, like the Internet itself, is a tool…

Exploit the Tool and Not the Community originally appeared on With A Voice Like This on 17 March 2008.