With A Voice Like This

Whether it's Music or Media - this is the Voice you're looking for.

You are here: Home / Archives for license

054 – City of Chicago vs. Live Music?

This episode of With A Voice Like This focuses on the draft of the Promoter Licensing Ordinance sent back to the Licensing committee for review due to a rapid response of the Music Community. The issue isn’t resolved, just put on hold for a bit longer. The topics include:

  • Background of the E2 tragedy which lead to this proposed ordinance
  • Point by point review of the draft’s exclusionary language defining Promoter
  • The 4 classes of licenses and their costs
  • What licensure requires and includes
  • Impact on the Chicago music scene as individual musician and from an economic standpoint
  • What you can do to be heard on the issue

And Comments from the Podcast Gallery

Listener’s Choice

This episode’s Listener’s Choice comes from Podcaster Rachel Ziese-Lecy, host of the Sims2 Challenges and co-host of Girl’s Night In. Her choice is from a band named Everyday Jones and the live version of ‘Here I am’ found on podsafeaudio.com.

Links used in tonight’s show:

Background on the E2 Tragedy:

Wikipedia

Chicago Tribune

Sites about the proposed Chicago Promoter Ordinance:

Chicago Music Commission

Draft of the proposal in PDF format

Chicago Artist’s Resource

CMC’s Ordinance Opinion Survey (result to be turned into mayor Daley’s office at 5:00 Friday, May 23)

[audioplayer file=”http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-52008/TS-115757.mp3?dl=1]

Listen above or download by right clicking and saving.

Regulation, Like the Internet, is a Tool

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?

Exploit the Tool and Not the Community

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…