May 13 2009

Performance Rights Act – my two cents on HR 848

The Performance Rights Act is up for a vote this week. Speaking as a performer, the premise of this Act is long overdue, that performers deserve to be paid for their work every time their performance is played on air by terrestrial radio. But from what I’ve seen and heard, I have questions that the execution suggested in this act could be flawed.

The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) is the main proponent against the passage of this Act. I’ve seen articles calling this a ‘performance tax’ implying (and I think I’m being generous here by saying implying) that the money goes to the government, to the argument that it’s free advertisement for the performer. I’m just going to draw a straight comparison to broadcast television. Any performer on television, be it in a commercial, movie or television show, gets paid whenever their performance is broadcast, no matter how much they got paid for the initial performance. It’s called a residual and for that matter, voiceover artists that do commercials on radio get residuals as well. I wonder what SAG or AFTRA would have to say if broadcast TV tried to not pay residuals saying it was free advertising for the performers.

That’s just one part… the next part is the breakdown of payout. Based on the segment of episode 096 of With A Voice Like This at the 06:44 minute mark the payout would be 50% for the master owner (read record label) and 50% split between main performer and session musicians (45% for the main performer and 5% split between the session musicians was quoted in the show). Well, no wonder the RIAA backs this ACT, their cut is 1% shy of controlling interest payout. Not all Master owners are major labels, Alice Peacock is an independent artist and her own record label, so it benefits different people in different ways, but the question then becomes what’s the percentage of indie labels vs. major labels played on terrestrial radio. It does beg the question of what’s fair for the performers. Are performers a disparate group like a child first learning about money and just as likely to take four nickels instead of two quarters because four is more than two? Because afterall, something is better than nothing at all.

Come to think of it, who does handle the royalty payouts? Wouldn’t it seem a natural fit for pre-existing Performance Rights Organizations (PROs) like ASCAP and BMI to expand their current charter and duties to handle that? Maybe, but instead a new single entity, Sound Exchange was created for Digital Royalties, including all performance royalties under this Act. At the 25:59 minute mark of episode 096, Sound Exchange seems to be doing a great job of finding that information and tracking down performers, but unlike ASCAP and BMI and even SESAC, Sound Exchange collects all Digital Royalties regardless of whether or not a performer is registered with or a member of Sound Exchange. In episode 048 with Samantha Murphy at the 08:05 minute mark, Sound Exchange has some strong ties to the RIAA, but despite that, there’s the question of what happens to the collected royalties that aren’t paid out, because the performer isn’t registered or a member of Sound exchange, deceased performers where no heirs can be identified or performers from countries that don’t have reciprocal agreements with Sound Exchange? Does that money just revert back to Sound Exchange and is that the best that can be done? If it’s collected without registration or membership, why isn’t it paid out under the same conditions?

With Technology so far ahead of an dated protection mechanism like the current copyright laws that are so desparately in need of an overhaul, is saying HR 848 is not perfect, but better than it is now enough or should we expect more? I don’t know, what do you think?

May 07 2009

097 – Performance Rights Act Part 2

Recorded 31 March 2009

Here’s the second half of the interview with Singer-Songwriter Alice Peacock and Founder and President of Alligator Records Bruce Iglauer about HR-848, the Performance Rights Act. Among the topics we discuss this episode:

Studio musicians and their role in performance rights
50% of terrestrial radio stations don’t play new music
The history of the beginning of Performance Rights Act from the 1930’s
How this fits with the Internet and “Appearance of Free Music”
The Digital World and protection
Online Theft
Performance Royalties and other nations
Digital technology and the vision at conception
How you can act on this issue
How does the current copyright terms affect this or does it?
Grass Roots approach to action on this issue
MusicFirstCoalition.org

If you’d like to learn more about Alice Pecock and her music, including her new release Love Remains, you can visit her at AlicePeacock.com. To find out more about Bruce Iglauer’s label Alligator Records, you can visit AlligatorRecords.com.

[00:37:04]
[audioplayer file=”http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-52008/TS-221821.mp3″]

Listen above or download by right clicking and saving.

May 05 2009

096 – Performance Rights Act Part 1

Recorded 31 March 2009

This episode is the first half of an interview with Alice Peacock, singer-songwriter and past president of the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences (NARAS) and Bruce Iglauer, Founder and President of Alligator Records, the world’s largest independent Blues Record Label.

Some of what we discuss in this episode of With A Voice Like This:

What HR-848 is all about
What the breakdown of royalty payouts
How the Payouts are handled (Master owner, performer, etc.)
Perspectives of Indie Labels and performers
Shrinking business of recording music
Does HR-848 go far enough?
History of Performance Rights Organizations
Reply to the ‘radio free promotion for the music and musicians’ stance

If you’d like to learn more about Alice Peacock and her music, you can go to AlicePeacock.com and to learn more about Alligator records, you can go to AlligatorRecords.com.

[00:37:50]
[audioplayer file=”http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-52008/TS-203995.mp3″]

Listen above or download by right clicking and saving.

Jun 24 2008

Who Do You Want To Pay For Your Music?

Well, it’s happened. Spain has announced that beginning July 1, it’s instituting a special anti-piracy tax called the Digital Canon [UPDATE: Article referenceing this no longer exists online] , according to an article on Billboard.biz. It puts a tax on gadgets that can copy, record or store sounds and images. Yes, I said store too.

Sounds like a new spin on the old sin tax. Except, with the standard things a sin tax applies to, you actually have to participate in the sin, e.g. gambling, smoking or consuming alcohol. This is more like saying “We’re instituting an anti-stabbing tax on all kitchenware and cutlery” (don’t worry, I’m sure spoons would have the smallest tax in that scenario). The tool has the capability, so you are taxed whether or not you use, or even intend to use it for that illicit purpose.

Now based on the article, all the monies collected are given to Artists’ Rights Organizations for distribution to the creators of the art as compensation for money lost from pirated works. There is no provision for how the money is to be distributed, it’s just given to the Rights Organizations. How would you decide to distribute the money? You’re getting a flat fee based on tools without any tracking what works are being pirated or used or anything. Yeah, let’s just leave it up to the old way of doing things, I’m sure that’s fair. It’s sounds like most of Spain feels that way…Or not.

But don’t worry about it, that’s Spain and not here. That could never happen here. An under informed government is never forced to take carte blanche on an almost out of control situation based on special interest groups’ input. No, not here.

So, what do you think? Does any of this matter? If we’re going to be charged on the Internet, and all indicators point that way, is this how it should work? Is it important that the creators of the art be protected and compensated for their works?

Who do you want to pay for your music?

Update: It’s been brought to my attention that Canada has an anti-piracy tax on recordable media (e.g. CDs DVDs) and did have a separate tariff on mp3 players (e.g. iPods) that has since been revoked/repealed. I haven’t found creditable sources for this info, are there any Canadians who could shed some extra light on this?

Mar 18 2008

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.

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.
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.
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?

Mar 17 2008

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…