6 things to improve your chances of getting your music synched…

Music synchronisation has long been something artists have had an inherent interest in due to the obvious rewards it offers, mainly the combination of both exposure and cash. Lovely.

It also has a history of successfully breaking artists into the mainstream, if it wasn’t for Levis I would have never discovered Babylon Zoo’s “Spaceman” and the consequences of that aren’t even worth contemplating.

So how do you get your music on the new iPod advert? Or in the Eastenders caff whilst two people have a miserable conversation about their miserable lives? Or on the new Paris Hilton show where she chooses an idiot from a line of idiots to be her new idiotic best friend?.

Well read on my friend and hopefully the following advice will help you on your merry way.

First of all let me just break down some of the lingo I’ll be chucking hither and tither during this post:

Synch (synchronisation) – The act of putting music on top of visuals (TV, Movies, Games, Films, Websites etc) or other audio (Radio adverts etc).

Creatives – The people who work for advertising agencies/production companies who have “the vision” of what they want their final product to look like.

The Client – the brand/company which the product (advert, TV programme, website etc) is being made for and who the creatives are working for

Music Supervisors – the people that look for the track after they’ve been given their direction by the creatives

1) Find people who know what they’re doing and let them worry about it.

Unless the Creatives have your track in mind already and they’re knocking on your door with a briefcase full of cash in one hand and a contract in the other then getting your music under their noses is not the easiest thing to do. So much so that it’s peoples full time jobs to get chummy with music supervisors in order to get the music they’re representing on their radar.

Your best option is to find a synch agent or service (like Sentric Music of course) who’ll be pushing your music on your behalf as they’re the people who’ll be wining and dining the music supervisors whilst slipping them a cheeky sampler CD in-between the fish and soup courses.

Music Supervisor - “Delightful Haddock that”

Synch Agent - “Indeed”

Music Supervisor – “What’s the soup again? Winter Vegetable Melody? I must say it’s awfully nice of you to take me out like this”

Synch Agent – “No worries! Just thought it’d be nice to catch up, and the soup is Leek and Potato I believe… Talking about Leek and Potato soup have you heard this new track we’re representing by (insert Welsh band’s name here)?”

As you can see it’s a fine art that shouldn’t be sniffed at.

DON’T PAY UPFRONT for a service like this. There are a few companies out there that will ask for cash in exchange for submitting your music for advertising campaigns and what not but I’d personally avoid these like the plague. Go for either a publishing service that will push your music for free (like us), wait until a synch agent approaches you due to their love of your music and ask to represent you or wait for a traditional publishing deal to come along. If either of the latter two do happen make sure you seek legal advice before signing anything and remember: copyright is king so always lease and never look to sign over your copyright for an extended period of time.

2) Know who owns your rights and make sure they get on with one another.

In the majority of cases the core readership of this blog will own the copyright to both the master recordings and the songs themselves. If this is the case then you have nothing to worry about as once you’ve given the OK to whoever is pushing your music for synch then no more permission needs to be sought after.

If you have a label you need to make sure they know that there is a publisher pushing your material for synchronisation as permission for the master rights is also essential before any use can be confirmed. With the contacts we have in America who have placed some of Sentric Music’s artists tunes on programs on VH1 and MTV they’ve always requested music that is ‘pre cleared on both sides’ which to put in laymans terms means that they can use it without having to get permission from both us and the master rights holders first. This is due to the hasty turnaround deadlines the TV industry works to and also because of the time difference between us and our Atlantic neighbours.

We have strong relationships with many record labels and once we’ve been given permission by both themselves and the artists to begin pushing the material then we go and do what we do best and in the majority of cases there is little problem. However there is one label in particular who haven’t been the best (they’re a major, no surprises there) and therefore we’re unable to push the artist’s music for synch, which is a pity as the album is bloody well marvellous!

3) Always record instrumental versions of your music.

Having an instrumental version of your material handy is always a brilliant thing to have and usually doesn’t take up much of your precious studio time (just take off the vocals, level it a bit and bounce it down so I’ve been informed – although my experience of sound technology is limited to me recording myself playing the intro to Plug In Baby on a second hand acoustic guitar through a mini disc player when I was a teenager… I could have been Timbaland).

If a creative really likes your track it’s very common for them to request an instrumental version as well so when they’re cutting up the music to fit the video they can work their magic. So have one available, and let whoever is pushing your music know!

4) Be patient.

Over any one advert there may be a whole gallimaufry (which is ‘loads’ to a normal person) of music supervisors searching and submitting music to earn their percentage so competition is fierce. You may be up against thousands of other songs so it’s going to be rare that your track is the perfect one for the placement. Or even if it is perfect the client might not want to use it anyway and go for something else that they want which may be for various reasons: helping out a friend at a record label, they think the other track will be a better match for their brand, or they might just be an idiot.

We recently submitted some music for a particular advert which worked extremely well and the creatives also agreed, but for a reasons only beknowst to her, the client wanted to use M People. Having to explain why M People are no longer culturally relevant in a world full of HD TV’s and Twitter isn’t the easiest thing to do without sounding downright patronising and we’re currently waiting back to hear her response.

I’ve known certain music supervisors who were in their jobs for years until they landed their first synch deal and this isn’t due to them being bad at their job or having a narrow musical knowledge, far from it, it can just genuinely take that long for something to pay off so just chill out and enjoy life in the interim ok?

5) Demos aren’t good enough

If you get to the stage where you’re submitting music for briefs then don’t bother sending in a demo version of your new song that you’re convinced “is going to break you” because firstly it’s not and secondly as soon as the music supervisor hears the opening four seconds and realises the production quality is poor then it’ll be deleted, never to be heard again. Here at Sentric Music we sometimes have to listen to hundreds of tracks with the purpose of whittling them down to an acceptable number to send to the client and if the production quality is poor then we simply can’t submit it.

6) Apply self censorship

Be sure to read the brief and to listen to any reference tracks mentioned by the creatives/music supervisors. If they say they’re looking for something that is both energetic and sounds like “Ace of Spades” by Motorhead then don’t send something in that is purely energetic, but sounds nothing like Lemmy and Co.

I know it’s exciting to imagine your music on an advert for a multinational brand and I know it’s exciting to consider that a placement on a worldwide advert could be worth upwards of £100k but if your music doesn’t fit the brief then simply don’t submit it.

If you submit something that doesn’t match you’re going to piss off the music supervisor who will then be less inclined to listen to anything you also send in the future.

So there you go – six tips to help you get your music synched.

I know I’ve mentioned Sentric a couple of times in this post already and I often stress that this blog is purely for advice and not for marketing but on this occasion I feel it is relevant so bear with me as I do a bit of plugging…

If you sign up to Sentric Music then you’ll automatically be added onto our briefing distribution list where you’ll receive regular requests for music of various genres. We have been successful in placing music on nationwide TV advertising campaigns, we regularly have music placed on TV programmes (with Hollyoaks being a repeat customer) and we have a number of companies within the States pushing our music for synch. As ever it’s free to join up and if you go to the About Us page on our website you’ll find testimonies from some of our hundreds of users. Right, marketing done.

What I’m listening to this week: Bombay Bicycle Club, The Jane Bradfords and And So I Watch You From Afar

What I’m reading this week: Catch 22 by Joesph Heller and Smalltown America’s blog

Stay tuned

7 things I want from your Facebook page…

By Pursehouse – Follow me on Twitter.

Facebook. You’re on it. I’m on it. The vast majority of people who are ever going to show even the slightest bit of interest in your music whatsoever are on it. So you’d better ‘do’ it right eh?

Judging by the amount of emails I receive from musicians trying to flog their wares to me, it appears Facebook has now become the default destination for an artists’ social media presence which I’m all for. Despite my incessant joie de vivre; if you had asked me a year or so ago what I thought about Facebook as a tool for musicians I would have told you it still had some substantial flaws which now appeared to have been fixed by various apps and plug ins.

So, as ever, this blog has been written like all my other blogs have – basically this is what *I personally* want to see from your Facebook page as someone in the industry. I’ve no doubt there will be other posts out there which will delve into the nitty gritty features of Facebook Insights and what not, but you’re not going to find them here. Just a good few tips which, if followed, will stop me from shouting at my computer because after ten minutes of browsing I still can’t actually find where to listen to your goddam music.

• 1) Sort out your Facebook URL

Have you got one of those Facebook web addresses that goes on longer than an aristocrats full name? If so all you have to do is head over to www.facebook.com/username and within seconds you’ll have a nice clean succinct URL. I’ve done it, that’s why ours is www.facebook.com/sentricmusic and not www.facebook.com/pages/OMFG/WTF/ROFL/ShouldHaveReadSentricsBlog/FENTON!

• 2) Utilise plugins so I can listen to your music

You’d be shocked and appalled by the amount of artists’ FB pages I mosey on across to only to discover that they’ve not actually put any of their music up there for me hear. It’s baffling. Currently for my money there are three strong apps you should look at using

ReverbNation (as modelled by By The Rivers)

ReverbNation Facebook App

BandCamp (as modelled by Kowalski)

Bandcamp Facebook App

BandPage (as modelled by Bastille)

BandPage Facebook App

If you already have an account set up with one of these guys then utilise their app. They all do their job wonderfully and allow me to listen to your ditties.

• 3) NEVER, EVER, EVER make me ‘Like’ your page to listen to your music

I hate this. Don’t do this. There is a strong chance I will just leave your page and not listen to anything if you make me do this. Sorry, but it’s the truth.

I understand why you do it; I truly do, so let’s meet in the middle and compromise:

Let me stream at least one track without commitment, but if I want to hear to more because I’ve enjoyed that song then it’s okay to make me ‘Like’ the page in order to listen.

That’s fair isn’t it?

• 4) Include Tour Dates

Pretty basic stuff, but again, you’d be surprised the amount of pages I come across which doesn’t include this info. The plugins mention in point two should offer this, if not then check out the Songkick App which is rather lovely (as modelled by Antonio Lulic).

SongKick Facebook App

• 5) Include information on who you work with

If you have a manager, an agent, a lawyer, regional press, national press, online press, butcher, baker, candlestick maker then list them so I know who believes in your music enough to put their name to it. You don’t have to list their contact details, or even their name if they don’t want you to, but at least the company. Seeing that an artist has a team around them instantly makes them more attractive to work with.

• 6) Let me see what you look like

Good up to date photos or a video will do nicely here please. If I’m spending a day rooting through new music I’ll always watch a music video before streaming a song because a) in theory it should be one of your strongest songs or else why on earth would you go to the hassle of making a video for it? And b) I get to see what you look like. If you look like this gent Heino then I may move on (or fall in love with you instantly):

Heino. May he haunt your dreams/nightmares forevermore.

• 7) Keep your fans and your friends separate

This is a side note which doesn’t really affect me on a day to day basis as a casual observer, but if you have your personal account and your artist account then don’t be that person who posts the same thing all the time on both. No one likes that.

If your friends chose to ‘Like’ your artist page then fool be them; you can spam the hell out of them with your musical shenanigans, but in the grand scheme of things remember that your friends aren’t your fans. The ones who want to know about your lunch via a status update where you showcase your rapier wit may not want to know about your day in the studio where you “lost my tuner LOL’.

There you go – follow those steps and I’ll be a happy bunny. Feel free to agree/disagree via the usual channels.

What I’m listening to this week: Daughter, Dry The River & Professor Penguin.

What I’m reading this week: 1Q84 (Parts 1 & 2) by Haruki Murakami

Stay tuned.

Pursehouse.

We are changing the format of the Songs2Share.com website to an all free INDIE music download website. We’ve got the music upload and music download feature already built. I need a website coder to make a template for artists/songwriters to post a brief bio and links to their buy music websites. I’m cashed out & will exchange business ownership for the work.

I also need the Word Press Blog updated to the newest version. I will continue to post there and invite guest bloggers to build traffic. If you know a coder, please pass this on to them.

Fondly,
Roberta Annicks
Founder & Lyricist
www.Songs2Share.com

By Jeff Price

Here’s the New York Times article headline that ran on November 6, 2011:

“Sirius’s Move to Bypass a Royalty Payment Clearinghouse Causes an Uproar”

Umm, not really, it’s causing an uproar for artists who have transferred their copyrights to labels (i.e. artists “signed” to a label), not for the millions of artists that are their own record labels.  It all depends on which side of the coin you’re on.

Under the current law, an artist who is also the record label (which the hundred of thousands of TuneCore Artists are) could make less money (and get paid less often) if their Sirius satellite radio payments go to SoundExchange.

Here’s the background:

When a song is played on AM/FM radio, only the person who wrote the song gets paid.

When a song is played as a non-interactive DMCA compliant “Digital Transmission” – in other words, digital radio like Sirius, Pandora, AM/FM radio stations simulcast on the Net, or streaming radio on Cable – the law states that four entities get paid:

This first one is the songwriter.

The songwriter’s royalty gets paid to the Performing Rights Organization for the public performance of the song.  In the U.S. there are three Performing Rights Organizations: BMI, ASCAP and SESAC. None will tell you how much they get paid, what their rates are, and how much the songwriter should be paid.

The next payments are made to a U.S. government authorized entity called SoundExchange (side note, we like SoundExchange).

SoundExchange then pays a portion of the money they collect to:

- the entity that owns the recording of the song (i.e. the “label”)
- the lead performer of the song
- pre-approved musician unions

Here’s a working example: Paul Anka wrote the song “My Way.”  Capitol Records hires Frank Sinatra to sing it.  By law, when the song gets played on AM/FM radio, Paul Anka gets paid for the public performance of the song; Frank and Capitol Records get nothing.

Now onto the digital age: The law states that when the song “My Way” is played on Sirius satellite radio (a non-interactive digital format), Paul Anka gets paid for the public performance (again, no one knows how much, as ASAP/BMI/SESAC will not reveal the rates). In addition, Frank Sinatra, as the lead performer, gets paid 45% of the royalty rate set by the government, Capitol Records, as the owner of the recording of the song, gets paid 50% of the royalty rate for the public performance of the recording of the song as set by the government, and the stipulated musician union gets paid 5% of the government set royalty rate.  You can see the rates Frank, Capitol Records, and the musician unions get paid here.

The angle the New York Times article is taking has more to do with artists signed to old school labels.

Here’s how the money flow and numbers break down:

SoundExchange collects other peoples’ and entities’ money, and, provided a label or performer registers with them, and they can match the money up, SoundExchange disperses their royalties.

This is a good thing.  A very, very good thing (for those of you not registered with SoundExchange, you should do it as soon as you have a moment.  It’s free and they may be sitting on money owed to you).

For this service, SoundExchange takes around 6.7% of the money it collects to cover its administrative costs (they need to pay people to do this). This comes off the top of the amount owed.

After SoundExchange takes its around 6.7% from the money it collects, 50% goes to the “label,” 45% goes to the lead performer, and 5% goes to musician unions.

I cannot speak to who gets the money from the unions or how they figure it out.

I also cannot speak to how many labels and performers register with SoundExchange; if they don’t register, they don’t get their money.

Now, here’s what Sirius is attempting to do: Sirius wants to license the rights to the recordings to play on Sirius radio directly from the record labels. This means that Sirius will pay the labels directly and will not pay SoundExchange.

But there is one catch: If the label gets the money directly from Sirius, the label is NOT required by law to pay the lead performer or the musician unions. BUT the label IS still responsible for getting the money and using it toward recoupment, or paying the band its percentage as dictated by the artist contract.

The upside for the label: If Sirius pays the label directly, the label will make a LOT more money if the amount Sirius is paying the label is not significantly less than what it would have to legally pay SoundExchange, as 45% of the money is not going to a performer, 5% is not going to a union, and 6.7% is not going to SoundExchange.  In other words, Sirius could pay less to the label than what it pays to SoundExchange, and the label will most likely still make 50% – 55% more money off of a play of its song on digital radio.  In addition, I suspect the label will get paid more frequently, and the label will most likely get paid all money due as the data matches up more cleanly (i.e. the label supplies Sirius its data and Sirius reports back to it on its own data vs. Sirius sends data to SoundExchange and then SoundExchange has to figure out what goes where).

Of course this assumes the amount Sirius pays the label does not dip so low as compared to what it has to pay under law, so the label ends up with more money (which is most likely the case as why would the label do it if it made less?).

Sirius paying the label directly could suck hard if you are an artist signed to a label and you are the lead performer, as you wouldn’t get 45% of the money after SoundExchange takes its around 6.7%

HOWEVER – what happens if you are both the lead performer AND the record label (like 95% of all TuneCore Artists)?

For the sake of conversation, assume an entity like TuneCore enters into a deal with Sirius to go direct (we have not, but bear with me so I can make the point), and the rates Sirius pays are not so low that the artist/label would make more money, not less, by getting paid directly.

As the artist is both the label and the lead performer, the artist gets MORE money then he/she would if he/she went via SoundExchange, as 5% of their money is not being given to unions.  I have no idea if this TuneCore-like entity would charge an administrative fee like SoundExchange (never thought about it), but if it did, and it was less than 6.7%, the artist would make even more money.  In addition, the artist would most likely get paid more quickly and more accurately then if the money went through SoundExchange.

The slant of the New York Times article and the “industry” reaction has to do with legacy artists or artists signed to old school labels.  If an artist is signed to a label, critics have a valid point.  If the artist is his or her own record label (like those using TuneCore) then critics’ position would make the artist less money, not more, and have it take longer for the artist to get paid; not a good thing.

(On a side note, don’t forget, if you are also the songwriter you make an additional amount of money for the public performance of the “composition,” the lyrics and melody).

Thus the reason why it’s so important to have all the information before reaching a conclusion as to what position you would like to support.

My two cents, one size does not fit all and the media needs to start taking a more balanced position in reporting these stories.

All that make sense?

Related Posts

The Music 4.5/brand-e Brand Discovery event in London last week gave brands, agencies, musicians, record labels and music-tech firms plenty to chew over.

As Clare Crean from AudioFuel pointed out in her opening presentation, “music is an underutilised and undervalued tool for brands.” To illustrate the point, she highlighted metrics from Millwood Brown showing that while sound has a relative importance to consumers of 41%, it only takes 12.5% of the marketing spend (sight, with a 58% relative importance, attracts 84.2% of the money).

Brands can’t just use any old music, though.

“The biggest crime is being forgettable,” believes Susan Stone from creative music agency Tonic. “There is so much music tech out there, unless you’ve got an idea and people who care madly about the quality of the music you won’t find success.”

Nonetheless, believes Crean, music technology startups offer “a competitively priced opportunity to build good, strong and lasting relationships between brand and consumer.”

She points to the success of the recent John Lewis TV spot (More Than A Woman) and of music-based social campaigns such as Mini Connected, Who Killed Summer? (Vodafone) and Right Music Wrongs (Virgin Mobile) as examples of how music – backed by the right technology – can “help start a conversation with consumers and keep the conversation going.”

However, Francis Rodino, a musician who is also part of social media agency Softwind Studio, suggested that in the end “it needs to come back to the product and the music rather than the technology and the platform.”

Eric Sheinkop from Music Dealers, a firm which specialises in licensing music for use in TV, movies, ads, videogames and elsewhere, said that “analytics can help brands choose a track, but it still has to connect on an emotional level”, both with the audience and the creative team behind the ad campaign.

Daniel Cross from music consultancy Record-Play noted that an artist or track selection has to be “a good fit” for the artist and rights holder, as well as right for the brand. Matt Smith from AWAL provided a good example of such a relationship in his case study of Misty Miller’s involvement in the Burberry Acoustic series, a branded online new music showcase. Noting that “the sync [was] the vehicle to launch her career,” Smith said this particular partnership was a success because “it was about a band and a brand understanding each other and working together.”

Many more partnerships fail than succeed, though, he said. “I wish they all worked – maybe a couple out of every 10 work.”

According to Richard Kirstein of Resilient Music, a company which advises brands on the costs and risk management of using music, “things go wrong mainly as a result of misunderstandings” because brands want ease of access to rightsholders and flexibility for a flat fee – the opposite of what rightsholders want.

As Rodino pointed out, “brands and technology are simply a platform – they are not what is important for a musician.”

For the brand, “the nuts of it is clarity – what rights you need, what value you attach to them and negotiating from the outset,” said Richard Kirstein.

The good news for brands, said Cross, is that record labels and music publishers are more open to licensing deals than ever before and, in future, there is an expectation that they will make money from brand exploitation. This means new options from brands and new opportunities for music-tech firms as well as musicians and labels.

By Justin Toland - SOURCE

Aug 12

While I was walking home tonight, I passed by a museum and something in the window caught my attention. It was a display of a small antique pipe organ from the late 1700’s– it looked like a very early attempt to create a miniature Wurlitzer that could be played at home. A rather odd, “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang” type of contraption, it reminded me of the homemade time travel machine rigged up by Doc Brown in “Back to the Future”. In its day, it probably looked as cool as the iPad. Now, it’s not something that anyone uses to get the job done.

The sight of this awkward, ungainly invention brought me back to an analogy made by one of my colleagues earlier in the day, as we discussed the current challenges of copyright licensing. “I feel like we’re trying to drive some old unrestored 1950’s clunker” he said, “the kind that only the old guy that owns it can actually drive, because you have to know just how to wiggle the gear shift and how many times to pump the brakes to make it all work”. I heard almost the same sentiment at a lunch with one of the industry’s most respected copyright lawyers. Everyone in the music business knows it’s true, though few will say it publicly, since it directly undermines our demands to get paid for what we own. But the old copyright system just ain’t working anymore. The truth is:

The process of licensing copyrights has to change drastically and fundamentally, if the whole concept of copyright is going to survive at all.

Right now, we’re driving down the Information Superhighway in that old 1950’s jalopy– we’ve got it floored and we’re doing about 35 miles an hour. Copyright holders are not only being run over, we’re also being passed by, as young entrepreneurs from the Google, YouTube, Spotify generation create global empires built on providing immediate, free access to entertainment and information. Meanwhile, the copyright community is still back somewhere on the side of the road, trying to figure out who owns the rights in which territory and for how long, and who has the right to issue the license, and how many licenses will be necessary, and what should the license cost. At best, we’re an impediment. At worst, we’re irrelevant.

Consider:

At a family wedding, the bride and groom do a crazy dance to a medley of big pop hits– it’s all relatively harmless (at least from a copyright standpoint) and clearly covered by the principle of “fair use”. After all, this is kind of what music was made for. But not too surprisingly, the dance is captured on videotape by the people filming the wedding. It’s then posted on YouTube, probably as a simple, cheap way of sharing the moment with family and friends. Again, it’s all still covered by fair use, since it’s largely a private activity and there’s no attempt to sell anything.

But suddenly, the family wedding video becomes a viral phenomenon, and millions of viewers go to YouTube to watch the silly dance, generating plenty of tangible economic benefit to YouTube in the process. At this point, clearly the copyrighted material contained in the video (that is the medley of recorded music to which the dance is performed) should be licensed, and the labels, artists, publishers and songwriters should be compensated. But how? Just a guesstimate would indicate that there could be 15 different artists, all of the major labels (some of which might no longer own the master recordings in question), probably at least fifty songwriters, and twenty different music publishers, each of whom would have to grant permission, and then play a role in determining the appropriate sync fee for each song. It would take months for a two minute home video, and probably cost in the six figure range. Ridiculous.

Here’s another:

A video collector owns outright some archival footage of a big star performing on a TV variety show from years ago, which a new mobile entertainment provider now wants to license and sell as a download to mobile phones in Asia. But within this short segment, the big star performs a song, which would have been licensed under a sync agreement that covered only that particular performance, in that territory, during a specific window of time. In order to use the footage in a different medium, territory and era, a new sync license will need to be negotiated with all of the publishers (many of whom have sold their catalogs or allowed the copyrights to revert to the songwriters). And then there’s the matter of union fees. Several of the performers on the show may have been members of the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA), Screen Actors Guild (SAG) or the American Federation of Musicians (AF of M), which means there might be residual payments due for any reuse of the show. Good luck figuring that one out.

A last example:

A music fan in Japan wants to purchase the new CD by an American act signed to Columbia/Sony Records in the US. The CD has never been released by Sony in Japan. The fan logs on to Amazon, locates the CD, and purchases it. But Amazon can’t fulfill the transaction, due to a copyright infringement lawsuit initiated by Sony Japan. As the local distributor of Sony product in that territory, Sony Japan owns the rights to sell that product in their region. By allowing the consumer to purchase directly from Sony in the US, Amazon is infringing on the copyright. And it’s true, even though Sony Japan has no intention of making the record available in Asia. As the copyright holder, the local company has the right to distribute the product or not, at their discretion.

In part, this explains why a consumer in the US who wants an album by a French artist released only in France can’t simply go on iTunes and purchase it. He or she can go to iTunes France and see the album or hear samples of the music. Certainly, the consumer can steal the record on any number of illegal sites. But purchase it? Nah. That would be copyright infringement. Go figure.

Anyone who reads this blog regularly knows that I’m a staunch defender of copyright. I’m not a believer that information wants to be free. I am however realistic enough to know that information wants at least to be available, at some generally reasonable price. Right now, our copyright laws are a hodgepodge of political compromises and outdated principles, all changing from country to country. In a global world, they are structured territory by territory. In a society based on instant access and immediate gratification, they are restrictive and reliant on step by step negotiations with half a dozen different parties for a single use. They can’t survive like this.

Unfortunately, there are no attractive solutions. Clearly, any reform needs to be done on a global level. The web is worldwide after all. That should be easy. We can take it up right after we solve the problem of world hunger and get everyone to agree on global warming.

Even worse, the only viable answer to the internet-related problems seems to lie in some kind of system of blanket licensing, similar to that used by the performing rights organizations to collect on music being used in public venues. In some form or another, a tax or surcharge would need to be assessed on electronic equipment or computer technology, or directly on internet service providers, mobile phone networks and other “distributors”. The money collected would then be shared among the entire creative community, from publishers and labels to artists, writers and union members.

If that seems like a simple and clean resolution, it’s not. The problem is that all of the money would go into a fund, and then be distributed to the copyright holders without any clear way of attributing it to a specific use. Worse, the ability of each individual copyright holder to negotiate fees on his or her own behalf and to collect them would be lost– thus eliminating two of the major functions of a music publisher in one fell swoop. In essence, such a move would make much of the music publishing role obsolete. If only for reasons of self-interest, it’s not a proposal I relish.

The only thing worse is the alternative, which is what’s happening now. We are already becoming obsolete, simply because people are ignoring us. Sure, we can still make things grind to a halt with a major lawsuit here or there, or exact our revenge with a jumbo copyright-infringement settlement–after about ten years in court, fighting appeal after appeal. But the judges are getting less sympathetic, the law is seeming less and less just to society at large, and the internet generation is moving ahead without us. Most importantly, we’re leaving stacks of money on the table every day, by not being able to take advantage of licensing opportunities for our music. There’s no value in owning copyrights if no one has the time, patience or money to license them. Already, more and more creators are simply making new product which they own in its entirety, and licensing it directly to individual services.

There was an article in the New York Times today, about an inmate who after having been wrongfully imprisoned on death row for twenty years had just been set free. His one request to a benefactor had been a Walkman, only to be informed that no one used them any more, and handed an iPod. As the surprised ex-con acknowledged, it’s painful sometimes, but things change. You have to move on.

Otherwise, you’re an artifact in a museum window.

http://ericbeall.berkleemusicblogs.com/2010/08/12/life-in-the-slow-lane/

by Devin Coldewey on February 11, 2010

Yesterday, in response to allegations of DMCA violations, several popular music blogs were wiped off the face of the net. They were hosted by Google via Blogger, and it was only after they were completely erased that the owners received emails to the effect of “We got one too many complaints — you’re deleted. Love, Google.” It’s trending around the net as “Musicblogocide 2010,” but that puts too much of it on Google’s lap, I think. After all, it’s the clumsy and outdated DMCA that actually led to the blogs being deleted.

It’s a bit of a sticky wicket, speculating about the legality of these things, but with such a decisive and bold action as the one Google has taken, we can probably reach some conclusions about how it should have gone down.

The sites in question were, of course, walking the line in terms of legality. MP3 blogs are scary to the music industry, because they represent such a challenge to the established promotional and sales flow. This is not the place for a whole argument about fair use, but I think most of what these blogs did would fall under that definition, woolly as it is. They hosted MP3s of artists they were discussing or promoting, but not whole albums. One of the bloggers notes that “everything I’ve posted for, let’s say, the past two years, has either been provided by a promotional company, came directly from the record label, or came directly from the artist.” I used to have an MP3 blog myself, and never received anything but thanks from the artists I tried to promote. So what happened here?

Well, Google is probably limited in what they can discuss publicly, but chances are that these blogs were fingered by some overzealous lawyers using the same sort of technique to catch copyright offenders as commercial fishermen use to catch tuna. These lawyers likely did a little searching for their clients’ names and properties, found a few MP3s, and then added the domains and any related domains to a list. They then filed DMCA violation paperwork against everyone on the list. How could a blog that had permission from the labels or artists to post every item get stuck in this net? Well, at the risk of stretching the metaphor too far, the DMCA isn’t exactly dolphin-safe.

I’m not a lawyer, so I won’t attempt to criticize the DMCA on any sort of technical grounds, but more eminent authorities have concluded that the act and its related laws are admirably well-designed to preserve the status quo. It’s clear that the laws had the interests of labels and such in mind, who certainly had a hand in setting them up. How else would it come to be so easy to get an innocent, probably beneficial personal blog completely effaced from the net?

The Blogger authorities have responded, somewhat, in this post. Essentially they’re saying “well, we just followed the rules.” And that’s true. They offered this service for free with a EULA and what they did was, if not the best move, at least not unprecedented. There are at least two problems presented, though.

First, the burden of proof is on the accused. That’s a bit disturbing, isn’t it? Any allegation is assumed to be true unless the person at which it is directed disputes it — a person who likely little understand of the technicalities of the law, and furthermore is often not even informed which track or post is allegedly in violation. Their recourse is limited and obscure. And mistaken or fraudulent takedown notices are far from rare. One of the bloggers affected cited four he’d received in the last year that had turned out to be out of order.

Second, the sites that were taken down were more than lists of links to MP3s. There was a lot of content on there that was most certainly not violating any law. Specifically, all the writing done by the bloggers and commenters. Some of these blogs had been going for years, and had built up large readerships as well as an enormous archive of commentary, history, interviews, all that kind of thing. Blogger threw the baby out with the bathwater, and there should be some kind of protection against that.

On that last point, it should probably be noted that while the blogs were described as being completely removed, I have no doubt that they’ve simply been taken offline. The content has not been zeroed off the servers and so on. After all, what if the owners challenged the DMCA notices and won? They could conceivably sue Blogger for destroying years of work that had nothing to do with the allegedly offending content. That last part I’m not sure about (Google is within the law in taking the blogs down) but a sympathetic judge might see the harm done and blame Google for acting rashly and negligently. So I’m guessing all that content is still around, though much damage will have been done whether the blogs are ever restored or not.

Of course, it’s not just music pirates who are now worried. Since these blogs were popular and (in a relative way) legitimate, it seems that the dagger now hangs above every person that ever dared to share. It’s like the immense fines levied against minor P2P offenders: the RIAA and its lawyers are barking up the wrong tree and biting the wrong ankles. And since they show no sign of changing their tack, we must appeal to the middle man — in this case, Google and Blogger. What could they have done?

Well, to begin with, a presumption of innocent would be nice. They say that they usually just put the offending post in draft status and alert the owner. So far, so good. But what line was crossed that these blogs were not only removed, but removed with no warning? A cordial notice of suspension would be a hundred times better than a real removal:

“We’ve received several complaints about your blog. Because of their number and previous complaints against you, we’ve temporarily suspended your account until this issue can be resolved. View the complaints here. If you feel these allegations are baseless, fill out this form and we will forward it to the complainants. We apologize for any inconvenience.”

Wouldn’t that be nice? If you’re going to give someone the means to walk in the margins of the law (and free blogging accounts are certainly that), then it would be ethical to provide some means of negotiating with it. Google offers a loaded gun to anyone who asks; there’s no need to defend someone if they take the gun and hold up a bank with it, but if they do, at least make sure they get read their rights before they get hauled off.

Lastly, lest I be accused of promoting kid-glove treatment of those ignorant of the law and EULA, people who intend to work in the margins of the law should make sure they know what those margins are, and how to navigate them. It is their responsibility, after all, and ignorance is not a valid defense. I was careful to add a disclaimer that was linked in every MP3 post I wrote which provided contact information and copyright acknowledgment. I’m guessing these blogs did as well; they wouldn’t have been so friendly with the musicians they worked with if they didn’t. But it’s a first line of defense, and if I (and they) were serious about having a website that provided a questionably legal service, I would have put some serious CYA boilerplate in there.

This little fracas is, I am guessing, far from over, so we can expect further developments. But I felt it was important to weigh in following the event itself in order that I can weigh the actual results against what is most desirable. These disputes don’t always end happily, but they often serve to further demarcate ambiguous areas of the law, and future settlements will walk more freely once they clear the backs of their fallen brethren. That came out a bit more dramatic than I had intended, but you understand me. We’re making a new media omelet, and some eggs are about to get cracked.