The future of big music labels

[mdlbear]

Big labels are f*cked, and DRM is dead - Peter Jenner | The Register

Interview Few people know the music industry better than Peter Jenner. Pink Floyd's first manager, who subsequently managed Syd Barrett's solo career, Jenner has also looked after T.Rex, The Clash, Ian Dury, Disposable Heroes and Billy Bragg - who he manages today. He's also secretary general of the International Music Managers Forum.

And he doesn't pull his punches.

The major four music labels today are "fucked", he says. Digital music pricing has been a scam where the consumer pays for manufacturing, distribution, and does all the work - and still has to pay more. Labels should outsource everything except finance and licensing.

Comments

[aerowolf.livejournal.com]

...which is odd, because most labels outsource licensing to the HFA.

[mdlbear]

That's mechanical licensing for songwriters, not the licensing of performances distributed on non-physical media. Labels own the performances (and the performers, who are considered employees -- their performances are considered work-for-hire), record them on CDs, and are trying to figure out how to make money from downloads.

HFA handles mechanical licensing for many (but not all) composers and songwriters; "small performing rights agencies" such as ASCAP and BMI license things like broadcasting for the songwriters.

[aerowolf.livejournal.com]

So, let's see if I can break this down...

class Music {
MechanicalCopyright copyrightinfo; // HFA
}

class Lyrics {
MechanicalCopyright copyrightinfo; // HFA
}

class Composition {
Music melodyharmony;
Lyrics poeticprose;
}

class Recording {
Composition musiclyric; // BMI, ASCAP
MasterUseCopyright mastercopyright; // RecordPublisher, established by creating the recording
SynchronizationCopyright synchcopyright; // MusicPublisher, established by publishing the score
ReproductionCopyright reprocopyright; // HFA
}

Do I have it broken down correctly? (No wonder there's a problem administering these damned things...)

[mdlbear]

I'm not sure that really captures it.

Mechanical license is what allows a recording company to make and distribute a (physical) recording of a piece of music. A synchronization license allows a movie or TV company to use a piece of music in their soundtrack (i.e. synchronized with video).

A performance license allows somebody to perform a piece of music; this includes both live performances, broadcasting, and elevator music. In all cases the license fee is paid by the venue (concert hall, radio station, hotel...) through an agency like BMI.

All of the rights above are owned by the author and composer, and are split 50-50 with their music publisher.

Once a recorded performance exists, the rights to distribute copies of that recording are owned by the recording company (label). Up until recently, they did not get any revenue from broadcasting, etc. -- it was assumed that they made their money selling physical copies. The web has thrown a monkey wrench into that, and the labels want to define a network transmission as a copy in order to get some money for it. But it's a lot more like a broadcast performance, in my opinion.

Things are going to continue to be ugly for a copule of decades, until the big labels finally dry up and blow away.

[aerowolf.livejournal.com]

What we need is a fully descriptive data model... so that a system can be created which automatically keeps track of all of that information for any given composition and all recordings of that composition.

(Preferably, it'd link into the databases of ASCAP/BMI, and the HFA, to verify data as printed on, say, CD jackets. And would also include such things as general licensing terms -- ASCAP/BMI, HFA, Creative Commons licenses, founder's copyright, public domain, etc.)

My way of looking at it is this: a network transmission is a broadcast, unless it's transmitted in a form intended to be saved on the other end. Recordings of netcasts should be akin to recording a tape of a radio station -- "home taping is killing music" notwithstanding.

Of course, none of this will matter in the long run unless some container format allowing for multiple streams of data is made usable and useful. (I'm thinking something like TIFF, only not for images.) Basically, I don't want to have to modify the actual data contents of an MP3 or OGG file to include an ID3 or its equivalent, since that screws up duplicate file scanning.

Meh. I should probably go to sleep.

[mdlbear]

The problem is that there's no difference between a "storage" download and a "streaming" download -- nor should there be.

The only fair thing is a flat license "tax" that covers all network transmissions, and some kind of sampling scheme to apportion it to the rights-holders. This is essentially what's happening in the broadcast world, but the labels want to change the deal because they don't get a cut of small performing rights.

As I said, it'll get worked out, but the working-out will be legal, not technical.