Week 1 – on Steve Gordon’s The Future of the Music Business, chapters 1 & 2 – 1/10/2011
Despite Gordon’s problematic assertions, he rightly noted ‘bad’ choices of record labels, trade organizations and of aggregators like Apple via iTunes in legally pursuing individuals and by implementing byzantine DRM as methods to stem the tide of (free) digitization and sharing of music. Also, Gordon’s focus on the possibilities that easy digitization of music (for recording and for distribution) bring to artists is a refreshing counterpoint to the prevailing negative news about the death of record companies and exaggerated suffering of musicians because of fans’ ‘theft’ of their music. First, though, his overview of the legal landscape for music production, control, sale, and licensing is an at-times tedious but ultimately worthwhile read. Gordon’s detailing of the difference between the composition (the ‘words and music’) and the sound recording, (p. 3) is essential to further understanding of the legal wrangling detailed further in this chapter, as well as is apparent in news-making legal battles; from a music consumer’s point of view, the distinction is worthy of note, too, insofar as the two, along with public performance, fuel justification for multiplied revenue streams.
Mechanical rights are the rights to copy compositions and sell these copies, (formerly in tangible form, such as on LPs or CDs; currently, includes mp3s and other digital forms); these rights are compulsory, so the copyright owner does not have a choice about allowing the copying of compositions, premised on remuneration at an established rate for that copying (and sale). This is not the right to copy an existing album and redistribute it; rather, this is the right to copy the composition (the words and the music) through interpretation, as one band may cover another band’s song, then release a recording of the cover version. Synchronization rights are not compulsory and, according to Gordon, must be negotiated with whomever holds the publishing rights for the music intended to be used (synchronized) over some form of audiovisual production, (e.g., film, television, websites(?)), (Gordon, 2008, p. 6). Public performance rights are rights held by owners of songs to perform the song in a public place where more than a “family and its social acquaintances is gathered,” or to broadcast a performance to the public even if that ‘public’ is in a different location or locations than the broadcaster, (e.g., via radio?), (Gordon, 2008, p. 7). Performing-rights organizations (PROs) such as the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (or ASCAP) exist as clearinghouses for public performance rights, so that broadcasters or those who wish to license public performance rights can easily do so, even if the intent is to license a large group of content (blanket licenses) to allow legal broadcast of a variety of controlled content.
Master-use licenses are licenses to use recordings as captured within a master – so this right is not the right to cover a band’s song, but rather the right to use an already-recorded version of a song. The example supplied by Gordon is of using a Frank Sinatra song written by someone else in a movie or television show. In such a situation, both a synchronization license would be needed to use the song-as-composition, and a master-use license would be needed to use the Sinatra-recorded version of the song. Also according to Gordon (2008), public performance rights are not required for broadcasting actual recordings, (though they are necessary for rights to broadcast the composition), (pp. 9-10).
Similarly to how he criticized the decisions within the music industry during the initial push of digitization and sharing of music, Gordon (2008) also seems to come out as suspicious of the ‘360-degree deal’ wherein record labels are not only insisting on controlling the masters of musicians, but also to get some portion of revenue from touring, merchandise, and publishing.
Gordon (2008), while acknowledging public performance licensing for broadcasting of recordings in “every other developed country,” (p. 20), is remarkably silent in regard to limitations of the US Audio Home Recording Act versus how many of these other countries, such as Sweden with their Private Copying Levy (Johansson & Larsson, 2009, p. 5), do impose tariffs on digital music players as well as other recordable media. The Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act seems to have inconsistently applied public performance rights, hamstringing digital transmission (such as streaming through the Internet) without affecting radio broadcast; this is redressed in part by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) which allows for a form of compulsory licensing provided rules are followed and fees as mandated by the act are paid, (Gordon, 2008, pp. 26-27). In addition to these glosses of recent, relevant legislation governing the broadcast of recordings, Gordon also provides a fairly broad summary of different methods for digital delivery of music (webcasting, streaming, downloading), as well as different platforms, (iTunes, eMusic, satellite radio like Sirius).
References
Gordon, S. (2008). The future of the music business: How to succeed with the new digital technologies (2nd ed.). New York: Hal Leonard.
Johansson, D., & Larsson, M. (2009). The Swedish music industry in graphs: Economic development report 2000-2008. Retrieved from the EU Audiovisual Policy Information Center website: http://ec.europa.eu/avpolicy/docs/other_actions/col_2009/pub/kth_annex.pdf
Addendum – a few questionable or incorrect assertions of Steve Gordon (2008) in The Future of the Music Business:
1. “When the PC and Internet became popular it was easy to rip all those CDs and upload perfect copies to everyone in the world,” p. xx
This speaks to a technological incompetence on the part of Gordon, at least during the early days of home digitization of music. Early ripping software required multiple steps and external compression programs, the end result of which was often flawed because of technological limitations (such as unreliable CD drives, as well as comparatively very slow read speed). A CD encoded at 128 kbps is in no way comparable to the quality of recording of a factory-issued CD (CD audio) or LP. Even if the point Gordon attempts to make is understandable, it is sloppy to make such an assertion.
2. “’Free music’ is not free at all. You need to pay for a computer… you need a broadband connection…,” p.xx
Yes, the technological requirements to participate in digital music creation and sharing are not, generally, free; that said, it is always a dangerous assumption to value multi-use technologies against a single aspect of their final use. Likely very few computer users purchase their computers and pay their monthly broadband bills solely in the pursuit of ‘free’ music. Comparative valuation should take this into account.
3. “Without copyright [musical compositions and recorded works] would have no financial value,” p. 1
Gordon repeatedly adopts a righteous tone when celebrating possible income for artists and copyright holders. While it is understandable that his grounding in the world of entertainment law in the United States necessitates this positioning, it is reckless to make such extreme statements considering that Gordon’s own representation of copyright (at least through the first two chapters of his book) is firmly rooted in profit-oriented control. Financial value is not necessitated by copyright and the implied sale by a copyright owner of recorded works as Gordon narrowly represents it; there is a range of copyright control, including Creative Commons licenses, which could be applied to all manner of individual cultural production. Moreover, considering the example of Radiohead’s album In Rainbows (and the very poor encoding of the album offered for free), it seems apparent that regardless of copyright control, there are ways to ensure some revenue stream (though not the river Gordon seems to believe artists, publishers, record labels, and all other participants in the corporate music engine are entitlted to) can be preserved even with the allowance of forms of ‘free music.’ In fairness to Gordon, he does say as much later in the chapter – it just seems that he needs to better consider his the implications of his more bombastic statements.
4. “Think of the use of ‘New York, New York’ by Fred Ebb and John Kander over the credits of the next Steven Spielberg blockbuster, compared to the use of the same song in an indie documentary film. It would be unreasonable to make the owner of that song accept the same compensation for both uses,” p. 6 – This seems inconsistent, because if an indie band were to record a version of ‘New York, New York’ and a remarkably popular, well-funded (high-earning) musician were also to record a version of this song, they would have to pay the same rate; they would simply pay it on fewer units due to the order of magnitude of difference in the indie band’s record sales versus the popular musician’s. In other words, the logic seems to break down.“ p. 6
This assumes that broadcasters should pay without reasonable accommodation for smaller stations, (the few that still exist). Presumably, college radio stations would find some form of leniency or exemption, but what would be the impact for non-commercial stations like WFMU? The repercussions for all broadcasters having to pay an additional licensing right as public performance of recordings could have substantial, negative effects on such stations.
Week 1 – website review
Music Library Association site, http://www.musiclibraryassoc.org
I was surprised to see that MLA noted they work with NISO, (within the “MLA History” section of the site, http://www.musiclibraryassoc.org/about.aspx?id=110), presumably to develop standards for music information sources, (possibly including recorded music?). The usefulness of such work on standards is obvious – in the current digital environment with rapidly changing encoding standards and file formats, it is fundamental to the tasks of storing (archiving) and accessing multimedia information objects to have continuing standards. Beyond their work on standards, I can appreciate the need for this professional organization—likely drawing in those who would not consider themselves relevant to the American Library Association, for instance—to connect various persons and professions concerned with the historical, cultural, and educational significance of music.
Naxos Music Library site, http://www.naxosmusiclibrary.com/
Naxos, while certainly not comprehensive, seems to have obvious use within the world of education, (K-12 as well as college level), and both supplementary information about the recordings available through the database as well as the terms of use demonstrate the company’s knowledge of their market. Of course, while the FAQ (http://www.naxosmusiclibrary.com/faqs.asp) is illuminating in some regards (as far as allowing for multiple simultaneous users, a significant preoccupation of electronic resources and collection management librarians everywhere; for verifying through IP, a standard for electronic resources licensed for academic use; and for providing usage statistics on demand), it provides a bit of misinformation as well: stating that an encoding level of 64Kbps is “near-CD quality” or that 128 Kbps is CD quality is not true. Honestly, though, I expect that matters little if the intention for use of Naxos is within the classroom; in much the same way that there is a growing market for streaming video content for use within academia, (Alexander Street Press, Swank, others), it makes perfect sense that a similar demand exists for streaming audio.
DRAM site, http://www.dramonline.org
The two most compelling things that are immediately apparent about DRAM are (1) its inclusion of substantial contemporary content (unlike Naxos), and (2) its very modest subscription fee, even for the largest of academic institutions at $1995.00, (http://www.dramonline.org/page/classification). Based on the FAQ (http://www.dramonline.org/page/frequently-asked-questions), it seems clear that DRAM will be a supplement site to large providers like Naxos, helping to fill (important) gaps in coverage.
International Index to Music Periodicals, http://iimp.chadwyck.com
Just as with the MLA, it makes perfect sense that a separate index exists for music periodicals, even if the coverage of the IIMP includes popular titles like Rolling Stone, VIBE, and The Village Voice. Between the admission of overlap with JSTOR (http://iimp.chadwyck.com/marketing/collectionTitleList.do?collection=iimpjstor), and Project MUSE (http://iimp.chadwyck.com/marketing/collectionTitleList.do?collection=iimpmuseall) – standards across academic libraries—and inclusion of full-text context as well as just indexing content, IIMP seems savvy to their place within the larger academic market. Also, the site seems easy enough to use, (unlike other databases, even some of the largest and most popular in academia), at least judging by links from the ‘Demo’ page, http://iimp.chadwyck.com/marketing/demo.jsp.
Retrospective Index to Music Periodicals, http://www.ripm.org
Perhaps this seems a bit repetitious, but RIPM looks to fill a needed niche—in this case, a multinational, historical niche—for musical periodical indexing that may not be met by the IIMP. It is interesting that in much the same way there are substantial, distributed efforts at web archiving (as well as the larger efforts, like Internet Archive), there are so many relatively new projects born of the Information Age to record and archive information (even about relatively specialized areas and/or bygone eras) and make it permanently available in a digital format. Perhaps it would be interesting to see some standardization and cooperation across all of these independent efforts, though?
Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/public
As with OUP delivering text resources, Oxford Music Online appears to be a substantial player in the market of delivering music and music reference sources to academia. The appeal to librarians is apparent enough; unlike other sites (even Naxos), the OMO site is exceptionally easy to navigate and provides guides for librarians to use in leading their patrons through the relevant content, (http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/public/page/librarian_resources).
Répertoire International de Littérature Musicale, http://www.rilm.org/index.php
RILM, despite their claim to be a ‘comprehensive bibliography of writings on music,’ (http://www.rilm.org/aboutUs/index.html), notes worrisome issues of access on their frontpage, such as a future lack of access through OCLC’s FirstSearch and through one OVID platform, (http://www.rilm.org/index.php). While the usefulness of bibliographies is obvious enough to any researcher, and the complex searching RILM allows (as by classification or subject headings, although neither seem to match up to standards used within academic libraries) seems to allow for easy discovery of resources. That said, issues of access – especially as regards exclusion from larger aggregations or points of access – are of such fundamental importance as to potentially affect future subscriptions. Outliers are being trimmed because large packages can’t be within many academic libraries (presumably the target market for RILM), so exclusion rather than inclusion could mean unfortunate effects.
International Society for Music Information Retrieval, http://www.ismir.net/
As with MLA, I can see the value in ISMIR providing connection as well as allowing for meetings between those engaged in similar work; unfortunately, the web presence leaves some to be desired, especially as regards its remarkable thinness in explaining the mission and history of the ISMIR, or providing other standard resources (like member resources, as the MLS site does provide).