As an entertainment attorney, I am all about copyright protection and paying for intellectual property rights. However, the RIAA suits are absolutely ridiculous and a complete waste of money. If they're so concerned about all the money lost by artists, why don't they stop spending all that money on litigation and just GIVE it to the artists? Or, better yet, invest in some R&D and marketing and find some NEW ways for music to be profitable?? *GASP* What an amazing idea. It really just frosts my cookies, frankly.
Anyway, a Harvard professor has stepped up to the plate to challenge the RIAA's right to sue individuals under the Copyright Act. You can read the article here.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Music Like Water
I read a great, short little book my last year in law school called The Future of Music: Manifesto for the Digital Music Revolution (you can buy it here on Amazon, if you're interested) and it spoke of music being like water in your life, for two reasons: 1) music would be acessible to you at all times - in your bedroom when you wake up, it would continue as you took your shower, made your breakfast, used your MP3 player on the way to work, etc.; and 2) because you would pay for it based on your "consumption" of it, just like you pay for your water. People wouldn't mind paying for music under this model, so the theory goes, because it "feels" free while you're doing it. Sure, the bill comes at the end of the month, but how much does that change our consumption of other utlities, like electricity, heat and water? Now, some may say this analogy isn't accurate because the above utilities are "necessities." I agree. However, when we want to take a bath instead of a shower just for the luxury of it, do we count the pennies? When we come home at night and it's dark (especially here in the Northeast, where it gets dark around 3:30 in the middle of winter), do we refrain from turning on the lights and opt for candles because o fthe electricity bill? No, most of us do not. Thus, while these things are "necessary" utilities in the traditional sense, our practical use of them is much more analogous and "luxury" than most of us think.
So, why shouldn't music be consumed in the same way, according to our personal use of it? Administratively, it could be burdensome - after all, how would you keep track of it if one utilizes various devices to listen to music? Is a timed basis, a per-play basis, or a unique song basis (i.e. you only pay once for a song, but can listen to it an infinite number of times). Do you have to repurchase your music every month?
A flat fee, some argue, would be easier (read this article I found today - Canada is considering this method for internet use of music). However, a flat fee comes with its problems, too - what if I only listen to 15 tracks in a month? Why should I pay the same price as someone that listens to 1,500 tracks a month? The counter argument to this is simply that the flat fee model is more analogous to how you receive your cable and/or internet (and even phone, if you still own a land line!) each month. With Comcast, you don't pay every time you turn on your TV - you only pay for the "extra" stuff. So, if I watch 5 hours of TV a day, I still pay the same price as someone who only watches 5 hours a week. And from a practical standpoint, do you ever hear people complain about this model? No, because the once-a-month fee makes it FEEL free every time we turn our TV on; even if, when it's broken down, I pay twice as much to watch TV as my neighbor does.
There's no doubt that new models will and should be welcome for the consumption of music. People don't want to pay for it anymore, so publishers and record labels need to make it "feel" free; even if it isn't. Ok music consumers, what are your thoughts?
So, why shouldn't music be consumed in the same way, according to our personal use of it? Administratively, it could be burdensome - after all, how would you keep track of it if one utilizes various devices to listen to music? Is a timed basis, a per-play basis, or a unique song basis (i.e. you only pay once for a song, but can listen to it an infinite number of times). Do you have to repurchase your music every month?
A flat fee, some argue, would be easier (read this article I found today - Canada is considering this method for internet use of music). However, a flat fee comes with its problems, too - what if I only listen to 15 tracks in a month? Why should I pay the same price as someone that listens to 1,500 tracks a month? The counter argument to this is simply that the flat fee model is more analogous to how you receive your cable and/or internet (and even phone, if you still own a land line!) each month. With Comcast, you don't pay every time you turn on your TV - you only pay for the "extra" stuff. So, if I watch 5 hours of TV a day, I still pay the same price as someone who only watches 5 hours a week. And from a practical standpoint, do you ever hear people complain about this model? No, because the once-a-month fee makes it FEEL free every time we turn our TV on; even if, when it's broken down, I pay twice as much to watch TV as my neighbor does.
There's no doubt that new models will and should be welcome for the consumption of music. People don't want to pay for it anymore, so publishers and record labels need to make it "feel" free; even if it isn't. Ok music consumers, what are your thoughts?
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
MySpace Redefining Royalties
I stumbled across THIS blog from an attorney that practices entertainment and media law in India. Apparently MySpace has formed a partnership with MTV Networks that will allow MySpace to keep up clips of copyrighted material posted by users (instead of normaly being forced, under the Safe Harbor Provision, to take it down once they've been given notice of it). In exchange, MySpace will give the original creator(s) credit on the video and said creators will be given a cut of the ad income that MySpace will insert in/around the clips (some weird version of "royalties," I suppose).
It's an interesting idea, though a bit more administratively burdensome than simply taking down - there's additional content that needs to be added, and other videos will still need to be monitored and taken down (if not own by MTV Networks). Although, perhaps the financial benefits outweight the burdens. One thing is for sure - their lawyers are creative!
It's an interesting idea, though a bit more administratively burdensome than simply taking down - there's additional content that needs to be added, and other videos will still need to be monitored and taken down (if not own by MTV Networks). Although, perhaps the financial benefits outweight the burdens. One thing is for sure - their lawyers are creative!
Monday, October 20, 2008
I got sunshine on a cloudy day... and on my T-Shirt.
I'm sure we all remember the recent fad of screen tees - those tight-fitting tees that sported phrases like "Stop looking at my tuts" (accompanied by two Egyptian figures right over your...well...tuts), and "I'm with stoopid" (accompanied by an random arrow... how very witty). Aaahh, thoses were the days. Well, apparently screen tees refuse to die, and are making a comeback courtest of music giant EMI Publishing, who have recently penned a deal with UK's Sainsbury to start printing music lyrics on tees.
While the parties promise to bring "inspirational" lyrics and "some of the most famous words ever written" to viewers of your pecks everywhere, I have to admit, I'm skeptical. I mean, sure - circa 2000, screen prints were a novelty, worn by indie kids everywhere. But now, I can buy a t-shirt at old navy for $5 that says just that. Or I can go to Hollister and get the same damn tee shirt for $35 that says "Hollister." Isn't the idea of the screen print tee so cheapened now that no one can actually find any "inspiration" in it anymore? And, better yet, weren't screen tees always meant as a joke, simple printed across your chest?
Maybe I'm missing the point. Then again, perhaps I'm being too quick to judge. With famous songs like "My Girl" and "Wild Thing," I'm sure there's a chance.... right?
While the parties promise to bring "inspirational" lyrics and "some of the most famous words ever written" to viewers of your pecks everywhere, I have to admit, I'm skeptical. I mean, sure - circa 2000, screen prints were a novelty, worn by indie kids everywhere. But now, I can buy a t-shirt at old navy for $5 that says just that. Or I can go to Hollister and get the same damn tee shirt for $35 that says "Hollister." Isn't the idea of the screen print tee so cheapened now that no one can actually find any "inspiration" in it anymore? And, better yet, weren't screen tees always meant as a joke, simple printed across your chest?
Maybe I'm missing the point. Then again, perhaps I'm being too quick to judge. With famous songs like "My Girl" and "Wild Thing," I'm sure there's a chance.... right?
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Squeezing Ever Last Bit Out of Music Publishing
In a time of economic uncertainty, one thing is certain - you can always rely on the music industry to come up with creative solutions. The latest of the endeavors takes the form of SongVest, a company that is auctioning off 50% of the writer's share of famous songs. There is a great article here that explains how publishing royalty for a song is allocated between the publisher and the songwriter. If you'd like the condensed version, here it is: In order to a get a song placed with an artist (ala Britney Spears), a song writer will look for a publisher. Typically, these publishers will agree to find placement for the song (whether with another artist, a commerical, etc), but in exchange will take over copyright ownership of the song and give the original songwriter 50% of the publishing income. So, if a dollar comes in, the publisher gets 50 cents, as does the writer. However, the percentages don't always work that way; sometimes the artist gets less.
SongVest is purporting to sell 50% of the writer's share of a song, but, as I demonstrated above, that doesn't mean you own 50% of the song. If the writer only gets 20% of the income, you only get 10%. AND, income does not mean ownership - you don't "own" a part of the song; you're simply entitled to 10% of the INCOME.
Nevertheless, if you do the research, it could be worth your while to bid on the % and "purchase" the income for some of these songs; after all, it gives you a great passive stream of income. However, one should not go willy-nilly buying up portions of songs for the royalties. Some of these songs are fetching substantial sums on the auctioning block, but what kind of income as they actually still producing today? Royalty calculations are extremely complicated and depend substantially on the forum (i.e., radio stations are charged a different rate than streaming online content or downloads, all of which are distributed to songwriters and publishers differently as well!). Without the proper due diligence, a music "fan" (the traget market for SongVest) could really get ripped off!
Am I telling you to give up your lifelong dream of "owning" a bit of a Bon Jovi song? No. I'm simply saying, it's an investment, like any other, and shouldn't be undertaken until you understand the nature of your investment and whether it's actually going to produce a return for you.
SongVest is purporting to sell 50% of the writer's share of a song, but, as I demonstrated above, that doesn't mean you own 50% of the song. If the writer only gets 20% of the income, you only get 10%. AND, income does not mean ownership - you don't "own" a part of the song; you're simply entitled to 10% of the INCOME.
Nevertheless, if you do the research, it could be worth your while to bid on the % and "purchase" the income for some of these songs; after all, it gives you a great passive stream of income. However, one should not go willy-nilly buying up portions of songs for the royalties. Some of these songs are fetching substantial sums on the auctioning block, but what kind of income as they actually still producing today? Royalty calculations are extremely complicated and depend substantially on the forum (i.e., radio stations are charged a different rate than streaming online content or downloads, all of which are distributed to songwriters and publishers differently as well!). Without the proper due diligence, a music "fan" (the traget market for SongVest) could really get ripped off!
Am I telling you to give up your lifelong dream of "owning" a bit of a Bon Jovi song? No. I'm simply saying, it's an investment, like any other, and shouldn't be undertaken until you understand the nature of your investment and whether it's actually going to produce a return for you.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
What's in a (Band) Name?
Is it just me, or have music listeners become more fickle over the part few years? It could be the "scene" I ascribe to - to use the general and crude term, "indie" - but I get the sense that music consumers these days are much more in-tune to the industry than ever before. Because of this, music marketing has become increasingly more difficult. Under traditional models, a CD only needed one "good" song to sell a million units, but with the proliforation of iTunes, Napster and music download services, people only pay for the songs they actually like. In the context of physical (er, digital) CD sales, this means music biz peeps need a new strategy.
Ok, how about backing up the process? After all, since downloading and purchasing of physical CDs doesn't drive the industry anymore, bands need to get attention for other reasons (ie concerts, music spots in TV and film, etc). What is the easiest and most immediate way of attracting people to your band's music? You judge a book by its cover, of course - get a good name.
It sounds so simple, yet its one of the most complicated aspects of music marketing. Not only do consumers demand ever-increasingly unique names (The "Somethings" and the "Somethings" isn't going to fly anymore), but they also demand that, phonetically and visually, it appeals to their subculture (generally, the genre from whenst you came). Let's look at a few examples. And please keep in mind that most of this is subjective - you may draw something completely different from a name, and I would encourage you to push back on any of these explanations:
- Motion City Soundtrack: to me, this says driving or moving music (motion). "Soundtrack" says something that is user-friendly on a daily basis; something easy to integrate into your life. Once you combine the visual elements of the font and colors (click on the name for a link to their official page), I really feel it invokes the overall feeling of the music - unique, yet poppy and friendly.
- The Raconteurs: Jack White's band. The name means someone that tells anecdotes and storeis in an amusing way. If you haven't heard them, what does the name invoke for you? Spoiler: they're a quirky mix of fan-friendly guitar work, unique song structures and raw recording sound. However, the visual element of their marketing campaign really drives it home - the old bluegrass, gypsy look to their album cover and website pics helps to convey the idea that they're just slightly off-center.
- He is Legend: One of my personal favorite bands of all time (constantly playing on my MP3 player). While their name rings true to their sound, they've significantly changed their album art and look for each album making them some sort of freaky southern-metal chameleons. By the way, check out the promotional pic on the online store page - priceless.
Of course, what your fans demand from your name depends on your genre. In the metal scene, people want you to be more outwardly agressive with you name (ie Deathklok - yes they're real and recently had a highly successful sold out tour - and Dragonforce). Using a combination of words and phonetics, I think some bands owe some of their initial notice to their name. Whether subconscious or otherwise, we do judge books by their covers.
Let's play a little game. Below is a list of band names that are probably still pretty "underground" to the general public. I'd love to get some feedback on how they hit you initially. Ask yourself, are you drawn to a certain name initially? Why or why not? Did you find a band that you actually liked, but otherwise would have avoided because of the name?
The rules are simple - you can look up their page to peek at the art, but you MUST mute the sound. Happy Hunting!
The 20 go to 10
The Advantage
Aesop Rock
Bound Stems
Duck Duck Goose
Earl Greyhound
Free the Robots
Future Rock
Hadouken!
Man Man
Maps & Atlases
Mass Movement of the Moth
Sky Eats Airplane - Electro-core
The Snake the Cross and the Crown
Wild Beasts
Ok, how about backing up the process? After all, since downloading and purchasing of physical CDs doesn't drive the industry anymore, bands need to get attention for other reasons (ie concerts, music spots in TV and film, etc). What is the easiest and most immediate way of attracting people to your band's music? You judge a book by its cover, of course - get a good name.
It sounds so simple, yet its one of the most complicated aspects of music marketing. Not only do consumers demand ever-increasingly unique names (The "Somethings" and the "Somethings" isn't going to fly anymore), but they also demand that, phonetically and visually, it appeals to their subculture (generally, the genre from whenst you came). Let's look at a few examples. And please keep in mind that most of this is subjective - you may draw something completely different from a name, and I would encourage you to push back on any of these explanations:
- Motion City Soundtrack: to me, this says driving or moving music (motion). "Soundtrack" says something that is user-friendly on a daily basis; something easy to integrate into your life. Once you combine the visual elements of the font and colors (click on the name for a link to their official page), I really feel it invokes the overall feeling of the music - unique, yet poppy and friendly.
- The Raconteurs: Jack White's band. The name means someone that tells anecdotes and storeis in an amusing way. If you haven't heard them, what does the name invoke for you? Spoiler: they're a quirky mix of fan-friendly guitar work, unique song structures and raw recording sound. However, the visual element of their marketing campaign really drives it home - the old bluegrass, gypsy look to their album cover and website pics helps to convey the idea that they're just slightly off-center.
- He is Legend: One of my personal favorite bands of all time (constantly playing on my MP3 player). While their name rings true to their sound, they've significantly changed their album art and look for each album making them some sort of freaky southern-metal chameleons. By the way, check out the promotional pic on the online store page - priceless.
Of course, what your fans demand from your name depends on your genre. In the metal scene, people want you to be more outwardly agressive with you name (ie Deathklok - yes they're real and recently had a highly successful sold out tour - and Dragonforce). Using a combination of words and phonetics, I think some bands owe some of their initial notice to their name. Whether subconscious or otherwise, we do judge books by their covers.
Let's play a little game. Below is a list of band names that are probably still pretty "underground" to the general public. I'd love to get some feedback on how they hit you initially. Ask yourself, are you drawn to a certain name initially? Why or why not? Did you find a band that you actually liked, but otherwise would have avoided because of the name?
The rules are simple - you can look up their page to peek at the art, but you MUST mute the sound. Happy Hunting!
The 20 go to 10
The Advantage
Aesop Rock
Bound Stems
Duck Duck Goose
Earl Greyhound
Free the Robots
Future Rock
Hadouken!
Man Man
Maps & Atlases
Mass Movement of the Moth
Sky Eats Airplane - Electro-core
The Snake the Cross and the Crown
Wild Beasts
Monday, September 29, 2008
DRM from a Gaming Perspective
I try to stick mainly to the music industry in this blog, but many areas of the so-called "entertainment" industry have cross-over legal and business issues. One of those common areas is DRM, or "Digital Rights Management." It's basically a fancy term for restricting the use of your shit (ie CDs, games, movies) even after you purchase it. THat sentence sounded bias, so I should clarify - I'm not fully for or against DRM; I'm just frustrated with the system. "Imperfect" doesn't even begin to discribe the cluster-f**k that is DRM right now, and the bottom line is that pirates are still pirating and legit users of these materials are getting pissed off when their $12 Coheed and Cambria CD breaks their computer or doesn't convert properly to their MP3 player (which happened to me, and I do not personally blame any member of the band!). Will DRM ever stop the pirates without interferring with the legit rights of users? Or is it destined to fail?
One of my favorite blogs to read is Penny Arcade - it is kept by Mike Krahulik and Jerry Holkins, two guys with amazing insight into the gaming industry. Not only is the blog exceptionally well written, each entry is accompanied by a hilarious comic strip, that enables even casual gamers like myself to understand some complex issues in gaming. Last week and today, all three blogs were written by guest contributors and focus around the hotly contested issue of DRM. I encourage you to read the blogs below and form your own opinions about DRM in the past, present, and future. (Oh, and of course view the accompanying comics - priceless.)
Wednesday, September 24th
Friday, September 26th
Monday, September 29th
One of my favorite blogs to read is Penny Arcade - it is kept by Mike Krahulik and Jerry Holkins, two guys with amazing insight into the gaming industry. Not only is the blog exceptionally well written, each entry is accompanied by a hilarious comic strip, that enables even casual gamers like myself to understand some complex issues in gaming. Last week and today, all three blogs were written by guest contributors and focus around the hotly contested issue of DRM. I encourage you to read the blogs below and form your own opinions about DRM in the past, present, and future. (Oh, and of course view the accompanying comics - priceless.)
Wednesday, September 24th
Friday, September 26th
Monday, September 29th
"Block" Cheese: Don't Knock It 'Til You've Tried It.
Like most women born in the 80's, The New Kids on the Block was my favorite band from about the age of 6 to 10. When I was 7, my Dad surprised me and took me to see them - my first concert. I had a home-made, puffy paint T-shirt sporting "New Kids on the Block" in florescent pink paint surrounded my equally florescent yellow stars (a true work of art)! It's a night I still remember clearly to this day, from the limo, to the 7th row seats, to being forced to leave before the encore to skip the crowds. Well, Friday night, I got my second chance to hear that encore at the New Kids on the Block Reunion Tour.
I know what most of your are thinking - oh LORD. Believe me, I got my share of comments at the office on Friday. However, regardless of your musical tastes, there's no denying that the New Kids revolutionized the music industry and ushered in an enormously successful period - the era of the Boy Band. It was a very profitable, golden age for many people in the industry! Sadly, those days are over - so how were NKOTB going to pull off a reunion tour that focused on an age gone by? I was anxious to find out.
The whole situation was quite surreal - my friends and I met up at a bar close to TD Bank North Garden, which, unbeknownst to us, had been transformed into a sort-of NKOTB HAVEN. Every single one of the 30+ TVs on four floors was simultaneously broadcasting a medley of old NKOTB videos and live performances. There were four guys in the bar - FOUR. I brought a collegue (er, dragged, once he saw the scene inside), and I'm pretty sure the other three weren't looking to pick up chicks. Leg warmers, neon colors, and HUGE pins were everywhere (you remember those huge pins with the guys' faces on them?? Yeah.)! I was completely uprepared for such zealots!! But the atmosphere was intoxicating - it was like a scene out of that Jennifer Garner moving, 13 Going on 30; a bunch of girls in grown women's bodies. I don't mean that rudely, either - it was really genuine and fun. After a quick drink, we made our way to the Garden.
The line for beers was already really long, so we planned to each grab two to avoid the lines again. However, there was only one beer per ID because, according to a TD employee "of all the kids." Um, apparently no one informed TD this was a REUNION tour; no one there was under 25. I was visibly displeased.
Never the less, we made our way to our seats - surprisingly good ones considering we were in the top balcony. Natasha Bedingfield opened, and WOWIE does she have a set of pipes! Someone needs to talk to her producer, because I really think the tracks cover up her awesome voice - I had no idea. Great stage presence, just fabulous.
By the time NKOTB came on, there was not ONE open seat in the house. Now, I know it's Boston (they came from here, FYI), but I know for a fact they sold out the entire tour. That's a seriously amazing feat after dropping off the map 15 years ago! But that absence was the key to their success this time around, and they used it to their advantage. It was like deja vu - it was like before, but a little bit off, a little bit different. Costume changes, choreography - all the things that got us drooling as young girls came back in a flash. But that's what we wanted, and that's what made the show great. Performers and musicians need to recognize their audience and what they're looking for in a show, and capitalize on it. Don't be fake - theoretically, you and your audience should be looking for the same thing! These guys aren't 17 anymore, nor are their fans. We wanted to relive the glory days, and they gave it to us. The show was peppered with new material (a smart move, since those units need to sell to keep the dream alive!), but they opened and closed with old material (Hangin' Tough was the last encore - the crowd was so loud I thought my ears drums would explode!). Truly, a show that was fun and perfectly demonstrated that if you understand your audience, any tour (reunion or otherwise), can be a phenomenal success.
I know what most of your are thinking - oh LORD. Believe me, I got my share of comments at the office on Friday. However, regardless of your musical tastes, there's no denying that the New Kids revolutionized the music industry and ushered in an enormously successful period - the era of the Boy Band. It was a very profitable, golden age for many people in the industry! Sadly, those days are over - so how were NKOTB going to pull off a reunion tour that focused on an age gone by? I was anxious to find out.
The whole situation was quite surreal - my friends and I met up at a bar close to TD Bank North Garden, which, unbeknownst to us, had been transformed into a sort-of NKOTB HAVEN. Every single one of the 30+ TVs on four floors was simultaneously broadcasting a medley of old NKOTB videos and live performances. There were four guys in the bar - FOUR. I brought a collegue (er, dragged, once he saw the scene inside), and I'm pretty sure the other three weren't looking to pick up chicks. Leg warmers, neon colors, and HUGE pins were everywhere (you remember those huge pins with the guys' faces on them?? Yeah.)! I was completely uprepared for such zealots!! But the atmosphere was intoxicating - it was like a scene out of that Jennifer Garner moving, 13 Going on 30; a bunch of girls in grown women's bodies. I don't mean that rudely, either - it was really genuine and fun. After a quick drink, we made our way to the Garden.
The line for beers was already really long, so we planned to each grab two to avoid the lines again. However, there was only one beer per ID because, according to a TD employee "of all the kids." Um, apparently no one informed TD this was a REUNION tour; no one there was under 25. I was visibly displeased.
Never the less, we made our way to our seats - surprisingly good ones considering we were in the top balcony. Natasha Bedingfield opened, and WOWIE does she have a set of pipes! Someone needs to talk to her producer, because I really think the tracks cover up her awesome voice - I had no idea. Great stage presence, just fabulous.
By the time NKOTB came on, there was not ONE open seat in the house. Now, I know it's Boston (they came from here, FYI), but I know for a fact they sold out the entire tour. That's a seriously amazing feat after dropping off the map 15 years ago! But that absence was the key to their success this time around, and they used it to their advantage. It was like deja vu - it was like before, but a little bit off, a little bit different. Costume changes, choreography - all the things that got us drooling as young girls came back in a flash. But that's what we wanted, and that's what made the show great. Performers and musicians need to recognize their audience and what they're looking for in a show, and capitalize on it. Don't be fake - theoretically, you and your audience should be looking for the same thing! These guys aren't 17 anymore, nor are their fans. We wanted to relive the glory days, and they gave it to us. The show was peppered with new material (a smart move, since those units need to sell to keep the dream alive!), but they opened and closed with old material (Hangin' Tough was the last encore - the crowd was so loud I thought my ears drums would explode!). Truly, a show that was fun and perfectly demonstrated that if you understand your audience, any tour (reunion or otherwise), can be a phenomenal success.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Seemingly Irrelevant But Terribly Important!
THIS awesome article appeared in the Daily Mail today. If only America could just acknowledge the power blondes hold, the world would be a wonderful place.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
360 Deals: Savior or Bane to Artists?
With CD sales taking a complete nosedive over the last couple of years, the music industry is straining to find alternative revenue streams to keep it afloat. Actually, I should qualify that statement - record companies are straining. Companies involved in other aspects of the music industry, such as the venue promoter Live Nation, are doing just peachy thanks to a newer type of music agreement - the 360 Deal.
Unlike traditional recording agreements, which provided funds for recording, distribution and some marketing of a physical CD, 360 Deals promise to develop an artist into a true rockstar. Under these agreements, companies like Live Nation are teaming up with third-party affiliates that specialize in things like merchandising, pressing and distribution; things Live Nation doesn't necessary do or have the know-how to accomplish. Through these connections, the artist gets a whole team of experts (so that theory goes) that will mold and shape them into international superstars. Artists with more than a CD -- Artist with clotheslines (Avril), perfume (Mariah), you name it! By signing these deals (especially with major companies like Live Nation), Artists get a full range of expert advice. Amazing, right?
Well, not everyone thinks so. Critics of the 360 come in all shapes and sizes. First, Artists, bucking the idea of companies taking over more than just creative control of their records (something Artists constantly fight to keep), are equally appalled by an attempt by companies to "brand" the Artist's face all over endorsement products -- even if they are products that fans buy and identify with. After all, that's "selling out." Then there are others that say 360 Deals are simply an attempt to bite into a piece of pie that has traditionally belongs solely to Artists -- income from tours and merchandise. In order to become a rockstar these days, you have to pay the price (literally).
However, 360's aren't all bad for the artist. After all, it's hard enough for a band to get signed to a crappy record deal in the first place, nevermind land a decent merch company and a manager to book their tour in decent venues. Here, companies are offering a "one stop shop" option for artists - put that pen to the paper and get all the resources you'll ever need, including grooming you into a superstar. For many struggling artists, this is a perfect solution! Be forewarned though: 360 Deals are longer (some up to 10 years) and more encompassing (meaning the company you sign with will take pieces of everything you do). If the deal doesn't work out, you're either stuck together for years or you get dropped (or leave) and are back at square one.
It's difficult to say if these agreements will catch on in the long run. There's also the argument they may not be 100% legally enforceable -- naive artists have been known to get out of huge deals under the doctrine of undue influence and coercion. Mega-companies like Live Nation need to tread lightly. Also, it's unclear if these deals will pan out for "regular" artists; to date, the media has only reported huge deals in excess of $150 million for the likes of Madonna and Jay-Z. For all intents and purposes, Madonna and Jay-Z are the last folks that need development into rockstars -- HELLO?!? That begs the question of whether the potential pay-off from newer artists is worth the risk. Only time will tell.
Unlike traditional recording agreements, which provided funds for recording, distribution and some marketing of a physical CD, 360 Deals promise to develop an artist into a true rockstar. Under these agreements, companies like Live Nation are teaming up with third-party affiliates that specialize in things like merchandising, pressing and distribution; things Live Nation doesn't necessary do or have the know-how to accomplish. Through these connections, the artist gets a whole team of experts (so that theory goes) that will mold and shape them into international superstars. Artists with more than a CD -- Artist with clotheslines (Avril), perfume (Mariah), you name it! By signing these deals (especially with major companies like Live Nation), Artists get a full range of expert advice. Amazing, right?
Well, not everyone thinks so. Critics of the 360 come in all shapes and sizes. First, Artists, bucking the idea of companies taking over more than just creative control of their records (something Artists constantly fight to keep), are equally appalled by an attempt by companies to "brand" the Artist's face all over endorsement products -- even if they are products that fans buy and identify with. After all, that's "selling out." Then there are others that say 360 Deals are simply an attempt to bite into a piece of pie that has traditionally belongs solely to Artists -- income from tours and merchandise. In order to become a rockstar these days, you have to pay the price (literally).
However, 360's aren't all bad for the artist. After all, it's hard enough for a band to get signed to a crappy record deal in the first place, nevermind land a decent merch company and a manager to book their tour in decent venues. Here, companies are offering a "one stop shop" option for artists - put that pen to the paper and get all the resources you'll ever need, including grooming you into a superstar. For many struggling artists, this is a perfect solution! Be forewarned though: 360 Deals are longer (some up to 10 years) and more encompassing (meaning the company you sign with will take pieces of everything you do). If the deal doesn't work out, you're either stuck together for years or you get dropped (or leave) and are back at square one.
It's difficult to say if these agreements will catch on in the long run. There's also the argument they may not be 100% legally enforceable -- naive artists have been known to get out of huge deals under the doctrine of undue influence and coercion. Mega-companies like Live Nation need to tread lightly. Also, it's unclear if these deals will pan out for "regular" artists; to date, the media has only reported huge deals in excess of $150 million for the likes of Madonna and Jay-Z. For all intents and purposes, Madonna and Jay-Z are the last folks that need development into rockstars -- HELLO?!? That begs the question of whether the potential pay-off from newer artists is worth the risk. Only time will tell.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Ch-ch-check It Out!
Awesome discovery, thanks to my collegue Steven. Everyone should check our Chester French. I'm totally loving it, as we speak. Their full-length debut is still in the works, and I haven't been able to find a site to download the music (and pay, of course!). Let me know if anyone finds it.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Complex Legal Analysis, or a Ploy to Stop Drunken Singers? Why Would the Court Do Such a Thing??
Apparently, it's not a good time to be a karaoke manufacturer. In this great blog entry by Scott Cameron, he breaks down two recent copyright cases involving the types of licenses that karaoke manufacturers need to pay to (legally) get their little boxes of drunken fun into bars around the country. Spoiler alert - the karaoke guys lost. In both cases.
I must say, I do agree with the judges' decisions, overall - because karaoke comes complete with moving lyrics (surprisingly helpful reminders after a couple of beers, no matter how well you think you know the song), companies need to pay for a so-called 'sync' license, not merely a 'mechanical' license. Unlike mechanical licenses, which must be granted to anyone that seeks one and is willing to pay the fee, sync licenses are given only at the discretion of the copyright owner (who also sets the fee). The companies didn't want to pay the extra fees, so they got sued and lost. Sad news for dive bars everywhere, I'm sure.
However, I feel a little pang of injustice toward the plaintiffs in the second suit - a karaoke company that was paying the fees, and was (frankly) pissed off that other companies weren't doing the same. So, what do we do in the good 'ol U-S of A? We sue the bastards! Unfortunately, the case was thrown out because the plaintiffs didn't own any of the copyrights they were suing over. See, in a copyright case, only the owner can sue of the use of the copyrights - because those copyrights were owned by record companies and songwriters who decided not to sue, the karaoke company lacked standing. So, the only options the plaintiffs are left with are either: 1) continue paying the fees and getting undercut by their competitors; or 2) stop paying the fees and get sued themselves. If you ask me, that's kind of a crappy deal! Unfortunately, the plaintiffs can't force the copyright owners to sue (although, if they were sued in the future for not paying their fees anymore, they may have an affirmative defense).
Nevertheless, most of you bar rats can rest easy (and I say that lovingly for I, too, have a favorite neighborhood bar and it, too, is a dive) in the knowledge that most karaoke manufacturers will just pony up the fees (and maybe raise the prices a bit). However, not all companies will be able to do so - and I can almost hear the sobs of a poor drunken bar patron crying into their beer, damning the Ninth Circuit of the Federal District Court.
I must say, I do agree with the judges' decisions, overall - because karaoke comes complete with moving lyrics (surprisingly helpful reminders after a couple of beers, no matter how well you think you know the song), companies need to pay for a so-called 'sync' license, not merely a 'mechanical' license. Unlike mechanical licenses, which must be granted to anyone that seeks one and is willing to pay the fee, sync licenses are given only at the discretion of the copyright owner (who also sets the fee). The companies didn't want to pay the extra fees, so they got sued and lost. Sad news for dive bars everywhere, I'm sure.
However, I feel a little pang of injustice toward the plaintiffs in the second suit - a karaoke company that was paying the fees, and was (frankly) pissed off that other companies weren't doing the same. So, what do we do in the good 'ol U-S of A? We sue the bastards! Unfortunately, the case was thrown out because the plaintiffs didn't own any of the copyrights they were suing over. See, in a copyright case, only the owner can sue of the use of the copyrights - because those copyrights were owned by record companies and songwriters who decided not to sue, the karaoke company lacked standing. So, the only options the plaintiffs are left with are either: 1) continue paying the fees and getting undercut by their competitors; or 2) stop paying the fees and get sued themselves. If you ask me, that's kind of a crappy deal! Unfortunately, the plaintiffs can't force the copyright owners to sue (although, if they were sued in the future for not paying their fees anymore, they may have an affirmative defense).
Nevertheless, most of you bar rats can rest easy (and I say that lovingly for I, too, have a favorite neighborhood bar and it, too, is a dive) in the knowledge that most karaoke manufacturers will just pony up the fees (and maybe raise the prices a bit). However, not all companies will be able to do so - and I can almost hear the sobs of a poor drunken bar patron crying into their beer, damning the Ninth Circuit of the Federal District Court.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
The Importance of Reading Contracts: Warner Bros. Gets Smacked Down
It's been a lively week for copyright law - Barbie totally banked (more on that in another post - although that was technically last week), and Fox cooked up and served a big fat can of whoop-ass for Warner Bros. in a Central California Federal District Court. Copyright nerds like myself jump up and down and start clapping like little 'tweens at a Jonas Brothers' Concert when stories of convoluted copyright issues make their way to the mainstream media, and the Fox v. Warner Bros. [Case #: CV 08-889-GA, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., et al.F] story has certainly seemed to do just that over the past weeks. However, for those of that have better things to do in your life (like, maybe actually attend a Jonas Brothers' Concert, although it's really questionable whether that's a "better" used of your time...), here's the lowdown:
Warner Bros. is making a movie out of the graphic novel (NOT comic book! See a local nerd near you for the difference) "The Watchmen," originally owned a published by DC Comics. Somehow Fox legitimately acquired the rights to make the graphic novel into a movie in the mid 80's, but, through a series of quitclaim deeds and complex contracts with options, it is unclear whether Fox actually still holds those rights. A man named Gordon was part of one of the original deals giving Fox domestic distribution rights to the movie, along with a company called Largo. Fox later quitclaims (sells) their rights to Largo, but retains the right to distribute the film if Largo decides to make it. From '93 to '94, Gordon acquires all Largo's rights -- arguably including Fox's retention of the right to distribute. After that, Gordon puts out of the deal and settles with Fox, leaving him with the option to buy Fox out if he chooses to make "The Watchmen" a movie.
Here's where it gets a little complicated. Gordon then quitclaims his rights to Warner Bros, and now they're making the movie. (You can watch the trailer here although I'm not sure how long it will be up, since I'm sure an injunction by Fox against WB is in the works as I type.) Now, Fox is suing mad. They brought 2 claims in Federal Court this week: First, a copyright infringement claim alleging that Fox still owns rights to "Watchmen," including the right to make and a distribute it as a motion picture; and second, a contractual interference claim alleging that Warner knew that Fox still possessed these rights and intentionally messed up the deal with Gordon.
You can read the whole case here, courtesy of loeb.com. It's not that long because the judge basically went to town on Warner, ripping apart their motion to dismiss the case. Fox alleged that Warner "misstated" that Gordon was transferring all Fox's interest to Warner, but withheld from stating whether Warner actually knew that what they were stating in the agreement with Gordon was false (nice move, Fox legal team! Never thought I'd say that...). Instead, Fox went straight the jugular and stated that Warner knew (independently) that Gordon did not hold, nor could he transfer, Fox's rights via Gordon's option to buyout.
Warner tried to come back with the allegation that it was Fox that held the option and failed to exercise it before Gordon transferred the agreement (clearly contrary to the agreement, in which it was clear that Gordon held the option personally, making that part of the agreement, at least, nontransferable). Warner also alleged that they could not be sued for contractual interference because they were now a party to the deal and had assumed obligations under it. (Can't you feel the excitement? It's like a pay-per-view boxing match!)
Not surprisingly, the judge sided the Fox and dismissed the motion. In fact, that opinion baldly states that Warner will need more than they have now to win the case. I salute the uphill battle you face, Warner Bros. God's speed.
I go through all of this for two primary reasons: 1) I love copyright law and want to share its marshmallowy goodness with the world; and 2) it is so imperative, in every deal, to do your homework! Most of us don't want to hear this, but you really should read every contract you sign. Obviously, Warner's legal team did this (they wrote it!) but, as you can see, that alone isn't always enough when you're working with a series of owners and split-up rights to a piece of art.
Copyright is unique, even in the world of Intellectual Property, because its rights can be split up at least 6 (simple) ways - the rights to copy, distribute, prepare derivative works, publicly perform, public display, and publicly perform via digital transmission. Within the licensure and transfer of these rights, a myriad of different owners can succeed one another, making it difficult to figure out exactly who owns what. Most of you will never have to deal with this particular issue, but most of us do deal with it in the context of real property. When you buy a house, you'd better hope someone is doing the homework on your title if you're not. Like intellectual property, real property is very valuable to its owner and you don't want some stranger coming along and trying to take your stuff, right?
See? Law is relevant.
Warner Bros. is making a movie out of the graphic novel (NOT comic book! See a local nerd near you for the difference) "The Watchmen," originally owned a published by DC Comics. Somehow Fox legitimately acquired the rights to make the graphic novel into a movie in the mid 80's, but, through a series of quitclaim deeds and complex contracts with options, it is unclear whether Fox actually still holds those rights. A man named Gordon was part of one of the original deals giving Fox domestic distribution rights to the movie, along with a company called Largo. Fox later quitclaims (sells) their rights to Largo, but retains the right to distribute the film if Largo decides to make it. From '93 to '94, Gordon acquires all Largo's rights -- arguably including Fox's retention of the right to distribute. After that, Gordon puts out of the deal and settles with Fox, leaving him with the option to buy Fox out if he chooses to make "The Watchmen" a movie.
Here's where it gets a little complicated. Gordon then quitclaims his rights to Warner Bros, and now they're making the movie. (You can watch the trailer here although I'm not sure how long it will be up, since I'm sure an injunction by Fox against WB is in the works as I type.) Now, Fox is suing mad. They brought 2 claims in Federal Court this week: First, a copyright infringement claim alleging that Fox still owns rights to "Watchmen," including the right to make and a distribute it as a motion picture; and second, a contractual interference claim alleging that Warner knew that Fox still possessed these rights and intentionally messed up the deal with Gordon.
You can read the whole case here, courtesy of loeb.com. It's not that long because the judge basically went to town on Warner, ripping apart their motion to dismiss the case. Fox alleged that Warner "misstated" that Gordon was transferring all Fox's interest to Warner, but withheld from stating whether Warner actually knew that what they were stating in the agreement with Gordon was false (nice move, Fox legal team! Never thought I'd say that...). Instead, Fox went straight the jugular and stated that Warner knew (independently) that Gordon did not hold, nor could he transfer, Fox's rights via Gordon's option to buyout.
Warner tried to come back with the allegation that it was Fox that held the option and failed to exercise it before Gordon transferred the agreement (clearly contrary to the agreement, in which it was clear that Gordon held the option personally, making that part of the agreement, at least, nontransferable). Warner also alleged that they could not be sued for contractual interference because they were now a party to the deal and had assumed obligations under it. (Can't you feel the excitement? It's like a pay-per-view boxing match!)
Not surprisingly, the judge sided the Fox and dismissed the motion. In fact, that opinion baldly states that Warner will need more than they have now to win the case. I salute the uphill battle you face, Warner Bros. God's speed.
I go through all of this for two primary reasons: 1) I love copyright law and want to share its marshmallowy goodness with the world; and 2) it is so imperative, in every deal, to do your homework! Most of us don't want to hear this, but you really should read every contract you sign. Obviously, Warner's legal team did this (they wrote it!) but, as you can see, that alone isn't always enough when you're working with a series of owners and split-up rights to a piece of art.
Copyright is unique, even in the world of Intellectual Property, because its rights can be split up at least 6 (simple) ways - the rights to copy, distribute, prepare derivative works, publicly perform, public display, and publicly perform via digital transmission. Within the licensure and transfer of these rights, a myriad of different owners can succeed one another, making it difficult to figure out exactly who owns what. Most of you will never have to deal with this particular issue, but most of us do deal with it in the context of real property. When you buy a house, you'd better hope someone is doing the homework on your title if you're not. Like intellectual property, real property is very valuable to its owner and you don't want some stranger coming along and trying to take your stuff, right?
See? Law is relevant.
The Headlining Act: The Reunion Tour
Hi folks! Sorry about the massive bout of non-activity. On a personal note, I graduated from law school in mid-May which is possibly the most anticlimatic event in one's life. Unlike high school or college graduation, it's a mere prerequisite to months and months of endless study called "Bar Prep," not the culmination of all the hard work you've already put into the damn degree.
So, I'm a Juris Doctor now - not that has any significance in the world of legal practice. No, no - you must pass The Bar to be worth your weight in gold. So, I sat for the Massachusetts Bar on July 30th and 31st -- and here I sit until the results are released in November. However, I will not let the unbearable anticipation disrupt my enthusiasm for the entertainment areas and its current legal issues, so it's back to the drawing board! I'm basically full-time at Exemplar for the time, so I'm going to try and blog as often as possible. Off we go!
So, I'm a Juris Doctor now - not that has any significance in the world of legal practice. No, no - you must pass The Bar to be worth your weight in gold. So, I sat for the Massachusetts Bar on July 30th and 31st -- and here I sit until the results are released in November. However, I will not let the unbearable anticipation disrupt my enthusiasm for the entertainment areas and its current legal issues, so it's back to the drawing board! I'm basically full-time at Exemplar for the time, so I'm going to try and blog as often as possible. Off we go!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
