A Complete Waste of Resources

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.

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?

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!

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?

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.