ViolaTribe

Posts Tagged ‘artist royalties’

Recently I joined other musicians and music industry leaders at an event in Nashville featuring a discussion of music ( and movie) piracy with Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke.   My first thought was, “Isn’t it a little late?”  I am ready to discuss the next step in protecting intellectual property rights, not to look in the rearview mirror at what has passed.  The digital revolution has changed forever how people listen to music and their expectations of how they will be able to access and share their experience with the music.

What can possibly be done to contain the stealing of music on-line when the laws that are currently in place are not being upheld?  Sure, there are cases that have gone to court to warn others not to download illegally, but these efforts have not been effective and have actually given the music industry a black eye.  Nothing has been done to block the technology industries from providing the tools (directly to their costumers) to steal.  Thus, the government has given the public a yellow light to proceed with  this illegal activity.

What was the purpose of Commerce Secretary Locke’s visit to Music Row?  Could it have been a warning shot to ISP’s (Internet Service Providers) to come to the table with the music and movie industries to make an agreement that will enable all parties to survive?  Was it a strong suggestion to create a new environment  that will allow film makers and musicians, screenwriters and songwriters, publishers and music companies to thrive (and prosper) and bring their art to life (for consumption by the public)?

Internet Service Providers get paid by the consumers who use their services for unauthorized (illegal) transactions.. ISP’s have chosen to allow illegal activity to thrive on their sites.  They have created the new “free” model…so, let them pay for their creation of this permissive environment…they make a lot of money from the consumers who use their services to steal from others, so let’s hold them accountable for their complicity.

In order to support the creative community the next step is to find a way to allow access to the creators through electronics, computers, phones, etc by creating a royalty fund (collective organization) for artists that is itself funded by the electronics, computer, phone, ISP’s, and whatever else may develop in the future.  Create a new revenue source to support the creators and the copyright holders that will always be up to date…it is simple.  The industries that are reaping the rewards of providing access to creators by simply providing a tool to get the music  and movies….should share their success…just like the legal digital download and streaming companies pay into Sound Exchange funds, which is then distributed to musicians and music companies.

It is essential to find a way to support the people involved in the creative community.  They can not possibly survive the “free” business model, especially when the ISP’s, electronics and phone industries- even YouTube  (through advertising) all are thriving economically in the “music for free” business plan.  Yet the “content providers” and copyright holders  (musicians and music companies) are obliged to provide the “for free” part of the plan.  It is time for the next step by implementing a new royalty fund for creators that is funded by the technology  industry.  All use of the music would result in a fee.  Then we can stop talking about music piracy, which will exist but which will be compensated for with a fee on the consumers’ Internet Service bill.

The quotes in this entry are taken directly from The Tennessean, August 1, 2010.  I just had to bring this to your attention.  Has Naxos’ business model contributed to the de-valuation of performing artists?  I’m just wondering…..

“Digital Music Pays Off for Naxos.”  I ask… does it pay off for the musicians and ensembles who are creating the recordings?

“Cheap Musicians Hired…..use relatively unknown- and therefore inexpensive- orchestras and artists, pay them upfront and retain all the rights to the music.”  Having been one of those cheap artists in the Naxos catalog, I can tell you that we could have used some of the money from these recordings to support the now defunct orchestra.  I prefer to be referred to as inexpensive…certainly not cheap.  There is nothing cheap about being a classical musician.

“The orchestras have come around to the idea that they won’t make money from the recordings and, in fact, have to subsidize their own records”, Valentine said (Executive Director of the NSO).

Sounds like Naxos modeled itself after terrestrial radio stations, who insist that it’s all about promotional value.  While it is true that cheap labor can benefit from the promotional value of being heard on the radio or heard on a CD, where is the line?  What makes it ok for a company to put a performer’s copyright protection to the side for their own gain.  The record company makes money, but the artist doesn’t.  I submit that all recording artists should receive royalties from the products they create, that are essentially made to promote and disperse their creative energy to their audience.

Was the Guarneri String Quartet’s audience seeking out the record labels?  Did their audience want to take home a piece of vinyl because they just couldn’t live without the record company?  Would the Guarneri String Quartet have been able to perform for free ?  Record for free?  Teach for free?

The good side of Naxos is that people who want to learn about classical music can be encouraged to purchase recordings.   There is promotional value.  There are benefits.

Perhaps Naxos only thinks of music as a catalog to conquer, not as a an art to be cherished.

My wish is that Naxos would find it’s good side and stop taking advantage of performers…and stop the de-valuation of musicians’ creative efforts.

My answer… strengthen copyright protection.  Provide a universal royalty system for recording artists.