Musician David Lowery, founder of Cracker and Camper Van Beethoven, has become one of the most vocal defendants of artists’ rights in the digital age. A co-founder of The Trichordist, Lowery and his colleagues write some very detailed, professional assessments of the state of the music industry since digital file sharing, streaming, and purchasing have become a reality.
Presently under fire by Lowery and others is a bill called the Internet Radio Fairness Act, which appears, for now, to benefit one company — Pandora. I haven’t had a chance to read the bill yet, but analysis from a few sources sounds an awful lot like new-era business seeking a very old-school model for profitability — free labor. To the generalist glancing at some post about the IRFA on social media, it sounds progressive and reasonable, namely the headline that states “the Internet Radio company wants to pay the same rates as terrestrial radio.” No surprise, it ain’t that simple. In addition to Lowery’s piece, I would read some of the analysis by Chris Castle, who has been following the details fairly closely.
The most disconcerting criticisms I’ve read is that the bill is a union buster, designed to weaken or destroy the collective bargaining rights of artists. One paragraph in the bill is particularly troubling:
“Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to permit any copyright owners of sound recordings acting jointly, or any common agent or collective representing such copyright owners, to take any action that would prohibit, interfere with, or impede direct licensing by copyright owners of sound recordings [including artists who own their own sound recordings] in competition with licensing by any common agent or collective, and any such action that affects interstate commerce shall be deemed a contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1).’. [For which there are both civil and criminal penalties.]”
Like I say, I haven’t had a chance to read the bill in full yet, and I’m not a lawyer. What I do know is that Internet companies do not deserve a free pass when it comes to the question of influence peddling. If Pandora cannot turn a profit without a law that strips artists of collective bargaining rights, then so long Pandora. It wasn’t that long ago when industrialists claimed they could not build important infrastructure without treating American workers like virtual slaves. The right to bargain for the value of one’s work cannot be recast in this technological era as a barrier to the innovation of entertainment any more than it ought to have been claimed as a barrier to building a railroad over a century ago. And considering how often the Internet industries cry foul every time a member of the creative community goes to Washington, this bill sounds more hypocritical and lopsided than it does “fair.”
I’m sorry, but I’m still not quite sure what’s troubling about that particular paragraph. From what I read, it just says that common agents and collectives cannot interfere with the right of an individual copyright owner to license his/her work directly. In other words: it is up to the copyright owner to decide how he/she wishes to license his/her work: directly or through the common agents or collectives. Should they try to interfere with the copyright owner’s right to do so, they could get punished severely. Sounds to me like it just gives more power to the individual copyright owner.
From Chris Castle at MusicTechPolicy: “You would not necessarily catch this unless you knew about the efforts by Clear Channel and Sirius to enter into direct license agreements with record companies and bypass SoundExchange. Direct licensing is bad because it allows the record company issuing the direct license to collect the artist’s share of revenue and apply it against unrecouped balances. SoundExchange protects the artist from this practice and pays artists directly. Plus, direct licensing essentially guts the ability of artists to audit Pandora and Sirius because SoundExchange conducts collective audits. Which of course, is an innovation that Pandora and its fellow innovators do not like one little bit.”
Considering the text of this article though, that would mean that the record company holds the copyrights to the music in these cases? What is your PoV with regards to this: should record companies be able to make musicians transfer their copyrights in return for a record deal?
If we’re talking in broad strokes, nobody makes the musician do anything. A record label offers an artist a deal, often for a very large sum of money up front as well as a large investment in production and marketing, and then the artist gets rich and the company (in this case investor) gets richer. Or the artist doesn’t pan out, keeps the advance he received (and probably pisses it away), and the label loses money on the investment. And of course, copyrights are often not surrendered in perpetuity or at all so much as licensing deals are made. No question that there are plenty of cases where labels get away with all sorts of shenanigans, but labels have also made many artists very wealthy and popular entertainers. The most important thing is not to erode the principle of choice for the artist. He can give his music away, try to sell it solo, or make a record deal. It ought to be his choice, not that of technology companies who seem hell-bent on getting free or really cheap product.
In general, I would agree with that statement, but in this case we’re talking about a situation where the artist has signed away his rights to the record company. Part of that deal is also that the record company gets to decide how they license those works.
In principle I believe that the copyright holder has the right to license said works in any way they see fit, and it’s not up to a union to object to this. If an artist doesn’t want that, (s)he shouldn’t sign away his/her rights in the first place.
That is however why I’m in favour of stronger artist rights when it comes do dealing with producers. Considering the rock and hard place decisions involved in a record deal, I think that an artist’s copyrights should be inalienable.
In this particular case, I’m mostly raising the question, pointing to what MTP and Trichordist have to say, and asking whether or not this bill is really about fairness or something else. People like Chris and David have better experience as to how most music deals are made than I, which is why I don’t see any value in my simply repeating what they’re saying. As described in PartII on the Trichordist analysis, we see one company pushing hard to enact a law that fundamentally changes the application of copyright law. Just on the surface of it, I’m not comfortable with that happening behind the scenes and in the service of one or a handful of businesses. If the bill only contained language about rates, that would be one thing, but I smell a rat.
I look at this and immediately think about the film industry where a completed film is always the property of either a production company or a distributor — where none of the individual artists (e.g. the writers) retain any copyrights on their work — and yet, this has nothing to do with the power of their respective unions to bargain. Hence, I’m uncomfortable with some of the precedent that could be set here. And now that I think of it, Pieter, this may be material for a new post. 🙂