Two Sincere Questions for The Future Of Music Coalition #SFMUSICTECH

Timely questions as the FOMC Policy Summit is one again upon us…

The Trichordist

We notice that Future of Music Coalition has submitted testimony to congress asking that they “represent” artists in the Copyright Reform process begun by Congress.

So since they’ve  volunteered to represent us.  We feel it only fair that they answer these two questions:

1. Who selects your advocacy positions?  
AFM, AFTRA, NARAS, Nashville Songwriters Assn, and ASCAP all have democratically elected boards who set the organizations’ positions.  Do you have members who vote for leadership?  If not, who is making those decisions?

2. Who funds your organization?
Google is listed as your first sponsor of your primary event.

How much money do you get from Google?  Do you think you should be taking funding from a source many artists believe to be opposed to their interests?

FOMC Spondors

View original post

About trichordist


2 thoughts on “Two Sincere Questions for The Future Of Music Coalition #SFMUSICTECH

  1. Hey folks,
    We’re in the thick of getting ready for our event, so can’t respond at length but:

    We didn’t actually offer to “represent” anyone in our congressional testimony, precisely because we’re not a membership organization. The word represent doesn’t even appear in the testimony you linked to! Our point was that Congress needs to hear diverse perspectives from musicians and songwriters. That should include folks from the membership organizations you named and we’ve been pleased that the current copyright review process has made room for diverse artist perspectives, including one of the authors of this blog (though of course, we’d always like to see more!) Here incidentally, is a quick overview of how the review has gone so far:

    It might be helpful to understand that we’re not a lobby shop. Rather, one of our roles is to analyze bills that are introduced and help musicians and composers better understand what a piece of legislation attempts to do, its supporters and detractors, and potential impacts of it becoming law. When FMC does take an official position on a piece of legislation—which is actually not that often—we do so after close consultation with a network of musicians, songwriters, artist advocates, music managers, indie labels, legal whizzes and folks who want to build cool, legal stuff around music.

    Sponsors for our events come from a bunch of different places on various ideological spectrums. It’s a diverse group, from artist organizations to non profits to businesses to educational institutions. You can see the sponsors for 2014’s event here. They’re not ever going to all agree with us or with each other on music industry issues. But they see a value in the work we do. Our hope is that we can work together on the issues where we do agree and create a forum for honest, productive, and creator-centered debates about the rest.

    Anyway, we hope you watch the webcast on Monday & Tuesday. It’s a pretty amazing lineup!


  2. Another interesting thing to note is that The Wikipedia site lists Lawrence Lessig as being on the Advisory board for FMC. Google spent $2 M creating the Internet and Society Center at Stanford University, and Lessig was placed in charge. Essentially Lessig’s job was to run a mill that turned out law school graduates and academic papers condoning the destruction of copyright. Lessig has made a lucrative career using his credentials to fight for Google’s right to rob musicians’ blind. Let’s be honest about what the FMC is, Please tell me as a musician how to go on record as saying that the FMC most definitely does not represent me or any musician.

Comments are closed.