Author: Trichordist Editor

Trichordist Editor

The Videogame Industry is Larger Than Film and TV Combined, Why Aren’t They Paying Musicians Fairly?

The videogame industry is larger than the film and tv industries, combined. Despite this, most if not all of the composers creating original videogame music are not paid the same as they would be doing the same work for films and tv shows. Here’s why.

Composers who create the music for your favorite films and tv shows are paid a fee which generally covers the actual hard costs of writing, producing and recording the music for that show. Most of the time that fee doesn’t leave a lot for the composer to live on after the hard costs listed above. However, film and tv composers also typically receive a royalty in the form of an additional payment when the film or show is broadcast or streamed.

This is called a public performance royalty. In most countries the composers are also paid in the same manner for theatrical exhibition (the United States is one of the few countries that does not pay this).

In addition to the public performance royalty most countries also pay a mechanical reproduction royalty. Both of these royalties may vary slightly from territory to territory but both are long established norms for the composer as the songwriter, and hence the creator of the copyright of the original music.

It is these royalties that have long been established as an essential form of compensation that allows composers to actually make a living. Videogame Composers however do not receive these long established payments that their film and tv composer counterparts receive.

To be fair to the videogame industry the early distribution methods of games and gameplay operated in a very different manner than that of film & tv. Even in the 90s for example, games were still distributed on cartridges and music was written for the hardware chipset of each console (or standard pc soundcard).

Since that time the videogame industry has evolved significantly with emerging technologies bringing the gameplay closer to traditional media in user experience and workflow. In fact the videogame industry has grown so large, that its annual revenues now exceed those of the film & tv industries combined. Unfortunately for videogame composers, they are still being compensated under a business model that is half a century old, where music was played by a chipset, not a live orchestra (and the commercial internet was in its infancy).

Game composers are now working under many of the same requirements and expectations as film and tv composers, delivering massively epic scores recorded at major studios with large classical orchestras. In fact, the process of writing music for videogames is a larger and more complex process and requires writing much, much more music due to the scale of the games.

The distribution methods of games has changed as well with many now streamisng in real-time multiplayer modes across a range of consoles, computers, phones and tablets. Some streaming games are free to play, but generate billions of dollars from in-game purchases. Videogame Composers do not participate in any of these revenues created by the new distribution technologies (both downloads or streaming).

The current labor strikes in Hollywood by Writers and Actors highlight and underscore the changing economic realities for creatives presented by these new distribution technologies such as streaming media. A similar situation affects the videogame industry who are transitioning from physical transactional sales to various types of streaming models. Streaming equals broadcast. Broadcast requires both public performance and mechanical reproduction royalties (although these may differ slightly from territory to territory). Streaming is not a transactional model. Streaming is a real-time broadcast and delivery of the media. This is not controversial. Even audio only interactive music streaming services are also bound by these same long established standards and norms.

There is talk of SAG (the Screen Actors Guild) extending the reach of their strike from traditional linear media to video game production. It should be noted that film & tv composers are barred from unionizing and have no collective bargaining power. It is against this backdrop that Videogame Composers recognize their need to advocate for the same royalties that have been long established by traditional media which are currently being reevaluated and updated for the streaming era.

In conclusion, now is the time for this fundamental and long overdue misaligned inequity to be addressed and resolved. A healthy industry is one the invests in itself, its talent and its next generation of creatives who will continue to ensure the growth of the business.

by Trichordist Editor

Press Release: Rep. @DeboarahRossNC Introduces Protect Working Musicians Act of 2023 #IRespectMusic

Rep. @DeborahRossNC Introduces Protect Working Musicians Act of 2023 #IRespectMusic

September 19, 2023

Today, Congresswoman Deborah Ross (NC-02) introduced the Protect Working Musicians Act of 2023. This legislation will give small independent artists and music creators the power to collectively negotiate with both streaming platforms and generative artificial intelligence (AI) developers for fair compensation.

Under current laws, small and independent musicians have little ability to bargain for market value rates for the use of their music by global streaming platforms, such as Spotify and Apple Music. Instead, they are forced to accept whatever terms are offered by these platforms, while also having almost no ability to engage with AI companies who routinely scrape and use their music without permission or consent. This legislation allows independent artists to band together and collectively negotiate with large streaming platforms and AI developers, without the obstacles of antitrust laws. 

“North Carolina has long been home to outstanding artists and a vibrant music scene that plays a vital role in our state’s culture and economy,” said Congresswoman Ross. “Working musicians and small independent labels face urgent challenges to their livelihoods posed by the market power of streaming platforms as well as the explosion of AI applications that use their work without licensing or pay. This legislation will help give small, independent music creators a level playing field, empowering them to stand together for fairer compensation and giving them a voice in important negotiations that will determine the future of the music industry.” 

The Protect Working Musicians Act is endorsed by the American Association of Independent Music (A2IM) and the Artist Rights Alliance (ARA).

“Musicians today are fighting for fair treatment on so many fronts, including both in the online streaming marketplace and against the growing threat posed by AI companies who exploit creators’ work without permission,” said Jen Jacobsen, ARA Executive Director. “The ‘Protect Working Musicians Act’ will give small and independent artists a shot at facing these challenges by allowing them to negotiate collectively with the large and powerful entities who profit from musicians’ hard work. We thank Rep. Ross for her leadership in empowering creators with tools to navigate this ever-changing market.”

“Thank you, Rep. Deborah Ross, for championing the rights of artists through the introduction of the Protect Working Musicians Act,” said Dr. Richard James Burgess MBE, President & CEO of A2IM. “The PWMA would help level the playing field for indie artists who struggle to make a living from the mega corporations that control the streaming marketplace.” 

“I’m so grateful to my fellow North Carolinian Deborah Ross for fighting for independent music and the future of creativity,” said singer-songwriter Tift Merritt, Co-Chair of the Artist Rights Alliance. “Artists, songwriters, and independent labels have never needed each other more, and this legislation will ensure our voices are heard and we receive fair pay for our work.” 

“The Protect Working Musicians Act is a necessary tool for independent artists and labels to compete in today’s marketplace and receive fair compensation for their work from streaming platforms and AI companies,” said ARA Co-Founder John McCrea of CAKE. “It is amazing that it even needs to be said, but people who make things have a fundamental right to negotiate with the giants who use and distribute their work.” 

“We at Merge would like to thank Congresswoman Ross for endorsing the North Carolina music scene as the strong cultural and economic force it is and taking this step to make sure we can compete and succeed in the digital world,” said Laura Ballance, Co-Founder, Merge Records and member of the band Superchunk.

The bill text is available here. 

by Trichordist Editor

The Copyright Office Sends Modernized Regrets

As we reported in a prior post about George Johnson’s grass roots effort to ask the Copyright Office to review that status of the compulsory license which is the raison d’être for the existence of their Mechanical Licensing Collective, the US Copyright Office turned him down. The Office has refused to look into a study on the continued viability of the compulsory license in the United States as part of the five year review of their Mechanical Licensing Collective. The five year review is the perfect opportunity to consider whether the compulsory license itself is fit for purpose.

This is particularly true after the near-fiasco of the MLC’s testimony to the House IP Subcommittee which is well worth watching, particularly the Subcommittee’s “show me the money” questioning about what the MLC is doing with the hundreds of millions that the MLC is “investing”. The only reason the MLC has these hundreds of millions is because of the compulsory license. This requires an explanation that nobody seems interested in making to the songwriters like George Johnson.

It seems to us impossible to consider one without the other and we appreciate George Johnson taking the time to make that argument to the Copyright Office. In coming days we will have some additional thoughts about the continued viability of the compulsory and look forward to a robust debate on the topic. We may have to conduct that conversation outside of the Imperial City, but that’s OK. There are many international interests involved as well as motivated constituents all around this country.

Here is the Copyright Office rejection letter. There are a number of assumptions it makes, such as the negotiation of Title I of the MMA was a free and open process and not a star chamber for the insiders. We’ll get to these in coming days.

Dear George,

Thank you for your letter requesting a study concerning repealing the section 115 compulsory license.  As you know, the section 115 license was previously explored by the Office and it was recently amended by Congress as part of the Music Modernization Act (MMA).  As the changes made to the license through the MMA have been effective only for the past two and a half years, the Office believes that it would be premature at this time to engage in a new study of the section 115 license.

To briefly recap this history, in 2015, the Copyright Office issued its policy report “Copyright and the Music Marketplace,” which reviewed the then-current conditions affecting the U.S. music marketplace and made various suggestions for reform, including with respect to the section 115 license.  The report was built on input we received from organizations and individuals, including yourself, who shared their insights and experiences in written comments and in roundtable discussions. 

With respect to the section 115 license, the report observed that “[m]any parties have called for either the complete elimination or modernization of section 115, citing issues such as the administrative challenges of the license, the inaccuracy and slowness of the ratesetting process, and frustration with government-mandated rates.”  Ultimately, however, the Office recommended modernizing, but not repealing, the section 115 license.  While the Office was sympathetic to arguments in favor of repealing the license, it was also concerned that eliminating the license would cause extraordinary difficulties associated with negotiating individual licenses for the millions of musical works offered on digital music providers’ services.

Three years later, Congress updated the section 115 license as a part of the MMA—an Act that Senator Grassley referred to as “the product of long and hard negotiations and compromise.”  One of the Act’s cornerstones was the new compulsory blanket section 115 license, which became available on January 1, 2021.  

Although we do not intend to undertake a new study of the section 115 license at this time, we want to remind you that the Office welcomes input from stakeholders and members of the public to better inform our decision-making.  I would like to thank you again for your letter and any additional views that you may wish to provide to the Office in the future.

Sincerely,

Suzy Wilson

General Counsel and Associate Register of Copyrights

U.S. Copyright Office

by Trichordist Editor

How Good is Greed? What is to be done about the BMI sale

Greed is good!! Or not.

We’ve all looked on in horror as executives at BMI are structuring a way to extract the value that generations of songwriters have bestowed on the broadcasters’ PRO. Because BMI had operated as a nonprofit corporation since 1939, extracting that value in the form of a sale of BMI was a bit of a problem because nonprofits have pretty extensive restrictions on who they can sell to (most prominently, other non profits and not the for profits who have the money) not to mention the responsibility of board members and no stock ownership by board members, liquidation preferences, etc. Some songwriter advocacy groups sent a letter asking a number of questions to BMI’s head honcho Mike O’Neil. You can read the letter and O’Neil’s non-answer on Music Business Worldwide. After reading the nonanswer see if you have the same reaction a lot of people have had–yep, it’s bullshit.

Enter the team that BMI and their broadcaster board plays for: The White Shoes of Wall Street with their notorious manager Goldman “Shifty” Sachs. As we know, the most dangerous geography in the world is the conflict zone between Shifty Sachs and fees not yet doing the english shift into Shifty’s pockets. So unsurprisingly, BMI did some kind of rollout (aka the Delaware two step) that presto changeo turned BMI into a for profit company ready for serving up on Shifty’s fees menu. And extracting songwriter value for BMI executives with tips all round for Shifty and his White Shoes.

And they’re getting away with it by the look of things. Are you surprised?

One reason they are getting away with it is that the rumored competitive offer from a songwriter buyer group hasn’t materialized yet. But the main reason they are getting away with it is because somehow a firm that has no connection to the music business (North Mountain Capital) seems to be interested in forking over a rumored $1.7 billion price tag for BMI. And that’s a lot of streams.

Because North Mountain have no detectable connection to the music business (aside from a valuation firm which to our knowledge hasn’t humped a trap case in quite a while) they are not really focused on a songwriter revolt against a business whose core asset is rented songs. We say “rented” because any BMI songwriter or publisher agreement can be unilaterally terminated by the songwriter or publisher. Even though that termination can be delayed a while, we wonder if Shifty has really taken that into account.

Of course, North Mountain itself may have some investors who are familiar with the music business. We can’t help noticing that the MLC invests hundreds of millions of other peoples black box money and they may very well have put some of your millions into North Capital as they have with mutual funds in which they are a “controlling person.” Since MLC refuses–under oath–to disclose their investments for the ludicrous reason that they might move markets…sheesh…and since the Copyright Office doesn’t compel the MLC to disclose those investments, we have no idea what they are up to. (There may be a simple explanation for this lack of spine given the Copyright Office’s past revolving door activities.) But we cannot rule out that the black box might be used to fund, albeit indirectly, an acquisition that the songwriters don’t want. In fact, there’s nothing to say that MLC has not already either directly invested in a takeover fund or made loans of black box money to publishers or their buddies who want to buy catalogs.

Unless something’s changed this morning, the BMI sale still isn’t done yet, but we have every confidence in Shifty and the White Shoes.

Because as Gordon Gekko taught us, greed is good.

by Trichordist Editor

@MikeHuppe: Protecting the Creative Class

Guest post By Mike Huppe
President & CEO at SoundExchange

Creators – whether they be writers, actors, or musicians – are the heart of the entertainment industry. They inspire us with their words, move us with their performances, and get our blood pumping with their beats. 

Now two of the major unions representing creators – the Writers Guild of America (WGA) and the Screen Actors Guild (SAG-AFTRA) – have gone on strike to make the case for better pay and residuals, improved working conditions, fairer treatment in the age of streaming, and protections against the widespread use of artificial intelligence to replace creators. 

This is the first time that writers and actors have gone on strike at the same time since 1960, and it has brought the movie and TV industry to a virtual standstill. After cable increased content to fill a new crop of channels, streaming platforms fueled an explosion of new series and features to feed a new business model. Now, production has ground to a halt and the availability of new movies and shows will dwindle in the coming days, weeks, and months.

At its core, this dispute is about ensuring that, even as business models evolve and change, creators are treated fairly so they can continue to do the work that brings meaning to them and joy to us.

At SoundExchange, we love creators. We champion their work. We’ve seen the music industry go through technology-driven disruption (just as the motion picture industry is now), and we were created to ensure that streaming music business models enable creators to make a living doing what they do best. We’ve been fighting for 20 years to build a fairer, simpler, and more efficient music industry – by successfully increasing royalty rates across a variety of platforms; by holding accountable those who seek to cheat creators; by increasing the speed and transparency of payments, and by scoring a big win for music creators with the Music Modernization Act in 2018 (which provide comprehensive music licensing reform).

And we continue to fight these battles.

As streaming matures and new royalty models are debated, and as technology platforms evolve in Web3 and the metaverse, SoundExchange will remain a strong and vocal voice to ensure creators are fairly compensated. As artificial intelligence improves and matures at an astounding rate, SoundExchange became a founding member of the Human Artistry CampAIgn to demand that the rights of human creators are at the center of any copyright and intellectual property decisions, and we are proud that both SAG-AFTRA and the Writers Guild of America (WGA) are among the coalition’s members.

And it’s worth noting that music performers are still not compensated – at all — for their work when played on AM/FM broadcast radio. For this reason, SoundExchange is a driving force in the effort to convince Congress to act on the American Music Fairness Act, which would require multi-billion-dollar radio corporations to pay performance royalties like digital streaming platforms do.

So, to the creators out there on strike, we say this. We stand with you and hope that these disputes can be resolved quickly in a way that supports fair treatment, compensation, and protections for creators. And for those of you who are registered with SoundExchange, we will continue to work every day to make sure that you receive the digital royalties that you are due in a timely manner. 

We know this mission matters more now than ever.

[This post first appeared on LinkedIn]

by Trichordist Editor

Press Release: Universal and YouTube Announce AI Music Principles Consistent with Human Artistry Campaign and Artist Advisors

NEW YORK, Aug. 21, 2023 /PRNewswire/ — Today YouTube published a first ever set of AI music principles and launched the YouTube Music AI Incubator, kicking off with artists, songwriters and producers from Universal Music Group. YouTube’s three fundamental AI music principles are rooted in its commitment to collaborate with the music industry alongside bold and responsible innovation in the space. 

YouTube CEO, Neal Mohan, shared the platform’s AI music principles and his vision for how the framework will enhance creative expression while also protecting artists on the platform. The principles include:

  • Principle #1: AI is here, and we will embrace it responsibly together with our music partners. As generative AI unlocks ambitious new forms of creativity, YouTube and our partners across the music industry agree to build on our long collaborative history and responsibly embrace this rapidly advancing field.  Our goal is to partner with the music industry to empower creativity in a way that enhances our joint pursuit of responsible innovation. 
  • Principle #2: AI is ushering in a new age of creative expression, but it must include appropriate protections and unlock opportunities for music partners who decide to participate. We’re continuing our strong track record of protecting the creative work of artists on YouTube. We’ve made massive investments over the years in the systems that help balance the interests of copyright holders with those of the creative community on YouTube.
  • Principle #3: We’ve built an industry-leading trust and safety organization and content policies. We will scale those to meet the challenges of AI. We spent years investing in the policies and trust and safety teams that help protect the YouTube community, and we’re also applying these safeguards to AI-generated content. Generative AI systems may amplify current challenges like trademark and copyright abuse, misinformation, spam, and more. But AI can also be used to identify this sort of content, and we’ll continue to invest in the AI-powered technology that helps us protect our community of viewers, creators, artists and songwriters–from Content ID to policies and detection and enforcement systems that keep our platform safe behind the scenes. And we commit to scaling this work even further. 

In a rare guest YouTube blog Universal Music Group Chairman and CEO, Sir Lucian Grainge – who helped shape the principles – shared his vision for an artist centric approach to generative AI and how partnering with YouTube would best position the music industry for success as this technology continues to develop. Excerpts from the blog post include: 

  • “Our challenge and opportunity as an industry is to establish effective tools, incentives and rewards – as well as rules of the road – that enable us to limit AI’s potential downside while promoting its promising upside. If we strike the right balance, I believe AI will amplify human imagination and enrich musical creativity in extraordinary new ways.”
  • “Our enduring faith in human creativity is the bedrock of Universal Music Group’s collaboration with YouTube on the future of AI. Central to our collective vision is taking steps to build a safe, responsible and profitable ecosystem of music and video—one where artists and songwriters have the ability to maintain their creative integrity, their power to choose, and to be compensated fairly.”
  • “Today, our partnership is building on that foundation with a shared commitment to lead responsibly, as outlined in YouTube’s AI principles, where Artificial Intelligence is built to empower human creativity, and not the other way around.  AI will never replace human creativity because it will always lack the essential spark that drives the most talented artists to do their best work, which is intention. From Mozart to The Beatles to Taylor Swift, genius is never random.” 

Today’s announcement also introduced YouTube’s AI Music Incubator, a program that will bring together some of today’s most innovative artists, songwriters, and producers to help inform YouTube’s approach to generative AI in music. The incubator will kick off with a genre-spanning cohort of creatives from Universal Music Group, that includes Anitta, Björn Ulvaeus, d4vd, Don Was, Juanes, Louis Bell, Max Richter, Rodney Jerkins, Rosanne Cash, Ryan Tedder, Yo Gotti, and the Estate of Frank Sinatra, amongst others. 

  • Björn Ulvaeus shares: “While some may find my decision controversial, I’ve joined this group with an open mind and purely out of curiosity about how an AI model works and what it could be capable of in a creative process. I believe that the more I understand, the better equipped I’ll be to advocate for and to help protect the rights of my fellow human creators.”
  • Juanes shares: “Music is fundamental to the human experience – culturally and personally. For artists, our music is part of who we are. Given music’s role, artists must play a central role in helping to shape the future of this technology.  I’m looking forward to working with Google and YouTube as part of this influential group of UMG artists to assure that AI develops responsibly as a tool to empower artists and that it is used respectfully and ethically in ways that amplify human musical expression for generations to come.”
  • Max Richter shares: “Like every new technology, AI brings with it opportunities, but it also raises profound challenges for the creative community. The tech world and the music distribution ecosystem are quickly evolving to embrace this transformative technology and, unless artists are part of this process, there is no way to ensure that our interests will be taken into account. We have to be in this conversation, or our voices won’t be heard. Therefore, I’m very happy to be part of the “artist incubator” which will allow me to advocate for the interests of the creative community in the applications of AI to music and music distribution.” 

Neal Mohan Blog : https://blog.youtube/inside-youtube/partnering-with-the-music-industry-on-ai/
Sir Lucian Grainge Guest Blog: https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/an-artist-centric-approach-to-ai-innovation/

by Trichordist Editor

@tinadaunt: Universal Music Exec Jeff Harleston Calls On Senate to Regulate AI: ‘Ensure Creators Are Respected and Protected’

Companies using artificial intelligence software are shamelessly ripping off artists from film and music, and it will get worse if not regulated, members of the entertainment industry told U.S. Senators at a hearing Wednesday.

“AI in the service of artists and creativity can be a very, very good thing,” executive vice president of business and legal affairs for Universal Music Group Jeffrey Harleston said. “But AI that uses or worse yet appropriates the work of these artists, their name, their image, their likeness, their voice, without authorization, without consent, simply is not a good thing. Congress needs to establish rules that ensure creators are respected and protected.”

Read the post on The Wrap

Jeff Harleston also said in his statement:

Long before an AI-generated recording imitating Drake and The Weeknd – both Universal Music artists – went viral and captured the attention of press and policymakers, UMG has been thinking about artificial intelligence. One of our companies, Ingrooves, has three patents in AI to assist with marketing independent artists. And AI has long been used as a tool in the studio: For example, Apple Logic Pro X to generate drum tracks, or Captain Plugins to generate chord progressions. We also use AI regularly as a tool to assist in creating Dolby Atmos immersive audio music. It’s a great technology when employed responsibly – and one that we and our artists use. 

However, we are before you today because generative AI is raising fundamental issues of responsibility in the creative industries and copyright space. Each day, troubling examples emerge. We know some generative AI engines have been trained on our copyrighted library of recordings and lyrics, image generators have been trained on our copyrighted cover art, and music generators have been trained on our copyrighted music, all without authorization. 

We have a robust digital music marketplace, and UMG has hundreds of legitimate partners who’ve worked with us to bring music to fans in a myriad of ways. Those companies and services properly obtained the rights they need to operate from UMG, or from the associated record labels and publishers. So, it’s unfathomable to think AI companies and developers think the rules and laws that apply to other companies and developers don’t apply to them. 

Read Jeff’s full statement here

by Trichordist Editor