Future of Music Policy Summit 2002:
Notes from Tuesday

Notes taken by Peter DiCola, FMC board member
pcdicola@umich.edu

FMC Board member (and current law student) Peter Dicola spent the entire conference taking extensive notes on his laptop. Peter has graciously offered these notes to the public with the understanding that these notes are for reference only and should not be considered a word-for-word transcript of the event.

download Tuesday's notes as a Word document

1.08.02. Future of Music Policy Summit, Day 2.

9:25 a.m. Introduction by Linda Garcia, CCT.

9:30 a.m. Speech/Introduction by Michael Bracy, FMC.

Today – John Conyers. Yesterday – Kevin Murray: what do you do with access?

FMC agenda for 2001 was: (1) competition, (2)direct payment, (3) federal support for non-commercial LPFM, internet access, (4) compulsory license for back catalog. Some successes.

Elephant in the room = radio. Considered doing a panel on commercial radio. NAB and Clear Channel wouldn’t come. Announced Rockefeller Grant to study Telecommunications Act of 1996, Media Access Project, Lawrence Lessig.

FMC committed to serving as a consensus-builder. Artists need to become less cynical about the process and get engaged. Only way to fail is not to participate.

9:35 a.m. John Conyers, D-MI.

Important consideration that this part of culture brings to everybody. Important relationship with Rep. Boucher. Bill on compulsory licensing. Year and a half, with tinkering, or new approach – legislating with technology in flux won’t get you very far.

Internet said that the old business models were outdated, profit motive is vulgar, the business needs to get content out, not lock it out. There was a time without protection. Government says “we’re you’re friend, we’ll help, we’ll regulate the living crap out of you.” Somewhere in between is where he, and most people, are trying to get.

“Level playing field.” Must encourage people to get the music out, this great worldwide culture. To follow Sen. Murray’s idea might be great. 7-year statute. Perhaps a federal law would be a good idea, to prevent state-shopping. Friendly Congressman Conyers.

Interesting thing about politics and culture – making judiciary committee interesting – and this could be interesting to anyone; policymaking could be our job, by the way – most democratic system. Half the people vote; everybody bitches. Ralph Nader gave us George Bush. Not one Powell, but two. Didn’t think the son could get more conservative. Makes Kennard look like a progressive. Use the FCC to level the playing field – not to turn this over to the larger interests. Like the economy, the music biz is getting more and more and more concentrated, which makes it harder for people to get into the business, to start up.
Multinational corporations offering a take-it-or-leave-it deal.

What is the DOJ doing, what is the FCC doing? What are they there for? Anti-trust problems floating around – at least we could investigate them. Here we have wonderful operations with Pressplay and MusicNet – we’ll just set up joint ventures for ourselves. So I’m for breaking up monopolistic interests, not just in music, but the whole economy. Mergers, etc.
Multinationals merging with multinationals.

Anti-trust can’t have a private watchdog, one area like that. Want to get as fair a situation as we can. Copy-protected CDs. Crossroads. Policy summit so very important. Make the right policy choices – everybody’s got to make them – not sure what people have done to make people hate artists so much.

President Bush looked so uncomfortable with them. Might be that he’s dissed this profession so much, and yet they greet him warmly.

These are very important economic policy and cultural decisions that we’re making. To fairly and effectively distribute digital music. That will have a profound impact. Careful enforcement of copyright, anti-trust, and other regulations will be very helpful in this area. Still skeptical of compulsory licensing, but see a role further down the line.

Not sure how much talk about the Tauzin-Dingle bill. Bell telephone companies, who think we can enhance digital music by eliminating safeguards in Telecom Act – letting local into long distance and vice versa if they open up. Get rid of requirement that everybody opens up. Let’s let everyone open up. Competition? Come on! Bells control 90% of the local markets. They own the last mile.

Always in problem of bargaining power between artists and distribution companies. Not a new problem. Might have existed before capitalism. More powerful, the more you have a right to tax rebates, top-down stimulus. More jobs for the little guys.

Artists paid directly is a huge step in the right direction. But will it work in practice? What about its codification? Because if we’re going to remain the leading innovative and creative force, it requires that we all act responsibly. Treat artists with the economic dignity the deserve, and that their copyright be respected but also with fair use rights. Bigger not always better.

For consumers: you get access. Can’t force payment for continued access. For Congress: stand up to special interests. Not easy when campaigns go into the millions of dollars for a district. 50 million dollars for a Senate campaign. Hard to get a “We the people” candidate elected. Technological innovation is so fast that Congress can’t keep up. Could also mention issues about broadband.

Questions:

(1) Songwriter question. Compulsories.

Fairness as a guide – we can work this out. May be issues for creators that need to be resolved – may need some legislative action right now, no waiting for technology. Don’t need to go the legislative drawing board.

(2) Craig from the Tennesseean. Legislation on copyright – is there a groundswell of sympathy for creators? What’s the level of knowledge?

Congressmen aren’t dummies – smart lot, on average. Have to remember that Congress handles a wide range of subjects. 22 standing committees + special ones. Not everyone can go around like Conyers and Boucher, who are on the judiciary committee. The visits members are getting help a lot. Howard Berman has worked on this for many years, very up on it. Howard Kobol is chairman of subcommittee has worked with him on a number of occasions. Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, Jerry Nadler, Bill Delahant – these are all committee members who are pretty well informed. Problem is getting the word out. We have election reform hanging around. We’re actually ambivalent about fixing the procedures so everyone can vote and that every vote can get counted. Really have to grab people’s attention. Conference, participation, and spreading this word.

(3) My opinion: not a level playing field. Lots of people who want to get signed, 1000s of independents, we’re in the trenches trying to make a living. Seems like people in Ivory Towers are trying to come up with scenarios – what makes you think you can create a level playing field?

I can be an influence b/c I believe in the democratic process. In the political system, even with an undue influence of money and power – have to believe you can succeed. When you have a system influenced by campaigns. When can we get a lobbyist for working people, or poor people. Belief in the system, that has improved a considerable number of things. We’re open to recommendations.

10:15 a.m. Panel #7: “The New Pipeline.”
Moderator: Rick Karr.
Panelists: Phil Leigh, Pam Horowitz, Derek Sivers, Sandy Perlman, Marshall Eubanks, Colleen Anderson.

RK: Mouth to ear. How does the sound get there? People love music, people still want it – so how are they going to get it? Start with PH, represents the old model – predictions about retail dying. Accusations that retail is an impediment. So, respond to the negativity on Panel #6.

PH: Through most of dialogue about internet, the retail doesn’t come up as a player. Acknowledge that they are returning too much, or charge that you put things in the wrong section.

Consumers have complaints, too. Somewhere around 30,000 titles released, and that’s fairly typical. Huge decisions to make to decide what to buy. Where to put it, what to call it, genre-wise. How to advertise, how to merchandise, how to educate workforce. Everyone hates some retailers, but shop somewhere. “Retailers aren’t monolithic; not all the same any more than the labels are the same.” Not best of times, not worst of times. Sold $11 billion of CDs. Business was flat. There has been consolidation. Yet, there are only 5 major suppliers. Bankruptcies again which will have impact for indies (distributors), but retailers are working on e-commerce.

RK: 1928-1931 drop of 80%. Economy. And new technology of radio – why should we buy these records. SP worked with the Clash, BOC, the Dictators. Placed your bets on what Chuck D calls the new radio – why? Still a place for hard media?

SP: There’s a place for hard media, but it won’t have a dominant position. 25 types of software that people use. Lots of people worldwide don’t think it’s necessary to pay for music. Labels haven’t paid attention to trendlines, have inadvertently created a culture – “3 kid generations with WinAmp” – who won’t pay for music. For-cost can’t compete with free. Need new distribution paradigms that actually get the creators paid. Certain technology problems have acted to reduce the ability to implement such things. 25% penetration of broadband (recent study) is encouraging, because these people have access to downloaded or streaming technology. Other technologies need broadband as well. Economically attractive – not just viable. Hard artifact will survive, but the preponderance of distribution will go virtual, makes all the sense in the world. I like to have some losers, but really it’s a win-win situation. Must force these entities to exploit these copyrights better, because they’re not giving them up. Owners of copyrights will continue to have control. Assume that will be the case for a while.

PH: (1) retailers have been competing with free for decades. Record clubs – 8 million, 8.5 million CDs. (2) retailers have lived through a lot of configuration shifts – ready to distribute the next format of music. Retailers don’t see any reason why they’re not well-equipped to compete.

RK: CD Baby is a homegrown business selling indie products.

DS: We’re benefitting from the freebies. When Napster peaked, 5% of sales heard music on Napster.

RK: ME is a technological geeks. Is there space for CD Baby in SP’s world?

ME: 4 billion channels is disruptive. But yes, there’s space; that’s the promise of the internet. Would like to see that being able to find communities supports the music.

RK: PL is an analyst. Would a celestial jukebox be good for the labels or artists?

PL: Would think the goal would be to “get consumers addicted to their music.” Best way to get it done would be compulsory licensing. Labels want a “free market” – hold onto your wallet. Enron lectured everyone on the free market, too. Do they want compulsory damages for copyright infringement? Sure. Artists get checks? [No hands raised.] Does the label industry want compulsory royalties from equipment? Yes. Do you see a difference?
[cont’d] Why was Napster popular? Find anything you wanted, get it now, discover new music, artist interviews at website, tour promotions (right now, Audio Galaxy is getting 50,000 posts a day about music that they like). How do you get consumers to pay you?

RK: CA is in business development for Microsoft, consumer end of things. What is the consumer experience that the new model needs to entail?

CA: I think it’s those things, and the promise of retail, it’s all of those things, internet has promise of all that great stuff. There are aspects in the system Microsoft is offering right now.

RK: That’s different. Phil is talking about a licensed celestial jukebox. Servers dishing out clean copies. Is it fair to compare what’s out there now to this ideal? What’s in the way? We have a dream of space-shift, time-shift, etc. – we don’t have it yet?

SP: What don’t you have? There are 25 different matrices.

RK: Don’t have blessing of copyright owners.

SP: The disaster is that creators aren’t being paid. Some people don’t care, but THAT’S the change that occurred. Profoundly immoral elements to this. What we have now is good enough? Pretty soon, in three years it will take down the IP industries. No crackboot digital security. Can always capture.

PL: Webnoize survey showed that 70% of students would pay $15 a month. This service would be something people would pay for.

ME: None of it is free. If you broker bandwith, you pay for your computer, your internet connection – none of it gets to the artist. Isn’t this the argument for compulsory licenses?

Questions

(1) Dean Kay: not an argument for compulsory as long as free is still out there? Haven’t stepped up to the plate.

PL: Napster, AudioGalaxy, Listen have all asked to license. My boss is an investment banker: who cares about music?

(2) Vision of the face of retail. All Jupiter has said is that it has to change?

PH: In past, retail will respond to different customer niches in different ways. Tried to get better handle on characteristics of consumers.

CA: We’re doing interesting things with retailers offline and online. Cool thing from an artist’s perspective, it’s getting better and better at promotion. Focusing on breaking new artists. Getting people into discovery. Coordinate in-store appearance. Coordinate having the retailer promote artists online and offline. Easier and easier for consumers.

(3) Retail has never been my friend. Posted an intriguing children – they have known nothing else but getting music on the internet. Shop on internet. What will retail do about the cave-like record stores that are scary, no information – how can retail help a new generation learn to buy CDs. The stores are awful.

CA: One specific partner, FYE (Coconuts). Re-doing whole stores, enabling simple sampling. Whole database of music. Stationary kiosks – take barcode from every CD in the bin and you can hear it, get information. Hooked into your profile.

SP: Future of music, not future of retail. Retail has been key to the development of music industry, but won’t be in the future, perhaps very near. Some models could get people paid without retail. One reason for confusion of the labels – they’ve been fighting shadows and nonsense. All the security concerns are insane.

(4) David Sanjek: comment – “everything” will be available is ridiculous to say, it won’t happen. Issue of out-of-print recordings. What will online or brick and mortar to create access?

SP: First of all, it is all available. David Axelrod selling $200.

PL: If you look at what Napster was, just about anything was there. If you get the licenses, these companies can offer a service that makes things available.

PH: This is an argument for a wide variety of players. 2 groups don’t have the resources.

ME: Every technical advance was regarded as dangerous, piracy, etc.

(5) Author. “Can’t compete with free” – taken for granted. What if the song is no longer the asset? In our culture, we’ve tangled two (possibly separable) concepts – making a living and creating something that we want to be useful, seen, etc. Have to meter out IP, only way. Other kinds of value – performance, relationship, event.

PL: Consumer can pay you two ways. Paid with time, or with money (with licensing).

DS: Musicians might have to prepare that music will be free. Filled hard drive with music. Doesn’t seem reversible. What if, ten years from now, how else will we make a living? Either a challenge to the creative side of brain, or get scared and build a bomb shelter.

ME: Isn’t most of what you sell available in sharing?

DS: Most musicians post them on their website, yes. When that day happens, when there’s connectivity in your watcgh, CDs will disappear.

SP: Distribution structure, something like “feels like free.” Involves rolling up the internet distribution companies and the content. Creating an invisible text distributed somehow to database it. It’s a trivial accounting problem now. Could account for every single download or stream, metered by carriage providers. Then holders would have info about what was exploited and how. Not really a difficult problem. More licensing, the better. Some methodologies will be better for some, could work.

RK: These things will have aesthetic implications.

(6) Dan Krimm: structure of marketplace influences content. Problem with Barlow line, the same alternative revenue streams won’t help certain kinds of music. Like subscription models, or the business to business bundling with ISP with tracking mechanism, but it still represents recorded music as a value source.

PH: Value of a song – it’s priceless, on the other hand, in capitalism, you’re trying to assign some sort of value to the song. CDs limitation: created an industry tied to physical goods, physical capital, etc. Once you consider compulsory licenses, that doesn’t mean the uncomfortable relationship between art/culture and commerce/making a living; that piece doesn’t really disappear. Always going to be people doing things with “property” that copyright holder may not agree with. Someone will bundle stuff with something you don’t like. Assign value to the freedom of the culture.

ME: All talking about retail. A lot of what I watch are live performances. There’s something different, fresh, unpredictable. The internet will make the live performance easier.

PH: Interface with customer = retail. No matter who’s doing.

SP: In a worldwide economy, with 500 million people on the internet, and broadband access, the possibilities are staggering. People creating so-called niche music, they may grow the niche to 10 million people worldwide. The sooner omni-licensing occurs, and arrangements to get people paid, even independent musicians used to struggle, I think the logical possibility of people doing better will come to reality.

DS: People selling 5 CDs, they can sell music all around the world, it means.

RK: Culture spreads virally.

11:20 a.m. Panel #8: “The Global Exchange.”
Moderator : Jim Griffin.
Panelists: Dick Huey (Toolshed, Inc. – new media consultant; was working for 4AD and Beggar’s), Paul Brindley (journalist, bass player for Sundays), Brian Robertson (Canadian Recording Industry Assoc.), Jon Kertzer (Smithsonian Global Sound), Dagfinn Bach (ArtsPages), Peter Jenner (Assoc. of United Recording Artists, Pink Floyd).

JG: Passion to do great things for God, and humanity. Who pays your way here?

PJ: AURA is paying way here. Work for the artist.

JG: DB is a music educator at heart, though commerce. Whose interest representing here?

DB: My own company paid the way here. Represent 200,000 rights holders. There are associations, including all types of performing people, artists.

JK: Funded by Rockefeller and Paul Allen. Funded by outside grants. Was with EMP. Working with bringing archives online around the world. Access for artists from developing artists.

BR: Speaking for CRIA.

PB: Music Publishers’ Assoc. paying costs.

DH: Started new media dept. at Beggar’s group. Split off. Works for Assoc. of Indpendent Music.

JG: Dagfinn, work in China, with which the rest of us are less familiar. What’s the music market like now, where it’s headed.

DB: Growing very fast. Leap-frogging. 2,200 cable companies. 100 million people have internet access. Digital exchange channel between Europe and China. To transport music both ways. Have to help them export, and then you can import. Could be largest market in the world. Very technological society. People live in highly concentrated areas.

JG: Track what people pay for music each month, internationally. IFPI. Second highest per capita. Norway is #2. China pays very little per person, maybe $.01. Where’s the money in China.

DB: Have to account for how rich the countries are. Piracy in Russia because they’re very poor. Need to bring Western music in at a very low cost.

BR: The first 20 CD clients established in China were producing pirate product. Only recently has there been some control, some encouraging of the China.

JG: US and Canada work together well. Canada does a lot of business with countries like China. How can we normalize this?

BR: You’d think there’d be some compatibility with trade. No agreement with internet, e-commerce, etc. Big disparities in terms of protection. U.S. signed WIPO treaties. Canada has not signed these, 4 to 5 years later. Pressplay and MusicNet can’t be accessed in Canada. Wall built there, amazing as it may seem. Big disparities. In Canada, artists have neighboring rights.

JG: To what do you attribute this?

BR: Lobbying, and legislation. U.S. has been able to make copyright changes quickly. In Canada, until 1996, the code referred to perforated piano rolls. Lots of bureaucracy. Should be trying to harmonize the U.S. Managed to do it with physical product, free trade. E-commerce is growing so fast.

JG: Britain is letting us do online gambling. What’s going on in UK?

PB: Facing same kind of difficulties in Europe. European copyright directive. Now needs to be passed in each country. Issue about culture is very important. Within Europe there’s a north/south divide in attitudes toward copyright holders. (North likes copyright holders, South likes tech and ISPs.) Harmonizing within Europe seems difficult.

JG: Human rights issue, football club. Someone let out of the contract. You can get out of a deal in Britain.

PJ: You can’t say that. In matter of fact, the famous ruling was about a Belgian footballer. The EU law let him out.

JG: More unusual rulings from the EU?

PJ: It’s possible that there could be a ruling about the length of record contracts. Possible there will be something in UK law about copyrights not being exploited being returned to the artist. Whenever it’s been pushed, the record companies have always done a deal. If you have resources, the companies cave in. It gives you another level of law, to have the UK courts and EU courts.

JG: Where are the laws? Do the UK laws or the US laws matter if there’s a WIPO treaty?

PJ: Inflicted WIPO and WTO on the world, unless it doesn’t suit us. Public performance is a severe problem, broadcasting public performance. Also had a fussy relationship.

JG: To be clear, U.S. broadcasters are not paying their share.

PJ: Yes, it’s an easy point. 0.1% of their main input is paid to the songwriters. And the recording companies actually pay the radio companies.

JG: How should performance royalty be reformed to comply with WIPO?

PJ: Selling ears to advertisers, and then charge the record companies for providing the music. In UK, the radio stations have to pay a “reasonable” amount of money – right now it’s miserable. In the UK, for soccer rights of the Premier League, BBC pays 10 million pounds for commentaries. The same BBC with 3 music stations pays a total of 10 million pounds. Total payment for PRS (publishing) and PPR (recordings): 250 million pounds total. Football is played 400 million pounds for terrestrial TV rights alone. Watching sports in bars on TV – for the rights to have satellite into the pub – rights run at 150 million pounds per year. 40% of the 90,000 bars are paying 1000 pounds a month, up to 1500 pounds a month. This compares to the total compensation for music of 250 million. Recording industry is appallingly inadequate.

JG: Is DH out there giving it away? What is this innovative new thing happening in England that indie labels are trying?

DH: AIM has hung a sign saying we the independents are open for licensing in a variety of forms. Webcasting, streaming, subscriptions, etc. Mandate to do that from their members – that’s their job.

JG: What advice are you giving your clients about this area of the law?

DH: Whenever possible, we negotiate worldwide licenses through AIM. Doesn’t mean we don’t do individual licensing. But it generally does better.

PB: Members of AIM, together with IMPALA (Euro indies), signed deal to make content available to the new version of Napster, whenever it launches. Generous settlement, far better than had the negotiated on their own. Other countries could learn from them, the organization of indie labels. If you want to get things change, governments listen to coherent, unified voices. Listen to the stars in the music industry. Difficult to get organized. The other great factor is the complexity – not easy to get people on board.

JG: How do you, JK, make sense of these things?

JK: Radio show in Seattle of African music. Know the money isn’t getting to performers.

JG: Piracy?

JK: Not necessarily piracy, but more bargaining power. Project now is trying to give artists around the world access to the west. Preserve music digitally. Create a master site for distribution. Hear constantly that Napster makes the world’s music available – not true. Not outside English-speaking world. Educational project. Smithsonian owns a label, Folkways, with 2500 titles mail order.

JG: Who handles their publishing?

JK: 3.5 million dollars.

JG: Grounded to enjoy the music. Wired or wireless?

DB: Will come first in China.

JG: Leader in wireless revolution = China?

DB: That’s right – consider the ring tones. 100 million mobile phones.

PJ: By far the deepest penetration of broadband is in South Korea.

Questions.

(1) Fred von Lohmann. Principles of democracy and national sovereignty were a good idea, reminding people that copyright is a question of national legal choice. In the American legal tradition, we founded copyright law as a bargain. Built copyright law, it’s our democratic set of choices. Seems odd that the answer overseas would be that everything should be uniform. Usually those who advocate those positions are the rights holders and the WIPO. U.S. is now exporting the DMCA demanding it. So U.S. is guilty of that. If one of the other nations tries to strike different copyright bargain?

PB: Need to harmonize somewhat. Copy protection and CDs – mess for everyone concerned. Some kind of harmonized approach within which everyone can agree.

PJ: Seems to me that there is an infliction of WTO upon the world, that it should go the other way. You may feel globalization is a bad move, mixed feeling about McD’s and Coke, and the dominance of American music on the world was dumping.

JG: Irish filed suit?

PJ: Irish filed suit against U.S., settled for $5 million. Had to change law. Huge row brewing with American Congress about public performance on radio. Unhappy about restaurants – what about radio? Performers in U.S. should be upset about the money that’s not coming to them. Estimated the recording royalties possibly $500 million and $1 billion. Half to performers. Probably 35% to American performers. A lot of that goes the record companies. No one talked about performance. Only downloads. In Europe, we talk about performance. First person to mention it was Mr. Murray. Because you’ve never had a public performance right for recording terrestrially, it’s hard to work out digitally. Performance paradigm is more useful than retail sales.

DB: European process going on now for a digital archive, plus South Africa. Music of independent labels. Could significantly increase income for South African artists. Could be signficant income. $20/minute for broadcasting.

(2) Comment for Paul about messiness. Question for Brian – abolishing performers’ rights?

BR: Objective is to get performing rights in U.S., not losing ours. Believe in 50% going directly to artists. Reality of lobbying – should have it here. Lost revenue not going back to artists and record companies. Broadcasters have a stronger lobby.

(3) If I license my music to a company in Europe, who collects the money?

PJ: Would depend on the contract, probably gave the money to the licensee in Europe. If there’s no mention…well, there probably is a mention. If you gave away performance rights, then they’re gone.

(4) PPL collects royalties for all public performances, w/o regard to national origin. 50% to performers and 50% to writers. About 65% of the 50% goes to the featured artist. U.S. isn’t part of Rome treaty, no reciprocation. Artist share: goes to record company for an American performer.

PJ: Difference of opinion with PPL. Now paid to the copyright owner, to the record company. Think that this will change. Varies country by country. Secret they’re not telling you. If artist recorded in qualifying country.

BR: Percentage that does not qualify is not collected.

PJ: Inducement to play American music.

JG: About US/UK/Canada.

PJ: Similar but more complicated. $500 million is the whole of Europe.

(5) Webcaster, occasionally do live performance by indie or unsigned artists. Advantage of internet is the chance to reshuffle the deck. There are other models. Work with ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, and good relations with RIAA. Question: do you foresee all the royalties groups coming together to work with other groups around the world, or will some other organization?

PJ: SE is important and will do deal with other countries. Developed like international relationships among publishers, e.g. CESAC. Messy, imprecise science.

PB: Publishers have a series of residual agreements…

(6) Brian Zisk – can anyone recommend any resources, books or web to bring people up to speed?

JG: To travel, there’s no substitute. Understanding their own circumstance.

PJ: Very real problem – rules are shifting and changing so fast, that any book is out of date. Spend time to talking to people overseas.

JK: UNESCO conference, 60 nations represented, available through Folkways website. Interesting perspective.

DH: To any indie artist or label – talking about promotional value of music. U.S. artists and indie labels have been too forthcoming in accepting arguments of tech companies and portals that music is of promotional value of music. Industry has rolled. Encourage everyone to be careful with what your music is being used for, and what company is behind it.

1:55 a.m. Panel #9. “Copyright Bargain.”
Moderator: Jessica Litman.
Panelists: Bruce Lehman, Adam Eisgrau, David Bollier, Michael Tiemann (Red Hat), Jon Baumgarten (copyright lawyer, high protection, DVD decryption).

JL: Control is not an end, it’s a means to encourage creation, distribution, use. Marked increases in legal control and deployment of technological controls.

JBaum: Success with DMCA. Don’t tend to be so popular. Counsel for copyright office.

RH: Different copyright bargain: pass it on – with the same freedoms.

DBollier: Public Knowledge. Director of Information Commons Project.

AE: Digital Future Coalition, different copyright balance.

BL: Currently IIPI, organization dedicated to promoting IP as a tool of growth around the world. Most work is in developing countries. Use IP to harness culture and creative abilities to produce wealth and lift out of property. Office of Patents and Trademarks – white paper, working paper is the foundation for WIPO and DMCA. Before that private practice, before that counsel to House Judiciary Committee.

JL: Idea is that it will encourage creation because c-right owners will get paid. Encourage distribution because consumers won’t copy, too afraid. Consumers want access to an untethered use, and there aren’t legitimate outlets. Current system is an abject failure when it comes to ensuring that creators, performers are paid reasonable compensation for their work. What is the public going to get in return for the control?

BL: Disagree with premises. Disagree with failure for getting compensated. Some artists aren’t well-compensated. Function of the marketplace. Some of highest-paid people in country are compensated through copyright. Issue about trying to change the rules, to spread the wealth more, is sort of a separate rule. Lies more in anti-trust law, labor law, etc. Disagree also that recent changes recognizing necessity of technology to protect copyright is somehow an extension – it’s just a way to keep what we’ve always had. Analogy to printing press.

MT: Analogy is an example of the fallacy. Don’t need a printing press to violate the current law. According to copyright law, anyone with a voice can infringe. Any performance whatsoever. Reminds me of a movie where the hero is fighting another villain. The real villain is not copyright law – that protects RedHat, too – there’s a continuum from the spoken word to technical computer software. One law for everything. How we protect software infects how we protect music, and vice versa. Industries can ruin each other.

Dbaum: Villain is impatience. Jessica used the phrase “not yet”. In the eyes of c-right industries, and many creators, digital is different. Risks are substantial. Click of a mouse, work can be made available to millions. Technological changes have been seen as scary. People are rushing away from the principles that have worked. Example where DMCA made a difference. Emergence of DVD was tied philosophically to the likelihood of DMCA passage, tied to encryption. A lot of heat for a weak encryption system. Real villain is impatience, and a rush to trounce tried and true principles.

JL: What should public expect to get, and what should creators expect to get? Make it explicit?

DBollier: Disagree that copyright owners are preserving what they had. Public is losing rights and prerogatives it had. Textbooks that evaporate. Libraries accused of sharing, therefore piracy. Software, music, whose uses are tethered.

Jbaum: Never heard any example of fair use. Record before Carson and Peters. 2 federal judges. Fair use wasn’t eliminated. If you mean fair use means an inalienable right to pristine copy.

MT: Doesn’t work if you want to watch DVDs on Linux.
Jbaum: Story grabbed by press was proven to be utter nonsense about shutting Linux out. But there are hard questions. Basically, the technologies are dumb.

MT: Root of the fair use problem – everyone is dumb before talking to a lawyer. Problem of a conjunction of issues. Conjunction of a proprietary technical form augmenting a copyright law. Purchased DVDs. Would like to offer system enabling people to use DVDs compliant with copyright law.

Jbaum: Why isn’t it possible to develop a utility?

MT: Possible, not legal.

DBollier: Erroneous to say fair use has expanded to controlling what users do before.

AE: I’d be last to argue that entertainment industry isn’t relevant, of course it is relevant. It’s fascinating to argue about whether this particular license is legal or not. But this need not be about economics at all. Incentivizing creation is what it’s about. For artists, and maybe the lawyers, what about the high-level view: as you resolve thorny licensing issues, the thornier issues: what have we done to the copyright bargain? Was it about money? Many scholars would argue that it is not about money. It is about incentivizing societal assets. Not maximizing economic activity. It’s how we maximize creativity.

Jbaum: Not sure it’s about money.

AE: If anybody thinks we haven’t messed with balance, it’s about access to information. The fact is indisputable that § 1201, anti-circumvention, make it a significant offense to gain access to information regardless of the purpose and regardless of what you do. Interfered with the opportunity to make fair use.

BL: Debate is not over information. That’s not the argument. It’s about property. Always under control of its owner. Homeless people benefitting by auctioning off jewels to homeless people. Law recognizes right not to use for social good.

AE: At what point was copyright absolute? When was it not balanced to access to information?

BL: From the beginning. Fair use not in the constitution. No exceptions within that limited time. Congress affects term and the subject matter. Nothing about separating copyright property from any other property and treating it differently.

Questions

(1) Rick Karr: promote the progress of science and the useful arts. Isn’t property analogy imperfect? Doesn’t it revert to the commons? Isn’t the purpose to build a public domain, for all to use?

BL: Yes, absolutely, when the term expires. But until expiration these are strong, exclusive rights. Why is this a rich country? Why are countries poor? Haven’t harnessed the true source of human wealth. And copyright law.

AE: Copyright law permits reverse engineering.

BL: Reverse engineering is the use of information. Copyright protects the expression of work in a tangible medium. Does not protect the idea itself. Reverse engineering is looking at an expression and then developing your own thing. Copyright can’t protect an idea. Very weak. Digital technology, unlike anything before, permits anyone to seize the expression without any permission.

(2) How does section § 1201 allow works to enter the public domain when companies can provide the technology to see materials at their win?

BL: Deals only with technologies that have as their purpose things to protect copyrights.

(3) Film Prof. at UCLA in DVD case wanted to bring computer tools to bear on digital motion pictures. That’s what CSS. Walt Disney has shipped DVDs that prevent FF through commercials. To evade that, to restore your ability to skip those commercials, I’m confident a court will call it fair use.

Jbaum: Indexing without DVD. Defendants weren’t making any use in that case. Congress struggled with a difficult area. If we focus on traffickers and purveyors, those devices will be done. No knowledge of their purpose. Congress had to do something. Could abandon traffickers entirely and invade homes, or could try to get the traffickers and perhaps step on some legal uses. Tough issues, copyright office will study it. Proscription on trafficking.

MT: Statement about devices being dumb, changes Congress’ presumption to guilty. Always implied it’s permissible to post a sign.

DBollier: If content is locked up, how does it abide by limited term.

Jbaum: No record of clearly public domain example.

MT: Missing point. If someone creates strong encryption, how does an encrypted work enter the public domain.

Jbaum: Lose your book, buy another one.

MT: 1000s of CDs.

BL: That’s the responsibility of the Lib of Congress. Nothing to do with copyright.

Jbaum: Lots I want to buy.

DBollier: But control you’re asserting.

(4) Robin Gross. Copyright holders believe certain things about private viewing that are inaccurate.

Jbaum: That’s your conception of what they believe.

MT: One thing I wanted to mention, that in stages of forming Red Hat with its copyright policy, in 1989 100 wealthiest entertainers: Grateful Dead. At or near top of list for 10 years. Encouraged bootleg distribution. Definitely the case that the Dead created a public commons. Increasing the value of their performance. Open source company, world’s first. $100 million revenue, $1.5 billion market cap. That’s entertaining.

(5) Great for the Dead, that was their choice. Important element has to be taking into consideration a balance between what the vast majority is doing and a few individual choices. Napster went beyond fair use. What’s more important, what one individual wants to do in their home, or what the vast majority wants?

(6) CCT grad student. Anti-commons. All IP locked up in specific pieces, you destroy sharing, creative energy, you cut off well-spring of renewal.

MT: Movie Brazil depicts that dystopia. Control of information.

AE: The library community never argued about there being no contradiction between strong IP and fair use. These aren’t either/or.

DBollier: But what if fair use is gone?

AE: Easy to demonize both sides in Napster issue. Free vs. acquisitive. Key is how you frame the debate. It’s not watertight vs. totally free. It’s encouraging production and disseminating.
Jbaum: Tend to approach things at different points chronologically. Access is important. But there has to be something there to be accessed.

AE: Is it the case that principal entertainment content slow down when the real threat of digital piracy?

Jbaum: No empirical data.

(7) Sandy Perlman. The Dead created their own industry in bootlegs. Neither the copyright holders or creators aren’t being paid. Eventually, no one’s going to be paid, and that’s a function of DMCA.

3:00 p.m. Panel #10. “New Models.”
Moderator : Jenny Toomey.
Panelists: Derek Sivers (CD Baby), Vivek Tiwary (StarPolish), Jose Bowen (musician: jazz/klezmer, chair of music at Georgetown), Tim Bierman (Ten Club), David Fagin (Rosenbergs), Ian Mackaye (Fugazi, Dischord), Amy Ray (Indigo Girls, indie label: Daemon Records).

JT: Lots of tips for artists to use is the usual m.o. Who was at the last panel? I learned we’re all on the Titanic with Hitler, and musicians are peanut butter. Very focused on marketing strategies. Talk about musicians as if they’re products. New models start with new ideas. Everyone on panel has done something inspiring, maybe a seed to the new model. Say something you’ve done with regard to music that they consider a success. I’ll start – I owned my own label and I kept my copyrights.

AR: The thing I’m most proud of with Daemon is that I put out records selling 50 copies, and records selling many more. Marriage of political community, socially conscious, tied together with music. Don’t think about how many records. Bad business model, good music model.

IM: Success is almost always equated with money, how much you make, or how much you sell. The twinkie outsells with nutritious foods – marketing, placement, control. D.C. is not an entertainment town, came up here in the late 1970’s. Couldn’t have a punk rock band in D.C., because punks could only exist in NYC. We just went ahead and played music. Industry didn’t give a damn about us, and vice versa. First song was a success, first practice was a success, etc. 15 years of band, 21 years of the label. This is what I want to do, then it’s a success. Employed 5 or 6 people for a number of years. Can pay for their health care. So many friends are so fucking terrified to get sick or injured.

DF: Proud of fact that I found 3 other guys who didn’t buckle under pressure of following the group. Did what we felt was in the best interests of our band. Held onto our music, control it, play it, corporation doesn’t interfere with it. 9 million friends in lawsuits and working at Sam Ash.

TB: Band cares about fans, grateful for job. Able to make fan base happy pretty much every day. Pearl Jam has tried to keep prices low on tickets, T-shirts, and products. 72 live double CDs put out last year, available through our website.

JB: What is the product? Some of that is technology changing thoughts about what the product is. Cheap music printing and cheap pianos was the first big turnaround. Also the radio and the phonograph. 2 musicians: Haydn and Benny Goodman. People went berserk. A manager had primed the fans (Haydn). Radio primed fans in LA (Goodman.) What’s the product? The radio shows were live. Now the product is MP3 – but is the product new?

VT: Background is working at major labels. Bands didn’t know how the industry worked. Advice library on website. Working with best friends. Monetary income and benefits depend on Vivek. Success has two sides – personal and pragmatic sides. Success might be here later, when StarPolish doesn’t fold.

DS: CD Baby was set up as a hobby. Regular distribution system seemed silly. Somebody pays you every week, and you get the names of the people you sold to. No lower limit to the number of copies. Meant it to be for him and his friends. 14,000 artists now. The year totals were over $1 million paid to indie musicians.

JT: CD Baby is an amazing service. Artists get blamed a lot, it’s pointed out that the musicians sign the deals. They still take the advance checks. Different models succeeding presents range of choices. Check represents success, status, legitimization, practical sustenance. Majority of artists would like to make mortgage payment, health insurance, and access to radio (some form of it) to prove status. Is that a standard of success?

DS: It’s concrete. If you set up some goal, and you reached it, that’s the greatest success. Maybe Behind the Music helps a lot to show it’s not a rosy picture. Tell people how cool it is to do it on your own. Melissa Ferrick, 8 records, reviewed in Rolling Stone, put out first record on her own, brought it to CD Baby – after one month, it was the first time she’d been paid.

VT: Those stories are the exception, rather than the rule. Majority do want large commercial success, making a lot of money and exposure all over the world. Look at other artists who are successful. Say to selves, I’m better than that band, those guys suck. Indies should experiment. Artists should set expectations realistically.

IM: Different approach to the question of what bands want. Don’t equate radio play with success. Don’t think it legitimizes success. Won’t hear music on the radio ever. Come from a very narrow band. Grew up with punk community. Label’s mission was to put out this one record. Had $800 and a tape, put out a record. Nothing to it. No licenses, copyright, trademarks. What are we going to do with the money, asked if selling out. We just used it to keep going. Narrowing goal, means the label is tied to this community. When community stops, so does the label. Most companies, in contrast, seek constant expansion. I don’t want more of it. I just want to put out these records. Released from sense of competitiveness. I have wealth because I’ve worked. I don’t live off my band, I live off my work. We literally do the work, book the band, drive ourselves. It will document this music. What musicians really want is to make music, and someone else to hear it would be even better. People who have recorded over the years, it was important to document. Music is a form of communication, not just about the market. Music is an exchange between human beings. I’m interested in there being a free space where ideas can be shared without being wrapped up in the profit model.

JT: Tell us a little about your model.

IM: Label has never used any contracts at all. Saved us money on lawyers. If there’s ever a situation that would require a lawyer, we will defer to the band. Not interested in getting ugly about of money. Never had that situation. Profit share basically works out to 50-50. Copyright – we don’t copyright it. Some abuses of that – Disney tried to sue us over the name of a band. 20 years ago. It turned out Disney didn’t have the right. Disney guy said that there should be a sticker that said “Scream – from D.C.” Considering our band coming out 15 years ago. Maybe you should put a sticker on yours, “from L.A.” He said to me, I really think it would be in your best interest to follow my advice. I think we have first use, Ian said. Voice dropped, said let me give you a piece of advice, Disney is a big company with a large legal wing. While you may be right, we will bankrupt. Wow, that’s fucked, I guess I’ll call a lawyer. The band Scream had been broken up for years, sold 1000 copies. Problem with Disney. Friend immediately said, let’s get triple damages. How do we slip around them? Be like water? Turned out they had no rights, traded letters. Band, the Scream, decided they hated their name. Disney had spent $500,000 advertising the scream, but then the band didn’t want that name. Band quit.

JT: I want Amy, Dave, and Tim to talk about what artists want, and what they can get. You can be right, and not succeed, as evidence by Ian’s story. Amy, you had a radio hit. Talk about model and difficulties you’ve had.

AR: I’m similar in my approach to Ian in that we took one day at a time. Toured during college. Worked really hard. Wanted to play music for people. Didn’t care about record sales. Can we get a gig at the 688 club in Atlanta? Wasn’t politicized at the time the major label deal came up. Tired of doing all the work – someone helped us. Thought there’d be more time for art, but wouldn’t make the same decision. Daemon’s model – want bands to have a way to put out records and actualize their own career. Hardly any bands make money. Pay for recording, publicist, promotion, website, loans, whatever it takes. They have to do the rest. I do a contract that says you have to work this many hours. Don’t haggle over copyrights. That’s how you succeed. Some people need a major label model, maybe. Disgruntled rock star – not much sympathy. Don’t like exploitation, but: what are we complaining about? How do we actualize ourselves?

TB: I think the common thread is the hard work. Reason that we’re all here is to look at how passions can be put forth into the future through the internet. Here to learn how to do those things. 40,000 dues-paying members that pay every year to get some exclusive things. 45 put out every Christmas. Priority ticketing. Eddie Vedder’s mom in fan club – so she gets priority seating with them. Special $10.98 price. Sold 200,000 of them on the website. To the fans’ credit. Lots of people bought all of them.

DF: Living on sister’s couch in studio apt. Lots of artists won’t do that. They have day jobs. Prioritizing. Some bands talk about making a great CD, but aren’t touring. DGM, Robert Fripp’s company – profit sharing. DGM won’t let artists give away their masters. Proud of people for coming, but need more people. Need education. No one came to high school talking about artist development. Go to high schools and talk to people. Here’s what your facing if you try to make a million dollars. Farmclub situation, turning down TV appearance. Some said, “We thought it was a good deal, we got $1000 for our lawyer.” Show them that you do care about other artists – but they won’t. Artist community doesn’t care about each other. Like an ant hill, not one gigantic ant. Great that we have the internet tools.

Questions

(1) Ben Morgan. Hardworking rock band. The way to create a fan base is to be on the road. Technology allows them to record. Success = making a living playing music. The way I see it, they have to get on the road. Problem is, they don’t have support.

DS: There are many ways to make money besides touring.
[Some discussion omitted, about 5 minutes.]

(2) Nashville songwriter
DF: Industry just dropped Anita Baker, Rod Stewart, Sinead O’Connor. Educate yourself.

(3) Adam Powell, Angry Coffee. Disseminate work wide and far: is there a place to the major label system anymore?

TB: Not my place to say. Pearl Jam has been quite successful on a major label.

DF: It will take time. This is a great event, and it’s important. It will take more, more involvement, more artists getting involved, getting Kurt Loder here, lots of speaking out.

VT: In any industry, there’s a place for entities with lots and lots of money. Hopefully the labels will get educated, too. Perhaps they’ll change their practices. There’s more we could all do if we had more cash. There will be a place for them.

JB: Not going away, but it wasn’t that long ago people didn’t get paid for playing basketball. Before people played football for money, they did it for fun. Times of Bach, there was just the music. Never had goal of worldwide fame. Won’t get rid of major labels or NFL.

DF: We’ve affiliated ourselves with a chain of doctors founding something to give free medical care to artists.

IM: I’m not – I don’t think that anyone has ever wished for it to go away. We’re more interested in creating our own parallel community, so we have the potential. I’m not entirely up on the digital stuff. What I do appreciate about the FMC, trying to put into place now, some availability for the artist to share their music without everything going through the major labels. They would like to get a little piece. It’s like the mob. I don’t care about the industry.

AR: We’d wither if we fight them. We need to invent our own models and help each other out.

4:25 p.m. Panel #11: A More Perfect Union.
Moderator : Ann Powers.
Panelists: Jonathan Tasini (National Writers Union), Jay Rosenthal (RAC = “trade association”), Krist Novoselic (JAMPAC; Nirvana), Brian Austin Whitney (Just Plain Folks), John McCutcheon (folkmusic.com), Joe Uehlein (AFL-CIO Strategic Campaigns), Tom Lee, Greg Hessinger (AFTRA).

AP: End on optimistic note. These men represent many different kinds of organizing, or unions in which there is power. Artist as menace. Review in NYT criticizing Lessig directing ire at lawyers. Artists are equally to blame for drying up of cultural commons, e.g. Metallica. “Artists are the real phantom menace.” Some work to do to change the image of artists, and to change self-image.

JT: Proudly affiliated with UAW, represent free-lance writers, poets, technical writers, work in pyjamas. 17,000 members in 17 chapters. Work with a number of organizations, such as AFTRA. Recent event, winning in Supreme Court on June 25th that when a publisher takes work from one medium (print) and use it in another (online), need to ask permission. Decision affected writers, illustrators, photographers, affecting how musicians were dealt with.

GH: AFTRA represents TV, radio, talk show performers, newscasters, and recording artists, both background singers and royalty artists. Failing by AFTRA over the years, least recognized for representing recording artists. Working very hard to try to mobilize the artists we do represent. Ingrained in other performers’ minds that union is what lifts all boats, but don’t have that in the music industry. Collaborating with RAC.

JR: First of all, RAC is an evolving group, moving toward being a trade association. Work for hire, 7 year statute. High-profile royalty artists, recognizing through the WFH scandal, that artists weren’t being listened to. Bankruptcy issue even before WFH. RAC’s goal is to make sure that capitol hill gets the full picture. We’ve got to be heard. Howard Kobol doesn’t like any music but bluegrass, but gave them Earl Scruggs in the audience. Set a wonderful tone. Reality with WFH on capitol hill; perspective of artists isn’t being heard. Afraid of not hearing from recording artists. Want them to fear your absence from the table. [Side note about personal attacks on Don Henley. Showed up because organizers of event were not allowed to put an artist on the panel.]

AP: Brings up how our love of music is attached to tribal affinities. I live in my subculture. I won’t talk to that techno guy. Coalition building means crossing lines.

KN: Here today as founder of JAMPAC. Grew out of Washington Music Industry Coalition. Born in a necessity for representation within music community, at 1991-1992, Seattle was the center of the rock world, yet we were living under punishing regulatory environment. Needed to be proactive. Got together, looked around, assessed resources. Artists, fans, and music promotion can work together. Municipal, county, state. Supporting pro-music candidates. Going to public hearings. Provide jobs for young people. Culture is unique in how it gets funded. Increased access to young people. Federal Court suing Seattle for Draconian tenn dance ordinance. Anti-music city atty ran for mayor against a pro-music candidate who won. Boeing and Microsoft had lobbyists, and so should music community.

AP: Plans to expand?

KN: We’re doing a lot. May provide a straightforward model. Christian Coalition’s model is a successful model. Held a focus group study, found out what constituency wanted. I’m for free speech, for jobs for young people, for young people at live shows.

BAW: Based on theory that people, behind stardom, are just plain folks. Not just a folk music organization. Musicians from many different genres. Music industry people talk about is 2%. We represent the rest of the pyramid. Focus on education, but take it beyond. Go into communities. Spend 10 months a year doing shows, bringing artists out, talking about success. Need to re-train people. Started with 60 people in 1998. Grown to 13,000 people. We’ll get more political by cooperating with people on this panel. I don’t want to be a lobbyist. Need to acknowledge the other part of the pyramid.

TL: President AFM. I identify with most of you – was a performing musician 25 years ago. AFM said they weren’t interested. He fought them. Started fighting in Washington then, and was allowed to join. 110,000 members. Symphonic, recording, movies, television, etc. Negotiate with recording industry. If you record for a company with a contract with us, we’ll collect money for you. Collected back-end payments for people in motion pictures. Have organizations within the AFM. Only organization that ever struck, and won. We want artists to be paid if we’re going to put out of business. Legislatively, one of the first groups to start working on performers’ rights. We were successful in 1995, though the broadcasters are big. Musicians need instruments on board airplanes. SoundExchange became indpendent. In Sacramento two months ago, all there together speaking against the industry on behalf of the musicians.

JU: AFL-CIO, director of strategic campaigns. For 3 decades working as organizer, working musician, and an activist. What I do with our affiliates, work with them to help them realize and exercise their power. Often it’s a source of power they don’t know they have. Jenny said it when she talked about the tendency to view labor as products. We organize around the idea of labor as a commodity. We have come through 2 decades of turbo capitalism represented in part with the digital age; none of the unions in the entertainment industry are in bed with the industry, it’s so powerful it’s everywhere. We need to find our common areas of interest, organize around them. A few historical precedents: secretaries not represented, 905, affiliated with SEIU, organizing clerical workers. Writer’s Guild started as an independent union. Anything is possible. Small groups of people come together. (1) At AFL-CIO, we’re about power for workers, whether musicians or on the assembly line, whether at bargaining or on capitol hill. (2) Finding right coalitions to form, because no one of us can take on capitalist interest. Those are all devalued laborers in our society.

AP: Artists often devalued. Why did you need to organize, JM?

JM: When started 30 years ago as a full-time performing musicians. Working-class background. Got to be in the union to have any voice. Forming regional co-ops. Common database of gigs. Turn over at least 10 gigs. Health care. In late 1970’s, attempt to form a national co-op. Pension, health care. AFM are the job cops – want your money. All these attempts to organize musicians have collapsed under bureaucratic weight – let’s talk to the AFM instead. Terrific openness. Democratic organization. $2 billion pension plan. Charted as the only non-geographic local. Can be a member of Local 1000. Access to pension. Helped forge a contract allowing people to get pension contributions on live gigs, without being in an orchestra or having a recording contract.

AP: But a lot of people say, “I don’t want to join the union, it’s so lame.” Can’t change the union.

JM: We’ve opened up our doors to sign interpreters, roadies, etc.

Questions

(1) Suzette Becker, New Orleans. 5%, how do you get it.

[AFM General Counsel – actually it’s 2.5%, separate trust fund distributes money. What’s amazing about it, have a track record of finding out who the background people are.]

GH: People shouldn’t take for granted how that royalty came to be. Back in the mid-90s, the industry decided to fight for the DPRSR, and the record industry didn’t intend to send 50% of the money to the artists. Not by happenstance that artists are sharing in that money.

AP: How much does this really accomplish when technology runs us over. The AFM industry was trying to hold the history of recorded music. Corporations and multinationals will still run people over.

JT: Did you expect the NWU to defeat capitalism? Our lawsuit accomplished a lot, in terms of knowing you can beat the New York Times. Until we have collective bargaining rights, though, all the corporate lawyers will write around the Supreme Court. I believe in working coalitions. Forming a Creator’s Foundation to work together on a common strategy. Working separately won’t do it, unless we work together we’ll be fighting a defensive action. Fantasy would be one union.

(2) Whitney Broussard. In our negotiations, both working at Capitol and representing artists, it always was common knowledge among attorneys that AFM and AFTRA represented side people, not featured artists. Is that the wrong perception? Didn’t seem like there was much interest in recoupment, and domain names?

TL: It is fair that we don’t represent featured artists in the negotiation. Represent all AFM members on the hill. Represented basic minimums. (Not unlike baseball or basketball players.) Money problems, and hard to get in touch. Artists protected by managers and/or attorneys. We respond to help. Can’t be top down.

BAW: We need help. 13,000 artists who need help.

[Whitney Broussard: Could a group of music lawyers come together to work on collective bargaining?]

TL: That would be engaged. Employers can’t walk away from us if we demand it. Understand it’s not the leaders who determine the approach. Need to have a strong coalition. Artists, managers, attorneys.

AP: What about the non-union activists?

JR: This is why RAC exists. Getting to the clauses in these contracts. Anti-trust trouble with collective bargaining. This is political as much as legal. RAC is looking at 7 year rule – which is a contractual issue – and other issues are political. Recoupment, especially for mid-level. Work for hire. Not just courts of law. We all have essentially the same goal. I think it is happening.

KN: JAMPAC doesn’t work with contracts. We work within system of representative democracy. I believe in democracy. The more voices that utilize the system, it’s healthy for our system, it’s right on. The more voices in the legislature, the better.

(3) Walter McDonough: Let’s go back a year. AFM, AFTRA, RAC, and FMC worked together. International Music Managers Forum. Won this issue. Each group brings something to the table. This is a good thing. It demonstrates how we can do this.

KN: It’s just accumulating resources. 1994 had a nasty state house, nasty state senate. RIAA gave us a lot of good support, and fought censorship. Work together as much as possible.

JR: Lesson in organizing, saying something about SoundExchange. Internally, there was Jon Simson was pro-artist. We got direct payment. If there were only more like him, we’d have a love fest here [at the conference] in a year.

BAW: There have been a lot of people who are power people, but we need to help the 98% make music for seven years. These people are starving.

AP: Question to leave with: what will we change before next year?

Jenny Toomey: Two orders of business. Thanks. Newsletter every six weeks. Indpendent research. Webcast of panel. CLE books.