Pretty big news out of Brussels.

The European Commission has proposed to extend copyright on sound recordings to 95 years from 50 years. (The term for compositions will remain at 70 years.) The asterisk here is that recordings can switch hands after 50 years. Here's how it is explained in the actual proposal (download a PDF of the proposal here):

Article 10a (6) provides for a statutory 'use it or lose it' clause. Therefore, if a phonogram producer does not publish a phonogram, which, but for the term extension, would be in the public domain, the rights in the fixation of the performance shall, upon his request, revert to the performer and the rights in the phonogram shall expire. Further, if after one year subsequent to the term extension, neither the phonogram producer nor the performer made the phonogram available to the public, the rights in the phonogram and the rights in the fixation of the performance shall expire.

In other words, the recording reverts to artist from record label after 50 years if the recording is commercially unavailable, but the artist has only a one-year window to take advantage. After one year of inactivity, the recording enters the public domain.

And since we are all wondering, the EU went on to define a "published" work:

For the purposes of the 'use it or lose it' clause, publication of a phonogram means the offering of copies of the phonogram to the public, with the consent of the right holder, and provided that copies are offered to the public in reasonable quantity. Publication would also comprise otherwise commercial exploitation of a phonogram, such as making the phonogram available to online retailers.

Looks like the EU tried to address both physical and digital goods. "...offered to the public in reasonable quantity" is for physical, and "available to online retailers" is for digital. I have to wonder if this could be bad for artists since this is a one-or-the-other test, not a one-and-the-other test. I can imagine many titles being out of physical print after 50 years but still sitting on a server somewhere and thus salable.

Read a FAQ offered by the EU here.

Also, the European Commission has moved to eliminate collecting societies' deals that eliminate cross-border competition. The intended result is to allow broadcasters to deal with a single collecting society for all of the European Union rather than a separate collecting society for each of the counties. Authors and composers will be able to choose from any of the EU's collecting societies for representation throughout the EU.

Each of the 24 collecting societies has 120 days to revise their cross-border agreements.

Earlier this month, a number of artists appealed to the EU not to enforce multi-territorial licensing. From their statement: "If […] the Societies are required to ‘compete’ with one another across national boundaries on price, the whole system will collapse. Major rights holders will withdraw their repertoires and either place them with an agency […] or they will look towards direct licensing themselves.”

Posted by Glenn at 12:48 PM | Link
|Politics|

The House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property passed the Performance Rights Act today. Up for consideration is terrestrial radio's exemption from paying performance royalties for the use of sound recordings. Satellite and Internet radio are not exempt from paying royalties to the owners of the sound recordings they broadcast.

The bill will next move to the floor of the House. The Senate version of the bill is said to have far less support.

The PR reaction was swift. Go here for the musicFIRST press release and here for the NAB press release.

Posted by Glenn at 6:24 PM | Link
|Politics||Radio|

Here's what went on at the hearing before the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.

Nancy Sinatra spoke on behalf of musicFIRST. "In no other business is the promise of promotion justification for the taking of someone's product."

ICBS Broadcast Holdings President/COO Charles Warfield spoke against the bill. He pulled out the RIAA card and asked if it is fair record labels should take half of royalties that are meant for artists. He later added, "The current symbiotic relationship that has existed for years between the radio and recording industries is the very essence of fairness." Meaning, we give them promotion and they give us free access to their music. On the impact to local radio, Warfield told the hearing, "I think there would certainly be a diminution of services provided to the community."

On Tuesday, the Department of Commerce issued a letter of support for the Performance Rights Act. "Granting copyright owners of sound recordings a full performance right coupled with extending an existing statutory license is an appropriate and workable approach to providing compensation to recording artists and record labels for the transmission of their works by over-the-air broadcast stations."

BusinessWeek.com has a very good overview of the political fight that mentions the study the NAB is passing around Washington: "The National Association of Broadcasters cites research from economist James Dertouzos, formerly affiliated with Stanford University, who says free radio airplay contributes $1.5 billion to $2.4 billion in annual music sales." Dertouzos is currently an economist for the RAND Institute for Civil Justice.

A bit of digging and I found the NAB press release and a link to the study by Dertouzos. Here's the main blurb (from page 13):

Results across the five models clearly demonstrated that performing artists and the record labels that represent them indirectly profit from radio airplay through the distribution and sale of sound recordings. Findings demonstrate that a significant portion of industry sales of albums and digital tracks can be attributed to radio airplay – at minimum 14 percent and as high as 23 percent. These results show that radio is providing the record industry with significant, incremental sales revenues or promotional sales benefit that ranges from $1.5 to $2.4 billion annually. Further, the impact estimated from exposure to music on local radio is positive and significant for all audiences and all markets.

And later he gets into the degree to which exposure to songs influence music sales:

For albums, a one-standard deviation increase in exposures (equivalent to about 10 additional tracks of music per day) results in a two percent increase in album sales. For digital tracks, the equivalent number is 2.4 percent. Country music sales appear to be the most responsive, at 3.2 percent, while the increase in R&B and Rap album sales is lowest at one percent.

The Liebowitz study I mentioned the other day gets dressed down by Dertouzos for the way in which gaps in data were filled in, among other things.

Posted by Glenn at 12:14 PM | Link
|Academia||Politics|

Though you wouldn't know it with all the coverage and adulation the Dixie Chicks have got after their public criticism of President Bush, the country trio may have lost some fans. (Though they may have gained some, too. Time will tell if the fans gained are the kind who buy albums and attend concerts.)

The Pensacola News-Journal's Mark O'Brien warns of a chilled reception in that area when the Chicks' next album comes out.

"(Pensacolians) tuned out the Chicks, turned off by their politics and style. Program directors at local stations predict few requests for their music when the Texas trio issue Taking the Long Way in May. That's fine with me, especially because fans still can purchase music the radio doesn't play.

The Chicks exercised their constitutional right to free speech, and fans exercised their constitutional right to stop listening to what was one of country music's brightest, hottest acts."

O'Brien's advice is the same as Aerosmith's two decades ago: Let the music do the talking. It sounds like good advice. Most music fans don't mix politics and music.

Posted by Glenn at 11:20 AM | Link
|Music||Politics|

The New York Post is reporting that New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's gubernatorial campaign has brought in $40,000 in contributions from music industry execs since he launched his payola investigation.

" The largest donation - $25,000 last September - came from Paul Fribourg, who sits on the supervisory board of Vivendi Universal, the parent of Universal Music, which is under investigation. Another $10,000 came in November from Richard Sarnoff, who sits on the supervisory board of Bertelsmann AG. That company is part of Sony BMG, which reached a settlement in the payola probe."

Rival Bill Weld's camp predictably said this raises "serious ethical questions" and that Spitzer's "own version of payola" should be investigated.

And since everybody has a blog these days, Spitzer has a blog as well (though it's not updated with much regularity). It's at the Spitzer 2006 website.

Previous posts:

• Another View of Payola
• The LA Times Named Names
• Spitzer Has Words For Sony BMG, Retailers

Posted by Glenn at 8:13 PM | Link
|Politics|

A good follow-up to my weekend thoughts on an article on politics and pop music at The Guardian came from the LA Times' Geoff Boucher. In "The Iraq war, set to new music" he highlights three examples of pop stars injecting politics into the music. One was mentioned in my previous post, Green Day's "Wake Me When September Ends." The song itself doesn't hing at a political statement but the video is a Hollywood-style epic that frames the Iraq war in terms of a young couple's personal relationship. Some may see it as anti-war, other won't.

The boldest anti-war statement being made today? It's from Barbra Streisand. The video (pictured) to her song "Stranger In A Strange Land" (from her upcoming album, a collaboration with Barry Gibb) is currently being streamed at Amazon.com. Here's a sample of the lyrics: "You may be someone else's sweetheart/Fighting someone else's war/And if you suffer for the millions/Then it's what you're fighting for."

Just like The Guardian article said, the most political pop music being made is being made by women.

Posted by Glenn at 9:43 AM | Link
|Music||Politics|

Sorry, Bono. They weren't offended then, but they're offended now. And I quote:

"That decision ruled that the broadcast had not violated the indecency prohibition because Bono's use of the "F-word" had been fleeting and in a non-sexual context. The Commission overruled the Bureau decision and also concluded that other cases holding that isolated or fleeting use of the "F-word" are not indecent are no longer good law. The Commission further concluded that use of the "F-Word" in the context of the Golden Globe Awards was profane under 18 U.S.C. Section 1464."

This place is going to hell in a handbasket, isn't it?

FCC Finds That Broadcast Of "F-Word" Was Indecent And Profane from mi2n.com

Posted by Glenn at 1:16 PM | Link
|Politics|

The NY Times' Maureen Dowd reveals many things she thinks we should know about presidential hopeful John Kerry. Among the bits of information was the fact that Kerry played guitar in a rock band and likes Elvis, Buddy Holly, the Beatles, the Stones and the Grateful Dead. Check that picture! He's quite the introspective troubadour, isn't he?

In order to give equal time, Coolfer should point out that President Bush, too, has his own rock and roll qualities. For instance, he used to party like Keith Richards.

J.F.K., Marilyn, 'Camelot' from the NY Times

Posted by Glenn at 9:10 PM | Link
|Politics|

Krist Novoselic announced he won't run for Washington's state lieutenant, although he does want to stay active in politics. The former Nirvana bass player, who had two short-lived music projects since Kurt Cobain's death, will probably stay out of sight of most Americans until 2014--the year Nirvana is eligible for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Novoselic Won't Run For Wash. Office from Billboard.com.
Ex-Nirvana Bassist Plays for Votes, Meaning from The Daily News.

Posted by Glenn at 10:31 AM | Link
|Politics|

While Coolfer was out for a jog the other night, I ran across a flyer stapled to a telephone pole in Prospect Heights. "Do You Want A Sports Stadium" asks the headline, "complete with congestion, noise, air pollution, garbage and parking for 20,000 visitors, in your backyard?" (As if all 20,000 fans are going to drive to the game.) The flyer is a rallying cry from Patti Hagan and the Prospect Heights Action Coalition, a group intent on keeping out the Nets and Devils, the new arena at Flatbush and Atlantic that would house them, and 5,500 units of "high-rise housing" that would also come with the development.

Hagan isn't the only one who doesn't want the Nets to play in Brooklyn. Some Jersey developers and politicians--Sen. Jon Corzine, Gov. Jim McGreevey and others--want the Nets to stay put (read NY Post article).

Coolfer wonders which way this could go. Cities sometimes reserve the right to tax businesses according to the benefits they receive from their proximity to arenas and stadiums. (This is mentioned in this Sacramento Bee article about a new arena proposal for the Kings.) It's possible that lower income residents could be squeezed out. And, worst of all, Alonzo Mourning would be in the area on a regular basis. On the flip side, arenas can revitalize a city or district. Here's an article on how Coors Stadium was a boon to Denver's downtown area.

The Flatbush/Atlantic intersection already has one construction site: Forest City Ratner is building a shopping center/office building (pictured) that's due to open in March. Current tenant list: Target, Bath and Body Works, Chuck E Cheese and Red Lobster, among others. Uh...woo hoo.

The Prospect Heights Action Coalition is holding an emergency meeting on Sunday, September 14th at 2:00pm, at the Hanson Place Seventh Day Adventist Church (88 Hanson Place).

Posted by Glenn at 12:10 AM | Link | Comment (2)
|New York City||Politics||Sports|