associated links, final reference page, August 1, 2005

Final Update, June 12, 2006

The Supreme Court voted unanimously against Grokster concerning the issue below. To download a .pdf copy of the Court's decision, visit NMPA'S homepage. To view NMPA's comments on the Court's decision, as well as other legal issues updated and commented on by NMPA, click here. To bookmark NMPA's pressroom with archives click here.

_________________________

Special Update, March, 2005 (MGM vs Grokster)

From CNET News.com - P2P companies ask high court For help:

"Record labels and Hollywood studios, seeking to overturn lower court rulings shielding file-swapping companies, have asked the court to rule that businesses distributing products "predominately" devoted to copyright infringement should be held legally responsible for that illegal activity." Full article, by John Borland, posted March 1st, 2005.

__________

user-friendly online music purchasing example, April 28, 2003

Apple Computer has entered the music delivery competition.

A note/opinion concerning the recent RIAA lawsuit against college students, and flexible listening platforms.

As a longtime working musician, both on the road and in the studio, an occasional producer, a published songwriter, a micro music publisher, as well as a former on-air radio talent, copy writer, and radio broadcast campaign creator, I'd like to say a word about where we may be headed concerning music listeners' choice of platforms, royalties, and the music industry's responsibility in addressing piracy while honoring the evolving demands for flexibility from listeners. I don't believe that the RIAA lawsuit, and other hardball, or "plug-up the leaks" approaches will ever solve an obviously solvable problem.

- The Problem -

1. Preserving basic copyright and royalty payments standards while intellectual property law and new media technologies continue to evolve.

2. Managing authentic piracy and fraud, while recognizing and honoring listeners' demands for flexible platforms of their choosing.

3. Communicating with, and educating both "insiders" and listeners/interested parties concerning royalties...where do they come from? ~~ how are they distributed? ~~ do I have any royalties owed to me? ~~ who really needs royalties to survive? And...why is everyone on all sides so upset? ~~ will my use without the purchase of a song or a virtual CD online erode the quality of musical offerings in the future?~~should I really care?,... along with endless other questions. (6/11/03 note: a distilled, "new & improved" version to follow at a later date)

Who's getting hurt?

As far as simply "putting beans on the dinner table" the songwriters, recording artists, independent producers, truly independent music publishing houses, and truly independent record labels are being shortchanged more than anyone else. Major record companies, for the most part, have always found ways to create before-net costs like 10% breakage/returns clauses, and lots of boilerplate language, that limit or divert money from recording artists and songwriters. Actual independent labels are now few & far between, and today's major labels have many "in-house avenues of revenue" to draw from in order to maintain their balance.

Let's take a look at the pathflow of the many issues involved in this "trainwreck" of a problem.

There are two distinct pools of money from which songwriters, recording artists, producers, publishers, and record labels can draw from. They are the mechanical and digital (or virtual sound recording) licensing pool for CD's and online purchasing of single songs, virtual CD's, compilation DVD's, etc., and the performance pool for radio, TV, film, and other forms of musical performance. Retailers, many hybrid businesses, and the employees of all entities concerned are directly affected by both the monies generated by and distributed from these two pools (if I have my own basic facts right).

One scenario

To a large degree, we're all hearing the original versions of 60's and 70's rock and roll classics in commercials today because that's where the money is. Some artists and songwriters are making long overdue royalties, others are out of the picture for one reason or another. The audio clips from original masters you hear on commercials generate royalties from the performance pool. The masters are usually owned by the record companies, who are mostly owned by the four or five largest entertainment conglomerates. The artist and/or the writer may or may not have any rights left at all (or more likely, not know their rights), may or may not continue to be eligible to receive royalties from the performance pool.

- in this scenario, for example-

Perhaps they've signed away their rights, their label is out of business, or they've died without leaving a simple Will. They may have no business relationship with any record companies or publishers anymore. They may have lost contact with management and not even know they have royalties owed to them. They may be deceased, without an Estate or Trust to look out for any posthumous exploitation (royalties due after death).

On behalf of publishers (for the mechanical/digital pool), Harry Fox, New York, CMRRA, Canada, and other mechanical licensing agencies, have retooled and upgraded their entire infrastructures. They've addressed real piracy issues (I've been signing on to digital licensing agreements for several years, which pay less than standard mechanical royalties). As for the performance pool, licensing agencies like BMI continue to distribute royalties fairly, while not being party to the contractual knots of the rest of the music industry. BMI has always done their monitoring out in the open. I remember filling out the logs for every song I'd played on the air in a given period back in the old daze (at present I'm not a publisher affiliate of ASCAP as well simply because I haven't worked with an ASCAP-affiliated songwriter to this point, but I know their reputation to be of the highest integrity). In Congress, Representatives like Lloyd Doggett from Austin, Texas, and others have stood up for musicians & other music professionals and against any further erosion of writers' rights.

So, fair use and royalty structures are in place, and they're evolving with new media as best as they can. There are, hopefully, early signs of a movement towards an adoptable model for fair compensation, as both law and new media evolve and erosion subsides concerning The Copyright Act of 1976, the Extension Act, and other legal instruments as they stand today. (6/11/03 note: I'll provide a link better demonstrating the relationships concerning publishers, songwriters, and licensing agencies as soon as I can)

- Give listeners the choice -

From a listener's standpoint, I believe people are trying to tell the music industry that they want to decide which platform they want to use in order to hear their favorite music. CD's, DVD's, film, and television have been here for awhile. The Web, software for digital audio and video, and affordable computers have been here awhile. New and more flexible listening platforms and delivery methods for music are here, and the listeners should be able to choose their favorite listening platform for themselves. The entire music industry has no choice but to acknowledge that fact from a business standpoint, dive into the "pool" completely, and reach a consensus that will work in this fundaplex^ world. A flexible working model cannot be created, developed, and implemented without the listeners. It can't be marketed properly without the listeners. It will collapse unless it has been embraced by the listeners. The listeners have told everyone how they want their music delivered. Now, find a way to deliver that music without going "old school" and further ostracizing our own industry. Piracy can be managed as an inescapable growing pain during the changeover that must embrace more flexible listening platforms. Start managing, not manhandling. And for God's sake, get out there on the Web and take a look for yourself at what your own customers are saying. (most recent version of this "editorial on the fly without a blue pencil"--June 11, 2003--use of bold text above is for the reader and the author)

John Woodle, owner, layman* ...(latest version uploaded on June 11, 2003)

^..."fundaplex" (from Wudl's Terms) as used here, stems from the term Fundaplex!. Let me know if you've seen it elsewhere before. Fundaplex! is a hybrid of "fundamental" and "complex." It's intended to reflect my sense that this is not an "either/or" world, but rather one in which all things are simultaneously "simple~" (fundamentally understood or experienced), and "complex" (extremely intricate, deeply layered, and difficult to understand completely). The instant one catches a glimpse of both the fundamental and complex nature of the conflict demanding one's immediate attention -- rather than passionately defending what one believes to be true, rather than giving in, giving up, or turning away from the conflict in order to find relief; instead the very concept that any personalized system of fairness should be super-imposed upon the conflict at hand gives way, the friction from the conflict melts away, and the rational mind pauses from its perceived role as the mental model of survival. A moment of clarity is captured, thus the usual inclusion of an exclamation point. So, as defined here, fundplex! could be described as:

simple~ + complex + simultaneous = fundaplex!.. ~of course the qualifying question is "Are all things FindOutIfs?"...JW

Click here and scroll to the bottom for links to Harry Fox, BMI., and others. Click here for the link to the Songwriters Guild of America. New to the Web? Looking for a related link with relevant terms and an opinion all rolled up in one? Then Click Here to visit Wired Magazine's online special feature "Encyclopedia of the New Economy."

(internal reference code)