Natalie Bravo is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

��

For years now, have identified potential benefits for implementing blockchain technology in the music industry. Blockchain could allow for more equitable pay for artists. Artists currently to achieve pay equity, especially in . in unallocated royalties end up redistributed when rights are unidentified. If implemented correctly, blockchain technology can serve as a database hub for copyright information and metadata.

Technological advancements and increased accessibility to musical tools allow anyone to become a published musician. Aspiring artists no longer need fancy studio gear or support from well-known names to create popular hits. More creatives in the scene drive competition. Thus, . For example, a single hit song, like , could have a dozen writers, each with their own stake in the final product. In the digital streaming era, when music is often written by multiple people, allocating royalties has become much more complicated. Paying artists what they are owed is difficult when ownership data may be complex and/or lacking.

In brief terms, blockchain technology is known as the foundation for cryptocurrency. The technology first appeared in the infamous 2008 Bitcoin authored by Satoshi Nakamoto. Bitcoin works on peer-to-peer network “P2P” as an electronic cash system. It is publicly accessible and transparent through traceable transactions.

Today, blockchain technology’s utility has expanded to much more than just transferring digital currency. For years now, musicians have attempted to make use of the network. Notably, in 2015 . Heap has since been developing , a blockchain-based, music-sharing space. She recently released an in April 2021. Blockchain has established a following amongst listeners and musicians alike. It could drastically change the status quo, if done widely, correctly, and in .

As a trusted network system with no reliance on third parties, blockchain is a fairly transparent and secure platform. are key in dealing with music licensing in particular. To date, no database anywhere accurately demonstrates song and record ownership. Instead, various publishers own distinct datasets. These datasets are not always in agreement, and hence can result in conflicts. No uniform database on music copyright information exists. A notable failed attempt at a singular database is the . There are or , but none are used uniformly and across the board. For a longstanding industry such as music, this is a tremendous concern. Enthusiasts envision a music copyright database implementing blockchain technology that could remedy current industry complications. Ownership information could be accessible and easily verified by all. A network where everything is accounted for could potentially offer quick and seamless royalty payments.

Even if the industry doesn’t warm up to the idea of a centralized database utilizing blockchain technology, writers and musicians will likely keep exploring ways to get their fair share. With tech and music evolving at a rapid pace, it is anyone’s guess where the correct solutions lie.

��

The post Blockchain to the Rescue? Missing Music Data & Royalties appeared first on IPOsgoode.

You've probably heard the expression "the long tail" used by Web 2.0 cognoscenti.�� Despite the largely uncritical acceptance the idea received a few years ago, research shows that for artists the "long tail" is the "wrong tale".�� But it may inform a way to leverage past marketing investment in "niche" recordings traded on illegal p2p networks but currently not licensed.

It Actually Is About the Hits After All: Enter the Wrong Tale

A few years ago--between Internet crashes--the "long tail" theory surfaced in the technology press.�� The theory maintains that hit-driven businesses are obsolete.�� What artists should really focus on was not a few things that sold a lot, but a lot of things that sold a little-the "long tail."�� Sales would be distributed proportionately in the "long tail" because the Internet allowed niche consumers to buy small quantities of lots of things generating significant revenues for retailers.�� ����

How rightsholders can produce the "more" and cover their margins out of the "less" only troubled rightsholders-particularly with companies like Google pushing the theory before the Crash.�� Proponents never thought retailers might run out of things to sell.�� (In 2006, this "less is more" theory was spun into a 288 page book called "The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business is Selling Less of More", and was marketed in the UK under the subtitle "Why Endless Choice is Creating Unlimited Demand.")��

The "long tail" theory is now being analyzed critically, starting last year with the comprehensive study of Professor Anita Elberse of the Harvard Business School ("��She concluded:

"[T]he [long] tail represents a rapidly increasing number of titles that sell very rarely or never. Rather than bulking up, the tail is becoming much longer and flatter...[T]his is the truth of the long tail.�� [Rather than benefiting niche marketers,] digital channels may be further strengthening the position of a select group of winners [,i.e., making online channels even more of a hit-driven business than offline retail]." (My emphasis.)

Another study by Will Page, Chief Economist of PRS for Music (the UK songwriter collecting society), these results and found that for PRS writers, "20% of tracks in our sample...sold at least one copy, and hence, 80% of the tracks sold nothing at all.... you're looking at a 80/0.38% rule [as opposed to the 80/20 rule or Pareto principle] for all the inventory on the digital shelf."�� (My emphasis.)

No one can afford to produce competitive new titles for the "long tail" as the production and marketing expense exceed projected revenues.�� Few rightsholders can afford the clearance costs for digital exploitation of back catalog, either. ��Professor Elberse again identified the problem in her research: "Music companies, for instance, often decline to make old content available online because clearing the rights is too cumbersome [and expensive]."��

Hit driven marketing drives demand.�� The problem is that the larger the demand, the more users steal the hits--using "" like Limewire--that they discover through licensed companies like iTunes.�� Let's be honest-it's not hard to compete with "free," it's hard to compete with stealing.

Black markets defy measurement, but the explanation for the "wrong tale" phenomenon of zero sold may be simple-the big marketing budgets that drive big hits also drive users to illegal p2p services where they not only download the current hits but also the older back catalog that is unavailable on licensed services.�� Downloading current hits is expected, but it is the back catalog losses that are potentially revealing. As Eric Garland (CEO of Big Champagne) , "File sharing communities are the domain of the ["rarities", the] unreleased, the so-called out of print, live tracks, odds and ends"--most of are not available through legitimate channels.

The "long tail" may be discredited, but it stimulates discussion about leveraging back catalog-which is in demand on illegal p2p services.��

Licensing and Monetizing the Wrong Tale

Will Page and Eric Garland have a new study that likely confirms that illegal trades vastly outnumber licensed digital sales.�� (Billboard's has a good story on this study).

The problem with measuring black market competition is that most black market content is simply not available in a licensed environment either because it isn't cleared or artists don't know the recordings exist, especially live recordings.��

If artists can't stop illegal uses of their works, they may be able to at least claim ownership to these rarities and make them available commercially (assuming reasonable�� quality).�� It may be worth developing "best practices" for commercializing these rarities.�� Artists, unions, songwriters, producers, record companies and music publishers should hash this out.��

Some key issues:

--claiming but not gaming.�� Help artists, songwriters, labels and publishers claim their rights in rarities found on p2p networks, then offer them for sale through legitimate channels; and

--for previously signed artists, pay catalog artists an industry standard rate (and songwriters the statutory rate) for deep catalog tracks not previously cleared for digital so that the recordings (including "out of print") could be offered for sale with minimal clearance cost.

This approach isn't a panacea for piracy, but it could compete with one of the attractions for p2p users.�� It is not without risk, but so is doing nothing.�� Doing nothing gets to the end of the tail very quickly.

Opinions expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to anyone else.�� Copyright 2009 Christian L. Castle.�� All Rights Reserved.��

The post The End of the Tail appeared first on IPOsgoode.