Music Policy Stakeholder Profile, Research Paper Example

Synopsis

In 1999, the world music industry had experienced an exponential period of growth that lasted for a quarter-century. Close to one billion records were sold globally in 1974. By the end of this century, the number of records was three times much higher than before. In the early nineties, the spirit of the largest record label entities and executives was high; however, it was unexpected that a pool of teenage internet savvy and hackers would disrupt the industry by undermining the very foundations of the industry. Shawn Fanning is remembered for having designed and launched Napster (Wikstrom, 2017). This file-sharing service allowed the listeners to download and continuously share music without compensating the holders’ rights. Napster was quickly sued for such actions by the music industry, forcing the service to shut down. However, an increase in other sophisticated services soon followed suit, forcing the traditional music industry to rely on aggressive methods that involved the use of technical and legal mechanisms in curbing the explosion of the element of online piracy services that include the use of services such as DC++, Napster, Limewire, Kazaa, and the Pirate Bay from spreading like wildfire (Wikstrom, 2017). This audit seeks to examine the role of SoundExchange within the policy landscape as a performance rights organization with the mission of supporting, protecting, and propelling the music industry to greater heights.

Admiration of SoundExchange’s Approach to Advocacy

Recorded music, as typified by (Bhattacharjee et al (2005) permeates each and every aspect of our lives. This, therefore, means that the legal access-based music services primarily combined with illegal online approaches of file-sharing services would mean that any song is available to any population everywhere at any given time. Such an access explosion significantly transforms how people relate and use recorded music. One of the fundamental elements that I admire with SoundExchange’s approach to advocacy lies in the organization’s efforts towards the protection of the creators of different sound recordings, the recording artists who put the effort in performing for their audiences, and the rights of the owners who primarily invest in the artists.

The organization works tirelessly towards limiting the events that resulted in the emergence of the sophisticated music sharing services, forcing the traditional music industry to rely on aggressive methods that involved the use of technical and legal mechanisms in curbing the explosion of the element of online piracy services that include DC++, Napster, Limewire, Kazaa, and the Pirate Bay (Bhattacharjee et al., 2005). To achieve this, the organization advocates ensuring that all the music creators are fairly paid for their efforts. As typified in its mission statement, SoundExchange believes that every party involved in the creative process and who focuses on bringing life to music deserves fair compensation in all the existing music platforms. SoundExchange, therefore, carries this message to the house of Congress specifically on behalf of the music creators.

SoundExchange and How It Serves the Interests of its Members

The Fair Play Fair Pay Act of 2017 remains one of the areas that SoundExchange, in my view, continues to represent and serve the interests of its constituents. The organization brought on board a bipartisan group of legal teams with the objective of reintroducing this policy. The policy measure was driven towards reforming the antiquated U.S. Copyright bill and focused on ensuring that the artists and the rights of their owners acquire or rather get a fair market value for their work in every instance that they are used (Goldman, 2020). Under this bill, the lawmakers ensured that all radio stations would pay a fair market value for the music they play on-air. The Fair Play Fair Pay Act of 2017 also:

1. Established the need to create a fundamental performance right for every sound recording on the terrestrial radio stations.
2. Establish the element of “willing buyer, willing seller” fair market value rate and standard for all the digital platforms.

• Ensured that payment is provided for the pre-1972 sound recordings by limiting digital services from exploiting loopholes within the federal law that allow them to skip royalties to the features artists and the right owners recorded before 1972 (Goldman 2020).

1. Ensured that the royalties collected are paid to the songwriters and are undistributed and untouched by legislations.
2. Included the provisions of the AMP Act that codifies the organization’s long-time practice of honouring artists who share their royalties with the producers as well as the creative participants with the organization (Goldman 2020).

SoundExchange’s Effectiveness and Room for Improvement

Advocating for the pertinent rights of all music content creators remains central to SoundExchange’s mission. The organization is at Capitol Hill daily to represent and amplify the views and voices of all content or music creators through the protection of their values and their work. However, one of the effective measures that the organization undertook lies in supporting its work in Washington, specifically on the music creators (Goldman 2020). In other words, SoundExchange established a SoundExchange Legislative Fund that provides voluntary contributions, specifically from the SoundExchange employees and members. The funds are used in making contributions to the candidates seeking federal office.  Under the established applicable laws, I noticed that the amounts that the members and employees may contribute to the organization’s coffers seem limited (Lyons et al., 2019). In contrast, the law requires the organization to ensure that the collected contributions are made voluntarily. In my view, SoundExchange may focus on different approaches to acquiring funds, such as increasing the purchase of its rights to entities that seek to use its services.

Allies and Adversaries of SoundExchange

SoundExchange has several allies. The artists and the owners who primarily invest in the artists by preserving their values in music form part and parcel of the firm’s allies. On the other hand, SoundExchange has equally worked with other entities such as musicFIRST Coalition and other groups to support the music creators within the industry who want to support its Fair Play Fair Pay and the members of Congress to spur their vision. Other modern music streaming platforms include Spotify, Apple Music, YouTube Music Premium, Amazon Music unlimited, Tidal, Qobuz, and Deezer Premium—all of whom form part of the allies to this framework.  According to the organization, there are no effective voices advocating for the Fair Play Fair Pay other than the artists (Lyons et al., 2019). The organization has therefore stood ground in supporting this bill on behalf of creators.

On the other hand, the organization’s adversaries include internet savvy hackers who have continually developed sophisticated music sharing services, forcing the traditional music industry to rely on aggressive methods that involved the use of technical and legal mechanisms in curbing the explosion of the element of online piracy services that include DC++, Napster, Limewire, Kazaa, and the Pirate Bay (Lyons et al., 2019). SoundExchange believes that every party involved in the creative process and who focuses on bringing life to music deserves fair compensation in all existing music platforms. SoundExchange in this case carries this message to the house of Congress specifically on behalf of the music creators.

References

Bhattacharjee, S., Gopal, R. D., Lertwachara, K., & Marsden, J. R. (2005). Impact of legal threats on online music sharing activity: An analysis of music industry legal actions. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.816704

Goldman, J. (2020, May 20). The fair play fair pay act. SoundExchange. https://www.soundexchange.com/advocacy/reintroduction-fair-play-fair-pay-act/

Lyons, F., Sun, H., Collopy, D. P., Curran, K., & Ohagan, P. (2019). Music 2025 – The music data dilemma: Issues facing the music industry in improving data management. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3437670

Wikstrom, P. (2017, 12). The music industry in an age of digital distribution. OpenMind. https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/articles/the-music-industry-in-an-age-of-digital-distribution/