Tag Archives: Copyright

Apple Music in China Part 2

Copyright, Legality, and a little bit more Pricing

For those of you who don’t know, China actually has copyright law, by large similar to the US one.  However, the enforcement of copyright law has been a problem for years. Ever since 1979 China opened its door to welcome western trade and culture, major amount of music, TV shows, movies, entertainment programs, etc, has been made available. The popular mean to consume these copyright protected content is through torrent and “safe-harbor” sites. Good news is that, the Chinese government has been working on this issue for quite a while. According to China’s Legal Daily website, in the past ten years, 1,926 copyright-infringed sites were closed, and 4,241 copyright infringement cases were processed. There is definitely progress,

Because of the enforcement problem, the majority of population has not yet fully adapt to the idea of “paying for intellectual properties,” which is, in fact, also a new idea in western countries. The smart strategy about Apple Music is that, the extremely low price of 10 Yuan (approx. USD $1.52) can create an illusion of paying for only “the service,” instead of “the copyright content.” Now, it’s hard to judge so quickly whether or not the dirt cheap price is ethical, since it seems, at least right now, that this cheap price is the only bet for not just Apple, but also perhaps any streaming service to gain market share in China. Long before this Apple Music conversation, I had the fortune to use a Chinese streaming site, Xiami (虾米), for a while. Owned by Alibaba, Xiami is arguably the largest streaming site in China right now. However, it also faces lots of legal issues since the site charges so less, essentially 10-15 Yuan per month (depending on whether you buy an entire year worth of membership at once or not). It also has a free tier with limitations, just like Spotify does. I have noticed that there is a lot of content, mostly foreign, made unavailable on Xiami, possibly because of copyright issues. What’s relevant and intersting is that Apple’s price in China matches Xiami’s, which makes Apple so competitive since it has a much larger selection and of course less copyright issues because it can afford paying royalties. Worst thing comes worst, it can pay its way out. Voila!

The sense of not paying for intellectual properties is so deeply rooted in China for many generations, so much so that it makes it extremely hard for intellectual content, by itself, to generate revenue there. While the situation my be severe in China, I really believe even in the U.S. or Europe, this phenomenon still exists. The reason behind this current phenomenon has two main factors: lack of education about intellectual content and the traditional perspective of valuing only tangible properties. In day to day life, people still value houses, gold, stocks and bonds… pretty much anything that can turn into cash relatively quickly. Very few sees the value of creativity, art, vision, intelligence, aka “the things that are necessary for human society and growth but no one realizes we need it until it’s gone.” Well, if we don’t appreciate, if we keep refusing to pay, they will be gone, very soon.

 

Legal Daily on Copyright Enforcement (Chinese) http://www.legaldaily.com.cn/index_article/content/2014-10/26/content_5814731.htm?node=5955

Pricing for Xiami (Chinese)                                     http://www.xiami.com/vip

Fun Facts

Some fun facts about copyright popped up in my discussion with colleagues and friends today. It may be useful for you to know.

1. PROs in almost every other territory collect performance royalties from movie theaters, while the ones in the U.S don’t.

Yup. It’s pretty hard to believe. While movie business is lucrative in this country, maybe more so in recent years, it’s probably not so great for the composers. Out of every dollar collected from the box office in the entire country, as a composer, the PROs collect zero for you. Maybe it’s time to pursue another career…?

You would think that ASCAP, BMI & SESAC are the “better” ones compare to the ones out there in rest of the world and make sure everyone gets all their money. At the end of the day, the U.S. has one of the biggest music markets in the entire freaking world! Surprise, surprise. It’s not easy to make a living as a composer in this country, even when you are a successful one, if you rely solely on collecting royalties to put food on the table. Good news is , if the movie that uses your tracks got played in oversea territories, PROs in the U.S. WILL collect the money from foreign PROs and send it to you. Well, this process may take a while… To be precise, according to BMI, the money will be sent out 1-2 years after the performance occur. But money is money, right?

On the other hand, if you compose music for TV shows, or if the movies that use your tracks play on TV stations,  that usage IS under the jurisdiction of ASCAP, BMI & SESAC. So if you can get into that game, your life may be just a little bit easier.

 

2. Global content licensing?

Specifically, this is about Netflix. Ever wonder why you can’t watch Netflix when you go overseas? It’s because Netflix does not obtain the rights to provide streaming service for their content in every territory. Not yet.

However, Netflix is trying to reach global content licenses with the major production companies. In plain English, this means to pay a fixed license fee, obtain the right to play the content across the globe, and never worry about paying royalties. In this case, Netflix would have foreseeable and controllable costs. OK, from a corporate strategy point of view, it makes a lot of sense. In the wonderland of copyright? Not so much.

Because copyright law works on a territorial basis, it is hard to even think about the possibility of global content licensing. In some countries, the PROs are very involved in collecting money from every kind of public performance, so that they would simply not acknowledge the license and still demand royalties from Netflix. Well, that would destroy the whole purpose of global content licensing. In some countries, it may be even illegal.

In fact, we humans do not agree on a lot of things. There were disastrous wars caused by disagreement. It could be potentially dangerous. You just never know.

It seems like Netflix still have a long way to go before it reaches the 200 countries goal. It almost sounds like working for world peace.

 

 

 

What is Performing Right Royalties? (and what it means to you, if you create film music)  http://www.filmmusicmag.com/kb/questions/37/What+are+performing+rights+royalties%3F

ASCAP’s International Payment System http://www.ascap.com/members/payment/international.aspx

BMI International FAQs                     http://www.bmi.com/faq/category/international

Netflix’s Ted Sarandos Talks Global Licensing (and other stuff) http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-netflixs-ted-sarandos-talks-global-licensing-sports-market-and-china-20150513-story.html#page=1

Netflix Wants the World http://variety.com/2015/digital/news/netflix-wants-the-world-can-it-really-expand-to-200-countries-in-2-years-1201411740/

Lots of Blurred Lines

Of course, I wanna talk about the case. The Blurred Lines case.

I have been keeping my mouth shut and reading the press for the past few days, just hoping to make sense of all things associate with the case. Especially when it’s a contemporary hit with an all time legend, who wouldn’t wanna know what’s going on?

Ironically, like the song title, there are surely lots of blurred lines in this case. First, I have always been a little puzzled about how the current copyright law works when the last author die. The current copyright law says that the copyright of the song last until the death of last surviving writer plus 70 years. I’m all for the life of the last surviving writer part, but I have been curious about how the following 70 years plays out in reality. And honestly, 70 years is a hell of long time. We have seen in history that these copyrights have been handed to people who only use them for exploiting money. Some of them aren’t so creative. Some of them can be a little greedy. This is not what copyright should be about; however, I’ve seen it happen again and again in contemporary music history. Once I was upset that the copyright of Amy Winehouse’s music was partly handed to her father. And now, it appears that the Gaye family rely on Marvin’s music for livelihood, which I have always been wondering if it’s really fair.

Money is not even the worst part. The thing that really wowed me was that, put aside the $7.3m, the Gaye family “seek an injunction prohibiting the further sale and distribution of the track.” WOAH, wait a minute. That crossed the line a little, didn’t it? I mean,  the Gaye family is in it for the money, obviously. Ok, you got your $7.3m. That’s a lot, even for a hit song. Songwriters these days aren’t making zillions of dollars, not anymore, especially with the whole digital business we have now, which is still in heated debates. And again, it’s one damn song. What is that all about?

Another interesting thing I read in Bob Lefsetz’s journal about this case was that, the verdict was granted by a Californian jury. The key word is “jury.” The juries are different from a judge. As Lefsetz rightly points out, “… juries are notorious for going for feelings / running on emotions.” It reminds me how much a stir Blurred Lines made on social media couple of years back when it first came out. The song has a terrible message. It’s sexist as hell. It’s about seducing and sweet-talking women into sex in a really demeaning way. If the lyrics of this song translate into in real life conversation, it’s called sexual harassment. I didn’t even know that I can love and hate a song so much at the same time.  As much as I enjoy the rhythm and the throwback vibe of the song, the lyrics throw me off so much that I sometime hate myself listening to it. I would be so ashamed, as a young woman, to say that I like the song.

And when I think about it, if I were one of the juries, I would’ve made the same decision based on my emotion, even just to make people stop making these songs. But I know it’s not gonna happen. They are gonna do it again, and again. We’re up for a long battle.

My conclusion is also much align with Bob Lefsetz’s. Everyone is in it for their own interest. There’s really no clear line of which way is really just or fair. The two songs sound incredibly similar in terms of rhythm, vibe, singing style, maybe even the bass line a little bit, but are they really the same song? I personally don’t find much similarities between the two songs in terms of lyrics and melody, which are the two main things the copyright law protects. Oh well, but because it’s a jury, and if the lawyers of Thicke and Williams knew any better, they really should’ve settled.

 

Music Week’s press release about the Blurred Lines case http://www.musicweek.com/news/read/marvin-gaye-s-family-awarded-7-3m-in-blurred-lines-trial/061118

Bob Lefsetz’s journal about the Blurred Lines case http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2015/03/10/the-blurred-lines-decision/