Very good question. Most of us know Sound Exchange is the digital PRO created to deal with royalties generated over the internet and through digital music devices, however it is still quite vague to a vast majority of the musicians and writers what EXACTLY Sound Exchange does. Thanks to Youtube, these questions can now be answered in 2:26 .
Enjoy
As I was reading my daily dose of Digital Music News I stumbled upon this provocative adage to copyright and one challenge that we face moving ahead thanks to the advances of a California professor's new composition software. This is but one point of the idiosyncrasy of composing a law in real time to keep up with our technological advances AND protect intellectual property owners... This is an uphill climb and is all but impossible to keep up with despite the CRB and copyright office's best attempts. Now without further ado ... Paul Resnikoff... +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What 'Sounds Like' Even More Disruption Ahead...
Despite the complicated debates, copyright infringement is essentially simple concept. A piece of intellectual property is owned by one party, and its unauthorized use by a third party is subject to penalty. That is, in theory - 'casual' piracy happens billions of times monthly, and plenty of debates arise over ownership (orphan works, splits, other disputes), or intent (Satriani v. Coldplay, for example).
That just scratches the surface, and volumes of literature are dedicated to the subject. Moreover, the body of law is being interpreted and created in real time. But outside of those mainline discussions, plenty of smart workarounds exist for those unable or disinterested in direct, expensive licensing processes. And it's not infringement, as long as proper statutory publishing rates are paid.
Jump into a karaoke bar, and sing-a-longs frequently feature generic video scenes, lyrics and underlying (ie, publishing) tracks - not the recordings themselves. Or, hop onto the iTunes Store, and 'sounds like' versions of songs employ similar statutory workarounds. In fact, when Kid Rock withheld his content from iTunes, entrepreneurial studios quickly created sounds-like versions to capture sales from confused fans.
But what happens when a derivative work is created, one that resembles the original but is different? In pop music, copycat artists and songs happen all of the time, and they are perfectly legal. But as technology becomes more powerful, unique identifiers employed by successful composers can more easily be isolated and replicated.
Just recently, ArsTechnica author Jacqui Cheng profiled a computer-based composition technology called 'EMI,' or 'Emmy,' a software package created by University of California Santa Cruz professor David Cope. Emily essentially identifies and replicates a number of signatures unique to a particular composer, then creates a derivative work - sounds like Mozart, Beethoven, Cream, whatever. The package has since been succeeded by a more original computer composer called 'Emily Howell,' which attempts to move beyond derivative to truly self-generated works.
That seriously challenges the concept that 'real' music can only be created by real brains, not computers. But machine-based dissection and creation technology may also become part of the disruptive digital music fabric, and further upend traditional copyright concepts in the process.
Fast Company just announced their 100 Most Creative People in Business, and subsequently their 10 Most Creative People in Music lists for this year. Many of the names on the music list are recognizable and some might even be deserving this recognition, but come on... Soulja Boy as the #1 most creative person in the industry simply because he is a shameless self-promoter and used Myspace and YouTube to promote his "Superman Dance" and ultimately launch a career. Ridiculous! There are no doubt some folks on the list (read: Tim Westergren, Alex Patsavas, and Gregg Gillis (Girltalk) who no-doubt deserve to be there, but I think they are stretching it a bit with Soulja Boy and Pharrell. Creativity in the music business means coming up with new ideas. Changing the way people think and changing consumer and fan habits. Shameless self-promotion is a great thing and these folks are rewarded for all of their hard work in album sales, sold out concerts and endorsement deals. It does not, however qualify as creativity and I don't think it should be rewarded as such.
Therefore- I am generating my own addendum to this list. People/groups/companies who really and truly ARE creative. Who have ACTUALLY pushed the envelope. Added to this list should be (in no particular order):
Gerd Leonhard Radiohead Spotify Slacker Jim Griffin
I am sure I missed a few, but these at least round out that list and make up for the idiocy of adding Hip Hop stars to a list of industry creative powerhouses.
Nashville Film Festival brought some very interesting films to the Music City... Opening night brought about appearances from the likes of William Shatner, Vincent D'On0frio, Sheryl Crow,William Lee Golden from the Oakridge boys, Mayor Karl Dean, and many others. Although many great films were involved, I must say that one film had a real impact on me.
RiP: a Remix Manifesto is the story of Girl Talk, Lawrence Lessig and the changing culture of shared music, copyright law, fair use and usage of music that benefits artists... In short the gray copyright law is taken to task with this great cinematic piece... best of all IT IS AVAILABLE ONLINE FOR FREE VIEWING, REMIXING, ETC!
I urge anyone interested in this subjectmatter to take a look at this film... it is both entertaining and informative... I am so glad it is available for online viewing...
Viva la Girl Talk