Introducing Younison
Younison is the first European Pressure Platform that gives Artists, DJ/producers, Managers and Organizers in the Music Industry a voice to speak up with and to actually change the way our business will be organised in the future.
Join the professional networking site and let yourself be heard NOW!
Follow us on...
Alliance of Younison, Featured Artists Coalition, Technopol and DJ Monitor call for European legislation to protect artists
Younison & FAC welcome EU Commissions call to put artists at The heart of The changes at copyright law.
Posted by Kelvin on Nov 23, 2011 at 09:38
Younison and The Featured Artists Coalition (FAC) warmly welcome the recent speech by Neelie Kroes, Vice President of the EU Commission entitled “Who feeds the artist?” In it she points out that copyright enforcement isn’t working despite the millions of Euros spent on it, while most of the artists who create the copyright content are not being properly rewarded,. This is something the FAC has long argued for and discussed with Ms Kroes when they were invited to Brussels to present their views on the Digital Economy Act earlier this year.
Speaking at the Forum d'Avignon conference, Kroes said: "We need to go back to basics and put the artist at the centre, not only of copyright law, but of our whole policy on culture and growth. In times of change, we need creativity, out-of-the-box thinking: creative art to overcome this difficult period and creative business models to monetise the art. And for this we need flexibility in the system, not the straitjacket of a single model."
Commenting on The announcement, Kelvin Smits, head of Younison says:
"We are pleased to see Commissioner Kroes endorse many of our principles. Artists need a modern framework based on modern technological tools and ensures a fair, accountable and transparent remuneration system. We support Commissioner Kroes’s efforts in ensuring that the rights and the creative future of all artists, regardless of the stature, are protected"
FAC's co-chair Sandie Shaw added: “The FAC were so happy when Neelie asked to meet us personally to hear our views on the Digital Economy. Most artists are real fans of her no nonsense approach. We are whooping with joy that she has agreed with us that artists should be at the centre of an innovative fresh drive for the music industry. We have been left out of the discussions for so long and at last someone with the authority to make it happen has recognised that we have an essential creative central role to play in the future of music for both the fans and our fellow artists. It is a great reward for the FAC after all our considerable efforts this year. What a great Christmas present for struggling artists. Thank you Neelie. We love you!”.
Younison Joined by Featured Artists Coalition, Technopol and DJ Monitor in Creation of Pan-European Platform in Support of Artists’ Rights
Posted by Kelvin on Nov 23, 2011 at 09:13
Alliance to Advocate for Improvements to Legislation for European Musicians
Antwerp, 7 March 2011: Featured Artists Coalition (UK), Technopol (FRA) and DJ Monitor (the Netherlands) have joined forces with Younison to advocate for changes to the collective rights management framework in the European Union (EU), in order to ensure that artists are accurately and efficiently rewarded for the commercialization and use of their creative works across the EU.
The alliance, under the leadership of Younison, will promote the creation of a transparent and accountable system governing the commercialisation of individual artists’ works in Europe, with European authors’ societies held subject to strict transparency and accountability requirements. In addition, it will advocate for the introduction of new rules enabling licensing of full music repertoires across the single market in order to help end fragmentation in the European online music market.
“With the addition of Featured Artists Coalition , Technopol and DJ Monitor, Younison has come to truly represent the groundswell of support that exists among European artists for greater transparency and accountability in the exploitation of their creative works. Together we will use our influence to ensure that European policymakers hear the voice of artists as they deliberate over the much-needed modernisation of Europe’s framework Directive on collective rights management.
“A true digital single market will benefit artists, consumers and industry alike and set the stage for the future of creativity in Europe. By embracing technology and transparency and ensuring that artists are promptly and fairly remunerated for the commercialisation and use of their creative works, Europe’s cultural diversity will continue to thrive. We will work together to make this happen,” said Kelvin Smits, Younison Director.
Some thoughts on the EU Copyright Term Extension
Posted by Kelvin on Sep 16, 2011 at 14:10
Last week the European Union passed legislation that will extend the copyright protection for performing artists from 50 to 70 years. Also known as the ‘Cliff Richard’ law, the adoption has taken over two years with plenty of strife.
The idea behind the law was to give European Artists the same level of protection as their counterparts in the rest of the world and ensure that older artists and session musicians , who after making music in their early twenties, and now passing the 50 years term would not be deprived of their pension.
That’s all fine! After all, we all need to ensure that our productive or working life can help sustain in our twilight years. But one can’t help wondering whether there is more to it than just securing a deserved pension for ageing artists.
· The law narrows the gap between the copyright term of protection for authors (currently life plus 70 years after the authors' death) and the term of protection for performers (currently 50 years after the performance),
· It creates a mandatory fund for session musician (that is paid into by record companies), that will ensure that performers who are forced to sell their rights against a one-off flat fee obtain additional payments during the extended term
· if record producers fail to market a recording, performers can of get their rights back and market it themselves ('use it or lose it' provision).
· Finally, record producers would be prevented from making deductions to the royalties they pay to featured performers after the initial 50 years are over (a 'clean slate').
It seems that a lot of thought has been given to ensure that the benefits of this extension do not just end up in the pockets of the companies that - in most cases - own the copyrights and that were the essential driving force behind this extension in the first place as it ensures them another 20 years of income on back catalogue music .
Let’s take a step out of the ivory tower and see what all this means in the real world.
· Historically, session musicians, were paid a one off fee, so often, there are no official records on who should be payed. The fund is a great idea – but questions remain on how this money will be practically be redistributed and on basis of which data? The law states that money collected from airplay, bars and clubs will be the main income of this fund, but without proper technology to pinpoint usage and the lack of transparent accounting methods , this too will prove that tens of thousands small artists are being used as a human shield to protect the vested interest of the big companies and big token artists holding the legal power to retract large amounts of collected money at their will. This leaves the artists and session musicians, who this law is supposed to be all about, in the cold.
· The "use it or lose it "provision, although very important for musicians that would want to retract their music , will prove to be quite a different thing in practice. Imagine that 75 year old session musicians and authors will have to get together (probably after loosing touch for more than 40 years ) to align their opinions to mutually request that they would like to retract the rights to their song " because the producer fails to market it". The Producer will ensure the geezers on arrival that " they are in the process of re-marketing their product and will soon be rereleasing it , thus wavering the use it or loose it provision, and in the event that - say after two years - nothing happens, which by now 77 year -old- not- so-wealthy- musician will probably not have the energy or resources to legally fight the big companies over peanuts?
Another issue to consider is that by giving the industry an additional twenty years lock tight run on the back catalogue, there may be a huge opportunity missed to rearrange, remix, and resample old songs from their basic form into a new style song, robbing the world of potential great new songs.
A good example of this is the humongous success top artist/producer Moby gained with his album "18 " full of hit singles built around samples taken from Afro American Negro spirituals who were copyright free !
i.e."in this world"where the samples can be heard as lead vocal tracks
We fear that, without a proper technological system pinpointing usage and without an extensive database assigning all the rights transparently to the rightful owners, this directive could prove to be counter productive for those it was intended to help.
Do you think the term extension will be a good thing for those it is intended for: the small musicians
Top SGAE diverts collectively collected money to private accounts!
Posted by Kelvin on Jul 08, 2011 at 12:34
We'd like to draw your attention to a recent scandal in Spain, concerning the country’s biggest collecting society SGAE. It’s President, Teddy Bautista was arrested last week and taken away in handcuffs and under armed guard. The CFO and Director General of SGAE were also taken into custody. In total, 9 people have been arrested. They are accused of embezzlement, fraud and misappropriation of funds – funds which should have been used to remunerate and support artists but instead have apparently been diverted to personal Swiss bank accounts. One of the allegations is that SGAE operatives set up companies and used revenue destined for artists to generate profit for themselves and their families, and that money bound for artists living abroad was diverted to Switzerland. The bank accounts of SGAE, which by law is supposed to act as a strictly non-profit organization, have been frozen (read more here).
This is not the first time European collecting societies have been involved in embezzlement or misappropriation of artists’ revenue. This latest episode is however of an unprecedented scale and underlines the urgent need to introduce EU-wide legislation that will force collecting societies to operate under strict transparency and accountability rules. Only then can we reduce the risk of something like this happening again. Younison’s Call for Action has been signed by almost 5,000 authors who demand stringent and harmonized transparency and accountability standards so this massive stream of "black box money" will reach the rightful artist instead of being delayed for years, or even worse, embezzled by those whose job is supposed to be supporting artists and culture, not filling their own pockets.
We artists are relying on you, the European policymaker, to ensure that the upcoming draft framework directive on collective rights management protects artists and their earnings from such fraudulent activity.
You can keep updated on the story via our Twitter page:
http://twitter.com/#!/younison, @younison
Competing with free, a few ideas after EP event
Posted by Kelvin on Jul 01, 2011 at 21:42
As Younison is currently focussing on weighing in on the EU Directive on Collective rights Management, we tend to forget that there are other domains where our position representing more than 5000 authors can be a valuable asset in driving the policy makers toward a better and fairer deal for authors.
At the EP debate on "Competing with free" organized by Telenor and hosted by MEP Mariek Schaake, Younison was invited to share it's views on how the policymakers and the industry could help to develop a better landscape for creatives to assure income is generated and authors get payed.
here is an excerpt of the positions we presented.
any feedback is of course welcome.
The main moto is:
Where money is made, artists should get payed.
So let's go make some money
All possible ways of monetizing our creations - I dread the word content as it dehumanises our individual creative work by making it a bulk commodity - is welcome provided we get a fair share of the revenues it produces.
Even though the downfall of revenue due to free usage has been felt by most artists - especially the upcoming ones living in countries with small home markets- most authors dont believe that criminalising possible future fans is the way to go.
Here are some of the ideas we as artists can support.
1. Pan EU licensing to enable niche markets to reach sustainability.
At the moment only big names and major companies will be able to go into all territories due to the massive admin by the fragmented markets.
Niche music is now not often viable due to the small scale of the local markets and can only become interesting on an EU wide level, enhancing cultural divercity.
As VP Kroes mentioned in her speech in Avignon,, EU policy should be focussed on creating an environment that is fit for the digital age, instead of building Berlin walls to protect a dysfunctional system .
2.We embrace new service models that bring in income, if it assures that the rightfully income is payed to the rightfull authors, using the available technology to discern real usage of music on and off line.
Using Fingerprinting technology, a harmonized EU split data and money stream and actually using this info to give direct feedback to the creators so they can use this to focus their dimishing budgets to maximize its impact is key to develop a new competitive landscape and the CS are best positioned to do this.
In time this could become a more valuable asset than the money it produces.
Also creative thinking could make a payable model more interesting than free riding:
Its all about the service you get
For instance, giving credits to loyal customers that can save for add ons such as premium live tickets, discounts or even meets and greets etc..
It is important to get young people, who are used to getting all for free, to want to change into a pay model once they get an income, and doing that is key to this problem.
3.if you can't buy, you'll certainly go free. Forget locking off territories
Full and synchronised availability throughout at least the EU territory.
Fans will pay for premium access, but will not wait
We are loosing millions by holding up this archaic system.
4. Reasonable pricing according to income.
Price discrimination can help get more money for faster access to new releases and give back catalogues a lower price so free riding is less interesting
Certainly towards less prosporous areas, price policy can be an incentive to go legal.
A good example of erasing free riders by giving a good service for a fine price to get a maximum of return by accessing a great number of potential customers, is the way the app store works with micropayments multiplied by large numbers
5.re-educating people into the importance of fair trade for future creation.
Nobody wants to be told what to do if they cannot understand why they shouldn't and the message is not told in their language.
If you are trying to change habits of a generation that is used to have everything for free, the message should be told in the language they understand via the channels they access.
A viral campaign using artists is defintely going to have more impact than an oppressive system that just can't work.
6.CS should be forced into service competition so the best organization gets total territory for I.e. specialist in pan EU Online rights and can leverage better deals for artists.
For example Buma is specializing in electronic artists with the proposition that they monitor big dj events to ensure that when played on these events they get the collected money instead of the top 40 artists by using a system that recognises the audio.
The problem is that the current legislation does not permit a club in Berlin to choose for this better system, undermining the possible service competition and giving Cs of big EU countries a head start in countering any competitive change.
In a time of Facebook and google becoming the powerbrokers and the rest of the players standing by holding the baby, the time is now to join forces and make the transition:
As the futurist Gerd Leonhard has been proclaiming for years
"Data is the new oil"
Our advice for a successful policy be drill, format and deliver the data to the authors, use it to instigate a service competition, let the customer choose
and may the force be with you !!
European musicians meet with Vice-President Almunia to discuss artists’ rights
Posted by Kelvin on Jun 22, 2011 at 10:26
Last week a group of artists and music professionals from Belgium, France and the United Kingdom met with Vice-President Almunia of the European Commission at the initiative of Younison to present their joint Call for Action to protect the rights of European music artists.
The delegation recommended that artists be able to ‘shop’ between collecting societies to see which one offers the best service to suit their needs and also stressed the need for new rules to enable the licensing of full music repertoires across the EU while respecting individual artists’ rights and encouraging new business models.
Younison sought a meeting with Commissioner Almunia based on a speech he gave in July 2010, when he urged collecting societies to improve the way they operate. He said, “Collecting societies serve a vital role but the way they manage licensing agreements needs to change. The fragmented national monopoly model and the de facto allocation of customers can no longer stand in their current form. Unregulated monopolies are not a great solution,"
Kelvin Smits said “Younison welcomes the no-nonsense and zero-tolerance approach expressed by Commissioner Almunia regarding the cartel-like business practices conducted by many national collecting societies which hamper the market. Younison and Commissioner Almunia have joint aims - to oversee the development of the current anachronistic system into an efficient and transparent environment. We look forward to further collaboration to ensure the cultural diversity of Europe, enabling both young and established artists to continue creating their art.
European musicians meet with VP Commissioner Kroes to discuss artists’ rights
Posted by Kelvin on Mar 29, 2011 at 18:07
A group of European artists yesterday met with Vice-President Commissioner Kroes at the initiative of Younison to present their joint Call for Action to protect European music artists. The delegation recommended to the Commissioner that the six points contained in the Call for Action be included in the proposed Framework Directive on Collective Rights Management, to ensure that artists are promptly and accurately rewarded for the exploitation of their work within the EU.
The meeting followed a lunch debate in the European Parliament, during which artists shared with the MEPs their experiences as to how their rights have been managed in the past and suggestions as to how they should be managed in the future.
The delegation included Kelvin Smits (Cinérex, Director Younison), Mark Kelly (Marillion, CEO FAC), Crispin Hunt (Longpigs, Board Director FAC), Jeremy Silver (Senior Adviser, FAC) and Yuri Dokter (Director, DJ Monitor).
Commissioner Kroes later said via Twitter that the group “asked for increased transparency & fairer distribution of royalties. I agree. They have big ideas for the future”.
Kelvin Smits, Younison Director said “This new EU law will be pivotal in determining how artists receive their royalties and are informed by their national collecting societies. Younison has already met with Commissioner Kroes’ team in the past and this second meeting assured us that she supports the rights of artists”.
Mark Kelly, CEO of FAC added “We’re very excited to be collaborating with Younison and our meeting with Commissioner Kroes was extremely positive. It’s great to see the European Commission take a lead in progressive thinking”.
European artists unite to stand up for their rights!
Posted by Kelvin on Mar 11, 2011 at 09:57
Alliance of Younison, Featured Artists Coalition, Technopol and DJ Monitor call for European legislation to protect artists
Younison (Belgium) has been joined by Featured Artists Coalition (UK), Technopol (France) and DJ Monitor (the Netherlands) to form an alliance to demand European legislation which enforces precise, regular and transparent redistribution of all revenues from the digital exploitation of copyrighted works collected by European collecting societies. This alliance now represents almost 5,000 artists and is increasingly becoming the leading source of expertise in the music community for European and national politicians.
Among the artists and music managers now represented by the alliance are Ed O’Brien (Radiohead), Annie Lennox, Armin Van Buuren (voted world’s N°1 DJ), Dave Stewart, Kate Nash, Tom Barman (dEUS), Nick Mason (Pink Floyd), KT Tunstall, Afrojack (Grammy winner 2010), Robbie Williams, Michel De Hey, Steve Rachmad, Laidback Luke, Joost Van Bellen, Billy Bragg, Stijn Meuris, Sandie Shaw and almost 5,000 others.
“The EU is preparing new legislation which will determine how artists receive royalties and are informed by their national collecting societies This new law will be mission critical in supporting artists and creativity in the future in Europe. Together with the other artists we will use our influence to make sure that our voices are heard and that our demands are included in the new Directive” said Kelvin Smits, Younison Director.
FAC Co-Chairman and Pink Floyd drummer Nick Mason added “In its campaign for the protection of artists' rights, FAC acknowledges the importance of EU legislation in ensuring a vibrant pan-European creative zone. We are teaming up with Younison to form a European network to ensure the voice of the artist is heard at the highest echelons of EU power. Together we are going to fight for artists’ rights.”
Time for GEMA and other collecting societies to retire token ‘rentier artists’ and make room for younger talents of the 21st century
Posted by Kelvin on Feb 04, 2011 at 11:35
New EU Law on transparency and accountability in the collection and distribution of money by European collecting societies will benefit everybody but the cronies of yesteryear.
GEMA and its Deputy-Chairman Frank Dostal, a German songwriter who had one international hit back in 1970, recently blasted the European Commission and Commissioner Barnier for suggesting new transparency and accountability requirements on collective rights management societies. Mr. Dostal claims Commissioner Barnier is ‘preaching the death of rock and roll’. His criticism is echoed by lawyers working for collecting societies in Denmark wary of the EU Commission’s efforts to promote transparency and accountability on large bureaucratic collecting societies such as GEMA.
“GEMA and their ‘rentier artists’ like Mr. Dostal who have important financial interests at stake in preserving the old collective rights management system, do not represent the vast majority of upcoming artists who demand new EU legislation to increase the transparency and accountability of collecting societies beyond the benefit of the top-earning and already established rentier artists like Mr. Dostal.
Collecting societies’ cronies need to make room for the young creators who are, more than ever, in need of the support of their collecting societies. Younison and the 21st Century emerging artists we represent hold very differing views to Mr. Dostal and his associates” warns Younison director, Kelvin Smits.
Younison maintains that it is in the interest of everyone in the music business, big or small, to have a transparent and accountable system governing the commercialization of individual artist’s works, including the creation of a global repertoire database which will help end the corruption and fragmentation hampering the European online music market. It is in the interest of EU cultural diversity to embrace technology and transparency so that artists are promptly and fairly remunerated for the use of their music.
French commitments to online music distribution fall short of protecting artists
Posted by Kelvin on Jan 28, 2011 at 09:07
French commitments to online music distribution fall short of protecting artists;
reveals the widening gap between collecting societies and individual artists
Thirteen voluntary commitments1 for online music distribution endorsed days before the MIDEM music
annual event in Cannes by French Culture Minister Frédéric Mitterrand fall short in protecting artists, and
validate the need for harmonized European legislation to ensure precise, regular, and transparent
redistribution of revenues to the benefit of artists across Europe.
The commitments, signed under the auspices of the Minister of Culture, demonstrate that in 2011 there is no
transparency in how musical works are exploited online and that French artists do not yet receive timely
and accurate information regarding the commercialisation of works via the internet (Commitment # 9).
The commitments also concede that payments for online music often take more than a year to reach
individual artists (Commitment # 10), whereas most, if not all, online music distribution contracts between
collecting societies, music producers and internet platforms require monthly payments.
Ironically, the French Minister of Culture and the signatories of the voluntary commitments fail to
acknowledge that music distribution on the Internet is a European (and global) phenomenon, which might
begin but not stop at the borders of the French territory.
The cosmetic nature of the 13 voluntary commitments demonstrate that without harmonised European
legislation imposing timely payments and precise information disclosure requirements, creators and artists
across Europe will continue to be left behind.
Document of 13 French Commitments
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/mcc/Actualites/A-la-une/13-engagements-pour-la-musique-en-ligne
Are collecting societies the new Banks: Exorbitant wages and benefits for CEO’s?
Posted by Kelvin on Jan 28, 2011 at 09:07
Recent stories in the EU press:
- The CEO of SACEM (France) earns more than €600.000 (double of President Sarkozy) with benefits such as a private car with driver (because he earned that much in his previous position at the UN)
- The CEO of SGAE (Spain) has a salary of €323.773 (four times more than Prime Minister Zapatero) and lives in a luxury villa of 4000 m2 (anyone for indoor golf?). When he retires in June 2011, he will receive a pension of €25.000 per month approx.
- The CEO of Dutch collecting society got a golden handshake of €500.000 despite being involved in the loss of €50 million of Dutch authors’ money.
Europe has more than 250.000 professional music authors, represented by their collecting societies who collect about €7.500.000.000 annually in their name... If we look at their annual reports, we see however that the redistribution is somewhat unbalanced and opaque.
On average, 98% of authors receive less than €1000, while only a handful earns [b]more than €300.000.
In practice, we believe the average income received from collecting societies to be between €150 and €250 per year and that the handful of top earners are mainly American major publishers, being paid hundreds of millions of euros per year of OUR money by OUR collecting societies!
Also...
Most collecting societies have an “old regime” way of interpreting democracy: Access to voting and management of the society is based on your collecting society income, which means that the more you earn, the more voting power you have.
Beneath a certain amount, you don’t get to vote. And guess what, the amount that entitles you to a vote far exceeds the average income of €1000…
With the EU law on collective rights management being drafted and expected in 2011, next year presents a unique opportunity for us EU “middle class” artists to join forces and show the European Commission that we are demanding a fair and transparent way of distributing our money, best achieved by using technology already available that can monitor actual usage and which is not being applied by our collecting societies.
It’s by raising pressure and awareness that we can influence how we are paid, and will force collecting societies to modernise and give us a better system and service.
So what does all this teach us?
1. The average European artists is being used as a shield to maintain the illusion that collecting societies represent them and do an indispensible job by “creating income” when actually they are mainly serving the big publishers and labels, not individual artists.
2. Individual artists are not being given a say let alone a vote on how their rights are managed. The boards of collecting societies are packed with representatives of major companies and “old star “puppets on a string.
3. Unless we unite and speak with one voice to EU politicians, collecting societies will continue to get away with the mismanagement of our revenue, while slowly draining the creative European force by handing our money over to the big US companies
....and
4. If you’d like to buy your girlfriend a nice Christmas present, you should probably hang up the guitar and apply for a job at SACEM!
;-)
Merry Christmas everyone and a prosperous 2011.
Links for documents on statements above:
http://www.lepoint.fr/chroniqueurs-du-point/emmanuel-berretta/les-hauts-salaires-de-la-sacem-choquent-les-deputes-25-11-2010-1267044_52.php
http://www.libertaddigital.com/internet/teddy-bautista-posee-una-mansion-de-4000-metros-cuadrados-1276405220/
No More cultural " Berlin Walls"
Posted by Kelvin on Nov 08, 2010 at 09:07
The following text is an excerpt of the inspiring speech that Vice President Neelie Kroes made in Avignon on the 5th of November .
"If there is one thing that defines and elevates Europe, it is culture. Or rather, a rainbow of cultures.
Culture is the peak of human creativity and a source of collective strength. In my mind it is essential that our cultural diversity must be defended tooth and claw (bec et ongles). If I am not mistaken that is indeed the translation of Avignon's Latin motto, Unguibus et rostro.
Culture is the fabric of life, and therefore it cannot be separated from the society where it is born and, most importantly, its people. There is no culture without people, and people change. It has always been that way.
Culture is like the philosopher said of the river: "you are immersed into it, but you never bathe twice in the same water".
Taking a long-term perspective we can see three major technological revolutions since the development of the written word that have affected the dissemination of culture. First, the printing press. Second, the industrial revolution. And now third, the information and communications technologies revolution.
Though the scale and pace of change may differ, each revolution follows a well-worn path.
Borders are now crossed more easily than ever before in history. It is a great opportunity for artists and creators of all kinds, as art has no limits but those of our minds. Art enriches itself by eliminating artificial barriers between people such as borders between countries.
Just as artists have always travelled, to join sponsors, avoid wars or learn from masters far from home, now digital technology helps them to cross borders and break down barriers. Their work can be available to all. In a sense, the internet is the realisation of the Renaissance dream of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola: all knowledge in one place.
Yet, it does not mean there are no more obstacles to sharing cultural and artistic works on the net. All revolutions reveal, in a new and less favourable light, the privileges of the gatekeepers of the "Ancien Régime". It is no different in the case of the internet revolution, which is unveiling the unsustainable position of certain content gatekeepers and intermediaries. No historically entrenched position guarantees the survival of any cultural intermediary. Like it or not, content gatekeepers risk being sidelined if they do not adapt to the needs of both creators and consumers of cultural goods.
So who will win the heart of the creators and of the public?
It is still too soon to say. Of course, some of the new giants of internet come from another continent. I would wish that more of them were European, but when I see the wealth of creativity gathered in this room, I am optimistic for the future.
I believe that those who will prosper in the digital age are those who understand that convergence is one of the keys. The convergence of media provides an incredible opportunity for the artists and creators of our times, and also for their public – you and me.
Just like cinema did not kill theatre, nor did television kill radio. The internet won't kill any other media either.
Quite on the contrary. Look at the statistics: people who spend more time on the internet tend to read more, and to go to cinema and to concerts more often than the population as a whole. Studies show that nowadays, people increasingly watch TV and browse the Internet at the same time – simply to get more information about something that intrigued them. And they can share their thoughts instantaneously with their friends. This is just the beginning. Because convergence means creative freedom and more inspirational content ready to meet the expectations of a public that evolves with art and content.
My goal, in promoting cultural diversity and content adapted to the digital age, is for European creativity to be even stronger. Europe has boundless cultural wealth to offer its citizens, and indeed to the world. Europe is and must remain a global cultural force.
I think that is a realistic vision. But for that, we need to have the right building blocks.
Take for instance copyright. For 200 years, it has proved a powerful way to remunerate our artists and to build our creative industries. But copyright is not an end in itself. Copyright exists to ensure that artists will continue to create. Yet we see more and more often that it is not respected. In some sectors, the levels of piracy demand that we ask ourselves what are we doing wrong. We must ensure that copyright serves as a building block, not a stumbling block.
Look at the situation of those trying to digitise cultural works. Europeana, the online portal of libraries, museums and archives in Europe, is one key example. What a digital wonder this is: a single access point for cultural treasures that would otherwise be difficult to access, hidden or even forgotten.
Will this 12 million-strong collection of books, pictures, maps, music pieces and videos stall because copyright gets in the way? I hope not. But when it comes to 20th century materials, even to digitise and publish orphan works and out-of-distribution works, we have a large problem indeed. Europeana could be condemned to be a niche player rather than a world leader if it cannot be granted licenses and share the full catalogue of written and audio-visual material held in our cultural institutions. And it will be frustrated in that ambition if it cannot team up with commercial partners on terms that are consistent with public policy and with the interests of right-holders. And all sorts of other possible initiatives, public and private, will also be frustrated.
On the suggestion of Frédéric Mitterrand, the European Commission set up a Comité des Sages to help us find solutions to some of these issues. I am very pleased that Maurice Levy chairs this Comité, which will report in the New Year.
But I am not content to let the debate rest. Time alone will not solve the problems that have emerged.
Today our fragmented copyright system is ill-adapted to the real essence of art, which has no frontiers. Instead, that system has ended up giving a more prominent role to intermediaries than to artists. It irritates the public who often cannot access what artists want to offer and leaves a vacuum which is served by illegal content, depriving the artists of their well deserved remuneration. And copyright enforcement is often entangled in sensitive questions about privacy, data protection or even net neutrality.
It may suit some vested interests to avoid a debate, or to frame the debate on copyright in moralistic terms that merely demonise millions of citizens. But that is not a sustainable approach. We need this debate because we need action to promote a legal digital Single Marketin Europe.
My position is that we must look beyond national and corporatist self-interest to establish a new approach to copyright. We want "une Europe des cultures" and for this we need a debate at European level.
The Commission will soon make legislative proposals on orphan works and on the transparency and governance of the collective management societies. We will examine again the problem of divergent national private copy levies. We will also look into multi-territorial and pan-European licensing. And we will not stop exploring ideas for as long as the system is not working.
Instead of a dysfunctional system based on a series of cultural Berlin walls, I want a return to sense. A system where there is scope to create new opportunities for artists and creators, and new business models that better fit the digital age. We want to help you seize the opportunities of this age.
In conclusion, let the debate continue. It will be fierce, there are indeed hurdles. But our job is to look past them in order to clear them.
Speaking for myself, I will remember artists and citizens with each step forward. My sight will remain firmly on 'une Europe des cultures'.
Artists cast light on our world; our job is to let the light shine in."
Artists, the European Commission needs to hear your voice!
Posted by Kelvin on Oct 08, 2010 at 10:24
In our ongoing quest to help lay the foundations for a modern and fair way to redistribute royalties collected in your name, Younison is currently talking with many policymakers at the highest level in the EU commission.
We hear from all sides that there is a lack of knowledge from the artists, which leaves only collecting societies having a voice when it comes to decision making.
The result is this - while the EU Commission wants to write a law that gives authors a better set of rights and should make a real modern pan-EU copyright management system possible - it's the collecting societies that are blocking any progress, fearing that any change will affect their own interests and profits!
The EU is planning on releasing a first draft of the law by the end of this year, and is asking all artists to voice their personal concerns and opinions before finalising its work. A few moments of your time could mean a world of difference.
Please share this link with all your artist friends, because every voice counts!
1. Have you been informed that the EU is planning on reworking collective rights management?
2. Concerning the information that you receive from your collecting society on the way your payment is calculated in relation to the origins, would you say it is:
3. In relation to the possible territory of licencing your work, what would you prefer as an artist:
4. How should the EU handle the problem of free filesharing over the internet:
Younison talks to 4 EU Commissioners on behalf of authors.
Posted by Kelvin on Aug 12, 2010 at 10:53
As a result of our work this year, with growing numbers of artists signing up to the Younison charter demanding transparency and accountability vis-a-vis their collecting society, we have been invited to talk with the cabinet of 4 EU commissioners, who are currently preparing the draft law on copyright as well as reformatting the way collecting societies will be operating over the EU territory.
The main problem for the Commission is that - as it is now - there is no European market when it comes to copyright and the licensing of music because the collecting societies still divide the territory into national areas.
This prerogative makes that instead of 1 there are 16 iTunes stores in Europe and that catalogues of artist A can not purchased in store B.
It also upholds the opaque and slow way of working the collecting societies have become accustomed to.
That this is not a healthy environment to foster a vibrant pan European creative zone has led to the decision to reform it on EU level.
However, for this reform to be a succes , it needs to address the many issues that live among artists.
As a result of our survey conducted last year, we have distilled a set of 6 suggestions we want the Commission to include on behalf of the authors .
For the European directive to be a step forward for artists it needs to adress to the following issues:
1. Timely information disclosure.
2. Timely payments for all digital revenues.
3. Harmonized Transparency and Accountability requirements for all forms of digital exploitation.
4. Multi-territorial Licensing is about transparency and service competition.
5. Artists shall be free to choose their collecting society depending on which rights (and best service) they wish a given collecting society to represent them.
6. The Global Repertoire Database initiative .
The way we suggest this should be done is included in the document open to view here and this will be the stand we take towards the European policymakers when we discuss these issues in the coming weeks.
Feel free to check out the document and to give us feedback or other suggestions that could help you as an artist in becoming a more independant and creative author.
EU's Almunia urges move to pan-European licensing
Posted by Kelvin on Jul 13, 2010 at 12:38
On our mission for a modern and transparent system to collect and redistribute moneys for authors, Younison could find a very important ally in the EU commissioner Almunia who is responsible for competition throughout Europe
The European antitrust chief urged collecting societies to change the way they operate and pave the way for a more efficient pan European Licencing system.
At the moment the system with more than 150 organizations that collect rights , cuts territories into small chunks which deprives companies of economics of scale and leaves artists waiting unnessecary for income stuck between a rock and a hard place, without any information that give them insight to when and what is coming.
Almunia literraly said:
"The market for online content in Europe is a shameful anachronism, and the distribution of content online across the entire European Union is expensive and difficult.
"Collecting societies serve a vital role but the way they manage licensing agreements needs to change. The fragmented national monopoly model and the de facto allocation of customers can no longer stand in their current form. Unregulated monopolies are not a great solution," he said.
Fragmentation of the EU market means Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL - news) 's online music store, iTunes, is available in only just over half of the bloc's 27 nations, with pricing varying from country to country.
Younison agrees on the above, but wants to underline that the artists need to be heard and represented in the coming discussions on these issues.
We will be contacting the Cabinet of Commissioner Almunia in the following days to ensure that this happens .
More money for SABAM, more income for artists?
Posted by Kelvin on May 20, 2010 at 18:07
Comments on the article "Kunstenaars eerlijk vergoeden voor hun gedownload werk" published in De Morgen on May 10
In its quest to compensate for damage suffered as a result of illegal downloads, SABAM now has decided to launch an appeal to the Belgian government to immediately put in place a new legal framework where Internet Service Providers would also have to contribute towards compensating authors for the lost revenue.
As the advocacy group for music professionals, Younison’s first major focus point will be the obscure, uncontrollable and slow way SABAM and its sister organizations throughout Europe re-distributes revenues collected. In this context we would therefore like to raise two key questions about this – at first glance commendable – initiative:
To whom and when will the money collected be paid out?
Based on what data will the re-distribution be made?
Rights management organizations such as SABAM collect two different types of revenue: Individually generated revenues and collectively generated revenues.
Individually generated revenues are collected in the name of the author, therefore an immediate and verifiable link can be established between collected amount and author (e.g. his work) – for instance as in the mechanical collection of revenues from sales of CDs or tickets, which is collected by SABAM and reserved for the authors. The total number of sales minus the deduction for SABAM can then be paid out a couple of years later, and can – If desired – be more or less controlled.
In the case of collectively generated revenues on the other hand, the rights management organization collects revenue on behalf of an entire group of artists in a specific country, which is subsequently re-distributed to the authors. The proposed collection of revenues from, for instance, online downloads is a clear example of collectively generated revenues where no clear link between author and the collected amount can be identified. All bars and restaurants, nightclubs and workplaces as well as the revenues collected from consumers paying on their digital devices are managed collectively.
This is also where the shoe pinches …
Ever since the collapse of the mainstream music industry; collectively generated revenues have become an increasingly important revenue stream for the rights management organizations and currently constitute nearly half of all the monies collected by SABAM.
The problem is not that more revenue is being collected, instead it is that the rights management organizations don’t make a priority of creating an effective system based on the total content usage – be it in a café, a disco or as in these newly proposed collectively generated revenues – accompanied by as correct and speedy payments as possible.
With the technology available today it is perfectly possible to acquire the needed data to be able to fill the blanks.
Most cafés, bars, restaurants and clubs use computerized systems that automatically generate or register playlists. Processing this data on an everyday basis would be a negligible task, and also for that part to provide accurate calculations. However, as revealed by recent inquiries, this never happens.
The same goes for the Internet. Based on how the Internet works it is possible – without violating the privacy of the users – to collect data about the actual consumption of music and as a logical consequence allowing a more correct way of re-distributing the collected revenues.
However, none of this is reflected in what is currently being proposed …
Nevertheless, transparency remains a key requirement for maintaining the legitimacy, but also to allow for the continued evolution, of the collective rights management system.
Recently an independent investigation undertaken by a large newspaper group revealed that, in Belgium alone, authors are waiting for nearly 500 million Euros, held in different bank accounts, to be re-distributed. On the question how something like this could happen, the simple answer provided is that the lack of data has resulted in flawed accounts. And, in this case Belgium is not even the exception …
This issue is not just about large amounts of money, but more importantly about the survival of young and future musicians. Following the crisis in the music sector these musicians have found an environment where it is almost impossible to release a CD. But this is not enough; as an immediate result they also find themselves struggling with securing paid gigs. Meanwhile they are forced to witness collectively generated revenues go by their noses since available data indicating the frequency of play in clubs and on the Internet is not used.
So, is this the end of the line for a generation of musicians then?
Rather than moving towards a system of “blind†collectively generated revenues Younison instead believe this an opportunity to start generating a comprehensive model incorporating wide a range of views to limit these effects in the future. Along with a new legal framework around collectively generated revenues, a harmonized, transparent and proper European system, where the amounts are not dealt with in a collective way, but instead re-distributed in a verifiable and transparent way ensuring that the young guard of musicians are not deprived of their share of the cake, should be introduced.
What Younison and its 1100 members demand is a rock solid guarantee that for every cash flow also a stream of individualized data should be generated, resulting in the funds actually being received by the author whose music is consumed.
In the coming months Younison will therefore work to ensure that at a new agreement is carved out at European level, ensuring revenues collected by rights management companies benefit the appropriate authors.
Younison to attend public EU hearing on behalf of artists
Posted by Kelvin on Apr 22, 2010 at 21:01
On friday 23th of April the Eu commission will entertain a public hearing concerning the collective rights management and how to improve the way it is currently organized. The panel - populated only by European collecting societies, thus excluding the direct voice of the artists - will be consulted on the way the business should be run in the future . Clearly there is again a conflict of interest when the collecting societies are the only ones being consulted on the way the collective collection should best be organized ...
Younison will be there asking the right questions and urging for a more transparent and accountable way of redistributing the moneys collected in your name .
We have also written a letter enclosed here to the EU commissioner Barnier who is currently responsible for this hearing and will be overseeing the future legislative work to enhance the Eu market for creative work.
.
We will keep you posted on the outcome of this hearing
More than 400 million Euro in rights not being paid!
Posted by Kelvin on Mar 19, 2010 at 14:25
Today one of the leading Belgian papers - De Standaard - uncovered that more than 480 million Euro in outstanding royalties was not being payed by the collecting societies such as Sabam .
Reason for this delay were not very convincing, as it was stated that the collecting societies have a term of three years to find the rightful owners and that it often takes longer ..
Allegedly it was said that the financial profits of leaving such and amount on the bank for years (25 million €/ year) was one of the reasons that this is happening and this during the biggest crisis ever in the industry.
This again shows that the collective retribution system currently used by all European collecting societies is not doing what it should be - collecting and redistributing money on a transparent and accountable way using technology to measure real usage of content.
This is the core issue that Younison wishes to help change in the years to come!
Artists: Label your songs, or you won't get paid
Posted by Kelvin on Mar 01, 2010 at 17:53
Getting paid for digital downloads from iTunes, Amazon, or other stores is pretty straightforward. The artist or label submits songs for download, perhaps through a distributor like TuneCore or The Orchard. Each time a user buys a download, the store takes its cut, the middlemen take their cut, and the artist gets the remainder
But there's another potential source of revenue that a lot of artists are missing out on: streaming Internet music. This includes thousands of standalone Internet radio stations, personalized radio services like Pandora and Slacker, and broad-based distributors like MediaNet. In the United States, a nonprofit organization called SoundExchange is responsible for collecting the money from these streaming services and distributing it to artists based on the number of times their songs are played. SoundExchange also collects money from satellite radio (Sirius/XM) and cable TV companies (which offer their own dedicated radio stations), and Congress is considering allowing it to collect from traditional over-the-air radio stations as well. (Traditional radio has been historically exempt from paying royalties because copyright owners viewed it as valuable publicity. Now, with other forms of revenue like CD sales declining, they're no longer sure this is a good deal.)
But if SoundExchange can't figure out who owns the copyrights on a particular stream, it can't pay. Writing in Billboard this week, SoundExchange Executive Director John Simson explains that the organization had about $40 million in royalties in 2008 that it couldn't distribute because artists and copyright owners didn't attach enough information to the song. At the very least, Simson pleads, every song should include metadata identifying the group, song name, album name, and label or copyright owner. The group was also holding about $39 million in escrow for artists and copyright owners who simply hadn't registered with SoundExchange yet.
For artists, the lesson is simple: don't be lazy about labeling your work, and be sure to register with SoundExchange. This will become especially important as streaming music services become dominant over the next decade, replacing individual downloads.
Considering the huge amounts that are currently being collected and the knowledge that European collecting societies are not going after these revenues , it would be interesting to start out with a European organization like Soundexchange.
Cost collecting society > payments to artists ?
Posted by Kelvin on Feb 19, 2010 at 14:23
One of the key problems we have with any sort of collection agency/performance rights organization/collective licensing scheme is that they introduce an unnecessary bureaucracy into the equation and, as a result, money gets redirected from the actual creators to the bureaucracy itself. It's a giant economic inefficiency that harms content creators. Case in point: Michael Geist points us to the news that the Australian copyright collection group, The Copyright Agency Limited, spent more on its own staff than it gave out directly to content creators. In 2009, it paid its staff $9.4 million, and it disbursed... $9.1 million directly to content creators.
Now, to be fair, the article buries the fact that CAL also gave $76 million to publishers "on the assumption that a proportion of this money will be returned to authors," but it also notes that it has no checks to see if that money is ever distributed. In other words, CAL doesn't actually do anything concerning that $76 million other than pass it on to other bureaucracies (not content creators) -- who might just be keeping it, rather than disbursing it. As the report notes, CAL collected $114 million last year, and can only say, for certain, that $9.1 million got distributed to actual content creators. Now that's efficient! Certainly, some of that $76 million may have reached content creators, but no one knows for sure.
So, again, we're left wondering why such a setup makes sense at all? All that's happening is that money that could go directly from fans/consumers to content creators gets filtered through inefficient bureaucracies that take huge cuts. That harms content creators.
Does the Internet help aspiring rock stars
Posted by Kelvin on Jan 25, 2010 at 12:08
There's an interesting spat going on between Tom Silverman, who founded hip-hop/dance label Tommy Boy Records and runs the New Music Seminar for new artists to learn about the music industry, and Jeff Price, the CEO of TuneCore, a service that helps musicians place their songs on iTunes and other digital-distribution outlets.
(Credit: TuneCore) In a three-part interview with Musician Coaching, Silverman dismissed the idea that the Internet is helping new musicians break. For purposes of this argument, his definition of "breaking" is selling more than 10,000 copies of an album in the year of its release, for the first time in an artist's career.
Citing Nielsen SoundScan statistics, he showed that only 225 albums released in 2009 met this criterion. Of those, only 12--a dozen--came from independent, unsigned artists. That's out of more than 100,000 albums released during the year--pretty bleak.
Price responded by pointing out that album sales aren't the only--or even best--measure of success. If you look at digital-single sales, several artists have sold more than 100,000 tracks apiece through TuneCore without being signed to any label. Those tracks may not have been counted by SoundScan because the corresponding albums have to be preregistered in SoundScan's database; many independent artists don't preregister their albums with SoundScan.
Both of them have a horse in the game: Silverman wants beginning artists to attend the seminar so they can learn the secrets to success, and Price wants them to believe that they can do it themselves, with TuneCore and other Internet tools.
There are elements of truth in both positions, and Silverman's points about radio (it doesn't help like it used to, but it's still important for mass sales) and music labels (they're taking fewer risks, and those risks are paying off less often) are absolutely correct. But as an approach for new bands, I tend to buy Price's do-it-yourself argument for one simple reason: Silverman basically admits that albums are dying. Digital single-song downloads are growing as album sales shrink. So why did he use album sales as his metric of success?
More generally, the argument illustrates how dramatically the definition of "success" has changed. Silverman remembers when new artists could become rock stars. It's always been a long shot, but if you had good material and the right promotional teams backing you, there was a legitimate chance at fame and fortune. Those huge sellers are disappearing.
But Internet tools have made it possible for artists who are completely outside of the traditional label system to make money from music. Fifteen years ago, if you didn't have a label and a management team, you were lucky to get a couple hundred bucks for a gig, where you could sell a few demo tapes or self-produced CDs (which cost hundreds or thousands of dollars to produce). Promotion involved stapling fliers to light poles and sending postcards through the mail--expensive, time-consuming, and not very effective.
Today, you can create, distribute, and promote your music to many more people for much less money--plus set up tours, sell merchandise, and find partners--all without leaving your computer. For somebody who started slogging around in bands in the 1990s, this is nothing short of amazing.
Of course, you still need to write good music and play a lot of shows--that never changes. But you can make a living playing music without playing the old radio label game or searching for the magic bullet that will make you into an overnight sensation. I think that there's never been a better time to be a musician--or a music fan, for that matter.
Younison approaches Senators with demands for change
Posted by Kelvin on Nov 27, 2009 at 15:13
Younison has actively been approaching several Belgian Senators with the proposal for three changes on the current law on the control of the Collecting societes.
The proposed changes to the law are:
1. The current law foresees a period of 24 months in which the collecting societies can pay back collected revenue . We urge that a difference is made between the distribution of digital income and other income concerning the time in which these moneys are redistributed to the artists, for digital revenue should be distributed much faster than other income.
2.There is an important need of direct information from the online sales towards the collecting societies that should be shared with the authors as a control mechanism towards the record companies.This is not included in the current law
3. All collected digital revenue should embrace the same transparency standards.With the current law, Auvibel and Reprobel, collecting in your name are not obliged to do so and will not .
Send us your opinions and so we can incorporate them into our ongoing initiative to build a more transparent and rewarding musical landscape.
YouTube, Sabam and the new digital revenues...
Posted by younisons2 on Aug 17, 2009 at 12:56
The new balance of power in the arena of author rights is becoming clear watching the battle unfold between Sabam and Youtube .
Sabam had issues concerning the payment of the low quality stream for certain authors they represent, so Youtube took these streams down...
End of story?
Of course not.
Most if not all authors see YouTube as one of the most useful tools to propagate their music and and clips. The service is free and at low quality, so they embrace this new form of telly .
They dread the moment when they get banned by Youtube. YouTube knows this and plays hardball.
The fact that Sabam chooses to first fight YouTube is not a good thing for several reasons.
First it is perceived that as most artists will are not against this service, who is the author rights company fighting for then? It galvanises the negative image Sabam has as being fighting for it's money, not for the artists.
But even more so it could become a precedent for new forms of digital streams that could be turned into a partnership for future transparent income for artists.
It would be much better to negotiate with the likes of Spotify and Deezer, high quality streaming sites that offer the total iTunes catalogue for free if you take the adds along with it. These sites are immensely popular in the UK (with more than 6 million users in the last 8 Months).
It is apparent that new digital companies will not be paying for the authorrights if the companies that are collecting them do not quickly adopt a totaly transparent and digital retribution system.
We need to make clear that this is not only urgent, it is our lifeline as artists to see to it that we do not get outplayed of the new digital marketplace by the way the companies that are collecting our fees are misplacing their bets in our name.
do you think Youtube is a good service that should be able to keep on as it is without paying rights
Younison welcomes an open debate with new Sabam management
Posted by Kelvin on Jul 25, 2009 at 06:28
24 July 2009 – Brussels– The Belgian justice department has accused the collecting society SABAM of failing to properly distribute revenues collected on behalf of Belgian artists, launching criminal investigations against a number of ex-senior executives of the organisation.
Younison hopes that this case will pave the way for further transparency and accountability in the collection and distribution of digital music revenues to artists.
Younison would like to emphasize that the new management of SABAM - who is not affected by the ongoing investigation - has offered to meet with them in August to discuss ways to improve transparency and accountability of the current system. “This is a positive step forward in what we trust will be a constructive debate in the interest of authors and of the music industryâ€, said Kelvin Smits, director of Younison. “This development is an indication of the goodwill of SABAM’s new management and of the need to establish new and stringent transparency standards in the way collecting societies operate on behalf of their authorsâ€.
Younison calls on Belgian policymakers to modify the proposed new Belgian law on the control of collecting societies to ensure that artists are fully protected for the monetisation of their digital rights. “We have been eagerly awaiting an improvement of the current outdated rules which has now been delayed for six yearsâ€, added Kelvin Smits.
While Younison welcomes the developments in Belgium, it also calls for pan-European harmonisation of the collection and distribution of digital music rights. “This is a cross border issue requiring a European wide solutionâ€, said Kelvin Smits. “As digital content distribution knows no borders, this situation should be a call-to-action for European policymakers and politiciansâ€. Accountability and transparency standards are needed across the EU to ensure all national collecting societies provide timely reports and payments for the digital exploitation of artists' work. European policymakers and legislators will need to take action in the interest of European artists. A modernisation of EU copyright rules to ensure transparency of the collecting societies’ activities is long overdue.
Sabam charged on all points Younison claim
Posted by Kelvin on Jul 22, 2009 at 11:16
Yesterday the Brussels justice department issued a statement declaring that the Belgian collecting society Sabam has been found to have deliberately diverted money from authors, giving money to the wrong authors by using an outdated and opaque redistribution system . Some of the former people in charge even face criminal prosecution on the basis of corruption.
The issues that Younison has been pushing for are even more valid now than ever:
- Transparency
- Accountability
- Monetizing new streams of income
We believe that the new people in charge of Sabam are willing to make the change necessary to get a new and transparent system rolling, but only if you speak up and demand it.
Younison is your way to make this demand clear as a group.
ืื
Join up and spread the word
Together we can change things for the better.
TBC
Younison Event sparks off public discussion.
Posted by Kelvin on Jul 04, 2009 at 14:59
Our event on the 30th of June seems to have egnited some discussions that are very needed in this matter.
The fact that we made the issue of the collective rightsmanagement something to talk about beween artists is encouraging and needs to be the prelude to a much broader debate with all keyplayers in the field.
However , the way we are being portrayed by Galm, in this matter is disturbing to say the least.
We have been attacked by people that are not well informed about our mission,or that are out to discredit us.
Is this reaction fuelled by frustration? It is certainly not contributing to an open and constructive atmosphere.
Rather than picking a fight with these people, we want to move on and look to the future.
Everyone that has signed our charter should know that we are not trying to abolish anything. One of our main missions is to make sure that the money collected in your name finds its way to your account. To do so we think it is necessary to rethink the way collective management of rights is organized, and we encourage the use of technology to do so.
The fact that private copy levies are collected is not the issue here.
We encourage the fact that money is collected in the name of the author, the more money collected for artists, should be all the better for the artists.
That this is not always the case was displayed at the event
Key issues for us are:
Transparency of data involved with collection
Accountability of all moneystreams
New digital streams of income need to be collected and taken in account
We desperately want to ensure that the future of copyright is built on solid legitimate basis, but if the money is redistributed wrongly in more than 50% of the cases, and if the new forms of digital income are not admitted to the equasion to make the redistribution as transparent and fair as possible, we dread that there will be a day when the lack of legitimacy of collective rights management will topple the balans and we might end up loosing much more than we care for.
A similar thing happened to the record industry 10 years ago, when the big record companies dismissed the idea of technology and called the internet downloads “a passing fad for tech freaksâ€
We all know how that turned out...
Thanks for support
Posted by Kelvin on Jul 02, 2009 at 13:06
We are currently working on the blog with pictures, film and comments.
Uploaded later today
We'll keep you posted.
Thanks
Younison Event - Artists Stand Up For Your Rights
Posted by Mac-Cain13 on Jun 11, 2009 at 16:41
30 June, Theater BAFF in the De Vrièrestraat 36, Antwerp 2018
The days when people would solely go into a record store to buy their music seem long gone. New innovative delivery models from subscription services to pay-per downloads have changed the way the industry does business. Whereas the digital age has opened a world of opportunity for us, Younison advocates to ensure that music creators receive a fair return of the digital revenue their work generates.
In an effort to inform artists and managers of how to best control their work within the digital environment, Younison is organising an event on the 30th of June in Antwerp.
All artists are invited to join the cause and sign the Charter to urge for transparency and accountability in the collection and distribution of digital revenues.
Programme:
19.00 Welcome drinks
19.30 Introductory speech, Tom Barman, dEUS
19.40 Presentation of Younison action plan, Kelvin Smits, author and founder of Younison
20.00 Presentation of legal proceedings, Attorney Van Melkebeke
20.15 Sign up to legal proceedings
20.30 Networking cocktail at theatercafe “The Livingâ€
If you want to join the event, sign up over here!
Internet Piracy- The Way forward
Posted by PhilipE on Jan 26, 2009 at 16:58
Internet Piracy and illegal downloads has been endlessly discussed and argued yet the industry remains in permanent state of perpetual indecision. Granted, there have been numerous initiatives and new ideas, but there has been a distinct lack of consequence and willingness to follow them through. On the one hand, the music industry has called this mess upon themselves in that it was far too slow to react and adapt to the digital world. New business models and accessibility to legal downloads still remains wanting and it took a technology company, whose core business was not music, to break the of legarthic state of the recording industry. Yet Illegal download sites have learnt how to cater for the digital consumer far better than the music industry. The industry initially countered the problem by prosecuting offenders and locking legitimate music into DRMS- making illegal downloads, that can be played every where even more appealing. However we now seem to be having a turning point. Scanning the news over the last few weeks has shown some astonishing developments; The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) decided to drop their strategy of bringing offenders to court, and the days of DRMs seem to be coming to an end with Apple’s announcement that it will be dropping DRMS on millions of songs on iTunes. Also, the UK government announced that it has no plans to introduce regulation that would force ISPs to terminate the service of internet pirates.
So what next? Fact is that the industry needs to find a way to secure an income. I.e. using online advertising as a source of income as My Music decided to do. But there are also other ambitious and bold projects, the Isle of Man for example, a lonely rainy outpost somewhere in the Irish sea, has come up with a solution, in which it wants to introduce a type of “pirate tax†(officially called a fee) to all broadband subscribers- in return its 80.000 population would be able to download unlimited amounts of music. This is certainly a radical approach but not necessarily a new idea. However is this a model that can be copied in 80 million Germany? Unlikely, as it would only be a matter of time before consumer rights organisations begin to question why everyone needs to pay for those downloading illegally. There are however less controversial initiatives, such as the Warner/Chappell Music’s Pan European Digital Licensing Initiative (PEDL). The PEDL is an important first step in the right direction in that it acknowledges the digital world as a significant distributor of music, it forces a increased transparent way of managing these digital rights and leads up to de facto pan-European, one stop shop, licence and will therefore facilitate new innovative legitimate business models and ensure enumeration for artists and labels.
Europe plans to extend protection for performers and session
Posted by PhilipE on Dec 19, 2008 at 10:52
The European Commission has put forward a proposal to extend the term of protection for performers and sound recordings to 95 years. The aim of the proposal is to bring performers' protection more in line with that already given to authors - 70 years after their death. The European Commission published its proposal back in February 2008; however the European Parliament has yet to give its opinion.
On first sight, Europe’s proposal seems fair, as it will allow performers to earn money for a longer period of time and in any event throughout their lifetime. The European music industry is at a distinct disadvantage as Europe has one of the shortest copyright terms in the world. Fact is that European artists enjoy a higher degree of protection abroad than at home. Europe needs to be more competitive and therefore its copyright laws need to be equivalent with international standards. In the United States granted their extension over ten years ago. Also, new technologies have given old music/artist new life and therefore record labels and artist, should be able enjoy the new sources of revenue provided by these new technologies.
However there are always two sides to a medal, as a recent European Parliament hearing on the extension showed. The first question which needs to be asked, is who will benefit the most of the this extension, most academics have argued that only those who already hold rights and are already receiving significant income, i.e. record companies, collecting societies and the big performers, will receive the lions share of the increased revenue. In a nutshell the extension will benefit incumbent holders of major back-catalogues, be they record companies or ageing rock stars. To many the extension as such does not address the actual problem faced by today’s artists, namely that the money generated from music is not distributed fairly among all artists. The music industries problem is a not question of the extension, but the contractual terms as the how the rights are managed. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have calculated that for the majority of performers the projected extra sales income resulting from the term extension will be from as little as 50¢ each year in the first ten years, to as "much" as €26.79 each year.
The idea behind the extension is not without merit, however if we really want to help musicians, then we need to "follow the money"
Do you think the extension is a good idea and will benefit the artists?
The Future of Collective Rights Managment
Posted by PhilipE on Dec 08, 2008 at 22:29
As part of our commitment to promote fair remuneration and distribution of copyright proceeds to Artist, Younison attended a conference, organized by the World Intellectual Property Conference (WIPO), to discuss the future of collective management of copyright and related rights. The conference, which hosted all the major players including almost all of Europe’s collecting societies, Industry, academics and numerous organizations, took place in Brussels on the 24 and 25 of November. The debate ranged from the Copyright law in the digital age to the role of collecting societies in managing the rights in an increasingly difficult to control cyber age, to the justification and legitimacy of levies.
Piracy remains the knowledge economy’s primary problem. Especially since the widespread introduction of broadband, the ability to download illegally has become easier and faster. The fundamental principle of copyright remains untouched (right of property). However the piracy problem, especially in the new technologies, has caused a face off between, privacy and right to protection of property. We have seen decision makers grapple with this dilemma for ages, sometimes very clumsily and other times with very good ideas. We now seem to be at a cross road, with two very different paths. The first path is the delicate “control roadâ€, which effectively means filtering, prosecuting and cutting internet connections to those caught with their hands in the illegal download “cookie jarâ€. This is the road that France has decided to take in their new proposed law, and has been debated in numerous other states across Europe. The other road is a proactive one, which means imbedding a moral compass on internet users and making people aware the costs of illegal downloads. To compliment this approach, many argue that the access to legal downloads need to be made easier and simpler- this however would require a reform of the current licensing system.
As expected, the conference did not come to any results; different countries are going to choose different routes, based on their own traditions and beliefs. However no matter what route they choose, one will not come around the fact the Copyright law as such will need to adapt to meet the challenges and realities of an industry that will become increasing dependent and focused in the digital world. New business models, i.e. Mymusic or the new music services offered by Nokia, are questioning traditional concepts of managing rights and organizing fair remuneration. Collecting Societies will have no choice but to adapt if they are to play a role in this new age. Also, the digital age should increase the pressure on them to become more efficient and transparent in their work.
The debate will continue, and we are going to continue to see new ideas, new ways battle with traditional beliefs in the management and enforcement of copyright.
Given the choice, what road will prove more effective in combating piracy and ensuring that artist profit in the new Cyber Age?
Radiohead, Kate Nash and others to join Artists' Coalition
Posted by Kelvin on Oct 10, 2008 at 12:40
Some of Britain's biggest music stars announced Saturday they are banding together to demand greater control over their music in the digital age.
Radiohead, Robbie Williams and Kaiser Chiefs are among more than 60 founding members of the Featured Artists' Coalition. The group says it wants musicians rather than record labels to retain control over the rights to their music. It says new technology is rapidly changing the music industry, and artists are often left out when their songs are distributed over the Internet or mobile phone networks. "It is time for artists to have a strong collective voice to stand up for their interests," said Brian Message, co-manager of Radiohead and the singer Kate Nash.
"The digital landscape is changing fast and new deals are being struck all the time, but all too often without reference to the people who actually make the music." Musicians are increasingly turning to the Internet — and sometimes bypassing traditional record labels — to distribute their music.
Radiohead released the "In Rainbows" album through the band's Web site, and Oasis is offering its new album, "Dig Out Your Soul," on social networking site MySpace before its official release. Jazz Summers, manager of The Verve, said the coalition would "seek to improve the treatment of artists within the business and campaign to update laws and practices that better reflect the new music landscape." "Digital technology gives artists the opportunity to control their future — this is the time to seize that opportunity," he said.
Billy Bragg, Iron Maiden and Pink Floyd guitarist David Gilmour are among signatories to the coalition's founding charter. The group plans an official launch Sunday at the In the City music event in Manchester.
To put it this way...
Posted by Kelvin on Sep 13, 2008 at 15:39
In these times of digital growth, music is a very tangible and sexy commodity, as a result lots of money changes hands every day... The problem is that more and more of this money isn't retraceable to the artists by lack of good governing or policy management and so the artist don't see the benifits of their work.
Lots of voices are currently pushing for a sort of secondary stream of compensation payments to remunerate the loss..
It is the belief of Younison that this will cut off the natural market value , and will eventually end up with people paying indirectly for the use of music, that will be collected by huge and powerful societies, who have no way in knowing who to retribute and thus will be free to do as they wish.
This will leave the fresh and young artists without a penny and will cut off the oxygen needed for cultural diversity .
In these digital times we cannot foster the illusion that was put into practise about a century ago , believing that by eliminating the market , and relying on general collection and blind retribution everyone would prosper and there would be a paradise for all - commonly referred to as the communist ideal.
There is a way to organise this new world, but we need to want it and we need to unite and tell everyone we want it...
We all know how the previous collective experiment ended?
Younison shocks the European commission with bare facts
Posted by Kelvin on Jun 06, 2008 at 14:20
Last week, the European Commission gathered in Brussels concerning the Levies on Private copies, the money payed for loss of sales by new technological devices.
Younison was invited as one of the 5 speakers to adress the 500 representatives of the European Countries as well as people from collecting societies and all involved in the subject.
We took this opportunity to present a small inquiry that we made the preceding weeks on the amount of money that artists get from their collecting societies concerning this levy tax, and the percentage that this made up for in the total income of the artists (check out the matrix in the download section here)...
As the figures sank in (less than 0,75% of the total income of the artists in the inquiry is attributable to the levies collected in our names ), it was apparent that this was not the outcome anyone had expected. Certainly not after the amounts that were circulating that are transferred to the collecting societies (the Levies amount to about 15-30% of the total income for the collecting societies, wich ranges in the billions of Euros).
Soon afterwards representatives of the collecting societies questioned the figures and tried to discredit the Younison initiative.
Never before have policy makers been presented to the fact that, although money gets collected, it might not be going in the right direction.
Collecting societies are the spokesperson as well as the collectors for the artists, and thus are biassed.
It is here that we from Younison try and push the envelope to demand transparency and a technological system so we can monitor and track our sales and our income.
It is therefor of utmost importance that we spread our action radius, and ask you the artist, to join in our inquiry, and - confidentially of course- share with us your earnings from collecting societies.
Only that way we can prove that there is a flaw in the system ,and that it needs to be adressed preferably to sooner than later...
I hope you will find the time and the trust to participate in this european survey, and help change the future for all !
Thanks
The Multi Billion Euro account
Posted by Younisons on Apr 17, 2008 at 15:32
Have you ever heard of a Levy tax on private copying?
Chances are that you’ve never heard of this special tax first implemented on all digital hardware (Mobile phones, MP3 players, harddisks, copiers...) as well as blank CD copies as from 2001.
The idea of this tax seems quite simple and noble being that with every (legal) copy made of a musical track, the artist loses income and so he/she should be compensated for that loss.
The directive issued at the time by the European Commission was that untill a more precise way of compensation was available, the collecting societies would be able to collect this tax and redistribute it fairly between their members, the artists.
Recent research by the commission revealed that in the years 2001-2006, European collecting societies have collected a staggering 4 billion Euro, growing rapidly every year as more and more people have these machines (estimates show revenue to have risen to 9 billion Euro!!! by now ).
Younison wishes to form a broad coalition of keyplayers in the industry to stand up and demand that this money will be redistributed fairly and that a new and transparent technological system is constructed to avoid general collection and make all moneyflows personalised.
For this we ask you to fill in this new poll (2 minutes) so we can push forth the new directive in the European Commission, and secure a future where the creative work gets fairly compensated !
Thanks and spread the word,
Together we will be heard!
Had you heard of the levy tax on private copies ?
Have you ever received any official statement from your collecting society as a result of the Levy tax collection
Do you feel you are fairly compensated in regards to the knowledge that collecting societies are collecting this tax in your name?
If you think you have been payed for levy tax collection, what was the percentage of statement in the total amount of your statement?
How large was your annual levy tax payment
Do you feel that, on the whole, your collecting society is a transparent and modern organisation that fits your needs as an artist in these changing times?
Do you think a personalized, technological system of remuneration is preferable to the current generic collection?
Who will safeguard our business in these shifting times
Posted by Younisons on Apr 17, 2008 at 15:32
The music industry is in full transition.
Everyday new business models are shooting up, but where is this leading us, and what do you think we should focus on to secure that our industry will grow through this transition better and stronger than before.
Who or what will drive the transition to succes
We need a transparent system of collection
Posted by Kelvin on Apr 17, 2008 at 15:32
For more than 60 years, the rights of authors - being direct or indirect ( mechanicals, airplay, neighboring rights...) - have been collected by private organisations with a state protected monopoly. (Sacem, Sagem, Sabam, Biem Stemra...)
For years this has resulted in a widespread collection and redistribution of rights, be it fair or not, it's not our main focuspoint at the moment...
What is however, is that with the collection of the money, the collecting societies also profiled themselves as the protector of the rights of the artist, a bit like a Union does for workers.
This is an unprecedented manifestation of power never seen in an industry before. The people protecting your rights are also the ones paying your money....they are biassed....
Unless totally transparent, no worker would believe their honesty and neither should you as an artist or an organiser.
Do you agree on the issue of the text above?
Welcome!
Posted by Younisons on Apr 06, 2008 at 18:11
Hi,
Welcome to the polling section!
Here we will be asking you, the professional in the Music Industry, to regularly take part in a pan European survey so the European policy makers can actually base their policies on real grassroot judgement.
Stay informed : drop the URL in your mail browser, and we will keep you posted on all new polls via RSS feed
