Mark Runyon | ConcertTour.org
In response to the growing nefarious influence of companies like YouTube and Spotify on the independent music sector, the Worldwide Independent Network (an international pressure group representing the interests of independent labels) has drawn up a ‘Fair Digital Deals Declaration’ in response to the un-level playing field in the ‘distribution of recordings in digital services’.
ConcertTour.org have chronicled Spotify’s (and more recently YouTube’s) foray into the digital music market, and have reported on the one-size-fits-all music contracts that they force their artists and labels to sign up to before using the service(s) to sell their music.
A full 32-page copy of the recent controversial YouTube contract was leaked and published by music industry site Digital Music News. The site (pretty hilariously) titled the corresponding article ‘F*&K It: Here’s the Entire YouTube Contract for Indies’ in a strong show of support for the independent labels.
But what does the ‘Fair Digital Deals Declaration’ actually set out to do?
“Ensure that artists’ share of download and streaming revenues is clearly explained in recording agreements and royalty statements in reasonable summary form.”
This part is fairly self-explanatory.
“Account to artists a good-faith pro-rata share of any revenues and other compensation from digital services that stem from the monetization of recordings but are not attributed to specific recordings or performances.”
This part sounds more complicated and that’s probably because it is. Largely it aims to ensure that musicians and labels receive payments that are directly linked to their success. Sounds pretty agreeable, right? But Google (in it’s YouTube contract) specifies that it has the right to chance the rates of payment within 30 days of written notice. The reason why indie labels are particularly concerned about this is because major labels with big-sales artists can be given lump sums of cash to ease the pain of these reduced rates. Indie labels (with the exception of some like XL who house Adele and other popular acts) cannot bargain for large payments, but will still have to take the reduced payment to stay a part of the service. Perhaps the most important component of this is the bit where they talk about “good-faith”…
(Quoted from the leaked YouTube contract:) “To the extent that any major label agrees to any rates for the Google Services that are lower than the rates set forth in Exhibits C or D, including with respect to bundling, Google will have the right to reduce Provider’s analogous rates accordingly, following thirty (30) days written notice (via email will be sufficient) to Provider.”
“Encourage better standards of information from digital services on the usage and monetisation of music.”
This part is also pretty self explanatory. But it ties in with concerns that large businesses are shady in their dealings with labels of different sizes. Offering a (relatively) public contract for all music providers whilst offering ‘sweeteners’ to music organisations representing artists who consistently sell millions of records. By joining arms under organisations like WIN (Worldwide Independent Network), indie labels hope to go some way to offsetting their comparatively small voice. And by doing so, generate a more transparent relationship between themselves and the giants of Google, Apple and Spotify.
“Support artists who choose to oppose, including publicly, unauthorized uses of their music.”
This section falls in line with the industry-wide concern over copyright payments. Right now there are probably thousands (perhaps millions) of instances where someone’s music is being used for commercial gain and copyright isn’t being paid. WIN, like all music industry bodies, wants this stopped at all costs — unsurprisingly.
“Support the collective position of the global independent record company sector as outlined in the Global Independent Manifesto below.”
The original declaration and the manifesto (which they reference above) can be found here.
You might be thinking – at least I hope you are – why does all of this need a grand declaration? Isn’t it all pretty obvious stuff? Well… Yes. That’s the problem. The internet giants aren’t doing business in a way that’s obviously fair or ethically sound, too often their dealings with independent/small labels put too much power in their hands to the detriment of small-time music makers.
If you would like to know more about why the indie labels of the world are angry: read some of our reports here and here. Or if you want a low-down of the controversial YouTube contract itself, Billboard have a really helpful analysis here.
What Is The ‘Fair Digital Deals Declaration’ Put Out By Indie Labels?
In response to the growing nefarious influence of companies like YouTube and Spotify on the independent music sector, the Worldwide Independent Network (an international pressure group representing the interests of independent labels) has drawn up a ‘Fair Digital Deals Declaration’ in response to the un-level playing field in the ‘distribution of recordings in digital services’.
ConcertTour.org have chronicled Spotify’s (and more recently YouTube’s) foray into the digital music market, and have reported on the one-size-fits-all music contracts that they force their artists and labels to sign up to before using the service(s) to sell their music.
A full 32-page copy of the recent controversial YouTube contract was leaked and published by music industry site Digital Music News. The site (pretty hilariously) titled the corresponding article ‘F*&K It: Here’s the Entire YouTube Contract for Indies’ in a strong show of support for the independent labels.
But what does the ‘Fair Digital Deals Declaration’ actually set out to do?
“Ensure that artists’ share of download and streaming revenues is clearly explained in recording agreements and royalty statements in reasonable summary form.”
This part is fairly self-explanatory.
“Account to artists a good-faith pro-rata share of any revenues and other compensation from digital services that stem from the monetization of recordings but are not attributed to specific recordings or performances.”
This part sounds more complicated and that’s probably because it is. Largely it aims to ensure that musicians and labels receive payments that are directly linked to their success. Sounds pretty agreeable, right? But Google (in it’s YouTube contract) specifies that it has the right to chance the rates of payment within 30 days of written notice. The reason why indie labels are particularly concerned about this is because major labels with big-sales artists can be given lump sums of cash to ease the pain of these reduced rates. Indie labels (with the exception of some like XL who house Adele and other popular acts) cannot bargain for large payments, but will still have to take the reduced payment to stay a part of the service. Perhaps the most important component of this is the bit where they talk about “good-faith”…
(Quoted from the leaked YouTube contract:) “To the extent that any major label agrees to any rates for the Google Services that are lower than the rates set forth in Exhibits C or D, including with respect to bundling, Google will have the right to reduce Provider’s analogous rates accordingly, following thirty (30) days written notice (via email will be sufficient) to Provider.”
“Encourage better standards of information from digital services on the usage and monetisation of music.”
This part is also pretty self explanatory. But it ties in with concerns that large businesses are shady in their dealings with labels of different sizes. Offering a (relatively) public contract for all music providers whilst offering ‘sweeteners’ to music organisations representing artists who consistently sell millions of records. By joining arms under organisations like WIN (Worldwide Independent Network), indie labels hope to go some way to offsetting their comparatively small voice. And by doing so, generate a more transparent relationship between themselves and the giants of Google, Apple and Spotify.
“Support artists who choose to oppose, including publicly, unauthorized uses of their music.”
This section falls in line with the industry-wide concern over copyright payments. Right now there are probably thousands (perhaps millions) of instances where someone’s music is being used for commercial gain and copyright isn’t being paid. WIN, like all music industry bodies, wants this stopped at all costs — unsurprisingly.
“Support the collective position of the global independent record company sector as outlined in the Global Independent Manifesto below.”
The original declaration and the manifesto (which they reference above) can be found here.
You might be thinking – at least I hope you are – why does all of this need a grand declaration? Isn’t it all pretty obvious stuff? Well… Yes. That’s the problem. The internet giants aren’t doing business in a way that’s obviously fair or ethically sound, too often their dealings with independent/small labels put too much power in their hands to the detriment of small-time music makers.
If you would like to know more about why the indie labels of the world are angry: read some of our reports here and here. Or if you want a low-down of the controversial YouTube contract itself, Billboard have a really helpful analysis here.
Around the Web