Music experts discussed the future of the music industry Tuesday, in a public panel that touched on topics like the technology of digital companies like Pandora and Spotify and their still-changing role in the music community.
Over 100 people attended the panel, called “The Future of Digital Music Delivery,” in the Sproul Palisades Ballroom on the Hill. The panelists, who were lawyers, managers and chief executives for music businesses, discussed how people will listen to music in the next five years, as well as how musicians can use companies like YouTube and still be compensated fairly.
The panel was the first in a four-part series which discusses the policy changes that accompany ever-advancing digital technology.
The panel of four speakers was moderated by Alex Pham, a contributing editor of Billboard Magazine.
Julian Baranowski, a student in the UCLA Anderson School of Management, said he was drawn to the panel to hear about the professionals’ views on the changing business model of the music industry as it came into contact with new digital technologies.
“I have a huge interest in music and entertainment and I think there’s a huge overlap in live music and digital music. How do they compensate (the artists)?” he said.
John Villasenor, a professor in the electrical engineering and public policy departments at UCLA, organized the panel series.
“I’m interested in how new technology is going to change how we engage with content … I wanted to increase the level of dialogue in tech policy,” he said.
The one question that is becoming more relevant is how artists and producers will adapt to growing digital services like Pandora, said DavidOxenford, a lawyer whose work involves music licensing.
“While (interactive and on-demand) services say (royalties) are too high, many artists are complaining they’re too low,” he said.
Jeff Price, the CEO of Audiam and former CEO of TuneCore, a company that created a way for anyone to sell their songs on iTunes, said he was concerned that the music industry was shifting away from compensating artists fairly as digital companies come to the forefront.
Before people carried iPhones and drove cars with computer systems in them, the radio was the main source of music while they were driving, Oxenford said.
“As cars become essentially giant cell phones, that’s changing,” said Pham.
The panel also discussed the difference between compulsory and direct copyright licenses. Compulsory licenses establish a flat rate for anything with a copyright, while individually negotiated copyrights allow artists to negotiate fees.
Chris Harrison, a lawyer at Pandora, and Oxenford discussed certain aspects of copyright law as it relates to individual songs played through digital music companies.
Price said artists should have the opportunity to reject a licensing deal with a specific rate and negotiate a new one.
In order to compensate artists in the digital world, music industry professionals have had to think creatively – for example, Price founded his new company Audiam as a way for musicians to be compensated for work they put on YouTube.
After the panel ended, Baranowski said he thought they explained the role of digital companies in the music world clearly. He added that he thought it was helpful that Steve Rennie, the current manager the band Incubus,was on the panel.
“(Rennie) did a good job in explaining how digital was just one channel artists can make money through,” he said.
The next panel will discuss the concept of ownership and the balance between consumer and copyright holders. It will be held on Nov. 5 in the Sproul Palisades Ballroom.