From Modeling to Measurement: A Blockchain Solution for Live Music at Political Events

Rage Review : Remember the protests expressed by the Rolling Stones and Adele against Trump's use of their songs in his campaign a while ago? This phenomenon is not the first time. As early as 1984, President Reagan misused songs in his campaign, which caused huge controversy. This article will introduce a blockchain-based measurement solution, which will transition from a rough modeling method to an accurate measurement method to resolve such disputes. On the one hand, it will protect the copyright of the composer, on the other hand, it will allow users to use it with confidence, and at the same time, it will allow performers to benefit from it.

Translation: spring_zqy

Since Reagan's presidential campaign in 1984, every election scene has been filled with more or less tension under the influence of music. In fact, Reagan's misuse of the song "Born in the USA" was the first time that chaos occurred, and this incident is indeed memorable. However, as Raymond Kurzweil explained, it is not that the misuse of music is so bad, but that the fact that we disclosed it is actually a good sign.

Regardless, artists are still pleading with politicians every day to stop using their songs, and the media seems more focused on exposing this phenomenon than ever before. Recently, even New England Cable News (NECN) discussed Trump's use of music at the Republican National Committee (RNC) - although only briefly, John Oliver has spoken extensively about the topic on his weekly show and even composed a song sung by Josh Groban, Usher, Sheryl Crowe and other artists to express their dissatisfaction with the issue.

Regarding whether politicians can use artists' songs: Simply put, if the artist is a songwriter and is affiliated with a performing rights organization (PRO) such as ASCAP, SESAC or BMI, and the venue of the event has purchased a blanket license to publicly perform songs from the organization's catalog, then the candidate has the right to use those songs.

As more and more artists come out to claim that they did not authorize Trump to use their songs, George Howard explains what rights these artists do and do not have, and proposes a blockchain technology solution to avoid such problems.

In most other countries, creators of works can have "moral rights" (in copyright), but the United States does not have this concept. In this regard, Betsy Rosenblatt of Harvard Law School simply summarizes it as follows:

"The ability of an author to control the ultimate fate of his or her work. Authors enjoy "moral rights" to control their work. Moral rights therefore exist between the author and his or her work, protecting the personal and reputational value of the creator's work, rather than its mere monetary value."

In theory, American authors can rely on their rights to file a "false endorsement" claim to stop others from using their works against their will. However, this method is time-consuming and expensive, and there is no absolute guarantee of winning the case.

So, there is no actual legal mechanism to help artists stop others from using their works. However, the problem now is not a legal problem, but a systemic problem.

For example, the reason why Queen did not withdraw their songs from the PRO organization they were affiliated with, and therefore let candidates or events directly obtain licenses for their works, is that if they withdrew their songs, they would also block the way to make money, and they are actually ok with this level of song use.

It is clear that Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, where the RNC convention was held, has acquired a blanket license from PRO, and that after the convention, other events held in the arena—perhaps sporting events—may also use songs like “We Are the Champions” or “We Will Rock You” (often used at sporting events), and the Queen members who wrote the songs will eventually receive compensation for playing them in public, based on a percentage of the PRO’s share of the blanket license (which, of course, means that they will eventually receive money from Trump).

The problem is that Queen, like most other artists, cannot choose where, when, or how their songs are released publicly. This problem also highlights that we must actively move from a "modeled" system to a "measured" system. The phrase "moving from modeling to measurement" was coined by my friend Kelly Olson of Intel to simply summarize this problem.

Imagine that for decades your electricity usage was “patterned” (some people still are), meaning that occasionally the energy company would send someone to read the meter, and based on that periodic data, they would set (estimate) a patterned bill for the next few months in case they didn’t come, because it would be technically and cost-prohibitive for them to come every month (i.e. it would be difficult to measure).

Of course, as technology develops, energy companies have been able to move from general modeling plans to specific measurement plans to understand your specific electricity usage.

Of course, the songs played at each venue - especially those that have been recorded before - could be easily measured, rather than stuck in a stereotyped approach. For example, listening devices like Shazam could be used to capture the songs being played in real time.

Through this method, artists can know exactly when and where their works will be used. In this way, not only can artists get accurate information, but venues can also allocate costs appropriately.

In other words, currently venues have to pay a blanket licensing fee to publicly play songs from the PRO catalog. Of course, they sometimes only play a portion of the songs in the catalog, even if the fee they pay covers the rights to use all the songs. But if they can choose to play only the songs they want to use, they can do a cost/benefit analysis and pay for the songs they think will create value, without paying for other songs they don't want to use.

Artists can also add conditions, such as not allowing their songs to be played at political events, and through measurement, artists can learn if their conditions are being broken, and take legal action or raise prices to prevent others from using their songs against their will.

Of course, there are some problems with this solution. The main one is that while this measurement solution is feasible for recorded music in venues, this is only one of the uses, and other types of use, such as live music in restaurants and small clubs, require a license. Therefore, a blanket license (that is, the modeling approach) may be the most effective way to achieve these types of uses.

However, as technology continues to improve, measurement solutions will become more common than modeling, and even live music performed in small clubs can be accurately tracked.

This would allow for a truly free market, rather than one governed by “consent decrees.”

So will this measurement scheme kick out PROs? Maybe. My view is similar to another post here a year ago, which said that "Bitcoin can't save the music industry because the music industry refuses to be transparent." However, it may not. PROs, like other companies, must either innovate or be eliminated. Of course, they can play a leading role in the industry's transformation and then ensure their position as value increases.

When it comes to how blockchain technology specifically comes into play, there are several reasons why it is able to evolve this measurement scheme into a simple database solution:

Firstly, the distributed nature of blockchain will ensure that the data is immutable, making it difficult to make changes/co-optations.

Secondly, it has the potential to achieve a more transparent usage record, allowing song users and creators to not only understand relatively accurate usage type information, but also use this information to more effectively price usage channels and provide evidence in disputes.

Third, through the blockchain’s “smart contract” functionality, both parties can create a set of rules and requirements that, once met, will execute the transaction in real time and in a more efficient manner.

Fourth, the use of songs will also create new value, especially for people who are not currently in the equation, namely performers. Currently, if a song is played in public, only the creator is compensated, not the performer (for example, if Whitney Houston's performance of Dolly Parton's "I Will Always Love You" is played in a stadium, Dolly Parton will receive compensation, but Whitney Houston will not). Copyright owners can require both performers and creators to be compensated through contracts.

Fifth, dynamic pricing may occur. Uber is an example of the transition from abstract modeling to precise measurement. We can recall that when supply is insufficient to meet demand, they will use measurement to flexibly increase prices (the dreaded "price surge"), while the taxi industry is still mainly using modeling, which does not allow for dynamic price changes. Music can also do this.

We are transitioning from an abstract modeling society to a precise measurement society. Our data is slowly transitioning from unstructured systems to structured systems, from wearable health to sleep to productivity. Soon, we will quantify almost everything in our lives to optimize its use. Music will soon be measured, too, and musicians will be able to greatly control the use of their music and charge for it at the same time.