Discuss the issues raised by media ownership in the production and exchange of music products in the music industry.
Ownership and its effects on the production and exchange of music has become an increasingly prevalent and important topic within the music industry recently. In order to fully understand, however, one must look at what exactly ownership is and how it varies between major and independent record labels. When an artist signs a record deal with a major label, they are signing over the copyright, and therefore the ownership, of the entirety of the music created by them whilst under contract to the label. This can be seen in the case of Placebo and Virgin's recent contract split - Placebo may have parted ways with Virgin, but Virgin still legally owns all of Placebo's music library until they decide to sell the rights, either back to Placebo or to another record label. However, this model of ownership is not the case for every label; some smaller, independent labels allow the artist a greater amount of creative control over their image, style and music ownership rights.
Another aspect of ownership which has effected the production, and certainly the exchange, of music is the idea of Web 2.0. This broad based idea applies to the widening access people now have to the internet and all the benefits, and problems, it can cause in regards to music ownership, particularly for the institutions within the music industry. The idea of Web 2.0 is that people are able to access more music more quickly. This can't be a bad thing, right? Unfortunately, in many respects it is, at least for the issue of ownership within the music industry. People are beginning to demand music everywhere, all the time, and many expect to get this for free. In January 2016, Spotify revealed that it had passed 100 million active users, and while this might seem like a great number, only 25 million users actually pay for Spotify's Premium service, leaving 75 million un-paying 'freemium' tier users. Artists and record labels alike have attacked and even boycotted the 'unlimited' music streaming service over the issue of being compensated fairly for the tracks over which they have right of ownership. Adele, Taylor Swift and Prince are just examples of artists who have taken the fight against Spotify - a fight which they say is for the "up and coming artist...for the future of the music industry." The issue of ownership is especially prevalent within the streaming industry, and artists and record labels will no longer stand for it.
An interesting aspect of music ownership within the Big Three is the idea of "integration". Horizontal Integration allows for the merging of direct competitors within the music industry - for example, the merging of EMI into Sony Music is an immensely significant aspect of horizontal integration which effects the idea of ownership within the industry. Sony Music is now the largest music publisher in the world, claiming ownership of over 2 million songs - Sony's existing 750,000 copyrights and EMI's 1.5 million, including the Estate of Michael Jackson. Many fans of the merge would argue that it allows for a greater choice for consumers in regards to music exchange and, therefore, the expansion of the music industry. However, many critics of this move would argue that this cannibalization means that the a greater market share is going to a smaller number of companies (3) and, thus, it is more difficult for independent labels to compete.
Lateral integration is arguably integral (pardon the pun) for the music industry's survival as it links the ownership of one song - whether it be under the original artist's ownership or under a major record label's ownership - and places it in many different mediums e.g. Film, Video-Games, TV etc. One arguably revolutionary tool has made it easier than ever for artists to engage their ownership of their tracks in lateral integration - that tool is known as Sync Licencing, a feature which CD Baby has recently introduced. This allows smaller, more independent artists to laterally integrate and licence their music for use in video games, movies, YouTube videos and so on. This marks a turning point within the independent music industry - it gives independent artists a greater degree of control over what they do with the ownership rights they have over their music, and allows them to take full advantage of the tools available to record label conglomerates like The Big Three.
One more recent issue surrounding the idea of ownership within the music industry is the emergence of so-called "360-degree" record deals. This is a record deal that hands over permission and responsibility to the label for all aspects of marketing, merchandise, touring, music ownership etc. The catch-all clause of the 360-degree deal is that the artist is essentially giving the label a financial interest in everything else that the artist does in the entertainment business. This is a double-edged sword for many artists, and many may choose not to accept these deals. However, the 360-degree record deal does exist, it is growing and it is having a massive effect on the idea of ownership - not only of music, but on every aspect of an artist's revenue stream. This is a major break away from the ideas of yore when an artist would sign many contracts with many different companies and labels for publishing, distribution, marketing etc. Indeed, acts like the Pussycat Dolls and Paramore are rumoured to have signed to 360-degree record deals, proving their popularity amongst artists.
Synergy, the act of releasing cross-medium promotional material to support music products, is an integral part of music ownership and exchange. This can include the release of music videos, for example. However, one has to wonder whether cross-promotional synergy is for the elite, major record labels and artists only. It only makes sense that the major record labels have the budget and connections to do this with ease. However, I believe that it is a falsity to say that synergy is for the elite. With the widening access that comes with the idea of Web 2.0, it has become easier than ever for smaller, independent labels and artists to pick up a camera and start filming their own music video, which they have complete creative control over, as opposed to the artists under contract with any of the Big Three.
The issue of ownership also affects the production process from within the record labels as well as the external issues of the exchange of music products. It is important to note that there are a number of positives to being under the ownership of a Big Three record label. These directly impact the production of the artist's album. Most prominently these include access to a greater quality recording studio resulting in higher quality, more polished music recordings. Simply put, the Big Three have better connections and budgets than independent labels, and are behind the most music sales in the industry. It might be a case of selling one's soul, but if production value, marketing and 'making it' is all you care about, it might be worth it.
As is evident, the issue of ownership is an interesting, diverse issue which is central to the survival and core of the music industry. It has had rippling effects on both the production and exchange of music products within the industry and is an issue that will no doubt continue to be as controversial, as relevant and as important in the years to come.
