Perspectives on Blockchain and the Music Industry
A Q&A with entertainment lawyer Leslie Jose Zigel on the impact of blockchain on the entertainment industry, including how blockchain might affect royalties and music rights approvals.
August 01, 2019 at 04:09 PM
4 minute read
This article appeared in Entertainment Law & Finance, your monthly source for real-world news and strategy from major players in entertainment, contract and intellectual property law — serious analysis of the issues and case law that affect your practice.
Leslie Jose Zigel is Chair of the Entertainment, Media & Technology Group at Greenspoon Marder, which recently launched a practice area focused on blockchain. Zigel, who is based in the law firm’s Miami, FL, office, has included many high-profile recording artists and labels among his clients. In this interview with Entertainment Law & Finance Editor-in-Chief Stan Soocher, Zigel offers his thoughts on the impact of blockchain technology on the music industry. He can be reached at [email protected].
|Q: What are some plusses and minuses of using blockchain?
A: On the plus side, the use of smart contracts [i.e., self-executing contracts based on blockchain code] and blockchain-payment methodology allows fast processing of payments. This is far more efficient to stakeholders receiving micropayments from digital-content streaming providers.
A limitation in using smart contracts and blockchain is once you put in metadata, it’s very challenging to correct it. For example, with analog music-publishing processes it’s relatively easy to adjust a writer’s share of authorship from, say 10% to 15%, and another writer’s from 15% to 10%. Thus, one of my big concerns in implementing blockchain is making corrections with retroactive effects.
|Q: How does blockchain technology affect royalty audits?
A: In general, if you have metadata that is very clear as to how someone gets paid, it will make royalty audits easier because there’s much less manual processing. The challenge is how the cash is going to flow. For example, Spotify Europe passes along to Sony/ATV Europe 100% of the royalties for a particular song, and the writers’ split is between the United States and Latin America, and Sony/ATV sends the money to their centralized system for disbursement. A royalty audit has to follow that chain. But does Spotify have all metadata directly or does it go to Sony/ATV Europe as a clearinghouse? Would you have to audit all the payors if there’s no central intermediary?
|Q: But does the blockchain metadata help with accuracy?
A: Yes from an efficiency standpoint, but it will only be as good as the data that’s inputted.
|Q: How can blockchain technology affect rights approvals?
A: One of biggest hurdles in the music sync world is not having a centralized repository of data where people know where to go to license songs. So much of this licensing process has been handled through an institutional memory construct. When we finally get to the place where all this information is available at the touch of a button, it can help all rights holders get more licenses and dollars
A lot of DJs make music remixes. Right now it’s a laborious process to get the approvals by finding the publishers, the master owners, having to determine whether original artists have approval rights, etc. Meanwhile, the remix is already being played in clubs around world, it goes out anyway. So if you have the information readily available through blockchain, it’s very useful for increasing clearance efficiencies. Most remixes are not monetized. Blockchain systems can eventually help with that.
|Q: How will the database the Music Modernization Act (MMA) mandates impact this?
A: It will be a big help by including writers’ data. It gets rid of the black box money out there so that writers and publishers will be better paid.
My global view of blockchain is that it’s like “e-commerce” was in 1997. There are lots of pumped-up company valuations, but we’re still several years away from blockchain and its potential being fully instituted.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'It Refreshes Me': King & Spalding Privacy Leader Doubles as Equestrian Champ
5 minute readFederal Judge Rejects Teams' Challenge to NASCAR's 'Anticompetitive Terms' in Agreement
As Uncertainty Hovers Over PGA Merger, LIV Golf Hires Entertainment Industry Veteran as Legal Chief
'Possible Harm'?: Winston & Strawn Will Appeal Unfavorable Ruling in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250