New Tech Changing the Music Industry: A Chat with Tribe of Noise and Pex.com

Exclusive bonus:

Not captured on video, exclusively here on FMA!

1. My question is about music meditations for medical institutions: will the future of music affect everything?
Hessel: As technology advances, music's future in healthcare looks bright. AI can create personalized music therapies tailored to individuals' needs and moods. However, AI struggles to replicate the emotional nuances in human-created music, which can significantly influence listeners. Both AI-generated and human-composed music have shown therapeutic benefits like stress reduction and mood enhancement. Still, more research is needed to understand their distinct impacts in therapeutic contexts.

2. What do you think is the role of the IMEs if the national legislations don't allow these entities to establish remunerations and receive remunerations directly from the users? Until today, I don't know a State Member of EU that has in legislation provisions for IMEs to function in the way meant in Directive 2014/26.
Hessel: You've brought up essential points about the role of Independent Management Entities (IMEs) and the current challenges within copyright management. Indeed, the current landscape where many rightsholders are not members of a Collective Management Organisation (CMO), and where the status quo is hard to shift, points to an urgent need for more clarity and evolution in the roles and mandates of entities like IMEs.


IMEs can serve as powerful agents for change, fostering fairness, transparency, and alignment with broader global objectives such as the UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, their potential is often hindered by a lack of clear mandates and understanding of their benefits.
The ECJ (C-10/22) may provide some needed clarity, but it's essential to promote open debate on this issue. A focused discourse could elucidate the mandate and benefits of IMEs, bringing to light their potential to empower IP rightsholders directly, stimulate fair trade, and increase transparency.

If CMOs and CISAC primarily maintain the status quo and cater to a niche group of IP rightsholders, then it becomes even more crucial for IMEs to receive a firm mandate from governing bodies like the European Commission. This mandate would not only validate their role but also extend their capacity to effect significant, positive change for all IP rightsholders, not just a select few.

In essence, the challenge lies in leveraging the transformative potential of IMEs and similar entities in a way that best serves the interests of all rightsholders. Doing so may require regulatory changes, industry-wide collaboration, and a deep commitment to principles of fairness and transparency.

3. I wonder if our colleagues could tell us how IMEs are combining ACR technologies with CRM-ERP softwares (eg Sales Force). Do they use different software for each activity? (recognition/collection/distribution) or to the contrary they have a common software? If they use different software, how they combine all data?
Hessel: In managing digital rights, it is essential to ensure accurate identification, collection, and distribution of assets. This can be compared to the use of a Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) in the automotive industry, which uniquely identifies each vehicle. For IMEs, this "VIN" could be a unique fingerprint ID of an audio file or a certificate ID such as the one used in TakeNode.org. These unique identifiers act as a 'primary key' that links to all other relevant data, facilitating the integration of different systems. Regardless of whether IMEs use separate software for recognition, collection, and distribution activities, or a common one, it's the ability to consistently and accurately identify the asset across all platforms that's crucial. Standards such as ISWC, ISRC, ISNI are valuable for traditional stakeholders in the music industry, and can coexist with the primary key. They can be linked to the primary key, allowing for seamless integration and management across various platforms, including CRM-ERP software like Salesforce. The challenge lies in providing the vast number of music creators with immediate access to a 'primary key generator.' Before they publish and share their work with the world, they should have a mechanism to generate this unique identifier, ensuring accurate tracking and rightful remuneration for their work. In essence, it's about striking a balance between leveraging existing standards and introducing new, more effective methods of unique asset identification and management. By doing so, IMEs can ensure efficient and fair handling of rights in the ever-evolving digital music landscape.

4. How is the personal data of an individual collected as indentification is going to be protected and not misused by unscupulous creators when they use the creator's work?
Hessel: That's an excellent question, and it indeed highlights the need to secure personal data amidst the quest for rightful remuneration. To this end, two approaches come to mind: (1) Robust Identity Verification: We need to deploy a comprehensive, future-proof identity verification system for rightsholders. This system should be technologically adaptive and compatible with existing digital ID standards like W3C, ISO mDL, and OpenID. Its purpose is to facilitate efficient and reliable creator authentication, ensuring that they can confidently claim and manage their creative works. (2) Transparent IP Audit Trail: To bolster transparency and trust, we should create a robust, public IP audit trail. This system, potentially inspired by platforms like TakeNode.org but with enhanced capabilities and scalability, would offer real-time insights into IP work usage and distribution, thereby protecting creators' rights and ensuring public access to shared knowledge.

Is this approach foolproof? It may not be 100%, but it provides a formidable defense when paired with the commitment to challenge those who infringe on rights. Moreover, if major platforms take the EU Directive seriously and integrate these components, it could prevent unauthorized claims by those unwilling to verify their identities or provide proof of IP audit trail commencement. In essence, it's about merging technological advancements with diligent enforcement to safeguard both personal data and intellectual property.

5. Would this business model function without a central registry of metadata? What is the comparative advantage between IMEs and CMOs ?
Hessel: The operation of this business model isn't contingent upon a centralized metadata registry, although having one would significantly enhance the protection of content and the empowerment of IP rightsholders. It would serve as a valuable resource in streamlining rights management and ensuring transparent transactions.

As for the comparative advantages of IMEs and CMOs, they each bring unique strengths to the table. IMEs often stand out for their innovation and flexibility, and their passion for fostering change. They offer personalized services tailored to individual needs and operate on a global scale, making them ideal for creators navigating the digital landscape. On the other hand, CMOs possess legal authority in many jurisdictions and have well-established collective bargaining power, thanks to their long-standing relationships with major industry players. These features make CMOs effective in negotiating licenses and collecting royalties on behalf of a small group of successful creators.

Both have their merits and can serve rightsholders in different yet complementary ways. The choice between the two often depends on specific needs and the nature of the rights to be managed.

6. If my work has an identifier and someone performs it on TikTok, will I benefit directly from any payments?
Hessel: In principle, yes, you should benefit directly from any payments if your work, performed on a platform like TikTok, is properly identified. This process, however, hinges on the correct linkage of the identifier to usage reports and payouts, ensuring the right IP holder (in this case, you) receives the earnings. An interesting case in point is the Free Music Archive, owned by Tribe of Noise. This platform allows individual IP rightsholders to establish their terms and conditions before publishing. A notable pilot feature is the direct interaction between the digital wallets of the IP rightsholder and the visitor, facilitating real-time monetization of IP consumption. In general, the effectiveness of 'fair pay for play' largely depends on the use of a primary key identifier. The more stakeholders in a value chain eschew such a key, the more challenging it becomes to audit, monetize, and protect intellectual property.

7. In your opinion, Hessel, should permission be obtained from rightholders for using copyrighted music as input for AI systems that generate new compositions, or should the question of infringement only arise if there is substantial similarity between the output of text and data mining and pre-existing works in the training data? I ask because text and data mining somewhat functions as a substitute for human viewing or reading.
Hessel: From an ethical viewpoint, I believe that obtaining permission (or an option to opt-out) from rightsholders should always be a priority when their copyrighted music is used as input for AI systems generating new compositions. Legally, the landscape is evolving and there are ongoing discussions about how AI's use of copyrighted material should be regulated. While lawsuits in the United States will shape the interpretation of this "new" law there, it is crucial for Europe (AI Act) to define the concept of a machine-readable "opt-out" option. For a more comprehensive understanding of the current discourse, I recommend reading this report: https://www.w3.org/2022/tdmrep/. It provides valuable insights into the complex world of text and data mining, and how it intersects with copyright law.

8. How do you see how new technologies can help the copyright management of music turn from a liability scheme (where the moral rights of artists to choose what their music is associated with, is neglected) to a property scheme - where music is licensed before their use? Is this a topic that is being discussed within your organizations?
Hessel: This topic isn't merely a subject of discussion in our organization, it's a part of our operational practice. For instance, on Tribe of Noise PRO, our music licensing platform catering to podcasters, filmmakers, game developers, YouTubers and more, we have a license agreement in place. This agreement confirms that we have received the necessary consent from rightsholders to license their work. Importantly, it also acknowledges the rightsholders' moral rights by stating they retain the prerogative to withdraw their consent on a case-by-case basis. So, it's a matter of turning theory into practice, and we're doing just that.