Little-Noticed Music Deal

Everyone listens to music, but musicians unions may not attract the same attention. Several people, including myself, reported on the composers and lyricists recently, but this time I’m talking about the musicians themselves, i.e., the performers. Turns out their union, the American Federation of Musicians, made a deal three weeks ago with the studios — but it appears (correct me if I’m mistaken) that no one reported it (though the LA Times did mention that the deal was in negotiation).

Let’s correct the omission. According to the AFM website, the two agreements (one theatrical, the other television) run through February 2013 and establish jurisdiction over productions made for new media, increase residuals for traditional product exhibited in new media (move-over product), and “provide a new income stream when music is used in New Media other than in New Media productions.” The agreements also include wage increases and “protect musicians’ health benefits.”

That’s all the detail I have at this point. A ratification package is going out to members shortly, or already has. More info to come when I have it.

———————

Subscribe to my blog (jhandel.com) for more about entertainment law and digital media law. Go to the blog itself to subscribe via RSS or email. Or, follow me on Twitter, friend me on Facebook, or subscribe to my Huffington Post articles. If you work in tech, check out my book How to Write LOIs and Term Sheets.

Hollywood Labor’s Long-Term Future: More Unrest

After a year and a half of Hollywood labor turmoil, we’re finally nearing a SAG deal and the end of this negotiating cycle. Will this be the beginning of a new era of labor peace in the industry?

Unfortunately not. Silicon Valley is not going to suddenly take an Ambien and stop innovating. That means that a scant two years from now, when negotiations for 2011 renewals of the guild and union contracts begin, negotiators will be challenged with even newer forms of “new media,” new business models, and new economic realities.

Thus, the cycle of anxiety, distrust and failed bargaining may begin again. And so on when those renewals expire three years later, and again three years after that, and so forth. Hollywood is now yoked to the computer, Internet and consumer electronics industries, all of which evolve at breakneck speed, dragging slower-moving Hollywood along like a clumsy partner in a three-legged race. That has toxic consequences for the entertainment industry’s labor relations, including, notably, an increased risk of strikes, stalemates and slowdowns.

What to do? I suggest that Hollywood guilds, unions and management form a joint New Media Working Group. This body should have members from management and from the Writers Guild (WGA), Directors Guild (DGA), Screen Actors Guild (SAG), AFTRA, IATSE, and management. Perhaps the AFM (musicians union) should be included as well; I don’t know enough about that union to venture an opinion.

The function of the Working Group would be to analyze and report on developments in new media and the possible resulting effect on existing labor agreements and relationships. The goal would be to track those changes on an ongoing basis and generate various options for addressing them in the collective bargaining agreements.

By doing this work on an ongoing basis, it might be possible to reduce the paroxysms of last-minute activity that characterize the negotiating process today. And, by conducting this work jointly, it might be possible to bring the various unions, and management, onto the same page in their subsequent negotiations: that is, to ensure that everyone has a common knowledge base from which to work.

To do its work, the committee should meet quarterly or even monthly. It will need research support (sharing of data) from all parties, and a budget for purchase of research reports and other such expenses, consultants as necessary, and perhaps a staff person who would travel regularly to Silicon Valley. The committee would build relationships with major players and information sources—agencies, attorneys, other guilds, academics, research firms, tech companies, and the like.

Silicon Valley will continue to innovate, and new media will continue to evolve. Yet, when it comes to guild agreements, the entertainment industry seems content to snooze between contract renewals. Isn’t it time to try a different approach?

Portions of this article previously appeared December 14, 2007, as Memo to DGA - Please Propose a Tri-Guild New Media Adjustment Committee.

———————

Subscribe to my blog (jhandel.com) for more about SAG, or digital media law generally. Go to the blog itself to subscribe via RSS or email. Or, follow me on Twitter, friend me on Facebook, or subscribe to my Huffington Post articles.

Net Neutrality Nice

As I previously blogged, the major Hollywood studios recently came out against net neutrality. Now the Independent Film & Television Alliance (IFTA), which represents independent producers and distributors, has taken a position - and they're for it. In a letter to the MPAA (organization of the six major studios), IFTA head Jean Prewitt says her org "strongly disagrees" with the MPAA position, and even that she was "astounded" by the MPAA stance.

Why? Net neutrality, remember, is the principle that that ISPs should not discriminate against small users when providing network bandwidth. Independents are smaller, and they need all the distribution options they can get; as Prewitt points out, "The Internet offers the only truly open opportunity for independents (whether or not commercially oriented) to reach consumers because both free and cable television have been foreclosed in the wake of massive industry consolidation."

Her letter is so well written that I reproduce the remainder of it it here (with a couple extra paragraph breaks for clarity). 'Nuff said.

The Internet offers a new system of distribution as well as new ways of communicating ideas to audiences. It is vital that this channel remain open and competitively accessible to all users.

That openness is threatened by the power of a small number of broadband providers to discriminate unilaterally against some categories of users or types of traffic or to accord preferential treatment to certain content providers over others, all under the ambiguous claim of "network management".

While these providers may have some legitimate issues related to the technical management of their networks, there have already been cases of different treatment of users and it is clear that there must be transparency, equal treatment and an avenue of redress when the providers' private decisions trespass fair rights of others and the public interest.

Thus, the issue is not whether government should regulate the Internet but whether there will be effective oversight to prevent a handful of corporate giants from imposing their own version of private regulation to the public's detriment.

Your ShoWest speech suggests that efforts to regulate or legislate "net neutrality" will interfere with the fight against online copyright infringement of films and programs. Comcast's recent throttling of peer to peer traffic illustrates how easily piracy concerns and network needs can become excuses for private vigilantism to the detriment of legitimate users and innovative service providers. Copyright enforcement is crucial to our industry but that cannot be the rationale for abandoning the principles of open and competitive access, which are critical to ensuring a vibrant film industry and a diversity of programming. It is the appropriate role of government to strike the balance between competing needs in such a circumstance.

IFTA's members have experienced the steady erosion of opportunity in the traditional distribution channels despite producing and distributing most of the awardwinning films. This has been the result of massive deregulation of the broadcast and cable industries and the resultant substitution of corporate decisions for ones previously overseen by government in the public interest. Allowing the Internet to become an exclusive province of a small number of giant companies would inevitably harm the future of independent art and commerce.

From its outset, the Internet was designed to be the ultimate open and democratic network. Maintaining that and ensuring that there are no private chokepoints over content and use is the goal of net neutrality. This is in everyone's interest, including your members. Accordingly, IFTA will support public policy efforts to ensure open and competitive access to the Internet and to foster the innovation and creativity that is so vital to our future.