POPKOMM 2008: Keynote Speech by CISAC President

© GVW / CISAC


Keynote Speech by Robin Gibb,

Composer and Songwriter

President of CISAC

 

POPKOMM 2008 [08 October]

Ladies and Gentlemen can I firstly thank Mr Raimund Hosch, CEO, Messe Berlin GmbH for inviting me here to Popkomm. I am also particularly honoured of the presence today of Mr Bernd Neumann, Minister of State to the Federal Chancellor; Mr Nihat Gül, Minister of Culture and Tourism, Turkish Republic; And Mr Harald Wolf, Mayor of Berlin, Senator for Economics, Technology and Women’s issues.

 

I hope that everyone here has a successful and profitable convention.

 

I am here to talk to you today in my role as President of CISAC - the international association for Authors Collection Societies. I am honoured to have been asked to be the President of CISAC. It is a post I accepted without hesitation because I am a fierce supporter of Collective Rights Management.

 

The worldwide network of societies has been of huge value to me and my brothers throughout our careers.

 

When we songwriters write music we are not just creating a product. We create something which is an extension of ourselves. Yes we exercise professional judgement to create the best piece of work we can, but it will be full of our personalities, full of our idiosyncrasies and full of our ideas. Whether we spend agonising hours searching for that perfect phrase, whether it comes out in 5 minutes of fooling around with a piano or a guitar, music writers create! They give unheard things shape, substance and voice. This is a process shared by all creative Artists. But sometimes the rest of the world just thinks this is more stuff for them to consume and they even have a name for it - Intellectual Property.

 

I have never thought of my work as Intellectual Property. When I started writing with my brothers in the 60s we were embarking on a voyage of discovery with no idea where our ideas and playing would eventually take us. We created music because that is who we were, that is how we needed to live our lives. The fact that we created intellectual property was a by-product of the fact that we had an overwhelming need to write and perform together. We did not sit down and say “right boys – time to work on a new bit of Intellectual Property”. We wrote them for the fun and excitement of the projects – for the challenge of creating new works for different singers. We wrote them because that is what we do. This is what all creators do. We find ourselves at a time and a place where our very natures take over.

This is the space where authors’ societies become so special to all of us who hope to spend our lives doing what we love. Throughout the life of copyright of those works we create, authors’ societies are there, trying to collect on behalf of their members a fair recompense for their work. They continue to do this throughout our lives. Not just at the moment of our first hit. Not at the moment where we receive our first advance. For us record companies can come and go. But the fact that the collection society network is out there working on our behalf provides the possibility of a space in which to work.

 

But at the moment this space is under attack and bizarrely it is under attack by the very institution which should be encouraging collective rights management and cultural diversity in a digital age - the European Union Commission.

 

As most of you will be aware the Commission reached a Decision in the so called “CISAC Case”. Of particular importance, it accused the societies of using “Concerted Practice” to place restrictions on multi territorial licensing in the fields of satellite, cable and internet transmission. According to the Commission this was done by the societies to prevent competition between societies. The decision does not ban reciprocal arrangements on a bilateral basis but it forbids societies from talking together on a multi lateral basis. This is obviously daft and makes international trade in music licensing even more difficult than before.

 

It also accused the societies of being anti competitive in following the CISAC Model Contract with regard to membership, exclusivity and territoriality in their Reciprocal Agreements.

 

Now this all sounds very serious until you actually examine the reality on the ground. Put simply there are no clauses on membership or exclusivity in the CISAC Model Contract. They were removed a long time ago. So why are they bothering with this at all?

 

Much more difficult, however, is the question of territory. The Commission is questioning the long standing arrangements which enable users to acquire a blanket license for the world’s repertoire. This has enabled users to go to a one stop shop for the use of copyright music and provide us the writers of that music with fair remuneration.

 

Clearly we all know that in a digital world, where the new technologies are not interested in borders, new answers for multi-territorial licensing have to be found. Members of CISAC were in the process of moving this work ahead with the full knowledge of the Commission. But this work has been brought to a standstill by the Commissions actions since the Societies again face being accused of “Concerted Practice”.

Bizarrely the Decision also has the effect blocking the licensing of new digital services. It has destroyed the current system for multi-territorial licenses and has forbidden the societies to discuss any new way forward.

 

There is a perfectly good and practical reason that each bilateral Reciprocal Agreement has territorial restrictions. It has nothing whatsoever to do with “Concerted Practices”. It is at this point that the societies are pushed into competing by a “race to the bottom” on royalty value. This would do incalculable harm to the writer community. DG Competition may think it a good idea, but no other branch of the Commission wishes to see this outcome. Perhaps they should try a bit of joined up government.

 

At this point I am glad to say that CISAC intends to go to the European courts to have this flawed decision annulled, and also to order the Commission to bear the costs of this sorry exercise.

 

In early July I went to Brussels with a delegation of fellow music writers to try and persuade the Commission not to carry on down this fruitless path. We were listened to politely and then assured that there would be nothing in the decision to the detriment of songwriters and composers. I now feel that we were lied to at that meeting and worse - the Commission put out its own Press briefing implying that we agreed with their position. This is not the truth.

 

I was told a story recently about a family of cheese makers in Italy. For hundreds of years they made their cheese and formed it on a wooden table. Then one day they were told that the EU requires them to use a stainless steel table. They tried this but the cheese did not taste the same so they gave up cheese making altogether. It is the narrow minded dogmatic approach that has been taken in this affair which is so depressing. We, the authors, want to work with anyone to improve licensing regimes across Europe. It is how we earn our living. It is not a good idea to use the blunt instrument of competition law to deal with organisations which are there for a Public Purpose.

 

Collection societies are collectives of individual creators – they are not Microsoft or Vodaphone.

 

Earlier this year the Irish had a referendum on the EU constitution and rejected it. My guess is that if a referendum was held across Europe a lot of people would reject it. Not because they are against any idea of European unity but because they usually see the commission behaving in an unhelpful and dogmatic fashion. Just like the Italian cheesemakers we music writers resent the thoughtless way we have been treated over the past couple of years. I implore the commission to reopen talks, use some common sense, take away the sledgehammer of competition law and let us work together to achieve your aim of a growing European Digital economy and at the same time enable authors to have a vehicle of their choice to help them earn a living.