Make sure you forward this to your artist, producer, and songwriter contacts as well and encourage all independents to become members of The Recording Academy.

In the last 2 years, independents have experienced unprecedented success in terms of both nominations and awards.  Let’s keep that momentum going in 2010.

The cost to join is $100 a year and you can register HERE.  THE DEADLINE TO REGISTER TO BE ELIGIBLE TO NOMINATE AND VOTE IS OCTOBER 1st!

Any questions, contact Ryan@a2im.org.

A2IM Turns Five

A2IM watchdog for independent music for the times that this place feels more like a jungle, the national NYC-based organization is on hand to help independent labels and artists of every shape and size.  When you add it up, that constituency isn’t small potatoes – indie labels represent 30% of the music industry’s market share in the U.S. (38% of digital sales).

The summer of 2010 marks five years for A2IM as a watchdog for independent music, keeping their members advocated, empowered and informed on a host of crucial components to doing business: fair trade, new technology and distribution, access to media, legislation, international, purchasing, new business development, and branding chief among them.

A2IM Vice President Jim Mahoney has a very first-hand understanding of his members. His nearly 20 years in the independent music sector include seven years as President of hip hop label/distributor Fat Beats, preceded by posts with senior posts with Roadrunner Records and Profile Records.

To read the full interview and For some major insights on what’s facing indies today click HERE

A2IM exists for its members. A2IM has been active in the Performance Rights negotiations with radio. In addition, A2IM has found thousands of dollars for members. This is a great chance to meet Rich and network with your fellow members!

There is no cost for this event, but we would appreciate an RSVP if you are planning to attend.

**************************************

When: Thursday September 9, 2010

Time: 4 PM – 6 PM

Guest: A2IM’s President Rich Bengloff

Where: Conference Room

34 Music Square East

Nashville, TN

RSVP via phone or email to Krista Slinkard at 615-460-7077 or krista@militarymusic.com

**************************************

Details

When: Tuesday, September 21^st (2p – 4p Pacific Time)

Where: Mitchell, Silberberg, & Knupp offices @ 11377 W. Olympic Blvd, LA, CA 90064 | MAP

RSVP to attend to jim.mahoney@a2im.org by end of day Friday, Sept. 17 so we have a proper headcount.

Due to space limitations and to facilitate dialog we must limit this invite senior executives only so please forward this only to those on your team who you believe would best represent your company at such an event.  We appreciate your understanding and look forward to your participation.

Special thanks to Mitchell, Silberberg, & Knupp for hosting.

Best regards,

Jim Mahoney

With the support of A2IM members, this survey could result in a very useful report on our sector and for A2IM members themselves through publication of the report.

Please take 1 minute to fill out this survey this week:  http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/winglobalsurvey2010

Results will be analyzed and the information provided will  be included in a full WIN global independent music survey report.

Future of Music Coalition is generously offering A2IM members a 15% discount off of registration for their upcoming Policy Summit in Washington DC (Oct. 3-5).  Register by September 3^rd and pay only $195 (saving $34 off of the $229 rate; rates increase after Labor Day but the 15% discount will still be in effect).

To register using our discounted rate click 

Taking place at Georgetown University in Washington DC, Future of Music Coalition’s annual Policy Summit features timely conversations about music in an increasingly networked, digitized world.  Network with and hear from confirmed speakers Tom Silverman (TommyBoy), Amaechi Uzoigwe (Definitive Jux), Bryan Calhoun (SoundExchange), Dick Huey (Toolshed), Ian Rogers (Topspin), Patrick Sullivan (RightsFlow), Tim Westergren (Pandora), Alex White (Next Big Sound) and many more.

To learn more about Future of Music Policy Summit read:  http://futureofmusic.org/events/future-music-policy-summit-20

We are excited to bring you the next generation of artist profiles on MySpace. With the help of feedback from artists and designers worldwide, we’ve given our profiles a new look and feel that will improve the artist to fan interaction on MySpace. The new profile is designed to enhance, yet simplify the experience for friends and fans visiting your profile. We’ve brought more simplicity and consistency to the navigation, making it easier than ever for your fans to find your music, photos, videos, tour dates, and more. New, easy-to-use customization tools will also help you personalize your profile.

New Features Include:

*Upload more songs, and feature up to 25 songs on your profile

*Cleaner, More Simple Look

*Dozens of new themes in our theme gallery

*Create your own custom marquee header

*Easier navigation with all your stuff in one place

*Your profile design on your photos, videos, and other pages

So, what does this mean for you?

All of the above facilitate better artist to fan interaction, allowing your fans to stay more engaged on your pages for longer periods of time in a way that was never available before.

Getting Started is Easy – visit this link to upgrade your profile.

Or click here to download the latest design guide, which will show you step by step how to get a great looking profile!

For more information please visit Artist HQ, our new blog for musicians on MySpace. If you are interested in learning more about how you can contribute to this exciting community, please contact lindsay@myspacemusic.com.

These events will be organized by A2IM’s Licensing & Publishing Committee, New Media Committee and NYC Chapter co-chairs. Big thanks to The Recording Academy for hosting this event and to Consolidated Independent for making it possible!

Wednesday, August 25 from 7-9PM

Palihouse Holloway, 8465 Holloway Drive, West Hollywood, CA

Please RSVP to jen@a2im.org

MUSEXPO LA 2011 takes place May 1-4 at the W Hotel in West Hollywood.  MUSEXPO is once again being presented by the fully independent artist discovery and development team of A2IM Associate Member, A&R Worldwide. The event brings together some of the most innovative and influential minds in the global music, media and technology businesses, as well as showcasing some of the top emerging talent. MUSEXPO is well-known for helping create great new creative and commercial opportunities for its attendees as well as developing lifelong relationships via its unprecedented networking opportunities for those who attend the event and have a vested interest in being a part the future global music eco-system.

A&R Worldwide is offering their fellow A2IM members their discounted Charter Delegate Rate of $495 (good through December 31^st, after which the A2IM member rate goes up to $525).  A2IM’ers registering before December 31^st will save $30 off MUSEXPO’s standard early bird rate of $525.  After December 31st, A2IM members will save $70 off of MUSEXPO’s standard registration rate of $595.

To register for MUSEXPO using the A2IM discounted rate click

The Charter Delegate registration includes all networking events, panels showcases, breakfasts, lunches, cocktails and hors d’oeuvres and includes the option to opt into the Global Synch & Consumer Brand Summit.

To read more about MUSEXPO 2011 visit http://www.musexpo.net/musexpoLA11/.

Artists Given Chance To Score A Movie Soundtrack

World-first competition will put 10 musicians’ work onto the silver screen

Music video site MUZU.tv is offering musicians from all over the world the chance to be a part of film history. Launching today, Soundtraxs is the first-ever competition that gives independent music artists the opportunity to create the soundtrack for a major motion picture.

Soundtraxs is the brainchild of British independent production company NyAC and will see entrants compete online for their music to feature on the soundtrack of the hotly-anticipated new film Relative Desire by BAFTA award-winning director Michael Baig Clifford, starring Imogen Poots (Fright Night, 28 Weeks Later, V for Vendetta) and Harry Treadaway (Fish Tank, Control, Brothers of the Head).

Entrants simply download any of the movie scenes available here, sync the video with an original music track and upload to MUZU.tv. The competition is free to enter and the top 50 tunes (ranked by the public according to the number of views on MUZU.tv, ratings and comments, tweets on Twitter and plays on social networks such as Facebook) will then be considered by an expert panel who will choose the final 10 tracks to appear in the film.

Winners will also:
• Re-record their track in a professional studio

• Receive a sync fee covering use of their music in the movie, Relative Desire

• Receive revenue from the movie soundtrack album

Ciaran Bollard, C.E.O and co-founder of MUZU, says:
“Soundtraxs is a world first. It’s a fantastic opportunity for artists of all levels and genres to get their music heard on one of the biggest stages possible. A movie soundtrack is usually the preserve of established artists only, but this project is helping to break down those barriers. In addition, by simply entering the competition and uploading their music to MUZU, artists have the potential to make some money from their recordings too.”

Further details about Soundtraxs can be found here.

For further information, please contact Rik Salmon, Andrew Boyers or Melanie Seasons at Eulogy!

Tel: +44 207 927 9999 / muzu@eulogy.co.uk

Soundtraxs Judges

Michael Baig Clifford- Michael first attracted attention with his BAFTA nominated short ‘Bouncer’ starring Ray Winston, which was quickly followed by his Bafta winner ‘Brown Paper Bag’ ,written by award winning writer Geoff Thompson. He won his second BAFTA for ‘Think About it’ and an RTS award for his work in television where he has directed documentaries and several episodes of ‘Doctors’. Relative Desire is his first feature film.

Ian Seymour- Ian began on award winning film drama like Four Weddings, Secrets and Lies and Donnie Brasco, where he learnt his craft working with some of the industry’s most distinguished and successful directors. Editing in his own right for some years now, Ian is increasingly busy in the UK, the US and South Africa. Recent credits include BAFTA winning In Bruges and The Proposition staring Ray Winston.

Hywell Evans- Biog coming soon

Competition entry
To enter, users must visit here and download any of the movie scenes provided. The clips can be downloaded by right-clicking and hitting ‘Save As’ while watching any of the scenes. To sync the entry track with the video, entrants can use free packages such as Windows Movie Maker for PC and iMovie for Mac. Entries can be uploaded by clicking ‘Enter Now’ on the Soundtraxs homepage.

The competition’s Terms and Conditions can be found here.

About MUZU.TV
MUZU.TV allows music lovers to watch its complete catalogue of thousands of high-quality music videos for free. Visitors can register with MUZU.tv and share their favourite videos with their friends by embedding their personal MUZU video playlists across their social networks. Registered users can also create their own music TV channel on MUZU made up of videos including concerts, back-stage footage, documentaries, tutorials, music videos, interviews and classic music TV shows like The Tube

On Monday, August 9, 2010, Verizon and Google released a joint proposal for a legislative framework for broadband internet service. Although the proposal has no legal effect on its own, it is important to understand because it could serve as a model for future legislation or FCC rulemaking. We weighed in yesterday via a short media statement, which you can read here.

Over the past 24 hours, we realized there was a need to go through the proposal point-by-point and examine how the agreement might impact independent musicians and other creators, were it to be adopted as public policy.

Now, that’s a big if. Although Verizon and Google ostensibly drafted this proposal as model legislation, there’s no evidence that it will embraced by

a broader group of stakeholders. Not to mention the fact that the FCC already has an open proceeding to determine the best way to preserve the open internet and expand broadband service to more Americans. What the Commission will ultimately do is, for the moment, a mystery. We don’t want to get into all the drama and intrigue, so we’ll just say there’s a lot still to be settled. In the meantime, if you want to better understand why this stuff is so important to musicians, check out our Rock the Net campaign.

The following is an overview of the provisions of the joint Verizon-Google proposal, as well as an analysis of what it could mean for independent artists. If it were to become law, that is. Say it with us: if.

For ease of reference, the nine headings below correspond to those in the proposal.

Consumer Protections: An internet service provider (ISP) cannot prevent its users from using the lawful content, applications, services, and devices of their choice on the network. But note this applies only to so-called “wireline” broadband service and not mobile. This is interesting, as most observers say that the future of the web is wireless. We are inclined to agree: music fans are already getting used to the idea of accessing tunes via apps on the iPad, iPhone and Google’s own Android mobile operating system. Independent and unafilliated artists can currently get their stuff on those services pretty easily via inexpensive “digital aggregators” like TuneCore, CDBaby and Reverbnation. Indie labels use IODA, Merlin and other online distributors. If it became more profitiable to cut deals with big content providers who could afford to pay a premium for better delivery, indies could be shut out of a crucial developing market.

Non-discrimination Requirement: When providing broadband internet access service, an ISP cannot “undu[ly]” discriminate against any lawful content, application, or service in a way that causes “meaningful harm” to competition or to users. Any prioritization of Internet traffic is presumed to violate the non-discrimination standard unless the ISP shows that the discrimination did not result in any “meaningful harm.”  Notably, the proposal prohibits “paid prioritization” of content — where content creators pay a fee to broadband providers to make their web sites load faster than others — though again, this restriction does not apply to wireless broadband.

The Verizon-Google proposal seems to allow exceptions to this principle. Besides the lack of non-discrimination rules for wireless, it describes how “additional online services” don’t count. Discrimination that does not result in any “meaningful harm to competition or to users” also gets a pass. The fact that “meaningful harm to competition or to users” is kind of vague means that the non-discrimination requirement could carry a lot of weight — or no weight at all — depending on interpretation.  For example, Professor Barbara van Schewick has asked whether a “harm to users” standard would be violated if a broadband provider blocked access to a filesharing site; such an action could harm some users who enjoy lawful filesharing (such as independent filmmakers who distribute their films this way) but might also benefit other users who experience faster download speeds due to less congestion on the network. (There had been some precedent with the now-overturned FCC order against Comcast, which is kind of why we’re talking about all this in the first place. Freaky, huh?)

Transparency: Broadband providers must give consumers and users — including content and application providers — accurate and clear information about the broadband provider’s services and practices. The transparency rule applies to both wireline and wireless services. That doesn’t seem so terrible.

Network Management: The proposal allows broadband providers to engage in “reasonable network management.”  The big question here is what constitutes “reasonable” network management. “Reasonable” is one of those nebulously defined terms that makes it easy for carriers to carve a big ol’ loophole in net neutrality legislation. For example, in Comcast v. FCC, Comcast argued that its practice of discriminating against BitTorrent traffic, stymieing its customers’ ability to make lawful use of the filesharing network, constituted “reasonable network management.” On the other hand, the FCC’s own proposed net neutrality draft rules uses the same language. At some point, we have to believe that explicitness will be necessary on the road to enforceable rules.

The Verizon-Google proposal lists a number of practices as examples of those companies’ read on “reasonable network management.” Some do seem quite reasonable, actually, such as the ability “to address traffic that is unwanted by or harmful to users, the provider’s network, or the Internet,” (e.g., denial of service attacks). However, it also includes examples that could open the door for overbroad discrimination, such as the permission granted “to prioritize general classes or types of Internet traffic.” A certain amount of data packet prioritization is standard practice to ensure quality of service (for instance, to minimize latency on VoIP calls, or to block spam.) That said, a blanket rule allowing prioritization of “general classes or types of Internet traffic” might be used to defend a practice of blocking or degrading certain traffic regardless of legality or impact on overall quality of service. If the terms are too vague, “network management” could provide a way to duck the non-discrimination requirement. This could make it difficult for independent creators to distribute their work, depending on what’s being discriminated against (and why).

Additional Online Services: Here’s where a lot of people’s alarm bells go off. This clause exempts unspecified “additional online services” from the proposed neutrality protections for broadband internet. These exemptions have led some to believe that the Verizon-Google plan will effectively create two “separate and unequal internets” — a public internet regulated by the FCC, and a private, unregulated network to support “additional online services.”

Public Knowledge writes that this is a loophole allowing third-party content developers to pay for prioritized delivery.  “According to Ivan Seidenberg of Verizon, these [additional online services] can even include entertainment content—he gave examples including a local opera house paying so that its operas are given prioritization, and 3D content,” notes PK staff attorney John Bergmayer. This exception would favor large content providers at the expense of smaller startups and independent creators and give carriers the incentive to invest more in “additional online services” at the expense of regular broadband. Professor Marvin Ammori writes that special rules for services like these are “an obvious, potential, end-run around the net neutrality rule, where wealthy content-providers (and those content-providers owned by the carriers themselves) can get special access to consumers that Internet start-ups and the rest of us would lack.” Further, it could affect traditional internet service because “carriers will likely have incentives to allocate more and more capacity to these services at the expense of investing in Internet capacity — even though American networks have capacity and speeds trailing far far behind global leaders.”

Then there’s the issue of accountability in the realm of “additional online services.” The clause states that the FCC will “report if it finds at any time that these services threaten the meaningful availability of broadband Internet access services or have been devised or promoted in a manner designed to evade these consumer protections.” But who decides what constitutes what’s meaningful about what is or isn’t available? Again, the lack of definition is an issue.

Furthermore, the crux of net neutrality is not just the issue of “availability” of service, but of quality: how fast is “meaningful availability?” Protecting only the “meaningful availability” of the so-called “public internet” could still give the ISPs carte blanche to give up on developing public, open services while pouring the lion’s share of their resources into private, unregulated “additional online services.” It’s pretty clear which one would be more awesome.

Under such a regime, big media companies would have a clear incentive to move their content (and their audiences) into premium channels where independent creators may not have access. On the other hand, creators and content entrepreneurs large and small need to be able to take risks based on potential return on investment, so you can see the attractiveness of certain premium delivery platforms. But it’s all about who gets to play. And judging from history, it probably won’t be independents.

Wireless Broadband: The exemption for wireless broadband is the other elephant in the room. The Verizon-Google proposal specifically exempts wireless broadband internet from its proposed regulations. Their policy prescription includes no neutrality principles for the mobile space; the only rule that applies to wireless is a “transparency principle” that would require carriers to inform customers about their network management practices. In the absence of a non-discrimination requirement, wireless providers are allowed to prioritize and even block services to their heart’s content. For example, there is nothing in the rules to prohibit AT&T from blocking its iPhone customers from viewing YouTube videos on its mobile network — as it has tried (unsuccessfully) to do.

Once again, the lack of proposed regulation in the wireless space leaves independent creators at the mercy of powerful gatekeepers if they hope to enjoy access to an increasingly valuable platform. We’d like to see at least the acknowledgement that innovation includes creative expression, which also deserves a shot in the marketplace of ideas (and moolah).

Case-By-Case Enforcement: The proposal strips the FCC of any rulemaking authority related to consumer protection and non-discrimination rules (listed above), but the Commission would be able to enforce these rules though case-by-case adjudication. (Meaning, someone would have to complain through the right channels, and there would have to be a way to validate the complaint.) This would all take place under “reasonable network practices” provisions and alongside constantly-evolving network technology. Professor van Schewick, who we mentioned earlier, has warned against such a proposal, arguing that case-by-case adjudication does not provide the certainty that network providers, application developers, and investors need in order to predict whether their particular services violate the rules.

Additionally, the cost of a regulatory proceeding places considerable burden on end users, application developers, and startups who seek to challenge ISP behavior. Parties would be encouraged to go through “non-governmental dispute resolution processes established by independent, widely-recognized Internet community governance initiatives,” which may be more sympathetic to industry than a governmental body would be. Public Knowledge speculates that “presumably, the FCC would act like a common law court… Or it might be relegated to rubber-stamping industry-crafted settlements. Either way, this proposal does nothing to fill the huge gap in the FCC’s authority to oversee communications infrastructure.”

The proposal also sets a $2 million cap on fines that can be imposed for violations of the nondiscrimination and consumer protection rules.  Professor Ammori argues, because “Verizon makes 2 million dollars in revenue every 10 minutes” and “10 million in profit every 3 hours,” this penalty is unlikely to deter bad behavior on the part of broadband providers.

Regulatory Authority: The proposal makes it clear that the FCC cannot regulate or censor internet content. This has been the FCC’s longstanding approach; it regulates internet accessbut not the applications, content, and services that run over it. Also, no other regulatory authorities would have authority over broadband internet service. No problems here.

Broadband Access for Americans: The proposal calls for a legislative fix to overcome the recent legal obstacles that threaten the National Broadband Plan.  The court decision in Comcast v. FCC undermined the legal basis the Commission planned to use to fund broadband deployment in high-cost and rural areas. The proposal makes universal service fund support available for broadband and calls for making broadband internet accessible to disabled persons. That’s another easy thing to stand behind, but we’ll leave it to smarter folks to commend or criticize this provision.

–––––––––—

The fact that anyone is even talking about net neutrality in any serious way is something of a victory. Back when orgaizations like ours started bringing up the idea that open access technology platforms are beneficial to musicians and music entrepreneurs, we were met with quite a few blank stares. We’d like to once again take a moment to thank the thousands of Rock the Net artists who have stood with us in explaining net neutrality to policymakers and the public.

And lastly, we want to reiterate that the Verizon-Google proposal is not law. Even if it were made of rainbows and candy, nothing here is enforceable on any level. Which is why we keep calling for clear and comprehensible rules of the road for the web. And we’re gonna keep doing it until we get ‘em.