Music, Copyright, and YouTube

I've never paid much attention to copyright policy concerning YouTube until recently. I understand traditional music licensing, but since I haven't been uploading unauthorized material to YouTube, it's not been my concern.

And while I work with musicians whose songs have been used as background music for fan-generated videos uploaded to YouTube or have been covered by other musicians, and no one asked for permission to do so, the songwriters have been flattered by the attention and would never ask that the videos be taken down.

What got me interested in YouTube's policies was this recent video.
Margaret Gould Stewart: How YouTube thinks about copyright

She talks about YouTube's Content ID system:

Well, it starts with content owners delivering assets into our database, along with a usage policy that tells us what to do when we find a match. We compare each upload against all of the reference files in our database. ...

Now, what do we do when we find a match? Well, most rights owners, instead of blocking, will allow the copy to be published. And then they benefit through the exposure, advertising and linked sales....

By empowering choice, we can create a culture of opportunity.

I realized that although YouTube tells everyone to get permission from copyright holders before uploading material, they have a system in place to deal with it after the fact. This, in my mind, quite as step forward in the world of copyright. YouTube must follow the law, but it has a created a system which gives incentives to rights holders to allow copyrighted material to remain in place even if permission wasn't granted in advance. It's still up to the rights holders to determine whether the content stays or goes, but YouTube has created a system which might facilitate the more creative use of copyrighted material.

Content ID has helped create an entirely new economic model for rights holders. We are committed to supporting new forms of original creativity, protecting fair use, and providing a seamless user experience -- all while we help rights owners easily manage their content on YouTube. "Content ID and Fair Use," YouTube Blog, 4/22/10.

I think YouTube has developed a new licensing mechanism. It has created a database of content, then matches the content to the user, and lets the rights holder decide if the video needs to be taken down, if the sound gets shut off, or if the video stays. And as YouTube gets bigger, makes more money, and finds more ways to make it financially worthwhile to rights holders to be flexible about content usage, it creates a viable experiment to see if and how copyright and user creativity can work together. While pro-copyright and anti-copyright groups are debating, YouTube has actually created a system, though flawed, which is working and pushing the envelope without going so far as to get shut down. Here's more on the fine line that YouTube is trying to walk. "YouTube's Balancing Act: Making Money, Not Enemies."

Not everyone is as impressed with YouTube's database system as I am. Some people argue that YouTube is not doing enough to stop unauthorized material from appearing.

... YouTube is sort of like the pawnshop owner who sells stolen jewelry and says “How was I supposed to know it was stolen”? "Industry Chat: A2IM President Rich Bengloff on the State of Indie," Paste, 7/22/10.

.... Google’s habit of gaming the system, of calculating how to harness a willingness to cross the line of legality and then pull back to something more reasonable, while reaping the business benefits of its initial transgression. "YouTube Gets the Power of Eminent Domain," Digital Society, 6/26/10.

Others think YouTube is taking down videos too quickly.

YouTube's Content ID tool fails to separate the infringements from the arguable fair uses. And while YouTube offers users the option to dispute a removal (if it's an automated Content ID removal) or send a formal DMCA counter-notice (if it's an official DMCA takedown), many YouTube users, lacking legal help, are afraid to wave a red flag in front of Warner Music's lawyers. That's a toxic combination for amateur video creators on YouTube. "YouTube's January Fair Use Massacre," Electronic Frontier Foundation, 5/3/09.

Let me start first that I hope I do understand a bit of YouTube’s motivations in creating the Content-ID system. YouTube certainly has a lot of copyright violations on it, and it’s staring down the barrel of a billion dollar lawsuit from Viacom and other legal burdens. I can understand why it wants to show the content owners that it wants to help them and wants to be their partner. It is a business and is free to host what it wants. However, it is also part of Google, whose mission is “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful,” and of course to not “be evil” in the process of doing so. On the same blog, YouTube declares its dedication to free speech very eloquently.

As such YouTube does want to avoid the blocking of non-infringing videos while trying to help content owners get rid of actual infringements on the site. These recommendations apply on what to do for partial Content-ID matches where the upload is not simply a verbatim audio/video copy of the content owner’s work, but is possibly transformed into something else which may be non-infringing. "YouTube makes statement on Content-ID takedowns," Brad Ideas, 4/24/10.

He goes on to outline how YouTube could deal with challenged videos in ways other than its current system.

Here's YouTube's response to someone whose account was closed:

Under the DMCA, the relevant law, service providers like YouTube are required to adopt and implement a policy to terminate the accounts of repeat copyright infringers. YouTube implements its repeat infringer policy in a way that has become the industry standard, and the courts have confirmed that other companies with similar policies adequately implement this legal requirement.

Of course, we do everything we can to help our users avoid being in the position of being accused of repeat infringement and losing their accounts. We have clear copyright warnings when people sign up for accounts and when they upload videos; we have a copyright tips section in the Help Centre; we make it easy to file counter-notices if users feel they've been falsely accused; and we provide clear notice to our users when a video taken down for infringement that we will close down their account if they continue to post infringing content. Also, we make it easy for rights holders to use our Content ID system so that their matched content can be monetised instead of taken down under the DMCA removal process if they so choose.
"Jimmy Carr killed my YouTube account," The SocialITe, 2/26/10.

It's important to note that although YouTube is moving forward on creative ways to encourage content usage, it hasn't eliminated copyright laws. So there's still a potential risk in uploading unauthorized content to YouTube.

Let's start with two facts:

1. If your video incorporates copyrighted material owned by someone else (like a clip taken from a movie, TV show, or song performed or written by someone else), the copyright owner could sue you at any time. They don't have to warn you first, they don't have to use the Content ID tool, they don't have to send a DMCA takedown notice.
2. As far as we know, no typical YouTube user has ever been sued by a major entertainment industry company for uploading a video. We have heard of a couple special cases, involving pre-release content leaked by industry insiders, but those aren't typical YouTube users. And there have probably been a few lawsuits brought by aggressive individual copyright trolls. But no lawsuits against YouTubers by Hollywood studios or major record labels. That's right — millions of videos have been posted to YouTube, hundreds of thousands taken down by major media companies, but those companies have not brought lawsuits against YouTube users. "Guide to YouTube Removals," Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The system seems to be sorting itself out little by little. Copyright laws haven't changed, but video creators haven't been slapped with massive lawsuits either. (Instead, the lawsuits have gone to YouTube, which luckily has the financial resources to deal with them. "Judge Throws Out Viacom Case Against YouTube.")

People who upload content created by someone else (e.g., movie and TV clips, recorded music) seem to run the most risk of getting it taken down because there are usually multiple rights holders involved and any one of them can flag the same video. People who upload videos of themselves singing songs they didn't write also have been asked to take down videos, but there seems to be less of a problem here. In fact, it has been widely reported that some artists have launched their careers this way. Given the apparent success of such a tactic, many artists upload themselves singing covers so they are more likely to turn up in YouTube searches. This is what I will focus on for the rest of this blog post.

Young amateur singers often sing other people's songs in "cover" versions. The first video Justin Bieber ever posted on YouTube was his cover of So Sick, a song by Ne-Yo. But Bieber, at the time only 12 years old, probably didn't get copyright permission to post his cover of Ne-Yo -- or, for that matter, any of the other artists Bieber later covered. The lack of express copyright permission creates a precarious gray area -- is a noncommercial cover video posted on YouTube infringing or fair use?

Hard to say, given how open-ended the fair use standard is. In these gray areas of copyright law, YouTube sometimes yanks down the videos, as it did with all of the videos of the amazing fifth grade PS22 chorus from Brooklyn. The chorus covered numerous artists, such as Tori Amos, Fleetwood Mac, Jay Z, Rihanna, and Kanye West, and posted the videos on YouTube -- all apparently without copyright licenses. Only after much pleading from the chorus's director, Gregg Breinberg, did YouTube reinstate the PS22 chorus's videos. Of course, YouTube did the right thing, as Tori Amos, Stevie Nicks, and other artists later praised the chorus's singing of the respective artist's song. "Edward Lee: On Being Justin Bieber in the Age of YouTube," Huffington Post, 7/1/10.

Traditionally when artists want to cover someone else's song, there are well-established paths to do so.

If they want to record someone else's song, they obtain a mechanical license, usually from the Harry Fox agency, and pay 9.1 cents per song per recording (i.e., $91 per 1000 CDs).

If they want to cover a song in a live performance, a fee is collected by one of the performance rights organizations (ASACP, BMI, and SESAC). Generally the venue handles that, so it isn't anything the artist has to deal with.

If they want to perform a song in a movie or TV show, the producer generally handles that and obtains a synchronization license from the songwriter and publisher and then also pays a performance fee to one of the PROs.

For YouTube, the performance rights are handled by YouTube (although that hasn't been going all that well).

Licensing negotiations between YouTube and the German music rights group GEMA have broken down, and GEMA is now demanding that the video share site take down or block access to hundreds of works. "Music Rights Holders to YouTube: Block Our Songs," NewTeeVee, 5/10/10.

"GEMA CEO Reaches Out To YouTube."

In May, YouTube was ordered to pay [ASCAP] $1.6 million plus future payments to account for the public performance of music on the video-sharing website. "The future of embedded video will (or will not) be televised," Hollywood Reporter, 11/16/09.

The synch rights would fall to the creator of the video, which means the performer is supposed to contact the songwriter and get permission. This is pretty easy to do if the songwriter owns all the rights and is easily accessible. Send him/her an email saying you'd like to perform his/her song and upload it to YouTube. Chances are the songwriter will be quite flattered and happy to give approval.

If it gets much more complicated than that, the performer wanting permission to do the song may either not know how to get permission or may decide it isn't worth the hassle. I'm not sure if this information is correct, but this person says that publishers aren't even set up to handle such requests.

We talked to a friend about this issue at Warner/Chapell Music Publishing today... and they said that W/C has a blanket deal with YT but that some songs were on a 'restricted list' whatever that means. Not only that but they had no idea how one would go about getting specific license to merely to cover a song on YT. It's not a mechanical license, and it's not a sync license, it's basically a new type of license altogether. And this is someone who has worked for the world's largest music publisher for over five years. So the reality is, there's basically no way to do what YT requires, at least not at Warner/Chapell... (at least according to our friend). "Possible solution to YouTube's cover song 'problem'," YouTube Help, 5/3/10.

Here is a more detailed explanation from a company, Web Sheriff, hired to monitor unauthorized use of Van Morrison's songs.

As many of you may be aware – and as pointed-out by Leflaw - in order to synchronize video / film footage with an artist’s music (and assuming, for present purposes, that you are not re-arranging or adapting the artist’s / writer’s songs), a synchronization license is actually required from the relevant publishers / sub-publishers, which, unfortunately, can be a lot more complicated than you might imagine. If the publishers then seek to enforce / protect their rights on-line – some do, some don’t, others have yet to catch-up – then that’s where issues start to arise.

That being said - and in relation to Van Morrison specifically – Exile have been conducting on on-going review of these matters, specifically aimed at opening-up as many copyright exemptions for fans and YouTubers possible / feasible ... .. thereby cutting-through the publisher-red-tape with a series of special, automatic, copyright clearances. Initially, these exemptions were secured for fans performing their own, personal covers / renditions of Van songs, as well as usages that were either educational (eg. high school concerts etc) or compassiontate (such as weddings and funerals – events where, so often, Van Morrison’s music means so much to those concerned).

As part of on-going process of rolling-out these copyright exemptions – and as was the case with our friend Cooperweb - we are very happy to be able to announce that, subject simply to providing an industry standard, courtesy credit, Exile shall now also be able to provide bands with direct permission to keep their professional Van Morrison covers on YouTube (and, indeed, any other cover clips featuring Van’s music, provided, again, that the lyrics and arrangements are not changed - as this would require yet further clearances with publishers and, of course, the consent of the author himself). The text of the credit should simply say "Copyright music and lyrics reproduced by kind permission of Exile" and this should be prominently displayed at the very beginning of your description of the clip ... .. so, Mike / Shmoo and Sixstringlass, we’re glad to say that, not only will your covers no longer be pulled from YouTube, but they shall also be a very welcome addition to the constellation that goes to make-up Van’s on-line presence. Naturally, these permissions are conditional / revocable, so we would kindly ask anyone posting a cover to ensure that your clip and the accompanying wording is not rude or obscene and that it does not infringe Van Morrison’s moral rights in his music and lyrics – which, of course, would not have been the case with either Mike or Sixstringlass.

For the avoidance of doubt – and as also mentioned by Cooperweb - these permissions / exemptions ONLY apply to the use of Van Morrison’s music in conjunction with fans' and artists' own footage / recordings and NO permission shall be granted for the use of Exile copyright footage / recordings or footage / recordings that actually feature Van Morrison ; for which many thanks, again in advance, for understanding and respecting the artist's and label's wishes. "Web Sherriff and Van Morrison discuss You tube "cover" issue," Boycott-RIAA.com, 7/30/08.

If a YouTube license was similar to a movie or TV show license, it would spell out whether the song was only going to be used in this particular video, whether the video is only going to be shown on YouTube and not on other websites, whether the video can only be broadcast for a few years or forever, etc.

So let's say you skip obtaining permission and go ahead and cover someone else's song in a video and upload it to YouTube. What will happen?

Chances are, nothing.

But some people have had their videos taken down. Here are some reasons:

1. The publisher doesn't give permission. For example, musicians have been spreading the word to avoid covering songs by the Eagles because many covers of those songs have been taken down at the request of Cass County Music.

2. Fraudulent claims. If YouTube gets a request to take down a video, it does so. But sometimes the people or companies making the request don't actually own the rights. Therefore, you could protest and get the video uploaded again, but not everyone wants to go through that hassle. Here's some discussion of the matter: "So, about false DMCA claims... is there any way to *really* defend yourself?"

3. Mistakes. Sometimes videos using songs that fall under public domain, have been legally licensed, or fall under fair use have been taken down. It's then up to the video creator to argue his case to get the video restored.

... my son once got his knuckles rapped by youtube for posting his rendition of ..... a Mozart sonata movement. We got a notice that there was an alleged copyright infringement and they threatened to pull the video down. I responded that the piece was almost 250 years old and that any damn fool would know that it was in the public domain. Well, I didn't say it quite that way, but I do recall being somewhat curt. They backed off. "Youtube Cover Removed for Copyright Infringement," Piano World Digital Piano Forums, 3/30/10.

We had two YouTube videos that WMG claimed were violating their copyright. Neither were music vids, just cool islandy stuff. The audio was ambient noise (no music AT ALL) and I added a bit from the sound effects that came with our iMovie software. Absolutely nothing in it was owned by WMG.

YT removed the audio from them and sent us the notice. For months I didn't do anything (trying to stay under the radar), but eventually I decided to dispute it.

The audio has been restored on those videos. I have no idea why they were tagged. We have dozens of covers on our channel and not peep about them. "I got a little warning on YouTube," Ukulele Underground, 7/31/10.

"Use of Royalty Free music gets three copyright strikes!"

If you have three of your videos taken down, YouTube closes your account. Here's an article about a popular performer who did many covers and then had his account suspended for a week until he was able to work something out with publishers.

The suspension, Choi said, came because he did a cover of “What Wonderful World.” Covering other artists' songs, in addition to creating his own music, is something Choi said he did since his first YouTube post.

Singing cover songs like Katy Perry's “California Gurls” and Lady GaGa's “Telephone,” Choi said he had to be careful because “technically you're not supposed to do covers.”

“I do a lot of covers,” said Choi, who is Korean American. One of the cover songs got a strike on YouTube, he added.

“Three strikes on YouTube and you're out. I just had to get the publishers to retract the strikes.” David Choi Talks Fame Via YouTube, Pacific Citizen, 6/18/10.

For a lot of musicians, uploading cover songs had become a try-it-and-see approach. Put it up and see if it stands. Of course, if you get three videos taken down and you can't get it worked out with the rights holders or YouTube, you can lose your entire YouTube account.

That's the flaw in the system. You may find out that the rights holder is happy for you to upload your videos, but you may not find out until after you do and it is left standing. And in some cases what might be acceptable now might not be in the future. People who uploaded Warner Music Group content found out that when WMG broke off talks with YouTube, it began issuing takedown notices.

The ideal system would be for each video creator to run content past YouTube's system, find out if it is considered acceptable, and if not, have it barred without getting a "strike" on his/her record. And if it is okayed, then to receive a license agreement outlining the rights holder's terms so that there is some record of permission, even if the rights holder is allowed to ask that the video be taken down at some future point (with no penalty to the video creator).

Another wrinkle you should be aware of is that YouTube has been forming partnerships with some musicians who have attracted large audiences. But according to the discussions, if you have received a take down notice, you won't be eligible. So what do you do if you want to cover someone else's song, but don't want to run the risk of having it taken down? Obviously one way is to seek permission beforehand. If you can't or don't want to do that, you might consider having a fan upload such a video of you, or setting up a separate account for your more questionable videos so they don't drag your good videos down with them.

Here's advice from someone who has done quite a few cover songs on YouTube.
"Critical Info for Youtube Musicians Who Perform Cover Songs."

So in summary, here's my take on YouTube and musicians.

1. YouTube has been a great way to promote musicians.

2. YouTube knows this and has been publicizing this and expanding music programs, especially among unsigned artists. Success stories about artists covering songs are part of the news.

3. Legally YouTube must say everyone needs to post original material or get permission, but it doesn't really want to discourage users from uploading content.

4. There is no good system for fans and most musicians to obtain permission to cover songs on YouTube, so it is rarely done and YouTube and the musicians know this.

5. Content ID is an automated system to identify copyrighted material and can be set to allow varying degrees of usage without the user having to ask for permission.

6. Content ID right now is being presented to copyright holders to show they have control over their content.

7. Unfortunately at the moment users rarely know if what they have uploaded will be flagged unless it is entirely their own content (and even then they can be caught up in the system via fraudulent claims). There are on-going discussions among users about how to deal with these grey areas.

8. YouTube is likely to keep tweaking the system so that there is more transparency and fewer takedown requests.

Suzanne Lainson
@slainson on Twitter

UPDATE 8/8/10
I just found this paper which greatly adds to my above discussion.

Even beyond transaction costs, sometimes the copyright holders may actually prefer to allow third parties to use their copyrighted works, but without formal licenses. This informal arrangement gives the copyright holders effectively a “hedge.” Under the hedge, the copyright holders can “wait and see” what happens with all the different uses of their works. Some uses the copyright holder may end up liking—whether for free advertising, promotion, or even discovering new talent. For example, Nick Haley, a 19- year-old student in the UK, made an unauthorized mashup video of an iPod commercial, synched in with a copyrighted song and posted on YouTube. Once Apple saw it, Apple hired Haley to produce one of Apple’s new television commercials.

The advantage of hedging instead of granting formal licenses is that copyright holders can get the best of both worlds: free promotion and talent trolling from various unauthorized uses of their works, but also the ability to later protest other unauthorized uses of their works. "Warming Up to User-Generated Content," Edward Lee, University of Illinois Law Review, Vol. 2008, No. 5, 2008.

UPDATE 8/10/10

Record labels and publishers have already come to grips with one Google service: YouTube. In fact, they love YouTube now that they have worked through their many tussles. YouTube has taken steps to prevent the uploading of copyrighted material. It provides value by being a substitute for a good amount of piracy. It offloads IT and network costs to Google. And Vevo wouldn't be Vevo without the power of YouTube to create 90% of the video network's views. "Analysis: Will Google Music Be Good For The Industry?" Billboard.biz, 8/9/10.

UPDATE 8/12/10
Here's an article that gives a good overview of YouTube and music.
Saint or Sinner? YouTube's tricky relationship with music

UPDATE 9/6/10
Pomplamoose covers a number of songs on YouTube. According to this interview, the duo first obtains a mechanical license. That's generally done for physical or digital copies of a song and is priced according to the number of copies of the song made available. Technically a mechanical license wouldn't cover a video of them performing the song on YouTube, but perhaps taping the process of recording a covered by a mechanical license is being treated as something different than a video of someone performing a song.

... we make sure that we have all our ducks in a row. We bought mechanical licenses to all of our covers before we put them on iTunes. So it's all legit and legal. "Pomplamoose: Making A Living On YouTube," NPR, 4/11/10.

The Potential iPhone Musical Revolution

I've been following along some of the developments concerning iPhones and music. Not as in "the iPhone as a device to play of other people's music," but as in "the iPhone as a tool to create one's own music." This very much reinforces my idea that focusing too much on people as consumers of music and not enough on them as creators of and participants in music will prove to be shortsighted. Some of the consumer money and time that music business types and artists are counting on to sustain themselves via fan purchases may instead be directed to more user-generated content.

Here are a couple of quotes which illustrate how iPhone tools are opening up music creation to more people.

There’s something about an iPhone music app. For musicians, it’s like having an instrument in your pocket. For nonmusicians, it’s a way to coax sounds -- often programmed to stay on key no matter what note one actually plays -- out of what may be the only instrumentlike device they ever pick up.

A main goal for many of these apps’ developers is to introduce nonmusical people to music, and musical people to different kinds of music. And when taken less as a serious instrument and more as a sampler for the wide world of music, these devices are wildly successful. "Music Apps Blur the Gap Between You and Clapton," New York Times, 10/1/09.

Ge Wang, the assistant professor of music who leads [the Stanford Mobile Phone Orchestra] says the iPhone may be the first instrument — electronic or acoustic — that millions of people will carry in their pockets. “I can’t bring my guitar or my piano or my cello wherever I go, but I do have my iPhone at all times,” he said.

Professor Wang said he would like to democratize the process of making music, so that anyone with a cellphone could become a musician. “Part of my philosophy is people are inherently creative,” he said. “It’s not just people who think of themselves as artists.” "From Pocket to Stage, Music in the Key of iPhone," New York Times, 12/5/09.

In this article Wang talks about how he has has used a sense of fun and portability, combined with marketing via YouTube and sharing via iPhone, to engage users.

Now, to give you something of an overview of iPhone music creation applications, I've organized them into five categories:

1. Applications that turn iPhones into instruments.
The one cited most often is the Ocarina, which is the digital version of a simple wind instrument. It is made by Smule, a software company co-founded by Stanford professor Ge Wang.

Said Wang, "We at Smule are really trying to bring this idea of unlocking creativity to as many people as possible."

He thinks the Ocarina encourages amatures who might not otherwise pick up an instrument. "App turns iPhone into musical instrument," Public Radio International, 9/1/09.

Here are two other articles on the application.

"Is That Ocarina Music Coming from Your iPhone?"

"Enthusiasts keep pushing Smule’s Ocarina iPhone app to higher numbers"

Smule (which just received an additional $8 million in VC funding) also offers other musical applications including I Am T-Pain, which allows you to Auto-Tune your own singing. Recently Apple named two of Smule's applications (I Am T-Pain and Leaf Trombone: World Stage) among its 10 Best iPhone Applications of 2009.

Another company that makes a variety of instrument applications is MooCowMusic.

And here's more:

The universe of mobile guitar software can be split roughly into three categories: those that replace traditional guitar accessories like tuners and metronomes; practice apps that simulate a fretboard; and apps that contain chords, scales and tablature. There’s even dedicated hardware for attaching your phone to your guitar, but more on that later. "For Real Guitar Players, New Ways to Rock on a Phone," New York Times, 12/3/09.

"10 cool videos of the iPhone as a music instrument."

"10 Best Musical Instrument Apps for the iPhone for Under $1."

2. Groups of people performing together using iPhones.
More ambitious than playing music on an iPhone by yourself is doing it in a group.

A group called iBand (www.iband.at) is using the iPhone and iPod Touch to write and perform music live. Their website currently has two songs available for download, “Vitality” and “Life Is Greater Than the Internet,” both made with instruments available in the App Store. "Music Made With iPhone Musical Instrument Apps," Art of the iPhone, 2/5/09.

Here's another article about the band. "With Software and an iBand, There’s No Need for Roadies."

Here's a video of the group The Mentalists covering MGMT's “Kids."

And here's a video of song played by using a variety of different iPhone musical instrument applications and then spliced together using Final Cut Pro.

More elaborate than these YouTube performances are orchestras being organized to advance the cause of mobile music applications. Here are sites for some of them.

Stanford iPhone Orchestra

Michigan Mobile Phone Ensemble

Helsinki MoPhO

3. Looping and mixing applications.
For some, iPhone becomes a mobile editing tool.

Plenty of programs over the years have promised the non-musically-inclined the magical ability to play music, but few deliver. Judging from the songs people are already uploading to MyZoozBeat, this app one really does let people from anywhere in the musical experience spectrum make 'beats,' as they call rhythm and melody loops these days, then sing, rap or talk on top of them — and, with this latest release, share the resulting recordings.

With all of the sharing of other people’s music that goes on, it’s refreshing to see that this app encourages people to share their own creations — and puts such easy tools in their hands that they have a decent chance at making something worth listening to, if only by themselves and their friends and family. (If you make your recordings public, other MyZoozBeat users will be able to hear them too.) "Anyone, Really, Can Make and Share Music with ZoozMobile’s iPhone App," Wired, 4/22/09.

... an iPhone application called ZOOZbeat, which helps anyone -- regardless of musical talent or lack thereof -- create songs by selecting instruments from a list and then waving his or her phone around.

"You don't have to know anything. You go in there and click on it, and it's playing guitar chords," Sheridan said. "It's pretty neat, actually."

A quick flick of the wrist produces a high note. A gentler movement belches out a lower tone. The app loops the sounds and lets users edit their tracks on the fly or afterwards. "The new musical instrument: Your phone," CNN, 10/28/09.

If you want to learn more about ZOOZBeat, go here.

Another product is Bebot.

The major advancement of the iPhone is the multi-touch screen, Rudess said. It opens up the possibility of sliding between notes and playing several at one time. It's more akin to a violin or cello than a keyboard or drum pad, the standard tools for electronic instruments and music software.

This is the very feature that Bebot exploits to produce its unique, sliding sounds.

"It makes the iPhone potentially one of the most versatile musical instruments, and it fits right in your pocket," said Russell Black, the Melbourne inventor of the product. "Musicians flex creative muscles on iPhones," San Francisco Chronicle, 9/8/09.

Here's a overview of more mixing/looping applications: "Best Ways to Produce Music on an iPhone."

4. Interactive music programs.
Some music creators are providing applications which are more artistic experiences than they are music-making tools. Ambient pioneer Brian Eno and musician/software designer Peter Chilvers have created three which you can find here.

5. Music-related games.
There are also music games which, in many cases, function just like their non-game music-application equivalents.

... I found “Beaterator” absolutely absorbing. Layering track upon track, building drumbeats and various instrumental sounds, crafting my own songs and hearing them played back — for someone who’s never done anything like this before, it was a thrilling and eye-opening experience. And though “Beaterator” can get pretty deep pretty quickly, it did a reasonably good job of holding my hand and walking me through the meticulous music-making process....

And that’s the great thing about games like “Beaterator” ... They encourage us to think about music and, more importantly, to imagine ourselves at the center of it. They encourage us to do something we might not otherwise do — to try our hand at music making when perhaps making music seems like something only other people do. And as much as they may seem like trifling and sometimes silly little toys, they put modern music making within reach of us all.

As Timbaland says, “I tried to give people a game but I also tried to give people who love music hope of making their own music.” "Gaming our way to musical genius," Citizen Gamer, 10/12/09.

The Muppets Animal Drummer [is] a rhythm game that lets you drum along with Animal, as well as a free play mode where you (and he) “rock out” to the songs in your iTunes music library." "Disney launches Muppets Animal Drummer for iPhone," Music Ally, 12/16/09.

"10 Free Music Based Games for the iPhone & iPod Touch"

Although iPhone musical applications haven't yet transformed music creation, I think they have the potential to do so. Just as other recent technologies (e.g., Pro Tools, Auto-Tune, YouTube) have encouraged more people to express themselves creatively, I think the fact that companies are developing applications specifically to enable people (often with little or no musical training) to make music easily and quickly will have a major impact. As technology reduces the barriers of entry to music, we have seen that the pool of people recording, uploading, and promoting their music has greatly expanded. And I think the economics of the music industry will continue to reflect these technological developments.

Suzanne Lainson
@slainson on Twitter

UPDATE, 12/27/09
Best of 2009: 10 iPhone/iPod Touch Music/Sound Apps

UPDATE, 1/10/10

Apple has given Mix Me In a spot in the latest New & Noteworthy section of its App Store. The application enables users to mix existing songs into their own versions. So, if they want to hear, say, a rock song as an acoustic ballad, then Mix It In does the business.

The app, from Fried Green Apps, also allows consumers to mix themselves into tracks, adding vocals, guitar riffs, drums, or whatever takes their fancy. "Adding to mix tech to the tune," brand-m.biz, 1/8/10.

VoiceBand transforms your voice in real time into almost a dozen instruments. You can lay down tracks, layer new performances one at a time, and build up an audio performance that you can then e-mail to yourself or friends. "VoiceBand: Personal music artistry gone wild," TUAW, 1/8/10.

UPDATE, 1/18/10

Sprite has teamed with Zooz Mobile Inc., developers of a mobile music studio application, to launch Zoozbeat Sprite, the first iPhone application to be offered through Sprite’s ongoing Under the Cap promotion....

Zoozbeat Sprite transforms iPhones into mobile music studios, letting users create their own tracks with downloadable beats and samples from music producers and artists such as Dallas Austin.

Zoozbeat Sprite works by shaking, tilting or tapping the iPhone screen to create and combine rhythmic and melodic tracks that can be uploaded to the Web for listening and sharing in mp3 format with friends.

Users can unlock additional beats within the application by twisting the cap off any Sprite or Sprite Zero bottle and texting in the keyword ZOOZ followed by the code under the cap.

Sprite will then provide consumers with a Zoozbeat Sprite code that can use be used to unlock more beats. "Coca-Cola: Mobile integral to 360-degree marketing strategy," Mobile Marketer, 12/24/09.

UPDATE, 3/4/10
Here's a blog that is all about mobile music making: Palm Sounds.
You'll find info on many applications.

UPDATE, 3/19/10
"SXSW: LaDiDa iPhone App Lets Anyone With a Voice Make Music in Seconds"

Encouraging Fan Involvement through Remixing

In my last blog entry, I mentioned one way to use music as a community builder is via fan creativity. A big proponent of this approach is Terry McBride, CEO of the management firm/record label Nettwerk (Avril Lavigne, Barenaked Ladies, Dido, Stereophonics, Sara McLachlan, Sum 41, Jars of Clay).

We found out that the T-shirts that the fans designed -- even if the artists didn't like them -- the people who went to shows liked them more than the ones that the artists designed. "Nettwerk CEO Terry McBride Puts Fans in Charge of Bands," MediaShift, 12/11/08

That realization led Nettwerk to give the fans even more control.

In 2005, we took it a step further by releasing Barenaked Ladies songs in stems [pieces of the music tracks]. …That was more of a remix. Now I'm more about the mix; to hell with the remix! We have an artist named K-OS, and we released all of the stems two weeks ago, and the fans have not heard the album. … they are actually mixing the album. So we will release physically and digitally the artist version and the fan version. And when we go to radio, we will service the artist version and fan version. So we are taking it the rest of the way.

Nettwerk hasn’t been the only entity to do this. In 2006, Duncan Sheik, who had been on Atlantic but then dropped, released the two-disc While Limousine album.

The "mine" disc is a conventional CD with the music mixed by engineer Kevin Killen. The "yours" disc is a DVD-ROM which contains computer audio files of individual elements of each song, the vocals, the strings, the guitars, etc., along with a link to free software which one can use to mix the CD anyway one likes. George Graham Reviews Duncan Sheik's "White Limousine" 2/06/06

The DVD portion of the release contains all of the individual tracks for each song as well as instructions for downloading a free demo version of Ableton Live, with which anyone can remix and experiment with the constituent parts of the songs. Additionally, advanced users can load the standard 16-bit/44.1kHz WAV versions of Sheik’s White Limousine tracks into a variety of other popular DAWs, including all versions of Pro Tools, Ableton Live 5, Apple Logic Pro and GarageBand, Cakewalk SONAR and many others. M-AUDIO-Duncan Sheik Solicits a Few (Thousand) Remixes

Not everyone has been impressed with this approach. Jason Feinberg, president and founder of On Target Media Group, an entertainment industry new media marketing and promotion company, pointed out that only a minority of fans got involved in these experiments.

When they first came online, a slew of artists adopted video remix contests, but soon found that their fans were not willing to put in the time and effort to create a usable finished product. "Five Tips for Musicians to Engage Their Fans Digitally,"MediaShift, 3/9/09

But instead of abandoning the concept as too much bother, more artists are jumping on board. Here are some recent examples.

K'naan is inviting fans to follow him on Twitter and then submit verses for a song via Twitter.
"People Like Me" Contest
More info here: "Things That Go Pop!" CNCNews, 4/1/09

Imogen Heap recorded the vocals for a song that was never finished. Rather than letting it go to waste, she has uploaded nine different vocal stems [tracks], invited fans to finish the song, upload their completed versions on the website, and donate some money to charity.
Imogen Heap - The Song That Never Was

Ben Folds released the album Way to Normal in 2008. But many of his fans thought it sounded awful.

… there have been requests for an alternate less compressed version of Way To Normal to be made available. … And so we have "Way To Normal: Stems and Seeds" - two disks. One disk is a remix, remaster, re-sequence of "Way To Normal" … The other is a disk of files, called stems, which will pop up in Garageband and allow you to mix the album yourselves. Just click on the file of the song you want to mix and you'll quickly understand how it works. If you'd like to turn the drums off or down, or if you want to use loops or turn that damn singer off and sing it yourself, its all possible. We've included extra loops with the song "You Don't Know Me" hoping someone could maybe come along and make a hit out of this fucking song. "Way To Normal: Stems and Seeds,"12/16/08

Railroad Earth has uploaded two songs to remix, plus software and instructions.
RRE-MIX AMEN CORNER

Radiohead made five stems (vocal, guitar, bass, drum and strings/effects) from one song available for purchase on iTunes. Then fans were invited to vote on the best remixed submissions.
Radiohead/ Remix/ Reckoner
More info here: "Radiohead fans can remix ‘Nude’ single," Los Angeles Times, 4/1/08

Kanye West bettered Radiohead by making a song available for free on his website, with six stems.
"LOVE LOCK DOWN STEMS," 9/25/08

Here are three variations on the remix concept:

Hoobastank has provided enough online tools to make a simple video that it requires no skill and takes less than a minute to create.
Hoobastank: My Turn

3OH!3 provides spoken sound clips so you can make prank phone calls.
3OH!3 Soundboard

People were invited to add clips to a documentary about remixing.
RiP: A Remix Manifesto

Here are four more sites with remix resources:

Music Ally: UGC fan music contests

Radiohead Remixing: Contest, Full Stems via iTunes and GarageBand

MixMatchMusic
More info here: "MixMatchMusic adds over 2500 Musical stems"

mixwidget.org

Whether or not remixing itself catches on with the average fan, what is significant is the move toward letting them play with the content. Now that the tools are there, it is unlikely we will return to the days when artists/producers made the content, and audiences passively consumed it. We may even see the day when the big name producer is considered dispensable. If fans are mixing their own songs, will they care if there are no famous producers to guide the projects?

Suzanne Lainson

The Basic Tools for Community, Music, and Marketing

Your company can use music to build communities in a variety of ways:

Music as an element in your corporate personality

Some companies are doing this via sonic branding and others are incorporating music into an overall corporate image. Two examples of the latter:

Umpqua Bank has become known for its support of local musicians (e.g., compilation CDs, special play lists, live performances). In addition, the company has turned its local offices into gathering spots. According to Lani Hayward, EVP of Creative Strategies, "Our customers and other community members use our stores as community centers. Many come for entertainment and/or just to read the paper and enjoy a cup of coffee. These types of community interactions demonstrate that Umpqua is more than a just a bank." "Umpqua Bank Serves Up a Lifestyle, " Business Pundit, 6/25/08

From its inception, Scion, the youth-focused line of vehicles from Toyota, has marketed itself as a lifestyle brand. Music has been a major component. Scion Music

Music as a topic of discussion

Some companies are creating websites to foster music discussions, with an expectation that there will be cross-promotional value to them. Two examples:

H2O Audio, which makes headphones and MP3 cases for watersports, has a music discussion board on Loop'd Network, a sports site. H2Orider.com

The international mobile phone company, Vodafone, has created its own music-related site. Vodafone Music Unlimited

Music as a means of self-expression

Many music fans are no longer content to be passive consumers. They want to be part of the creative process. Two examples:

Hoobastank is encouraging fans to remix the band's latest video. Hoobastank: My Turn

Management firm Nettwerk is letting fans create albums. Said CEO Terry McBride, “We have an artist named K-OS, and we released [all pieces of his music] two weeks ago, and the fans have not heard the album. It's not due out until March, so they are actually mixing the album. So we will release physically and digitally the artist version and the fan version. And when we go to radio, we will service the artist version and fan version.” "Nettwerk CEO Terry McBride Puts Fans in Charge of Bands," MediaShift, 12/11/08

Music as a force to bring your employees together

The ad agency Weiden+Kennedy is running its own W K Radio. “The radio extension exists to inspire creativity through provocative conversations, interviews and artistic expressions relating to arts, culture, media, and music. We're starting small with minimal programming hours, with a goal to eventually share an equal amount of programming between our seven different offices and their communities worldwide.” W+K Blog, 1/05/09

Music as a theme for an event

There is a long history of companies sponsoring shows, festivals, and tours, so I won’t offer specific examples now. More to come later.

Suzanne Lainson