WHOSE WORKS AND WHAT KINDS OF REWARDS

Abstract

This article examines copyright issues in South Africa and shows certain historical continuities in musicians' problems with ownership and control. It argues that in organizing relationships and ownership two distinct systems coexist in the South African music industry, which are here called the patronage model, on the one hand, and the contract model of the global music industry, on the other. The historical continuities arise from the fact that the music producers operating at the junction of the two systems have been and remain in a position to concentrate ownership and control to themselves, at the expense of the music creators.

There is a comparable concentration of ownership in the global music industry, in which the biggest industry actors continue to benefit vis-à-vis the small ones. Much of the ongoing debate on the ‘crisis’ of the music industry reflects the interests of the major actors and revolves around the question of how to secure rewards for music producers from the digital distribution and consumption of music. This article insists that there are crucial issues of ownership that arise prior to distribution and consumption; that is, in the relations and processes of production. These lead to a question of how to improve ownership and control of copyrights and other related rights of the composers and musicians vis-à-vis music producers and publishers. A second question concerns the creation of a reward structure that prevents concentration of ownership and control to any position or functionary in the music industry.

Keywords:

• Music industry
• South Africa
• ownership
• copyright
• patronage relations

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to the Danish Social Science Research Council for providing a two-year funding for the project (in 2003–2005) and to the Danish Institute for International Studies in Copenhagen for providing the academic environment and facilities for its realization.

Notes

Trutone became later part of Polygram, that is, Universal.

In 2005 CDs' share of sales in South Africa were reported at 80 per cent, DVDs' share was 13 per cent, while other physical formats (singles, LP, MC, and VHS) made 7 per cent, and digital (online and mobile) less than 1 per cent of the sales in value terms (IFPI 2006, p. 96).

Some of Spokes's music was composed by other musicians, and at least some of these became signed by producers as their own compositions (interview with Marc, 18 May 2005).

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200407/s1151120.htm (accessed 10 January 2007).

http://www.3rdearmusic.com/forum/mbube2.html (accessed 10 January 2007).

http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2006/02/article_0006.html (accessed 10 January 2007).

http://www.spoor.co.za/article.php?no=488 (accessed 10 January 2007).

http://www.3rdearmusic.com/forum/mbube2.html (accessed 10 January 2007); http://www.carteblanche.co.za/Display/Display.asp?Id=1759 (accessed 10 January 2007).

http://www.3rdearmusic.com/forum/mbube2.html (accessed 10 January 2007).

Although the true target of the litigation was Abilene Music Publishers, the case was brought against Walt Disney Enterprises Inc. (as the most high profile licensee of the song) because the South African court can only exert jurisdiction over a defendant who has a place of business or other assets in South Africa; http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2006/02/article_0006.html (accessed 10 January 2007).

ibid.

For an example, see http://www.drbilllong.com/CurrentEventsVI/Lion.html (accessed 10 January 2007).

http://www.wbr.com/paulsimon/graceland/cmp/essay.html (accessed 10 January 2007).

Interview with Ken, 6 June 2005.

Hamm 1989, p. 299; http://www.wbr.com/paulsimon/graceland/cmp/essay.html (accessed 10 January 2007).

Interview with Stanley, 7 June 2005.

Interview with Joseph, 2 June 2005.

Ibid.

Interview with Paul, 27 April 2004.

Interview with David, 15 June 2005.

Interview with Steve, 14 April, 2004.

Interview with Robert, 12 March 2004.

Interview with Larry, 1 March 2004.

Interview with Mary, 13 June 2005.

In these cases it is often difficult for a researcher, too, to verify if such a debt accrues from a regular advance or from some extra sums of money that a company has borrowed for a spendthrift artist (which is often a company view to the matter). Either way, the extended debt situation reveals that there is something in the relationship between the two parties beyond that defined in a contract.

This applies to artists anywhere: typically an artist starts earning royalties only after the record sales have reached a break-even point, that is, the point where the sales incomes have covered the costs accrued in making the record (plus the potential sum given as an advance to the artist). The fact that only the record company knows the figures and is not liable to reveal their accounts to an artist is something that tends to cause suspicion among artists towards their companies, universally.