So little time…so many databases

You wait years for a global copyright database and then two come along at once. With CISAC’s announced involvement today in the Global Repertoire Database project and WIPO’s declared intention to assist in the delivery of the similar International Music Registry, which one should you back and what is the current state of play with each? These were questions moderator Susan Butler wanted answering by key players close to both projects here at the World Copyright Summit in Brussels.

This session on global databases began with a history lesson from Sylvain Piat, ex-of the CISAC parish, now at SACEM. His presentation set the scene for the discussion which followed about collaboration and the effectiveness of the collecting society network. The story begins in 1998 with the birth of CIS-Net, a plan to join up all of the world’s separate collecting society databases so each had sight of the other. This early game of ‘I’ll show you mine if you show me yours’ developed in response to a need for more accuracy and increased efficiency. To date, CIS-Net has resulted in the inter-connectedness of 74 contributing societies and 101 user societies and an estimation of the global population of musical works at 50m. But this vision was all laid out over 13 years ago when society documentation was still paper-based and fax was the latest new technology to grapple with.

Fast forward to 2011 and the needs of the online world. Wouldn’t it be great if you could replace the inter-connectedness of databases with just one database that held the correct ownership information in real time that everyone could use? Step forward the GRD project whose working group comprises eight companies (Amazon, EMI Music Publishing, iTunes, Nokia, PRS for Music, SACEM, STIM and Universal Music Publishing) and WIPO whose IMR boasts a steering group drawn from ‘major sectors of the International music industry’.

Susan Butler had been eavesdropping on Summit delegates who were as confused as she was about the next moves in this game. Comments she related ranged from ‘what is it all about?’ via ’it’ll never happen – at least not for 20 years’ to ‘we don’t want the whole world being able to see our confidential information’.

So, to set the record straight, could our panellists confirm who is onboard to provide data to any or either global database, who funds such a thing, who would have access to it and what’s the stage of development?

Neil Gaffney of EMI Music Publishing was first out of the traps. ‘GRD is a data utility,’ he explained. ‘It provides an opportunity for the first time ever to create a central repository of musical works information that can be accessed by all collecting societies.’ It is a once and for all chance to deliver a fully reconciled listing of everything musical in existence that can be used on a national or multi-territory basis. As such, he explained, it would reduce costs and make more worldwide repertoire available to more collecting societies to license and distribute based on accurate information.

All major publishers have made a commitment to it, he said, and he hoped all major collecting societies would too during the next phase of wider stakeholder consultation being conducted by the independent Deloitte consultancy.

Confirming the day’s news that CISAC had joined the GRD working group, board member Eric Baptiste said CISAC’s involvement would help to evaluate requirements and share the knowledge learnt over the many years of CIS-Net implementation. He confirmed they would also engage with IMR and therefore be in a better position to make recommendations to societies about the way forward by the end of the year.

GRD will be based on the system developed recently by PRS for Music of the UK and Sweden’s STIM. This project developed from a need by both societies to update and consolidate their own databases with the intention to sell-on back-office processing to other societies. ‘The data matching operation of the two society databases has suggested there are around 13 million unique works,’ said PRS for Music CEO Robert Ashcroft. ‘I’d be really interested to know how many works there are in the world,’ he added, ‘since our own experience suggests a degree of duplication in the 50m suggested by CIS-Net.’

Ashcroft recognised that ownership and finance would be key questions for the future of GRD. ‘We (PRS for Music and STIM) have been entrepreneurs to date and borne the cost if the investment but it’s not tenable for two societies to be gatekeepers for the world’s data going forward,’ he said.

Bendik Hofseth had information about IMR. ‘WIPO are prepared to set it up,’ he said, ‘and we have proposals on the table for sponsor funding after the initial WIPO investment.’ But it didn’t seem to be enough information for the rest of the panel.

‘We’re concerned about the term “public asset”,’ said Baptiste, ‘as we are about the analogy with WIPO’s Patent registration experience. We’re not sure it’s completely relevant. Copyright doesn’t work the same way. We wouldn’t expect to charge creators to register a musical work as you would for a patent, for example.’

Hofseth suggested that IMR would extend to more than just musical works registration and that it would be wider in geographical scope.

‘But GRD is global,’ protested Gaffney, attempting to lay to rest the notion that this is a European initiative.

And what of those macro issues that have derailed so many major projects before; wouldn’t a global database give more power to major rightsholders who would repay the societies by pulling out rights and licensing their content direct? And what if five or six major societies combined their back offices, licensed on a global basis and impacted negatively on smaller societies?

‘It’s the other way round,’ suggested Ashcroft. ‘It would have a positive impact on those societies who currently find it difficult to get their repertoire represented in pan-European deals.’

‘We already have a global database of EMI works,’ added Gaffney, ‘and a centrally held database won’t mean that I can license on Universal’s behalf.’

It was left to the man from WIPO in the audience to put delegates straight on three issues related to the IMR project. First, it’s not in competition with GRD and collaboration is welcome. Second, the patent analogy is only used to demonstrate their data management experience and is not intended to reflect a copyright registration tenplate. And third, ‘public good’ doesn’t mean everything is visible. Confidential work ownership information would stay confidential he said.

‘Here’s to finding out more about this soon,’ wrapped up Butler, ‘and by that I mean I hope it doesn’t take 20 years.’

Adrian Crookes