Episode Transcript
[00:00:01] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability the.
[00:00:04] Speaker B: All new talk radio freedom 106.5.
[00:00:10] Speaker A: Good morning again, Trinidad and Tobago. Welcome Back to Freedom 106.5 FM. It's 8. 27 in the nation's capital and it's time to turn our attention to our headlines that made the papers on Monday. Gone with Cott President defends Deal with TTCO as Board Split Widens and to chat with me on this is the president of TTCO, Mr. Isaacs. Good morning to you, sir.
[00:00:37] Speaker B: Hi, good morning, good morning, good morning, good morning.
[00:00:41] Speaker A: Let's talk a little bit about TTCO and what this company is about.
[00:00:47] Speaker B: All right, so San Diego Copyright Collection Organization is a member royalty management and distributed organization.
So it's a collective management of a, called a cmo.
It deals specifically with copyright in the music space as well as neighboring nights in the music space as well as actually one of the most important things, works of ma, which is the protection of images and designs within our carnival product.
[00:01:28] Speaker A: Now, people often ask, you know, how do persons benefit from this? How are you all able to track when music is played? You know, when you say collections, what exactly do you, what are you collecting? How do you collect it? What is the process?
[00:01:45] Speaker B: So we established national tariffs and those tariffs are utilized to assess the sample rate or the average sample consumption on content.
Traditionally, the method of sampling, as I've always said, has been somewhat inaccurate.
It's globally used.
But with the digital age, we have been able to get a little more accurate data on the online space.
However, within the public domain, we still have some levels of inaccuracy regarding stacking content.
[00:02:26] Speaker A: Regarding what?
Okay, now I want to break down the science of it, all right? I want to break down the science so that the average citizen will understand when you talk about the content and tracking it and how you're getting revenue from it. Who are the persons that you are tracking to gain or to collect revenue from?
[00:02:51] Speaker B: That's a very good question. So it's music users or content users in any commercial use space.
So take for instance your radio station, you would play music and content to facilitate ad revenue.
And from that use of that content, there's tracking that occurs on your station.
And from those body of work that you would use, we would identify the different creators who would own the copyright and the neighboring right or the right to that body of content.
And then your status is an annual rate based on the tariff for consumption or use of that content from a blanket license when that fund is collected, that fund is then distributed throughout all the Songs that you would have played that is represented in our package.
So that's how that works on the radio station, on the lines it's pretty similar, like an event.
And in premises or areas where persons own companies or bars or restaurants, etc. We utilize this sample from the broadcast on the radio, which I would have said is antiquated and is about to change.
[00:04:18] Speaker A: When you say sample, it's broad and persons in your sphere would understand it.
But for the conversation to be one that persons retain after what is sampling from the bars. When you say sampling, please identify.
[00:04:37] Speaker B: So, so you would have. Let's say. Let's say you are John Brown and you are not your business place and you would have played 19 songs for the day.
We have tracked those 19 songs because you are a radio station.
So we are actually identifying what was played.
We are looking at the frequency of what particular song is being played and utilizing that to be able to give us a good. A guest image, let's call it that.
To identify what songs are generally being consumed. And that's the concept of sampling.
So it's used globally. There are measurements for it based on public consumption from radio and broadcast.
They would utilize that to be able to identify so the general consumption. So I hope it is outdated.
[00:05:34] Speaker A: Right.
[00:05:35] Speaker B: And we are taking significant steps to change that in the coming months.
[00:05:39] Speaker A: So persons understanding this listening. I open a rum shop, as we just say in local palats. I open a rum shop, I have a bar and I put two speakers outside in my area in my little space there and I play. I get a CD or something on YouTube and I decide to run that on a console and I just playing music. Soca music, for example.
You passing as the president of TTCO here in the bar, playing the music.
How do you get me as a bar owner to pay you a fee for the music I played?
[00:06:17] Speaker B: Well, so you're dealing with three areas.
You're dealing with compliance and you're dealing with licensing and you're dealing with works ownership.
So we'll start with the works ownership first.
The barman who have a rum shot actually is utilizing the content that he does not own to create commercial viability by attracting persons to come and consume the rum.
Nice bar.
[00:06:50] Speaker A: Stop right there.
Just a point right there. So I don't want. So when I open my rum shop, I play in my music, as you rightfully say, to attract music. You know, when we hear music, we get. It's infectious. We go across, we take our coal lager. Are you saying that for me to play that music at my personal business place, I have to then register with ttco, for example.
[00:07:23] Speaker B: Well, you. You hit the nail on your head.
So in this morning that we have a little language challenge. It's not a personal business.
It's actually a commercial space for business.
As long as it's actually conducting business.
So we will tell you to stick on the music in your staff.
But when you are conducting it for commercial games, right, for business, economic value added to you, then it is reasonable to think that the persons who own the music and who own the rights associated with the use of that music are not only informed, but are compensated for its use.
[00:08:09] Speaker A: So you know, the bar open for a few hours.
And while the bar open for hours on end, various DJs will pass through and they're playing up songs that may be popular. Michael Teja, they play a Marshall, they play. Patrice, they're playing. Then they come three hours down the road, they play a game.
You're saying now there are various copyright organizations in this country.
What is is important is are you saying that they have to. So if you pull up and you identify yourself as whatever TT co.
But I'm telling you. Well, I would Cotti, what happens there?
[00:08:56] Speaker B: Well, I'm happy that you said that.
So there's a difference between separation of rights. So what existed was over the past six years, and I'll give you a little historical background.
Traditionally, COT COTT was responsible for the administration of copyright, which is the protection for the author and the composer.
TTCO was responsible for neighboring rights, which is the protection of the performer and the producer. All are independent rights holders in a body of work.
So a song has several rights holders.
You have the producer, the performer, you have the composer and of the music, of the melody and the writer and the lighter.
So the two organizations would have represented distinct rights within the body of work.
Now, in the past six years, there was an issue of duplicity of rights management, meaning some person would have registered their works at TTCO on that neighboring rights.
And some persons would have registered their works under COT as auto composer.
And somewhere in the mailing we've had an issue where rights would be duplicated in its administration and management.
So we ended up with a situation where COP began doing neighboring rights as well as copyright and TGCO began doing neighboring rights as well as copyright. And to some extent the catalogs or the registered work or the rights holders had duplicated membership.
So the distinction now between who is actually the light holder and who is not the right holder became very convoluted over the past six years, thus leading the person thinking that you required either or the smart man approach, as we call it, demand trying to save some money. He would do one and leave out the other.
What would have happened in that circumstance is that we would have been disadvantaging or creative and not allowing their content to generate the revenue that it should. Now I'm saying revenue, but I want to put this into perspective.
The barman you mentioned opened his bar for a couple of hours.
The average consumption is bound by time.
So I would say to you one hour is 60 minutes and we have an average play here in Trinidad of about a minute and a half to two minutes all when we ball and out. I'm saying give them some more or the DJ want to talk plenty. Let's say we have 30 songs in a house and the average bar would operate for about 12 hours. Some would go 15, some will go 24. But let's take 12 as an example.
Yeah. These are the mathematics.
So 12 threes with at 36, which will be 360th songs played at that bar for the beat.
Can you imagine that? That currently the license rate is about $10 and it should be about $20 to split for that day between 360 songs, which would sometimes represent multiple rights holders.
So we're talking about 0.01 of a set right shoulder on average location.
So when I say the collection or the remuneration, it's fragments and portions of a scent.
Yeah, but that is added and accumulated over time over. Not over time alone, but over the amount of places that consume or play the content can. So that deals with the. With the licensing part. The compliance aspect however, is the challenge because as you would have mentioned, the president takes a walk and sees the bar.
And the bar has no license or one license. But he's playing content that falls under either one of the organization's repertoire.
He may say, well, I pay already here paying again.
It may be of that. That view that he is within the law to do so. So the Copyright Act Section 8280 will distinctly remind him that he is in breach of the law.
[00:13:59] Speaker A: So he has to now pay several organizations.
[00:14:06] Speaker B: Not several, two, but there was a third. You know that the Reprographic Society is one. And then you had awesome copyright.
[00:14:17] Speaker A: Awesome.
[00:14:17] Speaker B: Yeah. Which dealt traditionally with gospel artists. So they were very specific and very niche.
So it's rare you'll get a bad jamming out the gospel music.
[00:14:27] Speaker A: Well, to be honest, I, I had the.
I had to deal with awesome for an event that I throw. I throw annually.
The Crystal Dream Weddings Exposition. And huh.
He came, he was there was a gentleman that was a member of COTT at a point in time and then he moved and awesome was there and he then started representing awesome.
[00:14:55] Speaker B: Right.
[00:14:56] Speaker A: And I would have paid him.
[00:14:57] Speaker B: An employee. Say again.
Was it, was it an employee?
[00:15:02] Speaker A: Well, an agent.
[00:15:04] Speaker B: But yeah, but that, that happens. It just wouldn't vary.
[00:15:07] Speaker A: Right. So.
Right. So what I'm saying, what I'm saying I paid. I would have paid a few years back to awesome for music. You are saying that awesome was. Is solely for gospel. But I wasn't playing gospel.
But I paid licenses. I paid the license fees to and got it from awesome.
[00:15:28] Speaker B: But you were misguided.
[00:15:30] Speaker A: That's what I'm saying. There could be dishonesty. And I gave you that story to show, to ask you about dishonesty because.
[00:15:37] Speaker B: So this is, this is beautiful. And you said that. So the owners on the person taking the license to ensure that the repertoire or the catalog of work that they're going to consume falls within the repertoire or catalog of the organization that they're being licensed by.
[00:15:53] Speaker A: Well, that's the pointer. So I am feeling slighted now. It came in very much cheaper. He came in very much cheaper because.
[00:16:02] Speaker B: He'S not protecting anything.
[00:16:06] Speaker A: And then the, the company, the, the, the venue, the company, they were very happy that I had a license. We had the license. We paid awesome copyright. So you pay for copyright license.
There was no knowledge.
Yes. The lack of information, there was no insight as to this is just for gospel.
[00:16:24] Speaker B: That's correct. And, and it's unfortunate that the industry would have broken down into that scenario.
[00:16:33] Speaker A: It came like it's awesome. Like it's almost like it was a hustle.
[00:16:37] Speaker B: Well, well, I'm saying the industry would have broken down into that scenario at a point in time I think is just about two or three, two years ago. There was a contract effort by myself and some other key proponents in the art, along with the World Intellectual Property Office, the IPO office to arrest that situation so aggressively can an artist transparency and accountability across these organizations. I think you would now know that awesome is completely defunct.
[00:17:09] Speaker A: They are defunct, yes. And I believe it's for dishonesty.
[00:17:13] Speaker B: You would understand that in our efforts to arrest that situation and to ensure fair and balance consumption as well as fairness to the creatives, we have taken a very strong stance to ensure there's clarity within the state of intellectual property because it can be a bit convoluted.
[00:17:31] Speaker A: And heavier well, this is why I sought to get clarity on the issue, because I felt it necessary to do so. Because like I said, when awesome came to me, I knew him. I won't call his name but. But I knew the individual.
[00:17:47] Speaker B: I suspect I know who the individual is.
[00:17:49] Speaker A: Right.
I knew him when I had to pay.
Yes, you probably do. If I say who it is because he's widely known.
You probably do.
I would have dealt with the individual under cut. And then when awesome came up and he saw the ad coming out, he called me and I said, yeah, I need to get licenses. And I remember time and time I would check him, I said, yeah, and I would pay the fees and I get my license and I good to go for the two days.
[00:18:15] Speaker B: So who have been within the copyright space, individuals.
[00:18:21] Speaker A: So then.
Right.
[00:18:23] Speaker B: And the checks and balances on those individuals has now really come to bear.
So they have a. A reckoning, as I would mention.
Yeah, there's a reckoning. You know, all slight of hand will. Will show themselves in Tylenol and persons will account for their transgressions.
[00:18:44] Speaker A: Yeah, I think there were some legal issues with him as well that I saw.
[00:18:48] Speaker B: But Canon artists, it's a wonderful thing. It's in illegal history.
[00:18:53] Speaker A: No pun intended.
No pun intended. Just goes to show you're on the same page with me. You're on the same page.
[00:19:01] Speaker B: Yeah. Those who have been advantaging or creative, who have been, who have been preaching their responsibility to treat with our creators in Trier and Tobago fairly and justly, they will be called to account.
[00:19:16] Speaker A: Somebody is saying, you see all what this man saying to me coming across as a money making gimmick. So what door play. So what door play, Marshall. And we cannot support local. Well then best we listen to Celine Dion and foreign artists. I play in YouTube in my bar. You charging me?
I pay an Internet.
[00:19:35] Speaker B: No, no, yeah, yeah. This is the difference though. So there's digital.
So there's digital service providers or DSPs.
They would charge you, you would play that content online. It may be free to you, but it's not free to the advertisers because the commercial value is generated based on the advertisement.
So someone is generating revenue based on the platform, whether it's monetized or not.
So somebody is generating revenue, don't forget that. So, so while you consume on that end, you may be a consumer, you may not be generating revenue.
[00:20:09] Speaker A: So you paying, you playing, you paying your Internet and playing your music off the Internet, you're still liable to pay cut licenses, copyright licenses.
[00:20:22] Speaker B: You are paying In a public forum for gain, for economic gain, value and economic gain. That is the fundamental principle of it's impossible to ask you to pay if you're in your car. That's your private space. But as long as you are conducting public work in the public space to create a revenue then there is definitely a fee to be paid on the basis that you are utilizing works from someone that sat in a studio created content, spent money produced, mixed and mastered spent money to advertise and disseminate the information for it to even become popular.
[00:21:05] Speaker A: Question for you.
When a person is having a dance or license and they have the party and they have the dancer license, they still have to get copyright license in addition to that or dance or license.
What is it good?
[00:21:24] Speaker B: So you recognize. Remember last year the judiciary or the manager's called the committees lighting committee started making you sign an exemption.
[00:21:35] Speaker A: What is this exemption?
[00:21:37] Speaker B: The exemption indicating that the copyright. You are aware of the copyright responsibility that you have and you only require. In your case you only require X, Y or Z.
That was because in our outdated which I had conversations with the Minister of legal affairs and I can publicly say that where there are steps now so even amend those areas regarding the use of content in that space. Now there are some dance halls and so insisted the Dance hall act does not say anything about the copyright.
[00:22:18] Speaker A: Okay.
[00:22:19] Speaker B: But not because it doesn't say anything about the copyright. And you knowing that you have a dance or license, you could have the license but you're going to play content.
So you need to ensure you you review the Copyright Act 8280 to ensure that you understand what are your copyright obligations.
Because a dancer license doesn't mean that you can go on the road and put on some speakers in the middle of the road and block the road. You may have to have a police permit for some Africa as well.
You carte blanche. You can do as you wish.
[00:22:55] Speaker A: It's specific. It's specific.
[00:22:57] Speaker B: It is specific to the particular space and event.
[00:23:03] Speaker A: That is correct.
[00:23:05] Speaker B: Similarly, you may require an inspection by customs. You may require a fire services permit, you may require a police presence. Those are additional prerequisites of additional requirements that are needed to be had in the concept of having an event.
But what some persons in Sri Lanka Bago do they say well I have one, so I have all. So I'm going. I'm going with that because it is saving me money.
[00:23:39] Speaker A: All right.
[00:23:39] Speaker B: Yeah. It means they 45 star fine.
A potential fine in copyright. And this was written in the lawyer.
[00:23:47] Speaker A: Final question for you 10 years imprisonment or 150,000. Let me get a call this person. Burning Boy. Hello, Good morning.
Hello.
[00:23:59] Speaker B: Yes, I'm hearing you.
[00:24:02] Speaker A: All right. There was a caller there, so.
Hello, Good morning.
Morning.
[00:24:09] Speaker B: Maybe I listened to your guest here.
[00:24:12] Speaker C: And it almost seems that this organization.
[00:24:16] Speaker B: Was able to pass a scam into law.
[00:24:20] Speaker C: Because to me, if you play music that is provided by a radio station and the radio station paying the fees or whatever, I understand that you're using it for commercial use, but how does one go about collecting from small businesses around the country, to me is impossible. And to begin with.
[00:24:43] Speaker B: And why.
[00:24:45] Speaker C: Why should I pay for something that, for instance, I. Streaming of YouTube is better?
This thing that this gentleman is talking about, it almost seems as if they don't want the artists and them to sell their product.
Because to me, if I had to pay to play music in my bar, right. I'm not going to do that. If I had to pay because I don't have enough overhead expenses already.
Right. As minute as may be, money does. When you're making money, money that's done so fast in business, as fast as you get it, like you get in front of a fan, it is blowing. So to me, this is.
It's like the makeup, this law, just to get revenue. It's almost, as one of your texters put it, I kind of. It sounds like a scam.
And that is my take.
[00:25:38] Speaker A: All right, thank you very much. Well, somebody was also asking if the artists also get the payments.
[00:25:45] Speaker B: Right. So let me respond to the gentleman that came on.
It's unfortunate. It's very sad that he has that conclusion.
But I want to remind him that the content that he's consuming for his commercial gain does not belong to him.
And across the world, copyright has been established to protect creators.
And the reason for creating that protection is to encourage further creativity and to encourage a proper economy around the creative art.
So it's sort of.
It's impractical to think that someone can consume something that they do not own and not pay for it.
[00:26:33] Speaker A: So my final question. Can artists register with multiple copyright organizations? For example?
So I could register for creative rights and performing rights at your organization and then go across the cott and register for the same thing.
[00:26:55] Speaker B: I can tell you this much.
Artists, through unilateral or bilateral agreements that they have in CMOs are registered generally globally.
So when you have a carnival event in Miami.
[00:27:11] Speaker A: Yeah, but that's copyright. But that's outside of this country. I'm talking about.
I'm talking about situations.
Nicola is wrong I'm talking about situations where the artists can register in locally, not regionally, not internationally. Locally.
[00:27:31] Speaker B: Locally, yes, absolutely.
[00:27:33] Speaker A: So. So. So if you register with. With TTOC or TTCO as the writer of a song.
[00:27:42] Speaker B: Right.
[00:27:42] Speaker A: I can then go and register with COTT as the writer of the same song.
[00:27:46] Speaker B: No, you're creating duplication.
[00:27:48] Speaker A: But that's what I was asking.
So you could. You could do different songs, but you can do different.
[00:27:54] Speaker B: No, you can do different roles and responsibilities on a song. So a song would have a writer. A writer, a composer, Melody.
[00:28:02] Speaker A: Right.
[00:28:03] Speaker B: A producer and a performer.
So you can play multiple roles in that same song.
[00:28:09] Speaker A: But what I'm asking, if I register with ttco, let's say I make a song called Daylight, right?
Daylight is my song. We jam in daylight till daylight or till morning, right?
[00:28:21] Speaker B: So daylight is masala.
[00:28:25] Speaker A: We register.
We reg. I registered Daylight with ttoc. Ttco. Sorry, I registered as. I'm registering as the.
Out of the four. I am the writer of the song and the performer of the song. So I come. So those are the two roles I played. I wrote the song myself and I performed it. I had a producer for. A producer who did a mix and master. Then I had a composer somebody.
[00:28:53] Speaker B: Right?
[00:28:53] Speaker A: I had that. The composer.
[00:28:54] Speaker B: Right?
[00:28:55] Speaker A: So I. I come and I register with TTCO as the writer and producer and writer and performer of Daylight or Daybreak. And then I go across by Cott and I do the same thing. I register as a writer and compose and performer of the song Daylight. Could I do. Could an artist do that? Is that legal?
[00:29:18] Speaker B: No. I tell you why you can't do that. Because you are duplicating the right.
What you are doing is assigning a right to yourself in multiple CMOs. And this is. This is how it exists now.
Yeah, in multiple CMOs for the same.
What I call it. The same remuneration, in other words.
So you are duplicating the remuneration.
[00:29:43] Speaker A: And if you're caught, guilty of doing that. Because what is. What are the checks and balances for. For you? I come to you. How are you going to verify I didn't register?
[00:29:52] Speaker B: I am extremely happy that you asked. And it brings us back to the thesis of our conversation, which was regarding the article in papers yesterday.
[00:29:59] Speaker A: That is correct.
[00:30:01] Speaker B: There has to be a relationship and a memorandum of understanding between the both organizations who represent the majority of the catalog, so that that information can be shared with each other so they can create the collective administrative step.
[00:30:17] Speaker A: But that was in the past. That was. That was done in the article on. On yesterday.
[00:30:21] Speaker B: Now what I'm saying, that has never occurred prior to that.
[00:30:26] Speaker A: Prior to that, Artis would have been.
[00:30:28] Speaker B: Duplicating rights register challenge to be able to decipher. I mean some of our artists are very disciplined. There are some who have no not been duplicated because they understand what. What that does and they recognize they don't make any more money from it anyway. So it's a little incentive. There's no incentive for duplicate.
[00:30:48] Speaker A: So why, why, why is it is there a split in the board with this joining or merger between COTT and ttco?
[00:31:00] Speaker B: Well, I think I would answer that as best as I can because there's not a split in the board with TTCO or.
And cut. There's not a split with CUT and ttco.
What we have done is created a memorandum of understanding between the two organizations to establish that kind of communication. One license system and some of the things that we have out the ruler.
There is a difference of opinion in the CUT board regarding some aspect of its functionality. And similarly there would be differences of opinion in any organization where persons believe that change might change the status quo.
[00:31:42] Speaker A: Ah, okay.
[00:31:44] Speaker B: So you have those who believe in the status quo who insist in the status quo because it's convenient for them.
And we are. We are not. We are not. We are not. I am not concerned about the status quo being good or bad. I am concerned about ensuring that we have functionality within the space and that members are given their best cue. And based on our communication with the World Intellectual Property Office, with the IPO office in Trinidad which leads copyright in the country and other best practice users, PRs and Pro in London who would have done the same.
JAM and jcaps in Jamaica who would have done the same. Trinidad is behind and it's time for us to get ahead.
[00:32:28] Speaker A: I want to thank you very much Mr. Isaac for chatting with me this morning and clearing up some very crucial issues.
To be clear again, music played in your cars.
All right. I'm not sure what he marks music away though. Music it shouldn't be, but it is because I will tell you why.
I like to talk and speak and convey things in a language that when the interview is done done the average Joe able to retain something from it. So I understand the the fact that there's other keystick info at hand that we need to put out there and I think we did a great job of it. But a lot of people were just hearing I open my bar I playing off of YouTube and you want to charge me and I don't Pay no Internet bill, right? You can and take the people music and download it on YouTube for free. So I want persons to understand that if you are playing people's stuff and you are gaining financially from it, you then have to pay licenses for using the people's stuff.
That's the takeaway. If you are, if you are having economic gain from playing a particular playing music in an area, whether it be your home, so it's a paid party, you're having people paying by the door, you're gaining money, then you have to register your dancehall license and get your copyright license. That's the takeaway most definitely.
And I from experience and being a television producer of a show, I try when my shows went on these streaming platforms, there was certain musical content in there I had to strip off because yeah, they were very serious about it. I had to go in re edit and pull those musical content off. Even though it wasn't local, it was more or less international. I had to get free to air and free to use instrumentals and stuff that, you know, I had to use otherwise it couldn't have hit Hulu.
[00:34:31] Speaker B: To utilize the IPO office, the Intellectual Property Office, that's a governing body in San Diego. Form and selector for reach out to the IPO office and ensure that you have clarity as well.
[00:34:42] Speaker A: All right. I thank you very much for chatting with me this morning. I am into Tusca's time. I want to apologize to her upfront for taking a minute into her time. Folks, I gotta go. Thank you so much again for chatting with me and we'll talk again soon. Take care. The best insight, instant feedback, Accountability the.
[00:34:59] Speaker B: All new Talk Radio Freedom 106.5.
