Rhythmix vs. Rhythmix - it's not over yet

Hot news in the X Factor camp this afternoon; self-styled 'wild-child' Frankie Cocozza has been booted off of the UK's prime-time darling of a TV show. The news was so unexpected, it sent media outlets into a frenzy - when The Sun broke the story it actually resulted in Twitter going over capacity - big news story of the day, or so one would think.


Previous to this announcement, the X Factor were gifted with another breaking news announcement, although it appears they don't stand by the age-old theory that 'any publicity is good publicity'. The public shafting of an 18 year old man, obviously blinded by the promise of fame and indulging in the type of vices to make your grandmother blush, is much more preferable to that of reasoning with the general public as to why they're still sneaking around behind a music charity's back.


It was reported at the end of October that Rhythmix, an organisation providing access to music for young people in the South East of England, had succeeded in their battle to get the producers of the television show to change the name of one of the hotly tipped girl groups in the competition who had adopted the same moniker - 12 years after the initial trademark registration by the charity.


This coup, this apparent feel-good story of David beating Goliath was widely reported, hitting regional, national and online media outlets as soon as the story broke. The girls of Rhythmix, now Little Mix, had taken it upon themselves to change the name, resulting in good PR all around.


Despite this, the legal wrangling isn't quite over. The dispute between both parties was not one devised in order to publicise either Rhythmix, it was in fact a move to save a charitable organisation that has helped over 40,000 young people get involved in music in situations where the opportunity may have slipped them by. The issue was not primarily with the actual name of the X Factor group, but the parent company of X Factor, Simco's application to register the name as a licensed trademark throughout the UK and EU that would have resulted in the charity being legally unable to continue it's work under the same guise and thus invest any surplus funds that was earmarked for young people into a rebranding campaign.


Here's the kicker for all you advocates of charity out there; Simco haven't yet withdrawn their trademark application for the name Rhythmix. In an open letter published on social networking site Facebook, the charity's director, Mark Davyd, states the severity of the continuing battle to save their name. Regardless of the public announcement and positive PR generated for both parties, it has been divulged that Simco's pursuit of trademarking the Rhythmix name still stands. Although Davyd states that his organisation has contacted Simco's legal representatives numerous times to resolve this issue, the charity had received no response at the time of writing. Davyd goes on to state:


"...Simco and your legal representatives are choosing not to respond to any of the formal letters sent to them. This is despite the legal problems between your company and the Charity being caused entirely by the actions of Simco, despite the thousands of pounds in legal fees that are the responsibility of Simco, and despite the failure to conclude the matter properly. Why won't they respond? Because the legal advice is that the Charity cannot afford to pursue Simco through the courts, so the best way to "win" this matter is to not deal with it and wait for the Charity's money to run out."


The scenario set out above is a very realistic one. With legal costs now inflated into the thousands of pounds, the charity's existence is very much under threat once again. One could argue that a charity should not be resorting to social media in order to try and settle a legal dispute, but with a useful (and free) distribution tool at their fingertips, who can blame them? Without any response from legal executives who are doing what is asked of them and financial reserves drying up, one can argue that they had no option.


Is it now the duty of the users of social networks to lobby change in multi-national corporations? Unfortunately this now seems to be the case. The notion of corporate social responsibility of large companies in this instance can be seen to be unworkable; surely the executives at Simco must feel an iota of responsibility in aiding a charity, no matter how big or small, continue to deliver its services to the cross-section of the public that value them so much?


As Davyd summarises in the letter mentioned above: "You can choose to take an interest in this matter or you can choose not to." With shares and comments on Rhythmix's open letter now in the hundreds, just how long will it be before the executives and legal team take notice?

Facebook and Spotify: Is music truly social?

This is a repost from my original article on God is in the TV, published on November 4th. The site has been nominated for a Record of the Day Journalism Award, so please vote for them if you feel so inclined! Great news for a webzine run pretty much entirely by volunteers with an unbridled passion for music.

***

With Spotify reporting an increase of one million users of the service and MOG joyfully stating that interactions with their platform are up 246%, it’s easy to see why Facebook’s integration with streaming sites is being hailed by many as a successful merger. In fact, the synergy is so positive from this strategic move, Facebook is phasing out the site’s official music player; arguably to focus on existing or potential partnerships with other media and entertainment platforms.

However, is Facebook’s decision to effectively outsource music content to partner organisations the right move for the hundreds of millions of users using the service?

The debatable reasoning for Zuckerburg’s relationship with streaming sites such as Spotify can be seen to be based almost entirely on the notion that music is social. In Spotify’s press release announcing the integration, the organisation reasons that “music is one of the most social things there is” and that in order to achieve the aim of drawing people away from the ‘deviant’ world of piracy, it was known that “the service would have to be inherently social”.

The nature of social media means that it is ridiculously simplistic for users to share every iota of detail feasible with their virtual friends and connections. Sites like Lamebook often showcase the best and worst of this encouraged culture of sharing our lives – I needed to know that people drink beer through sanitary products.

Spotify’s seamless integration with Facebook meant that users initially had no choice in deciding what to share and when. If you listened to your favourite Kylie and Jason playlist four times in a row, everyone knew about it. Alarmed users campaigned against this with immediacy, leading Spotify CEO Daniel Ek to introduce a private listening feature – but does it make enough of a difference?

This emphasis and assumption that music is social is a concept that for me, personally, doesn’t sit well. Since the marriage of social media giant to the next generation of music consumption, I’ve decided to wait for a future innovation. Since September, my Spotify account has remained dormant.

Maybe I’m just a grumpy cynic, but my opinion is that music is, in essence, a very personal thing. Music may be a medium that is shared throughout the world, but as a commodity. The way in which people listen to, analyse, interpret and ultimately judge music is subjective. Music in its very nature is ambiguous. It’s not uncommon for a group to go to a show together, but each person’s reaction to the performance is often very different, even if sharing the same values, ethics or tastes.

Aside from this, Spotify has also been the subject of frequent negative press about the financial return the artist receives from consumers streaming their music. Billboard reported in July 2011 that a song had to be streamed 64 times in order to accrue the same royalty rate it would see from one download.

Independent record labels have been arguably pivotal in bringing this imbalance in payments to public attention by withdrawing their catalogue from the streaming service; in fact, from all ‘all-you-can-eat’ streaming services. Projekt Records stated that the royalty payable for each stream was $0.00029 and a key point when taking the decision to withdraw from Spotify into consideration.

Most recently, and perhaps, most importantly, Coldplay took the decision not to offer their recent LP, Mylo Xyloto on any streaming site. Publicly, it has been stated that this is to steer consumers towards legal download sites and to own the album, rather than borrow it. Now, this reasoning is feasible, but potentially not to reiterate to fans that they should buy music, but to attempt to increase the royalties from the record they would receive. If just one fan downloads the album from a licensed online retailer instead of streaming it on Spotify, the band would receive 64 times the amount they would have from that fan. It’s not just a pro-legal download move, it’s shrewd business sense; so should Spotify’s customers reconsider their use of the service in order to support the musicians who create the songs they’re so fond of?

So herein lies the debate – are you a social advocate of your playlists? Do you care if your 463 Facebook friends know you play T’Pau every half hour to keep your spirits up? Do you subscribe to the camp of intimacy and enjoy your guilty pleasures alone? Or should we just abandon streaming altogether?

Simco finally find some morals... but disguise them as someone else's?

I think it's because I spent a lot of today poring over trademark applications and scouring the WIPO and IPO websites for definitions that the Rhythmix vs. Rhythmix case has finally been resolved.

This evening, it was announced on BBCRadio1's programme, Newsbeat, that the girl band Rhythmix were changing their name.

X Factor producers released a statement saying: "At the request of the charity Rhythmix, the members of the girl group Rhythmix have decided to change their name, a decision which has the support of Syco and TalkbackTHAMES.

"The group's new name will be announced in due course."

A victory over the global corporation, no doubt, but at what cost? Simco and its portfolio of businesses haven't handled the PR storm that was resultant of an initial belief that was arguably of the 'I'm bigger than you' nature in the most delicate way possible. From the first 'get a lawyer' to the secondary 'we just need more time' to the obligatory 'no comment', the company infuriated not just the immediate supporters of the charity Rhythmix, but charitable advocates the country over.

Throughout the course of the afternoon, publication after publication, including MTV, Reuters and Glamour magazine all reported on the legal dispute between entertainment behemoth and regional charity. This (perhaps from Simco's view) unprecedented publicity resulted in the change - although reported to be the teenage girls' decision.

To me, this begs the question; has it come to the point that four teenage girls display more morality than a multi-national organisation? Appears so.

The Saga Continues...

Recently I wrote about the dispute between a music charity for young people, Rhythmix, and X Factor finalists, Rhythmix. As stupid and convoluted as this opening sentence sounds, there's still been no resolution between Rhythmix A and Rhythmix B.

Debate has been raging across social media platforms from both X Factor fans and abstainers alike, so I feel it's essential to put the 'change the name' debacle in context.

Comments such as 'they're a band, they're a charity, what does it matter?' unfortunately are ill-informed. It would be wonderful if both entities could exist side-by-side and Rhythmix (the charity) could continue delivering workshops to the 40 000 young people and counting that it's benefited thus far and that Rhythmix (the band) could enjoy some Top 40 success and induct four young girls into a career into the entertainment industry.

Due to the nature of Simco's trademark application for the name, the above 'utopia' isn't just challenged, it's impossible. 

The charity have a registered trademark for the name 'Rhythmix' in the UK. It's registered at the Intellectual Property Office and everything; has been since 2006. At this point, it is essential to state that the trademark was registered in one class or Nice Classification, meaning that the mark can only be used in goods and services directly relating to specific industries. 

The class that is integral to the whole meaning and implication involved within this dispute is Class 41, defined by the World Intellectual Property Organisation as - 'Education; providing of training; entertainment; sporting and cultural activities'.

Simco have put an application in to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, a body determining the acceptance of new trademarks for use in the European Union, with their Rhythmix trademarked under Classes 9, 16, 25, 28 and, the one that makes all the difference, 41.

By Simco gaining exclusivity of the Rhythmix name in the EU, the charity would no longer be legally permitted to continue business under their existing name. 

The issue here is not necessarily the 'theft' of a name, but the issues of finance and morality. It is widely written in academic texts and internet blogs that a core difference between a company, whether corporate or charitable, that succeeds and one that fails is the building of an established brand. The charity has used the Rhythmix name not only to distinguish itself in the first sense, but to create a brand that is widely recognised in the South East to young people, parents, guardians and teachers alike.

The cost of ingraining such a brand into the public psyche over a period of twelve years is one that this graduate couldn't even begin to fathom (ballpark figures in the comments are gladly welcomed). Morally, should Simco, knowing the desperate position the charity is in thanks to an open letter written by charity director Mark Davyd, be in such a position of power where they can deprive not-for-profit organisations of their twelve years of work?

Finally - a plug for those who wish to get more involved with Rhythmix (the charity), whether it is helping to share the word, or if you are able to donate musical equipment or want more information about the work they do for young people in the South East, I've provided some quicklinks below.

Rhythmix Official Site

@RhythmixMusic

Raging for Rhythmix 

'Darkest of Days' shortlisted at Film Festival

A bit of a self-indulgent post this time, as it's obvious I have a vested interest in the activities of Funke and the Two Tone Baby. However, this entry takes a slightly different slant to my previous, focusing on the creator of multi-media, rather than the creation of the music.

The video for 'Darkest of Days', the first single from the EP 'Pushing You Back' was filmed for free, by Elvira Bukowski and a group of keen university students, just desperate to spend hours with stockings on their heads, drinking mulled wine, in a rickety old lifeboat shack on Broadstairs' Viking Bay on a cold February eve.

Deservedly, Elvira's efforts in the production, direction and editing of the music video have been recognised, leading to the project being shortlisted at German film festival - Kurzfilmfestival-Oberschöneweide 2011.

Elvira was born in Tallinn, Estonia, before studying in the UK at Canterbury Christ Church University. Despite only being 22, she has travelled around Europe extensively and cites her journeys and experiences as being influential in the work she produces.

She says: "Being in England was the greatest opportunity for me to travel, because of the low cost flights it offered. So, the biggest travels I had were happening from there: Spain, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium, Scotland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Germany, Poland as well as the UK itself - Brighton, Manchester, Dover and so on. Apart from that, from my home town I travelled to Turkey, France and a lot of times to Russia, Finland, Latvia and Lithuania."

"The biggest dream I have is to travel to the Balkans (especially Greece, and all the former Yugoslavian countries). The nature and traditions of the Balkans inspire me a lot. The open-hearted people, the culture that has been saved, the closeness of human to nature, the spirituality and the celebration of life, their strong spirit and food and music, of course."

"It's not a surprise that my favourite artists are originally from the Balkans as well... Marina Abramovic, Dusan Makavejev, Emir Kusturica. The music, art and film they do make my soul dance, laugh and cry and this is all truly real and connected to the spirit. You know what I mean?"

Elvira is currently managing a film and theatre project in Berlin, the trailer for which and other independent and personal projects can be found on her YouTube page. Some of her photography is on her Tumblr page.


From a business perspective, for an independent and unsigned artist, forming a relationship with a videographer or director can prove profitable for both parties. The era of the viral video is still alive and well - as long as we're still watching on YouTube or Vimeo. Emerging songwriters can often call on the growing talents of film and media students at colleges and universities; giving both sides the opportunity to develop their skills, talents and portfolios.

"Get a lawyer."

So Amelia Lily was the big loser in this week's edition of global singing contest, The X Factor, leaving the show and going onwards to a potentially fruitful career within the entertainment industry.

However, there's been a twist in the highly polished and intricately choreographed series hitting UK screens this year. For once, a candidate who didn't enter the series, who isn't a singer and who isn't even an individual may turn out to lose the most from participation with the programme.

Rhythmix is a name that the ITV1-watching public will associate with four young, female vocalists, currently under the tuition of X Factor judge, Tulisa Contostavlos. What the majority of these viewers may not be aware of is the existence of Rhythmix. Confusing, I know.

The Rhythmix to which I'm referring is that of the South East England-based music charity (registered with the Charity Commission of England and Wales, registration number 1125646); an organisation that has been working since 1999 using music as a positive medium to enrich the lives of young people who may have suffered a bereavement, social difficulties, legal difficulties or family problem to name but a few of the varied circumstances the charity works in.

Given the difficulty that may arise for people when trying to search for the Rhythmix that means the most to them, the charity approached the global brand asking for the matter to be resolved, so that both businesses may continue doing what they do best.

For most, I like to believe, the resolution would be a no-brainer.

Regardless of the name of the young foursome, Tulisa's protégées could settle themselves nicely into a career. For a charity, which has spent 12 years discreetly going about their work, it could be more of a difficult transition to make. Obviously, it was necessary for the various management and production companies with a stakeholding interest in the X Factor to start legal proceedings in order to ensure that Rhythmix remains associated with a Saturday night circus and not with some charity.

The story has made press headlines throughout the country, with Kent News, the Mirror and the BBC amongst others (a quick Google will throw up more) all reporting on the dispute. Shockingly, the BBC reports the X Factor's response to the charity as "get a lawyer".

Unsurprisingly, a social media movement is also gathering momentum as the story is more widely reported. On Twitter, particularly, if one was to search for the hashtag 'changethename', the majority of posts no longer refer to major league sports in the USA, but instead to the Rhythmix name game. On Facebook, many of the posts by the charity are being shared by dozens of people, with the sharing platform's handy emphasis on statistics stating that over 500 people are now 'talking' about the charity within the site's walled garden.

A clever link with a campaign for an alternative Christmas #1 (Nirvana, anyone?) helps to broaden the reach to potential Rhythmix (the charity) activists - debatably of which many will not be X Factor viewers. Notably, the Nirvana for #1 campaign has amassed a digital army of music consumers and disgruntled not-for-profit supporters of over 5 000 in the past 24 hours alone.

Currently, when typing 'Rhythmix' into Google, the charity still retains it's #1 spot in the list of results - although many of the others beneath are all X Factor related. The need for the charity to implement effective SEO techniques are more important than ever to ensure that they are still maintaining essential online presence - continuing to connect media coverage, fans of X Factor, users of the charity's services and campaigners will ensure that the Rhythmix name remains prominent and ingrained in the minds of music lovers, consumers and activists.

But, they need help. Ensuring the momentum of the campaign doesn't wash away as soon as the next X Factor news story (read scandal?) hits and floods tabloids and social networks with manufactured sensation. I've provided links below to Rhythmix's Facebook and Twitter pages. Go and 'follow', go and 'like - retweet a couple of times, share a few statuses. It's all important. The power of virtual networks is obvious to all. We've had alternative Christmas #1s, we've saved 6 Music - the beauty of the free and open internet is that we're free to campaign for whatever cause or belief we wish to.

On a final note, Rhythmix are currently trying to raise funds in order to 'get a lawyer' as the X Factor production companies so helpfully advised. All monies raised will go directly towards legal funding, with any surplus being re-invested in the charity so that they may get back to the work they believe in and deliver to the South Eastern young community. Click here in order to donate.

Social Media Links:

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/RhythmixMusicCharity

Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/RhythmixMusic

No, you're not allowed to do that.

As was reported at great length in the past week or so, the copyright term on artists' sound recordings was extended from 50 years to 70, thus further limiting the use of particular recordings for the public domain.


Now, before continuing, it is necessary to assert one vital point. I wholeheartedly believe that artists should be appropriately remunerated for their work and energies creating the pieces of music we all adore and immerse ourselves in, both personally and socially. However, I believe that the extension in copyright term is not an effective means of ensuring artists a financial return.


The campaign for this extension was spearheaded by major industry figures, including Sir Cliff Richard and Sir Paul McCartney, prompting one to ask; why use musicians already so well-established and financially comfortable?


As Bob Stanley, writing for The Guardian states in a way that I can't even begin to match, the irony of this term extension is that it will continue to line the pockets of the musicians most fortunate to attain the gargantuan record sales seen decades ago; yet provide the session musicians performing on said records on average a paltry £250 a year.


Notwithstanding the importance of the vast difference between the revenue artists can expect to accrue from this, another point of debate should be raised - the issue of open and fair use of sound recordings.


This legislation effectively means that an entire catalogue of work is now kept behind lock and key for another twenty years; arguably denying new and potential consumers the chance to discover works, to innovate with them or to discuss them. One could even state that the copyright term extension is in fact another subtle method of copyright enforcement upon the public.


Despite the positive recommendations highlighted in this year's Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property loosening the restriction of use of copyrighted work for parody, it appears that restriction is still a key word for the entertainment industries when considering open and public usage of works.


A very public example of the re-ignited emphasis on control for some industry associations is the case of Joel Tenenbaum, an American student fined by the RIAA for illegally sharing 30 songs online. Initially, Tenenbaum was fined £675 000. Then the damages were reduced to £67 500. Then the court ruled that, no, in fact, Mr. Tenenbaum should still be liable for the original figure of £675 000. Now one could debate the potential lost revenue for the record companies due to the file-sharing engaged in by Tenenbaum, but £22 500 per song? Now that's another debate for another time.


The principle of sharing, the very principle in which artists gain a fanbase, (and debatably repeat consumers) is one that seems to be being neglected, despite 'social' being the industry buzzword of the day. 


I think, given the rambling rant of this post (and the title), that the idea may be clear to you. The continuous policing and lock-down on musical works may be protecting the financial interests of multi-national corporations, but what of the social and cultural factors that the creative industries are so dependent on?