global repertoire database world international property ......design team engaged & consulted,...
TRANSCRIPT
Global Repertoire Database
World International Property Organisation
Copyright Documentation and Infrastructure
13th October 2011
Private and confidential2
The Global Repertoire Database initiative was instigated
following a request from the European Commission
• In September 2008, then Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes launched a series of Roundtable meetings
• Brokering dialogue between industry stakeholders on legal and administrative barriers to the online distribution of
music
• General agreement on the need for a common framework for consolidating and maintaining accurate data
regarding musical works, their ownership and authority to license
• A potential solution was the development of a Global Repertoire Database (GRD)
• As an action from the work of the Roundtable a GRD Working Group was established to explore the possibilities of
a GRD further
• This Working Group was originally comprised of the following key stakeholders:
• The Working Group issued a Request for Information in April 2010 and subsequently a Request for Proposal in
July 2010, ultimately published a set of recommendations in December 2010 appointing ICE (the International
Copyright Enterprise) as the technology solution provider and Deloitte as project manager to support the delivery
of the GRD.
• The MIDEM conference in January underlined the criticality of effective stakeholder engagement in the successful
and timely delivery of the GRD solution
• The Scoping and Stakeholder Consultation Phase is seen as the preliminary phase in the delivery of the GRD
Global Repertoire Database: European Commission
Private and confidential3
The GRD will provide, for the first time, a single,
comprehensive and authoritative representation of the
global ownership and control of musical works
Overall GRD
Programme
Objectives
Scoping Phase
Objectives
• Develop a business and technical solution (based on ICE) to underpin a single,
consolidated database that the music industry can trust to provide authoritative,
multi-territorial information about the ownership and mandates to license musical
works for all kinds of uses
• Provide greater transparency of musical works, rights and mandate data to
relevant industry communities
• Help ensure that intellectual property rights are upheld, and that royalties are
directed to the rightful recipient
• Agree the scope of the GRD solution – business and technical
• Define how the GRD could work (process, people, technology, data, governance,
funding and location) with input from the key industry communities
• Define the business case for the GRD
• Engage the key industry communities and test/secure buy-in to the proposed
approach
• Agree the high level implementation roadmap for the design and build of the
proposed solution and secure funding for the next (Design) phase
Global Repertoire Database: European Commission
Private and confidential4
We have a clear view of the approach we are going to take
to this phase
A • Understand how the key organisations currently interact
with each other within the industry to build the “big picture”
e.g. interaction between EMI, PRS and Amazon
• Consists of different views (data, money flow, end to end
processes and key challenges), e.g. how data is passed
between publishers, societies, MSPs, users, etc
B • Understand how ICE operates today (business & technology) in
relation to a future GRD
• Identify which of the following areas are to be developed for GRD
A
A
• Based on Discovery phase, agree scope
of GRD solution and the key challenges to
be addressed
• Show the new industry interactions based on proposed
solutions to the key challenges identified
STEP 1 - DISCOVERY STEP 2 – AGREE FOCUS AREAS STEP 3 – DEFINE FUTURE STATE
B • Agree the principles by which these key
challenges will be addressed across both
the industry and across the future GRD
solution (business and technical)
• Finally, define the implementation roadmap and
business caseD
Cumulative Costs and Benefits
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
£m
Cumulative Benefits Cumulative Investment Costs
Cumulative Net Value
Aligning initiatives to benefit levers:
Cost and benefit analysis example outputs:
Not based on actual data
Potential deviation from plan arising from CI Risk Review
800
900
1,000
1,100
1,200
1,300
1,400
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
£m
CI R isk Review Plan TOM Implementation
Impact on Cost Baseline
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
2009
(Baseline)
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
(Target)
Costs (£m)
Strategy & Leadership Operations & Support
P roduction C ommissioning
£18m
-
-
£18m
Leasin
g /
pro
perty
mainte
nance
costs
£35m
£2m
-
£32m
£1m
In-h
ouse
com
missio
nin
g
spend
£200m£54m£22m£41m£30mTotal Annual Value
£51m-£11m£20m£18mInitiative 4
£19m-£7m£5m£7mInitiative 3
£93m£44m-£12m£5mInitiative 2
£37m£10m£4m£4m-Initiative 1
TOTAL
Cost p
er
bro
adcast h
our
pro
duce
d
Indie
co
mmissio
nin
g
spend
Softw
are
licence
and m
ain
tenance
costs
Headcount c
osts
£18m
-
-
£18m
Leasin
g /
pro
perty
mainte
nance
costs
£35m
£2m
-
£32m
£1m
In-h
ouse
com
missio
nin
g
spend
£200m£54m£22m£41m£30mTotal Annual Value
£51m-£11m£20m£18mInitiative 4
£19m-£7m£5m£7mInitiative 3
£93m£44m-£12m£5mInitiative 2
£37m£10m£4m£4m-Initiative 1
TOTAL
Cost p
er
bro
adcast h
our
pro
duce
d
Indie
co
mmissio
nin
g
spend
Softw
are
licence
and m
ain
tenance
costs
Headcount c
osts
LEVER:
INITIATIVE:
Impact on Cost Baseline:
TOM Benefits
At Risk
• Agree top level view of proposed GRD solution across the
agreed dimensions, which could include:
GRD
Governance & Finance
Customer
Products
Organisation
Technology & Data
Channels
Processes
People
Physical sites
GRD
Governance
Customer
Products
Organisation
Technology & Data
Channels
Processes
People
Physical sites
C • Define proposed solutions to key
challenges/opportunities across the relevant agreed
dimensions of the GRD
ILLUSTRATIVE
ICE
Governance & Finance
Customers
Products
Organisation
Technology & Data
Channels
Processes
Physical sites
People
Music Industry
ICE
Publish-er
SocietiesAuthors/
Composers
MSPConsumers
Data
ICE
Publish-er
Societies
Authors/
Composer s
MSPConsumer s
Money
ICE
Publish-er
Societies
Authors/
Composer s
MSPConsumer s
Process
ICE
Publish-er
Societies
Authors/
Composer s
MSPConsumer s
Key challenges
ICE
Publish-er
Societies
Authors/
Composer s
MSPConsumer s
ILLUSTRATIVE
Music Industry
GRD
Publisher
Societies
Authors/
Composers
MSP
Consumers
B
Global Repertoire Database: European Commission
Private and confidential5
The number of organisations involved in the GRD initiative
is now significantly increased and represents a much
broader section of the industry
Engagement
Level
Method of
EngagementAssociations Publishers Societies MSPs Other
Core Design
Team
(Working
Group)
Decision makers;
shape operating
model
Support weekly
operating model
design activities
• ICMP *
• CISAC **
• ECSA
• EMI Publishing
• Universal Music
Publishing
• PRS / STIM
• SACEM
• iTunes
• Omnifone
Extended
design team
Engaged &
consulted, provide
key input
Participate in 2
facilitated
operating model
design events,
plus ongoing
consultation
Major
• Sony ATV *
• Warner Chappell *
International Indie:
• Peer Music *
• Kobalt Music
• Imagem
• EMI Christian
Music
Sole-territory:
• Hal Leonard
• ASCAP **
• BMI **
• SGAE **
• GEMA
• KODA
• SADAIC
(LatinAutor) **
• APRA
• ARTISJUS
• Amazon
• Spotify
• Nokia
• WIPO
• FastTrack
• Soundmouse
Informed
organisations
Targeted
communication/
requests for
information
Direct
communications,
e.g. email
• TBD Associations
that are targeted
and/or ‘subscribe’
• TBD Publishers
that are targeted
and/or ‘subscribe’
(inc. BMG Rights
Management)
• TBD Societies
that are targeted
and/or ‘subscribe’
(inc. JASRAC,
CASH)
• TBD MSPs that
are targeted
and/or ‘subscribe’
(inc. TDC,
Gracenote)
• TBD Other
organisations that
are targeted
and/or ‘subscribe’
Everyone
else
Able to access key
information and
provide feedback
Indirect
communications,
e.g. website
• All other impacted
organisations
• All other impacted
organisations
• All other impacted
organisations
• All other impacted
organisations
• All other impacted
organisations
Depth of Engagement
* ICMP represented on the WG by Sony ATV, Warner Chappell, Peer Music, Kobalt. They will also be involved in the
major engagement events as Tier 2 organisations
** CISAC represented on the WG by ASCAP, BMI, SADAIC, SGAE. They will also be involved in the major
engagement events as Tier 2 organisations
Original members of the GRD WG shown in pink
Global Repertoire Database: European Commission
Global Repertoire Database
World International Property Organisation
Roundtable on Music Databases: Current Landscape and Developments
Mark Isherwood
12th October 2011
RightscomRightscom