Guest
Pål Bråtelund
Pål Bråtelund is Head at Music DNA, as introduced on the show.
Episodes (2)
Daan Archer of Copyright Delta and Pål Bråtelund discuss why AI needs registered metadata and accountable infrastructure to pay music rights holders correctly.
Pål Bråtelund of Music DNA explains how music tech companies can share data and revenue through collaboration instead of chasing an acquisition.
Questions these episodes answer
What confusion did the AI conversation cause at the Sørveiv conference?
Bråtelund compared it to a medical conference where everyone talks about cancer without saying which cancer: creators debate which AI tools are acceptable to use, lawyers focus on what data trained those tools, and using AI creation tools can require a disclosure flag that may lower a track's royalty rate.
What does Daan Archer mean by calling Copyright Delta the plumbing layer of music?
He means Copyright Delta builds the connecting infrastructure, similar to old pipes and wires, that lets independent rights holders collaborate and get paid without needing a big label's systems, arguing the industry's existing plumbing was built decades ago and has become outdated for a much bigger digital catalog.
Why does Daan Archer say AI is not black magic?
He explains that AI systems are just curve fitting in high-dimensional data, with parameters that are the AI company's own intellectual property, so from a music perspective the real question is what content the model was trained on and what output it produces, rather than some mysterious unknowable process.
Can AI be used to fight the misuse of AI in music, like deep fakes and unlicensed use?
Yes, Archer says AI can also be used to recognize deep fakes and track plays, and expects such uses to be treated simply as tools within two years.
What is the simplest thing artists can do to make sure they get paid correctly for their music?
Register your work with the relevant rights and performance societies, since Copyright Delta and similar identification systems can only route royalty payments to artists whose work is properly registered and identified in the first place.
Why does Pål Bråtelund think music tech companies should collaborate instead of chasing acquisition?
He says most small companies fix one narrow problem, find some customers, then stall, and the traditional way past that stall is a big cash injection or acquisition by a roll-up. His alternative lets companies keep their independence while sharing data or components with each other for a fee, so smaller players can keep innovating and get paid rather than being absorbed into a bigger company.
What did Pål Bråtelund observe about Utopia's acquisition strategy?
He says Utopia came in wanting to build genuinely new infrastructure while also wanting to profit from a large-volume royalty business, and it hired aggressively. A lot of its deal flow ended up being companies looking to cash out rather than strong complementary pieces of the infrastructure it wanted to build.
How does Pål Bråtelund's collaboration model let companies share data without merging?
Using an intermediary like Dan Archer's Copyright Delta, a company can put data such as radio detection logs on a shared table and set a price for its use, for example asking for a fifth of a ten percent royalty-recovery fee, with blockchain used to make that pricing trustworthy without a merger or acquisition.
What does Pål Bråtelund see as a simple example of music tech collaboration?
He points to Masterchannel's mastering API, which lets a partner add mastering to its own product by calling a single line of code. He calls this the right level of frictionless collaboration, far simpler than heavier data-sharing arrangements between companies.
What EU regulation does Pål Bråtelund expect to reshape music royalty infrastructure?
He expects an EU directive on royalties and credits, which he compares in scope to GDPR, to force a new way of paying creators like session guitarists directly rather than through a label or management.