On Aug. 1, 1981, MTV aired its first music video, “Video Killed the Radio Star,” a new single from the British, new wave, one-hit wonders The Buggles. This technology, then on its trial run, revolutionized the music business of the next 20 years — until it was time for another switch in the industry. Today, the tragedy lamented by the synth-popduo has taken on a different form. The web-based consumption borne of the past decade has at once democratized the music world and stymied its potential for innovation.

From Apple’s groundbreaking iPod and iTunes Store to music streaming sites like Pandora and Spotify, industry leaders are facing uncharted territory, with a rise in legal roadblocks and payment squabbles. The technological tidal wave has left industry leaders grappling with a vital question: Does fan-friendly music sharing help or hurt the artists whose stylings they enjoy?

Last weekend, Georgetown held the Future of Music Policy Summit, an annual event that hopes to answer that very question. Led by the Future of Music Coalition, a national nonprofit education, research and advocacy organization, the event focuses on the nexus of the music industry and public policy. Formed just over a decade ago after technological changes began to rock the music industry, the coalition aims to foster a musical environment in which artists can both flourish and be fairly compensated for their work.

“We thought that these changes might be an opportunity for artists,” Deputy Director of the Coalition Casey Rae-Hunter said. “So one of the things that we wanted to do was help them understand, first and foremost, what changes in technology meant for them.”

Featuring both policymakers and punkrockers — from Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Federal Communications Commission Commissioner Michael Copps to Cheap Trick guitarist Rick Nielsen — the eclectic bunch took the weekend to examine the current state of the music industry, where it’s been and where it’s heading. “The summit seeks to conduct this examination not only from the perspective of the technologist or the corporate businessman, but also from that of the musician,” Rae-Hunter, a musician himself, said.

This year’s summit looked at the role of artists in what the coalition terms the “music ecosystem,” and their ability to survive its changing dynamic. While new technological innovations offer music-hungry consumers instant gratification, these sites aren’t good news for music producers. Digital streaming services such as Pandora and Rhapsody have caused an “erosion of the physical market,” Rae-Hunter said. According to him, these mobile music and online streaming services don’t give artists the financial backing they deserve.

These concerns have become even more pressing with the launch of digital rights management-based music streaming service Spotify and its recent partnership with Facebook. After years of setbacks and negotiations with the four major record companies — Sony Music Entertainment, EMI Group, Warner Music Group and Universal Music Group — the site made its services available in the United States in July. Legal in Europe since 2008, the service provides users with access to acatalogue of approximately 15 million songs, which can be streamed for free or through a paid monthly subscription.

But the new site has come under fire recently for its alleged failure to pay independent artists sufficiently for their work. An independent artist would need over 4 million streams per month in order to earn the U.S. monthly minimum wage of $1,160, according to David McCandless, a London-based independent data journalist and information designer. Through a record label, only 1,161 albums would need to be sold to reach the same minimum wage. On Apple’s iTunes Music Store, a mere 12,399 track downloads per month for an artist to reach that monthly pay.

Adding heft to these allegations, Brooklyn-based independent label Projekt Records entered into a public disagreement with Spotify, stating that the company does not reward its artists adequately.

In the coalition talk, “Money from Music: The Songwriter Conversation,” songwriter and producer IvanBarias said that he has experienced a huge decline in payment over the years. “The decline in CD sales have contributed to a decline in royalties,” he said. “I would say it has decreased by close to 70percent.” Barias said that demand has increased for music that’s both immediate and constantly changing — “microwave music,” as he calls it — is driven further by mobile music and online streaming services.

The popularity of remixes and sample-based music has only compounded these oft-cited legal and royalty issues. Media giant YouTube has long been on the forefront of remix culture, making use of its technology in an effort to bring money to those responsible for digital sampling and mash-ups. However, YouTube is not the only one making strides in fair pay.

Omid McDonald, a panelist at the policy summit’s “Killer Apps, Conflicting Law,” explored the legal questions surrounding remixing and digital sampling. McDonald is both the founder and CEO of Legitmix, an online music service that seeks to circumvent the compensation shortfall by allowing users to both purchase and remix music, thereby satisfying copyright laws and compensating the musician responsible for the original work.

But the Legitmix approach is not devoid of legal murkiness either. It is unclear whether or not the individual obtains the rights to create derivative versions of a song even if it has been purchased — but this uncertainty speaks more to the legal system’s struggle to keep up with the blistering pace of technology than to the music industry’s failure to satisfy the copyright holders.

“We are not pirates,” McDonald said in defense of his company. “[This] balance between the copyright holders has been tested. … [T]he courts and society have always drawn the line at the individual’s house … and that, to me, made a lot of sense, and that gave me the feeling that we were doing the right thing by allowing remixers to make profit, generating sales and advancing the arts, which I think is the definition of copyright.”

In a keynote address titled “Copyright and the Independent Creator,” Maria Pallante, register of copyrights and director of the U.S. Copyright Office, looked to break down what has become a convoluted legal quandary for many. “The mission of the copyright office is to promote creativity by sustaining an effective national copyright system,” she said.

“It’s the music, right?” Pallante said. “In the end, it’s all about the music. The music is the point and ensuring a culture where creativity can flourish is the point of copyright law.”

But not everyone is as optimistic. “I don’t see this as particularly solving any problems facing creative communities and artists,” said Larisa Mann, both a disc jockey and Ph.D. candidate in Jurisprudence and Social Policy at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, about the company. “I see this as solving an administrative problem between entities that already have power.”

As a musician, Mann fears that the services would be too expensive and would end up curbing creativity rather than nourishing it. “I feel that … free circulation contributes to creativity. I feel that the source of most of musical innovation comes from places outside of the system,” Mann said. McDonald’s Legitimix may not be the final solution to tiffs over copyright law and fair pay, but it may be a step in the right direction.

“Sitting through a conference like this … as a musician, I just need to play music. However technology is changing, I’ve chosen to make a path as a musician,” said Raul Pacheco, the lead vocalist of Ozomatli, a Chicano rock band.

Pacheco’s balancing act is reflective of industry-wide trends. While today’s artists may not be able to control the technological breakthroughs or legal battles of tomorrow, they can choose how to react and adapt today. The Future of Music Coalition serves as a vehicle for them to make these adjustments. As the only event where musicians sit alongside Congressmen and women, copyright lawyers, tech minds and business leaders, the coalition serves as an empowering force.

And it leaves attendees with just as many questions as it does possible solutions.

“There’s no one single answer to where the music industry is heading,” Rae-Hunter said. “But the one question we should ask over and over again … is: How does this impact musicians? And if the answer to that question is, in a positive way, then I suppose we can just retire. But that’s not always the guaranteed outcome, and that’s why the Future of Music Coalition exists in the first place.”

For Rae-Hunter, putting today’s musical voices at the decision table sends a simple yet vital message to the American public.

“It is music that so often eases the burdens of our day-to-day lives — if we lose sight of the creators who provide these inspirations, we may be deprived of a part of what makes America so great.”