You are here

How do we create a healthier music ecosystem that empowers musicians financially?

Advice on everything from getting your music heard to setting up a label and royalties.

Re: How do we create a healthier music ecosystem that empowers musicians financially?

Postby blinddrew » Fri Jul 17, 2020 9:01 pm

CS70 wrote:The fingerprinting tech exists. We can recognize individual faces among billions, does anyone think it's harder to recognize sequences of PCM samples?
I'm not convinced by this, ContentID makes loads of mistakes, as does Shazam, but they both require some kind of central repository of copyrighted works to check against. No such list exists, and who would maintain it? How could you challenge it? It's hard enough challenging a false flag as it is.
User avatar
blinddrew
Jedi Poster
Posts: 11250
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:00 am
Location: York
Ignore the post count, I have no idea what I'm doing...

Re: How do we create a healthier music ecosystem that empowers musicians financially?

Postby CS70 » Fri Jul 17, 2020 9:16 pm

blinddrew wrote:
CS70 wrote:The fingerprinting tech exists. We can recognize individual faces among billions, does anyone think it's harder to recognize sequences of PCM samples?
I'm not convinced by this, ContentID makes loads of mistakes, as does Shazam, but they both require some kind of central repository of copyrighted works to check against. No such list exists, and who would maintain it? How could you challenge it? It's hard enough challenging a false flag as it is.

Well, in 1995 few cars had ABS but the technology was existing and proven. And "lots" of mistakes - where do you get that from? I have personally experienced none. Besides, if a mistake exists, the process to resolve it is relatively quick and painless - it may take say three days but one never schedules a release on Thursday for Friday, so it's just to add that contingency buffer to a release plan. A private upload to youtube will tell you all you need to know.

As of databases, most publishers do submit works to YouTube's algorithm. It's old news. The central repository is their own.

It's actually much worse when companies do _not_ maintain such a repository or do not maintain it with sufficient care - typically from cowboy companies. Look at the progress made by Spotify in the last three years - before then, collisions were common and their effect devastating. They have now cleaned up because they have been forced (by record labels) to be less cowboy. And that's benefited small labels or independents just as well..
User avatar
CS70
Jedi Poster
Posts: 6062
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:00 am
Location: Oslo, Norway
Silver Spoon - Check out our latest video and the FB page

Re: How do we create a healthier music ecosystem that empowers musicians financially?

Postby blinddrew » Fri Jul 17, 2020 9:30 pm

CS70 wrote:
blinddrew wrote:
CS70 wrote:The fingerprinting tech exists. We can recognize individual faces among billions, does anyone think it's harder to recognize sequences of PCM samples?
I'm not convinced by this, ContentID makes loads of mistakes, as does Shazam, but they both require some kind of central repository of copyrighted works to check against. No such list exists, and who would maintain it? How could you challenge it? It's hard enough challenging a false flag as it is.

CS70 wrote:Well, in 1995 few cars had ABS but the technology was existing and proven. And "lots" of mistakes - where do you get that from? I have personally experienced none. Besides, if a mistake exists, the process to resolve it is relatively quick and painless - it may take say three days but one never schedules a release on Thursday for Friday, so it's just to add that contingency buffer to a release plan. A private upload to youtube will tell you all you need to know.
Well I've had two challenges in the last two years, but here's a better list: https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=contentid
Now a lot of those cases are actually down to two things: 1) bad actors. There ain't much we can do about that, but the 4th story down shows how an automated system can be gamed to be automatically bad. 2) Automated systems don't do context. Which means they can't do fair use.

CS70 wrote:As of databases, most publishers do submit works to YouTube's algorithm. It's old news. The central repository is their own.

It's actually much worse when companies do _not_ maintain such a repository or do not maintain it with sufficient care - typically from cowboy companies. Look at the progress made by Spotify in the last three years - before then, collisions were common and their effect devastating. They have now cleaned up because they have been forced (by record labels) to be less cowboy. And that's benefited small labels or independents just as well..

I'll wager more original content is submitted on a daily basis that has never had any form of copyright registration than the amount submitted by formal publishers. But I can't see that we'd ever be able to prove it either way so if you disagree I'll take it on the chin.

Anyway, my main beef with upload filters is around context and fair use.
EDIT - And the locking in of the main players of course. That too. :)
User avatar
blinddrew
Jedi Poster
Posts: 11250
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:00 am
Location: York
Ignore the post count, I have no idea what I'm doing...

Re: How do we create a healthier music ecosystem that empowers musicians financially?

Postby CS70 » Fri Jul 17, 2020 9:38 pm

blinddrew wrote:Generally you license your work with a PRS of some kind and after that you have no control of how your music is used as long as it's within the licensing terms. This why you get these nonsense stories every election cycle where artists demand that politicians stop using their songs in campaign rallies. They generally have no such right to do that.

It's a bit more complicated. PRSs shell out performance licenses. It's the publisher that gives out the sync license, and the copyright owner (the recording company, label or the artist himself if he's independent) who agrees on the master license.

And even if the licenser has legally acquired all of these, the artists still can deny usage - by "false endorsement" claim. Basically if it's likely that people may think you as an artist endorse a specific content, with which you publicly express strongly disagreement (say your music used in a Trump rally or in a video promoting violent acts), the easier and faster it is - and indeed most politicians stop usage (even if they have bought a license) upon receiving a cease and desist letter.

It's harder if someone buys your license for usage in something less controversial, say a car commercial but even then, if you claim you really hate cars, you do have a good chance.

Licensing is not a faceless monster, but a way to administer your rights (or your publisher's and recording company's, depending)
User avatar
CS70
Jedi Poster
Posts: 6062
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:00 am
Location: Oslo, Norway
Silver Spoon - Check out our latest video and the FB page

Re: How do we create a healthier music ecosystem that empowers musicians financially?

Postby DC-Choppah » Fri Jul 17, 2020 9:39 pm

Please understand that the economics discussion in this thread is spot-on.

If you allow your works to be copied and copied and multiplied over and over by technology, they will lose value. The technology takes something scarce and makes it common. Thus it devalues it.

The stated purpose of the copyright system is to allow creators to have the control over their creation, who may copy it, how many copies are made, so that the creator can reap the rewards of that creation. That means that others can't reap your rewards.

Obviously, if someone reproduces your work and distributes it on a massive scale, and makes it value-less because it is so common, or uses it for trivial and offensive things, it devalues your creation. The copyright laws protect you from this.

The artists have been outsmarted by the distribution business and are paying the price for it. Yet the law is on the side of the creatives.

The jump to the internet was a blip. It pushed the technology quickly and people were distracted by the novelty.

There is no difference between the internet and the printing press other than scale.

The printing press needed a copyright to be granted to be used. The copyright was an authorization to make copies. There was no right to print. Now people think they have a God-given right to copy someone else's work a million times over just because the technology has gotten faster. The law says otherwise.

This extends beyond music. Aggregated news into a Google news feed is a violation. Copying video, books, software, all has the same issue.

The internet companies face an existential threat. Their business model is challenged by the EU copyright changes as they are now responsible and financially liable for the content of users on their sites. That is a huge change. The US will follow with something similar. We will start to see massive lawsuits against the internet companies for violations on a huge scale. They fear it.

Without the increased legal protection for the artists the ecosystem will be out of balance as it is today.

If you fear that the new copyright rules will allow only the big players to host content, because they need $100M AI algorithms running to spot copyright issues, then I claim that no technology exists that can spot copyright issues. It is not technically feasible. There is no technological solution. It is trivial to go around if you try.

So I go back to my first post. Music is an activity not an object.

You have to have the permission of the human being to use his activity in your business venture. The music is the output of that activity and the law protects it. You can't treat it as an object to analyze and decide with an algorithm that you are clear to multiply by 100 million and distribute it for a profit. This is NOT a technical problem.

The purpose of the copyright law is to give the creator the control over his creation.
User avatar
DC-Choppah
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1582
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:00 am
Location: MD, USA

Re: How do we create a healthier music ecosystem that empowers musicians financially?

Postby CS70 » Fri Jul 17, 2020 9:55 pm

blinddrew wrote:https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=contentid

Now a lot of those cases are actually down to two things: 1) bad actors. There ain't much we can do about that, but the 4th story down shows how an automated system can be gamed to be automatically bad. 2) Automated systems don't do context. Which means they can't do fair use.


Not sure what exactly that link means (admittedly I haven't looked more than the initial page) but around 2016 there were about 300.000 video submissions daily on YouTube. If say a very conservative 1% uses music of some kind, we're talking about 15.000 videos per day. A 1% error rate would be 150 errors a day. In a month, around 4500.

And YT hasn't exactly gotten smaller in the last 4 years.

I mean, a handful of errors per month is probably as much as the tax office gets wrong every year. Painful of course for the people involved, but kinda physiological?

I'll wager more original content is submitted on a daily basis that has never had any form of copyright registration than the amount submitted by formal publishers. But I can't see that we'd ever be able to prove it either way so if you disagree I'll take it on the chin.

Er, no disagreement. If one wants to put something on YT ot elsewhere without publishing, fair enough and I agree it's very likely to be as you say. I speak in the context of music business when, even as an independent, you gotta have some form of publishing to reach the music market and make money out of it. If you don't collect royalties, it's still music but it's not business :)

As of fair use: it's supposed to be the exception, not the rule. Museums, libraries, schools, journalists - they would all have routines and channels in place to raise exceptions quickly and efficiently.
User avatar
CS70
Jedi Poster
Posts: 6062
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:00 am
Location: Oslo, Norway
Silver Spoon - Check out our latest video and the FB page

Re: How do we create a healthier music ecosystem that empowers musicians financially?

Postby blinddrew » Fri Jul 17, 2020 10:04 pm

CS70 wrote:
blinddrew wrote:Generally you license your work with a PRS of some kind and after that you have no control of how your music is used as long as it's within the licensing terms. This why you get these nonsense stories every election cycle where artists demand that politicians stop using their songs in campaign rallies. They generally have no such right to do that.

It's a bit more complicated. PRSs shell out performance licenses. It's the publisher that gives out the sync license, and the copyright owner (the recording company, label or the artist himself if he's independent) who agrees on the master license.

And even if the licenser has legally acquired all of these, the artists still can deny usage - by "false endorsement" claim. Basically if it's likely that people may think you as an artist endorse a specific content, with which you publicly express strongly disagreement (say your music used in a Trump rally or in a video promoting violent acts), the easier and faster it is - and indeed most politicians stop usage (even if they have bought a license) upon receiving a cease and desist letter.

It's harder if someone buys your license for usage in something less controversial, say a car commercial but even then, if you claim you really hate cars, you do have a good chance.

Licensing is not a faceless monster, but a way to administer your rights (or your publisher's and recording company's, depending)
I'm not sure about that 'false endorsement' thing - that's a trademark law, not a copyright one. If I hire a venue for a rally, and that venue has the appropriate licences to play music, then I can play what I want at that rally. You can send me a C&D but I don't think there's any legal basis for it.
User avatar
blinddrew
Jedi Poster
Posts: 11250
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:00 am
Location: York
Ignore the post count, I have no idea what I'm doing...

Re: How do we create a healthier music ecosystem that empowers musicians financially?

Postby blinddrew » Fri Jul 17, 2020 10:07 pm

CS70 wrote:
blinddrew wrote:https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=contentid

Now a lot of those cases are actually down to two things: 1) bad actors. There ain't much we can do about that, but the 4th story down shows how an automated system can be gamed to be automatically bad. 2) Automated systems don't do context. Which means they can't do fair use.


Not sure what exactly that link means (admittedly I haven't looked more than the initial page) but around 2016 there were about 300.000 video submissions daily on YouTube. If say a very conservative 1% uses music of some kind, we're talking about 15.000 videos per day. A 1% error rate would be 150 errors a day. In a month, around 4500.

And YT hasn't exactly gotten smaller in the last 4 years.

I mean, a handful of errors per month is probably as much as the tax office gets wrong every year. Painful of course for the people involved, but kinda physiological?

I'll wager more original content is submitted on a daily basis that has never had any form of copyright registration than the amount submitted by formal publishers. But I can't see that we'd ever be able to prove it either way so if you disagree I'll take it on the chin.

Er, no disagreement. If one wants to put something on YT ot elsewhere without publishing, fair enough and I agree it's very likely to be as you say. I speak in the context of music business when, even as an independent, you gotta have some form of publishing to reach the music market and make money out of it. If you don't collect royalties, it's still music but it's not business :)

As of fair use: it's supposed to be the exception, not the rule. Museums, libraries, schools, journalists - they would all have routines and channels in place to raise exceptions quickly and efficiently.
Yeah, youtube is at about half a million videos a day. The thing is, even at tiny percentages, that's a huge amount (not ratio) of collateral damage. As to Fair Use, it doesn't just apply to museums and journalists etc, it applies to everyone. Not all of whom will have those routines and channels but may have something important to say.
I'm sure ContentID is getting better, and will get better still if there's further endorsement. But entrenching the existing players makes it harder for a fair deal to be found in my opinion.
But we've had this conversation before...
User avatar
blinddrew
Jedi Poster
Posts: 11250
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:00 am
Location: York
Ignore the post count, I have no idea what I'm doing...

Re: How do we create a healthier music ecosystem that empowers musicians financially?

Postby CS70 » Fri Jul 17, 2020 10:19 pm

blinddrew wrote:Yeah, youtube is at about half a million videos a day. The thing is, even at tiny percentages, that's a huge amount (not ratio) of collateral damage.

Well my math was totally off anyways :D

You're right that percentages often don't tell the truth, but in this case I think they do more than the absolute numbers, which are big only because the total number of submission is gigantic.

In this case, the percentages tell us that the likelihood of an error is very low, and thus cannot be configured as "lots of mistakes".. it'd be like looking at car accidents and deciding they're more dangerous than, say, parachuting because more people die of it in absolute terms. It would be misleading.

As to Fair Use, it doesn't just apply to museums and journalists etc, it applies to everyone. Not all of whom will have those routines and channels but may have something important to say.

It's still the exception :mrgreen:

And if one's got something to say, that he/she has to say it using someone else's work should bloody well be..

I'm sure ContentID is getting better, and will get better still if there's further endorsement. But entrenching the existing players makes it harder for a fair deal to be found in my opinion.

Not sure we have - maybe I misunderstand - but if there is sufficient political interest (and for example the EU has taken the lead on these issues) it could well be that a global database at some point be monitored and supervised by some public entity, as it happens for other large collection of data or other public utilities... and probably should be.
User avatar
CS70
Jedi Poster
Posts: 6062
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:00 am
Location: Oslo, Norway
Silver Spoon - Check out our latest video and the FB page

Re: How do we create a healthier music ecosystem that empowers musicians financially?

Postby CS70 » Fri Jul 17, 2020 10:29 pm

blinddrew wrote:I'm not sure about that 'false endorsement' thing - that's a trademark law, not a copyright one. If I hire a venue for a rally, and that venue has the appropriate licences to play music, then I can play what I want at that rally. You can send me a C&D but I don't think there's any legal basis for it.

It does not seem infallible, but it's been used actively in several cases, both with controversial (typically politicians) but less controversial uses (see for example https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2 ... _0004.html)

There is also evidence of frequent settlement - see https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcon ... cholarship

But I am no laywer - I had no idea myself but came to read about these and others only a few days ago about Trump using Tom Petty music at his rallies.
User avatar
CS70
Jedi Poster
Posts: 6062
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:00 am
Location: Oslo, Norway
Silver Spoon - Check out our latest video and the FB page

Re: How do we create a healthier music ecosystem that empowers musicians financially?

Postby DC-Choppah » Fri Jul 17, 2020 10:45 pm

CS70 wrote:
DC-Choppah wrote:It has been one year since it was adopted. There is no way for the internet companies to comply. They say that there simply is no technical solution that will filter out copyrighted material.

Laughing.. that's total BS. Of course companies drag their feet and kick and scream and resist. The fingerprinting tech exists. We can recognize individual faces among billions, does anyone think it's harder to recognize sequences of PCM samples?

It is not a fingerprinting problem. You can id the song correctly, but you can't correctly establish its copyright protection status.

The reason it is impossible, is because the creator has the power to determine the copyright and the technology can't read his mind.

The MLC will improve this situation for those that want to give a production the right to use their work. https://www.themlc.com/

This is the new US copyright system that will go into effect soon. Everyone should be registering their music with the MLC. This will solve the current problem where productions are asking us to hold professional insurance in case someone claims that our music is theirs. Again, the productions currently have no way to insure that your music has a valid copyright for them to use. So they push the liability down to you. So we have to have professional insurance (many are asking for that). The MLC should reduce that need at least, and it is a modern digital system. I hope it works out. It should allow you to prove that you own the copyright to the music you give to the production. It should help those who WANT to give someone the copyright.

But the problem will remain with music that is not on the MLC. There is no way for the software to determine the intent of the artist. Therefore, it must be assumed that the material cannot be copied. No valid copyright, you can' t copy. No more excuses. No more just checking a little box that says 'it's mine' on the way in.
User avatar
DC-Choppah
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1582
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:00 am
Location: MD, USA

Re: How do we create a healthier music ecosystem that empowers musicians financially?

Postby blinddrew » Fri Jul 17, 2020 10:47 pm

DC-Choppah wrote:Please understand that the economics discussion in this thread is spot-on.

If you allow your works to be copied and copied and multiplied over and over by technology, they will lose value. The technology takes something scarce and makes it common. Thus it devalues it.

The stated purpose of the copyright system is to allow creators to have the control over their creation, who may copy it, how many copies are made, so that the creator can reap the rewards of that creation. That means that others can't reap your rewards.
And here we disagree. Which probably drives a lot of the rest of our disagreement.
Here's the wording from the constitution:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
The purpose of the clause is to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. The mechanism is the limited term monopoly.
Copyright exists to stimulate more creation, that's the purpose. It does so by giving you a government backed exclusivity to exploit your work (for a limited period until it becomes public domain).

DC-Choppah wrote:Obviously, if someone reproduces your work and distributes it on a massive scale, and makes it value-less because it is so common, or uses it for trivial and offensive things, it devalues your creation. The copyright laws protect you from this.
I'm going to challenge you on this as well. Does this only apply if someone else distributes it or if you do so yourself? And how come people are still selling bucket loads of streams and downloads? And if it's licensed, how does copyright protect you from this? It's the business model that secures your income, not the lack of digital reproduction. The single consistent best proof against piracy is to make your product available easily and legally at a sensible price. But again, that's business model, not copyright.

DC-Choppah wrote:The artists have been outsmarted by the distribution business and are paying the price for it. Yet the law is on the side of the creatives.
That has always been the case in the music industry.

DC-Choppah wrote:The jump to the internet was a blip. It pushed the technology quickly and people were distracted by the novelty.

There is no difference between the internet and the printing press other than scale.
A blip? Really? The World Wide Web is 30 years old. That's a big blip.
And having something perfectly, infinitely and freely reproduce-able is an absolute, fundamental difference. And it's on a distributed basis. It's hard to see how it could be more different and still fit in the same sentence.

DC-Choppah wrote:The printing press needed a copyright to be granted to be used. The copyright was an authorization to make copies. There was no right to print.
The printing press existed for a couple of hundred years before copyright did. Lots of people ran effective businesses without that protection, as they do now in areas that aren't covered by copyright.

DC-Choppah wrote:Now people think they have a God-given right to copy someone else's work a million times over just because the technology has gotten faster. The law says otherwise.
Some people have always thought like this. Criminals have always existed. Lumping distribution mechanisms in with people actively setting out to defraud is a false comparison.

DC-Choppah wrote:This extends beyond music. Aggregated news into a Google news feed is a violation.
This one always gets me. 1) it's not a violation because the court has said it isn't. But more pertinently, by doing this, google drives traffic to the news website. When Spain banned this, google stopped doing it and the webtraffic to all the news sites plummeted. They reversed it.

DC-Choppah wrote:Copying video, books, software, all has the same issue.

The internet companies face an existential threat. Their business model is challenged by the EU copyright changes as they are now responsible and financially liable for the content of users on their sites. That is a huge change. The US will follow with something similar. We will start to see massive lawsuits against the internet companies for violations on a huge scale. They fear it.
I'm not sure the US will follow it or that the big players fear it. The primary driver of the EU directive is not to support artists or creators, it's to try to penalise US companies in the hope that a European competitor will arise. I can't see any of the usual lot allowing that to go through congress. The main internet companies are no longer the naive silicon valley upstarts who were outplayed by the RIAA and MPAA in the 90s. They now have a better lobbying system, the only things they're scared of are the telecom companies.

DC-Choppah wrote:Without the increased legal protection for the artists the ecosystem will be out of balance as it is today.
Well, I think we all agree that the system is out of balance. From my perspective it has got better in the last 20 years not worse.

DC-Choppah wrote:If you fear that the new copyright rules will allow only the big players to host content, because they need $100M AI algorithms running to spot copyright issues, then I claim that no technology exists that can spot copyright issues. It is not technically feasible. There is no technological solution. It is trivial to go around if you try.
Well, I agree with that too, but probably not for the same reasons and it hasn't stopped the EU putting it into the directive.
P.S. on that note, just because it's in the directive doesn't actually mean it's made it into law yet. Countries have until June next year to do so (excluding the UK of course, because we've decided to shoot ourselves in the foot). I think only France has actually tried to implement the legislation yet.


DC-Choppah wrote:So I go back to my first post. Music is an activity not an object.
Well, you might think of it like that, but you can't make someone else think like that.
I believe the old quote goes, "The business of the music business is business not music."

DC-Choppah wrote:You have to have the permission of the human being to use his activity in your business venture. The music is the output of that activity and the law protects it. You can't treat it as an object to analyze and decide with an algorithm that you are clear to multiply by 100 million and distribute it for a profit. This is NOT a technical problem.
You seem to be assuming that every distribution is unlicensed. Clearly this isn't the case.
I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing for here? Are you suggesting that no music should be licensed without a human conversation?

DC-Choppah wrote:The purpose of the copyright law is to give the creator the control over his creation.
See above.
User avatar
blinddrew
Jedi Poster
Posts: 11250
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:00 am
Location: York
Ignore the post count, I have no idea what I'm doing...

Re: How do we create a healthier music ecosystem that empowers musicians financially?

Postby blinddrew » Fri Jul 17, 2020 10:54 pm

CS70 wrote:
blinddrew wrote:Yeah, youtube is at about half a million videos a day. The thing is, even at tiny percentages, that's a huge amount (not ratio) of collateral damage.

Well my math was totally off anyways :D

You're right that percentages often don't tell the truth, but in this case I think they do more than the absolute numbers, which are big only because the total number of submission is gigantic.

In this case, the percentages tell us that the likelihood of an error is very low, and thus cannot be configured as "lots of mistakes".. it'd be like looking at car accidents and deciding they're more dangerous than, say, parachuting because more people die of it in absolute terms. It would be misleading.
But absolute numbers still matter. That's why we regulate cars differently to parachuting! :)

CS70 wrote:
As to Fair Use, it doesn't just apply to museums and journalists etc, it applies to everyone. Not all of whom will have those routines and channels but may have something important to say.

It's still the exception :mrgreen:

And if one's got something to say, that he/she has to say it using someone else's work should bloody well be..
But reviewing and critique are not exceptional activities. We do them all the time. And unscrupulous people try and use copyright (and trademark) to remove this content all the time too.

CS70 wrote:
I'm sure ContentID is getting better, and will get better still if there's further endorsement. But entrenching the existing players makes it harder for a fair deal to be found in my opinion.

Not sure we have - maybe I misunderstand - but if there is sufficient political interest (and for example the EU has taken the lead on these issues) it could well be that a global database at some point be monitored and supervised by some public entity, as it happens for other large collection of data or other public utilities... and probably should be.
Let's take an EU-based company, SoundCloud. At the point that the legislation is actually enacted they're going to have to make a choice. The have 300m users. There is no way to manually pre-screen that content. They'll need to buy some kind of content recognition system or risk massive liability. They're currently barely making a profit. I really doubt they'll survive. Likewise Bandcamp.
I could be wrong, maybe someone will come up with an effective filter that they'll license for cheap to outfits like this. But I'm not holding my breath.
User avatar
blinddrew
Jedi Poster
Posts: 11250
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:00 am
Location: York
Ignore the post count, I have no idea what I'm doing...

Re: How do we create a healthier music ecosystem that empowers musicians financially?

Postby MOF » Fri Jul 17, 2020 10:59 pm

If you allow your works to be copied and copied and multiplied over and over by technology, they will lose value. The technology takes something scarce and makes it common. Thus it devalues it.

The stated purpose of the copyright system is to allow creators to have the control over their creation, who may copy it, how many copies are made, so that the creator can reap the rewards of that creation. That means that others can't reap your rewards.

On the assumption that someone is prepared to pay you a princely sum for the original you might be correct.
In the real world though it’s not the case that massive physical or internet distribution will lower the value of your tracks.
Record companies paid a mechanical royalty and publishing for every unit sold and that continues with digital distribution. Even streaming pays on a proportional system, the more you sell (and stream), the more you make.
Pirating is the fly in the ointment, it’s that that reduces your potential income, but that was always the case, once you’ve sold physical copies that is always a possibility, remember all those knock of cassettes and CDs, but the legitimate income does not go down the more copies you allow to be made.
MOF
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1200
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 1:00 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: How do we create a healthier music ecosystem that empowers musicians financially?

Postby blinddrew » Fri Jul 17, 2020 11:00 pm

CS70 wrote:
blinddrew wrote:I'm not sure about that 'false endorsement' thing - that's a trademark law, not a copyright one. If I hire a venue for a rally, and that venue has the appropriate licences to play music, then I can play what I want at that rally. You can send me a C&D but I don't think there's any legal basis for it.

It does not seem infallible, but it's been used actively in several cases, both with controversial (typically politicians) but less controversial uses (see for example https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2 ... _0004.html)

There is also evidence of frequent settlement - see https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcon ... cholarship

But I am no laywer - I had no idea myself but came to read about these and others only a few days ago about Trump using Tom Petty music at his rallies.
As I understand it, the False Endorsement in the Beastie Boys case relates to the use of their name and imagery rather than the music. The music is a straightforward (Ha!) licensing issue.
The settlement side is interesting and, in my view, just shows the cost of trying to defend a court action. From the opening page of that paper, "As the American system of
copyright law only protects economic rights of musicians, the fair compensation of an artist for use of their work, rather than moral rights, the objection by an artist to the particular use of a work, copyright law is unable to provide the remedies artists seek when their works are used by political campaigns. "
User avatar
blinddrew
Jedi Poster
Posts: 11250
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:00 am
Location: York
Ignore the post count, I have no idea what I'm doing...

PreviousNext