YouTube is not on the hook either way. They are insulated from liability by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, provided they comply with notice-and-takedown requirements.
What I'm saying here is that YouTube has licenses with Performance Rights Organizations, meaning that Bieber (or, more accurately, a future Bieber), would not be liable, as these uses are covered ;and subsidized by YouTube).
The other license for an underlying composition is a synchronization right, which requires a negotiation with a publisher. But the proposed legislation doesn't touch that: it only applies to the public performance.
One other thing to consider, regarding "Free Bieber": it is my understanding that the PROs have agreements with YouTube, so if tomorrow's Bieber -- willfully or not -- engaged in public performance, s/he would not be liable, as those uses are covered. Outside of YouTube, bets are off.
The synchronization rights are another story, but the proposed legislation only deals with public performance. Hopefully, Content ID and the ability to choose to monetize will make penalties irrelevant.
Incorrect. It is a statutory rate. Indies get the same as majors, and the performing artists get their half of the digital performance royalties paid DIRECTLY, and not held against recoupables.
With terrestrial radio, there is no doubt that it's about control, you are right there (as is Mike).
They needn't be mutually exclusive. Nor are the legacy industries with their inflexible business models required for a functional, and adequately capitalized music ecosystem.
Rights exist for a reason and I truly believe that copyright, as conceived by the Founders, strikes a beautiful balance between incentivization in a limited monopoly, and the wealth and "experience" of the commons.
The entire marketplace is distorted because of the endlessly perpetuated and utterly useless copyrights. Like most pointless ideological battles, it prevents alternative concepts from gaining traction, inspiring further escalation among the cognitively rigid footsoldiers on either side of this ridiculous war.
Casey from Future of Music here. Not gonna wade into the substance of the ICE takedowns (I wanna enjoy my damn break!), but I will say that I don't believe that A2IM is "RIAA Jr."
WHen Rich and I talk, we disagree on a bunch of stuff, and agree on a bunch of other stuff. A2IM is an independent group with members that are anything but monolithic in their perspectives on the business. Although there are plenty of disagreements about what I personally consider an appropriate approach to some stuff, I have full confidence that A2IM arrives at their conclusions on their own.
And I can tell you that, having been deeply involved in the net neutrality debate from the music side, A2IM are staunch supporters of the open internet. They have also been really great in combating institutional payola and the market/regulatory structures that enable it. Not any RIAA love there, let me tell you.
Anyway, I hope you all have a good holiday. And Mike, I'll see you in Vegas at that thing we're on...
Casey from Future of Music here. Nice summary, Mike, and some worthwhile points.
It' a hard job, but not impossible. The real reason for the creation of IPEC, as I see it is to have some kind of coordinating body that can help the various agencies and regulatory bodies think through the complexities of IP in the digital era. Just like consumers used to rarely interact with copyright, but are no implicated almost every day, so too are government bodies that used to operate according to mandates that had little to do with IP. That's no longer the case.
If you view the office in that way, it makes more sense.
I completely agree that it is difficult to recognize and respond to the concerns of such a wide range of stakeholders. I mean, you're a stakeholder. I'm a stakeholder. UMG is a stakeholder. That's pretty nuts.
I'm cautiously optimistic that if we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater that we can grow a legitimate digital marketplace that scales, is transparent and equitable to creators and doesn't require heavy-handed approaches to enforcement that may only serve to further disenfranchise consumers who can already exercise "free" as a choice.
To get there we need a combination of thoughtful policy on not only IP but telecommunications, as well as a conceptual rethinking of investment in the arts. Might not hurt to have the marketplace come to some hard decisions about licensing efficacy and barriers to certain kinds of uses, but I know that's still heretical in some quarters. ;-)
No one is saying anyone has a "right" to be given money for their expression — the market decides that. And where possible, the market should decide the price.
What the principles DO say, however (and keep in mind they're principles, not dogma), is that where there's an established market and price for the use of an artist's work, there should be equitable and transparent mechanisms to pay the artist for that use.
It's wonderful that technology has enabled musicians to go direct to the fans. But it's somewhat telling that Nine Inch Nails' success was accrued in music industry 1.0 — that model clearly can't apply to every single one of today's acts, even the deserving ones.
Whether we like it or not, the major copyright holders benefit from their ability to bulk license their catalog to new services. Now, it can be argued that the going rate (or ransom) for these licenses is too high, but that's not part of this exercise. What we're talking about here is the "right" for the artists who comprise the catalog to be paid SOMETHING from whatever business model uses their work to attract listeners or dollars.
So it's not a silver bullet solution, but rather an an acknowledgement of the need to compensate artists in any monetization experiments between rights holders and tech entrepreneurs - which WILL continue, like it or not. You can discuss free versus paid versus culture versus copyright all you want (and I might agree with a lot of what you say), but this is about something different. Namely, promoting creator value (and not just users') in an evolving marketplace.
BestNetTech has not posted any stories submitted by CaseyContrarian.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
YouTube is not on the hook either way. They are insulated from liability by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, provided they comply with notice-and-takedown requirements.
What I'm saying here is that YouTube has licenses with Performance Rights Organizations, meaning that Bieber (or, more accurately, a future Bieber), would not be liable, as these uses are covered ;and subsidized by YouTube).
The other license for an underlying composition is a synchronization right, which requires a negotiation with a publisher. But the proposed legislation doesn't touch that: it only applies to the public performance.
Keep in mind...
One other thing to consider, regarding "Free Bieber": it is my understanding that the PROs have agreements with YouTube, so if tomorrow's Bieber -- willfully or not -- engaged in public performance, s/he would not be liable, as those uses are covered. Outside of YouTube, bets are off.
The synchronization rights are another story, but the proposed legislation only deals with public performance. Hopefully, Content ID and the ability to choose to monetize will make penalties irrelevant.
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Sep 16th, 2011 @ 9:26pm
Incorrect. It is a statutory rate. Indies get the same as majors, and the performing artists get their half of the digital performance royalties paid DIRECTLY, and not held against recoupables.
With terrestrial radio, there is no doubt that it's about control, you are right there (as is Mike).
Autocorrect is the real enemy.
Should say "The entire marketplace is distorted because of the endlessly perpetuated and utterly useless copyFIGHTS."
Copyrights are not useless. But autocorrect is.
Authorship vs. Experience
They needn't be mutually exclusive. Nor are the legacy industries with their inflexible business models required for a functional, and adequately capitalized music ecosystem.
Rights exist for a reason and I truly believe that copyright, as conceived by the Founders, strikes a beautiful balance between incentivization in a limited monopoly, and the wealth and "experience" of the commons.
The entire marketplace is distorted because of the endlessly perpetuated and utterly useless copyrights. Like most pointless ideological battles, it prevents alternative concepts from gaining traction, inspiring further escalation among the cognitively rigid footsoldiers on either side of this ridiculous war.
Digital ammo is also unfortunately not scarce.
Re: Re: Response from Pandora Founder
Can't speak for Tim, but I read BestNetTech every five minutes and get the morning email and everything.
A2IM is not RIAA
Hey Mike,
Casey from Future of Music here. Not gonna wade into the substance of the ICE takedowns (I wanna enjoy my damn break!), but I will say that I don't believe that A2IM is "RIAA Jr."
WHen Rich and I talk, we disagree on a bunch of stuff, and agree on a bunch of other stuff. A2IM is an independent group with members that are anything but monolithic in their perspectives on the business. Although there are plenty of disagreements about what I personally consider an appropriate approach to some stuff, I have full confidence that A2IM arrives at their conclusions on their own.
And I can tell you that, having been deeply involved in the net neutrality debate from the music side, A2IM are staunch supporters of the open internet. They have also been really great in combating institutional payola and the market/regulatory structures that enable it. Not any RIAA love there, let me tell you.
Anyway, I hope you all have a good holiday. And Mike, I'll see you in Vegas at that thing we're on...
Good points, but...
Casey from Future of Music here. Nice summary, Mike, and some worthwhile points.
It' a hard job, but not impossible. The real reason for the creation of IPEC, as I see it is to have some kind of coordinating body that can help the various agencies and regulatory bodies think through the complexities of IP in the digital era. Just like consumers used to rarely interact with copyright, but are no implicated almost every day, so too are government bodies that used to operate according to mandates that had little to do with IP. That's no longer the case.
If you view the office in that way, it makes more sense.
I completely agree that it is difficult to recognize and respond to the concerns of such a wide range of stakeholders. I mean, you're a stakeholder. I'm a stakeholder. UMG is a stakeholder. That's pretty nuts.
I'm cautiously optimistic that if we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater that we can grow a legitimate digital marketplace that scales, is transparent and equitable to creators and doesn't require heavy-handed approaches to enforcement that may only serve to further disenfranchise consumers who can already exercise "free" as a choice.
To get there we need a combination of thoughtful policy on not only IP but telecommunications, as well as a conceptual rethinking of investment in the arts. Might not hurt to have the marketplace come to some hard decisions about licensing efficacy and barriers to certain kinds of uses, but I know that's still heretical in some quarters. ;-)
The post (and some of the comments) kind of miss the point
No one is saying anyone has a "right" to be given money for their expression — the market decides that. And where possible, the market should decide the price.
What the principles DO say, however (and keep in mind they're principles, not dogma), is that where there's an established market and price for the use of an artist's work, there should be equitable and transparent mechanisms to pay the artist for that use.
It's wonderful that technology has enabled musicians to go direct to the fans. But it's somewhat telling that Nine Inch Nails' success was accrued in music industry 1.0 — that model clearly can't apply to every single one of today's acts, even the deserving ones.
Whether we like it or not, the major copyright holders benefit from their ability to bulk license their catalog to new services. Now, it can be argued that the going rate (or ransom) for these licenses is too high, but that's not part of this exercise. What we're talking about here is the "right" for the artists who comprise the catalog to be paid SOMETHING from whatever business model uses their work to attract listeners or dollars.
So it's not a silver bullet solution, but rather an an acknowledgement of the need to compensate artists in any monetization experiments between rights holders and tech entrepreneurs - which WILL continue, like it or not. You can discuss free versus paid versus culture versus copyright all you want (and I might agree with a lot of what you say), but this is about something different. Namely, promoting creator value (and not just users') in an evolving marketplace.