Rebecca Giblin on chokepoint capitalism [LWN.net]

Rebecca Giblin on chokepoint capitalism

Posted Mar 30, 2023 11:28 UTC (Thu) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183)
Parent article: Rebecca Giblin on chokepoint capitalism

The related point that kept popping into my mind here is the compulsory licensing of music. Once a piece of music has been released to the public it can be played by anyone in exchange for a specified fee. That's how radio stations can play music all day without asking the copyright holder (or songwriter for that matter).

Imagine if that was extended to all digital art, like audio books, digital books, movies and TV series. No more walled gardens, full transparency (because of the reporting requirements). Imagine that after 10 years any movie could be streamed by anyone as long as they paid $1 to the copyright holder per stream. That would throw open the market to any entrant.

I'm sure that the fee collectors for music are their own horror stories. Still, one can dream.

PS. I also found this article to be very interesting and appropriate for LWN.

to post comments

Rebecca Giblin on chokepoint capitalism

Posted Mar 30, 2023 12:15 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (2 responses)

> I'm sure that the fee collectors for music are their own horror stories. Still, one can dream.

The fee collectors are supposed to distribute the fees to the copyright holders. But for small-time artists, the fee-collector's fees eat it all up. And for many works I don't think they bother tracking down the artist, so they hang on to the money in their own bank account, until the artist comes and claims it (which they never do, because they know nothing about it ...)

And then, of course (I think this got shot down, fortunately), there's the horror of having to pay a fee-collector for the right to broadcast YOUR OWN music ...

Etc etc.

Cheers,
Wol

Rebecca Giblin on chokepoint capitalism

Posted Mar 30, 2023 12:21 UTC (Thu) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link]

It really is a ripoff. I have 5 tracks on a comedy album available on all the popular streaming platforms. The album was released 5 months ago. I've accrued an amazing $0.34 in royalties. That is $0.00337 for each time someone listens to my comedy. I can't withdraw a payout until it reaches $5, which at this rate will take more than 8 years.

To put that into context, I recently did a 15-minute set at a tiny pub near a university. For that one independently-produced local show, I made more than 115x my entire royalties earnings. (Yeah, I'm not getting rich off comedy...)

Rebecca Giblin on chokepoint capitalism

Posted Apr 4, 2023 12:54 UTC (Tue) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]

Like all organizations fee collectors exist primarily to finance fee collectors. Tracking small fishes is a lot of work and successful copyright holders can afford big lawyers to make sure fee collectors take as little as possible from them. The system has strong built-in incentives to make fee collectors take their cut from small copyright holders.

Therefore, a fairer (and more effective) way of promoting arts would be to force fee collectors to provide a free (as in beer) service to small copyright holders, taking their cut only from big successful ones that can afford that and have the lawyers to keep fee collectors honest. You’d probably also need to make part of the fee collection revenue indexed on the proportion of collection reversed to small copyright holders.

Not going to happen but one can dream.

Rebecca Giblin on chokepoint capitalism

Posted Mar 30, 2023 14:17 UTC (Thu) by rschroev (subscriber, #4164) [Link] (8 responses)

> Once a piece of music has been released to the public it can be played by anyone in exchange for a specified fee. That's how radio stations can play music all day without asking the copyright holder (or songwriter for that matter).

I don't think it's as simple as that, unfortunately. If someone wants you use a song in a movie for example, they have to clear the rights to do that, which as far as I know is not simply a matter of paying a specified fee. I have read about cases (but sadly I don't remember any specifics) where film makers fall back to the second choice of song since they didn't succeed in clearing the rights to their preferred song.

> Imagine if that was extended to all digital art, like audio books, digital books, movies and TV series. No more walled gardens, full transparency [...]

Almost sounds like a certain John Lennon song :)

Rebecca Giblin on chokepoint capitalism

Posted Mar 30, 2023 15:21 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (3 responses)

Different scenarios, different rules. You're talking about *recording* a work. The previous discussion was about *playing* a *recording*.

That said, I think artists can object to their recordings being used, but only after the fact. I think Trump used some music in his campaigns, but as soon as the artist realized, he objected and Trump had to stop using it. That's not nice or good, for both the artist and the person using the recording ...

Cheers,
Wol

Rebecca Giblin on chokepoint capitalism

Posted Mar 30, 2023 17:11 UTC (Thu) by rschroev (subscriber, #4164) [Link] (2 responses)

You need to clear the rights to be able to legally play the song while playing your movie. I don't think it's all that much different from playing the song on the radio. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by recording?

Rebecca Giblin on chokepoint capitalism

Posted Mar 31, 2023 7:22 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

All these fee-collection agencies allow YOU to play the song.

You need to go back to the source, if you wish to RECORD the song so SOMEONE ELSE can play YOUR version (whether you simply copy someone else's rendition, or get someone to create a new rendition for you).

Cheers,
Wol

Rebecca Giblin on chokepoint capitalism

Posted Mar 31, 2023 8:00 UTC (Fri) by rschroev (subscriber, #4164) [Link]

Ah yes, I see your point now.

Rebecca Giblin on chokepoint capitalism

Posted Mar 30, 2023 21:34 UTC (Thu) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link] (3 responses)

I have read about cases (but sadly I don't remember any specifics) where film makers fall back to the second choice of song since they didn't succeed in clearing the rights to their preferred song.

It's not exactly the case you're talking about, but the movie Killer of Sheep is an instructive example. It was made as a student film, so the director (Charles Burnett) didn't bother to get the rights to the music, which meant it couldn't be released commercially. It was so highly regarded, though, that it was placed on the National Film Registry for its artistic or cultural value. Eventually, Steven Soderburgh donated $150K so they could buy licenses to all the music, and it was finally released 30 years after it was first shown in film festivals.

I'm not trying to say that directors should be allowed to pay a flat fee and use any music they like without permission from the musicians. But it does show how convoluted copyright issues can get.

Rebecca Giblin on chokepoint capitalism

Posted Apr 2, 2023 13:22 UTC (Sun) by jezuch (subscriber, #52988) [Link]

I do wonder, though, how much of that $150k went to the songwriters. My guess: not so much.

Rebecca Giblin on chokepoint capitalism

Posted Apr 3, 2023 15:43 UTC (Mon) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link] (1 responses)

> But it does show how convoluted copyright issues can get.

On that topic:
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1161382179 "Why platforms like HBO Max are removing streaming TV shows"

It's all extremely opaque of course - how else would middle-men make a ton of money? - but these journalists found a few interesting facts.

Rebecca Giblin on chokepoint capitalism

Posted Apr 3, 2023 16:15 UTC (Mon) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]

Forgot this sorry: there is this "User-Centric Payment System" project to pay musical artists in a simpler, more direct and fairer way. It seems a bit stuck though - too transparent? :-)

https://www.deezer-blog.com/how-much-does-deezer-pay-arti...

Rebecca Giblin on chokepoint capitalism

Posted Mar 31, 2023 12:53 UTC (Fri) by pmarquesmota (subscriber, #156137) [Link]

We have that here in France. Some children were fined because they sang a copyrighted song in public, and the songwriter wasn't able to waive the fee, he had to make himself a check to the fee agency.
See https://www.maitre-eolas.fr/post/2006/07/21/403-adieu-mon... (in French)
And children do program, I was something like 12 when I started.