Rebecca Giblin on chokepoint capitalism [LWN.net]

Rebecca Giblin on chokepoint capitalism

Posted Mar 30, 2023 14:17 UTC (Thu) by rschroev (subscriber, #4164)
In reply to: Rebecca Giblin on chokepoint capitalism by kleptog
Parent article: Rebecca Giblin on chokepoint capitalism

> 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 :)

to post comments

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...