The Insanity Of Music Licensing: In One Single Graphic
from the duct-tape-upon-duct-tape dept
The history of music licensing is a messy one, but the short version is that every time some new technology or technological shift has come along in the past century, someone in the industry has freaked out that it was going to mean the end of the world for them, and demanded that "something" must be done. What was often done was to add another layer of licensing, sometimes compulsory, sometimes blanket licenses, sometimes something else. Basically, every time the market shifted, copyright law was effectively patched with changes more or less duct taped on to existing law. Over time, this has just gotten messier and messier -- especially as some of these rights "overlapped." Is an internet stream of a music file a performance or a broadcast? If someone bought the file, do they still need to pay for a performance right? And that's just a few of the very initial questions.One company that has launched a music service recently passed around a graphic illustration of the insanity involved in licensing music for any sort of online music service:
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Ouch.
The Stupidity Is Astounding!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You will probably disagree with most of what he has to say, but it is hard to dispute the fact that CC licenses basically have the effect of transferring money from creators to corporate interests. This is why, as an artist advocate, I can not support CC licenses.
However, I do support efforts to make it easier for music customers to do business with licensors, and I think we are moving in that direction in the shift to streaming and the success of music libraries, which puts pressure on traditional copyright holders to provide better service to music users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Come on, that article is a load of ad hominem hooey. Zero evidence is provided to support the assertion that money made by sites such as Flickr is done so at the expense of content creators. By that logic Techdirt is exploiting us because we comment here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I read that article a couple days back. It was pointed out to me as an extension of the ASCAP marketing campaign to remove the growing competition of the Creative Commons, and the legal headaches and losses the EFF has caused the record labels. The number of articles like this has gone way up since the ASCAPs letter to it members. So it seems to be a concerted effort.
You, like the recording industry, haven't learned that the rules have changed. The internet is not a TV, it is interactive. Propaganda and marketing campaigns are no longer one sided and often have very negative consequences. The streisand effect is something you should be worried about anytime you say or do something negative.
Going after a belief system does not work. Think of going after the EFF and the CC, as blasphemy against freedom and the legal guardians here on the net. Realize that the longer this campaign to discredit the EFF and CC runs, the faster the record labels and collection agencies will fail. Without exception, every single thing the labels and RIAA have done has backfired and accelerated the rate of infringement, the decrease in profits, and the ill will directed at the labels and RIAA. Recently there was an article here about how people in positions of power act like they are brain damaged. Perhaps that explains why the same mistake has been made over and over by the labels, ASCAP, and RIAA.
David
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.musictechpolicy.com/2010/08/creative-commons-corporation-because-it.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
CC is a laudable attempt to "pre-negotiate" licenses, but as a general rule it is folly to license works when the legal rights associated with such works have not been identified beforehand and treated accordingly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Weak argument
I always hate it when I see otherwise intelligent people who have strong arguments on their side play on such cheap tricks in order to make a point. These types of tricks are typically the tools of people who don't actually have valid arguments to support them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Weak argument gets weak reply
I find that it's usually because they are either resistant to change or too damn stupid to understand the original problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Weak argument gets weak reply
The whole resistant to change piece is why its never going to be simplified until after they fail financially. To much turf (organizations) being defended by to many people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Weak argument
and its not even accurate, and its clearly not the only way.
As you said, you can make anything look bad if you try as hard as Mike.
Mike, seems to think some equation will fix the problem..
Or if you create a song in your garage you will somehow magically be able to mix, engineer, promote, insure, create a film clip, get air play, and have some one else take the risk of all that expense.. All that will happen magically, and to guy who created the song has to give up his career as a musician and become a music promoter, mixing engineer, film clip producer, and so on.
But mike thinks all those jobs should be done for free, and then the music should be free, and no one should be paid, or rewarded for their efforts.
And if they do happen to get successful its not because of hard work, telent, and some luck, its just "dumb luck' and some kind of bizzar lotto.
Im not sorry at all that the real world works differently to how Mike thinks it should.
It seems mikes utopia would be most peoples dark ages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Weak argument
Right. Mike says that no one should get paid.
....honestly, do you even READ the articles? The whole point is finding new ways to get paid....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Weak argument
Right. Mike says that no one should get paid.
....honestly, do you even READ the articles? The whole point is finding new ways to get paid....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Weak argument
Wow, what a fucking idiot you are. I mean, seriously, you can assert that with a straight face as if it not only has ANY validity, but also as the CORE of your argument? All you do is expose your ignorance and bias, and veer right up to "corporate shill." Mike never said any such thing. Mike's site never says any such thing. Others will point this out to you, and give reasoned arguments about it, but they are far too easy on you. You deserve to be roundly slapped down, shouted down, and otherwise put the fuck in your place about this. Lying scum like you who have to misrepresent the other side's viewpoints in such a blatant manner dont deserve the courtesy of being heard. Sorry, fuck you and fuck your argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Weak argument
As is typical of your rants, you provide no proof of your statements. Like the one above. Bad troll, no cookie for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Weak argument
"It seems mikes utopia would be most peoples dark ages."
let me rephrase that for you...
It seems mikes utopia would be the Label Execs version of the dark ages.
Thats much better
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Weak argument
Which parts are inaccurate? As a model, nothing is going to be 100% accurate, but it's pretty damn close.
And I'm curious by what you mean "clearly not the only way." The company that used this chart to secure the licenses it needed sure felt it was the only way. What other options are there.
Or if you create a song in your garage you will somehow magically be able to mix, engineer, promote, insure, create a film clip, get air play, and have some one else take the risk of all that expense.. All that will happen magically, and to guy who created the song has to give up his career as a musician and become a music promoter, mixing engineer, film clip producer, and so on.
I've said no such thing. In fact I've argued the exact opposite.
But mike thinks all those jobs should be done for free, and then the music should be free, and no one should be paid, or rewarded for their efforts.
You don't even read this site, do you? I spend most of my time pointing out the exact opposite.
Darryl, the other day you posted a ton of accusations against me, saying I've never run a business, never raised money etc. I responded pointing out that every one of your assumptions was wrong. I'll note that you haven't responded to that comment, but instead are continuing to post stuff that is 100% wrong. Why is that, I wonder?
But, no, I don't think all jobs should be done for free. I've never said anything like that. I also think people should be paid and rewarded for their efforts, which is why I spend so much time helping content creators understand how best to do so.
And if they do happen to get successful its not because of hard work, telent, and some luck, its just "dumb luck' and some kind of bizzar lotto.
I said no such thing. In fact, I argued that talent and hard work were major components, but that there is an element of luck as well. To take my statements and pretend that I said it's entirely dumb luck is wrong and makes you look like a fool.
Im not sorry at all that the real world works differently to how Mike thinks it should.
Darryl, the world may work differently than the total strawman you think I've claimed, but trust me, it very much works the way I describe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Weak argument
In all candor, though, at first I thought it might be the process followed by persons itemizing deductions, or even trying to register their car(s) and get a driver's license in California.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Weak argument
Perhaps what is confusing to some is that this is the British music licensing system (BPI instead of RIAA, PRS instead of ASCAP), though I suspect the American system is just as byzantine (perhaps more so).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Weak argument
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Weak argument
People like darryl are good examples of why we should abort (some) fetuses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Weak argument _ Thanks RD, you are a nice 'something'...
People like darryl are good examples of why we should abort (some) fetuses.
That might be true RD, but at least Im not you !!
I guantee that you would not have the balls to say that to my face..
Sometimes I get sick of 14 year old, hero's hiding behind a keyboard.. wimp.
As for the diagram, ill say just one thing that is wrong, and most is.
Managers, and artists, that diagram shows managers only communicating with artists, and no one else.
(apart from composers and performers in two seperate groups).
"Funding", is a one way street ? the funders just hand out money and are never asked to do so ?
Thats only because I looked at the bottom left first, but it never gets any better, its a comple lie.. really no other way around it, its not at all accurate.
And ofcourse Mike tries to confuse licensing and copyright, and they are not the same, licenses are under contract law, and copyright is not.
You also forget that its not compulsory, you do not have to do that, you have shown that there are alternatives, and people allready have that choice.
So what is your problem ? you dont like people having choice ?
I tend to like having a choice.. I sorry you dont..
Im sorry the system does not work the way you want it too, mabey in Russia or china or north Korea you might have better luck.. Dont know if they are hiring bitter, angry 14 year olds thought..
I myself like choice, and I know no one is forced to get a record contract, in fact most work very hard to gain one.
You dont see it that way though, which is sad, to say the least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Weak argument _ Thanks RD, you are a nice 'something'...
Licenses are nothing to do with contract law.
A license may be provided in an exchange (per contract), but that doesn't mean the license is itself a contract.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Weak argument _ Thanks RD, you are a nice 'something'...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Weak argument
Anyway, perhaps you could make us a "dizzying system of boxes, circle, and lines" to represent an otherwise basic "real world system"...say, buying a bag of chips from the grocery store? In a case such as that, debts are generally transferred at the point of sale between two consensual actors. But when you add in a litany of licenses and royalties, it becomes confusing for everybody and a lot of economic deadweight is lost in the overhead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Weak argument
What I think is most telling in this picture is:
4 arrows go to the artists
2 arrows go to the songwriters
9 go to the record company
Who makes out in the current system? Not the artists, and certainly not the consumers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Weak argument
The comparison of music licenses to buying a bag of chips is a bit false though. What is the ramification of letting a friend share that bag of chips? What about if you share it with everyone in your place of work? What about the same for music? Is it ok to play a CD for a friend? For everyone in your place of work?
I know what's legal with a bag of chips, I'm not so sure at what point I need to pay some one to play a CD for others to listen to.
In the payment card industry we work really hard to make it easy for the average person to use our cards, you have plastic, you swipe it in a machine, you sign a slip, your done. All the weird complexity created by consumer protection laws, PCI security compliance, auditing requirements, and a few decades of bone head corporate decisions piling up against each other are almost always hidden from the common user. All you really need to know about is you, the bank that has your money (or line of credit) and the merchant you want to pay.
The music industry on the other hand is working to make sure the common user needs to be aware of half the boxes on that image to avoid doing the wrong thing. If you bought a song and played it in a bar, or auto shop, or hair salon do you need to pay PRS? Why should a mechanic or a stylist need to know who PRS is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Weak argument
And before you complain that I don't understand investment on future profit, has it occurred to you that select types of transactions are artificially overvalued? I think the comparison to the stock market is quite accurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AGGH!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AGGH!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Abolish Copyright
The only cure is to take off and nuke it from orbit.
Abolish copyright.
(The same applies to patent).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Abolish Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Entrenched interests thrive on needless complexity.
I'll just formulate a law, perhaps not original: at some stage of complexity, social systems can't be restored to sense or justice, the system must break entirely (perhaps from larger causes).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It would help if the diagram was correct.
If you going to post such things, make sure they are right please.
At least then you have a chance of convincing more than your fan base.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It would help if the diagram was correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It would help if the diagram was correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It would help if the diagram was correct.
Too bad the anonymous ID badge thing couldn't be extended so someone could be marked as a 'known moron' across the board. Would be easier for a reader like myself to filter out the nonsense.
For the record, I'm still interesting in hearing how the diagram is wrong if it is in fact wrong. I have a feeling it's pretty darn accurate though so since the only 'evidence' I can get against it are weak arguments with no actual content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It would help if the diagram was correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It would help if the diagram was correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It would help if the diagram was correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is the Origin of the Licensing Rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is the Origin of the Licensing Rights?
A fundamental problem that I have with all these so-called licenses is: By what right can the copyright holder create (assert) ever more licensing rights? If you buy the music one should implicitly have a right to make an MP3 recording, if you have a radio then everyone in reasonable proximity should have a right to listen to the music.
This has gotten to be absurd. As another commenter pointed out on another post, if you privately listen to music on an MP3 file with earphones while at the barber shop you are OK, but if the barber plays music that you can both here, it becomes a performance violation. Given the absurd trend of the copyright holders to become ever more extreme in aggrandizing their so-called rights, we will eventually need licenses for each ear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I really hope someone will take this chart and explain why each piece is really necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Computer languages are based on logic and are easy.
But comparing a language to a business model is like comparing the work ethic of a computer to a human.... but the computer doesn't ask for bathroom breaks and neither should you!
comparing apples and beef there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you have to ask, you need to find out for yourself. Start by looking at it.
And see at a glance that it is incorrect, and misleading.
and RD, im glad you got that off your chest, feel better ?
Its nice to see your first and last resort is the good old personal attack.
But as for the errors in the diagram, I will keep you in suspense and see if any of you 'experts' can see what is wrong with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you have to ask, you need to find out for yourself. Start by looking at it.
Your tone makes me think you don't really have any valid argument here though, all you can do is allude to some problem and hope we all spin our wheels on it.
You clearly think you know what's going on yet don't want to help explain what's wrong with the above. I'm not sure how that helps your cause, whatever it may be. Why not present some clear information that can help people who are still trying to figure out how this all works instead of just lobbing insults? Is this somehow supposed to make me believe that something is wrong with the information provided? Should I blindly trust some random commenter? Take a minute to think about what you're doing and maybe try to offer something constructive to this conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Find what is correct, its easier.. less of them..
Its going be an easier job, the person who made that diagram does not have a clue, and it shows..
But Mike appears to buy it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Find what is correct, its easier.. less of them..
Please select 2 pieces on the diagram that are incorrect and explain what is wrong with them. That could actually help your argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Find what is correct, its easier.. less of them..
Also, learn to use the "reply to this" link. Makes your lunacy that much easier to follow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Find what is correct, its easier.. less of them..
Its going to be an easier job, the person who wrote that comment does not have a clue, and it shows..
But darryl seems to insist it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Find what is correct, its easier.. less of them..
The RIAA isn't getting a cut in this diagram!!!
It shoulda hit me like a freight train when I first saw it.
Then I realized this wasn't a diagram made by a US based business.
Shit, back to the uh... drawing board?
Darryl (or Larry, or the other Darryl) would you please point out the errors to us plebes?
kthxbi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chart above is a little misleading
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chart above is a little misleading
Yes, but, isnt that rather the point? I mean, sure its over-complicated, but so also is what it represents. Even if you "corrected" it to be more accurate, would that REALLY improve the point? I dont think so, I think it would STILL look insanely complicated and ridiculous. I think the point of it is being missed in a rush to scrutinize that chart to the Nth degree. The point is more about how absurd it is to even begin to understand and follow the byzantine labyrinth that copyright/licensing has become. Remember that great Colbert AT&T bit from about 3 years ago, the one with the "and then they became this, and then they became that." Its like that. That wasnt 100% "Accurate" either but it got the real point across: the complexity of it was absurd on its face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chart above is a little misleading
Frankly, at the very least the bottom, left-hand quadrant of the chart is in significant need of "repair". Manager? Completely irrelevant. Session musicians? Not in the US. BPI? It's an industry association in the UK. It is not part of the licensing process. Funders? Irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Chart above is a little misleading
However, payments to the AFM for sessions musicians are made by record companies in the US as well as UK. Still, this is a very minor point because union payments are of no concern to a music service licensee and should not be included in a licensing flowchart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Chart above is a little misleading
I am not within the music industry, but those I know who perform session work generally do so on a work for hire basis, which, of course, is truly a matter of contract law versus copyright law.
I might also quibble regarding some of the performance right societies since these are not a mandate of law, but more in the nature of licensing reps serving as intermediaries between artists who sign up and end users.
The point I am trying to make is that much of the chart is less related to copyright law than it is to contract law. The former generally is directed to rights per se, and not to how those rights are licensed and exploited (though we do have some statutory involvement such as compulsory licenses in very limited instances).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Chart above is a little misleading
The problem is that the chart is an oversimplification of the process because to depict the entire process, with all the repairs, would over clutter the chart and make it much larger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Chart above is a little misleading
It makes it difficult for anyone trying to stay on the straight and narrow to do so.
And it is not even a flow chart of the entire thing, is just the attempt of one company to try and do so, if even companies with money to pay for experts can get it wrong, I don't see this things working on the public sphere ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chart above is a little misleading
One of the issues of the system would seem to be how the record companies have more control over an artist's fees than their own manager.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like what exactly? It appears most everything on there has something to do with music royalties, unless you have a very narrow definition of what constitutions something that has something to do with music royalties. But I'm not interested in your personal definitions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It would be interesting to see an Entity Relationship Diagram (ERD) as well, maybe someone can make one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That much is true. It would have 2 arrows: one with 100% of gross revenue going to the labels, and another with 1/4 of 1% (if that) going to the artist/band/composer/writer/creators. All other arrows and charts are meaningless, because this is the only chart that truly exists, or that the labels give two sh*ts about. As long at 99%+ of the revenue goes (and stays) with them, you can make any chart of any other flow and they wont care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trust me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's nothing! Look at the Telcos of the world!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No wonder people just ignore that nonsense and just pirate everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I fear that some day people will be able to implant rules inside the brain of people and some jerks will try to force that on to everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
License and copyright the same !!!! NO. they are not..
Sorry,, again, if I have to explain this stuff to you guys, whats the points.
Can someone else please explain to this person that licenses and copyright are two different entities !
What copyright do I get the liberty of because I own a drivers license ?
A lisense is a privilage or agreement between two parties, or groups, its a part of contract law, you have a contract to work within the license.
Nothing to do with copyright, sure you can license copyright material from the rightfull owner, if you both meet an agreement. but that again is a contract, not copyright.
Please, be at least a little bit informed before you post.
Sometimes I wonder why I even waste my time..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: License and copyright the same !!!! NO. they are not..
You're not alone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: License and copyright the same !!!! NO. they are not..
If yes, then it is important to realize the rationale underlying Mr. Fitch's comments.
If no, then you to not understand Mr. Fitch's rationale.
Mr. Fitch has a unique view of the role served by the US Constitution, and understanding that view is critical to understanding his comments. For example, do you appreciate the distinction Mr. Fitch draws between unpublished and published works?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: License and copyright the same !!!! NO. they are not..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: License and copyright the same !!!! NO. they are not..
You then have gone on to state that what the constitutional provision and laws enacted in response thereto constitute an abridgement of one's liberty, and are in your view unconstitutional given the purpose underlying the US Constitution.
Even under your view one cannot separate copyright and licensing and treat them as separate and distinct issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: License and copyright the same !!!! NO. they are not..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: License and copyright the same !!!! NO. they are not..
Since I certainly do not want to offer a summary that does not accurately reflect your views, perhaps you might be able to modify what I said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: License and copyright the same !!!! NO. they are not..
Individuals have a natural right to exclude others from their private space and material/intellectual works therein, which includes the right to exclude others from making/removing/communicating copies thereof, etc.
The Constitution is therefore correct in recognising an individual's exclusive right to their intellectual work.
However, Congress is corrupt in its apparent inference that the recognition of such a natural right empowers it to grant monopolies in literary works, etc. Thus copyright (a blatant copy of the Statute of Anne) enacted subsequent to the Constitution is an unconstitutional privilege - an instrument of injustice.
However, none of the above has relevance to the copyright/licensing issue. Copyright licensing is about restoring the liberty suspended by copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: License and copyright the same !!!! NO. they are not..
The Constitution is therefore correct in recognising an individual's exclusive right to their intellectual work.
Why is such a natural right guaranteed by the Constitution only for limited times?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: License and copyright the same !!!! NO. they are not..
It should be secured for as long as the individual could expect to defend it, i.e. limited by mortal lifespan. This may be beyond their actual lifetime in the event of unnatural death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: License and copyright the same !!!! NO. they are not..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: License and copyright the same !!!! NO. they are not..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: License and copyright the same !!!! NO. they are not..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: License and copyright the same !!!! NO. they are not..
The period over which that right is secured is naturally limited. It would be unnatural for someone to be able to exclude others from their work for a period in excess of their natural lifespan. The Constitution leaves this issue to be resolved by Congress.
Congress isn't required to secure the right at all. Thus there is no need to specify a minimum period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: License and copyright the same !!!! NO. they are not..
Even so, a driving license restores the liberty someone would have (had the state not suspended it) to drive a vehicle on certain land (public highways).
A (copyright) license is not a privilege, it restores liberty suspended (by copyright).
A license is not an agreement - others do not need to agree to have their liberty restored by the party privileged by copyright.
If you don't hold copyright over an intellectual work there is nothing about it you have to license. So, no, a copyright license is not independent of copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New flow chart
So...
Someone has to make a new chart because people can't agree on whether it's accurate or not.
Let's do a job on the US music scene. If it's as simple as people say it is, it shouldn't have taken 10+ hours to make sure everyone is paid something. Effectively speaking, it seems more that people are shooting the forest for the trees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't write about what you don't understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't write about what you don't understand.
Why do you think a monopoly for the enrichment of the press (and stability of the crown) incentivised creativity? Certainly, the consequently wealthy press effectively usurped patronage to become the author's primary market, but that doesn't mean that without monopoly no-one would have been inclined to monetarily incentivise the creativity they sought.
All that's happening today is that the monopoly is being undone by nature. It cannot be rescued by argument.
We're here to discuss how to do business without a monopoly. And yes some of us are saying that given the monopoly is ineffective (let alone unethical) it should be abolished to prevent sociopathic abuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't write about what you don't understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
History trumps copyright any day
It's like if someone so much as draws Mickey Mouse, it suddenly is killing the industry.
Never mind it asks for money from easels, paints, or Adobe.
The other stuff in the middle is just drivel not worth bothering about. I'm fairly sure Artists not copyright holders could flourish if the law wasn't against them. But obviously, I'm wrong when 9 out of 4 lines means the other industries can have the cake and eat it too.
Funny how you say original thought...
The first man painted where the bison went. The second one copied it into another cave to learn how to eat.
I guess copying did reward him fairly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
whoever came up with that system needs to be shot, for causing unnecessary difficulty to things which should be simple & hurt my brain/eyes simultaneously
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obtaining permission when a work involves multiple rights
Source: Multimedia: Making It Work by Tay Vaughan (Osborne McGraw-Hill, 1993), page 126.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]