11 ms·

On a logical level it should be treated the same as broadcast radio, however it gets hazy because you can store playlists and play tracks on demand so its reall

On a logical level it should be treated the same as broadcast radio, however it gets hazy because you can store playlists and play tracks on demand so its really not clear cut. With radio you can hear the song if it happens to be playing but there is no on demand, no playlists.

bambax 9y ago
There is replay; you can search many radio stations playlist for a specific title and play it. What about Youtube? It seems most / all music is on YT, what licence do they use? Streaming services seem a lot like YT.
- cortesoft 9y ago
  I think only music owners are allowed to post to YT, so they don't need a license like Spotify would.
  - DrJokepu 9y ago
    But you see, the thing is with commercial music is that the music owner is not a single entity. There is a composer, if there are lyrics there is a lyricist, if it was translated then there is a translator, if it’s a cover or remix there is an arranger, there is a publisher that published the music, there might be a sub-publisher, then there is a record label… One of the main reasons behind the existence of this complex system of rights is the complex ownership structure of the copyright and related rights.
    - notatoad 9y ago
      Isn't this the reason vevo exists? youtube pays a single royalty based on playback and leaves it to the uploader to split it up between all the interested parties.
      - DrJokepu 9y ago
        Yes, that’s a common arrangement.
    - EADGBE 9y ago
      > But you see, the thing is with commercial music is that the music owner is not a single entity. Great example, but you don't always have to split everything up 100 different ways, either. There is commercial music in almost every genre owned entirely by the songwriter/composer/artist.
  - Operyl 9y ago
    Nope! You can totally pay for royalties and the entire right to perform on YouTube. It’s usually automatic.
  - dizzystar 9y ago
    You are allowed to post covers on YouTube, which requires a performance license payment. Covers are a compulsory license, so there is no way to disallow a cover from being posted if the license fees are paid.
- DrJokepu 9y ago
  YouTube is different though because as soon as you have visuals accompanying the audio you are in sync rights territory which is the kind of royalty that e.g. television broadcasters pay. Same goes for Twitch.
  - alsetmusic 9y ago
    > YouTube is different though because as soon as you have visuals accompanying the audio you are in sync rights territory which is the kind of royalty that e.g. television broadcasters pay. Same goes for Twitch. There are endless uploads to YouTube with a static title slide accompanied by a popular song. I see them constantly when searching for genuine music videos from my adolescence. Infringement seems pretty clear in these particular cases. This is obviously distinct from Spotify’s streaming business, of course. I’m only attempting to address this specific subtopic.
    - eric-hu 9y ago
      Google provides a mechanism for copyright owners to claim those videos and either get advertising rights to them or remove them.
- asdjasldkjkljd 9y ago
  You can download songs to play offline later, which is definitely more on the mechanical end though... ultimately I think they'll need to create a new category. It's like light being both a beam and a particle.
- caractacus 9y ago
  YouTube don't need a license because they say they are covered by safe harbors / DMCA, so the record companies have negotiated separate agreements with YouTube. The fact that safe harbors were designed for passive intermediaries like ISPs and not a service like YT that promotes and makes money and gets value from all the music people upload (including record companies) is glossed over by YouTube.
amigoingtodie 9y ago
I think you are right, there are two types of scenarios: streaming and offline play. I would think Spotify would need both types of licenses, or disable offline play for songs they don't/won't license.
dd36 9y ago
You can record the radio.
- EADGBE 9y ago
  Yeah, but that was before they thought that was a problem. "This mixtape thing will never take off"
rebuilder 9y ago
Functionally, for the consumer, streaming is mostly identical to a recording. Want to listen to a song? Press play. The storage just happens to be on some server somewhere.
- Can_Not 9y ago
  Except a recording is mine permanently and physically
  - rebuilder 9y ago
    True, but most users don't seem to mind. Arguably, streaming is just a better storage medium for most users. Until the company providing the service screws its customers over, if course. I doubt that possibility weighs very heavily into many consumers' buying choices.
    - lostcolony 9y ago
      But the relative cost one would be willing to pay varies. Would I pay a streaming service $10 a month for 10 tracks, that I can only listen to on their service, but which I get unlimited plays of so long as I subscribe to their service? Hell no. Would I purchase an album of 10 songs, that are mine into perpetuity to listen to, make reasonable copies of, fair use of, etc, for $10? Yes. Would I pay a streaming company for on demand access to a broad catalog of songs? Yes. But note how my consumption and value varies. The thing is, streaming services are, fundamentally, gainining 'per listen' value, and that model is reflected into how they're paying rightsholders. That is, the more I listen to a track, the more value it collects for the owner. A purchasing model is how many purchases. Listens are not really correlated to that (at least, not to the price). That is, one user may listen to the purchased album 100 times, the other may listen to one song 100 times, and one user may listen to the album 1000 times. All paid the same, all generated the rightsholders the same. As such, I think treating streaming as a storage medium would be...poorly thought out. Not least of all because at that point you could make a strong case that the streaming service should be paying every rightsholder for every subscriber; they are, after all, -storing- that music for the new subscriber; nevermind if the subscriber ever listens to it or not.

bambax 9y ago

There is replay; you can search many radio stations playlist for a specific title and play it. What about Youtube? It seems most / all music is on YT, what licence do they use? Streaming services seem a lot like YT.

cortesoft 9y ago
I think only music owners are allowed to post to YT, so they don't need a license like Spotify would.
- DrJokepu 9y ago
  But you see, the thing is with commercial music is that the music owner is not a single entity. There is a composer, if there are lyrics there is a lyricist, if it was translated then there is a translator, if it’s a cover or remix there is an arranger, there is a publisher that published the music, there might be a sub-publisher, then there is a record label… One of the main reasons behind the existence of this complex system of rights is the complex ownership structure of the copyright and related rights.
  - notatoad 9y ago
    Isn't this the reason vevo exists? youtube pays a single royalty based on playback and leaves it to the uploader to split it up between all the interested parties.
    - DrJokepu 9y ago
      Yes, that’s a common arrangement.
  - EADGBE 9y ago
    > But you see, the thing is with commercial music is that the music owner is not a single entity. Great example, but you don't always have to split everything up 100 different ways, either. There is commercial music in almost every genre owned entirely by the songwriter/composer/artist.
- Operyl 9y ago
  Nope! You can totally pay for royalties and the entire right to perform on YouTube. It’s usually automatic.
- dizzystar 9y ago
  You are allowed to post covers on YouTube, which requires a performance license payment. Covers are a compulsory license, so there is no way to disallow a cover from being posted if the license fees are paid.
DrJokepu 9y ago
YouTube is different though because as soon as you have visuals accompanying the audio you are in sync rights territory which is the kind of royalty that e.g. television broadcasters pay. Same goes for Twitch.
- alsetmusic 9y ago
  > YouTube is different though because as soon as you have visuals accompanying the audio you are in sync rights territory which is the kind of royalty that e.g. television broadcasters pay. Same goes for Twitch. There are endless uploads to YouTube with a static title slide accompanied by a popular song. I see them constantly when searching for genuine music videos from my adolescence. Infringement seems pretty clear in these particular cases. This is obviously distinct from Spotify’s streaming business, of course. I’m only attempting to address this specific subtopic.
  - eric-hu 9y ago
    Google provides a mechanism for copyright owners to claim those videos and either get advertising rights to them or remove them.
asdjasldkjkljd 9y ago
You can download songs to play offline later, which is definitely more on the mechanical end though... ultimately I think they'll need to create a new category. It's like light being both a beam and a particle.
caractacus 9y ago
YouTube don't need a license because they say they are covered by safe harbors / DMCA, so the record companies have negotiated separate agreements with YouTube. The fact that safe harbors were designed for passive intermediaries like ISPs and not a service like YT that promotes and makes money and gets value from all the music people upload (including record companies) is glossed over by YouTube.

amigoingtodie 9y ago

I think you are right, there are two types of scenarios: streaming and offline play. I would think Spotify would need both types of licenses, or disable offline play for songs they don't/won't license.

dd36 9y ago

You can record the radio.

EADGBE 9y ago
Yeah, but that was before they thought that was a problem. "This mixtape thing will never take off"

rebuilder 9y ago

Functionally, for the consumer, streaming is mostly identical to a recording. Want to listen to a song? Press play. The storage just happens to be on some server somewhere.

Can_Not 9y ago
Except a recording is mine permanently and physically
- rebuilder 9y ago
  True, but most users don't seem to mind. Arguably, streaming is just a better storage medium for most users. Until the company providing the service screws its customers over, if course. I doubt that possibility weighs very heavily into many consumers' buying choices.
  - lostcolony 9y ago
    But the relative cost one would be willing to pay varies. Would I pay a streaming service $10 a month for 10 tracks, that I can only listen to on their service, but which I get unlimited plays of so long as I subscribe to their service? Hell no. Would I purchase an album of 10 songs, that are mine into perpetuity to listen to, make reasonable copies of, fair use of, etc, for $10? Yes. Would I pay a streaming company for on demand access to a broad catalog of songs? Yes. But note how my consumption and value varies. The thing is, streaming services are, fundamentally, gainining 'per listen' value, and that model is reflected into how they're paying rightsholders. That is, the more I listen to a track, the more value it collects for the owner. A purchasing model is how many purchases. Listens are not really correlated to that (at least, not to the price). That is, one user may listen to the purchased album 100 times, the other may listen to one song 100 times, and one user may listen to the album 1000 times. All paid the same, all generated the rightsholders the same. As such, I think treating streaming as a storage medium would be...poorly thought out. Not least of all because at that point you could make a strong case that the streaming service should be paying every rightsholder for every subscriber; they are, after all, -storing- that music for the new subscriber; nevermind if the subscriber ever listens to it or not.