4 ms·

Apparently there would have been potential restrictions on its use. On the previous point, just because you have someone on a board doesn't mean you get to cont

Apparently there would have been potential restrictions on its use. On the previous point, just because you have someone on a board doesn't mean you get to control what happens.

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
She did have control over what was happening when she signed the rights away. After that, they're not her rights, so why should she have control? I doubt she'd like the situation where there were no rights to sell, as it would severely hamper her ability to sell music at dear prices to the streaming services. How much do you think Apple paid her for that exclusivity deal she had with them a while back? And would it have paid that much if copyright were weakened in the ways that would be required to prevent the Braun/Borshetta situation? It just seems like a case of wanting to have one's cake and eat it.
- harimau777 7y ago
  Perhaps there should be something in between the current system and no copyright at all. For example, the law could be changed to give the creator of a work certain rights to use it even if they sell the right to commercialize the work.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
    Sure, but we'd expect that to decrease the value of the rights that they sell proportional to the value of those work rights. I guess that's a trade that artists/legislators could choose to make. OTOH, they could just negotiate such deals today if they considered it important. Maybe this is a case where the law needs to account for the human tendency to discount hyperbolically.
  - true_religion 7y ago
    As far as I know, the studio is happy to let her perform the work non-commercially, but that’s not what she wants. She wants to be able to be paid for a performance.
    - thaumasiotes 7y ago
      Again, why does the compulsory cover license not satisfy this?
      - true_religion 7y ago
        Because she sold the right to commercialize her work. It's part of the comment I'm responding to. Adding a compulsory non-commercial license won't help an artist who wants sell commercial licences when they are getting started, then unilaterally renege because they are popular enough to do it all themselves.

Apparently there would have been potential restrictions on its use. On the previous point, just because you have someone on a board doesn't mean you get to control what happens.

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago

She did have control over what was happening when she signed the rights away. After that, they're not her rights, so why should she have control? I doubt she'd like the situation where there were no rights to sell, as it would severely hamper her ability to sell music at dear prices to the streaming services. How much do you think Apple paid her for that exclusivity deal she had with them a while back? And would it have paid that much if copyright were weakened in the ways that would be required to prevent the Braun/Borshetta situation? It just seems like a case of wanting to have one's cake and eat it.

harimau777 7y ago
Perhaps there should be something in between the current system and no copyright at all. For example, the law could be changed to give the creator of a work certain rights to use it even if they sell the right to commercialize the work.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
  Sure, but we'd expect that to decrease the value of the rights that they sell proportional to the value of those work rights. I guess that's a trade that artists/legislators could choose to make. OTOH, they could just negotiate such deals today if they considered it important. Maybe this is a case where the law needs to account for the human tendency to discount hyperbolically.
- true_religion 7y ago
  As far as I know, the studio is happy to let her perform the work non-commercially, but that’s not what she wants. She wants to be able to be paid for a performance.
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    Again, why does the compulsory cover license not satisfy this?
    - true_religion 7y ago
      Because she sold the right to commercialize her work. It's part of the comment I'm responding to. Adding a compulsory non-commercial license won't help an artist who wants sell commercial licences when they are getting started, then unilaterally renege because they are popular enough to do it all themselves.