3 ms·

That is, a content producer cannot charge one entity one price, and another entity a different price, nor refuse to license it to another entity (in the same wa

That is, a content producer cannot charge one entity one price, and another entity a different price, nor refuse to license it to another entity (in the same way that a store cannot charge one customer one price, while another customer gets a different price). Compulsory licensing for mass-distributed media is a good idea. Ever since the Napster days I've wished the media market worked kind of like a spot electricity auction market, and any provider could bid on any show.

hakfoo 6y ago
Aside from simpler billing, this would also encourage innovation in the tech space separate from the content space. If I develop a service with a clever new gimmick-- a better recommendation algorithm, a clever social feature, improved accessibility, whatever, it's dead in the water today due to no content. I have to sell out to a big player to have any chance at traction. If I can just pay for a compulsory license, I can focus on the thing that makes my offering unique. I also think compulsory licenses might provide a desirable social benefit-- separating the artist from their work in the public's eye. Look how every election year you get the songwriters beefing and suing "I don't want campaign A playing song B". If everyone knows all content can be compulsory licensed, the air of endorsement is gone and nobody has to get inconvenienced or angry.
- patrickyeon 6y ago
  Specifically to the campaigns playing songs, copyright also has a concept of "moral rights", specifically one considered "right to integrity of the work". Where this lands on a technical legal standpoint I'm not qualified to speak to, but it's something interesting to read up on. Not everything covered by copyright is a purely economic transaction. To varying degrees, some or most art is an expression of the artist and means something to them. There's more to seeing someone you disagree with use a piece you poured your heart and soul into than just an assumed endorsement.
  - nitrogen 6y ago
    Yeah, I'm thinking compulsory distribution for anything above a certain market reach is an easier sell than compulsory sync licenses.

hakfoo 6y ago

Aside from simpler billing, this would also encourage innovation in the tech space separate from the content space. If I develop a service with a clever new gimmick-- a better recommendation algorithm, a clever social feature, improved accessibility, whatever, it's dead in the water today due to no content. I have to sell out to a big player to have any chance at traction. If I can just pay for a compulsory license, I can focus on the thing that makes my offering unique. I also think compulsory licenses might provide a desirable social benefit-- separating the artist from their work in the public's eye. Look how every election year you get the songwriters beefing and suing "I don't want campaign A playing song B". If everyone knows all content can be compulsory licensed, the air of endorsement is gone and nobody has to get inconvenienced or angry.

patrickyeon 6y ago
Specifically to the campaigns playing songs, copyright also has a concept of "moral rights", specifically one considered "right to integrity of the work". Where this lands on a technical legal standpoint I'm not qualified to speak to, but it's something interesting to read up on. Not everything covered by copyright is a purely economic transaction. To varying degrees, some or most art is an expression of the artist and means something to them. There's more to seeing someone you disagree with use a piece you poured your heart and soul into than just an assumed endorsement.
- nitrogen 6y ago
  Yeah, I'm thinking compulsory distribution for anything above a certain market reach is an easier sell than compulsory sync licenses.