3 ms·
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 gi
by 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 agoSpecifically 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 agoYeah, I'm thinking compulsory distribution for anything above a certain market reach is an easier sell than compulsory sync licenses.