9 ms·

Our overly restrictive copyright law does a lot of unnecessary damage to our culture and our society. Instead of adapting to technological change, many music co

Our overly restrictive copyright law does a lot of unnecessary damage to our culture and our society. Instead of adapting to technological change, many music companies seem intent on protecting their revenue by limiting the expression of others, and the ability to remix content. I wonder if there are exceptions for properly licensed music. It is certainly so hard to license most music that such exceptions are practically useless, though.

TekMol 6y ago
Is it possible for a musician to publish their music in a way so that everybody else can do with it whatever they like? If so, are there already websites that deal with only this type of music? Like there is pexels.com for images?
- wincy 6y ago
  I remember working for a startup and finding open source music to use in our promotional videos. So I suppose it’s a thing.
- thepangolino 6y ago
  Look up Creative Commons licences. Some allow for commercial use. Jamendo is (was?) a fairly popular website for that.
- outsidejoke 6y ago
  There's some Funkwhale [1] communities that might be close to what you're looking for I haven't found what I'm looking for but I want to share my music like software, source code and all, easily modifiable and reusable I miss what.cd originals, what were those called? It was really inspiring to see people sharing their own music like that Bandcamp has this feeling in spirit with their donation based option SoundCloud had that spirit before Go Splice is cool but seems specific and not very open Not music but, LibrVox[2] has something special going Won't all music coming out today eventually be in the public domain? [1] https://fediverse.party/en/funkwhale https://fediverse.party/en/funkwhale [2] https://librivox.org/ https://librivox.org/
  - httpsterio 6y ago
    Splice is literally a sample shop, instead of buying from a certain company's web shop and paying for a whole sample pack at once, you can cherry pick sounds and just pay for what you need and mix and match several packs and company offerings at once. They're under rather strict licensing terms though, no reselling as samples even if they're heavily modified for example.
- httpsterio 6y ago
  Well, like in open source software we have licenses like MIT and WTFPL, in creative industries there's different Creative Commons licenses like CC0 or CC-BY-SA for example which would grant different usage rights in certain circumstances. There's a lot of different mediums which supports sharing and searching for media under different CC licenses, I've tagged a majority of my SoundCloud releases for example with great success. If we're talking about a whole site dedicated for openly licensed music and audio, freesounds.org comes to mind.
  - techdragon 6y ago
    The issue with the permissive licensing is when the works get legally used in works that aren’t licensed that way. This is a common cause of YouTube contentID legal “false positive” results. Both you and the other person have the rights to that audio and platforms like YouTube have put no effort into giving us a solution to resolve this “edge case”.
  - voqv 6y ago
    Is there some international scale comparison? I'm fairly sure Creative Commons does not mean the same thing f.e. in Germany due to GEMA. The whole thing is wack, can't imagine licensing some code under GPLv3 and turns out that does not apply in some country.
- Broken_Hippo 6y ago
  Is it possible for a musician to publish their music in a way so that everybody else can do with it whatever they like? Yes. This happens all the time, and sometimes sounds come from places like BBC. If so, are there already websites that deal with only this type of music? Like there is pexels.com for images? Yes and no. People put up websites and other things that let you download music, but most of it isn't as organized as the free stuff for artists. It also seems like it is more decentralized and requires a bit more work, sometimes hours of work. It is quicker to look at photos than it is to listen to music and sound clips. Sources: Spouse creates somewhat experimental electronic music, and uses free-to-use sounds alongside his own stuff. I've watched him sit for hours sorting through sounds and clips and music. Also, youtubers often use such music and link to it in their descriptions (Steve the Bartender, for example, and Im pretty sure Binging with Babish does something similar, or at least did at one time).
- johtso 6y ago
  Check out https://freemusicarchive.org https://freemusicarchive.org directed by the awesome WFMU radio station.
  - subpar 6y ago
    WFMU sold the FMA to Kitsplit in 2018, who in turn sold it to Tribe of Noise in 2019.
- azeirah 6y ago
  I'm currently looking into this for streaming (twitch in particular) specifically. A musician can license their music within the Creative Commons. This means that people can do almost whatever they want, use it wherever, remix it, etc... As long as the author gets attribution. Similarly, specifically for streaming, you would need a _synchronization license_, the license required to synchronize music to image (ie, streams). It is possible to issue a global blanket sync license, meaning that basically everyone can use it, usually with the same requirement that you the streamer give attribution
- asaibx 6y ago
  Glad to see a few people have brought up Jamendo already, but I'm really surprised that no one has mentioned ccMixter [0]. This is one of the really early sites to try and address this exact need. They have an enormous back catalog of open-licensed music designed specifically for mixing and reuse, and a still quite active community of dedicated users (though the site design needs a bit of a refresh). [0] http://ccmixter.org/ http://ccmixter.org/
- bradyd 6y ago
  Nine Inch Nails released the album "Ghosts I - IV" under the Creative Commons license (BY-NC-SA) and the banjo riff in the song "Old Town Road" by Lil Nas X was sampled from a song on this album.
errantspark 6y ago
Yep. Not just music companies too, patents are just as bad. That shit ought to expire after a decade tops, everyone would be better off.
- erk__ 6y ago
  Well they do expire after 2 decades, which is a lot better than 70+ years for copyrights.
  - grishka 6y ago
    Still effectively an eternity in the modern world.
    - tremon 6y ago
      Only in the move-fast-and-break-things part of the world. In other engineering professions (aviation, drilling, pharmacy) it can take a decade to go from initial design to fully-deployed product.
      - booleandilemma 6y ago
        Of course, but this is a discussion about music and not petroleum engineering, right?
        G4E 6y ago
        No this is a discussion between the 2 decades for patents, which seems fair, versus the 7 decades for copyrighted material, which doesn't :)
        grishka 6y ago
        IMO the patent term should depend on the field. As far as copyrighted content stuff... I think a year or two is enough. Especially for movies and music which, afaik, make most of their money right after release. This would disincentivize most of the blatant copyright abuse happening today, while still allowing the creators to earn their money.
godzillabrennus 6y ago
Seems like a model could exist for an entrepreneur to create a subscription based licensing program for creators to use music in their streams.
- BrentOzar 6y ago
  > Seems like a model could exist for an entrepreneur to create a subscription based licensing program for creators to use music in their streams. There are a few - I use Pretzel.rocks. (No affiliation.)
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  Music licensing is already a thing you know.
- azeirah 6y ago
  Exists, Pretzel.rocks, monstercat, Jamendo amongst others.
  - uncoder0 6y ago
    Can't recommend pretzel rocks enough. They have a great team Nate is awesome. They also genuinely care about creator's being fairly compensated.
ffpip 6y ago
For a second, I thought Zuckerberg was writing a comment on HN. Looking at the username and the first person speech.
- zucker42 6y ago
  Nope, the reason for my username is unrelated to Mark Zuckerberg.
sschueller 6y ago
It so so bad that enormous resources are wasted in multinational stings [1] to get a few torrent seeders instead of using these resources to stop human trafficking or real crimes. It is disgusting. Especially since the ones who pushed so hard to get these laws themselves have been accused of copyright violations. [1] https://torrentfreak.com/new-scene-security-notice-sparks-piracy-raids-busted-dozens-of-sites-200901/ https://torrentfreak.com/new-scene-security-notice-sparks-pi...
- Lammy 6y ago
  These are the kind of things that made me realize the whole copyright thing is a conveniently legal way for any government to make sure only currently-Approved media is ever available to the general public. Nothing is accidental.
  - HenryBemis 6y ago
    Can you please elaborate on that? "Currently-approved media"? In my mind (European) by media we mean the Press. Do you mean Press or Social Media? A radio station, or a newspaper has a license to operate and is governed by specific requirements and protections. Facebook and Twitter are NOT part of the press (imho). The fact that e.g. BBC tweets some news doesn't fall under the Social Media "laws" but under the Press "laws". Do you imply conspiracy? Could it just be that greedy capitalism runs ahead and legislation is 10y behind and ran by white old folks who just care to be re-elected and not to keep up to speed because, why bother? I am not trying to make this political, I sincerely do not understand if you are implying conspiracy or ruthless reality.
    - olyjohn 6y ago
      I think by media, he means audio and video. Like how CDs and tapes are physical media. MP3s and MP4s are digital media.
      - Lammy 6y ago
        Yes, this is exactly how I meant “media”, like multimedia. Apologies for the confusion :)
reagent_finder 6y ago
Well, it's been exactly the same for the last 25 years.
afarrell 6y ago
> Instead of adapting to technological change When I look at the way that Journalism has adapted its business models to technological change, I think we engineers should be a bit more wary...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
elliekelly 6y ago
The MLB used to go out of their way to report fans who shared short game clips on twitter and it never made any sense to me. Do they have the right do to that under the current copyright system? Sure. But it seems so short-sighted. It's free advertising of the best kind: word of mouth. Why would you want to stop people from sharing samples of your product that way?
- mcny 6y ago
  > Why would you want to stop people from sharing samples of your product that way? I don't know how much this is relevant here but I read of this a few years ago and now I feel like I shoe horn it into every single problem in the world: the principal-agent problem. For those not in the know (sorry, if you're like me you will be addicted to this from now on) > The principal–agent problem, in political science and economics (also known as agency dilemma or the agency problem) occurs when one person or entity (the "agent"), is able to make decisions and/or take actions on behalf of, or that impact, another person or entity: the "principal". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_proble... The management of the company has no REAL interest in the long term benefit to the franchise, much less baseball in general. They're just trying to survive this quarter. Here "survival" is very twisted. You could think you are doing a heck of a job but if your revenue grows a very respectable ten percent year over year this quarter but your competition is out there growing twenty five, then well your bosses aren't going to like that very much. It is basically survival of the worst, really. I think I am guilty of assuming the best intention of other people sometimes and then I see the "Do Not Remove Under Penalty of Law" tags on mattresses and I am reminded that we need laws not to prevent people from stuffing literally human hair and who knows what other nastiness in "new" mattresses but to do so without disclosing the fact the mattresses are made with nastiness.
  - marcosdumay 6y ago
    > They're just trying to survive this quarter. They are probably trying to maximize the metrics their employees (whoever represents the shareholders) use to evaluate them. And those are short term metrics by necessity of the evaluation. Survival is one, but it's a really easy one to top, so they are probably ignoring it.
dangus 6y ago
It amazes me that people who are supposed to have studied business and marketing continually throw the long term health of their company/industry under the bus to satisfy the short term revenue stream. Music makes its revenue by propagating itself into the cultural zeitgeist. Attempts to limit consumption of music runs counter to that business model if you ask me. This situation also reminds me of another common shortsighted trend: sports teams moving their broadcasting to paid cable networks. Sports at some point depends on the social network effects of fandom. By restricting viewership with paywalls and cable subscriptions, they’re alienating young fans from ever becoming fans. They’re shrinking the sports fan base from appealing to everyone to being yet another exclusive niche where you're either deep into it or you’re out. If I don’t have any of my real life friends taking interest in sports, so many of the benefits of being a fan disappear. Annoying, nonsensical restrictions like only being allowed to watch out of market games with online streaming subscriptions, only being able to buy NFL Sunday Ticket through DirecTV...this stuff is insane. You may not be aware: no joke, DirecTV won’t sell you the Internet version of NFL Sunday Ticket unless you live in a multi-unit residence. In other words, you have to be verified to not be able to be sold a physical dish to attach to your home to be allowed the privilege of spending $300 to watch a bunch of games that already have more advertising than gameplay. These sports teams will eventually find themselves in a situation where they have to squeeze more revenue from a shrinking, aging customer base. If you were 15 right now and had a choice between watching 18 minutes of NFL gameplay surrounded by 2 hours of ads and stoppage, or jumping on Fortnite with your friends, which would you choose? These sports networks can’t fathom that they’re competing with more and more entertainment options as time goes on. The tl;dr of this is that you need to give your customers what they want.
- prox 6y ago
  You know, I can understand if you are streaming to 100+ people that musicians want a cut of that. Thats a small music hall if it was a concert. However, Facebook kicks you out even with 3 or 4 people watching. Even when I bought all the music beforehand. I find the rules much to strict, unfair and quite frankly ridiculous that there is such strictness.
  - 6y ago
canadianwriter 6y ago
As a musician I wonder what would happen if I play my own music, that I own 100% of the rights and permissions for. Or do a live concert of my own music.
matchagaucho 6y ago
And people wonder why TikTok (previously Musical.ly) is so popular. Their core business model and feed algorithm are built around syncing music to video content and paying the music publishers and composers.
wl 6y ago
It's not just copyright law that causes unnecessary damage, but how private companies often overreact to it. I took a multiday cross country road trip a few years ago and installed a dashcam before I left. I put together a timelapse video, complete with some of my favorite music that I felt was appropriate given the purpose of my trip and the landscape in view. Those friends and family who have seen it think it's pretty cool. But good luck sharing it anywhere online because Content ID and the like are everywhere.
- kevincox 6y ago
  I hate to be that guy but this actually seems like a reasonable restriction to me. If your favourite artists "want" to charge for your sharing of the music they have the right. Honestly I think the biggest problem with copyright these days is the infinite period for which it lasts.

TekMol 6y ago

Is it possible for a musician to publish their music in a way so that everybody else can do with it whatever they like? If so, are there already websites that deal with only this type of music? Like there is pexels.com for images?

wincy 6y ago
I remember working for a startup and finding open source music to use in our promotional videos. So I suppose it’s a thing.
thepangolino 6y ago
Look up Creative Commons licences. Some allow for commercial use. Jamendo is (was?) a fairly popular website for that.
outsidejoke 6y ago
There's some Funkwhale [1] communities that might be close to what you're looking for I haven't found what I'm looking for but I want to share my music like software, source code and all, easily modifiable and reusable I miss what.cd originals, what were those called? It was really inspiring to see people sharing their own music like that Bandcamp has this feeling in spirit with their donation based option SoundCloud had that spirit before Go Splice is cool but seems specific and not very open Not music but, LibrVox[2] has something special going Won't all music coming out today eventually be in the public domain? [1] https://fediverse.party/en/funkwhale https://fediverse.party/en/funkwhale [2] https://librivox.org/ https://librivox.org/
- httpsterio 6y ago
  Splice is literally a sample shop, instead of buying from a certain company's web shop and paying for a whole sample pack at once, you can cherry pick sounds and just pay for what you need and mix and match several packs and company offerings at once. They're under rather strict licensing terms though, no reselling as samples even if they're heavily modified for example.
httpsterio 6y ago
Well, like in open source software we have licenses like MIT and WTFPL, in creative industries there's different Creative Commons licenses like CC0 or CC-BY-SA for example which would grant different usage rights in certain circumstances. There's a lot of different mediums which supports sharing and searching for media under different CC licenses, I've tagged a majority of my SoundCloud releases for example with great success. If we're talking about a whole site dedicated for openly licensed music and audio, freesounds.org comes to mind.
- techdragon 6y ago
  The issue with the permissive licensing is when the works get legally used in works that aren’t licensed that way. This is a common cause of YouTube contentID legal “false positive” results. Both you and the other person have the rights to that audio and platforms like YouTube have put no effort into giving us a solution to resolve this “edge case”.
- voqv 6y ago
  Is there some international scale comparison? I'm fairly sure Creative Commons does not mean the same thing f.e. in Germany due to GEMA. The whole thing is wack, can't imagine licensing some code under GPLv3 and turns out that does not apply in some country.
Broken_Hippo 6y ago
Is it possible for a musician to publish their music in a way so that everybody else can do with it whatever they like? Yes. This happens all the time, and sometimes sounds come from places like BBC. If so, are there already websites that deal with only this type of music? Like there is pexels.com for images? Yes and no. People put up websites and other things that let you download music, but most of it isn't as organized as the free stuff for artists. It also seems like it is more decentralized and requires a bit more work, sometimes hours of work. It is quicker to look at photos than it is to listen to music and sound clips. Sources: Spouse creates somewhat experimental electronic music, and uses free-to-use sounds alongside his own stuff. I've watched him sit for hours sorting through sounds and clips and music. Also, youtubers often use such music and link to it in their descriptions (Steve the Bartender, for example, and Im pretty sure Binging with Babish does something similar, or at least did at one time).
johtso 6y ago
Check out https://freemusicarchive.org https://freemusicarchive.org directed by the awesome WFMU radio station.
- subpar 6y ago
  WFMU sold the FMA to Kitsplit in 2018, who in turn sold it to Tribe of Noise in 2019.
azeirah 6y ago
I'm currently looking into this for streaming (twitch in particular) specifically. A musician can license their music within the Creative Commons. This means that people can do almost whatever they want, use it wherever, remix it, etc... As long as the author gets attribution. Similarly, specifically for streaming, you would need a _synchronization license_, the license required to synchronize music to image (ie, streams). It is possible to issue a global blanket sync license, meaning that basically everyone can use it, usually with the same requirement that you the streamer give attribution
asaibx 6y ago
Glad to see a few people have brought up Jamendo already, but I'm really surprised that no one has mentioned ccMixter [0]. This is one of the really early sites to try and address this exact need. They have an enormous back catalog of open-licensed music designed specifically for mixing and reuse, and a still quite active community of dedicated users (though the site design needs a bit of a refresh). [0] http://ccmixter.org/ http://ccmixter.org/
bradyd 6y ago
Nine Inch Nails released the album "Ghosts I - IV" under the Creative Commons license (BY-NC-SA) and the banjo riff in the song "Old Town Road" by Lil Nas X was sampled from a song on this album.

errantspark 6y ago

Yep. Not just music companies too, patents are just as bad. That shit ought to expire after a decade tops, everyone would be better off.

erk__ 6y ago
Well they do expire after 2 decades, which is a lot better than 70+ years for copyrights.
- grishka 6y ago
  Still effectively an eternity in the modern world.
  - tremon 6y ago
    Only in the move-fast-and-break-things part of the world. In other engineering professions (aviation, drilling, pharmacy) it can take a decade to go from initial design to fully-deployed product.
    - booleandilemma 6y ago
      Of course, but this is a discussion about music and not petroleum engineering, right?
      - G4E 6y ago
        No this is a discussion between the 2 decades for patents, which seems fair, versus the 7 decades for copyrighted material, which doesn't :)
        grishka 6y ago
        IMO the patent term should depend on the field. As far as copyrighted content stuff... I think a year or two is enough. Especially for movies and music which, afaik, make most of their money right after release. This would disincentivize most of the blatant copyright abuse happening today, while still allowing the creators to earn their money.

godzillabrennus 6y ago

Seems like a model could exist for an entrepreneur to create a subscription based licensing program for creators to use music in their streams.

BrentOzar 6y ago
> Seems like a model could exist for an entrepreneur to create a subscription based licensing program for creators to use music in their streams. There are a few - I use Pretzel.rocks. (No affiliation.)
Cthulhu_ 6y ago
Music licensing is already a thing you know.
azeirah 6y ago
Exists, Pretzel.rocks, monstercat, Jamendo amongst others.
- uncoder0 6y ago
  Can't recommend pretzel rocks enough. They have a great team Nate is awesome. They also genuinely care about creator's being fairly compensated.

ffpip 6y ago

For a second, I thought Zuckerberg was writing a comment on HN. Looking at the username and the first person speech.

zucker42 6y ago
Nope, the reason for my username is unrelated to Mark Zuckerberg.

sschueller 6y ago

It so so bad that enormous resources are wasted in multinational stings [1] to get a few torrent seeders instead of using these resources to stop human trafficking or real crimes. It is disgusting. Especially since the ones who pushed so hard to get these laws themselves have been accused of copyright violations. [1] https://torrentfreak.com/new-scene-security-notice-sparks-piracy-raids-busted-dozens-of-sites-200901/ https://torrentfreak.com/new-scene-security-notice-sparks-pi...

Lammy 6y ago
These are the kind of things that made me realize the whole copyright thing is a conveniently legal way for any government to make sure only currently-Approved media is ever available to the general public. Nothing is accidental.
- HenryBemis 6y ago
  Can you please elaborate on that? "Currently-approved media"? In my mind (European) by media we mean the Press. Do you mean Press or Social Media? A radio station, or a newspaper has a license to operate and is governed by specific requirements and protections. Facebook and Twitter are NOT part of the press (imho). The fact that e.g. BBC tweets some news doesn't fall under the Social Media "laws" but under the Press "laws". Do you imply conspiracy? Could it just be that greedy capitalism runs ahead and legislation is 10y behind and ran by white old folks who just care to be re-elected and not to keep up to speed because, why bother? I am not trying to make this political, I sincerely do not understand if you are implying conspiracy or ruthless reality.
  - olyjohn 6y ago
    I think by media, he means audio and video. Like how CDs and tapes are physical media. MP3s and MP4s are digital media.
    - Lammy 6y ago
      Yes, this is exactly how I meant “media”, like multimedia. Apologies for the confusion :)

reagent_finder 6y ago

Well, it's been exactly the same for the last 25 years.

afarrell 6y ago

> Instead of adapting to technological change When I look at the way that Journalism has adapted its business models to technological change, I think we engineers should be a bit more wary...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

elliekelly 6y ago

The MLB used to go out of their way to report fans who shared short game clips on twitter and it never made any sense to me. Do they have the right do to that under the current copyright system? Sure. But it seems so short-sighted. It's free advertising of the best kind: word of mouth. Why would you want to stop people from sharing samples of your product that way?

mcny 6y ago
> Why would you want to stop people from sharing samples of your product that way? I don't know how much this is relevant here but I read of this a few years ago and now I feel like I shoe horn it into every single problem in the world: the principal-agent problem. For those not in the know (sorry, if you're like me you will be addicted to this from now on) > The principal–agent problem, in political science and economics (also known as agency dilemma or the agency problem) occurs when one person or entity (the "agent"), is able to make decisions and/or take actions on behalf of, or that impact, another person or entity: the "principal". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_proble... The management of the company has no REAL interest in the long term benefit to the franchise, much less baseball in general. They're just trying to survive this quarter. Here "survival" is very twisted. You could think you are doing a heck of a job but if your revenue grows a very respectable ten percent year over year this quarter but your competition is out there growing twenty five, then well your bosses aren't going to like that very much. It is basically survival of the worst, really. I think I am guilty of assuming the best intention of other people sometimes and then I see the "Do Not Remove Under Penalty of Law" tags on mattresses and I am reminded that we need laws not to prevent people from stuffing literally human hair and who knows what other nastiness in "new" mattresses but to do so without disclosing the fact the mattresses are made with nastiness.
- marcosdumay 6y ago
  > They're just trying to survive this quarter. They are probably trying to maximize the metrics their employees (whoever represents the shareholders) use to evaluate them. And those are short term metrics by necessity of the evaluation. Survival is one, but it's a really easy one to top, so they are probably ignoring it.

dangus 6y ago

It amazes me that people who are supposed to have studied business and marketing continually throw the long term health of their company/industry under the bus to satisfy the short term revenue stream. Music makes its revenue by propagating itself into the cultural zeitgeist. Attempts to limit consumption of music runs counter to that business model if you ask me. This situation also reminds me of another common shortsighted trend: sports teams moving their broadcasting to paid cable networks. Sports at some point depends on the social network effects of fandom. By restricting viewership with paywalls and cable subscriptions, they’re alienating young fans from ever becoming fans. They’re shrinking the sports fan base from appealing to everyone to being yet another exclusive niche where you're either deep into it or you’re out. If I don’t have any of my real life friends taking interest in sports, so many of the benefits of being a fan disappear. Annoying, nonsensical restrictions like only being allowed to watch out of market games with online streaming subscriptions, only being able to buy NFL Sunday Ticket through DirecTV...this stuff is insane. You may not be aware: no joke, DirecTV won’t sell you the Internet version of NFL Sunday Ticket unless you live in a multi-unit residence. In other words, you have to be verified to not be able to be sold a physical dish to attach to your home to be allowed the privilege of spending $300 to watch a bunch of games that already have more advertising than gameplay. These sports teams will eventually find themselves in a situation where they have to squeeze more revenue from a shrinking, aging customer base. If you were 15 right now and had a choice between watching 18 minutes of NFL gameplay surrounded by 2 hours of ads and stoppage, or jumping on Fortnite with your friends, which would you choose? These sports networks can’t fathom that they’re competing with more and more entertainment options as time goes on. The tl;dr of this is that you need to give your customers what they want.

prox 6y ago
You know, I can understand if you are streaming to 100+ people that musicians want a cut of that. Thats a small music hall if it was a concert. However, Facebook kicks you out even with 3 or 4 people watching. Even when I bought all the music beforehand. I find the rules much to strict, unfair and quite frankly ridiculous that there is such strictness.
- 6y ago

canadianwriter 6y ago

As a musician I wonder what would happen if I play my own music, that I own 100% of the rights and permissions for. Or do a live concert of my own music.

matchagaucho 6y ago

And people wonder why TikTok (previously Musical.ly) is so popular. Their core business model and feed algorithm are built around syncing music to video content and paying the music publishers and composers.

wl 6y ago

It's not just copyright law that causes unnecessary damage, but how private companies often overreact to it. I took a multiday cross country road trip a few years ago and installed a dashcam before I left. I put together a timelapse video, complete with some of my favorite music that I felt was appropriate given the purpose of my trip and the landscape in view. Those friends and family who have seen it think it's pretty cool. But good luck sharing it anywhere online because Content ID and the like are everywhere.

kevincox 6y ago
I hate to be that guy but this actually seems like a reasonable restriction to me. If your favourite artists "want" to charge for your sharing of the music they have the right. Honestly I think the biggest problem with copyright these days is the infinite period for which it lasts.