9 ms·

I know that music rights is a complicated subject with no really easy answers[1] but there's got to be a way to do it better than the current system where you n

by munk-a 5y ago

I know that music rights is a complicated subject with no really easy answers[1] but there's got to be a way to do it better than the current system where you need to chase after platforms to actually get them to unblock your misclassified videos. 1. Unless you believe artists should make money solely from performances and not from streamed music which I was sorta onboard with until streaming-music-as-a-service turned into a gigantic industry.

smoldesu 5y ago
This is my least popular opinion, but NFTs should have been applied here. We desperately need a legally binding, decentralized and distributed way for us to attest ownership of digital products. Sure, sure, "blockchain bad" and "don't apply crypto to everything", but this genuinely seems to me like the most mutually beneficial way to proceed.
- jimbob45 5y ago
  What problem do NFTs really solve here? They just make sure that a ledger (in this case, of rights) is immutable but...is anyone worried that record companies are mutating the rights to begin with? It seems like what would really help would be to make rights public and easily accessible. However, making the rights platform into an NFT platform specifically wouldn't really help.
- peab 5y ago
  How would it work?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- thanhhaimai 5y ago
  When you start talking about "legally binding" then the "decentralized" part doesn't apply anymore. You're relying on government enforcement for the "legally binding" part; whether the system is centralized or decentralized is a moot point.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  The issue is that you’d have to figure out who has the right to create a NFT. The NFT solves none of the problems, rights attribution, and it creates a bunch of places for grifters and scam artists to make money doing nothing. It’s worse than our current solution.
- D13Fd 5y ago
  I'm at a loss as to how NFTs would help in this situation in any way.
- Accujack 5y ago
  You're trying to apply a technical solution to a legal and social problem.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  > ownership of digital products There is no such thing. Data is just bits. Really big numbers. Asserting ownership over numbers is simply delusional. The second that number is published, it's already over. Non-fungible tokens do absolutely nothing to change those facts. They just let people delude themselves into believing they actually own stuff. The only thing they own is the token.
  - knorker 5y ago
    You're just talking nonsense. I don't think you thought this through at all. I own a house. In what way? The land registry says that I do. If it starts saying something else, then I don't. The police and courts will make it real. My wallet is only mine because that's what we agree. The brand Coca Cola is just information. But if you start selling your own under their brand you'll find out just how real intellectual property is. Everything is society is only real because we make it real. "Ownership" isn't any more or less real of tangible or intangible things.
    - matheusmoreira 5y ago
      All of your examples are real things. They exist in the physical world. Naturally finite, tangible. It makes intuitive sense to most people. Data is the opposite of all that. Society is trying to retrofit all of that physical world intuition into the virtual world. It doesn't work. It sorta worked up to the mid 20th century because data was still tied to the physical world. Now that computers exist and are globally networked, there are absolutely no physical barriers holding us back. > The police and courts will make it real. Police, courts, entire industries worth trillions of dollars, entire countries have been trying to make it real for what, over 50 years? The US will put your country in a literal naughty list if it doesn't take measures against infringement. Yet it happens every day, all the time. People don't even realize they're infringing copyright when they download a picture and post it somewhere. It's just a natural thing to do. It's not working. Maybe it's time to understand that the world just isn't the same anymore. Times have changed. It's time to let go of these illusions of ownership and control.
      - 5y ago
- rvense 5y ago
  We could do something like that, probably. Or we could tell these bloodsucking copyright lawyers to get fucked and reform the whole damn thing so it makes some sort of sense and does something good for the world.
- Igelau 5y ago
  Throw buzzwords! See if they stick!
kmeisthax 5y ago
In this case BMG might have a claim to ownership over the recording in question for the next 3 months... in the US. In the US, sound recordings used to be handled under state copyright law. That's a phrase which should give any lawyer younger than 60 an aneurysm, as there is no such thing today - sound recording rights were brought into federal law in the 1970s, and preemption[0][1] means that states can't extend copyright law at all anymore. However, the actual recordings weren't properly grandfathered into federal law until 2018 with the passage of the MMA[2], which includes concepts from the CLASSICS Act[3]. Under the MMA, pre-federal sound recordings get a new copyright term on a sliding scale, with the lowest term length being 3 years for recordings made before 1923. Since the MMA was passed in 2018, those new terms expire... this January. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/301 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/301 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_Modernization_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_Modernization_Act [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLASSICS_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLASSICS_Act
- fortran77 5y ago
  What most likely happened is this old recording appeared within a more modern copyrighted recording--on a compilation CD, or even in the background of a movie soundtrack. Assuming there is no current legal rights holder for this recording, I firmly believe that companies that falsely assert their rights should be held criminally liable for theft.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    And here, we run into the other side of the problem with the automated takedown system as YouTube has it implemented currently: there's no human-in-the-loop confirmation step. So at present: owner tags some content as owned by them, content is fingerprinted, YouTube does similarity-matching, content that is similar gets flagged for takedown until the uploader intervenes. It's certainly not fair to hold the content owner accountable for false-positives any more than it's fair to hold the uploader. (Now, in cases where the uploader pushes the "This content is legit" button and the content owner responds with the "no it isn't" button, I'd be very much in favor of incentives changing so an error at that point on the part of the content owner gets them raked over the coals. But there's no real legal mechanism for that to happen right now. Remember, this entire process exists as an alternative to the content owner's legal option: to sue YouTube or to sue individual YouTube users. YouTube doesn't want that).
Accujack 5y ago
The current system has as its main purpose the justification of Youtube the corporation showing rights holders that it is "doing something" about copyright violations. In that, it serves its purpose very well. The system is meant to flag the vast majority of uses of other people's videos but glosses over any questions about whether such use is considered "fair use" per local law or whether the presumed owner of the video actually cares or has granted permission for the use. It assumes anyone using a video that's not theirs is doing so in violation of copyright, and refuses to allow that video to be posted. It's automatic and often wrong, but Youtube don't care because it's keeping the parties that can have a significant effect on Youtube's business (and bottom line) happy - the large conglomerates, corporations, and industries that profit off of media world wide. They want any valuable media to be producing income for them forever, with Youtube and other online providers strong armed into policing their unfair system. Thus, the imbalances in the present copyright system (infinitely extending copyrights providing rent to corporations) is extended into Youtube's de facto monopoly on sharing user videos. Youtube's automated takedown system steps on ordinary content creators daily, but Youtube (Google) doesn't care, because individual content creators can't cause them as much trouble as corporations. So, it's working just fine if you keep that in mind. Youtube and Google are monopolies that need to be broken up.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
> Unless you believe artists should make money solely from performances That's the only business model that makes sense. Once you record a song, it's trivially copied and distributed. The musicians remain scarce: there's only one of them.
- kevincox 5y ago
  So if I record a song in a studio I shouldn't be paid because it is easy to copy that recording? This is like saying I shouldn't be able to sell widgets at a profit to cover the cost of construction my production line or for the effort spent to create the design.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    > So if I record a song in a studio I shouldn't be paid because it is easy to copy that recording? Your work is valuable and you should be compensated for it. I just think that should somehow happen before you create the valuable data, not after. Trying to sell copies of that data in a world where data is trivially copied and distributed worldwide just doesn't sound like a good idea to me. It was a good idea before computers and networks existed.
- city41 5y ago
  By that logic all software should be free too.
  - yesenadam 5y ago
    According to another comment on this page by the GP, >> ownership of digital products >There is no such thing. Data is just bits. Really big numbers. Asserting ownership over numbers is simply delusional. I'm a musician working on an album at home at the moment. It's a bit odd to hear I'm delusional, or worse, "simply delusional", for thinking that the music I'm making will be in some sense mine! Maybe I should go back to painting, where I'm making an object at least, and maybe not so delusional in the eyes of the GP, not just numbers? Not sure. p.s. I want to put "my" music on Bandcamp. Jazz and latin stuff mostly. The Australian music licensing org APRA/AMCOS informs me for 3 or more songs, I should pay them a flat fee of $300 per year to cover the licence fees, then more if I sell more than a few hundred. Seems like a lot, to put songs I performed online, but maybe I can just tell them no, that asserting ownership over numbers is simply delusional, there's this guy on Hacker News.. Hmm come to think of it, money in a bank is just numbers..
michaelcampbell 5y ago
> which I was sorta onboard with until streaming-music-as-a-service turned into a gigantic industry How did it becoming a huge money maker for people who already have way too much change your views?
- munk-a 5y ago
  Assuming copyright was dissolved it wouldn't be a huge money maker for the recording industry (questionably legitimate money receivers) or the artists (definitely legit) it'd be a huge money maker for apple and spotify that'd harness all that uncopyrighted stuff to make money on.
  - account42 5y ago
    How would it be a huge money maker for Apple and Spotify when anyone else can provide the same content, driving the cost down to the minimum required to cover the hosting and bandwidth.
    - munk-a 5y ago
      At that point it'd essentially be like a book repository and while there are several big open book repositories (shout out at mek) the demand for daily consumption of those isn't there in the same way that music is consumed. I can't say for certain but I suspect we'd essentially have something that looks a lot like the search engine wars - some minor players might strike it big - but Google, Apple and MSFT would all present options backed with a lot of cash to try and dominate the market. It'd all be about the algorithm to deliver the data in a pleasantly suggested manner - and companies that could offer value here would rake in loads of money with the mobile device offers locking down their devices to dissuade users from seeking free alternatives.
forgotmypw17 5y ago
> there's got to be a way to do it better than the current system where you need to chase after platforms to actually get them to unblock your misclassified videos. There is a better way: setting up your own video hosting platform. I think it is not that difficult or expensive these days, although I have not done it, to set up your own website which allows you to upload videos for your own purposes.

by munk-a 5y ago

smoldesu 5y ago

This is my least popular opinion, but NFTs should have been applied here. We desperately need a legally binding, decentralized and distributed way for us to attest ownership of digital products. Sure, sure, "blockchain bad" and "don't apply crypto to everything", but this genuinely seems to me like the most mutually beneficial way to proceed.

jimbob45 5y ago
What problem do NFTs really solve here? They just make sure that a ledger (in this case, of rights) is immutable but...is anyone worried that record companies are mutating the rights to begin with? It seems like what would really help would be to make rights public and easily accessible. However, making the rights platform into an NFT platform specifically wouldn't really help.
peab 5y ago
How would it work?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
thanhhaimai 5y ago
When you start talking about "legally binding" then the "decentralized" part doesn't apply anymore. You're relying on government enforcement for the "legally binding" part; whether the system is centralized or decentralized is a moot point.
ashtonkem 5y ago
The issue is that you’d have to figure out who has the right to create a NFT. The NFT solves none of the problems, rights attribution, and it creates a bunch of places for grifters and scam artists to make money doing nothing. It’s worse than our current solution.
D13Fd 5y ago
I'm at a loss as to how NFTs would help in this situation in any way.
Accujack 5y ago
You're trying to apply a technical solution to a legal and social problem.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
> ownership of digital products There is no such thing. Data is just bits. Really big numbers. Asserting ownership over numbers is simply delusional. The second that number is published, it's already over. Non-fungible tokens do absolutely nothing to change those facts. They just let people delude themselves into believing they actually own stuff. The only thing they own is the token.
- knorker 5y ago
  You're just talking nonsense. I don't think you thought this through at all. I own a house. In what way? The land registry says that I do. If it starts saying something else, then I don't. The police and courts will make it real. My wallet is only mine because that's what we agree. The brand Coca Cola is just information. But if you start selling your own under their brand you'll find out just how real intellectual property is. Everything is society is only real because we make it real. "Ownership" isn't any more or less real of tangible or intangible things.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    All of your examples are real things. They exist in the physical world. Naturally finite, tangible. It makes intuitive sense to most people. Data is the opposite of all that. Society is trying to retrofit all of that physical world intuition into the virtual world. It doesn't work. It sorta worked up to the mid 20th century because data was still tied to the physical world. Now that computers exist and are globally networked, there are absolutely no physical barriers holding us back. > The police and courts will make it real. Police, courts, entire industries worth trillions of dollars, entire countries have been trying to make it real for what, over 50 years? The US will put your country in a literal naughty list if it doesn't take measures against infringement. Yet it happens every day, all the time. People don't even realize they're infringing copyright when they download a picture and post it somewhere. It's just a natural thing to do. It's not working. Maybe it's time to understand that the world just isn't the same anymore. Times have changed. It's time to let go of these illusions of ownership and control.
    - 5y ago
rvense 5y ago
We could do something like that, probably. Or we could tell these bloodsucking copyright lawyers to get fucked and reform the whole damn thing so it makes some sort of sense and does something good for the world.
Igelau 5y ago
Throw buzzwords! See if they stick!

kmeisthax 5y ago

In this case BMG might have a claim to ownership over the recording in question for the next 3 months... in the US. In the US, sound recordings used to be handled under state copyright law. That's a phrase which should give any lawyer younger than 60 an aneurysm, as there is no such thing today - sound recording rights were brought into federal law in the 1970s, and preemption[0][1] means that states can't extend copyright law at all anymore. However, the actual recordings weren't properly grandfathered into federal law until 2018 with the passage of the MMA[2], which includes concepts from the CLASSICS Act[3]. Under the MMA, pre-federal sound recordings get a new copyright term on a sliding scale, with the lowest term length being 3 years for recordings made before 1923. Since the MMA was passed in 2018, those new terms expire... this January. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/301 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/301 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_Modernization_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_Modernization_Act [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLASSICS_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLASSICS_Act

fortran77 5y ago
What most likely happened is this old recording appeared within a more modern copyrighted recording--on a compilation CD, or even in the background of a movie soundtrack. Assuming there is no current legal rights holder for this recording, I firmly believe that companies that falsely assert their rights should be held criminally liable for theft.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  And here, we run into the other side of the problem with the automated takedown system as YouTube has it implemented currently: there's no human-in-the-loop confirmation step. So at present: owner tags some content as owned by them, content is fingerprinted, YouTube does similarity-matching, content that is similar gets flagged for takedown until the uploader intervenes. It's certainly not fair to hold the content owner accountable for false-positives any more than it's fair to hold the uploader. (Now, in cases where the uploader pushes the "This content is legit" button and the content owner responds with the "no it isn't" button, I'd be very much in favor of incentives changing so an error at that point on the part of the content owner gets them raked over the coals. But there's no real legal mechanism for that to happen right now. Remember, this entire process exists as an alternative to the content owner's legal option: to sue YouTube or to sue individual YouTube users. YouTube doesn't want that).

Accujack 5y ago

The current system has as its main purpose the justification of Youtube the corporation showing rights holders that it is "doing something" about copyright violations. In that, it serves its purpose very well. The system is meant to flag the vast majority of uses of other people's videos but glosses over any questions about whether such use is considered "fair use" per local law or whether the presumed owner of the video actually cares or has granted permission for the use. It assumes anyone using a video that's not theirs is doing so in violation of copyright, and refuses to allow that video to be posted. It's automatic and often wrong, but Youtube don't care because it's keeping the parties that can have a significant effect on Youtube's business (and bottom line) happy - the large conglomerates, corporations, and industries that profit off of media world wide. They want any valuable media to be producing income for them forever, with Youtube and other online providers strong armed into policing their unfair system. Thus, the imbalances in the present copyright system (infinitely extending copyrights providing rent to corporations) is extended into Youtube's de facto monopoly on sharing user videos. Youtube's automated takedown system steps on ordinary content creators daily, but Youtube (Google) doesn't care, because individual content creators can't cause them as much trouble as corporations. So, it's working just fine if you keep that in mind. Youtube and Google are monopolies that need to be broken up.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

> Unless you believe artists should make money solely from performances That's the only business model that makes sense. Once you record a song, it's trivially copied and distributed. The musicians remain scarce: there's only one of them.

kevincox 5y ago
So if I record a song in a studio I shouldn't be paid because it is easy to copy that recording? This is like saying I shouldn't be able to sell widgets at a profit to cover the cost of construction my production line or for the effort spent to create the design.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  > So if I record a song in a studio I shouldn't be paid because it is easy to copy that recording? Your work is valuable and you should be compensated for it. I just think that should somehow happen before you create the valuable data, not after. Trying to sell copies of that data in a world where data is trivially copied and distributed worldwide just doesn't sound like a good idea to me. It was a good idea before computers and networks existed.
city41 5y ago
By that logic all software should be free too.
- yesenadam 5y ago
  According to another comment on this page by the GP, >> ownership of digital products >There is no such thing. Data is just bits. Really big numbers. Asserting ownership over numbers is simply delusional. I'm a musician working on an album at home at the moment. It's a bit odd to hear I'm delusional, or worse, "simply delusional", for thinking that the music I'm making will be in some sense mine! Maybe I should go back to painting, where I'm making an object at least, and maybe not so delusional in the eyes of the GP, not just numbers? Not sure. p.s. I want to put "my" music on Bandcamp. Jazz and latin stuff mostly. The Australian music licensing org APRA/AMCOS informs me for 3 or more songs, I should pay them a flat fee of $300 per year to cover the licence fees, then more if I sell more than a few hundred. Seems like a lot, to put songs I performed online, but maybe I can just tell them no, that asserting ownership over numbers is simply delusional, there's this guy on Hacker News.. Hmm come to think of it, money in a bank is just numbers..

michaelcampbell 5y ago

> which I was sorta onboard with until streaming-music-as-a-service turned into a gigantic industry How did it becoming a huge money maker for people who already have way too much change your views?

munk-a 5y ago
Assuming copyright was dissolved it wouldn't be a huge money maker for the recording industry (questionably legitimate money receivers) or the artists (definitely legit) it'd be a huge money maker for apple and spotify that'd harness all that uncopyrighted stuff to make money on.
- account42 5y ago
  How would it be a huge money maker for Apple and Spotify when anyone else can provide the same content, driving the cost down to the minimum required to cover the hosting and bandwidth.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    At that point it'd essentially be like a book repository and while there are several big open book repositories (shout out at mek) the demand for daily consumption of those isn't there in the same way that music is consumed. I can't say for certain but I suspect we'd essentially have something that looks a lot like the search engine wars - some minor players might strike it big - but Google, Apple and MSFT would all present options backed with a lot of cash to try and dominate the market. It'd all be about the algorithm to deliver the data in a pleasantly suggested manner - and companies that could offer value here would rake in loads of money with the mobile device offers locking down their devices to dissuade users from seeking free alternatives.

forgotmypw17 5y ago

> there's got to be a way to do it better than the current system where you need to chase after platforms to actually get them to unblock your misclassified videos. There is a better way: setting up your own video hosting platform. I think it is not that difficult or expensive these days, although I have not done it, to set up your own website which allows you to upload videos for your own purposes.