3 ms·

The big difference is that the variability in how much it costs to write a song is much difference between how much it costs to create “Get Out” and how much it

The big difference is that the variability in how much it costs to write a song is much difference between how much it costs to create “Get Out” and how much it costs to create “Avengers: Infinity War”. Also there are multiple licenses for “music”. - if you write a song and it is used as part of a “performance” for radio, streaming services, etc there is a standard mandated licenses. But those mandated licenses don’t apply to movies or cover versions - Radio stations are not required to pay “singers” when they play a song. There is a mandated license for composers and writers. - Services like Spotify and Apple Music where you can create your own playlist have to make individual deals with record labels for the entire performance. But even then, there are standardized licenses for writers and composers. - if you use a “performance” in a tv show or movie. You have to negotiate with all of the writes holders individually - singers, writers and composers. But if you are willing to use a cover version, you only have to deal with the writers and composers .

Spivak 4y ago
Sounds like the industry hashed this out and we ended up with a system that might be a little complicated but is broadly acceptable to people. What do you see the barrier being for movies and video games? And why not have everyone pay it? If you offer free licensing then you pay nothing. Open Source and commercial SaaS will have no fees. If you want people to have to pay for licensing then you set the price by paying some percent of the price you want to set annually. We can even have first 20 years free so small artists don’t get bought out by huge corps.
- scarface74 4y ago
  The industry didn’t hash anything out though. You still can’t use a “performance” - ie a combination of lyrics, music and voice without negotiating directly with the rights holders. That’s why you still can’t find “Welcome Back Kotter” on streaming and many old TV shows on streaming had to use different music than when they originally aired on TV. And what do you base your mandated licensing on? The cost of production? Movie studios have played games with that for decades. That’s what is called “Hollywood Accounting”. Video game makers could do the same. And let’s not forget that 70% of Spotify’s revenue goes directly to the music labels. Streaming music is a horrible business to be in as a standalone business. It only makes since for Apple and Amazon as a larger services/devices play.

Spivak 4y ago

Sounds like the industry hashed this out and we ended up with a system that might be a little complicated but is broadly acceptable to people. What do you see the barrier being for movies and video games? And why not have everyone pay it? If you offer free licensing then you pay nothing. Open Source and commercial SaaS will have no fees. If you want people to have to pay for licensing then you set the price by paying some percent of the price you want to set annually. We can even have first 20 years free so small artists don’t get bought out by huge corps.

scarface74 4y ago
The industry didn’t hash anything out though. You still can’t use a “performance” - ie a combination of lyrics, music and voice without negotiating directly with the rights holders. That’s why you still can’t find “Welcome Back Kotter” on streaming and many old TV shows on streaming had to use different music than when they originally aired on TV. And what do you base your mandated licensing on? The cost of production? Movie studios have played games with that for decades. That’s what is called “Hollywood Accounting”. Video game makers could do the same. And let’s not forget that 70% of Spotify’s revenue goes directly to the music labels. Streaming music is a horrible business to be in as a standalone business. It only makes since for Apple and Amazon as a larger services/devices play.