Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday August 05 2016, @09:56AM   Printer-friendly
from the didn't-see-THAT-one-coming dept.

NBCNews reports that changes are coming for the music industry, and Big Music is not happy about it.

For years, in cases where ASCAP (the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers) or BMI (Broadcast Music Inc) did not represent all of the authors of a song, they would issue fractional licenses and presume that the licensee would ensure others were paid. Instead, the Justice Department's new rules would require "full-work" licenses.

We've all heard stories about some song-writers or lyricists being cut out out of the proceeds of music sales because they were not members of these big licensing agencies, never signed a release of rights, or a variety of other issues. Big Music (ASCAP and BMI) more or less ignored these artists, assuming they would get their share via some other means. Of course, in the end, that usually meant somebody pocketed all the money and somebody else didn't get paid. That's not how it is supposed to work.

BMI said in a statement that it would fight the change in court, while ASCAP said it would press for legislative reform. The groups said in a press release that the decision "will cause unnecessary chaos in the marketplace and place unfair financial burdens and creative constraints on songwriters and composers."

This all arose after Big Music claimed that the internet music streaming services were under-paying for song streamed, and cheating artists. They complained to the DOJ and wanted to renegotiate a 1941 era consent decree. It appears the DOJ agrees that some artists were indeed being cheated, but not necessarily by streaming services.

Some artists refuse to let their music be streamed simply because they believe it is being pirated at alarming rates. Other artists are waking up to the music industry's games.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Saturday August 06 2016, @04:17PM

    by bzipitidoo (4388) on Saturday August 06 2016, @04:17PM (#384776) Journal

    > Copyright is what allows me to say that someone can't (legally) take stuff I created and pawn it off as their own.

    No, copyright wasn't for stopping plagiarism, it is exactly what its name says, the right to make copies, no more. When you sell your copyright, your name still stays on your creation, the buyer can't legally change that, only now someone else can legally make copies of your work. Have to agree to ghostwriting for a change in who gets credit. But many people think copyright does stop plagiarism, and it has been used for that purpose which is rather like nailing Al Capone for tax evasion because they couldn't get him for alcohol distribution. That confusion is one of the things keeping copyright alive.

    Laws and social expectations against plagiarism, misrepresentation, and fraud are what stops others from pawning your creations as theirs. We don't need copyright to stop plagiarism, we can and do have bans specifically against plagiarism.

    > In order to count as a copyright violation, you have to be attempting to earn money from the copyrighted work

    I am in favor of abolishing copyright. It seems an artificial limitation on the natural right to learn. But some means of imposing a levy on profits from copying could possibly work, and I've been thinking about that.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2