https://fossforce.com/2019/04/whats-wrong-with-the-music-modernization-act/
Pretty much everyone in the music industry agreed that the rate setting process for both mechanical and streaming royalties was antiquated. Having a central location for storing publishing and master ownership information for all recordings — as well as for obtaining digital mechanical licenses — would be ideal. There also needed to be payments to heritage artists whose music is broadcast on satellite services, and a clear system for paying producers and engineers for their share of the master recording income derived from performance.
The MMA promised all that and more. The changes it brought about, however, came with a price.
The Music Modernization Act: What Is It & Why Does It Matter?
The Music Modernization act, or "MMA" creates a formalized body, run by publishers, that administers the "mechanical licensing" of compositions streamed on services like Spotify and Apple Music (we call them DSPs). It changes the procedure by which millions of songs are made available for streaming on these services and limits the liability a service can incur if it adheres to the new process. It funds the creation of a comprehensive database with buy in from all the major publishers and digital service providers. This would be the first of its kind that has active participation from the major publishers, representing a vast majority of musical works. It also creates a new evidentiary standard by which the performance rights organizations ASCAP and BMI can argue better rates for the performance of musical works on DSPs.
[...] There will be meaningful criticism of this bill. But at the end of the day, this is a good thing for our business. A consensus amongst the music community and agreement with the DSPs. Two notions that, before this bill, lived in the realm of fantasy. And a real nuts and bolts solution to, what a year ago, seemed to be an insurmountable obstacle.
So how about it fellow Soylentils? What do you think about this proposal?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Wednesday April 24 2019, @07:14PM (25 children)
Even so, I can guarantee that this will favor the industry over the artists. The music industry has seen what's going on in publishing - authors don't need the big publishers any more. Bet: this is designed to prevent indie musicians from making money.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday April 24 2019, @07:21PM (24 children)
I wish there was a clear, codifiable (legally) consensus on what the artists want. Not just the big names, and not just the people who dabble, but the ones who create/perform (music in this case) regularly whether they're able to make ends meet or not doing it. It seems creating and performing musicians have two separate sets of considerations in this case?
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday April 24 2019, @08:25PM
I think that is the problem. There is no way for the artists to have a consensus. There is a giant gap between the millionaires and the individuals playing in a local bar. Even if the millionaires say they want to help local music, few will support laws that cost them money. The big ones that are in bed with the record companies might moan that they are "slaves" to the system, but that doesn't sound so bad when you are filthy rich.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 5, Interesting) by edIII on Wednesday April 24 2019, @10:30PM
I don't particularly care what the artists want. Take Metallica for instance. A gold plated Ferrari isn't enough, so to protect their IP they're all for the loss of our privacy, civil rights, and security. So many of the big players are like that, and supportive of DRM control schemes.
In the absence of IP, we have what is natural and correct; The Public Domain. Information is free to all of humanity equally. So anything we give the artists is one heck of an entitlement, and it is not nearly spelled out clearly enough the temporary and transient nature of that entitlement. They get an inch, and then want a million miles.
I'm willing to support a system that balances our civil rights against transient entitlements designed to provide the The Public Domain with desirable content. That goes just as much for medical and scientific knowledge that it does for music. In order to receive a copyright, you register for it. As mentioned with others, you can choose between boiler plate legal contracts to offer. What I want to see is the indie artists not having to sell out to Big Music, but being able to register their songs and their terms with a national directory.
Better yet, allow that national directory to accept payments, donations, and requests for specific licenses. Absent all the bloat that the entrenched publishers/distributors represent, it could be quite profitable while allowing lower costs to be set by the artists. After a reasonable period of time when the entitlement to offer licenses expires, the national directory still accepts donations. When the artists die, the registered works literally transfer to The Public Domain, another national directory that instead clearly protects works from overreaching entities that would abuse the systems in place to control and profit from information.
In this system the artists spend pennies on the dollar to afford payment processing and accessing the system, versus receiving pennies on the dollar from greedy Big Music that will violate your privacy and rights to peaceful enjoyment of property. There is nothing morally or ethically superior to the system of IP we have now, and all I care about is encouraging the artists to continue producing content while giving up none of my privacy or civil rights.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by khallow on Wednesday April 24 2019, @11:06PM (19 children)
There is. It's called "copyright". The artists do what they want with stuff that they have copyright to.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday April 25 2019, @12:13AM (1 child)
So ... what do mid-range artists, you know, actually want? It seems to vary depending on the synthesis, production, and distribution technologies they grew up with.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Thursday April 25 2019, @09:54AM
Whatever they want. At this point, we no longer have to care.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25 2019, @02:02AM
no you dumb-dumb, copyright is disney's and other big guys' consensus
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Thursday April 25 2019, @04:49PM (15 children)
Copyright often gets in the way of artists when it forbids an artist to build on another artist's work.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 26 2019, @01:26AM (14 children)
It's supposed to get in the way. But it doesn't forbid the second artist from building on the work of the first. They just have to get permission. Plenty of people get that. You wouldn't otherwise have covers [wikipedia.org] of existing copyrighted songs, and movies of books and comics.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Friday April 26 2019, @04:52AM (13 children)
I was under the impression that artists new to the industry tended to have less success in negotiating permission.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 26 2019, @11:39AM (12 children)
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Friday April 26 2019, @02:13PM (11 children)
It's a problem because your use of the word "just" and the phrase "Plenty of people" implied that negotiating permission is a practical solution for artists, including those new to the industry.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 26 2019, @02:26PM (10 children)
Sorry, I still don't see the problem. The avenue exists and is reasonable. And contrary to your assertion, I do believe that negotiating permission is a practical solution even for those new to the industry.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Friday April 26 2019, @04:39PM (9 children)
What solution would you offer to an artist who gets a blanket denial or a go-away price from several other artists or their publishers in a row?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday April 27 2019, @01:57AM (8 children)
This blanket denial may be a strong indication that they suck. Either do something else or work on that, say by pushing their limits with different approaches. And sometimes, it just takes more persistence. But to say that it's the fault of copyright is erroneous. Big businesses will always be better at derivative works than you. In the absence of copyright, they'll be able to copy and exploit your works like the currently do, without having to compensate you in the process.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Saturday April 27 2019, @03:35AM (7 children)
Could you elaborate on what "something else" you had in mind? Did you mean, for example, that artists ought to begin by producing completely original works as opposed to derivative works under license?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday April 27 2019, @09:49AM (1 child)
If the problem is that you suck, then creating your own completely original work (or derivative works in a different genre) can help you figure out to create derivative works better. That is, doing something different to help you do what you've been trying to do better.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Sunday April 28 2019, @01:52AM
The skill of creating quality derivative works does not necessarily correlate with the skill of marketing your ability to create quality derivative works to prospective licensors. What steps would you recommend for those skilled in the former to also become skilled in the latter?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday April 27 2019, @09:56AM (4 children)
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Sunday April 28 2019, @01:50AM (3 children)
Copyright gives an author the power to refuse to license derivative works at a reasonable royalty. Earlier, you claimed that this power to refuse does not get in the way of art. Now you claim that it does, by causing artists to stop being artists and switch to food service.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 28 2019, @02:05AM (2 children)
Again, what makes this a problem rather than just another fact? There is no one in this world whose only ability is to write a cover to Another Brick in the Wall, Part 2. If you can't get the permission, then either don't do it (or rather don't market it for profit) or wait for the copyright to expire. And if you suck so much that even the many artists who allow derivative works can't be bothered to license your work, then indeed there is food service.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Sunday April 28 2019, @02:31AM (1 child)
Under current law, copyright significantly outlives prospective authors of derivative works. You have stated earlier that you desire to change this particular law. But because you haven't yet managed to get a bill to do so before a committee, one might claim that you suck.
I doubt the existence of "many artists who allow derivative works" whose works have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (Wikipedia's general notability guideline [wikipedia.org]). But if you can name a few freely licensed (such as CC BY or CC BY-SA) musical works composed in the past 50 years with which listeners among the general public are likely to be familiar, that would likely change my mind.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 28 2019, @02:53AM
Tell me about it. Nobody has handled me the keys to world power yet. Maybe I need to write another memo?
Actually, just look at songs in Wikipedia some time. They usually list the derivative works that "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
What would be the point of the exercise? Free licenses aren't the only licenses out there. I sensed from the beginning that there was supposed to be some point to this slow development, but even now, I don't get what it is.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25 2019, @03:11AM (1 child)
The artists, the real artists, are not smart enough to know what they need. They aren't being undercut by artists but the formalization of their art. Today you can literally manufacture pop artists by putting a hot young girl with decent enough pipes and cookie cutter lyrics and music. They are the new millionaires and they don't complain about studio interference either. Actual artists are going the way actual engineers go - working for someone more manipulative.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday April 25 2019, @11:59PM
Nowadays you don't even need the girl [youtube.com] anymore.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24 2019, @07:22PM (1 child)
the way we pirate music?
(Score: 5, Informative) by ikanreed on Wednesday April 24 2019, @07:32PM
You made me click 6 layers deep to find the text of the bill [congress.gov]
Nope, seems to be a enforcement-free document and only describe how license contracts should be legally defined, kept, and processed.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24 2019, @07:45PM
In some countries this might be called price fixing...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by takyon on Wednesday April 24 2019, @07:56PM (1 child)
If it isn't reducing copyright terms, it's not Modernization.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday April 24 2019, @11:51PM
It has become standard practice to name laws the polar opposite of what they really do, in order to deceive the public. For instance, the "Right to Work", the "Tax Cut and Jobs Act", and the "Affordable Care Act".
At best, the names can be considered aspirational. As you say, there's nothing "modern" about this act. Quite the opposite. It's another lame attempt to prop up the extremely obsolete notion of copyright, another refusal to acknowledge that the world has changed and the clock can't be turned back. That they felt the need to work "modernization" into the name is a backhanded acknowledgment that copyright is indeed outmoded. In that sense it's the most honest part of the name.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24 2019, @08:17PM (2 children)
This just shows that democrats in congress have been courageously fighting Trump at every step, demonstrating their amazing courage. If you want freedom and opportunity you must help defeat Trump.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24 2019, @08:21PM
We must also engage with our leaders to get Trump to stop nazi-torturing the Jewish community, and get Alexandria on the flip side of a commemorative coin before it is too late.
(Score: 2, Touché) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday April 25 2019, @02:47PM
Dumb Tweet. Very dumb. Because Congress -- BOTH sides -- passed Music Modernization UNANIMOUSLY. It's very Bipartisan. And Kid Rock loves it!!!!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by pipedwho on Wednesday April 24 2019, @08:32PM (10 children)
What is actually needed is a single database that contains all works that claim copyright. This way at least payment/royalty systems know who to pay. If you don’t register your work for inclusion (like the old days) then no copyright for you.
It should extend to all copyrights, not just music recordings. Ie. books, printed music/lyrics, pictures, etc.
Then it can talk about things you can’t have in a ‘license’ along with standard license templates so entrenched players can’t lock out new publishers/dsps/etc.
And finally, reasonable copyright durations based on continual reregistration. None of this life+75 years crap.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday April 24 2019, @09:08PM
Run it with blockchain! But seriously, such an idea sounds fine but it should be developed and run by the Copyright Office, the subunit of the Library of Congress that already exists to do such things.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24 2019, @09:26PM (1 child)
The database might be a content addressed system, ipfs, torrent. The claim of authorship ideally from crypto sig, possibility of protecting a pair of hashes of the work instead of the data itself, for what you don't want/can't publish yet. As for the duration of copyright, make the AUTHOR (or his heirs for max 20 years) and not the publisher the only one to be able to claim damages from piracy. If the author gains nothing because he had a bad deal, the publisher can't sue.
From this dumpster of data, indexes could be made to ID songs. Indexes would substitute streaming services. If i find a song through an index I am more than happy to pay for their service if that is a service. Access to a lowfi preview should be free. The original file should be itself unencumbered, but the PLAYER would make the playback lawful by micropaying in advance, differently depending on context - your position, personal play discounted, theater play dependent on how many people, whatever), micropayment indexes would yield public data for charts and stuff.
This will never happen as it cuts out basically any intermediary. And we are in a byzantine post-capitalist (fake-capitalist because capitalism never actually happened) world.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Thursday April 25 2019, @04:52PM
In the case of a work to which hundreds of people contributed, who is the author?
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Wednesday April 24 2019, @10:46PM (6 children)
I'd suggest a proviso to it: Allow a short period of copyright protection before first registration with this database (say 10 years max).
I'm not going to want to register every single photo, blog post, fanfiction etc. with any database. The bureaucracy and workload (for me and the database maintainers) would be impractical. But equally, some of those may be good enough to warrant protection in the long term.
During that initial period, I could decide what creations of mine are worth protecting (the "keepers"), once it becomes clear which ones I can / want to profit from. And you could allow registration before the deadline if you want, to avoid last minute rushes.
(Score: 2) by pipedwho on Thursday April 25 2019, @12:28AM (5 children)
Not really an issue if you don't 'publish' all these things you're not sure about and keep them to yourself. Same rules as today would apply if someone steals your shit and tries to claim it themselves.
For low effort material, like photos, the protection and method of entry should be relative to the effort required to make the work in the first place. If you take a year to make a movie, the effort/cost/protection should be commensurate. If you smash out 1000 photos in a day, then it's likely only a few are worth publishing anyway. So you're not going to publish the lot of them, and the cost of registration shouldn't be too bad. Cost could even be on a sliding scale, where the first few years are free for X number of works (to stop people spamming the database). With penalties for pushing in things you didn't create, or are deemed not worthy of registration (ie. spam). With automated systems, the entry process could be made extremely low effort once you've registered yourself as a creative entity.
I'm sure they could handle a grace period, during which time, if you didn't register it but felt the need to publish anyway, then anyone using it during that time does it freely. And if you don't register within 12 months, or you intentionally publish it, then it reverts to public domain.
Basically, if something isn't worth anything to you, why should the public have a system in place protecting stuff you don't care about. That is exactly what we have today with all the 'abandonware' kicking about. Including all the TV shows, books, etc that you can't even legally use because either you can't find the copyright owner, or the 'publisher' isn't actively making it available.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Thursday April 25 2019, @03:41AM (2 children)
For photos, the metadata in image files should provide enough copyright identification.
It should be forbidden to remove such copyright metadata in the course of image processing.
(There will probably be exceptions for fair use and the like)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25 2019, @04:39AM
You guys seem to labor under the idea that copyright exists to give The People more stuff to enjoy (like it reads in the law text). However the matter of the fact is it's sole purpose is to give Disney more of your hard earned money, forever and ever.
If the purpose was to make more stuff available, there would be a government Department of Public Domain that would each year distribute the new works which just entered public domain. But no, instead we get copyright term extensions. It's not a contract if there is only one side present at the negotiations. It's an edict.
(Score: 2) by pipedwho on Thursday April 25 2019, @06:16PM
That would imply every single image gets to be copyrighted. I’m saying that registration provides a way to properly expire works that are abandoned by the creators of no longer hold sufficient value to remain protected. Just throwing down metadata perpetuates the same problems we have today. This applies to all forms of digital and analogue media.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Thursday April 25 2019, @06:26AM (1 child)
Not publishing your work immediately is a bit foreign for many users of MyFace and InstaTweet, etc.
Whether that work deserves protection? YMMV.
(Score: 2) by pipedwho on Thursday April 25 2019, @06:27PM
Remember back in day when media needed to (for whatever reason) get a signed release before publishing pictures of people. That doesn’t seem to apply to instaface and the like. Neither should copyrights. If people don’t care about publicising private information, why should they maintain a copyright on it. Maybe that’ll make people be a little more prudent about what they post to myface.
Now exposing or perpetuating private information is a separate issue to copyright.
(Score: 4, Informative) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday April 24 2019, @09:04PM (1 child)
One need not read past that. It will be run the way the publishers want it to, and thus completely freeze out any true independents from a slice of the mechanical copyright pie. The greater details in the FOSS force article make it clear that 'unclaimed funds' for mechanical royalties will be distributed after three years for works that can't be traced, instead of doing the proper thing a government would do and create a permanent escheatment until and unless the source is found. (There is no reason whatsoever that an escheatment cannot exist perpetually when administered by government).
Just another step in "lawmakers throw away what we hold them responsible for to the awaiting arms of industry who are glad to profit from it."
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25 2019, @12:37AM
It'd be less of an issue if copyright didn't last effectively forever as it does now.
I don't like how the current systems divvy up proceeds. They take their pool for untracked services, and they dish it out by popularity across the service. That means the obscure song you listen to ends up paying into the fund of the super popular Beiber hit that you've been actively avoiding.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24 2019, @11:25PM (1 child)
Does that stand for Media Mafia Assassins?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25 2019, @12:48AM
Mixed Martial Arts. Basically, if you want a piece of the pie, you get into the ring against someone the big studios have hired (usually someone twice your size and skill). You get kicked in the nuts as soon as the bell rings, then the incumbent cartel either takes 99% of the proceeds, or just cancels any ability to get your work in front of anyone.