The most ridiculous part of music copyrights is that the DMCA explicitly encodes statutory damages of at least 750$ up to 30,000$, and up to 150,000$ for willful infringement per work [1].
Yet musical compositions are subject to compulsory mechanical copyright licenses at a fixed rate of 12.4 cents or 2.38 cents per minute, whichever is higher [2] for music covers [3] (i.e. same song, different singer/band or even same singer different time). Meaning you can make a cover without permission as long as you pay the copyright holder at the rates specified in the law.
So we already have cheap compulsory licensing for musical compositions which caps damages at a 1/6,000 to 1/240,000 of the DMCA rates. We should just have compulsory mechanical licensing for recordings as well.
If we really want to get crazy, we could even let copyright holders declare a compulsory licensing rate per work then multiply that by some number to get their intellectual property value and then charge them property tax on that intellectual property. So you can set a high compulsory licensing rate, but then you have to pay more property tax on your income generating property or vice versa. This allows valuable works to be protected to support the artists making them, while allowing less valuable works to be easily usable by whoever wants to.
[1] https://uwf.edu/go/legal-and-consumer-info/digital-millenium...
If some legislator or public interest lawyer would like to fix some of the DMCA shortcomings or abuses, I think Rick Beato would be a good poster child for legitimate fair use.
Beato does high-quality, knowledgeable videos that make IMHO legitimate educational use of short audio clips, interleaved with discussion. No one can listen to a Beato video to get the experience of the full song, and the Beato video plausibly promotes people wanting to listen to the full song.
Labels would make a fortune if they just set up an online license request store. Any track in various lengths for various prices. Once you pay, you're granted a license. Could take a few minutes for a podcaster to search a song, buy a license for the right length, and you're done. Have a URL that displays a license and instruct creators to put that at the bottom of their video/audio description. Then, any bots can scan for the license URL, verify its key as valid, and move on if the license is valid.
Charge affordable prices (e.g., $1 per second) and make it easy to use. This would take very little time at all and even if it's dirty, the catalog data and mp3s should exist for most stuff. Add a "this track can't be licensed" when data is missing and offer a "let me know" signup.
One answer to this madness is to starve the beast: never buy any music or any content from an established company. Torrent everything. It may not work at all, but at least you can tell yourself you're not helping the bastards.
It’s all brinkmanship: if you can’t unilaterally control it, the instinct is to destroy it.
I work in tech, but thanks to some stubborn drive for creation my parents instilled in me, I also make music. And honestly, compared to music, even the advertising industry feels cutting-edge. Music is still operating with one foot stuck decades in the past.
I watched Beato's video. I couldn't help thinking that making hundreds of false claims was harassment? Any lawyers around?
I don't understand why false DMCA claims don't result in legal consequences for the people or companies making them.
I read a review by an IPR lawyer long ago who said since music performing rights encouraged artists to record more tunes, in 75 years we'd be drowning in free, and should pay now for the future benefit of growing the size of the free pool in perpetuity.
Not surprisingly the same review recommended extending copyright lifetimes not reducing them. Strange.
Pirate the music and if you want to support the artist to concerts/gigs and buy merch. These labels are inserted themselves between the fans and the artists w/o any benefit but for themselves.
Of course there's the other big elephant in the room: AI music. Not being copyrightable, I've already seen a few YouTubers use it to avoid copyright strikes.
This is so true, the system is broken beyond belief. I want to write a rant here but let’s just say the article is right on all counts.
It’s obvious tech companies as always bowed to one party and listened to them, and didn’t incorporate the user in this. (And to the few that do : thank you)
Maybe it's time for Beato and others to start boycotting music owned by UMG?
This is because whatever Google tech is checking for this stuff is too simple right? Or, maybe it's too aggressive because of music industry contracts?
Starsky Carr did a filter sweep while reviewing a synthesizer, and with that got his account shutdown because it was auto-copyright strike. He appealed and luckily it was reversed, but I'm sure others with smaller audiences wouldn't be so lucky.
I kinda feel like the solution is to stop promoting artist that sign with labels? Like the label doesn’t want you to use the music. the artist chose the label to protect their right's
also, it does seem a little whiny on Beato’s part. He’s not wrong that allowing the music on his channel is probably a net positive for the artist and the label but at the same time he’s benefiting from the music. if he wasn’t then he would be fine with removing it
Music compaines don't care if it hurts the artist. The have masses of licensed music and can afford the income damage caused by copyright strikes.
> But feature a barely audible 8 1/2-second clip of music underneath audio dialogue, and you could have your entire podcast career evaporate overnight.
Genuine question - is it really this severe? Or is this an exaggeration?
It gets even crazier when compared to other IP law:
Engineer makes an invention: Write 30-Page patent application. Multi-year patenting process with USPTO, pay 1000s of $ if DIY, 10x that if using an IP law firm. Multiply by 4x if going international. With luck, patent gets issued 3 years later. It protects you for 25 years, but only if you have deep pockets for an IP lawsuit in case someone does copy you -- and with uncertain outcome.
Artist releases a song: automatically enjoys 100+ years of protection, even for minor samples, hooks, melodic elements. Lawsuits are easily won as long as you can prove you are the copyright holder.
I have my theories about how we ended up in this state of affairs but no jurist with a sliver of common sense can seriously claim that this is fine.