Alt view of Consent Decree
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 11:19 am
I'm going to get rid of this link, because I think it's FUD. It's not hard to find if you want to read it.
I *always* consider the source, buddy! I live in the USA, where just about *everything* you see or read or hear is a pitch of some kind!Cruciform wrote:I would say consider the source. "Public Knowledge" are lobbyists funded by tech companies. They are not advocating in your interests. They are operating to advance the agenda of corporations who benefit from relaxing your rights as a creator.
Code: Select all
III. SIMPLIFYING MUSIC LICENSING BY CREATING DIGITAL MUSIC RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS ............................................................................................................ 10
A. DMROSSHALLACTASLICENSINGCLEARINGHOUSES...............................................10
[color=#FFFF00]B. TO PROMOTE COMPETITION BETWEEN DMROS, THIS REFORM WILL REMOVE COMPULSORY MECHANICAL LICENSES FOR DIGITAL PHONORECORD DELIVERIES..... 13[/color]So since Pandora is one of the paid supporters of Public Knowledge, would you suppose they would stand to gain if using our music was easier and more importantly CHEAPER?The Harry Fox Agency (―HFA‖) is the authorized licensor for the reproduction and distribution rights of a relatively large number of musical compositions17 and is currently the only centralized distributor of these rights. However, HFA‘s catalog does not cover all nondramatic musical works.18 HFA appears to offer a type of blanket license for its catalog,19 but some features of the HFA process complicate licensing.20 Furthermore, without entities to offer blanket licenses for the rights to all musical works, a digital music delivery service often faces the daunting task of privately negotiating licenses on a song-by-song or owner-by-owner basis.21 For online music services aiming to make available as many songs as possible, the transaction costs of this licensing regime can be cost-prohibitive.
We know what has happened with blankets in Production music. Sure its simpler for a Production company to use great amounts of music for one cost. There is no negotiation, and arguably there has been some "race to the bottom" in terms of fees. Some libraries with older contract language don't even acknowledge blankets as a source of composer income and don't forward any of it. The creation of digital music rights organizations (“DMROs”): These organizations would consolidate licensing for the reproduction, distribution, and public performance rights to nondramatic musical works, making it easy to find and obtain licenses. Under the proposal, DMROs are required to offer blanket licenses to their entire catalogs of works, to offer ―gap‖ licenses that cover any works not found in other catalogs, to employ reasonable and nondiscriminatory licensing terms, and to establish and maintain a searchable online database of the works they are authorized to license.
Still trying to understand how this is going to be of benefit to me as a rights-holder? Anyone?Our proposal would also allow rights-holders to authorize multiple DMROs to license the same copyrighted nondramatic musical work. Although PROs currently do not allow a rights-holder to authorize multiple PROs to license the same performance right,74 we believe that requiring non-exclusivity would facilitate competition between DMROs and strengthen the rights of copyright owners. If rights-holders are not locked into license agreements with single DMROs, they will have increased bargaining power to obtain fairer deals.
Ouch! FUD.Look at their funding page.
mojobone wrote:I'm still sifting the info, but this is maybe a less adversarial view of the situation vs the hypothetical.
https://www.soundstr.com/consent-decree-infographic/