***The primary deadweight cost to using a property rule for song copyrights is not, as that study suggests, technological costs relating to finding and compensating rights holders. Rather, they are the deadweight costs from copyright holders setting inefficiently high prices in order to maximize revenue.***
Tim, are you opposing freedom of contract. Freedom of entering (or not entering) contract was Prof Merges' primary point in that Cato paper (which I thought was pretty good).
What it sounds like here is your disagreement with Prof Merges' argument against "forced sharing." Now lets be fair, Prof wrote the article before a lot of current controversies like XM Satellite and YouTube, which have made a lot of people reconsider compulsory licensing. I'm generally against it, but you're right, it can induce efficiency.
Still, w/r/t your post, did you mean to call the economic interests of the primary stakehodlers, copyright owners, deadweight costs. In that case, why not set up a karaoke business and only use songs from artists who give them away for free or agree to compulsory licenses.
Oh, please explain this: ***Copyright is a government-created monopoly***. What kind of monopoly Tim. A monopoly over what.
Patrick Ross
· 3 years ago
Tim, you write:
"Generally speaking, it seems to me that the ease with which musicians can create covers of other peoples' songs has been good for our culture. Perhaps it would make sense to expand that right to include a compulsory license for karaoke machines."
It needs to be pointed out here that any band doing a cover has already secured a mechanical right to the composition (probably from a music publisher or Harry Fox) and a separate license from the owner of the sound recording. It's misleading to say this system involves a compulsory license; that suggests that one coould act preemptively without seeking permission, the way a radio station plays songs without seeking permission. (They do then pay into rights groups such as ASCAP and BMI). the band must ask for a mechanical license from the composition licence holder.
Yes, there is a cap of 9.1 cents per unit for the mechanical license (although that can vary both up and down) and yes, if the publisher says no, the band can go to the U.S. Copyright Office and demand a compulsory license, although then they're looking at a lot of paperwork.
Bottom line -- it ain't easy to do a cover of a song. Yet it's done all the time anyway. Why? Because labels work with Harry Fox, ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and each other to reduce transaction costs, just as you'd expect in a functioning market. The difference in your example is that the karaoke folks have an alternative to the licensing model above, and have obviously found that cheaper. Maybe, instead of a compulsory license, we could forbid them from recording alternative tracks and force them to pursue the same licensing route that we see bands do for covers. You think that's easy, and you want original songs in karaoke, so problem solved.
Me, I'll just let the market sort itself out. If there's enough demand for a karaoke machine that uses original tracks with stripped-out songs and bars and individuals will pay more for that, some entrepreneur will jump through the licensing hoops. As you acknowledge with your example of music covers, it's far from impossible.
Lewis Baumstark
· 3 years ago
Patrick, why would a cover band need to obtain a license from the rights-holder of the sound recording? That doesn't make sense -- it seems to me the cover is a derivative work of the composition, not of the recording.
Patrick Ross
· 3 years ago
You're right, Lewis, a cover is a derivative work, so I wasn't clear in my text. However, there are other scenarios to consider here; ASCAP and BMI mibht be the license-holders to contact if you wanted to cover a song live (a public performance license) and you'd definitely need to contact the rights holder of a sound recording if you wanted to sample part of that recording on another recording (think urban music market).
Sampling is done every day, covers are recorded every day, public performances are held every day. I'll acknowledge that local bands don't always seek permission to cover works as they're supposed to, but it must be acknowledged that this rights market, while complicated, is functioning. I would strongly resist anyone who urges new licensing regimes solely to create convenience for a user of content, be it karaoke operators or any other group composed of sentient beings capable of asking permission.
Noel Le
· 3 years ago
This post still hits me as a bit odd. Now, why would we induce more theoretical efficiency into the karaoke industry. Is stagnation in that industry hurting our economy, depriving folks from entertainment, or perhaps diminishing our culture and freedom.
Efficiency is a funny thing, because sometimes less of it is more productive. If you don't agree, then fine. But to argue for inducing effiency, by characterizing royalty payments to copyright holders as dead-weight costs when there is no indication that greater economic activity would result(karaoke busiensses, venues that host karaoke, etc) is not only misleading, but eccentric, to say the least.
Tim Lee
· 3 years ago
Patrick, I don't see a disagreement here. The economic problem solved by the compulsory licensing regime is the deadweight loss that occurs when a music publisher demands more than the artist is willing to pay, leading the song to never be recorded at all. I don't think the details you discuss really affect that analysis--regardless of the exact mechanics, the bottom line is that song publishers cannot refuse musicians mechanical licenses or charge them more than 9 cents for them.
The problem in a regime without compulsory licensing, as with the karaoke machines, is that music publishers have an incentive to set their prices at the revenue-maximizing level, which is likely to be above the reservation price of a significant fraction of licensees. That means that there will be a significant number of socially beneficial products (like karaoke machines that use the original sound recordings) that never get made.
Noel Le
· 3 years ago
***The economic problem solved by the compulsory licensing regime is the deadweight loss that occurs when a music publisher demands more than the artist is willing to pay, leading the song to never be recorded at all.***
Tim, yes this would be deadweight cost, but is it happening.
Also, negotiations break down all the time. Licensees don't want to pay a lot, licensors want to extract as much as they can. Based on your analysis, you presume its the fault of the copyright holder if a song is not licensed. Why is that Tim. I'm curious.
Patrick Ross
· 3 years ago
Tim, I think your inclination to think of copyright as monopoly (you should check out TLF blogger Solveig Singleton's latest piece on this) has led you to inflate the supplier power of songwriters. I for one would get rid of the compulsory license for music compositions; in fact, as I have written, I would get rid of all government licenses in artistic works. It is hard for me to imagine that the world would be deprived of very much music; while each song is unique and the composer would loosely have a "monopoly" over that work, that is a very small market definition; there are so many songwriters and so many compositions, you can't possibly argue that the threat of those substitutes wouldn't act as a brake on all but the most sought-after works.
And yes, I want songwriters to set their prices at a revenue-maximizing level; sounds like a market at work to me, and the market has a say in where those levels rest. Those who focus only on the end use of a work, and not the creation itself, might be happy to have a compulsory license mandating that a composer be paid below market rate.
As an aside, have you ever tried to write a song? A good one, that is? One that an artist would want to record? Songwriters deserve far more respect than they're given in debates such as this.
Tim Lee
· 3 years ago
Tim, I think your inclination to think of copyright as monopoly (you should check out TLF blogger Solveig Singleton's latest piece on this) has led you to inflate the supplier power of songwriters.
Do you have an alternative explanation for Glen's observation that karaoke machines tend not to use the original recordings? That seems to be anecdotal evidence that the market isn't working as well as it could.
As an aside, have you ever tried to write a song? A good one, that is? One that an artist would want to record? Songwriters deserve far more respect than they're given in debates such as this.
No. I do produce copyrighted works for a living, but that's rather beside the point. The purpose of copyright law is not and never has been to give artists what they "deserve," which is a highly subjective question. The purpose is to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts" by spurring the production of more creative works. It's not obvious that allowing songwriters to block others from using their songs in any way increases the production of creative works.
Moreover, libertarians are usually highly skeptical of arguments that we should make policy based on our "respect" for particular professions. We certainly wouldn't support higher steel or textile tariffs because the workers in those industries deserve more respect. Nor are we swayed by arguments for raising public school teacher pay because they "deserve" more than they're currently paid. Although I have a lot of respect for songwriters (just as I do for teachers and textile workers) I don't think we should craft public policy based on a subjective evaluation of what they "deserve."
Noel Le
· 3 years ago
***Do you have an alternative explanation for Glen's observation that karaoke machines tend not to use the original recordings? That seems to be anecdotal evidence that the market isn't working as well as it could.***
First, you dodge the issue of monopoly. Or are you saying that b/c there might be suboptimal production, we might as well cite the presence of a monopoly (which is usually your approach).
Second, how is the market not working optimally. How do you know that more songs will be produced? w/ your little theoretical model? The issue you should address is will copyright owners create songs in the first place, not whether artists will create more songs just b/c they will be played on kaoroke:):):):)
Also, Tim, tell me about 1 law or regulation that serves its purpose in your opinion. Seriously. Should we abolish the law of larceny b/c it still occurs. How about tresspassing. Should we abolish tresspass laws b/c they are easily circumvented.
Noel Le
· 3 years ago
***Moreover, libertarians are usually highly skeptical of arguments that we should make policy based on our "respect" for particular professions. We certainly wouldn't support higher steel or textile tariffs because the workers in those industries deserve more respect. Nor are we swayed by arguments for raising public school teacher pay because they "deserve" more than they're currently paid. Although I have a lot of respect for songwriters (just as I do for teachers and textile workers) I don't think we should craft public policy based on a subjective evaluation of what they "deserve."***
Funny, Tim your copyright policy arguments are fundementally natural rights. I say that b/c of the stretched effort you make in your utilitarian arguments, often times ignoring market indicators while justifying your positons with, well, examples like karaoke:):):) Also, the "freedom to tinker" is essentially a natural rights arguments. Patrick understands both the utilitarian and natural rights aspects of copyright law, so its funny that in criticizing his approach you are refuting your own.
Glen Whitman
· 3 years ago
The prima facie evidence that the current system is not working efficiently is that karaoke producers are employing musicians and studio technicians to create (usually inferior) versions of musical works, when it would be cheaper to just strip the vocals out of the original recordings. Those are real resources being spent, and their only function is to avoid monopolistic prices and the transaction costs associated with license negotiations. That's deadweight loss.
Noel Le
· 3 years ago
OK, Glen, then is that "dead weight loss" affecting music production. That is Tim's overall argument. I'm not saying its your position, but thats what I was addressing above.
I think a more practical solution, rather than compulsory licensing, is for karaoke companies to partner with musicians and labels.
On the other hand, if karaoke companies are already paying below "monopolistic prices," then aren't things going pretty well. They're getting a good deal.
Andreas
· 3 years ago
Apparently, my previous comment was lost. A quick recap:
Something similar is going on with Japan's chaku-mero/chaku-uta market.
Chaku-mero or ringtones, are polyphonic karaoke versions of popular songs, and mostly produced by third-party vendors. These vendors pay a fixed fee to JASRAC and they're set. Mostly DRM-free too.
Chaku-uta or ringtunes were introduced at a later point in time (backed by the music industry as they wanted a piece of the chaku- cake). Chaku-uta are 30 second remixes of popular songs, so also neighboring rights have to be cleared = you need to have permission from the record labels. This put the labels in an advantageous position, which they used to 1. shove DRM down everybody's throat, and 2. slow down or refuse licenses to third-party vendors and sell their own chaku-uta through a dedicated website instead. More background here.
Juan Delgado
· 3 years ago
Big companies have abused and exlpoted writers and artists during the last 50 years , it is not sustainable any more . However we , the writers , musicians , technicians and producers need and deserve to be paid for our work . That seems to be getting more and more difficult everyday becasue the " Relativisim " is bliding most people . The bottom line is that We need to Eat!
All Comments
Tim, are you opposing freedom of contract. Freedom of entering (or not entering) contract was Prof Merges' primary point in that Cato paper (which I thought was pretty good).
What it sounds like here is your disagreement with Prof Merges' argument against "forced sharing." Now lets be fair, Prof wrote the article before a lot of current controversies like XM Satellite and YouTube, which have made a lot of people reconsider compulsory licensing. I'm generally against it, but you're right, it can induce efficiency.
Still, w/r/t your post, did you mean to call the economic interests of the primary stakehodlers, copyright owners, deadweight costs. In that case, why not set up a karaoke business and only use songs from artists who give them away for free or agree to compulsory licenses.
Oh, please explain this: ***Copyright is a government-created monopoly***. What kind of monopoly Tim. A monopoly over what.
"Generally speaking, it seems to me that the ease with which musicians can create covers of other peoples' songs has been good for our culture. Perhaps it would make sense to expand that right to include a compulsory license for karaoke machines."
It needs to be pointed out here that any band doing a cover has already secured a mechanical right to the composition (probably from a music publisher or Harry Fox) and a separate license from the owner of the sound recording. It's misleading to say this system involves a compulsory license; that suggests that one coould act preemptively without seeking permission, the way a radio station plays songs without seeking permission. (They do then pay into rights groups such as ASCAP and BMI). the band must ask for a mechanical license from the composition licence holder.
Yes, there is a cap of 9.1 cents per unit for the mechanical license (although that can vary both up and down) and yes, if the publisher says no, the band can go to the U.S. Copyright Office and demand a compulsory license, although then they're looking at a lot of paperwork.
Bottom line -- it ain't easy to do a cover of a song. Yet it's done all the time anyway. Why? Because labels work with Harry Fox, ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and each other to reduce transaction costs, just as you'd expect in a functioning market. The difference in your example is that the karaoke folks have an alternative to the licensing model above, and have obviously found that cheaper. Maybe, instead of a compulsory license, we could forbid them from recording alternative tracks and force them to pursue the same licensing route that we see bands do for covers. You think that's easy, and you want original songs in karaoke, so problem solved.
Me, I'll just let the market sort itself out. If there's enough demand for a karaoke machine that uses original tracks with stripped-out songs and bars and individuals will pay more for that, some entrepreneur will jump through the licensing hoops. As you acknowledge with your example of music covers, it's far from impossible.
Sampling is done every day, covers are recorded every day, public performances are held every day. I'll acknowledge that local bands don't always seek permission to cover works as they're supposed to, but it must be acknowledged that this rights market, while complicated, is functioning. I would strongly resist anyone who urges new licensing regimes solely to create convenience for a user of content, be it karaoke operators or any other group composed of sentient beings capable of asking permission.
Efficiency is a funny thing, because sometimes less of it is more productive. If you don't agree, then fine. But to argue for inducing effiency, by characterizing royalty payments to copyright holders as dead-weight costs when there is no indication that greater economic activity would result(karaoke busiensses, venues that host karaoke, etc) is not only misleading, but eccentric, to say the least.
The problem in a regime without compulsory licensing, as with the karaoke machines, is that music publishers have an incentive to set their prices at the revenue-maximizing level, which is likely to be above the reservation price of a significant fraction of licensees. That means that there will be a significant number of socially beneficial products (like karaoke machines that use the original sound recordings) that never get made.
Tim, yes this would be deadweight cost, but is it happening.
Also, negotiations break down all the time. Licensees don't want to pay a lot, licensors want to extract as much as they can. Based on your analysis, you presume its the fault of the copyright holder if a song is not licensed. Why is that Tim. I'm curious.
And yes, I want songwriters to set their prices at a revenue-maximizing level; sounds like a market at work to me, and the market has a say in where those levels rest. Those who focus only on the end use of a work, and not the creation itself, might be happy to have a compulsory license mandating that a composer be paid below market rate.
As an aside, have you ever tried to write a song? A good one, that is? One that an artist would want to record? Songwriters deserve far more respect than they're given in debates such as this.
Do you have an alternative explanation for Glen's observation that karaoke machines tend not to use the original recordings? That seems to be anecdotal evidence that the market isn't working as well as it could.
As an aside, have you ever tried to write a song? A good one, that is? One that an artist would want to record? Songwriters deserve far more respect than they're given in debates such as this.
No. I do produce copyrighted works for a living, but that's rather beside the point. The purpose of copyright law is not and never has been to give artists what they "deserve," which is a highly subjective question. The purpose is to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts" by spurring the production of more creative works. It's not obvious that allowing songwriters to block others from using their songs in any way increases the production of creative works.
Moreover, libertarians are usually highly skeptical of arguments that we should make policy based on our "respect" for particular professions. We certainly wouldn't support higher steel or textile tariffs because the workers in those industries deserve more respect. Nor are we swayed by arguments for raising public school teacher pay because they "deserve" more than they're currently paid. Although I have a lot of respect for songwriters (just as I do for teachers and textile workers) I don't think we should craft public policy based on a subjective evaluation of what they "deserve."
First, you dodge the issue of monopoly. Or are you saying that b/c there might be suboptimal production, we might as well cite the presence of a monopoly (which is usually your approach).
Second, how is the market not working optimally. How do you know that more songs will be produced? w/ your little theoretical model? The issue you should address is will copyright owners create songs in the first place, not whether artists will create more songs just b/c they will be played on kaoroke:):):):)
Also, Tim, tell me about 1 law or regulation that serves its purpose in your opinion. Seriously. Should we abolish the law of larceny b/c it still occurs. How about tresspassing. Should we abolish tresspass laws b/c they are easily circumvented.
Funny, Tim your copyright policy arguments are fundementally natural rights. I say that b/c of the stretched effort you make in your utilitarian arguments, often times ignoring market indicators while justifying your positons with, well, examples like karaoke:):):) Also, the "freedom to tinker" is essentially a natural rights arguments. Patrick understands both the utilitarian and natural rights aspects of copyright law, so its funny that in criticizing his approach you are refuting your own.
I think a more practical solution, rather than compulsory licensing, is for karaoke companies to partner with musicians and labels.
On the other hand, if karaoke companies are already paying below "monopolistic prices," then aren't things going pretty well. They're getting a good deal.
Apparently, my previous comment was lost. A quick recap:
Something similar is going on with Japan's chaku-mero/chaku-uta market.
Chaku-mero or ringtones, are polyphonic karaoke versions of popular songs, and mostly produced by third-party vendors. These vendors pay a fixed fee to JASRAC and they're set. Mostly DRM-free too.
Chaku-uta or ringtunes were introduced at a later point in time (backed by the music industry as they wanted a piece of the chaku- cake). Chaku-uta are 30 second remixes of popular songs, so also neighboring rights have to be cleared = you need to have permission from the record labels. This put the labels in an advantageous position, which they used to 1. shove DRM down everybody's throat, and 2. slow down or refuse licenses to third-party vendors and sell their own chaku-uta through a dedicated website instead. More background here.
The bottom line is that We need to Eat!
a writer /musician
Download free verizon ringtone
http://www.stalcer.com/pivich/comments/?1161635108
Download free verizon ringtone
http://www.stalcer.com/pivich/comments/?1161635108