Sometimes people look at the challenges artists, songwriters, and indie labels face in trying to earn sustainable revenues from recorded music and conclude "copyright is broken." Let's unpack that with a quick THREAD. #FixStreaming 1/?
"Copyright is broken" is an attractive bumper sticker; it expresses legitimate frustrations that might be felt by creators, audiences, etc. But it doesn't do much to advance understanding of the situation we're all in. 2/
To begin with, it's binary. It imagines copyright (a system that has evolved over hundreds of years that encompasses laws, abstract concepts, real-world practices, institutions) as something that can either be broken or unbroken. 3/
It might be more helpful to imagine copyright as the NYC subway system. It's complex, difficult to navigate if you're not used to it. Parts of it break down and need upgrades. There are accessibility issues. 4/
Maybe if you could destroy what currently exists and rebuild from scratch you could come up with something simpler and more accessible, but that's not really an option when so many working people are relying on it on a daily basis right now. 5/
So instead there's a constant iterative process of repair, modernization, upgrades, and needs assessment. Those processes can be contentious but good outcomes can be possible. 6/
When problems emerge (big or small) it doesn't really help to say "The subway is broken!" It's helpful to say "The 6th street line is way over capacity" or "there's a car on fire on the M line" or "our stations aren't accessible enough to be safe for the visually impaired." 7/
It's the same with copyright. Calling it "broken" is less helpful than saying "creators don't have sufficient leverage in negotiating with big platforms" or "too many songwriters aren't getting the streaming mechanicals they're owed" or "payola is driving wages down." 8/
Another problem with "copyright is broken" is the passive phrasing doesn't tell you anything about what happened to break it, and who's responsible. It sort of suggests that the problem is inherent to copyright itself. 9/
Copyright law and policy and practice is complex and has evolved over time, so dysfunction rarely has one party fully to blame. Nonetheless, it's important to try and understand how problems happened to remedy them and avoid them in the future. 10/
"Copyright is broken" often implies that "less" or "weaker" copyright would lead to improvement. This reinforces the laziest ways of talking about copyright policy debates: Less copyright protection and enforcement on one side vs. more protection and enforcement on the other. 11/
In fact, what benefits creators and the public interest is *better* copyright policy, with more accountability, accessibility, transparency, and equity built in. 12/
Back to responsibility: some of the folks most prone to using "copyright is broken!" framing are actually the same people who've fought the hardest against straightforward fixes for artists, at times outright lying about what legislation would do. 13/
Thomas Frank had a book a few years back called "The Wrecking Crew" describing a process by which anti-government ideologues in positions of power would deliberately work to make government less functional, then use this as evidence that govt is incapable of solving problems. 14/
The goal was to diminish the role of government and regulation generally by convincing people that government itself was the problem, leading to more deregulation. "Copyright is broken" can be about a version of the same thing. 15/
It doesn't really make sense to argue that "copyright is broken" when you've fought against simple and straightforward measures like the CASE Act (passed in December) that are designed to fix a part of copyright law that isn't working. 16/
One problem with © law has been that remedies were inaccessible to small creators who can't afford expensive legal fees. If an ad agency used a Beyonce song without permission, she could take them to federal court. A broke indie artist didn't have that option. 17/
CASE Act creates a small claims system to allow for disputes to be adjudicated in a way that isn't burdensome for small creators, while protecting free expression. It's not a silver bullet, and we'll be watching implementation closely, but it's a step in the right direction. 18/
Another example? When digital radio (like Pandora, satellite radio, etc) first came into existence, there wasn't really a legal regime to accommodate it. We and many other artist groups worked for a solution that had fairness and equity built into it. 19/
What came out of that process was the creation of @SoundExchange, which has meant that artists who get paid under the statutory license for digital radio get at least half of any royalties, paid directly, regardless of whether they're in debt to their label. 20/
It's not a perfect system, and there are more improvements to be made. But the point is to be guided in this ongoing iterative process by a goal better copyright policy that centers the needs of creators and communities, not just "more" or "less" copyright 21/
So let's apply that to the frustrations being voiced around interactive streaming compensation. It's easy to understand why some folks want to throw their hands up and say "this whole thing is just broken!" It's important to drill down on what's broken, why, and how. 22/
Low streaming rates on services like Spotify have a lot of causes, but one important factor is the downward pressure on rates caused by the way section 512 of the DMCA has been abused by Google's YouTube. (see pp 4-7). ftc.gov/system/files/d…
This is something that has been affirmed both by a recent WIPO study into the economics of digital streaming and by the UK's recent inquiry into the issue: Youtube's combination of market power and abuse of copyright law deflates wages on Spotify and other services #fixstreaming
Artists and rightsholders have pushed for years for changes to section 512 that would help address these problems and compel YouTube, and ultimately Spotify etc to improve rates. Naturally, such changes would have to be made carefully, in ways that protect free expression. /25
But some of the biggest opposition to making these helpful changes has come from some of the same parties who tend to use "copyright is broken" language. Effectively they're invoking frustration with streaming compensation to sabotage the possibility of fixing streaming.🤯 26/

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Future of Music Coalition

Future of Music Coalition Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @future_of_music

12 Aug
The answer is 6-7%. Fascinatingly, most respondents dramatically overestimated the amount.
For a while, all 3 majors and Merlin (a rights aggregator representing independent labels) had equity totaling close to 18%. But those numbers went down after more investment rounds. Merlin and Warner sold off their equity post-IPO. Sony eventually sold half of its stake.
So now it’s just Universal and Sony that have small stakes in the company. Now, you might ask, “does that mean these companies get 6-7% of my monthly subscription?” It’s complicated, but that’s a different pool of money.
Read 13 tweets
12 Aug
Guess how much of Spotify's equity is owned by major labels right now (no cheating)
The answer is around 6-7%. Most of y’all were way off!
Major labels do have a lot of power in the industry. So do large technology firms. The specifics of where that power lies and how it’s leveraged are extremely important in figuring out the right solutions.
Read 4 tweets
20 Feb
Much of the chatter about Twitch and Metallica and copyright is getting the facts and the history wrong. Quick thread.
The short version is that people are confusing the DMCA itself with particular companies' choices about how to implement the DMCA. That works to the benefit of huge companies like Amazon (owner of Twitch); they end up escaping scrutiny.
Jeff Bezos is worth $197 Billion. Twitch can afford to pay for music licensing! And any artist who controls their own publishing has the ability to waive their exclusive rights if they want to perform their own material and don't mind that the service isn't paying them.
Read 22 tweets
20 Feb
This is a really interesting small study on what's working with music livestreams. It's also a good example of how to present research. (quick thread) nmbx.newmusicusa.org/livestream-com…
First, the study acknowledges its limitations up front. It's a quite small sample size, and a specific group of respondents whose experience may not be representative of broader populations.
Importantly the authors make an effort to identify gaps in the data: "none of the respondents identified as disabled/having a disability ...we do not have the perspective of anyone who is blind/low vision or deaf/hard-of-hearing [... ] trying to navigate livestreams."
Read 6 tweets
1 Jan
The @FCC was required to release its Communications Marketplace Report before the end of 2020. Congress requires the agency to assess what's happening in the competitive landscape every 2 years. So they did, late yesterday. (THREAD) docs.fcc.gov/public/attachm…
This is the first time the report has been prepared by the FCC's new office of Economics and Analytics. FCC staff put a lot of work in, and it's useful to have this data publicly available, but there are some real problems, as noted by both @JRosenworcel and @GeoffreyStarks.
The report centers economics but comes up short on analysis. Most of the data comes from industry or investment banking firms. When they're the ones funding the research, the research reflects the questions they're interested in.
Read 24 tweets
11 Dec 20
There’s a new bill that harmonizes penalties for illegal streaming services with penalties for illegal download services. FMC has long supported harmonization while wanting to make sure policies don’t have unintended consequences. So how is this bill?
Turns out, it’s pretty narrowly tailored to deal with truly bad actors! Even more narrow than previous attempts to deal with the problem. Unfortunately one of the problems with internet policy is that rhetoric gets heated.
The last couple times bills dealing with these issues were floated, some people made outlandish and frankly dishonest claims, like that it would have sent Justin Bieber to prison.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(