Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by maratd | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

maratd·

> It's an unfortunate outcome, and it's all but guaranteed by the way copyright law works.

This can be easily solved. We solved it with music.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license#United_Stat...

View on HN

Confusingly, compulsory licensing (which is specific to the US) actually only refers to a new recording of a song, i.e., a cover version. If you want to use an original version, you still have to negotiate a license with the owner of the sound recording (usually the record company), because sound recordings have their own separate copyright. There wouldn't be an equivalent concept of a "cover" for a film, of course.

> There wouldn't be an equivalent concept of a "cover" for a film, of course.

Well... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_remakes

You've narrowed compulsory licensing too much. Pandora has a compulsory license to play original recordings for a preset price: http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/digital-and-mobil...

I'm not sure I'm reading that right, it's late and I'm not a lawyer so it's kind of flying over my head... is it saying I can burn some CDs and release the entire back catalog of Britney Spears songs on my own, for a profit, as long as I pay a royalty fee?

If that's the case, how can Taylor Swift or Garth Brooks etc keep Spotify from streaming their music? Why aren't all streaming music services catalogs exactly the same? And how can labels demand YouTube take down my video slideshow of vacation pictures that features popular songs?

As I understand it, what you propose would not be a "new recording" but rather a copy of a previous recording. This provision allows covers to be made without permission, provided you pay.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com