Why Don’t Some TV Shows Sound the Way They Used To? | Hacker News Reader

Why Don’t Some TV Shows Sound the Way They Used To?

nytimes.com

16 pointsjfk1312 comments

Last year my wife and I watched a Korean drama series on Netflix, which was set on 80s Korea. We quite enjoyed it and later mentioned it to my sister. She replies:

"Oh you watched on Netflix? You shouldn't have, it's not the same at all! They gutted most of the background music - all the popular pop songs and themes from 80s."

Welp, lessons learned, next time I'll try torrent...

> Now they have to renegotiate for an Abba song for this incredibly long use, and Abba is able to charge whatever they want

Well, apparently they can’t, since all those shows are changing their music.

I’ve long thought that ending distribution of a copyrighted work should start a short (2-3 year) counter before the copyright on the original becomes unenforceable.

That should include ending distribution of unmodified versions of works.

(Han shot first!)

Alternatively, we could just move to a mandatory licensing regime. That would immediately commoditize the streaming services, so each one could carry all programs (as it was back in the days of VHS and DVD rentals).

> ending distribution of a copyrighted work

That's not what the article was about, as I understand it; the music concerned is generally still being distributed in its own right, but the show's license was for a limited period (and/or distribution channel).

> we could just move to a mandatory licensing regime

I'm not sure a mandatory licensing regime would be a good answer for anything; or at least it could be really hard to design one.

Suppose the next populist presidential candidate wants to use some popular artist's latest song at rallies. Does the artist not have a right to decide whether to license that?

Suppose Pornhub wants to license Disney's content, to stream alongside the other material they provide. Shouldn't Disney have a say in whether to allow that or not?

> Does the artist not have a right to decide whether to license that?

They shouldn't have that right. No, let me re-phrase that - others shouldn't be deprived of their right to enjoy works of art, at the whim of the copyright holder.

Copyright's justification is the promotion of "science and the useful arts", not putting copyright holders in the position of censors on who may enjoy which works.

Are you also in favor of providing musicians (and actors, writers, producers, etc) a lifestyle where they have the freedom to create, and give away their work for free, without going hungry? Where is that money going to come from?

I am okay with the compromise that one must pay for copyrighted works. But if you're not given the option to pay (a reasonable amount), copyright should not prevent you from enjoy that work.

Who decides what is a reasonable amount?

In the real world, that's called "negotiation".

That's orthogonal to my point. I only added the reasonable amount requirement because otherwise the change in law is useless - if you don't want to license to someone, just charge a billion dollars.

But to answer your question, a court would decide, based on comparable deals, and with ample (but not infinite) latitude for the rightsholder to deviate from established prices.

Apple decided that all songs sold on iTunes for about a decade would cost exactly 99 cents. The music industry did not collapse. Almost all full size major video game releases have cost $60 for two decades and that industry has grown tremendously. The statutory maximum price could be significantly higher than what is typical to prevent works from being unobtainable without interfering with price negotiations of most works.

Music already has compulsory licensing.

The only compulsory licensing for public performance of music in the US is if the work is represented by ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC, according to Wikipedia[0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license#United_Stat...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com