Copyright infringement is rampant on the web, that much is clear, and attempts to stifle it have been misguided at best and have so far failed miserably. Unfortunately, the issue is not as clear cut as the pro-copyright and large media companies would have you believe, there are plenty of cases where users are well within their rights to copy portions or even the entirety of a copyrighted work. And there are plenty of cases where users don’t really have a choice than to infringe.
But someone is finally doing something about that. Rumblefish, a music licensing company is launching a new product which would enable individual users to license songs for their online videos for just $1.99 a pop. The price, just double what most online outlets charge for music downloads these days, includes a lifetime, worldwide license for the song as well as the right to edit it as they see fit for their videos.
“When a user uploads a video to YouTube containing music they did not create, there is a chance the audio can be removed or the video blocked by the rights holder. Rumblefish’s Friendly Music website contains a catalog of copyright-cleared music that a user can put into their video without fear that it might be blocked by a rights owner,” the official launch announcement explained.
The process is simple enough in theory. Users can visit FriendlyMusic.com and browse or search for the perfect track for their video. There are several ways of finding a track and they can filter the results by the ‘mood’ of the song, the genre or even the artists that it sounds like. If they find a tune they like they can purchase the license rights for that track for just $1.99.
Rumblefish has partnered with YouTube to ensure that videos using licensed songs don’t get pulled from the site by the automatic filters, though it’s unclear how the system actually works. The site is now live and offers some 35,000 tracks to choose from and more are coming.
This is a step, but an almost useless step. Most copyright violations on YouTube are specific popular songs, not just mood-setting soundtracks to videos. It might work for those cases, but people can always pick public domain for that purpose.
What is needed is the same setup, but for all songs for amateur publication. (This does not include commercial publication.) There probably need to be categories: re-use of copyrighted songs (e.g., lipsyncs), covers, sampling, and teaching.
This is not that big of a stretch. Copyright holders already must give mandatory mechanical (cover) rights for songs at fixed fees. It's just a matter of covering all licence categories and making the fees appropriate for amateur streaming videos. Such a system would make copyright holders more money that they don't make now via amateurs as well as get paid for free advertisement.
I'm shocked this hasn't been done yet, all these years later and so many infringements. Perhaps the copyright holders are just too greedy and are unwilling to accept the small amounts that amateurs would be willing to play. But seriously, how can some kid playing a riff from a song on his guitar hurt their existing sales, and what does taking it offline accomplish but turn everyone off that publisher? A smart publisher would monotenize it, even in small amounts, like ringtones.
Find us on Google+
