FEATURE:
Privacy and Protection
ALL PHOTOS (unless credited otherwise): Unsplash
Music Copyright Laws and the Need for Change
__________
THE topic of copyright and fair pay…
is not something we hear discussed much in music. In the course of our daily browsing and music listening; we will skip around Spotify, YouTube and SoundCloud. We all have our favourite sites and, without thinking about it, click on a song/album and enjoy it at our leisure. If we have a Spotify subscription, then we do not know how much of the money we pay goes to each artist. Sites like YouTube run adverts but, unless you are buying what is being sold; no money goes the way of artists. In fact, it seems like the money raised through YouTube goes to Google – who own the video-sharing site. I wonder how much money is being generated for artists and whether anyone sees a decent amount of cash. For new artists, who rely on sites like YouTube and Spotify; their lives are even more unsure and nervous. Sir Paul McCartney has been in the news and calling for changes in the copyright law:
“Sir Paul McCartney has written a heartfelt open letter to the European Parliament, calling for all music artists to be fairly paid for their work.
The former Beatle is urging MEPs to back proposed changes to EU copyright law - Article 13 - which would force user upload content platforms to pay songwriters and performers fairly for the use of their work.
The 76-year-old musician says that without this change, the future of the music industry could be at risk.
In the note, Sir Paul writes: "Music and culture matter. They are a heart and soul. But they don't just happen; they demand the hard work of so many people.
IN THIS PHOTO: Sir Paul McCartney/PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images
"Importantly, music also creates jobs and economic growth and digital innovation across Europe.
"Unfortunately the value gap jeopardises the music ecosystem. We need an internet that is fair and sustainable for all."
He goes on: "But today some user upload content platforms refuse to compensate artists and all music creators fairly for their work while they exploit it for their own profit.
"The value gap is that gulf between the value these platforms derive from music and the value they pay creators".
We often go onto websites and endlessly view videos/songs without any money parting company. It has now come to pass that the overhaul ambition has been rejected. The move would have brought the EU copyright laws in line with the digital age. Many musicians came out and asked for better guidelines that protected musicians from having their work used by giants without consent. The European Parliament rejected the motion: opposed to Articles 11 and 13 that have been causing much chatter and debate. Article 11 intends to protect newspapers and outlets from titans like Google and Facebook – meaning they cannot use material without payment.
Article 13 placed greater responsibility on websites to enforce copyright laws and filter/assess content that came onto the site. A copyright system would have been a remedy but would have cost over $60-million – the cost YouTube has to bare on their site. For those who need to know what music copyright is and why so much debate has surfaced; here is a simple guide:
“What is music copyright?
Music copyright is the legal protection given to the creators of music. Copyright enables composers, recording artists, musicians and other creatives to be recognised and paid for their work.
If a piece of music is protected by copyright this means that you must not broadcast it without clearing it, reporting it and paying for it.
How do the musicians get paid?
The money musicians and composers get paid when their work is used is usually referred to as royalties. There are two organisations who manage these payments. They are PRS for Music and PPL. PRS for Music look after song writers, composers and publishers. PPL look after the people who record the music – the labels and artists.
"If you don't obtain clearance for your use of copyrighted music, you could face legal action."
Anyone who plays music in public, whether they are music venues, pubs, restaurants, shops or broadcasters, have to pay for two licences - one to PRS for Music and one to PPL. These two organizations collect payments and this money is used to pay those writers or musicians whose copyrighted music has been used.
One song or piece of music can have several people who own part of the copyright. These can include composers, writers, performers, publishers and labels. For example, if you wanted to use Wannabe by The Spice Girls, there are seven composers credited, represented by three music publishers who all have the right to be paid for the use of the song.
PRS for Music and PPL are non profit organisations”.
One wonders how deep the issue goes and how much money songwriters are losing. The wealth and profit gap McCartney was referring to is not reserved to websites like YouTube. Although they have their own copyright system; another issue comes when we look at subscriptions and listening to music for free. I think there are two things we need to sort out. I have seen videos and users illegally use other people’s music and fuse it with their own. I have seen others broadcast pieces of music without permission or paying a particular artist. It is clear we need to compensate artists more fairly and those whose work appears on the big websites. Whilst there is a problem with the extent of copyright and how well it works in practice; there are a few measure sites like Google can impose that would be beneficial to artists/creators. I feel we all need to be more aware of the realities of the music industry and how much work is being shared and published without payment.
I have spoken about Spotify and how we can pay subscriptions to listen to music. Many people do not and it means, before the music has even reached the site; many people are listening for free – less money going to the creators. The situation is even more severe with YouTube. It is a free site and there are so many videos being shared and published without the artist’s permissions. I am seeing a lot of brand-new songs published by individual users or companies so they can gain views and money; new artists are putting their music on there and not earning any money at all. I feel, before we do anything, we need to impose a subscription fee for every YouTube user so that more money is put the way of musicians/creators. Google is a huge and ever-growing company that is not spending enough money protecting artists and improving the way music is uploaded and shared. I know there is a difference between copyright and compensation: both issues need tackling and we need to be more aware of these huge sites and the realities for musicians. Ensuring every video that gets uploaded to sites like YouTube is subject to copyright checks is crucial. We do not know whether a user is sharing music without permission or passing it on as their own.
Whilst it is vital to get protection and laws in place; setting aside some financial reward for those who put their work up there, knowing it will be seen for free, is just as important. The change in laws has been rejected and I wonder whether (those who rejected it) are concerned with freedom and censorship. It would not be too strict ensuring any videos/music uploaded has permission and users are not trying to profit unfairly. An artist spends a lot of time working on what they do and it is hard seeing that final product end up in the hands of advertisers or unduly fall into the hands of advertisers. I do wonder how much music and content is being put out there and where it ends up. There need to be channels and changes that at least increase privacy. It would be a little dictatorial scrutinising every upload/user and making them sign contracts. Users would flock away and it would not be good for sites. It is not only YouTube that faces challenges and scrutiny. Look anywhere on the Internet and you will see videos from popular stars and newcomers being shared and used by others. It is clear there needs to be a good rethink so we can draw the line between protection/financial compensation and overly-strict enforcement. The amount of money giants like Google earn is eye-watering and one would think they could invest enough regards copyright and protecting artists. I feel imposing a Spotify-like fee for users would free more money up so better measures can be put into place. Whilst recent changes have been rejected and some big names have had their voices snubbed; it is clear the giants of the Internet need to think about privacy/artists and make…
REAL and big changes.