Long Tail Licensing
The video below, is a good illustration of why we could use the long tail licensing options I wrote about last week. It’s also an example of a band that wants people to use their music in this way. Harvey Danger released their most recent album under a creative commons license.
Lip Dub - Flagpole Sitta by Harvey Danger from amandalynferri and Vimeo
via Chris Brogan.
Most bands don’t want to prevent their fans from using their music in creative ways but the media environment under the DMCA makes this use impossible to allow.
What is needed is a licensing system that acknowledges the varying degrees of commercial use and charges producers based on these. Those who get 1,000 views online should not be required to pay the same licensing fees as those creating media for TV and film.
The legal structure for long tail licensing is still developing and the court cases being fought by companies like Google and Veoh will play a major role in shaping it. The entertainment industry meanwhile is spending big bucks to maintain the upper hand.
YouTube has formed licensing agreements with Warner, UMG and Sony BMG. And while this seems like it would be great for YouTube users it raises questions about who should pay those license fees and the potential for this alliance to be anticompetitive.
Why for instance, should a user be forced to upload a video including BMG music to YouTube instead of a smaller site which may have better features but doesn’t yet have the traction or money to reach a licensing deal?
As other large internet companies follow Google’s lead and get in bed with entertainment companies there is a growing need for public interest lawyers to get involved to fight for laws that make more sense in the future media environment.
Random Posts
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.grdgf.com/2007/08/15/long-tail-licensing/trackback/