Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
Perhaps, yet copyright is a government granted monopoly on a work that was granted to forward the public good. The point was to give artists incentive to create, not to give their heirs a perpetual gravy train. Musicians have had compulsory licenses under radio for a long, long time. It's the only way that music on radio is possible, and the major way that artists introduced their music to the public. Don't recall reading about very many music groups complaining about having their songs on the radio, back when radio was popular.
|
Nope.
Because you needed a recording contract to be anything but a local act and for decades nothing else could get airplay. And without airplay you couldn't get fans in numbers.
Over time things changed and indie music became not just respectable, but cool.
CDs made it possible for even local acts to sell music without a contract and get into stores.
And then the internet came along and blew the old status quo to smithereens. Nowadays radio airplay is way down the list of ways to build and support a fanbase. And many musicians feel that the compensation system that (barely) worked a half century ago is no longer working for them.
I suspect that, rather than compulsory licensing being expanded to other media types, it is more likely to be reined-in. Especially where it comes to performances.