[A2k] Warner Music is almost there

[Philippe Aigrain]

Enjoy. Philippe

http://paigrain.debatpublic.net/?p=3D495&lp_lang_view=3Den

Numerama reports that Warner Music Group proposes to put in place a form of
blanket licensing for music sharing in the US. This time, it is for good:
there are limits to the scheme, but the proposal is a true revolution for t=
he
music industry. Thus, comments must be constructive and aiming at bringing
the WMG proposal to a stage where it an be implemented, generalized and
bringing all the possible benefits for creativity and cultural diversity.

Let=E2=80=99s first recall what are the main characteristics of WMG=E2=80=
=99s proposal: it is
a blanket licensing to universities (and only them) in exchange for the
payment of a fee per student (=E2=80=9Dall or none=E2=80=9D). The license d=
oes not give usage
rights to students but only a covenant not to sue them for access and shari=
ng
usage. WMG wants all catalogs included, including the independents.
Distribution would be on the basis of measures by universities (using a
variety of possible mechanisms, apparently open to experimental ones along
the line of those I suggest to use in the chapter 9 of Internet & Creation)=
.
It would be transmitted to a non-for-profit organization where right holder=
s
would be represented, including the independents.

WMG also states:

    We are open-minded as regards our non-commercial voluntary blanket lice=
nse
solution, for which we=E2=80=99re assembling all rights (sound recording an=
d
publishing) from all four big music companies and the independents

This opening must be praised. WMG states that its offer is already supporte=
d
by EFF and Public Knowledge. Without further ado, I suggest a few adaptatio=
ns
to the proposal:

    * Distribution is fine, but to whom? Right holders or artists? At least=
,
there should be some minimum standard of artist remuneration put in place,
and this standard should be a significant share of the total: after all,
artists do the creative work and students and universities will do the
distribution work. So publishers should only get for what they do.
    * Clarify that works that are voluntary shared, for instance under CC
licenses, will also benefit from the redistribution. More generally open th=
e
mechanism to all works under the principle of extended collective licenses.
    * Why just universities and students? It is evident that such a mechani=
sm
wil extend to all publics as soon as it exists (the contrary would be
discriminatory).
    * Why just music, the benefit of the approach will be much greater if i=
t
includes other media. But if one wants to start experimenting with just
music, why not, as long as compulsory DRM and compulsory filtering are bann=
ed
overall from the start. Warner is clearly open to this : =E2=80=9COur appro=
ach leads
other media and makes music the canary in the mine =E2=80=94 music sets a p=
recedent
that video, text, graphics and others can and will follow=E2=80=9C.
    * Why not take the occasion to put in place better funding schemes for
future works?