Aardvark Daily

Please visit the sponsor!

Music copyright, how many sucks of the sav?

Copyright is a mechanism put in place to protect those who create material such as music, literature, images or whatever.

Without the protection of copyright it would be very hard for such creators to earn a living, since there would be nothing to stop people simply duplicating their hard work without any form of compensation.

With this in mind, it's pretty hard to argue against copyright and the protections it provides those who invest their time, effort and talent into creating the sort of content we love to consume and which brings us joy or information.

It strikes me however, that there are some who are using copyright to extort unreasonable fees and to double-dip or, as we say, take two sucks of the sav.

Personally, I find it unreasonable that there are some bits of music I've had to buy multiple times -- even though I'm told by the copyright owners that I'm not actually buying the music but a license to listen to it.

Back in the 1960s I bought my favourite music on vinyl.

In the 1970s I bought the very same albums on cassette.

By the late 1980s I was paying for the same music on a CD.

Today, if I want to listen to those very same tracks from the 1960s, I may well have to pay a fourth time by way of a streaming service such as Spotify.

Imagine if, after buying a new car, you were expected to pay again ever ten years or so -- would that be acceptable?

All that aside, there's another rort that recently resurfaced in this RNZ story.

How can it be that a company can demand you pay them an annual fee for simply listening to music that has already been paid for?

If you're listening to your own store-bought CDs or a Spotify stream while you're working then what right should an organisation such as OneMusic have to steal your money for doing so?

If you have the radio playing in your place of work, how can a company come in and demand payment for music that the radio station is already paying a public broadcast license for?

And where's the guarantee that those artists whose work is being played are actually going to see a single red cent of that money? How do they know what artists are actually being played and thus deserving of a share of the license fee?

As I made clear at the start of today's column, I'm not against copyright. In fact I believe that reasonable copyright protection is essential. However, this sounds more like a gangster's protection racket than reasonable use of copyright.

Of course if I put my entrepreneur's hat on I do see an opportunity here...

Why doesn't someone offer to sign up indie artists and license that music to these shops and places for just a fraction of the license OneMusic would try and force upon those venues? It strikes me that there'd be a demand for such a service, even if only to give the finger to the ganster-like tactics of those who'd try to use copyright to extort payment.

Imagine how many times I may have paid for a track that I once purchased on vinyl, then again on cassette, then on CD and also via Apple Music or Spotify -- then I walk into a shop that has it playing on the radio. That's FIVE times I'll have paid to listen to the same piece of music.

Yep, too many sucks of this sav by far!

Carpe Diem folks!

Please visit the sponsor!

Here is a PERMANENT link to this column

Rank This Aardvark Page

Change Font