Talk:Music licensing/Archives/2012

I'm qualified to write this article

I'll not bore you with the reasons I think I'm qualified to write this article, I just want to note that this is a huge, huge topic which covers a massive amount of information. It will be my goal as I write the articles to try to keep things as brief as possible, but in trying to create a meaningful entry for such a vast topic it will be impossible to keep things to a two-or-three paragraph overview. The definition list I've added this morning is a preface to what will be a project of at least several days writing the actual articles.John Henry My Talk Page 07:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Great to see a topic on this

Great to see a topic on this - it drove me round the twist trying to find out who to contact, what organisations to speak to etc. when licensing music for a DVD.

I think it would be valuable to list the organisations in each country by license type (performance, synchronisation, royalties...) - what do you think? I can contribute the ones from Ireland.

I also thought that what would have been very useful to me is a flowchart of steps to follow to determine the licenses you need.

Also useful is typical turnaround times for the license types. You'd expect this subject to have been done to death by now, but it absolutely hasn't - so thanks for taking the initiative. Dugo 20:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute on the main page

I see a NPOV dispute on the main page, but no discussion of the dispute here. Obviously it's been a while since I looked in, and someone with fairly atrocious spelling and grammar has added some things, but what particular point is under contention, and where? --lowgenius My Talk Page 04:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

downside of public editing

Okay, wow. Welcome to the downside of public editing, I guess... - since it appears to actually matter to someone that headings were capitalized (OMG!), I'll leave them as they are...but boy, that's weak sauce right there.
- Given that a little higher up on this page is someone asking for information about companies that handle synchronization licencing, I should think that there's an obvious demand - and therefore justification - for including that information. That said, I didn't add it in the first place, and the information was very limited; I would be more inclined to allow a list that includes more traditional licensing avenues. That said, right now the 'traditional licensing avenue' is direct contact with the author's management, and that would create a page a million miles long.
- Obviously the remark about bands getting 'the short end of the stick' is not at all neutral. It's also ridiculously oversimplified - while as a musician for a quarter-century I have no great love for big record companies, at the same time recording an album isn't free, and Sony ain't a loan officer. Argue about it somewhere else; this is an encyclopedia not a discussion board.
- I'll be cleaning up all manner of other misspelled, poorly-written, and non-neutral text, too. Really, guys - especially you guys who are magically appearing from random IP addresses to add nothing of value - let's at least make a *minor* effort to keep this article useful, hmm?
- Anyone know the policy on removing the nPOVdispute box? Seems silly to leave it in after the article's cleaned for neutrality, but I don't want to cheese off any admins either...
- I'm pulling the 'Artists who usually refuse permission' section, for two reasons: first, because the list of artists who usually refuse permission is gigantic; second because it seems to me more of an attempt by some editor to go 'look how much I know about three bands' instead of providing useful information. Anyone with half a brain can figure out pretty quick who doesn't license their music for advertising...those are the bands whose songs you don't hear in advertisements. I just don't see any need for this section. If someone else can convince me otherwise, I'll reconsider. --lowgenius My Talk Page 05:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

On further review, I've also removed the entire section regarding 'who owns the airwaves' and other material that falls below it in the same section. Not because the information isn't neutral (although it's not), but because it doesn't relate at all to the subject at hand. The question is not whether you have the right to broadcast, but *what* you have the right to broadcast relative to a copyright holder's right to get paid for their work. This is 'Music Licensing' - 'Broadcasting' is down the hall, and that is where the issues presented should be worked out, not here. For the sake of the person who wrote that section: regardless of whether you are broadcasting music for profit or not, the songwriter gets paid. This has been argued in innumerable court cases both in the US and in other countries, and it has consistently been decided in favor of the songwriter. You may believe in your opinions very deeply, but they have no bearing on neutral fact. --lowgenius My Talk Page 05:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

cover all types of licensing

I think it would be helpful to expand this article to cover all the different types of music licensing. As it stands, public performance seems to be the highlight. I think master use, mechanical, synchronization, etc. are all extremely relevant under this very broad topical heading.

Also, some mention about how the DPRA expanded the right in public performance to include sound-recording copyright holders (a breakthrough change in American copyright law) would prove very informative.

--SWCastNetwork 15:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

expansion would be nice

I agree that an expansion would be nice; unfortunately I've about hit my limit of knowledge on the subject. Hopefully someone with knowledge and interest - and without an axe to grind - will step forward. --lowgenius My Talk Page 06:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

mentioned what I wouldn't talk about

I've tagged the article cause of a lack of an appropriate tag. The article reads like something on the internet. The most striking thing is that in the middle of the article, it mentioned what I wouldn't talk about, somthing you'd hear from your professor.100110100 10:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Your vague and confusing criticism leaves me at a loss. I'm not aware of any requirement for tags - helful, yes, required, no - nor do I understand what you mean by "The article reads like something on the internet." I don't want to cause any major surprises here, but the article IS "something on the internet." I'm also not sure when "what you wouldn't talk about" became a criteria for encyclopedic information, nor - since you've foregone talking about it - am I sure what the heck you're (not) talking about. If you can't manage to come up with meaningful, coherent verbiage when communicating, I would respectfully suggest that perhaps being an editor of an online, public-access encyclopedia is not your best possible career choice. -- lowgenius -- My Talk Page 02:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it's not lowlife.100110100 03:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Um...I beg your pardon? If I didn't know better, I'd think you were calling me a "lowlife" here. I certainly hope that's not the case.-- lowgenius -- My Talk Page 09:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Put back external links section

I put back the external link section. This article need work and I think it is helpful to have external links for that purpose. Ann O'nyme 02:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that three of the external links are useful, even the commercial link to Magnatune's sample contract. However, the link labled "Example of licensing for commercial use" is not an example of licensing, it's a shill page for Magnatune providing no information that doesn't already appear on this page, save for 'how to license through Magnatune.' I am removing that link.-- lowgenius -- My Talk Page 02:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The external link to the Step-by-step guide links to a promo page for the downloadable pdf, which itself has lots of threatening, misguiding legal advice, not to mention a strong bias towards licensing expensive options (the intro is clear, for example, that you should never go with something that just sounds like the music you want, it's worth it to buy the real thing). I think the link should go. Ngillardbyers (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

"Unencyclopedic" article

I said in an edit summary that I feel this article is "unencyclopedic", which I was asked to explain. To me, it reads very much like an essay, asking questions and answering them, using a somewhat nonformal language with some POV-ish terms like "of course". It's a good text, but not written in the style of an encyclopedia article. This can be improved. --Haakon 08:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It's been nearly a year and this article still reads like an FAQ. Don't use questions in headers. I just "discovered" this article and it's on my watchlist. I'll come back and rewrite it when I have time if no one gets here before me. 23skidoo 13:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Licensing Issues

How about some info on music licensing for digital distribution? The rules are different. I linked to the Section 115 Reform Act page for now. Thx. Karlyndesteno (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see some information on music copyright issues and royalties. I'm trying to find some information about how licencing applies to "cover versions", and of traditional songs. --Spewmaster (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)