|
I propose distributing levy proceeds to copyright owners, not directly to creators, as is often done in Europe (and the U.S. – e.g., webcasters statutory license). If I remember correctly, Terry also proposes distributing to whomever holds the applicable copyright. Volker Grassmuck and Felix Stadler strenuously objected to this. I had wanted to follow-up with them at the workshop but never got the chance. So Volker and Felix, I’m asking you now! My thought is this: For purposes of discussion, I will grant that copyright industry intermediaries like record labels unfairly exploit creators (although I must say that given what I’ve learn from discussion on Pho, I’ve become much less dismissive than I used to be of record labels’ role in producing music and supporting creators – and I recall Michael O’Hare making similar statements at our workshop regarding other intermediaries). If in fact P2P distribution provides opportunities for creators sharply to reduce their dependence on traditional copyright industry intermediaries, then creators will be in a much stronger negotiating position. In fact, creators might even be able to retain the copyright, so that they, not intermediaries, are the “copyright owners” for purposes of distributing the levy proceeds. On the other hand, if, despite P2P opportunities for creators to reach audiences directly, creators remain dependent on intermediaries (perhaps for packaging, editing, financing production, marketing, etc.), then that means that intermediaries do make a significant contribution, which would likely be fairly and efficiently reflected in creator-intermediary licensing.
What’s wrong with that picture?
Neil Netanel Arnold, White & Durkee Centennial Professor of Law University of Texas School of Law Visiting Professor, UCLA School of Law (2003-04)
|