An alternative music licensing model

New from the MySociety genii:, capsule the curiously-capitalised PlaceOpedia. Think Google Maps ? Wikipedia. Brilliant. Except that, as I write, all the links read


  1. Ah, were it that easy. The mechanical royalties you refer to are publishing income that gets paid by a label to an artist or publisher when a CD (or digital track) is sold. The performance royalty is paid when a song is played, for example, on the radio (online or otherwise), and artists can often make a decent living off this type of income–as opposed to a record royalty, which is often never seen. Using a song for a YouTube video, however, is another license altogether and labels, publishers and artists all have to team up and agree to this use (a near impossibility, particularly if an artist is signed to a major label). I posted an alternate idea today though ( that I think also would work, which would involve a small fee to use for a limited sync license.
    But regardless, the link idea is a good one, and no doubt that will emerge eventually. Your idea is more direct, and I think pretty viable. Check out if you’re interested, as I brought up a somewhat similar idea on that front there.

  2. Ah yes, I rather forget that when you buy music, the artists get 4¢ or something – they make proper money when it’s played. My half-baked scheme would require the music industry to give up this model for the web, on the grounds that it’s never going to scale properly to millions of video/audio publishers, and start again from scratch. That whole-industry renegotiation is something of a stumbling-block, I’ll grant you.
    On the other hand, I’m rather pleased that my intemperate rant last night wasn’t utterly flameworthy nonsense.
    And yes, is terrific, and quite likely plays a role in this sort of future.

  3. Thanks, that really helped me out.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


© 2017 The Daily Grind

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑