I'm giving a copyright talk, and this is one of the subjects. You're all creative artists here; some of you might also be musicians. I'm curious how people feel about the compulsory licensing scheme for covering music (i.e. that you can cover and release another artist's song without their permission). Thoughts on advantages of the system, disadvantages, whether it impacts the author's moral right, and so on. Not meant to be a debate thread, I'm just gathering ideas and impressions that I can think about as I head into the talk on this subject.
I actually haven't heard anything about this, though I haven't done anything musical in about 10 years. Back in the day, though, you could (at least in Canada, anyway) get away with covering a song when performing live, though you were technically supposed to get permission, but actually publishing a cover without permission could get you in come pretty serious trouble (at least allegedly, anyway). TBH though, I don't really see a problem with it as long as royalties are taken care of somehow.
The compulsory licensing scheme includes royalties. I don’t think it is a problem, but comments here give me something to think about. I’ve come across a few who think permission should be required, but I don’t agree.
I hadn't known about this either, but I guess I don't get the point. Why should music copyright work differently from that of other media?
I’ll have to look into the public policy behind it. Thanks for bringing that up. It occurs to me that music is different than some other art forms in that you can’t really “cover” a book or a movie. If you perform the song live without a license, you’ll have a problem. But you can record a cover.
