“On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather”. - John Perry Barlow, EFF Spotify is not the enemy you’re looking for The success of a small group of players in a value chain tends to look pretty obvious once you figure out where the chain is most narrow or constrained. Companies operating at or near the constraint enjoy leverage over the companies that make up the rest of the value chain, so they get to help themselves to most of the profits. But every now and again, a new technology shifts the primary constraint elsewhere, sowing the seeds of disruption.
Be very careful when you are suggesting "non copyright" IP be available to the masses (and please correct me if I'm wrong about what you're suggesting here). I don't think you are informed enough about exactly HOW artists of all kinds (not just musical) make a living - in the end, their IP is ALL THEY HAVE of value.
I'm sure you've seen major artists like Springsteen and Dylan sell their massive, extremely valuable music catalogues to private buyers via platforms like Hipgnosis - if they did not own their IP (even worse, if they never copyrighted their music) they would NOT have a music catalogue to sell towards the end of their illustrious careers (clearly they also did not allow their labels to own most/all of their IP during their careers, or they were able to leverage to buy the rights back at some point.).
I agree that music/IP ownership should not be attached to this newfangled format called NFTs, but for totally different reasons. And, with the recent news that those who want to cash in on someone else's work have figured out how to get the royalty producing stipulation out of the smart contract attached to every NFT (WTF? This was one reason I was getting excited over the format - because for ONCE, artists actually had control/ownership of their IP and could benefit from the selling/trading of it in the years ahead) I am now OUT. Shelving this format completely in my mind and not pushing it to anyone going forward unless/until that hack is resolved, which I hear is being worked on through new protocols, but honestly if it's that easy to negate a smart contract with these things, forget it. I'll wait for something that's truly revolutionary FOR ARTISTS and not just a marketing ploy/come-on/get rich quick scheme (not for them of course) to get them to waste precious time/energy on what's basically just a new version of the same ol' same ol' (ripoff).
Sooooooo utterly disappointed in what these things have turned into in such short notice. As an artist's advocate, it's gone from possible new paradigm to total fail in my eyes.
PS I work in the music business. At a major. And my daughter is an indie recording artist. I also have a bit of crypto background to my resume. So I'm looking at these things from all sides.
PSS Here's YouTube attempting to make sure the original artists (IP holders) are compensated for their art being used by others via licensing, and a way for "creators" (ie users, those who make and post vids on YouTube) to legit license that IP and/or participate in a revenue sharing model. https://techcrunch.com/2022/09/20/youtube-announces-creator-music-a-new-way-for-creators-to-shop-for-songs-for-use-in-videos/. Read and learn, and become part of the solution instead of the time immemorial problem of others trying to find ways to rip off artists/IP/legit copyright holders.
We're building in Music Web3 - a whole new composable system of creation & distribution, built on top of AR location tech stacks like Niantic Lightship (Pokemon Go), ARKit (Apple), and Cloud Anchors (Google). IMMUSE = Immersive Music, and we enable "location staking" to connect music visuals to specific locations, and have all copyrights signed off before creation as a "metaverse sync license".
Here's how we compare the traditional music Licensing structure to the new Web3 Ownership structure - most importantly putting creators back at the center of the industry AND pulling fans into the formal structure for the first time. "Fan collaboration" is the next level of fanship, leveraging new ownership incentives around NFTs for the benefit of the music.
Be very careful when you are suggesting "non copyright" IP be available to the masses (and please correct me if I'm wrong about what you're suggesting here). I don't think you are informed enough about exactly HOW artists of all kinds (not just musical) make a living - in the end, their IP is ALL THEY HAVE of value.
I'm sure you've seen major artists like Springsteen and Dylan sell their massive, extremely valuable music catalogues to private buyers via platforms like Hipgnosis - if they did not own their IP (even worse, if they never copyrighted their music) they would NOT have a music catalogue to sell towards the end of their illustrious careers (clearly they also did not allow their labels to own most/all of their IP during their careers, or they were able to leverage to buy the rights back at some point.).
I agree that music/IP ownership should not be attached to this newfangled format called NFTs, but for totally different reasons. And, with the recent news that those who want to cash in on someone else's work have figured out how to get the royalty producing stipulation out of the smart contract attached to every NFT (WTF? This was one reason I was getting excited over the format - because for ONCE, artists actually had control/ownership of their IP and could benefit from the selling/trading of it in the years ahead) I am now OUT. Shelving this format completely in my mind and not pushing it to anyone going forward unless/until that hack is resolved, which I hear is being worked on through new protocols, but honestly if it's that easy to negate a smart contract with these things, forget it. I'll wait for something that's truly revolutionary FOR ARTISTS and not just a marketing ploy/come-on/get rich quick scheme (not for them of course) to get them to waste precious time/energy on what's basically just a new version of the same ol' same ol' (ripoff).
Sooooooo utterly disappointed in what these things have turned into in such short notice. As an artist's advocate, it's gone from possible new paradigm to total fail in my eyes.
PS I work in the music business. At a major. And my daughter is an indie recording artist. I also have a bit of crypto background to my resume. So I'm looking at these things from all sides.
PSS Here's YouTube attempting to make sure the original artists (IP holders) are compensated for their art being used by others via licensing, and a way for "creators" (ie users, those who make and post vids on YouTube) to legit license that IP and/or participate in a revenue sharing model. https://techcrunch.com/2022/09/20/youtube-announces-creator-music-a-new-way-for-creators-to-shop-for-songs-for-use-in-videos/. Read and learn, and become part of the solution instead of the time immemorial problem of others trying to find ways to rip off artists/IP/legit copyright holders.
We're building in Music Web3 - a whole new composable system of creation & distribution, built on top of AR location tech stacks like Niantic Lightship (Pokemon Go), ARKit (Apple), and Cloud Anchors (Google). IMMUSE = Immersive Music, and we enable "location staking" to connect music visuals to specific locations, and have all copyrights signed off before creation as a "metaverse sync license".
Here's how we compare the traditional music Licensing structure to the new Web3 Ownership structure - most importantly putting creators back at the center of the industry AND pulling fans into the formal structure for the first time. "Fan collaboration" is the next level of fanship, leveraging new ownership incentives around NFTs for the benefit of the music.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1n8H1UvD0pE7MPHxMsNAHnAtWMhe_fBZCrpYMSA1fKzY/edit?usp=sharing
!!