Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by chrisseaton 1305 days ago
Unreasonable thought experiment - Taylor Swift has a monopoly on her music catalogue. If we removed that monopoly and allowed others to perform and sell it, it'd reduce costs for working people.
2 comments

That's exactly how copyright was supposed to work, no? It balanced the artist's ability to make money against making their art accessible to everyone by giving them a temporary monopoly. It's modern incarnation is arguably much closer to a permanent monopoly, and I agree - it should be limited.
She has a monopoly on some of her recordings. (Famously she doesn’t own the rights to her early recordings)

But she also doesn’t have a monopoly on other artists performing her music, or making recordings of her songs.

I could cover the entire of her latest album and sell copies? I didn't think copyright allowed for that without permission but maybe I don't know copyright like I thought I did.
Yup. As mentioned, she doesn’t own the rights to her early albums, so this year she actually re-recorded and released alternate versions of her own music.

Cover songs are covered under “compulsory” licenses. You can safely cover an entire album without permission as long as you pay the royalties to the writers.

The entire “songbook” genre is basically this. If you want to drill down further there is an entire category of albums which is just people covering “Dark Side of the Moon”

Musical copyright is a whole other thing.

After 70 years you can, yes (in copyright's original form). It's why I can do a performance of Mozart or Shakespeare today.

Before that, you'd need her permission, and probably share some royalties with her.