NIEKT0: Samozrejme ze by tim utrpela cela hudebni scena. Protoze by slo min penez do celyho toho odvetvi. Z mnoha profiku
- muzikantu, zvukaru, atd bys udelal amatéry co to maj jako hobby.

HONCKA: Hudba se takrka nepirati? Mas k tomu nejaky data?

RUDOLF: s tohle

Musicians are entrepreneurs. We are essentially partners with the labels, and should be treated that way. Artists and labels have many common interests — both are appalled, for instance, by the oddly meager payments from YouTube (more people globally listen to music free on YouTube than anywhere else). With shared data on how, where, why and when our audience listens, we can all expand our reach. This would benefit YouTube, the labels and us as well. With cooperation and transparency the industry can grow to three times its current size, Willard Ahdritz, the head of Kobalt, an independent music and publishing collection service, told me.

There is cause for hope. I recently spent two days on Capitol Hill, with the help of Sound Exchange, a nonprofit digital royalty collection and distribution organization, to discuss fairer compensation for artists via the Fair Play Fair Pay Act, which would force AM and FM stations to pay musicians when their recordings are broadcast, as most of the world does.

Dobrý text je i po těch letech je tohle. Americký kontext

David Byrne | Journal | OPEN THE MUSIC INDUSTRY’S BLACK BOX
http://davidbyrne.com/journal/open-the-music-industrys-black-box

Perhaps the biggest problem artists face today is that lack of transparency. I’ve asked basic questions of both the digital services and the music labels and been stonewalled. For example, I asked YouTube how ad revenue from videos that contain music is shared (which should be an incredibly basic question). They responded that they didn’t share exact numbers, but said that YouTube’s cut was “less than half.” An industry source (who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the information) told me that the breakdown is roughly 50 percent to YouTube, 35 percent to the owner of the master recording and 15 percent to the publisher.

Before musicians and their advocates can move to enact a fairer system of pay, we need to know exactly what’s going on. We need information from both labels and streaming services on how they share the wealth generated by music. Taylor Swift, when she forced Apple to back off a plan not to pay royalties during the three-month free trial period for its new streaming service, Apple Music, made some small progress on this count — but we still don’t know how much Apple agreed to pay, or how they will determine the rate.

Putting together a picture of where listeners’ money goes when we pay for a streaming service subscription is notoriously complicated. Here is some of what we do know: About 70 percent of the money a listener pays to Spotify (which, to its credit, has tried to illuminate the opaque payment system) goes to the rights holders, usually the labels, which play the largest role in determining how much artists are paid. (A recently leaked 2011 contract between Sony and Spotify showed that the service had agreed to pay the label more than $40 million in advances over three years. But it doesn’t say what Sony was to do with the money.)

The labels then pay artists a percentage (often 15 percent or so) of their share. This might make sense if streaming music included manufacturing, breakage and other physical costs for the label to recoup, but it does not. When compared with vinyl and CD production, streaming gives the labels incredibly high margins, but the labels act as though nothing has changed.

QZUZKA: asi jsem to přestal poslouchat kvůli tomu pocitu, že jsem zboží, nevím. Rádio platí i licenci za frekvenci, ale na Internetu ji například neplatí (proto byl nakonec Internet vymyšlený, že ano).

Jestliže platí poplatek OSE (nebo jiným autorským spolkům) to rádio, tak ale nedává smysl, abych ten samý poplatek platil ještě já za mobil, na který potenciálně můžu uložit něco, co se vysílá v rádiu (ale nejspíš to nikdy neudělám). Ta část, kdy ale rádia nahlásí, co se hrálo a autorské svazy to nějak přepočítají, ještě relativně smysl dává. Ovšem aplikovat takhle získanou metriku na balík peněz, získaný úplně z jiných zdrojů, než z těch rádií, přece žádný smysl nedává...

To, co provádí YouTube vůči youtuberům, je pak jakási "OSA on demand", která už díky velikosti trhu bude zjevně daleko pružnější a solventnější, než původní OSA, i když to vlastně nemá žádný zákonný základ. YouTube vytvořila tak velký trh, že může autory nejspíš motivovat lépe, než to dokázaly ty různé archaické ochranné svazy. A ještě údernější algoritmy má TikTok. S odchodem generace boomerů nejspíš ten tradiční formát vysílání rádií prakticky zanikne. Není pravda úplně jasné, co ho nahradí, ale stávající zákonné úpravy začnou působit jako některé takové ty středověké předpisy o tom, v jaké vzdálenosti od městských hradeb smí kdo provozovat pivovar, apod.