Questions
What arguments does Wired use to give its opinion on copy right laws?
The wired article suggests that most people do not know that cover songs need a synchronisation licence ' and even if they did, trying to get one is a confusing and expensive process'. The article is opposing to youtube rights and that it is somewhat extensive considering many people are not educated on the fact that you need a synchronisation licence to upload over songs.
Do you think UGC artists covering songs should be subjected to copyright laws?
I believe similarly to the article that having a licence to be able to upload cover songs is a long and complex process so therefore I think maybe some rights should still be in place however not as such a long and complicated process. I also believe that the people singing the cover songs could be used as a way to promote the current singers as its a way of advertising the artists songs.
Why is the video maker being sued?
The youtube entrepreneur , Michelle Phan, is being sued due to the record label 'ultra records' claiming that the music of Kascade is used too frequently in her videos. However Kascade said there was very little he could do to stop the case, thinking it was unnecessary and tweeted ' I wrote that all a month ago. Copyright law is a dinosaur, ill-suited for the landscape of todays media'.
Why do you think the opinions of the artists and label records differ?
Because the record label has many artists that they have to monitor and work with so therefore as a company they may worry that they lose money due to other people using their artists songs. However, the artists want their music to be popular and be heard therefore their opinion on copyright of their music is not as strong.
