That is a VERY good question. And the thing is, I believe the answer is that YouTube already pays for those. YouTube is a double whammy: It's both a mechanical right AND a sync right. Sync is even worse than mechanical, in that there's no statutory limit on what it could cost, no clearing house like Harry Fox, and there's no law FORCING them to let you use their song. They can say no.
Want to know what's even more complicated? If you post a copy of their music video, which most non-musicians do. That's a violation of the mechanical right AND the master use right (and possibly the sync right, in that its a new copy of it). But you'll note that there's music videos posted all of the time by individuals rather than bands, and that's of the original band's music videos.
From what I have heard, it's a constant battle out there, and the old-style rights that were sliced so thin are really not working well in this new world of mashups and instant posting of media where a single post can violate 8 rights at a time.
The answer may be best left to a lawyer in this case. Of course, most bands just post it and let it get taken down if there's a problem. The reason is that the big media that own the most common cover songs go after the big websites that host them in order to revenue share. The bands that make the covers don't have enough money to go after. That doesn't make it the right thing to do, but it's the reality.
Posted on 2010-02-16 15:16:25
|