The Market for Performance Rights in Sound Recordings: Bargaining in the Shadow of Compulsory Licensing

Mark F. Schultz
{"title":"The Market for Performance Rights in Sound Recordings: Bargaining in the Shadow of Compulsory Licensing","authors":"Mark F. Schultz","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3292512","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The music business is, in some respects, more regulated than most other industries. For instance, most countries essentially impose a compulsory license on the owners of rights to sound recordings, requiring them to license the right to broadcast and publicly play their recordings to all who are willing to pay a standard rate. They cannot refuse to license; they cannot do exclusive deals; and, importantly, they cannot set their own prices. Instead, rates are set by courts, regulators, or legislatures rather than markets. \n \nThis institutional arrangement is quite unusual. Society usually leaves price setting to the market for good reasons. Regulators and courts simply cannot set “correct” prices, as they have neither the access to information nor the capacity to process it that millions of market participants do collectively. Moreover, non-market pricing violates important non-economic values such as self-determination and autonomy. \n \nThe imposition of remuneration-only rules has profoundly distorted the market for performance licenses for sound recordings. Drawing and applying new insights from the literature on Standard Essential Patents, this article explains the ways in which remuneration-only rules skew bargaining power in favor of licensees, suppress rates, ignore market conditions, and deprive consumers of choice and diversity in the market for music. It concludes with policy suggestions to ameliorate these distortions.","PeriodicalId":162065,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Law & Economics: Private Law (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Law & Economics: Private Law (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3292512","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The music business is, in some respects, more regulated than most other industries. For instance, most countries essentially impose a compulsory license on the owners of rights to sound recordings, requiring them to license the right to broadcast and publicly play their recordings to all who are willing to pay a standard rate. They cannot refuse to license; they cannot do exclusive deals; and, importantly, they cannot set their own prices. Instead, rates are set by courts, regulators, or legislatures rather than markets. This institutional arrangement is quite unusual. Society usually leaves price setting to the market for good reasons. Regulators and courts simply cannot set “correct” prices, as they have neither the access to information nor the capacity to process it that millions of market participants do collectively. Moreover, non-market pricing violates important non-economic values such as self-determination and autonomy. The imposition of remuneration-only rules has profoundly distorted the market for performance licenses for sound recordings. Drawing and applying new insights from the literature on Standard Essential Patents, this article explains the ways in which remuneration-only rules skew bargaining power in favor of licensees, suppress rates, ignore market conditions, and deprive consumers of choice and diversity in the market for music. It concludes with policy suggestions to ameliorate these distortions.
录音制品表演权市场:强制许可下的讨价还价
在某些方面,音乐行业比大多数其他行业受到更多的监管。例如,大多数国家基本上对录音版权所有者实行强制许可,要求他们向所有愿意支付标准费率的人许可广播和公开播放其录音的权利。他们不能拒绝许可;他们不能做独家交易;重要的是,他们不能自己定价。相反,利率是由法院、监管机构或立法机构设定的,而不是市场。这种制度安排很不寻常。社会通常有充分的理由让市场来决定价格。监管机构和法院根本无法设定“正确”的价格,因为它们既无法获取信息,也没有能力像数百万市场参与者那样集体处理信息。此外,非市场定价违背了重要的非经济价值,如自决和自治。只收取报酬的规定的实施严重扭曲了录音表演许可市场。本文从标准必要专利的文献中吸取并应用了新的见解,解释了只考虑报酬的规则是如何使议价能力偏向于被许可方、压低费率、忽视市场条件以及剥夺消费者在音乐市场上的选择和多样性的。报告最后提出了改善这些扭曲的政策建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信