Some music composers and songwriters want to censor their music longer than the law allows. A statutory license is created by operation of law, not by contract. With a statutory license, a copyright owner cannot say “no” to uses of their work, as long as the licensee complies with applicable legal requirements.
Like a patent, the purpose of a copyright is to get something in front of the public. It is not to help keep it secret or to stop other’s from using it. A copyright will protect the commercial value of something for a period of time, after which the patent or copyright expires and the music becomes available and usable for free. A patent can be extended by making a few modifications and getting a new patent. Same for a song but the ease with which a song can be copied makes the use of a copyright less clear. Is someone is using the song in a performance the copyright certainly applies. If someone is not performing the song publically it is not protected. The gray area is when a song is used incidentally, for example to create a mood at a political rally which can be done by slightly modifying the music it may not be protected by the copyright. If a songwriter refuses to allow the performance of their song they may violate the very idea of a copyright which is to protect the value of a song. Keeping a song secret destroys the idea of value. refusing to sell the right to use a song is a problem that involves censorship which is what the idea of a patent or copyright which is the opposite of the purpose of granting protection in the first place. If a songwriter refuses to allow a certain politician to use their song they are acting contrary to the idea of making certain the author gets paid.
Views: 1
