100 sats \ 2 replies \ @TresDMan 24 Apr \ parent \ on: Wavlake Concerns nostr
I agree, in part. I suppose it depends on how you're viewing the next steps in growth for music under the v4v model.
The systems (aka - the many traditional parties) that are currently in place have been built and evolved over time. Some are necessary to capture the most value from the very fragmented media landscape as it exists right now, others not so much.
In my opinion, to say that royalties are complicated because so many parties are involved, ignores how/why they came to be in the first place. This is aside from whether we agree that they should or shouldn't exist, whether they solve/ease the problems for which they were created to solve. The reality is that they DO exist.
In the next stage of growth for music under the v4v model, are you ONLY trying to capture the attention of those creators that are NOT deeply integrated into this traditional system? Or can there be processes in place to also capture the attention of those that are already operating "successfully" under the traditional model?
At this point, the independent landscape is growing quickly, but the majors still have a chokehold on much of the market. I'm not considering that a Warner Music or UMG can be converted to the v4v model (maybe way farther down the line,) but there are so many different size players between a UMG and a fully independent artist doing things on their own, or with just a manager.
It seems to me that you're starting from what you'd like the overall music royalty landscape to look like (simple royalty splits = few stakeholders), as opposed to where it actually is (complex royalty splits = many stakeholders.) This could be a fine approach, but it only serves a small fraction of the potential market. I have a very basic understanding of v4v, but it seems that it has room to attract a larger percentage of this market if it actually starts solving some of the problems that exist in the traditional space.
Maybe that's not what Wavlake was created for, maybe it's the next iteration? As usual, I pose more questions than answers, but I always welcome discussion.
Great questions. All those are valid concerns and a lot to try and bite off at once, which is why we're taking a more incremental approach. I can assure you that the Wavlake you see today is very much a prototype for a much bigger vision of what we think could be.
One thing to consider is that the distribution and payment model we've built doesn't necessarily have to adhere to a pure v4v application in every situation. For example, if a company wanted to create an ad with a song in it, that license could be secured with a Lightning transaction. And every airing/play of that ad would require the company to pay the artist X amount as part of the terms. That would just be part of the deal. This is just one example, I'm sure you can imagine many more.
In my mind, listeners sending sats to artists is just the tip of the iceberg. It's a really interesting application of this technology, but there are many other ways this could be used to the benefit of artists and consumers.
reply
Absolutely! I appreciate the more detailed response.
Your example is an interesting one, and the sort of thing I had in mind. As it stands, the traditional model already has a (in my opinion, very broken) system of how to get royalty payments in the hands of the various rightsholders. I can see the Lightning network, or some variant thereof, being able to simplify this, without ignoring the complexities that currently exist within the royalty landscape. I hope that I'll be able to provide some value in this area.
I've actually begun talking to a couple of the more adventurous songwriters that I represent to see if they'd like to take a dip into Wavlake world. Maybe with just one single to see how it all works out, and what the process is like.
Another thought is that we'd be early in this space, and have a lot more room to grow and be creative, as Spotify and friends continue to dwindle songwriter's and artist's earnings.
reply