Jesus is Watching....JOKE
Burglar got into a house one night. Shining his flashlight on the floor in the dark, he heard a voice saying, "Jesus is watching you."He looked around nervously, shook his head, and kept looking for valuables. He again heard, "Jesus is watching you."
This time, he shone his light all over, and it rested on a parrot.
He asked, "Did you say that?"
The parrot admitted that it had. "I'm just trying to warn you, that's all."
The burglar said, "Warn me, huh? Who are you? What's your name?"
"Moses."
"Well, what kind of stupid people would name a parrot 'Moses'?"
The bird answered, "I don't know; I guess the same folks who would name a Rottweiler 'Jesus'."
- I think you've missed the point coplemtely. Or perhaps I didn't communicate it well enough. so let me try again. Most sound recordings (and underlying works) are covered by PPL and IPRS---which makes it much easier at the transactional level re: licensing. With videos however, it gets more complicated, since there are visuals. Nobody suggested that the copyright owners over visuals and sounds would be different re: a video in all cases. Just that in a video broadcast, you have visual content as well. And to the best of my knowledge, there are no collecting societies for audio-visual content. This essentially means that a potential licensee must transact individually with each copyright owner---raising transaction costs. A compulsory license obviates that. In short, with pure audio licensing, given the existence of PPL and IPRS, what a CL might do is to bring down your licensing rates. With audio visual, you have the added burden of huge transactional costs. So a CL here might reduce this as well significantly. And thats where I see the true value. Funny that you mention that angle of "having business knowledge" for drafting copyright legislations. For the most part, copyright regimes have reflected industry lobbies and industry interests. Very business centric, I would add!