> It won't, and it's a strawman you are setting up.

It wasn't set up by me, was it? Let me remind you:

"Of course, all these questions can be addressed in one way or another with conventional database tech. But blockchain has some undeniable appeal in an application like this."

So far no one has shown that "undeniable appeal". Moreover, every person who roots for blockchain in this conversation comes up with easily refutable claims.

> Of course you have to design your business logic and rules and answer all the questions. There's nothing a blockchain, a relational or a nosql database will do for you there.

Let's see what one of the proponents said: "UMG, Warner, Sony and Spotify cannot share bills for running a common database on AWS today without creating yet another corporation and relinquishing power over the data to it... They are here to revolutionize how existing organizations co-ordinate, enter into contracts with each other, and even allow individuals themselves co-ordinate directly with each other without intermediaries through novel org structures."

And yet. Suddenly. "Oh, you have to agree and design your business logic and rules and answer all the questions." Why the hell would I need blockchain for this?

> You can have a third party with a central relational database that does all that, and all companies trust it. The proposed solution is more akin to a relational database replicated between all interested parties.

Oh wait. Let me remind you: "Every single company agrees and has a shared database of the rights and the licensing."

Moreover, it means that every single company agrees that anyone can just write whatever they want to this database, sure. And probably fork it at some time, splitting it further.

Remind me again, why blockchain?

> No, because you can design a solution where any interested party can join the network and have a copy of the data.

Oh cool. Data is useless without access to it though. Hence, APIs. You are not a programmer, are you?

> I think it's a very pratical way of understanding the oportunities and capabilities that open up with new technology, particulary if you have a knee-jerk reaction such as shown above.

It's not a knee-jerk reaction. It's a healthy scepticism based on experience and actual understanding of some of the inside workings of music industry.

Your "solutions" are basically "let's add blockchain to it because it's this new cool new thing even though I have no idea how it will aid the problem in question". All it does according to you is letting everyone have a copy of some data. Oh my god. I am so sold on this idea :-\

Just count the number of assumptions you make to make this work:

- everyone has to agree to use this shared database

- everyone agrees on a standard way to define songs, define licensing, define song metadata

- everyone agrees to provide exact truthful complete metadata for every song and track they release at any point in time (hey, remember the brain teaser I gave you? Try answering that first)

- everyone agrees to have this shared database as the one and only source of truth even if everyone can write any data to it

- everyone agrees to never under any circumstances fork the database or create competing copies of it (we know how well that worked for Ethereum etc.)

Oh, golly. I sure am sold on the opportunities and capabilities. Blockchain surely "has some undeniable appeal in an application like this." and will "revolutionize how existing organizations co-ordinate, enter into contracts with each other, and even allow individuals themselves co-ordinate directly with each other without intermediaries through novel org structures." "All this without getting into tokens and handling the payments and distribution of royalties on the chain, and other innovations that the capabilities of the blockchain can bring."

BTW. Blockchain cannot handle either payments or royalties. It can hardly handle a few payments without buckling under its own load.