Slashdot Mirror
Record Labels May Have to Pay Double Royalties
douglips writes "News.com.com.com brings us this article explaining how record labels may be bitten by CD copy protection. At issue is the mechanism that places duplicate WMA tracks on the CD. The labels are thus selling two copies of each song, and may be required to pay twice as much to music publishers. So not only is the DRM ineffective, it also could be a huge legal liability for labels."
I wonder if this means the lyrics writers and all the other "little people" behind the scenes will get paid twice - finally the value of what they are worth...
If the payments are made, then of course the labels profits will fall. So, what will they say next quarter to make their shareholders happy? "It's all because of those damn internet pirates. We need more legislation against them, or our profits will continue to fall."
--- It's not my fault this post looks redundant. I just type too slow.
The record industry will just price-fix in the added costs, problem solved.
And I suppose if they included .ogg, .rm, .wma, .mp3, .mp4 files, each would be a copy and therefore to be charged for?
Whether or not the record companies deserve this, it's basically an asinine proposition that everyone possible be reimbursed every particular format included on a CD. Very, very last century. But, what do you expect from artists like Metallica?
Why do they have to put copies of the tracks in both formats on the disk? Why can't the labels create a small software application that hides the raw data tracks from PCs and "allows" the CD owner to create DRMed files? This would bypass the "pay royalties twice for distributing two copies of each track" problem.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
They already charge twice as much as a CD is worth.
Hammer of Truth
Even though this is comming from "Music publishers and songwriters, who are entitled to payments of a few cents for every copy of a song sold," this is so rediculous I don't even know where to begin.
the whole recording industry is so out of touch, not just the RIAA stormtroopers.
the labels will just double the price of CDs and blame it on file swapping.
You didn't think the consumer would get out of getting screwed did you?
If you take one cent, and double it, you get two cents.
Rank Presidents by th
Make the product cheap, and people will buy it. Simple.
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
That wow, that sucks eh? Having to pay more to ship your product? Poor little labels....
I think little labels may be exact the people that will be most hurt by this. I've purchased some very quality cds for about $9 (which is much more fair IMHO,) from smaller labels who carry less-than-famous artists. Could be a major hit to these small record labels, which may not have huge amounts of revenue.
So the small record labels can ship CDs with no copy protection. Problem solved.
I don't recall any of the little labels using any sort of archaic and non-functional DRM type protection methods.
That any CD I can play, I can rip. It's AUDIO rofl. At very worst I can just play it back and record it to another device, unprotected. Big deal.... DRM for audio is such a joke.. This isn't intended to be flamebait, it just seems so ludicrous to me.
"where words meet intent, lies rhetoric's lament"
Nelson: Ah, le mot juste!
Not likely... you usually don't put a backup on the *same piece of media* as the original copy, because then if the original fails (through scratches to the disk, etc.) so does the "backup". It just goes against the definition of backups - I don't think even the RIAA's army of undead lawyers could twist it enough to get that through.
--- Bwah?
Look at the whole "audio+data" CD phenomenon (from the consumers perspective) in the first place.
- Yesterday you sold me a CD which was (more often than not, to all intents and purposes) full to capacity with standard CD audio format music
- Today you sell me a CD which is now only partially filled with aforementioned "standard
... music" - (because some of the space previously used for standard cd audio format music is now being used for DATA (in this case, a second copy of the music)
Don't look now, but you the consumer just paid the same amount for less music.Just to be clear here, they sold you TWO copies of the music, in the same amount of space ====> so you received LESS MUSIC than you "normally/previously" would, for NO LESS MONEY.
Given this trend in the music industry, in the near future they'll be selling us Holographic Storage DISCs with a terabyte of data-space, with only one (3 minute, CD-Quality) song on it (the rest of the space is 'computer format' of the same song, plus anti-piracy technologies). It'll still cost $25-$35 in most cases, and will ONLY play on a custom media player that is specific to that music-label. Due to the intricacies of the technology, swapping HS-DISCs takes approximately 5 minutes, and the "music subscription" on HS-DISCs expires in 24 hours.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
The music industry has been saying over and over again that piracy hurts the artists . Their crackdown on p2p filesharing, their use of DRM schemes (such as the copy-protected CD's in question), and their public relations FUD are all supposedly motivated by their uncompromising zeal to protect the livelihood of artists.
Really? No foolin'? Well, this is a golden opportunity to show us all that you really meant it. If all of these efforts are about protecting artists, then you would never think to violate a publishing contract over it. Right?
[Silence... A leaf blows by...]
Oh. Well, that's what we all suspected, I guess.
The labels want you to pay for every version of a song you use. You pay for the ability to use it in a CD player, again to use it on an iPod, again to use it in some other form. Using the same thinking, they should pay the artists for each time you buy a song in one of these forms. They just didn't think about it when they released the twofers and now it's a problem.
You might have an issue with patents, but the AAC patent is perfectly sound.
We'll all be paying more for CDs. Since the big players own the market, they can do whatever they want, and they'll just sue everyone else. The little guys don't have the big name artists so nobody cares about them anyway. They'll continue to make non-DRMed-up-the-ass CDs and no one will buy them, but if you want the new Outkast CD, welcome back $21.99! But hey, they're doing this for the artists, remember?
And no, the big guys will NOT pay the artists more, they'll slip one by or change their contracts or whatever. Money Power.
Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
What you don't seem to understand is that the Music Industry seems to want it both ways.
When I purchase a CD for full price, if I purchased a license, I should be able to get another if my cd gets damaged for the price of the media (blank cd's are under $0.25, I assume they get an even better deal than this when they mass produce them). This is not how it currently works I should also be able to get different formats for the price of the media. If I bought a cd, why can't I download the mp3 for a modest $0.10 cent bandwidth fee?
If they aren't licensing me the music, are they selling me the cd? Doesn't that mean I should be legally allowed to copy my cd if it get's damaged? After all it is MINE! If my cd gets damaged, I would have to pay full price for something I already own. If my car get's a scratch, I can give it a paint job, I don't have to go out and buy a new car. The same is not true for cd's.
What is pissing everyone off with their restrictions is that they aren't being clear with what it is you get when you buy a cd. Is it a licensed product? Is it a sold product? There are different rules for each, and they want the protection of a license, without dealing with the drawbacks.
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
Is it a license, or a copy to enjoy?
They cannot have it both ways. If they intend to sell us a license, don't we need to see the terms and enter into some sort of contract? (God forbid the EULA for music CD's.)
If they sell us a license, does that not mean we have paid for a given piece of music. If we lose the media, we still have the license right?
If they sell us a copy to enjoy, then we can do what we want with our copy so long as we don't sell it for money. As long as I can give a CD for a christmas gift, I say we are buying copies, not licenses.
Which is it? Want your cake and eat it too?
Blogging because I can...
So you're accusing me of being a psychopath.
Wow. I'm impressed.
Sure, and making an MP3 for personal use does not infringe on another person's rights. I'm not stabbing them in the eye with an MP3.
For the second time, fair use rights does not mean unlawful copying. Copyright does deliver certain limited copying rights to the end-user. For example, with software you are permitted a backup copy. With television broadcasts you are allowed to make a copy to VHS for the purposes of time-shifting. Educators can make restricted and size-limited copies for the purposes of education. All of this can be done without first asking the copyright holder.
You need to let go of this incorrect idea that copyright means "no copying". Your fair use rights means certain copying is permitted, even if you are not the copyright holder.
#1: I didn't provide a definition of reasonable use. I didn't even use the word "reasonable".
#2: I fail to see the similarity between making copies of legally purchased music for personal use - as permitted by law - and your ludicrous strawman example of disobeying a software license.
And for the third time, fair use has nothing to do with obviating the rights of anybody else.
no, no, no.
There *is* more than a snowball's chance in hell here. If you read the topic, it says label would pay the PUBLISHER, not the artist. I'm not sure exactly how that all works, or even if that's right, but if you look on a cd, you'll see something along the lines of "All songs published by SomethingSomething/BMI." Where BMI is one of a few publishing houses.
--- What