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
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
So the small record labels can ship CDs with no copy protection. Problem solved.
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"
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.
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
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.