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."

Comments

Canadian Artists

[tobechar]

So far in Canada, artists have not been paid a cent from the CD-R royalties we all pay.

Where does it all go? Well, at least we know where it doesn't go.

FNORD

[virgo cluster]

Might this be the lame excuse for the shift to Digital Restriction only CDs? Because it serves the customer because it doesn't have to be twice as expansive?

Re:Solution: CD with DRM Software

[MikeXpop]

I'm sure my stereo will love that.

Not As Simple As That?

[tonyr60]

I have a couple of issues with the logic that 2 copies of the song are being sold.

First up, is it not really a single user license to play the song that is being sold?

And, only one copy of the music can be played at any one time.

So how is the copyright holder disadvantaged by this?

Re:The little guy gets paid?

[Frymaster]

Are you insinuating that the "little people" in the record business don't get paid their fare share?

well, if we're keeping track of who's doing the insinuating, add me to the list.

steve albini's the problem with music is a well-documented accounting of how bands on major labels get hooped by clawback clauses. read it. no, really.

Let me see if I understand this...

[Copperhead]

Customer : I should be able to rip music off the CD I just purchased for my own personal use without having to pay for a new "license". I bought this CD with the understand that I was purchasing the music for my personal use, and don't need to purchase a license for each new copy.

Record Labels : No way... just because you bought the CD does not give you the right to all the contents to do with as you wish. However, just to be nice, we will give you a low-quality, non-transferable rip of the song.

Artists : Wait... aren't you making another copy of the song? Since are selling two different copies of the song for every CD you sell, we're going to charge you twice the royalty.

Record Labels : No, we purchased the song from you for a particular customer, not for an individual copy of the song. As long as a single customer uses the song, we can do whatever we want with it.

Customer : Wait... isn't that what I just said?

What about the lyrics?

[Nakito]

Consider this: on almost every album since Sgt. Pepper, the record labels have included printed lyrics along with the album itself. Lyrics are, of course, copyrighted. So the copyrighted lyrics are provided twice, in two different formats: once printed and once sung. Does this mean that lyricists have been cheated for 35 years?

Re:Solution: CD with DRM Software

[vhold]

Can you imagine if when recorded music first became widely available and used if live musicians successfully sued to have the technology banned or heavily taxed because it would put them out of business? Apply that kind of logic to every sector and you've got a world of nothing but amish lawyers and tax collectors.

Whats far more ridiculous though is they think its sensical to inconvience the paying consumer when they could just get a no strings attached version online. I'm sure the vast majority of people ripping their own CDs are honest consumers who want to make mix discs, use MP3 players, play it on their computer and that sort of thing. Everybody else has already downloaded it, only one person needs to make a halfway decent version of a rip and then the copy protection ceases to accomplish anything whatsoever other then to discourage people from buying CDs.

Music CDs that attempt to instantly install software on your computer that limits it's functionality? What kind of crack were on they on when they thought that sort of behavior was going to pay off for them?

Re:let me be the first to say...

[i_r_sensitive]

First off, they aren't paying for anything, people who buy music are, they aren't going to eat that cost, just pass it along. After all, the money they've spent has been in reaction to a perceived threat to their revenue stream, this is not a cost I would expect anyone to happily defray.

Secondly, what is this fair use rights? I strongly suspect in the end it boils down to your assertion that you should get something for nothing. That is an incorrect assertion. If you are talking about the try then buy "right" then I would suggest you explore how much that relationship is based on trust, and what little reason the other side has to trust the average consumer in view of the rampant exhcange of illegally copied/distributed material.

Back in the tape to tape or CD to tape days these concepts had meaning. It wasn't easy to perform large scale unlawful copying. The music industry turned a bit of a blind eye to the whole affair because it was not perceived as a negative. Throw in the internet and peoples (mistaken) impression that it is nothing more than unlimited freedom with no responsibility, and that equation changes drastically, and rapidly. Factor in that people seem to now expect the music industry to accept that people can defraud them of their due revenues by unlawful copying and distribution is not only narcisistic and short-sighted, it is unrealistic and plainly not going to happen.

I would suggest you consider what you think is fair use, is it really fair? If it is fair, is it predicated on trust that has been abused and broken? Would it be fair from the other side of the equation? Is it fair to the artists who ultimately produce the work in question? Is greed a sufficient justification to deprive these folks of what they are due from their creations? Hey even if you know that they are getting ripped off by the label worse than the consumer, please explain to me how it is depriving them of what revenues they can generate demonstrates aawareness of or support for their plight?

Bottom line, there are consequences, this is just another one, a slightly humorous one, but just another consequence. Go ahead, keep on pulling the Kitty's tail, that will make it better...