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

The little guy gets paid?

[VinceWuzHere]

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...

Re:The little guy gets paid?

[pseudochaotic]

Sure, they'll get paid twice, but both times will be half as much. Either that, or they double the price of CDs.

Re:The little guy gets paid?

[lucabrasi999]

I wonder if this means the lyrics writers and all the other "little people" behind the scenes will get paid twice

Are you insinuating that the "little people" in the record business don't get paid their fare share? That the lawyers and record executives, have, for decades, kept all the money themselves and screwed over the songwriters? That record companies are huge, bloated bureacracies that add little value to the creative process? That....

OK, you sold me.

Re:The little guy gets paid?

[SoSueMe]

I was envisioning triple the price.

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.

Re:The little guy gets paid?

[devphaeton]

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...

Hey man, Hobbits prefer little folk to little people. Where is your Slashdot-Enhanced Political Correctness?

Oh, wait... you were referring to the starving taiwanese children that assemble the cases and run the printers for the album inserts?

Re:The little guy gets paid?

[Anonymous Coward]

Artists : Since only half of the 2 billion tracks you distributed were authorized we are suing you under DMCA for $150,000 per track. That'll be 150 trillion
dollars please.

RIAA : Whaaaaaaa?

Re:The little guy gets paid?

[gcaseye6677]

I highly doubt the record labels will pay out twice. They'll say something along the lines of "We're not paying you twice, if you don't like it, sue us." We can all imagine just how much of a chance an artist has at prevailing in a suit against the well funded RIAA.

Re:The little guy gets paid?

[Sumocide]

Probably the opposite. The publisher, which is usually inhouse or a subsidiary of record companies, bills twice and thus the artist's share shrinks.

Re:The little guy gets paid?

[lucabrasi999]

But, you and all the corporate bashers just don't get it.

I'm not a corporate basher. I do work for a Fortune 100 company, and, for the most part, I am proud of it. The Big Record companies, on the other hand, are filled greedy bastards that steal from both the music listener and the music creator. They are filled with Publicists, Publishers, Lawyers, Administrative Assistants, Makeup Artists, Video Producers, Marketing Assistants, and various, useless people that don't have anything to do with creating music.

There is nothing wrong with Record Companies making a profit, but they should give MOST of the profit to the songwriter that created ths song. Instead, the money ends up in the hands of the hacks I describe above.

Re:The little guy gets paid?

[Shajenko42]

The Big Record companies, on the other hand, are filled greedy bastards that steal from both the music listener and the music creator. They are filled with Publicists, Publishers, Lawyers, Administrative Assistants, Makeup Artists, Video Producers, Marketing Assistants, and various, useless people that don't have anything to do with creating music.

Don't forget telephone cleaners!

Re:The little guy gets paid?

[Blue Stone]

That's one of the things I don't understand about this: the small music publishers are barred under anti-trust law from acting collectively, but the record labels are permitted to do so.

And this is the collective that pounds us with their propaganda and their price-fixing, and all.

Re:The little guy gets paid?

[oregonnerd]

The true problem with copy protection schemes for audio is that it can be circumvented by simply recording .wav files. At one point I had a tape deck for transport of analog audio files to cd; using an old-fashioned receiver with a monitor slot allows this--and the reverse. DRM in this medium only prevents the lazy and uninformed...although in the AV medium sidestepping copy protection schemes would seem to be a bit more difficult.

Let me quote Nelson Muntz,

[IvyMike]

Ha-Ha!

Re:Let me quote Nelson Muntz,

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh Nelson, always the voice of reason when compared to the ??AA

Re:Let me quote Nelson Muntz,

[Dr. Photo]

Nelson: Ah, le mot juste!

Re:Let me quote Nelson Muntz,

[Dr. Photo]

Ah, the good word? Or should that be translated as the right word?

While we did sometimes watch French cartoons, even the Simpsons translated into French in class, I really don't remember him having had his catchphrase translated into something that ... wussy.

At least they didn't make it "I surrender" or something... ;)

No, no. In a recent season of the English language Simpsons, there's an episode in which Nelson actually says the above in response to a retort by Bart. It's completely out of character, sort of like when Homer says something hillariously smart (e.g. "Young lady, in this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!")

let me be the first to say...

[wo1verin3]

(or maybe second)

That wow, that sucks eh? Having to pay more to ship your product? Poor little labels.... spending money to infringe on customers fair use rights didn't work out for you? *light punch in arm* Aw com'on slugger, it'll be okay.

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

[Metallic Matty]

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.

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

[Condor7]

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

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

[wo1verin3]

I don't recall any of the little labels using any sort of archaic and non-functional DRM type protection methods.

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...

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

[Suppafly]

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.

No, that is not correct. They turned a blind eye to it, because there is legal precident that fair use trumps any complaints they would have had. That is why they put copy protections on cds to try and keep people from doing this casual copying that they are legally allowed to do.

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

[nathanh]

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.

That's right, you've made an incorrect assertion.

If you are talking about the try then buy "right"

And another one.

Fair use rights means the right to use your legally purchased goods however you see fit. That's why it's called fair (as in unobstructed) use (as in application).

If I buy a pair of scissors then I have the fair use rights to use those scissors to cut paper, or cloth, or as a substitute screwdriver. They're my scissors. How I use those scissors is nobody's business but my own.

When I buy a CD I also have these fair use rights. I can listen to the music in my car. Or my house. Or on a portable player. I can use it as background music while I wash the dishes, or play it loud and throw my arms around like a pretend conductor. I can use that CD as I see fit.

And this includes using the music on that CD in ways that the seller did not intend. That includes using it on a portable MP3 player, or in a compilation disc for my car. My fair use rights gives me that permission.

DRM takes away my fair use rights because it unfairly stops me using the music in perfectly legitimate ways. DRM is an obstruction to my usage of the CD and the music. That's why it's not fair.

So when you equate "fair use" with piracy and illegal copying, you are incorrect. Fair use has nothing to do with piracy. It has everything to do with fair use of the goods you have already paid for.

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

[DA-MAN]

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.

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

[gnu-generation-one]

"First off, they aren't paying for anything, people who buy music are"

How so? They pay to record it. They pay to play it on the radio, they pay people to do the DRM, they pay people to sue the people who buy the music. They pay to press the CD, package it, transport it, and pay for people to run the shop.

Then we wander in, see the "this will cripple your AppleMac" sticker on the CD, and wander out again. Or we buy the CD, discover some proprietry windows-onlys stuff we can't play (maybe even the whole CD) and take it back for a full refund before calling Trading Standards.

So then who's paid for the music?

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

[dickiedoodles]

"Is greed a sufficient justification to deprive these folks of what they are due from their creations?"

Record labels don't seem to have a problem with doing it

"please explain to me how it is depriving them of what revenues they can generate demonstrates aawareness of or support for their plight?"

Do you think that Itunes and anything similar would have happened if people hadn't downloaded pirated music? I think the record industry was a bit to comfortable in its position of being able to shove a whole album down our throats if we wanted 3 songs to do anything that might risk it's ability to screw us over.

When a decent legal music download service is available in the UK I'll get whatever I can off that and whatever I can't off kazaa but until then I'll pirate what I want.

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

[i_r_sensitive]

If you buy scissors you don't have the right to remove my eyes with them. Just buying an item is not carte blanche. (allthough perhaps you would like to...)

Reasonable use rights cease to be a right when they infringe on others rights. Which is exactly what happens when you unlawfully copy and distribute copyrighted materials. Your reasonable use right is being used an excuse to trample the rights of the copyright holder to their creations.

Put it another way, your defintion of reasonable use means that if I paid for a GPL program means I can do whatever I want with it, include modify and sell it again without abiding by the restrictions of the GPL on such activity.

Okay, if that's what you want to happen to the code you create....

Both are property, you can't support a devlopers rights to his property while obviating the rights of labels, composers and lyricists to theirs.

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

[dickiedoodles]

Itunes is different, Apple meets your obligations for you, and you pay for Apple to do so, and get you music in a convenient format. This isn't the same as you doing it for yourself, without permission."

My point was that Itunes wouldn't have happened if we'd all played by the rules, what would they (record labels) have to gain? Maybe this is a case of 2 wrongs making at least half a right, it's a nice saying but I don't think it's always true.

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

[VertigoAce]

So why exactly is making a digital copy of a CD I purchased a crime? I have never distributed copies of music, nor do I download music illegally. The record labels have decided that everyone who encodes tracks in mp3 does it with the intent to distribute them, so they make this encoding a criminal act (through trivial DRM combined with the DMCA).

I've got a better idea: why don't we ban computers? That would get rid of the online distribution of music (assuming complete enforcement of the ban). Well, we don't because there are legitimate uses for computers, just as there are legitimate uses for compressed music.

You're GPL example is flawed. I can do whatever I want with the code as long as it doesn't violate other laws (such as copyright). You can do the same with scissors. But you cannot do that with a CD (by the DMCA which criminalizes technology that could potentially be used to violate copyright). Similarly I can't legally watch a DVD under Linux in the United States. I own the DVD, I own players for other OS's, but that doesn't matter. How is it violating an artist's rights for me to watch it on one computer rather than another?

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

[nathanh]

If you buy scissors you don't have the right to remove my eyes with them. Just buying an item is not carte blanche. (allthough perhaps you would like to...)

So you're accusing me of being a psychopath.

Wow. I'm impressed.

Reasonable use rights cease to be a right when they infringe on others rights.

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.

Which is exactly what happens when you unlawfully copy and distribute copyrighted materials. Your reasonable use right is being used an excuse to trample the rights of the copyright holder to their creations.

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.

Put it another way, your defintion of reasonable use means that if I paid for a GPL program means I can do whatever I want with it, include modify and sell it again without abiding by the restrictions of the GPL on such activity.

#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.

Both are property, you can't support a devlopers rights to his property while obviating the rights of labels, composers and lyricists to theirs.

And for the third time, fair use has nothing to do with obviating the rights of anybody else.

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

[unitron]

"...Back in the tape to tape or CD to tape days ...The music industry turned a bit of a blind eye to the whole affair..."

Except perhaps for that whole "we deserve a cut from every sale of blank tape" thing?

Well, actually it was more like in the phonograph record (or FM radio) to tape days, but they were still looking for the government to help them screw everybody.

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

[shark72]

I differ with you on one major point... in the phrase "fair use", "fair" is not synonymous with "unobstructed" as you state.

With copyrighted material, the owner's rights typically supercede yours. If the rightsholder wants to distribute a game only in copy-protected format, or with a serial dongle, that is their prerogative. Likewise, if a musician wants to release a CD with digital rights management, or an author wants to publish only in Esperanto, that's their choice.

You won't find the phrase "fair use rights" in US Copyright Law. There's a section on fair use, which I think every slashdotter should read if they haven't, but I think some people over-interpret it. Fair use doctrine states that there are several ways that you can copy a copyrighted work and not be liable (such as for educational purposes), but it's not a blanket that gives you the right to do whatever it takes to make that copy. For example, the existence of the "fair use" section in the law and the fact that making a copy of a CD for your car would not expose you to liability does not equate to a guaranteed legal right to a CD without copy protection or other DRM. The right to make the call on whether to produce a CD with DRM or not lies exclusively with the rightsholders.

Digital Rights Management systems generally exist because the honor system doesn't work on a macro scale. Luckily enough for the public at large, DRM is ultimately driven by the buying power of the audience. CD-based DRM, particularly the kind which prevents me from playing originals in my Pathfinder's CD player, is utterly retarded and I am sure that the free market economy will eventually kill it. Easy-to-live-with DRM, like that provided by Apple's iTunes Music Store, is something that we can more easily cope with and will likely thrive.

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

[nathanh]

Fair use rights means the right to use your legally purchased goods however you see fit

Wrong. In this (US) context, "fair use" refers to a set of allowed exceptions to copyright law.

No, I'm not wrong, I'm just not very good at expressing myself. Though I thought it was pretty clear from the rest of my post that I was talking about making copies for the purposes of backups, time-shifting, space-shifting, etc. My examples were all different situations where you're allowed to make copies. The way you have quoted me makes it seem like I'm advocating actions other than copying for personal use. eg, copying for resale or copying for public display. That's not what I was trying to say.

That sentence of mine is admittedly slack in that it's misleading in isolation. Chalk that up to my inability to write clearly. But read the same sentence in the context of the entire post and I don't see how you could think I was talking about anything else.

Fair use has nothing to do with your use of your original copy, but rather the circumstances under which you are allowed to make a copy without license from the copyright owner.

Ok, that's very literal, so I'm guessing you work with computers all day just like I do :-) But ask yourself, if those rights really have nothing to do with "use", then why is the phrase "Fair Use" as opposed to "Fair Copying" or "Fair Exemptions". I think it's because these limited exceptions to copyright are considered necessary to use the information.

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

[jred]

I'm an emusic customer. I like music from small labels, and that's what they mostly have. Their original unlimited plan was cool, but I always felt guilty about it. 40 tracks for $10 is still a good deal.

Anyway, while looking around, I saw a few albums by a local band (Pezz from Memphis, if you care). Being a dad, I rarely get out, so I downloaded them & enjoyed. Later I ran into one of the guys from Pezz & told him about it. I was really wondering if a) they knew about it, and b) if they made any money from it.

He said he didn't know about it, and definitely hadn't seen any money. He then said that when they signed with the label, they spent a bunch of money on the band & promotion, but all the albums tanked. He hoped they made some of their money back. (note that just previous to these releases, Pezz enjoyed moderate success in the underground music scene).

I think the big difference is attitude. I know quite a few "indie" musicians, and I don't know of any that would get upset about something like two formats on the same CD. They mostly care about people enjoying their music & getting to travel around & play in different places. The exception is one guy who's an aspiring "rock star".

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

[nathanh]

I differ with you on one major point... in the phrase "fair use", "fair" is not synonymous with "unobstructed" as you state.

Yes, it seems that I did a really bad job of explaining myself. The anon coward before you did a better job of saying what I meant to say, even if I personally didn't come close.

I think my second attempt (in response to ir_sensitive) is a little better.

CD-based DRM, particularly the kind which prevents me from playing originals in my Pathfinder's CD player, is utterly retarded and I am sure that the free market economy will eventually kill it.

Bear in mind that nothing about copyright is truly a free market, because the existence of copyright is dependent on government intervention. A truly free market for information would permit unfettered copying by any party. Though I don't advocate a truly free market because I think it would discourage authors and artists from publishing their work in the first place.

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

[HPNpilot]

Let me give you an example and you tell me what you think I should do. I recently bought a whole series of DVDs for my kids for the holidays. Lots of Disney DVDs. Bought them retail, and online. They open them, pop them in the player, and they are all messed up. So I contact the Disney help line and they tell me my old Sony TV will not be able to play them because the Macrovision interferes with it. They tell me I must buy a newer TV. I reply that the TV is fine and I would rather return the DVDs and they tell me they cannot do that and I must go back to the store. The store tells me "No returns if opened." So, I bought movies which do not work. They do not say they will only work on some TVs, they do not even say they have Macrovision on them. But I am out well over a hundred bucks and have some mighty disappointed kids. So. Do I have the right to get a Macrovision-removal box and watch the movies I paid for? Or is it, "tough luck, sucker?" Or should they provide me with VHS replacements? (They refused this option also) Remember, I have absolutely no intention of making copies, all I want to do is use the product which I paid for. Tell me your answer and I will tell you what I did, and the results of that decision.

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

[Josuah]

l_r_sensitive's point was that your original post seemed to imply that your interpretation of fair use rights had no limit. Which is also the way I read it. Your second post (the parent of this post) makes it clear that you didn't mean fair use rights are limitless.

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

[srleffler]

Stores legally must accept returns of defective merchandise. If the DVD won't play on your TV, it is defective. They are free to replace the defective DVD with another DVD of the same movie, but if that is defective too you are free to return it as well. Keep going until you run through their entire stock or they give in and give you your money back.

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

[ppanon]

If you buy scissors you don't have the right to remove my eyes with them.

Nope but he does have the right to all sorts of other things, including running with said scissors. I don't remember hin advocating cutting the CDs into shurikens for throwing into your eyes, just using the music as he pleases for his own use. And unless he owns a set of speakers once used during a Disaster Area concert, it's unlikely to physically or monetarily harm either you or the authors,

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

[nathanh]

l_r_sensitive's point was that your original post seemed to imply that your interpretation of fair use rights had no limit. Which is also the way I read it.

Yeah, two other people said the same thing, so I went back and read it and I have to agree it was very poorly worded. I would have thought the same thing if I hadn't written it myself. My intention wasn't to say the rights were limitless, but that certain copying rights are granted because they're necessary for fair use.

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

[sethx9]

I'm gonna guess Disney's battalion of attorneys would be able to make the arguement that the DVDs are in no way defective because the DVDs are in fact not defective; they simply won't play on your television.

I'm gonna guess too that "their entire stock" of DVDs is far greater than the average consumer's patience and free time.

Solution? Keep your eye out for other parents who might be in the market for the DVDs you bought. Make sure you tell them they won't play on a Sony tv. If they're in good condition you should be able to get near to what you paid for them and whatever money you don't get back will be payment for a quick lesson in "buyer beware".

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

[AK Marc]

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?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

It doesn't

Now, please answer this, why are you supporting the **AA's stance that it should be illegal to perform a (as in one and only one) backup of media as explicitly legal under copyright law? Why are you supporting the **AA's stance that it should be illegal to transcode one and only one copy for more convenient use, despite protection under copyright law?

Bottom line, we have the explicit right to make a personal copy for personal use, and the **AA is trying to (or has already has) make it illegal to do it. Their reasons are irrelevant to the fact that they are trying to restrict what I do on a non-networked computer in order to use the item I bought in accordance with long established law. It is the reductions on my rights to fair use on my property that I own that I object to.

Or, to put it another way, would you prevent someone from all free speech because it is possible to misuse it to yell fire in a crowded theater? Or would you just make the one undesired action illegal and allow all others? If you would arrest anyone that ever speaks in public because it is possible that they could misuse that right, then you agree with the premise of the **AA. If you would allow everyone to have free speech, then take actions against those that misuse that right, then you disagree with the premise of the **AA. Which is it?

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

[jani]

People may also want to check out article 10 of the Berne Convention, entitled "Fair Use".

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

[i_r_sensitive]

Two words about the DMCA, is it good legislation, I don't necessarily think so. It is a reaction to the perceived abuse by people of their rights to digital media. Hey my point is 2 wrongs != 1 right. Same applies to DMCA, it is fundamentally flawed because of this.

But, the DMCA is evidence of what my central thrust when the topic drifts to RIAA. You may not like RIAA for whatever reason. Fine, but if your method of protesting to RIAA is by unlawfully copying and distributing their property, than you are part and parcel of the existence of the DMCA.

If you want to get pissed off at RIAA, let's get pissed off for the rigth reasons. DMCA and their part in it is deplorable yes, but so was the unlawful ditribution that was going on, and one more step back has us all finding the "central" problems of the issue (or at least central rationalizations) which generally work out to cost, limited selection, or what-have-you.

The base problem exists and needs to be addressed. No argument, but if it is addressed by unlawfully distributing RIAA member property, it does not result in a change in RIAA policy for the better, rather a response in kind. DMCA no more combats the problem than unlawful distribution did.

Even if you buy your music legitimately, and don't make unlawful copies and distribute them, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM. If you deplore the DMCA, which apparently you do, why are you tacitly supporting it with yuour dollars, way to go! You further add to the problem by clouding the issue with your post.

If you have such a problem with DMCA, perhaps you might start by recognizing what DMCA was, a reaction, and what was it reacting to... ...very good. None of which is here or there, the problem, all of us agree (albeit for very different reasons) is RIAA. My thesis all along has been that if you want to strike back at RIAA, you do it with your wallet. You don't buy music what supports RIAA, period, end of discussion, nothing else sends a clear message.

So, let me state this unequivocally, one last time.

The problem is RIAA. But, almost none of us are helping to make the problem better. If you buy your music from RIAA members you are tacitly supporting them with your money, and you are part and parcel of the problem. If you then take that material and unlawfully copy and distribute it, regardless of your reason, you are part and parcel of the problem.

So, you may not like all my content, but friend, I haven't bought music in the last 7 years where a single cent went to RIAA. I don't support artists who sign with RIAA memeber orgnaizations. I very clearly do not support RIAA. When I ask all of you to question your actions, and opinions about this shite, I do so fromt he position of one who in no way or shape supports RIAA. But I don't confuse my antipathy to RIAA with a relaxation of my standards of conduct regarding their property, I confine my displays of antipathy to those which do not cloud the issue. Too even obtain an unlawful copy of RIAA material, I feel would compromise my position. It would send the statement to RIAA that I do value their property, and therfore justify their position and excesses. By not doing so, I send a clear message, one that I would hope more of you would consider sending.

You yourself, what message are you sending to RIAA? Your text tells RIAA two things, without even reading my posts: 1) You bought music legally, probably through one of their member orgs, thus financially supporting their position. 2) That you object to provisions of the DMCA, and that perhaps this is a reaction to someone defending RIAA or the DMCA. Which do you think matters to RIAA? By common consensus, the money you donated to their cause.

I on the other hand do not support RIAA financially, even my posts which folk seem to think "support" RIAA are really a plea for everyone who wants RIAA dead and gone to reconsider their actions. Who should RIAA fear more, you who supports them financially, thus

two for the price of one?

[Matey-O]

The labels are thus selling two copies of each song, and may be required to pay twice as much to music publishers.

Only if the people involved are idiots...oh...nevermind.

what about crappy bands?

[Savatte]

Are you getting a worse deal with the addition of wma files?

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.

Re:Canadian Artists

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not too bright are you?

Re:Canadian Artists

[lucabrasi999]

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

Sounds like bad news for the Canucks. Does anyone know how it's going in Soviet Russia?

Re:Canadian Artists

[Trigun]

Still cold. It'll be damned cold tomorrow, but still no chance of Hell freezing over.

Re:Canadian Artists

[i_r_sensitive]

Every Candian Band that has received a SOCAN grant since the CD-R tax started is living proof of the fallacy of that statement.

No, you are correct, the monies are not paid directly to the artists, but rather to SOCAN, which then uses those monies for grants, etc. etc. A little of what you recorded now going to the artists of tomorrow, but the money does go to the artists. I also believe that some of that money is distributed to SOCAN members as royalty payments as well, but I'm not 100% on that one.

Re:Canadian Artists

[Dimensio]

If I'm not mistaken, we in the US have to pay a royalty tax on CD-R media as well -- it's not quite the level of extortion that exists in Canada, but it's still there. I have two questions.

Could Canadians mail-order CD-R media (or other products subject to the extortion fee set up by the criminal recording outfit) from the US to bypass this tax that has been implemented by crooked politicians?

Because we're paying money to the recording industry -- both in the US and in Canada -- and not receiving any content from them when we purchase CD-R media, are we entitled to free music downloads? I've justified quite a bit of my MP3 downloading based on the fact that the RIAA has already gotten my money from CD-R purchases, and I'm just taking content for it now.

Re:Canadian Artists

[operagost]

In the US, we only pay royalties on CD-R media labeled as "Audio CD-R". Stand alone CD-Recorders usually work only with the special Audio CD-R media, but other than that you're free to "cheat".

Re:Canadian Artists

[schon]

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

Not true.

Most of the money ($28M) collected for 2000 and 2001 has been distributed, with 66% of it going to songwriters, and ~19% going to musicians/singers. (The remaining ~15% went to record labels.) They say they should have a good start on distributing the money collected for 2002 ($26M).

Re:Canadian Artists

[schon]

This page addresses most of your questions and misunderstandings.

Re:Canadian Artists

[i_r_sensitive]

Canadians could mail order appropriate media, but I suspect it would be held at the border until all applicable duties and taxes were paid... That may or may not include the levy...

The problem with your rationale is this. How does RIAA know what songs you put on those media. How does the royalty get distributed to the correct party? Secondly, the levy is probably based on reasonable volume under CD-format, not a filesystem full of MP3s, so the levy actually under-represents the number of royalties lost. That I wouldn;t worry about, but remember, those songs you downloaded, you like those artists, right? So where in the train of events that you followed did they get their just reward?

If everyone wants to believe the worst about RIAA, I'd start with that levy, and how it is spent. Your reasoning might even be acceptable to RIAA, depending on how unscrupulously they are using the levy revenues...

In the end, there is no better way to end RIAA abuses than to boycott RIAA member products, this boycott would have to be global, not just boycotting the buying of RIAA member material, boycotting the onwership as well. That is a message, if you simply boycott the buying, you confus the message, in that you give RIAA proof that their property is valuable, valuable enough for you to risk legal prosecution. So the message is that the material is valuable to the public, and that is as much as RIAA analyzes it. If anything obtaining unlawful copies encourages RIAA to further raise prices, and not commit to improving the product brought to the table, since you are showing them what they have is so valuable you'll risk prosecution to get it.

Re:Canadian Artists

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

i live in las vegas you insensitive asshole.

I am constantly reminded of Celine Dion.

Re:Canadian Artists

[clarkc3]

Thats very similar to where I work - where we collect and distrubte the state surcharge on hospital bills to cover indigent care. Even now, we still issue checks for services offered in 2000, 2001, etc. The intrest helps the state pay for the administration of our department

So much for...

[Unnngh!]

...the lowered CD prices some of the labels came out with a few months back. But, this should shed some light on the issue of copyright protection and the nature of digitally transferred music. After all, if I'm only downloading 1's and 0's, this is pretty different from the original that was copied. Same goes for the labels in this case; doesn't seem right for them to have to pay royalties for different versions of the same content.

Re:So much for...

[ericdano]

Yeah! Lower the price, and people will buy them. Seriously. It's not rocket science. Why spend all that money on copy protection when people are still going to be able to circumvent it.

Make the product cheap, and people will buy it. Simple.

Re:So much for...

[mobiux]

If they shouldn't have to pay for royalties, then why do I have to rebuy my music when they come out with a new format.

I should get free CD's of all my old cassette's, LP's and 8 tracks.

To quote Tommy Lee Jones,
"this means I have to buy the White Album again"

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Of course you know what will happen next...

[Cherveny]

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."

Re:Of course you know what will happen next...

[i_r_sensitive]

Nor would they be strictly wrong to do so.

Consider, this is the law of unintended consequnces, right? Well if this issue is the unintended consequence, what was the intended consequence, oh yeah, to try and curb internet piracy, which consequence was desirable because... ...riiight.

You are precisely right, that is what they will say, and they will continue their campaign for legislation, and maybe one day they will get it.

Like I've repeatedly said, RIAA views this (not entirely incorrectly) as a piracy issue. They will prosecute it as such until things change. This is a natural response to protect their revenue streams from disruption. No-one can deny that a unlawful copying and distribution occur. All we are seeing is some of the fallout of RIAA attempts to plug the dyke. This isn't even a problem for RIAA, they'll just pass the cost along. So how exactly did the protest by unlawful copying and distribution lobby help thi situation to come about. Are they doing anything to help change RIAAs perception of the problem? I suggest not. Rather programs like MUTE are adding gas to the fire. Those developers are expressing a shocking disregard for the rights of other people to their own created works. Really, are they bound to provide a program which let's a user otherwise incapable of carrying on such activites anonymously the ability to? Especially in the knowledge of the potential abuses? None of these people would make a program (I hope) which facilitated the stealing of code from FOSS projects. So because you write software you are entitled to help idiots obviate the rights of music writers?

Bottom line, don't expect RIAA to stop reacting until the stimulus is removed. Not even then, y'all have jammed that hat pin in pretty deep, and continuing to poke and prod with projects like MUTE isn't helping to resolve this issue.

In other news...

[JoeLinux]

...RIAA is hung by their own batard by Record Labels. Hillary Rosen is seen being burned at the stake as a bit...er...witch, while iPod-Lugging geeks worldwide chant "burn, baby, burn".

Hey, a man can dream, can't he?

Joe

Re:In other news...

[GigsVT]

Yeah, fuck those batards!

Did you mean something like "hoisted by their own petard"?

Re:In other news...

[CFBMoo1]

burned at the stake as a bit...er...witch,

How do you know she is a witch?

Re:In other news...

[wynlyndd]

umm...see if she floats?

Re:In other news...

[Dashing Leech]

Or see if she weighs the same as a duck. Come to think of it, I prefer the thought of throwing her in a lake and seeing if she floats.

Re:In other news...

[Satan Dumpling]

She turned me into a newt!

Re:In other news...

[escher]

I'm bettin' she's made of wood.

Re:In other news...

[DogRobber]

I believe you ment "hung by their own Petard." Petard == a necktie while
Batard == a type of bread, I believe.

Re:In other news...

[ruprechtjones]

Small rocks?

Re:In other news...

[Jerf]

Keep trying.

Re:In other news...

[CFBMoo1]

A newt?

Re:In other news...

[Satan Dumpling]

I got better ...

Lame

[BLAMM!]

Seems like a lame charge, but no lamer than the copy protection shenanigans.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but do two lames?

Re:Lame

[Anonymous Coward]

make an mp6?

Re:Lame

[jrockway]

The subject of this post ain't relevent! LAME Ain't an MP3 Encoder, ya know!

Costs to Consumers

[Alternate Interior]

If the labels pay 2x, does that mean the costs of CDs will be going back up?

Re:Costs to Consumers

[st0rmshadow]

I never really saw them come down too much around here.

Re:Costs to Consumers

[sTalking_Goat]

does that mean the costs of CDs will be going back up?

I wasn't aware that they had ever gone down.

Re:Costs to Consumers

[Alternate Interior]

It seems like most fell from ~ $15 down to $10 at BestBuy (nationwide, as far as I know)

Re:Costs to Consumers

[bechthros]

Well, it's been said, but it bears repeating:

when VHS movies were first available for sale, they were like $80. 20 years later, they are now about $5.

When DVDs were first available for sale, they were about $50. Five years later, they are now about $15.

when CDs were first available for sale, they were about $18.99. 20 years later, they are... $18.99. And the RIAA and major labels have all been found guilty in US courts of price-fixing, multiple times.

Look, simply put, if there were no shoplifting, you can bet that pack of gum would cost $10. If you couldn't go to friends or family for a loan of money, you can bet the interest rates charged by banks on those same loans would skyrocket. Capitalism works best when there's just enough alternatives for the consumer to keep the merchants honest. Obtaining the goods without paying the merchant is an alternative for the consumer. Really, it is the logical extension of consumerism - what could possibly be morally wrong about wanting the best deal possible? The greed of the consumer balances out the greed of the merchant. Checks and balances. Sounds American to me.

CD=$18 for 72 minutes of 44.1 kHz 16 bit audio only, presumably up to $36 under this new claptrap

DVD=$5-$20 for over 90 minutes (usually) of mpeg-2 video PLUS 24bit 96kHz audio, PLUS extra footage, PLUS theatrical trailers, PLUS whatever else they can fit on the disc

No, there's no discrepancy here, move along folks, nothing to see here, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

And besides, I know the record companies aren't paying the artist. I know because many of my friends are on these receord labels and get sued way more often then they get paid. So why should I pay the record companies? So they can continue mistreating their workers? If I keep giving them my business they'll have no incentive to change. I fully support record labels that treat their artists fairly with my cash - I have downloaded zero songs from dischord records. If the record companies want my business that's great, all they have to do is stop gouging me on CD prices (like they've already been ordered to do by the govt)and stop litigating against my friends.

Re:Costs to Consumers

[harlows_monkeys]

Well, it's been said, but it bears repeating:

when VHS movies were first available for sale, they were like $80. 20 years later, they are now about $5.

When DVDs were first available for sale, they were about $50. Five years later, they are now about $15.

when CDs were first available for sale, they were about $18.99. 20 years later, they are... $18.99

Video tapes and DVDs were priced taking into account the rental market. Often the $80 tape was released first, and then a few months later was followed by the cheap tape, the idea being that the video rental stores would want to buy right away, even at $80, and then after rentals died off, consumers would buy the cheap tape.

This does not apply to CDs for the simple reason that there isn't a CD rental market.

Re:Costs to Consumers

[PReDiToR]

No, it just means they can justify not dropping the prices, after all, now we're getting twice as much for our money, aren't we?

Re:Costs to Consumers

[anethema]

ceeee...deeees..

OH you mean those shiny things mp3s come on?

Re:Costs to Consumers

[swv3752]

Yes there is. It is called the Public Library.

Re:Costs to Consumers

[pod]

when CDs were first available for sale, they were about $18.99. 20 years later, they are... $18.99.

Right, because in the last 20 years the rate of inflation has been 0, and $20 still goes as far as it did 20 years ago.

No problem

[mao che minh]

The record industry will just price-fix in the added costs, problem solved.

A silly proposition

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:A silly proposition

[Anonymous Coward]

i expect the best new county from metallica, a country band that's in denial (keeps calling its self metal)
oh, and i expect a well funded bunch of lawers too.

Re:A silly proposition

[Aldric]

I don't know if I would go so far as to call Metallica artists...

THAT'S OK!!

[Anonymous Coward]

They can just pass the cost on to the consumer. Problem solved!

Muhahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!

[JRHelgeson]

They've underrmined their own authority by means of their own greeed!

They've made their bed, and now they're finding they don't want to sleep in it?

Why, thats just awful...

Re:Muhahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!

[NanoGator]

"They've made their bed, and now they're finding they don't want to sleep in it?"

Or they're setting up a nasty problem. If the Record Companies have to pay for having two copies of a song on one disc, then they can claim that somebody who dupes their CDs to use in their cars are obligated to pay royalties to have those copies.

Though I'd be surprised if the RIAA was smart enough to think of something like that.

Re:Muhahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!

[nempo]

The difference is that the record companies actually sells the discs with two copies on them *gasp*.

Re:Muhahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!

[Reziac]

Great, now that you've told them... :)

Actually, one can envision such a scheme, where every time the CD finds itself being read, it queues up for micropayments, which you then find yourself paying via credit card. No sign up for microbilling, no get to listen to CD at all. Copying would be considered a form of "listening" for billing purposes.

(I think I'll go wash my brain out with soap now..)

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:FNORD

[sTalking_Goat]

I don't care what they switch too, at some point between the CD and my speakers the music will have to be decoded and when that happens I'll be there with patch wires and super High quality recording gear...

Re:FNORD

[lewp]

Which is why they're working on a DRM-enabled digital input for your skull.

Re:FNORD

[Have Blue]

The number of standalone CD players in the world is orders of magnitude greater than the number of PCs. It will be a very, very long time before that switch makes economic sense.

I'm Glad...

[Film11]

I'm glad this is the case. Anything that may slightly deter the record companies from more copy protection, and making them lose money for charging ridculous prices for tunes is good too. I hope the song writers do get double pay, some of them out there definitely deserve it!

Solution: CD with DRM Software

[G4from128k]

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.

Re:Solution: CD with DRM Software

[MikeXpop]

I'm sure my stereo will love that.

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:Solution: CD with DRM Software

[mabhatter654]

That's sort of what they do now. On protected CDs there are normal "fixed" tracks for CD players. When you put the CD in a PC, it can't read the broken CD tracks/ directory so it defaults to a copy of wma files. You typically have to hook up on the net to play them and get a "license" for your windows media player. But then you have offical copies [OK, they're loaded with DRM but that's a different issue].

This is classic of the industry shooting itself in the foot!!! That policy was a great concession by the labels to PC music loving folk. [Not that it's the best way, but it's a way to keep people from copying if you do it for them!!!] Of course as iTMS/iPods get bigger, you could see them adding ACC files instead [or perhaps both!]

This is absolutely stupid...and only show that the industry is way to fat for it's own good!!!

Re:Solution: CD with DRM Software

[El]

Why do they have to put copies of the tracks in both formats on the disk? Why not just include a program on the disk capable of converting CD audio to MP3/WMA/AAC/ogg/FLAC etc?

Re:Solution: CD with DRM Software

[mellon]

That's a little bit of a slur against the Amish - for better or for worse, their restrictions are carefully thought out, and never done as a full employment act that takes from one person and gives to another.

A better example might be a railway union lawyer, although personally I love trains and am sorry that so many railway jobs were lost over the course of the previous century.

Re:Solution: CD with DRM Software

[ScrewMaster]

Actually, that isn't all that far from the truth. Live musicians (or rather, their trade organizations) have fought new innovations with some regularity. For example, when string synthesizers first started becoming widely available in the mid-seventies, musicians' unions fought against them because they we're afraid that real violinists and cellists and so forth would lose their jobs.

Re:Solution: CD with DRM Software

[Gumshoe]

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?

Why can't they just provide the material in CDDA and leave those who wish to convert it to MP3/Vorbis/WMA/etc. well alone? I've bought their god damned CD! There's no way I'm bending over too -- I'm already kneeling down.

Re:Solution: CD with DRM Software

[Strenoth]

Hold down the shift key? you mean you haven't turned off the auto-run already?

Re:Solution: CD with DRM Software

[fulldecent]

The person who pointed out the shift key on the keyboard?

I don't see the problem...

[smack_attack]

They already charge twice as much as a CD is worth.

Redamndiculous

[happyfrogcow]

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.

Can't they just claim...

[Anonymous Coward]

The WMA's are provided as backups to the uncompressed music on CD. Therefore, we don't need to pay for a second copy, since the said second copy is a backup, that is granted for under normal personal use rights?

Re:Can't they just claim...

[Bagels]

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.

Re:Can't they just claim...

[Bagels]

But then there would be even *more* copies of the music, multiplying their original problem (because unless they're CD-Rs, the original WMAs on the CD will exist). At least two of those three copies would need royalties (in the eyes of the labels). Also, the RIAA must be more than a little wary about doing anything that encourages creating a new copy of a piece of music...

Poetic Justice

[KingDaddy'O]

REAP WHAT YOU SOW... INSTANT KHARMA... CHICKENS COME HOME TO ROOST...
OK enough already. I guess I just want to say, that this is the kind of news that puts a BIG ol' grin on my face. Don't get me wrong - I don't believe in stealing copyrighted material and screwing the artist (besides, as most of us know, the record companies already do a fine job in this respect).
It's just nice to see occasionally, that bullshit legislation can blow-up in the face of the almighty lobbylists and greed mongers.
Let's pray that this is the final straw that boots the record inductry off the cliff, and maybe even takes along the RIAA!!

I'd like to be optimist but ...

[IIEFreeMan]

I think that they will just charge the customer more. Or maybe they will just cancel the price reduction some labels granted us.

I see it coming :
Too bad but, see these greedy artists they want more of your money ! it's not our fault

That's ok

[freidog]

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?

Re:That's ok

[Film11]

You're probably right. Has anybody else noticed everyone seems to be blaming their problems on computers these days? Think about it, homework not due in: computer died, kid kills other kids: played too much doom, music sales drop: file-swapping

Re:That's ok

[NanoGator]

"the labels will just double the price of CDs and blame it on file swapping."

In order to thrwart piracy and prevent prices from going up, we will use anti-piracy measures and raise the cost of music.

Actually yes, I could see the record industry doing that, but no it won't happen. If they want me to buy DRM infested music, they will have to lower the price. Afterall, I can't do as much with it.

Re:That's ok

[Dalroth]

And then people will buy even less CDs and pirate more. When you're fighting everybody, you can't expect to get out of the fight without getting hurt.

Bryan

Re:That's ok

[dj245]

I sleep on a 2.5' bunkbed, in the upper bunk. I sleep with my back to the wall. I haven't bought a RIAA CD in 5 years and I only used Kazaa Lite for finding ebooks.

Yet my college campus blocked off Kazaa ports because of legal ramifications.

No matter what your precautions, you always get shafted.

Re:Sorry Lars....

[MrDiablerie]

Not all musicians make money like Lars...and the money that the big selling artists make go back to record companies to cover the losses of artists that don't sell (about 98% of the bands out there). Regardless, if you want music, pay for it. A little money going to the artist is better than none at all.

RIAA Cops currently recording their new album

[ThePretender]

This one comes with each song in six formats, all performed by the RIAA Rent-A-Cops. "We make money so you don't have to". Keepin' it in the the family.

No...

[Anonymous Coward]

But two limes can make a margarita. How 'bout we all just chill out and have a drink?

This Just In

[sirReal.83.]

the RIAA is now doubling the prices on all their albums to "recover costs."

Let me quote Ross Perot

[Texas Rose on Lava L]

If you take one cent, and double it, you get two cents.

Re:Let me quote Ross Perot

[ejaw5]

int cent = 1;
double double_cent = new double(cent);

System.out.println(double_cent);

Uh....I think it comes out to:
1.00000000000000000 cent

Re:Let me quote Ross Perot

[AlphaSector]

Actually, I believe that code wouldn't work because you start off with a int, and then use a double. You would get a "Loss of precision" error. Quite sorry, ;)

Re:Let me quote Ross Perot

[Dash-o-Salt]

Hmm, don't know what language you're using, but it looks like Java...except that in Java this would be the correct way to do it:

int cent = 1;
double twocent = 0;
twocent = cent;

System.out.println(twocent);

Would return: 1.0

Re:Let me quote Ross Perot

[binarytoaster]

Mm, last I checked, double was *more* precise than int, not less.

But using "new double(int)" could cause a memory leak since he's not declaring double*, instead he's declaring a full variable...

Contract specific to songs or album?

[skinny.net]

the independent contracts i've read (which is a big 3) specifically name 'the collection of works known hereafter as [The Album],...' which does not mention different audio formats. That album in one exact format is handled as one entity as a body of work. This would not include double royalties for .mp3 or .wma or any 'data' format. I don't know if ASCAP or artists' unions think differently on bigger labels.

Re:Yet another reason to not buy CD's

[amake]

For the billionth time, AAC is a standard! And you use it exactly as you would any other format, including MP3.

http://www.aac-audio.com/
http://www.apple.com/mpeg4/aac/

Here's what will happen

[pkinetics]

1. Records labels will pass on the cost to consumers.

2. CD prices will go up to an outrageous $30 per cd, even if there is no copy protection.

3. CD sales will plummet.

4. Record labels will blame the decrease on Napster, Kaaza and everything else.

5. Cycle will repeat again.

Re:Here's what will happen

[Crypto Gnome]

2. CD prices will go up to an outrageous $30 per cd, even if there is no copy protection.

Obviously you're An American, here in Australia CDs selling for $30 (and more) are nothing like on the endangered species list.

And no this is not just the "double album" CD sets, either.

Re:Here's what will happen

[El Volio]

Do you mean AUS $30? That's like $23 US, which is still a bit high but not too far past the common list price here of like USD $18-20.

Re:Here's what will happen

[Crypto Gnome]

As mentioned on another thread earlier this month.

The other day I stumbled across a recent-release "nothing special" (ie not "greatest hits, platinum edition, gold-plated, diamond encrusted") single-cd (ie as opposed to double or triple-cd sets) for AUD$39.95

That's $31.12 US, at todays price.

Way to rape your customers!

The RIAA Solution

[jmt9581]

There's a simple solution to this problem: we'll have the big five charge consumers twice the price of a DRM CD because they're getting twice the product.

How's that for added value?

Re:The RIAA Solution

[The One KEA]

IMO if CD prices were to suddenly double because the Big Five get it into their heads that they're selling twice as much music, it would likely hasten the fall of the Big Five even further.

Current CDs cost approx. $10-15 right now - could you imagine paying up to $30 for a CD which only used to be $15?

What might just happen

[phlack]

Is they'll abandon the idea entirely, and just go back to copyprotected CDs. Then they won't have to worry about the royalties, but will remain harder for the average joe to get their music that they paid for.

Not that it will really stop anyone determined to get the music, but might slow down the uninformed quite a bit from using these CDs in their cars, thus continuing to aggravate the masses.

The neat thing about this:

[grasshoppa]

Yes, the record companies will have to pay more ( which will become a higher consumer cost, mind you ), but what's really cool is if they don't play ball with the publishers, the publishers have the right to sue for "damages", which could be substanially more than the actual missing royalies.

Re:The neat thing about this:

[trezor]

Prolly mentioned allready but, here goes... $150,000 pr. song. Let's just assume that totals to 30 trillion dollars as a basic starting point.

We are using RIAA math, are'nt we?

Oh, that would be funny..

[msimm]

That would start an all out war. I don't know anyone who would have moral trouble with P2Ping a couple of songs off an album if the price point was much higher. Cable tv and audio recordings seem to be the two things that increase in price as the technologies become more and more common.

It's worse than that.

[JeanPaulBob]

It's one for the price of two!

Serves them right

[Junior J. Junior III]

HA-ha!

When will they learn

[rhetoric]

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.

Indeed! (and do pass the butter)

[tmoertel]

JoeLinux wrote:

RIAA is hung by their own batard . . .

Yes, so it would seem. First, they baked it, and then they hung themselves by it. Quite sad, really, as it is rather tasty: After all, if you're going to hang yourself from a loaf of crusty, delicious bread, you ought to at least have a taste before meeting your untimely demise.

Re:Indeed! (and do pass the butter)

[ScrewMaster]

Or, as Shakespeare originally penned it, "Hoist by his own petard" which can be colloquially translated as "screwed himself over."

So everything is a standard now

[Anonymous Coward]

For the billionth time, AAC is a standard

Most digital music players won't touch the things. Sure it is a "standard". But if you stretch the standard like that, the Commodore 64 graphic Koalapad format is a "standard" as well.

And you use it exactly as you would any other format, including MP3.

Except that it will hardly play anywhere compared to MP3, and the files are hard to use due to noxious DRM.

Re:So everything is a standard now

[ColdGrits]

"For the billionth time, AAC is a standard
Most digital music players won't touch the things"

Likewise most digital music players won't touch .ogg either, but that doesn't mean .ogg isn't a standard (nor does it mean .aac isn't a standard either).

Re:So everything is a standard now

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, there are more iPods out there than all the other portable compressed-audio players combined, so "most" players will play AAC.

AAC is the audio layer of MPEG4, just as MP3 came from... you guessed it, the audio layer of the previous MPEG standard. Five years from now, you will not see many AAC devices will outnumber MP3 devices. (In the HD-based portable player market, they already do, because there are more iPods out there than everything else combined.)

Re:So everything is a standard now

[amake]

DRM is not inherent in the AAC spec. I have thousands of AACs with nary a bit of DRM code on them, all ripped legally from my own CDs.

Re:So everything is a standard now

[Tintivilus]

Most digital music players won't touch the things...

Maybe you need a newer player -- even my cell phone plays AAC's.

Re:So everything is a standard now

[tkrotchko]

You are correct. AAC is a standard, but Apple has grafted on a proprietary DRM system called FairPlay.

The difference is non DRM AAC's are *.m4a, DRM AAC's are *.m4p.

Re:So everything is a standard now

[Xyde]

Yes it's a standard; it's part of the MPEG-4 standard. Just like MP3 is a standard, and just like MPEG-1 video and MPEG-2 video (DVD) are also standards.

By the way, most digital music players are iPods.

Re:So everything is a standard now

[harlows_monkeys]

Actually, there are more iPods out there than all the other portable compressed-audio players combined, so "most" players will play AAC

Incorrect--you've confused dollar sales with unit sales. Apple has about 30% of the units, but because iPods on average cost more than other players, they have more than half of the dollar value of the market.

Re:So everything is a standard now

[tepples]

there are more iPods out there than all the other portable compressed-audio players combined

Did you consider removable-media devices such as MiniDisc players and MP3 CD players?

Re:So everything is a standard now

[djneko]

Except, of course, only the AAC+Fairplay you purchase from iTMS has "noxious" DRM, the rest you encode on your own is MPEG-4 standard based audio, completely unencumbered.

Please check your facts.

Re:Yet another reason to not buy CD's

[cens0r]

And just like MP3 their are royalty payments involved in using it.

This is so unfair!

[rjelks]

How can the labels stay in business if they have to pay double royalties to the greedy artists. The artists are already getting a fat $0.50 for every $17.00 CD sold. First the record companies lost billions in sales to the evil pirates and now DRM is going to cost them more profits. Will the RIAA be able to afford their paratroopers now? What will this do to their lawsuits. This is a travesty of justice! Why oh why won't someone think of the children? - p.s. - HaHA! - nelson -

Re:This is so unfair!

[Coryoth]

Will the RIAA be able to afford their paratroopers now?

They seem to be able to afford them just fine:

RIAA adopts paramilitary garb for parking lot bust

Jedidiah.

Re:This is so unfair!

[Coryoth]

Opps. Sorry.

Linkage

Jedidiah.

How about SACD

[Anonymous Coward]

Some SACDs have two versions of the songs. One for normal CD players and one for SuperAudio players. Does this mean that they fall under the same double royality problem?

Didn't we all already know this?

[3seas]

That adding copy protection to things creates additional overhead and expense?

Re:Didn't we all already know this?

[catbutt]

Well, so does putting checkout lines at the grocery store, rather than relying on the honor system.

Re:Didn't we all already know this?

[beebware]

I've noticed a number of stores in the UK beginning to introduce an honour system. Basically, you are given a hand-held scanner which you (are meant to) scan your purchases with as you go round the store. Get to the checkout, hand over the scanner and your payment and just go (no need to unload, have it all scanned and repacked). Time spent at checkout: Around 1 minute. However, they do do random checks to make sure people aren't abusing it...

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:Not As Simple As That?

[The One KEA]

Your last comment about only being able to play one bit of music at a time isn't necessarily true. What about people with multiple soundcards, and a player app that can run in parallel and read two separate files (not necessarily from CD) and output them to different sound drivers?

Re:Not As Simple As That?

[Rude Turnip]

Your first comment about purchasing a license is incorrect. When you buy a CD, you are flat-out purchasing the physical media and the information encoded on it. You own it, but copyright laws says you cannot distribute copies. Never get lead into an argument about "licenses," because there are none at the consumer's level, period.

Re:Not As Simple As That?

[MoralHazard]

Your last comment about people with multiple soundcards and special player apps isn't necessarily true. Anybody with multiple sound cards and a player app that can run in parallel can already read a single file to two outputs at once.* The grandparent poster's point about not changing anything about how the music can actually be played stands.

* But since a CD isn't a file, audio tracks would have to be read by a cd player app and the files would have to be read by the OS after mounting the file system. Since you can't have two apps colliding with each other, each assuming that it exclusively controls the CD-ROM device (or failing on a "busy" response when called for), you can't read both the audio tracks and the data files at the same time. Although you could have two separate processes reading the files simultaneously. Or, you could write an abstraction layer that mediates multiple control requests to a CD-ROM device by creating multiple virtual CD-ROM devices, and then serializing the incoming read requests and passing them on to the physical device, kind of like a file system does--of course, this wouldn't be very useful without a CD-ROM device that can physically read and seek fast enough to still permit the virtual devices to be read in real time.

Re:Not As Simple As That?

[Empyrean9]

IANAL, so bear with me...

I'm not buying it either, and I agree with most of your assertions. In essence, the labels license music from an artist, and then sub-license it to consumers. The consumer can then make as many personal copies of the original as they like. The only stipulations relate to the distribution, broadcast, or public performance of the work in question. An artists royalties are proportional to the number of units sold (i.e. consumer licenses). Therefore, it would seem quite plausible that two copies of the same song could be construed as a single unit, provided they were sold to a one consumer as a single purchase item.

Re:Not As Simple As That?

[hugzz]

I just hope i'm alowed to sell one copy of the music, and keep the other for myself

Hmmm

[Kadagan AU]

If you're buying two copies, but only using one, doesn't that mean you have one to give away via an file sharing network? I mean, I rip all my CDs and use only one mp3 copy. So I've got a spare copy that I can give away, right?

Re:Yet another reason to not buy CD's

[sirReal.83.]

I'd personally use Ogg Vorbis. 99% of my collection is mp3, but Vorbis can give the same quality in smaller files. Plus there's no patent issues, and it's an open standard.

Bets on the outcome?

[Zocalo]

1. The Studios agree to pay up to the artists, then increase the price of the CDs to cover costs (plus a small additional margin).
2. More artists ask for their CDs to be "copy protected" so they can get more money.
3. More consumers get annoyed with CDs that won't play properly and do strange things to their computers.
4. More consumers stop buying CDs and switch to on-line alternatives, and not necessarily those with the RIAA "seal of approval".
5. All of the above.
6. The Studios realise that it was a bad idea and stop using copy protection.

I just don't see that last option being the one that happens at all and nothing good will come out of this.

And for the otherside of the coin, checkout this story at the Register. Here in the UK, where RIAA style lawsuits and hitsquads have yet to make their mark, CD sales have "rocketed" up 7.6% last year according to Music Week. Interesting tagline comment about how this might delay the UK launch of iTunes too.

Send in the RAC Stormtroopers!

[serutan]

This would officially make record companies the world's largest distributors of "pirated" tracks. Boy would I love to see an enforcement team from the Recording Artists Coalition sweep down on RIAA headquarters wearing police-style jackets and baseball caps with "RAC" emplazoned on them, demanding that all member record companies cough up years of unpaid royalties for these pirated tracks.

Re:WMA

[anakin876]

"WMA > MP3"
What, you mean WMA requires more space to produce the same quality track as MP3?
Or maybe it is bigger because of the digital rights encoding?
Or is it bloated just like everything else Microsoft makes.....filled with useless information and garbaget that no one has a use for?

or what?
If you are going to post flame bait or trolls, try to post something intelligent, and not Anonymously

I simply must say it.

[Perlguy]

HAhahahahahahahaaahaahaaaahahaaaa! Classic.

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?

Re:Let me see if I understand this...

[JeffTL]

I fail to see where any claims of music licensure on CD purchasing come from. *looks at recent Jimmy Buffett CD* Small copyright notice in the fine print. Nothing about licensure, so it's under standard copyright.

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:What about the lyrics?

[Potor]

usually when lyrics are printed, the booklet says something like "used by permission." this does not mean that nobody is getting screwed, but at least there is some sort of formal notification of rights being stated.

Re:What about the lyrics?

[poot_rootbeer]

Consider this: on almost every album since Sgt. Pepper, the record labels have included printed lyrics along with the album itself.

Almost none of the CDs I've bought in the past 5 years have included any lyrics.

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?

No, because there are two different types of copyright in play here.

The printed words are covered by mechanical copyright. The audio version is covered by phonorecording copyright. While the lyricist may/may not posess mech. copyright for the words they've written, the phono. copyright almost invariably belongs to the record label.

Re:What about the lyrics?

[orkysoft]

Shh! This is about computer stuff. It is different than normal stuff. More complex. See the new e-business patents.

Geez, don't you read Slashdot at all? ;-)

Re:What about the lyrics?

[kfg]

The printed words are covered by mechanical copyright.

You've gotten this backward. The audio recording is covered by mechanical royalties. No permission is needed, per se, to record and sell a song, simply a remission of royalties due who's maximum is set by law (assuming the song has already been recorded. First right to record is a right held by the author or his agent). You need to arrange a license, but that license cannot be refused and its terms are preset.

Hence the term "mechanical."

Performance of ip (such as walking down the street and whistling a tune) is clearly of a different class than copying a written work and a recording of such which may be traded commercially is again of a clearly different class. Hence the modern invention of mechanical rights for recorded performance.

When you buy a play script all you have done is purchase a book. Standard copyright for printed matter applies. You may read it, recite it to yourself. Copy it within your fair use. Resell it for whatever the market will bear, etc.

It's just a book.

When you perform a play you owe royalties per performance.

So for sheet music. It's just a book until you sing it.

The right to print and to sell that printed matter is strictly a matter of private contract.

(Now if you perform music during a play or movie things change again. There are no mechanical royalties for this. You pay what is called a "Sychronization Fee" which is strictly a matter of private contract. The soundtrack recording of that music, however, is subject to mechanical royalties. See, clear as mud. :) )

I'd add that virtually every record label also owns a publishing house, and if the music/lyric author is not aware of these issues he may find that he has assigned his copyright of the written work as well as the recorded one.

Always consult your own private lawyer, i.e. not even the one the label "recommends" to you.

KFG

Re:What about the lyrics?

[Lord Kano]

Where the fuck do you buy music? I haven't bought a CD that included lyrics in a decade.

LK

Re:What about the lyrics?

[tepples]

You pay what is called a "Sychronization Fee" which is strictly a matter of private contract.

How much do these typically cost? Or is it an "if you have to ask, you can't afford it" type deal?

Re:What about the lyrics?

[kfg]

If you are looking to use a U2 song to advertise your product on television, no, you can't afford it if you have to ask.

Nonetheless you have to ask.

You have to ask because "matter of private contract" means "subject to negotiation."

In all matters subject to negotiation there is no such thing as a typical cost. What's the "typical" price a publishing house pays for a book?

You see? If you're John Irving it's one price. If you're John Irving after a couple sales duds it's quite another. If you're John Humperdink who wrote a "great American novel" after work at the steel mill it's quite another again.

The same when it comes time to negotiate the movie rights for the book, or the rights to use a piece of music for that movie.

You have a lawyer and an agent. They have a lawyer and an agent. Your "people" argue and sooner or later you determine a price that you won't budge above and another that they won't budge below. If the ranges overlap you've got yourself a deal. You can take it for granted though that each side is trying to soak the other as hard as they can. If your people aren't as good as theirs you can end up paying millions more than you had to.

That's specifically why they won't just quote a price. Ya gotta haggle. :)

If you can't afford an agent and a lawyer to do the arguing, man, you really can't afford it. :)

As a general rule a contract matter such as this is not something you as an individual walk in off the street, ask the price of, and pay. Even if it were you'd still want the specific terms gone over by a lawyer and maybe have some of those terms changed. You just don't deal with IP at this level without legal counsel. They had legal counsel draw up a contract wholely and completely in [i]their[/i] benefit. To soak you. On purpose.

A lawyer is cheaper than the soaking. A lot cheaper, even given the rates lawyers charge. I know some people who lost the rights to their own band name simply because they didn't have a lawyer vet the managment contract. They were opening for Blue Oyster Cult, got a record deal, and lost every penny, as well as the right to make any more pennies.

They've got you by the short and curlys I'm afraid.

If you're a nonprofit looking to use a bit of obscure and unpopular music, well, the negotiations will likely set a fairly low price at reasonable terms at minimum legal fees. Maybe they'll even agree to "donate" it and take a tax write off of what they've been able to get out of someone else. For that matter if you represent a cause that someone rich and famous with a financially valuable piece of music feels strongly about you can very likely still get it donated. They get "payed" by the government for that too, and they know it. Boy do they know it. These are people who can often use a tax write off obtained at no actual personal expense.

So the "typical" cost is anywhere from millions up front and a royalty per performance, down to "donated" -- plus legal fees.

The exception to all of the above is if you're dealing with a "set" piece. One in which the music and movie/play are already associated. You don't have to go through all of that if you just want to put on a stage production of Little Shop of Horrors. The play and music are already conjoined at the hip and you do pretty much just ask the price, meekly accept their terms, sign the contract and pay it. It isn't a mechanical royalty per se, but it has the appearance of one because now you're dealing with a mass market product, not a "custom job."

KFG

Screwing the Artist

[lukior]

I actually do believe in "screwing the artist" as you put it. Not that I don't believe the artist deserve to be remunerated but I think they should receive money from live performances and merchandising. I believe that artists should be part of the working class like everyone else. The RIAA is no longer needed in my belief. I have a huge collection of music much of it gotten in ways that some might not approve of but I also attended more than 100 concerts last year. I paid thousands of dollars for music that actually went directly to the artists. I wouldn't have gone to many of the shows had it not been for .mp3's i had listened to earlier. I believe they need a whole different business artist that attempts to provide a living for many artists as opposed to riches for a few. Just my two cents.

Same for software companies....

[cheekyboy]

the little people always get shafted, while the CEOs and productmanagers get shit loads of cash.... for basically work which any programmer with 1/2 his brain running could do any way.

MOD PARENT UP.

[The One KEA]

That makes a lot of sense, actually.

Please fix your link...

[qtp]

My bookmark for that document is outdated and I'll be glad to have found it again. Thanks.

Room for error

[Shazow]

Heh they charge a LOT more than 40 cents, my friend. ;)

- shazow

Re:Room for error

[OutRigged]

You're forgetting the costs of recording equiptment, marketing promotions, etc..

Let's make that estimate 44 cents shall we?

Wgat will be the impact on consumers

[Crypto Gnome]

I hate to be such a downer, but if past performance is any indicator, these "additional costs" will be hoovered directly out of consumers bank-accounts.

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.

Re:Wgat will be the impact on consumers

[Jebediah21]

In fact some CD's don't even go much past 30 minutes!

Re:Wgat will be the impact on consumers

[OneFix at Work]

Not really...most albums are only ~35 minutes in length.

It's a simple breakdown...most songs are only about 3 minutes and some odd seconds long...lets say 3:45...

Most albums only have ~10 songs on them...

So, our 3:45 song on each track comes out to ~35 minutes. This leaves more than enough room for extra copies of the songs, music videos, etc...as a matter of fact, the band Offspring has a tendency to include music videos from the previous album in this extra space. It's actually very kewl when a specific artist/band that you like does this. It gives diehard fans high quality copies of videos...some they may have never seen...and as for casual listeners, it gives them a taste of the previous album, which can create new sales for old albums...

The ultimate reason why the 3 minute song is still used is because it makes the song easy to play on the radio...this is the reason that you don't hear Led Zeppelin's Stairway to Heaven on the radio very often...As for the 10 songs on an album, this comes from the old LP days...at the time, you could fit ~35 minutes on a single LP...

As for why they never increased the number of songs, it's because it would take even longer to make a new album and the result would ultimately cost more...so they've kept their old ~10 song limit...

Re:Wgat will be the impact on consumers

[poot_rootbeer]

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

Really? Very few CD's come anywhere near the 80-minute upper boundary of a standard compact disc. Most in my collection are 45-60 minutes in length; slightly longer than both sides of a standard LP of yore.

you received LESS MUSIC than you "normally/previously" would

This is only true if you consider every second of every piece of music to be equally valuable -- a claim which would be fallacious on its face. I'd rather buy 5 minutes of music by $band_I_like than a full hour by $band_I_hate.

Given this trend in the music industry, in the near future they'll be selling us Holographic Storage DISCs etc. etc. etc.

They may be selling... but will anyone be buying?

Re:Wgat will be the impact on consumers

[DraKKon]

No.. not really... how many cd's do you have that was Ffull to the brim with music goodness? average CD length is around 50 minutes.. If you notice, most of the american artists cd's sold in japan usually have bonus tracks that the US doesn't have to fill up more space... I don't know why that happens.. and I'm curious.. but now I'm OT.. The only CD I know for SURE that filled an 80 minute CD was Tool..

Re:Wgat will be the impact on consumers

[toddestan]

A lot of techno/electronic CDs fill up the entire thing. Otherwise, I don't know of many.

They could always use the stamped equivalent of those 99 minute CD-R's. Most newer CD players and computers can handle those just fine.

Re:Wgat will be the impact on consumers

[Reziac]

You're right, but there is also a price point above which consumers will slow down their purchasing of new CDs. So the labels will have to decide how much of this added cost they can get away with passing along, and how much they'll have to absorb.

I may not be interpreting the "who's claiming which royalties" thing correctly, but ISTM if you have to pay for a second copy, *everyone* who has a per-copy claim gets a royalty for that copy.

And the labels will probably "absorb" whatever consumers won't pay right out of royalty contracts with future artists, who won't see a cent until not only the usual crap is paid off (a la http://www.negativland.com/albini.html) but also not until any "second copy" songwriter royalties are paid off. So the upshot will be that while the artist may get an extra royalty per song, he has to pay an extra songwriter royalty per song -- so the artist winds up further in the hole than before.

The whole mass-music contract system needs to be knocked down and rebuilt from scratch. Independents are helping with consumer awareness, but financially they're just a drop in the ocean.

Is this about the atrists, then?

[Milo Fungus]

Until last year, it was the record labels that were widely viewed as the stumbling blocks to taking the music industry into the digital age...

...the focus on digital licensing has switched to scattered music publishers and songwriters, which typically receive between 7 and 8 cents for each physical copy of a song sold. Ordinarily wielding far less power, and commanding far fewer financial resources than the record labels, this scattered group of individuals and associations now is proving a more potent force in the digital transformation.

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.

a real head swimmer

[Mazzie]

It blows my mind that the recording industry has yet to realize that consumers ultimately control the direction of most markets, especially entertainment. I can see why they are so rattled. They are just a middle man between the talent and the listener. I have noticed a trend of more artists hitting the road to actually work for a living by selling tickets to concerts. This puts the labels almost completely out of the loop.

Re:a real head swimmer

[ex-songwriter]

This article (and issue) concerns songwriters. Some of whom don't record. Only write. And by the way, writing songs is work. Just as much as writing, say, code. Non-performing songwriters are who really get hurt by non-sanctioned downloading, as royalties from sales, broadcast and licensing are their only forms of income. So while your glib "actually work for a living" comment will probably resonate with many of the people on this board, you are off the mark here.

It follows the labels own ideas

[gr8_phk]

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.

Re:Yet another reason to not buy CD's

[Anonymous Coward]

AAC also gives better quality with smaller files, is also an open standard, and also has no "patent issues."

You might have an issue with patents, but the AAC patent is perfectly sound.

The irony

[ad0gg]

The RIAA went after MP3.com who was allowing customers to download mp3s if they bought a cd, that way the customer could listen to the music before the CD arrived in the mail. If we all remember that went to court, and now the publishers have legal precedence.

Re:This problem wouldn't happen..

[cb8100]

Why the fuck did this post get a troll rating?
It's definitely true, if not insightful or interesting.
If some of you could find a way to create edible copies of bread and beer, then you wouldn't have to pay for anything, and you probably wouldn't.

technology fails us

[prockcore]

If only there was a way for the computer to read the audio data on the cd. Then they wouldn't have to include both the audio data and the wmas for computer users.

Then if the user wanted WMAs, he could somehow "rip" this audio data into any format he wanted.

Too bad this technology eludes us.

This won't bother anyone and is an absurd point

[floatt]

Any label will just add into their contract with the artist that they'll only pay mechanicals on one copy of the song per disc and the writer of the song will go along with it because it makes sense. Anyways, I think the statuatory rate is something like 8 cents, so on a 12 song album we're only talking about less than a buck difference.

Translation...

[scovetta]

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.

Re:Yet another reason to not buy CD's

[Awptimus Prime]

I was about to post the same thing, but amake saved me from some typing.

I always considered WMA to be proprietary.

Re:WMA

[anakin876]

you call "WMA > MP3" intelligent?
Besides this is slashdot...I thought all those stereotypes were gospel here.

You are right, not everything Microsoft pushes is evil...regardless of their tactics.

Personally I don't know if WMA is a bad thing.
I do find comments without any sort of substance irritating, which is why I posted a response to that in the first place.

As for whether my comment was "intelligent"
It showed a little more though than "WMA > MP3" or something similar such as "MP3z R Teh Suck!"

wtf?

[Lord Bitman]

Are you seriously saying that a CD which has the same track 12 times should pay more royalties than a single? I dont see the logic here at all.

Fixed link here...

[qtp]

steve albini's the problem with music is a well-documented accounting of how bands on major labels get hooped by clawback clauses.

Re:Fixed link here...

[yourmom16]

How is the parent OT?

What is Doubling of "Not Much"?

[temp7890]

2 x $0.01 (Artist's Royalty a.k.a. "Not Much") = Only $0.02 ... like the Record Labeling Companies are gonna even feel it.

FAIR USE?

[erroneus]

I wonder if any of this falls under "Fair Use"?

After all, it is the "same material" in a "different format." What of it if it's on the same media? The customer can only use one format of the same material at any one time anyway... the fact that it's on the same media at the same time virtually guarantees that it can only be used in one way at any one time.

I love the idea of the bad guys having their ideas backfiring on them, but consider that if "fair use" applies to them in this case... Strengthening the acceptance of Fair Use could serve consumer interests much better than watching the **AA squirm.

Re:Yet another reason to not buy CD's

[Nucleon500]

AAC is an open standard with no "patent issues"? Yeah right. Where, pray tell, can I download the open source encoder and decoder?

Reading what you say again, that could have been construed as a joke. IHBT.

Re:Laugh now...

[serutan]

Or Joe Musician, or Joe Retailer, or Joe from the Other Label, or Joe the janitor, or Joe the coke dealer, or Joe the Ferrari mechanic, or just about anybody from whom they can manage to get something for nothing and pretend it's their god-given right to do it.

Re:Sorry Lars....

[Lochin Rabbar]

Record companies don't lose money on lesser selling artists, what they lose money on is promoting every artist as if they should be a million seller. There is a word for this sort of behaviour it's called stupidity. It will always be the case that the majority of artists only sell a few thousand CD's and most of these will not be sold through advertising. People who like music actively seek out artists they like and largely ignore the marketing hype. If you spend large amounts of money trying to persuade me to buy products I don't want and then expect to recoup these costs by charging exorbitant prices for the products I do want then don't be surprised when my response to your demands is a rather terse.

It is NOT a license

[discovercomics]

it is a physical product that I can do what I damn well please with. I refuse to buy any shrinkwrapped clickwrapped licensed music...

Re:Are you sure?

[aonaran]

He's got his stats mixed up... one more example of why I hate it when people quote statistics and don't give sources.

Ipod is the #1 selling HDD based MP3 player,
Apple has a 31% share of the portable MP3 player market in terms of units sold

Re:It was indeed a troll

[cb8100]

So, would your post definitely be "flame bait" since I feel like setting your cowardly, anonymous ass on fire?

Re:your very appropriate sig

[switcha]

Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.

Better tell the RIAA about that 'three lefts' thing, because they just tried the other method and failed.

Re:This problem wouldn't happen..

[Crypto Gnome]

If some of you could find a way to create edible copies of bread and beer, then you wouldn't have to pay for anything

Other than the ingredients, you mean?

Or, if you mean "duplicate" then , other than the technology?

Face it , people; times have changed.

• Any Business which is based on the physical distribution of digital content is swimming against the current.
• It's rapidly getting to the point where any Business which is based on TELLING people what is popular, is swimming against the current.

• Q: Why does The Music Industry have such high costs?
• A: they keep producing SHIT, and then spending money trying to convince us it's SHINOLA
  (ie the overhead of marketing bands that suck)

Many other companies spend their time and money researching what their customers what, and then producing it as efficiently as possible. The Music Industry spends its time and money buying airtime on radio stations (or just buying radio stations) hyping their latest 'popstar'.

Pandora. Box.

Once you "went digital" (ie CDs), there's no going back.

You can leverage the advantages of The Internet to advance your business into the Golden Age of Digital, or you can keep trying to wedge the digital genie back in the bottle (yeah, mixed-myths, I know).

Direct to the fans

[asdf 101]

All this talk about record labels and their antics to shorthcange both musicians and fans can get a bit overbearing at times.

Why do we even need to have the record labels around today.. definitely not to keep getting milked by their overtly leechy behaviour. Record labels held some merit and actually more leeway in the time before digital distribution became a reality. But technology today can directly link content-creators and content end-consumers without the need for uneccessary overbearing control in the hands of the distributors.

Now it is only a matter of time before new technologies such as Divendo usurp the labels from their monopolistic position and return power back to the consumers and to the content creators.

They should bill for ECC information too!

[mattbee]

Who compensates the artists when the selfish pirate consumer scratches their CDs and continues to hear the music under the scratch for free? Those record companies pad out the audio data by at least 1/8th with their so-called "error-resistant encoding" and artists are being ripped off!

CD Copy Protection = impossible

[Erratio]

It amazes me that Record companies try to copy protect CD's. Even if they came up with an uncrackable method, CD's are still sound, and sound can still be recorded. As long as it's coming out of speakers it can be rerouted into a recording device and copied or treated however the person recording wants to treat it. Record companies are just burning money in the R&D of these things, and it's just amusing that there are other ways they're losing money too.

Re:CD Copy Protection = impossible

[DuncMan]

Mod the parent up! As insightful or informative!

As long as something can be seen or heard it can be copied. Even if it's as inefficiently as pointing a microphone at the speakers or a camera at the screen. Our senses don't have DRM etc., so anything they can perceive can't either.

Anyone trying to prevent copying of something would also have to prevent us from being able to see or hear it.

Re:This is so so so unfair!

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"As a result, the focus on digital licensing has switched to scattered music publishers and songwriters, which typically receive between 7 and 8 cents for each physical copy of a song sold."

Cage copyright holder rejoices!

[El]

Since most CDs are less than half full, does this mean every artist now owes the copyright holder for John Cage's 4'33" for multiple copies of the song on almost every CD released?

Re:This problem wouldn't happen..

[cb8100]

Well, I've got no problem purchasing music I enjoy. As for the artists that produce "shit," I couldn't care less about that.

And as for abandoning physical distrubution of digital content, sorry, but when I shell out money for something (or even if I were to steal it) I enjoy having some kind of physical, tangible item (I don't consider burned CDs because of shelf-life, incompatibility with old equipment, etc.).

Those who live by the sword...

[Caiwyn]

Those who live by the sword die by the sword. 'Nuff said.

We should be so lucky, eh?

Piracy by the record labels?

[NoSuchGuy]

Is this piracy by the record labels?

Certainly NOT!

Remember these are the guys/companies that pay the RIAA to sue that old grandma for trading Eminem mp3s.

Isn't copying without paying theft?

The record lables profession is to copy and distribute music. To do their business they commit a crime (theft) on purpose!

If you copy a song, RIAA want's to sue you for $150.000 and settles for about $7.500 for your entire collection of mp3s.

Just for the records:

Copy-protection company Macrovision alone says its double-session technology has been distributed on more than 200 million individual compact discs, for a total of about 2 billion tracks, around the world

2 billion tracks x $150.000 per track = $300 trillion in damages to the artists and publishers from the record labels

I think this is this piracy by the record labels. The full severity of their own priracy laws shall hit them!

Ironically they lobbied for these laws with their own money.

Disney

[why-is-it]

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

I bought the "Finding Nemo" DVD for my neice. Inside the case, I was surprised to find a note directing me to their website. If you register the DVD with Disney, they have a media replacement policy in which they will replace a damaged disk for $10. (cost plus, plus apparently!)

So it appears that Disney sold me a license to view Finding Nemo, and not a DVD containing that film.

That does not make Disney any less malevolent than any of the other copyright cartel members, but at least they are being clear about what they sold me.

Re:Disney

[dgatwood]

A lot of CD and DVD manufacturers have a similar policy, but they don't publicize it much. Of course, after about two years you should be able to buy that DVD complete with packaging for $10 at Wal-Mart. All they're really doing is taking off the "early adopter" penalty for people replacing media, which is really not the same thing as licensing it and providing reasonably-priced replacement media as many software vendors do.

$10 to replace the media for a $300 piece of software: reasonable.
$10 to replace a the media for a $20 DVD: unreasonable.

Besides, at $10, they're just cutting out the wholesaler, the distributor, and the retailer. At least for books (and presumably similarly for other media), the publisher gets maybe 35% of the final price after everybody gets their cut. Even if that DVD costs $30 on the shelf, they would make about $10, and would give up a piece of DVD media, a case, booklet, etc. Instead, they give up 37 cents postage (I'm sure they just mail the media in a cardboard media mailer) and a DVD with no case and no printing. Their net profit comes out better on the replacement than it did on the original DVD, but you get a lot less.

It's pretty clear cut, IMHO. They're selling you the media. Anyone who says differently is kidding him/herself.

Re:Disney

[DA-MAN]

$10 to replace the media for a $300 piece of software: reasonable.
$10 to replace a the media for a $20 DVD: unreasonable.

Agreed. Too pricy, considering that I can make my own copy on my dvd burner for .79 cents (shop4tech.com).

It's pretty clear cut, IMHO. They're selling you the media. Anyone who says differently is kidding him/herself.

Also agreed. The thing that bothers me is that the RIAA/MPAA try to get the luxury of selling it as though they were selling licenses, but with the drawbacks associated with purchasing media.

If they saw it as buying the media, as you and I do, then it should come in a format I can duplicate for my backups, no exceptions. I should be able to back it up and make copies. I should have ALL fair use protections.

Else I want what comes with licensing the movie/music. When the new Higher quality formats come out, I should be able to get everything I own in those formats for a nominal fee. I want to be able to access my licensed data anywhere I see fit.

Re:Disney

[memco]

It is only recently that people have been concerned with what exactly they are buying in the sense of content or media. In the past you bought something, if it had a warranty you could get it fixed, but if it didn't you had to buy a new one. Now people are wondering am I buying a cd with someone's content on it, the content or what. Personally I would really appreciate some distinction (possibly in the form of legislation) as to what people are getting. I would love to know that I am buying a license. I could care less how I get it as long as I get it(in a usable fromat).

So, what are we buying anyway?

[PotatoHead]

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?

The solution is simple:

[kfg]

Don't do it.

KFG

A quick rant

[91degrees]

The publishers do want twice the royalties, but really, what they want is to renegotiate the deals tyhat they agreed to a while ago.

This isn't to say that their argument has no merits. Personally, I think it shouldn't have merit. I'm sure copyright used to be about preoviding an incentive for people to create and publish, so that creative works could be enjoyed by all. Now it seems that the purpose is to prevent people from copying. When did copying become an inherently bad thing to want to do? I fully agree that a creator is entitled to a certain proportion of the profits of his work, and I accept that there are good reasons to want to limit redistribution, but copying, and the ability to copy is a good thing. It's the very basis of the entire media industry.

The record industry seems to be busily generating unscientific reports telling us that file sharing is damaging sales, and seem to be the only ones falling for it. They are busily trying to stop people from copying their stuff, rather than focussing on increasing sales. They seem to believe that if they stop people from copying, their losses will go down, even if the downloaders don't start buying.

The world, especially the RIAA needs to realise the only way to increase their sales is to sell people what they want. People are willing to buy mp3s. It doesn't matter if they share them. If you don't sell them the mp3s, they're going to download them instead, and share those.

Only those who buy CDs will pay more.

[Ride-My-Rocket]

I'll be continuing my habit of investing my limited discretionary income in DVDs, video games and hardware upgrades. The artists and the labels can squabble all they want.

I second the question

[spitzak]

From what I have heard they are using up about 1/4 or so of the disk to store WMA equivalents of the CD tracks. It would seem extremely sensible to put an autorun program on there that reads the CD tracks and creates the WMA (or something equivalent) files, and also does whatever messing they want with the poor user's Windows box.

Contrary to the other posters here, I don't think this would be any more or any less evil. It still won't work on Linux, but the same old workarounds will work on both Linux and Windows.

And they can put 10 more minutes (or whatever amount) more music on the copy-prevented disk. And there would be more assurance that you can't miss any music when you play the disk in the computer, that worry is probably more of an incentive to work around this than a desire to make an MP3.

What about stereo LPs?

[Derling Whirvish]

Ever since stereo began in vinyl records there has been two versions of every song ever issued. In the mono records the groove carried only one song. But in stereo records one side of the groove carried a slightly different version of the song from the other side of the groove and those became the left and right stereo sides. On some cases such as early Beatles records, the left side carried the vocals and the right side the instrumentals -- clearly two different versions of the songs. So for this argument to apply now to CDs it would also have to apply to stereo LPs as well for there were two versions of the songs then. Are they going to pay back royalties going all the way back to the mid-50s?

Re:What about stereo LPs?

[Derling Whirvish]

What's the difference between the same song in two different digital formats and two different versions of the same song in analog format (the stereo channels, left and right)? Legally it's the same difference, right? The point being that this CD argument is not a new situation. The person who is "fucked up" is the lawyer currently making the CD argument. The fact that you find this "fucked up" actually vindicates my argument.

Is this really a good thing?

[James_G]

If this were really to happen, then surely it gives credence to the idea that you're buying a physical copy of the music, not the right to listen to it, and that for each format you have to pay for it again? It would set a precedent that says that it's not okay to make a copy of your CD collection for your own personal use, effectively trumping fair use. Or maybe fair use trumps this? Either way, I can't see how anyone could support the RIAA having to pay the artists twice while at the same time saying it's ok for them to make copies of their CD collection for their own personal use..

Re:Is this really a good thing?

[MacWiz]

The RIAA is producing a commercial product. They pay per copy of the song manufactured for sale. Pure and simple.

If you buy a CD, then make a copy for your personal use (using the original as a backup), no sale has taken place and theoretically none will.

ohh man...

[Imazalil]

you mean the next Green Day album is only going to be 15 minutes. I'm so dissapointed.

Too bad they have to cut the album lenght in half so that they can fit both versions on the same old cd. Talk about restricting an artist's creativity.

Re:Brittaney Spears

[PReDiToR]

He married her just long enough to get the wedding night out of her, then had the sense to get out before he ended up regretting it for the rest of his life.

If only more marriages were like this...

*** Disclaimer *** I love my wife and am signed up for love and life ***

This is nothing

[WindBourne]

If they stay on the path they are going, they will allow MS to own the format. Somewhere down the road, MS will announce that they have several submarine patents and are now going to charge the record and playback devices. Obviously, Linux players need not apply.

Re:This is so so so unfair!

[JPelzer]

"As a result, the focus on digital licensing has switched to scattered music publishers and songwriters, which typically receive between 7 and 8 cents for each physical copy of a song sold."

~12 songs per CD, means around $1/cd. Which is the actual royalty rate per CD, btw.

Re:Yet another reason to not buy CD's

[DarkVader]

http://audiocoding.com/download.php

Duplicate!!!

[coyotedata]

Are you trying to throw the RIAA of the scent?

Report into Album sales

[dotwaffle]

Seems like single sales are still plummeting due to the "Napster effect" as people still call it. But album sales in the UK.. Hang on, they've INCREASED 7% in the past year... That can't be right? Hang on, people weren't being exposed to more music and hence buying more were they? Surely not...

Seems like copy-protection is more effort than it's worth. It's GOING to be copied somewhere, so why bother protecting it? Just put a nice label in it saying "Support the artist, get your friends to buy this too!". Of course, the artist gets less than 10% usually, but still...

Re:Report into Album sales

[DuncMan]

Single sales are falling because singles are just tracks released from albums, and prices means that it makes financial sense to buy an album even if there's only 2 or 3 tracks you like on it.

Singles are used as little more than adverts for albums. Which do you hear more often from artists;

1. "We just recorded a new single, we'll release it next week, and we hope to have enough singles to compile an album for release next year or so"

2. "We just recorded a new album, we'll start releasing tracks from it next week"

Decades ago it was the former, but for 'big' artists it's been the latter for many years.

This situation was deliberately created some time ago by the music industry, it's got nothing to do with MP3 or Napster or anything of the sort. If anything, sharing MP3s around is akin to playing singles on the radio- it serves as an advert for the album, nothing more and nothing less.

If you care about sound quality and like a track you wouldn't settle for an MP3 (or radio); unless you're very stupid, you go out and buy the high quality CD album.

Double the price?

[zenthax]

I wonder how long it is before the record label decide that seeing how they have to pay twice the roylaties naturallty they should make twice the profit, so now you are going to be buying two copies, of which you can only use on one computer for double the price.

What about online downloads?

[foniksonik]

Surely the online download stores don't have just one copy of a song from which you download. Imagine the bottleneck of queued up downloads for a top song. So how many copies do they pay for in order to provide this service?

So if you copy the CD on a 52x burner...

[Zog The Undeniable]

You now get hit for 104x the penalties?

Re:Yet another reason to not buy CD's

[Technician]

For the billionth time, AAC is a standard! And you use it exactly as you would any other format, including MP3.

78 RPM single sided records are a long established standard, but that doesn't make them any more or less useful than AAC to my in-dash MP3 player. It's simply a format supported by a minority of devices, just like my grandma's hand me down 78 RPM records. They can be played IF you have the right player. Neither format is currently in common use in most portable and car audio gear.

Please list all the in-dash players that will plug into a Toyota Prius dash that will play DRM'ed AAC files. I have a choice of 2 MP3 players that will go into the dash and interface with the multi-function display. I don't know of any in dash unit that will play DRM AAC and interface with the car. It's simply useless portable format with very limited market support.

Due revenues

[frosh]

people seem to now expect the music industry to accept that people can defraud them of their due revenues by unlawful copying and distribution

I think one point that you, and many others, seem to be missing, is that many people no longer believe that record companies are due the revenues they recieve. Civil Society is a consensus reality; if people no longer believe that the record companies deserve money when they want to listen to music, they will not. And the people have spoken!

I find...

[tylertherobot]

I find that a lot of people here are lacking to comment on the small record label. I myself run a small record label and I sign local bands who receive 25% of all profits & 25% of the pressing of CDs.

Something that a lot of people don't realize is that USUALLY the larger labels fund tours, pay royalties UP FRONT (Meaning that they will pay a band 3,000,000.000 before they even make their CD) and pay for the recording.

The problem is, what happens when a band sells about 10,000,000 CDS? They feel ripped off, but can't get more than what's in the contract.

Also what I keep hearing whipped around is RIAA this and RIAA that, believe me, labels have a LOT more control over the artists than you think, the RIAA doesn't run the labels, so if anyone is to blame for holding back royalties, it's definitely not the RIAA.

The record labels won't speak up and say "IT's US!" in part because of, well, look how a lot of people here are reacting to them!

More than a snowball's chance..

[Marc2k]

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.