Record Labels May Have to Pay Double Royalties

The little guy gets paid? by VinceWuzHere · 2004-01-13 09:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

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? by lucabrasi999 · 2004-01-13 09:52 · Score: 5, Funny

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? by Frymaster · 2004-01-13 10:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

--
2 1337 4 u!
Re:The little guy gets paid? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-13 11:13 · Score: 3, Funny

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? by gcaseye6677 · 2004-01-13 11:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Let me quote Nelson Muntz, by IvyMike · 2004-01-13 09:48 · Score: 4, Funny

Ha-Ha!

Re:Let me quote Nelson Muntz, by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-13 09:50 · Score: 5, Funny

Ahh Nelson, always the voice of reason when compared to the ??AA
Re:Let me quote Nelson Muntz, by Dr.+Photo · 2004-01-13 10:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

Nelson: Ah, le mot juste!

let me be the first to say... by wo1verin3 · 2004-01-13 09:48 · Score: 5, Funny

(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... by Metallic+Matty · 2004-01-13 09:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

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... by Condor7 · 2004-01-13 10:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

So the small record labels can ship CDs with no copy protection. Problem solved.
Re:let me be the first to say... by wo1verin3 · 2004-01-13 10:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

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... by i_r_sensitive · 2004-01-13 10:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

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...

--
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals /." -
Re:let me be the first to say... by nathanh · 2004-01-13 11:47 · Score: 5, Informative

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... by DA-MAN · 2004-01-13 11:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

What you don't seem to understand is that the Music Industry seems to want it both ways.

When I purchase a CD for full price, if I purchased a license, I should be able to get another if my cd gets damaged for the price of the media (blank cd's are under $0.25, I assume they get an even better deal than this when they mass produce them). This is not how it currently works I should also be able to get different formats for the price of the media. If I bought a cd, why can't I download the mp3 for a modest $0.10 cent bandwidth fee?

If they aren't licensing me the music, are they selling me the cd? Doesn't that mean I should be legally allowed to copy my cd if it get's damaged? After all it is MINE! If my cd gets damaged, I would have to pay full price for something I already own. If my car get's a scratch, I can give it a paint job, I don't have to go out and buy a new car. The same is not true for cd's.

What is pissing everyone off with their restrictions is that they aren't being clear with what it is you get when you buy a cd. Is it a licensed product? Is it a sold product? There are different rules for each, and they want the protection of a license, without dealing with the drawbacks.

--
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
Re:let me be the first to say... by nathanh · 2004-01-13 13:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

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... by srleffler · 2004-01-13 18:35 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

two for the price of one? by Matey-O · 2004-01-13 09:49 · Score: 4, Funny

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.

--
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."

Canadian Artists by tobechar · 2004-01-13 09:50 · Score: 4, Interesting

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 by i_r_sensitive · 2004-01-13 10:04 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

--
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals /." -
Re:Canadian Artists by schon · 2004-01-13 10:19 · Score: 4, Informative

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 by schon · 2004-01-13 10:24 · Score: 5, Informative

This page addresses most of your questions and misunderstandings.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2004-01-13 09:50 · Score: 2, Funny

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Of course you know what will happen next... by Cherveny · 2004-01-13 09:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

If the payments are made, then of course the labels profits will fall. So, what will they say next quarter to make their shareholders happy? "It's all because of those damn internet pirates. We need more legislation against them, or our profits will continue to fall."

--
--- It's not my fault this post looks redundant. I just type too slow.

Costs to Consumers by Alternate+Interior · 2004-01-13 09:51 · Score: 3, Funny

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

--
Implicit Evaluation with PHP

Re:Costs to Consumers by sTalking_Goat · 2004-01-13 10:01 · Score: 2, Funny

does that mean the costs of CDs will be going back up?
I wasn't aware that they had ever gone down.

--
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...
Re:Costs to Consumers by bechthros · 2004-01-13 12:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
They will never stop until somebody makes the

No problem by mao+che+minh · 2004-01-13 09:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

A silly proposition by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-13 09:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

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?

THAT'S OK!! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-13 09:51 · Score: 5, Funny

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

Muhahahahahaha!!!!!!!!! by JRHelgeson · 2004-01-13 09:52 · Score: 2, Informative

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...

--
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.

FNORD by virgo+cluster · 2004-01-13 09:52 · Score: 5, Interesting

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?

--
-virgo cluster

Re:FNORD by Have+Blue · 2004-01-13 10:35 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

Solution: CD with DRM Software by G4from128k · 2004-01-13 09:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why do they have to put copies of the tracks in both formats on the disk? Why can't the labels create a small software application that hides the raw data tracks from PCs and "allows" the CD owner to create DRMed files? This would bypass the "pay royalties twice for distributing two copies of each track" problem.

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

Re:Solution: CD with DRM Software by MikeXpop · 2004-01-13 10:05 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm sure my stereo will love that.

--
Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
Re:Solution: CD with DRM Software by vhold · 2004-01-13 10:13 · Score: 3, Interesting

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?

I don't see the problem... by smack_attack · 2004-01-13 09:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

--

Hammer of Truth

Redamndiculous by happyfrogcow · 2004-01-13 09:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Poetic Justice by KingDaddy'O · 2004-01-13 09:55 · Score: 2, Funny

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!!

That's ok by freidog · 2004-01-13 09:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

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:Lame by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-13 09:56 · Score: 3, Funny

make an mp6?

No... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-13 09:56 · Score: 2, Funny

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

Let me quote Ross Perot by Texas+Rose+on+Lava+L · 2004-01-13 09:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

--

Rank Presidents by th

Re:Let me quote Ross Perot by ejaw5 · 2004-01-13 11:29 · Score: 4, Funny

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

System.out.println(double_cent);

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

--

$cat /dev/random > Sig

Re:So much for... by ericdano · 2004-01-13 09:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--

The neat thing about this: by grasshoppa · 2004-01-13 10:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!

When will they learn by rhetoric · 2004-01-13 10:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

That any CD I can play, I can rip. It's AUDIO rofl. At very worst I can just play it back and record it to another device, unprotected. Big deal.... DRM for audio is such a joke.. This isn't intended to be flamebait, it just seems so ludicrous to me.

--

"where words meet intent, lies rhetoric's lament"

Indeed! (and do pass the butter) by tmoertel · 2004-01-13 10:03 · Score: 5, Funny

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.

--
Easy, automatic testing for Perl.

So everything is a standard now by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-13 10:04 · Score: 5, Informative

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 by harlows_monkeys · 2004-01-13 12:09 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

This is so unfair! by rjelks · 2004-01-13 10:04 · Score: 5, Funny

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 -

--

Tech News, Reviews and Tutorials

Not As Simple As That? by tonyr60 · 2004-01-13 10:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

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? by Rude+Turnip · 2004-01-13 10:39 · Score: 2

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.

--
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!

Hmmm by Kadagan+AU · 2004-01-13 10:07 · Score: 3, Funny

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?

--
This space for rent, inquire within.

Re:Yet another reason to not buy CD's by sirReal.83. · 2004-01-13 10:07 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

Let me see if I understand this... by Copperhead · 2004-01-13 10:10 · Score: 5, Interesting

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?

--
Your reality is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. - Baron Munchausen

Re:Can't they just claim... by Bagels · 2004-01-13 10:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

Not likely... you usually don't put a backup on the *same piece of media* as the original copy, because then if the original fails (through scratches to the disk, etc.) so does the "backup". It just goes against the definition of backups - I don't think even the RIAA's army of undead lawyers could twist it enough to get that through.

--
--- Bwah?

What about the lyrics? by Nakito · 2004-01-13 10:10 · Score: 5, Interesting

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? by Potor · 2004-01-13 10:45 · Score: 2, Informative

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? by poot_rootbeer · 2004-01-13 11:27 · Score: 2, Informative

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? by kfg · 2004-01-13 12:23 · Score: 2, Informative

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:So much for... by mobiux · 2004-01-13 10:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

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"

Room for error by Shazow · 2004-01-13 10:18 · Score: 2, Funny

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

- shazow

Wgat will be the impact on consumers by Crypto+Gnome · 2004-01-13 10:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.

Re:Wgat will be the impact on consumers by OneFix+at+Work · 2004-01-13 11:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

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...

Is this about the atrists, then? by Milo+Fungus · 2004-01-13 10:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

It follows the labels own ideas by gr8_phk · 2004-01-13 10:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

technology fails us by prockcore · 2004-01-13 10:33 · Score: 3, Funny

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.

Translation... by scovetta · 2004-01-13 10:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

We'll all be paying more for CDs. Since the big players own the market, they can do whatever they want, and they'll just sue everyone else. The little guys don't have the big name artists so nobody cares about them anyway. They'll continue to make non-DRMed-up-the-ass CDs and no one will buy them, but if you want the new Outkast CD, welcome back $21.99! But hey, they're doing this for the artists, remember?

And no, the big guys will NOT pay the artists more, they'll slip one by or change their contracts or whatever. Money Power.

--
Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche

Re:Are you sure? by aonaran · 2004-01-13 11:00 · Score: 2, Informative

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:This is so so so unfair! by civilizedINTENSITY · 2004-01-13 11:40 · Score: 2, Informative

"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."

So, what are we buying anyway? by PotatoHead · 2004-01-13 12:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

Is it a license, or a copy to enjoy?

They cannot have it both ways. If they intend to sell us a license, don't we need to see the terms and enter into some sort of contract? (God forbid the EULA for music CD's.)

If they sell us a license, does that not mean we have paid for a given piece of music. If we lose the media, we still have the license right?

If they sell us a copy to enjoy, then we can do what we want with our copy so long as we don't sell it for money. As long as I can give a CD for a christmas gift, I say we are buying copies, not licenses.

Which is it? Want your cake and eat it too?

--
Blogging because I can...

Re:Disney by dgatwood · 2004-01-13 12:55 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

--

Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

Re:Disney by DA-MAN · 2004-01-13 14:10 · Score: 2, Informative

$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.

--
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum

Re:Yet another reason to not buy CD's by DarkVader · 2004-01-13 14:43 · Score: 2, Informative

http://audiocoding.com/download.php

More than a snowball's chance.. by Marc2k · 2004-01-14 08:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

no, no, no.

There *is* more than a snowball's chance in hell here. If you read the topic, it says label would pay the PUBLISHER, not the artist. I'm not sure exactly how that all works, or even if that's right, but if you look on a cd, you'll see something along the lines of "All songs published by SomethingSomething/BMI." Where BMI is one of a few publishing houses.

--
--- What

Slashdot Mirror

Record Labels May Have to Pay Double Royalties

76 of 388 comments (clear)