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

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 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 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.

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.

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

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!

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

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

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?

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

Slashdot Mirror

Record Labels May Have to Pay Double Royalties

44 of 388 comments (clear)