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?

[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.

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...

[Condor7]

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

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 quote Nelson Muntz,

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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."

THAT'S OK!!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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?

I don't see the problem...

[smack_attack]

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

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.

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: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.

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 -

Let me see if I understand this...

[Copperhead]

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

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

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

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

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

What about the lyrics?

[Nakito]

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

Re:Canadian Artists

[schon]

This page addresses most of your questions and misunderstandings.