BMI Reports All-Time Profit High Despite Piracy

applemasker writes "Arstechnica is running a story chock full of links to other interesting things about BMI's amazing record profit and how the RIAA skews its sales statistics while strangling fair use." Phew, so the artists aren't really starving, but we still can't all go back to "borrowing" music from our friends instead of each purchasing our own copy.

Comments

What BMI will say

[Anonymous Coward]

"If it weren't for piracy, we would've made even more money."

Re:What BMI will say

[erick99]

This is a typical and specious argument that can't be argued against without looking and sounding shrill. It is an argument of convenience at best. I would counter with the fact that BMI's rate of growth has been steady going back nearly a decade and growth that smooth was probably not affected (much) by piracy or there should have been a bump in there somewhere.

Cheers,

Erick

Re:What BMI will say

[BoldAC]

Artists make most of their money from other sources now. Much like atheletes they make money from sponsorships...

What video these days doesn't push a product or three? Heck, videos contain enough commericals now that I wouldn't be surprised if MTV actually started showing videos again.

Smaller artists, like many of my friends, make most of their money from live performances... despite being signed to "major labels."

Sadly, these major labels often sign many artists to keep them from signing with other groups. Paying them a small fee and then "vaporwaring" their music keeps them out of the competition.

The music companies are bastards, bastards them all.

Re:What BMI will say

[nkh]

the downloader is able to hear a work they would have otherwise paid for.

I have a little problem with music these days: why would I buy a record that I can't listen to because it is copy-protected?

I understand that Kazaa punks pirate music, but each day, I hear more and more stories of people who bought CDs and return them for a refund because it's not working... Piracy was the problem, now it's the only solution to hear the music you bought.

Re:What BMI will say

[erick99]

This is not new, not that it changes the argument but I was taping songs off the radio in the 60's when I was 10 years old. I would agree that it's easier now and the quality is better but copying songs is an "old" practice and I just don't know that it has the effect that the labels believe. When I got older and got a job, I began paying for my music as I believe most folks do.

Cheers,

Erick

Re:What BMI will say

[shark72]

Why would they say that? BMI collects royalties on performance rights, not CD sales. CD sales have nothing to do with their revenue stream.

Remember, BMI is a non-profit artists' rights agency, collecting royalties for composers and songwriters for performances -- not sales -- of music which was written or composed by their members.

Re:What BMI will say

[garroo]

My friends and I too were doing this in the 80's. Put on a tape at lunch (best music of the day) and come home after school and redub the best songs to a compilation tape.

Re:What BMI will say

[tarunthegreat2]

Something-for-nothing? That's purty funny there. I'm sorry, I still don't see why the fair-use clause (which has probably been rendered extinct by DMCA) doesn't apply..If I recorded music off the radio and then gave the cassette to my friend, where did I pay any money to the artist? I don't think stereo companies pay royalties. It is the Service Provider that pays the money, i.e. the Radio Station (plus isn't the opposite sometimes?). In which case, instead of suing users of Kazaa, why not negotiate the following agreement with Kazaa - Kazaa only allows MP3s which the music companies want to promote (a la the radio), and Kazaa makes money off advertising, and pays up to the music companies. We as users get to download the music for free, and we can't trade any MP3s not on the Music Company list for promotion (i.e. anything that's not playing the 'radio'). There's a solution for you - one that neither the record companies, nor the free-as-in-beer users will like. But seriously, is this analogy really so off?

Re:What BMI will say

[Sj0]

Where did he say he condoned it?

All he was saying is that artists made most of their money elsewhere. Considering that it's quite well documented that the recording industry rips off it's artists big time(and the parent was talking about just that, in fact), I wouldn't be suprised.

A lot of people pay for their music for the warm fuzzy feeling of knowing that the artists are being paid, while still knocking the music industry for their profit hoarding, screwing both the artists and the customers(see: price fixing, cartel behaviour), while pretending to be acting in the best interests of both. For that reason, I refuse to listen to RIAA music if I can help it, and flat out won't download OR buy their music, no matter what the circumstances. There are plenty of bands on the internet who actually want their music heard, and a lot of them are great at what they do. If for that reason alone, I prefer legal and obscure to illegal and mainstream any day. I'll even pay for it whenever I have a few bucks to spare, content in knowing that instead of getting a few pennies for their work, they'll get a few dollars.

Now that's what I call "voting with your wallet".

Re:What BMI will say

[tigeba]

BMI is a non-profit organization that collects royalties for performances on behalf of artists. ASCAP is a similar organization. The money is obtained from entities like radio stations and then is distributed to artists based on statistical sampling of compiled performance data. Artists (songwriters, composers, publishers) select an organization (BMI, ASCAP) and register their works with them, and in return for a membership fee, the organization sends them a check if their performances show up on the radar.

Re:What BMI will say

[name773]

i personally have not had this problem yet.
and as far as dvd's and css, it's not a problem thanks to some open source software :)

Re:What BMI will say

[SirTalon42]

I recently bought 3 CDs, even though I had about all the songs on them already.

I would of never bought the CDs if I hadn't already known I liked the artists and songs.

Re:What BMI will say

[Dorothy 86]

so let's pirate the CD's, and go to concerts instead!!

Re:What BMI will say

[Commander Trollco]

Whether they are affected or not would be really beside the point, if we were to look at the problem from its root.

The owners of copyrighted material often say they suffer "harm" and "economic loss"
resulting from illegal copying. Like most arguments put forth by copyright enthusiasts, it holds little water - for several reasons:
The claim is mostly inaccurate because it presupposes that the copying individual would otherwise have bought a copy from the publisher. That is occasionally true, but more often false; and when it is false, the claimed loss does not occur.

The claim is partly misleading because the word "loss" suggests events of a very different nature--events in which something they have is taken away from them. For example, if the bookstore's stock of books were burned, or if the money in the register got torn up, that would really be a "loss." We generally agree it is wrong to do these things to other people. But when your friend avoids the need to buy a copy of a book, the bookstore and the publisher do not lose anything they had. A more fitting description would be that the bookstore and publisher get less income than they might have got. The same consequence can result if your friend decides to play bridge instead of reading a book. In a free market system, no business is entitled to cry "foul" just because a potential customer chooses not to deal with them. The claim is begging the question because the idea of "loss" is based on the assumption that the publisher "should have" gotten paid. That is based on the assumption
that copyright exists and prohibits individual copying. But that is just the issue at hand: what should copyright cover? If the public decides it can share copies, then the publisher is not entitled to expect to be paid for each copy, and so cannot claim there is a "loss" when it is not.
In other words, the "loss" comes from the copyright system; it is not an inherent part of copying. Copying in itself hurts no one.

Re:What BMI will say

[IronMagnus]

Case in point, my brother bought a CD, it wouldn't play in his car CD player. He pop'd it on his linux box and was able to make a copy despite the copy protection. Heres the irony. If the CD wasn't copy protected, we would have had no reason to make a copy of it... fortunately the protection was useless and easily circumvented for fair use.

Re:What BMI will say

[Christopher Thomas]

No matter what the something-for-nothing kiddies here will say, every time a song is illegally copied, the downloader is able to hear a work they would have otherwise paid for. Barring a random play on radio, you personally have to pay to listen to most copyrighted works.

The CDs I didn't buy as a result of hearing on the radio or in a movie theatre, I bought because I heard them played by friends and liked them.

Very, very rarely do I buy a CD without knowing that I like what's on it beforehand. The money spent on a lemon could be so much better spent elsewhere - it's not worth the risk. This, combined with the ease of listening beforehand from legitimate sources (do none of you have friends with CD collections?) makes me skeptical of your argument.

Re:What BMI will say

[Simonetta]

Phew, so the artists aren't really starving, but we still can't all go back to "borrowing" music from our friends instead of each purchasing our own copy. (original post)

No, we should start purchasing our own copy from our friends instead of the RIAA. That way our friends will remain our friends and we won't be giving our money to monopoly cartels who will be using it to extort us and to put us and our friends in prison for the crime of listening to music.

There does come a point in every middle-class person's life where they have to put aside the illusion that they are Star Fleet officers for a minute and start thinking and acting like Ferengee in order to ensure the survival of themselves, their friends, their dreams, and their culture.

Re:What BMI will say

[kfg]

They still make some money from CD sales

Yes, they are perfectly free to buy CDs from the label and resell them just like any other retailer.

They generally do this at live performances to supplement what they make at the gig and often the house takes a cut of that.

Very few artists, even those with hits, ever see dime one in their pockets from royalties.

This doesn't mean that it's right to download songs illegally, but, as a general rule, when you do so you are ripping off the label, not the artist.

IF you wish to support artists first you buy a ticket to their gig, then you buy one of their self owned label CDs while you are there.

They'll even autograph it for you.

KFG

Re:What BMI will say

[Sancho]

Of course, the copyright system itself is the reason we have book, media, etc. The system allows for the (supposedly limited) monopoly on ideas so that artists could make a living and produce their content. Without such laws in the first place, it's unlikely that we'd have the variety and multitude of movies, books, television shows, etc. that are out there. Some say it's a bad thing, some say it's a good thing, but in a free society that should be all about choice, it's pretty definitive of our ideals. Lots to choose from.

Now lots of people, including myself, believe that copyright has gotten out of hand. The extensions, for example, are completely unnecessary to the original goal. I don't think anyone here believes that it will take 70+ years for an author these days to recoup their investment plus make a profit on their book. In fact, since copyright depends upon the life of the author, we're truly just allowing for the estate of the author to live off of their work, something that doesn't jive (in my opinion) with the purpose of copyright.

But what it all comes down to is that it doesn't matter. We live in a society where copyright is the law. Copyright infringement isn't stealing, but it is against the law. A person doesn't deserve to download to music just because they'd never buy it anyway, so the store+record company+artist isn't going to lose anything. If you don't like the law, work to get it changed. But it doesn't mean it's acceptable to break it and justify it with crap like that.

Re:What BMI will say

[pyros]

If the public decides it can share copies, then the publisher is not entitled to expect to be paid for each copy, and so cannot claim there is a "loss" when it is not.

Um, no. Copyright is defined in the Constitution. It grants the creator of the work thr right to control how and when the a copy of the work is created and distributed. If this right did not exist, there would be drastically less incentive to create, and the public domain would become void of artistic works. The problem is that the original terms of copyright have been extended far beyond the point of any usefulness. When you say "if the public decides" you are ignoring the fundamental protection from the tyranny of the majority that the constitution affords us all. Would you sing the sae tune if the public decides they all have the right of prima nupta and line up to have sex with your wife on your wedding night to bless the union? You won't have been robbed of any property or income.

Re:What BMI will say

[Anonymous Coward]

"If it wern't for piracy, many people would have only heard the top 10 and be buying low-price singles which we give away free to boost chart positions instead of those profitable albums, and we'd have made even less money, so feel free to copy the music without permission, as long as you buy a copy of anything you like, to support the artist and there publishers." ... Ok I can dream can't I?

Re:What BMI will say

[Anonymous Coward]

I was taping songs off the radio in the 60's

Me too, but in the 70/80's. There was even a time when some "fm rock stations" played whole album sides (records were double-sided, kids) uninterrupted. I spent most of my money on records in those days and bought over a thousand. Hmmm, isn't that a coincidence?

Re:What BMI will say

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like the law, work to get it changed. But it doesn't mean it's acceptable to break it and justify it with crap like that.

I am sorry, but that is utter crap. The average citizen or even groups of millions of citizens of low income have zero or near zero hopes of changing the law in the US. You can carry on with your righteous theories all day long, but you're absolutely wrong. It is the duty of citizens who feel that laws are unjust to break them. It is an honor to break laws that are created by an unjust legal system.

Re:What BMI will say

[name773]

at the point where i own the dvd (i.e. purchased it legally), i don't care whether or not the software i use to play it violates the dmca, because i believe it's ethically ok

Re:What BMI will say

[CyanDisaster]

I'd still make a copy of the CD for the car. If I've got a dozen original CDs in the car, and they were to get stolen, I'd be out close to $240. If they steal the copies, I'm out $6.

Listen to the copies, and keep the originals in a safe place. If one or more of the original were lost (ie. damaged beyond repair/usability), I would probably go out and buy them again, depending on how often I listened to them.

Hope be with ye,
Cyan

Re:What BMI will say

[bechthros]

"Heck, videos contain enough commericals now that I wouldn't be surprised if MTV actually started showing videos again."

dude, videos *are* commercials. They advertise the band's song/recording/performance, depending on the video. They're four-minute long chunks of TV that MTV is *paid*, usually by the bands themselves, to put on. The bands also pay for the production of the video as well. And you'll notice that they tend to come out right before a album relase or tour - they're just commercials to sell a product. That was the whole beauty of MTV when it started - it was basically a channel of 24-hour commercials that people would beg to watch. Same goes these days for M2 and fuse.

Somewhere along the line, MTV decided to introduce original programming, but keep it as low-budget as possible, hence reality television - no stars, no writers, no directors, no sets. Just producers, assistants, and a dozen or so poor saps ready to humiliate themselves on network television for a chance at a measly half a mil... after signing all the insurance waivers, of course. The budget benefits of reality programming are the reason it'll be around for a long time.

Re:What BMI will say

[Master of Transhuman]

"If this right did not exist, there would be drastically less incentive to create, and the public domain would become void of artistic works"

Bullshit.

I'll say it again.

Bullshit.

This is totally untrue for any number of social and economic reasons.

The only thing that would happen if IP laws went away is that business models would change. People would make their money in a different manner.

Period.

There is absolutely NO economic evidence that IP laws have ANY positive effect on the production of art or inventions.

From the beginning, it has merely been some people's THEORY that this is true - most of these people in government or business with other agendas than the free dissemination of ideas.

Re:What BMI will say

[Master of Transhuman]

And you know WHY Phillips doesn't get sued by the RIAA for making consumer machines with CD copiers built in?

Because they are a $60 billion company (well, the parent is - the electronics division is $32 billion.)

The entire US record industry is less than $15 billion. The GLOBAL music industry is worth around $32 billion.

In other words, Phillips could theoretically buy the entire industry and put them all out of business.

So they do want they want and the RIAA can kiss their ass.

Sony is in a more difficult position since they sell copiers AND music content. But I suspect they make more from their hardware sales than their content sales.

Re:What BMI will say

[Igmuth]

Name a reason why people would keep making books, music, movies, etc, if people could freely, and legally copy them, and make derivatives and knock offs? Yes, I realize there are some people who do things purely for the love of the craft, but I would imagine many of them, when it came down to it, would have to find other things to do, instead of doing what they love.

Re:What BMI will say

[syberanarchy]

People like you are the reason that the RIAA's line of "copyright ends when we say so" stays as the official mantra of the public. I mean, did you really just compare the ownership of an idea to deflowering someone's bride? And I thought the Hitler/Bush comparisons were out there.

If this right did not exist, there would be drastically less incentive to create, and the public domain would become void of artistic works.

Good point, except that the public domain IS becoming void of artistic works, and will continue to do so for the next 75+ years thanks to the work of the late Sonny Bono and other "public servants."

Probably longer than that, actually - I can see it now: the MICKEY II AP act - Money In Copyright Key II American Prosperity act - will ensure that copyrights last for up to 90 years after the corporation that bought them for pennies of the dollar goes bankrupt.

They (the corporations) are not holding up to their end of the bargain (limited copyright). So why should I hold up to my end by buying their music instead of taking what should rightfully be in the public commons? (I don't listen to music from the current times, thanks.) Because the law says so? You're going to have to give this free thinker a better reason than that, Jack.

The musicians are in the middle of the battle, and those who keep signing with RIAA labels have shown where their allegiances lie. Thus, they'll get no pity from me.

Re:What BMI will say

[ZorinLynx]

I'm sure that if copyright didn't exist, and only people who really loved to write, compose music, etc. did so, because there was less economic gain, then the quantity would decrease, but the QUALITY would increase vastly.

I don't think I'd mind living in a world where this is the case.

-Z

Re:What BMI will say

[Scooby Snacks]

No, copyright is not defined in the Constitution. Go read it sometime. It says that Congress, at its pleasure, may institute a copyright system. Although, perhaps if the copyright system were defined in the Constitution, it would avoid some of this mess, as it would take a Constitutional amendment to change the term.

As for the rest of your post, I don't feel the need to repeat what others have said.

Re:What BMI will say

[d34thm0nk3y]

Of course, the copyright system itself is the reason we have book, media, etc.

WRONG! You shouldn't start your post with a logical fallacy. Creative works were produced long before the notion of copyright ever existed therefore you can never assert that copyrights were the cause without extra justification.

Really, you should build up to the logical fallacy that way it is more believable.

This of course is why we will probably never win in this battle. Nobody who cares enough about truth is willing to blatantly lie to take down blatant liars.

Re:What BMI will say

[d34thm0nk3y]

BMI would say:

We don't give a rat's ass where you got the file from, that is the RIAA's job. But if you play it in a club you better give us our royalties.

Re:What BMI will say

[mangu]

If this right did not exist, there would be drastically less incentive to create, and the public domain would become void of artistic works.

Starting from the prehistoric cave paintings until, approximately, Charles Dickens, we have plenty of counter examples to your fallacy. Copyright is a rather recent creation, it was only in the start of the 20th century that it was effectively implemented worldwide.

Thinking on the incentive to create, why should a life++ copyright make anyone produce anything after the first work? If I'm assured that me and my children and grandchildren will be able to live from the profits of my first big hit, then why should I go to the effort to create a second big hit?

Re:What BMI will say

[mangu]

They still make some money from CD sales

Not from me. I have stopped buying CDs altogether. Sometimes, when I really want a better copy than the mp3 one gets with p2p, I buy a used CD. The whole way the so-called "intellectual property" is being exploited by the corporations causes me deep moral and ethical revolt. I will never condone or support such corrupt legislation.

Re:What BMI will say

[Long-EZ]

I've seen this post about being a kid and recording off the radio a couple of times before, and it's right on target.

In any business transaction, there should be a fair exchange of value. Legal contracts even have wording such as "in fair exchange for...." But the RIAA companies are missing this point, probably because their executives are all coked out of their minds.

I recorded some stuff off the radio when I was a kid, but I also bought many albums and spent a very large percentage of my hard-earned disposable income on them, because I received something of value. I felt good about supporting the artists, I received a convenient package containing a high quality audio recording, lyrics, some artwork and pictures, maybe even a written article by a band member or a cartoon or something that seemed to personalize it or make it special.

Now, I feel abused. Many of the CDs are encumbered with copy protection. I had a CD that wouldn't play 80% of the time in my Sony in-dash CD player, but the CD-R I burned on my Linux PC always plays. And I'm supposed to PAY for this abuse and mistrust?

Basically, the RIAA companies are functioning as a monopoly, and have been found guilty in US courts of collusion and anticompetitive practices by engaging in price fixing. Once the competition is gone, the attitude toward customers becomes arrogant, hostile and even abusive. They clearly don't care about the music, they just care about maximizing their profits.

Note to all businesses (with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy): If your business model requires you to sue your customers and potential customers... you might be a weasel.

Until the RIAA business model is replaced by something much more customer oriented, I'll continue to buy used CDs to keep my money out of the RIAA's pocket. And I look for good online music. Here's a great example. If you like Dave Mathews, you'll probably like the free music from Tempus . It's free, as in free speech and free beer.

Re:What BMI will say

[mpe]

The owners of copyrighted material often say they suffer "harm" and "economic loss" resulting from illegal copying.

These "owners" are quite likely to not be the people who actually created it in the first place.

Like most arguments put forth by copyright enthusiasts, it holds little water - for several reasons: The claim is mostly inaccurate because it presupposes that the copying individual would otherwise have bought a copy from the publisher. That is occasionally true, but more often false; and when it is false, the claimed loss does not occur.

The copier may be someone who would never buy a copy. As well as someone who may only buy a copy because they have previewed it.
There's also the senario of someone who might well be a potential customer, but the publisher won't sell to. Because the publisher wants to have different release dates for their record/movie/game/etc in different parts of the world. Here the publishers are moaning that their customers won't assist them with the business model the publishers want. As opposed to the publishers changing their business model to suit what their customers want.

A more fitting description would be that the bookstore and publisher get less income than they might have got. The same consequence can result if your friend decides to play bridge instead of reading a book. In a free market system, no business is entitled to cry "foul" just because a potential customer chooses not to deal with them.

However a physical (even an online) book store is unlikely to tell a customer "We can't serve someone with your address until next week/month/year." Any business which did this would be considered foolish and alienating customers. Yet with the likes of "staggered releases", region coding of DVD, etc. this is effectivly the sort of thing many transnational publishing companies are doing.

The claim is begging the question because the idea of "loss" is based on the assumption that the publisher "should have" gotten paid.

An idea which is at odds with "Capitalism".

Re:What BMI will say

[mpe]

Of course, the copyright system itself is the reason we have book, media, etc.

Books (and libraries) predate the concept of copyright by a very long time.

The system allows for the (supposedly limited) monopoly on ideas so that artists could make a living and produce their content.

Actually copyright was invented to give the state control over use of the printing press. Resulting in the business model of the third party publisher. Media invented afterwards copied the same business model.

Without such laws in the first place, it's unlikely that we'd have the variety and multitude of movies, books, television shows, etc. that are out there.

Movies and televison postdate the invention of copyright, so it's anyone's guess how they might work without it. Whereas books predate the concept by thousands of years.
It's very much evident that authors will write books without copyright even existing. It's also far from clear that the existance of copyright does much to encourage authorship anyway.

Re:What BMI will say

[Free_Meson]

This is totally untrue for any number of social and economic reasons.

The only thing that would happen if IP laws went away is that business models would change. People would make their money in a different manner.

Period.

There is absolutely NO economic evidence that IP laws have ANY positive effect on the production of art or inventions.

From the beginning, it has merely been some people's THEORY that this is true - most of these people in government or business with other agendas than the free dissemination of ideas.

Well, people who really love to write, compose music, etc AND are already insanely wealthy -- wealthy enough to write for the benefit of others for free while at the same time supporting their families without any additional income. So, how many people do you think fall into that category? We could just go down the list of great american authors and see how many we would have had if there was no financial incentive to produce books... can you name one? I mean I know for a fact that Hawthorne, Twain, Melville, Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Steinbeck, and Salinger would not have written as prolifically if at all if there had been no prospect for financial incentive. The prospect of future returns paying either for previously incurred expenses or to sustain their overly extravagant lifestyle was a major part of the reason they chose to write.

More importantly, though, I think you completely misunderstand the nature of our economic system. Right now, for example, lawyers are rewarded handsomely when they successfully represent their clients. That makes law a profitable field, and because people like to have money it makes law a competitive field. More people try to become lawyers and, as a result, we have much better lawyers now, on average, than we did say 50 years ago. (read some case law and it will be quite obvious to you that the quality of representation has improved). Awarding copyright to artists does the same thing -- it makes the creation of art a competitive field. I don't want to read a book some idiot with family money put together, published, and distributed because I have very little interest in reading anything that a substantial portion of the population isn't willing to pay to read. (Substantial portion here doesn't imply mainstream, simply large enough to support a boutique publisher's overhead).

But this brings about another problem... if there is to be no copyright then who will pay to publish and distribute the books? Who will pay for the endless rounds of editing that go into every book you buy? Maybe you distribute electronically, though that has been wildly unsuccessful so far because people (and that is who we care about here, remember) don't like to read off of computer screens. They do that enough at work, and so maybe they print it out themselves for 4 cents a page... and so this 1200 page book in my hand would cost me $48 to print up. That is cheaper than the $60 that I paid for it, but that does not include the editing or the compensation for the writer...

For some reason, though, you were stupid enough to repeatedly make the point that copyright is without merit, and that it serves no constructive purpose in our society. How exactly would this society-without-copyright exist in your fairytale world? How would the creators of intellectual property profit from their massive investments of time, energy, and money? Maybe Steinbeck would write and publish his own books, you know, in that free time between 18 hour shifts as a bricklayer. Maybe Hemingway would have been able to write "The Sun Also Rises" imbetween digging ditches. I doubt it, though.

What irks me the most, though, is that a small-minded cretin like you infers from the fact that you can see no usefulness to one of the most important development in property rights in the last 3000 years that no one else has thought about the issue. You completely ignore the very real fac

Re:What BMI will say

[mpe]

Um, no. Copyright is defined in the Constitution. It grants the creator of the work thr right to control how and when the a copy of the work is created and distributed.

Which Constitution is that? Assuming you mean the US Constitution, section 8, clause 8, it acually states "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;". The only rights granted here are those enabling (but not requiring) the US Congress to pass legislation along certain lines.

If this right did not exist, there would be drastically less incentive to create, and the public domain would become void of artistic works.

Artistic works were created prior to the US Constitution being written and prior to the (earlier) invention of the concept of copyright.

Re:What BMI will say

[mpe]

There is absolutely NO economic evidence that IP laws have ANY positive effect on the production of art or inventions.

With the current attempts at "globalization" of copyright laws it would be rather hard to find such evidence.

From the beginning, it has merely been some people's THEORY that this is true - most of these people in government or business with other agendas than the free dissemination of ideas.

It's quite possibly that IP laws, like a lot of other things, can have positive effects in moderation but negative effects when taken to excess. (In the same way that a tiny quantity of a chemical can cure a disease whereas a larger quantity can poison someone.)
It may also be the case that the paradigms of IP laws which were useful a couple of centuries ago no longer make sense. Thus what might be needed would be radically different kinds of laws. As opposed to continued copyright extensions, justified by highly questionable claims.

Re:What BMI will say

[mpe]

No, copyright is not defined in the Constitution. Go read it sometime. It says that Congress, at its pleasure, may institute a copyright system.

It isn't even that specific. A copyright system being one of a number of possible things which could be implimented.

Re:What BMI will say

[kfg]

Screw that...

I agree. You're going to see the wrong bands at the wrong venue.

KFG

Re:What BMI will say

[Red Alastor]

So the money pie would be smaller but shared between less people who produce more quality. Indeed, it would not be so bad.

Re:What BMI will say

[pyros]

I knew someone would miss the point of my example. The point was that just because a majority within a group (like the millions of p2p users disitributing copyrighted works without consent of the copyright holder) says something is right, doesn't make it right.

Nice of you leave out the sentence where I say copyright extension is the problem, then go on to explain to me that copyright extension is the problem, Fred.

Exactly where did I defend the RIAA? I haven't bought a single RIAA produced tape, record, or CD in a good 5 years or so. My email signature even has a link to boycott-riaa.com. I also don't download their songs off p2p networks. I just happen to support the existence of copyrights (you know, the legal framework that the GPL is built on). But I guess you're too busy thinking free.

Re:What BMI will say

[pyros]

The Constitution does not define copyright, it grants Congress the power to define it.

My mistake. All I meant was that the constitution approves of the existence of copyright, which the OP seems to disagree with, imo. My impression of the OP was that copyright is evil and should be totally done away with because we all want to use p2p to share music.

Unjust laws that are obeyed don't get changed.

So if you write some code, and release it under the GPL, and someone else takes your work and distributes it in a proprietary product, you would still go around telling how pursuit of copyright violation is unjust? All I'm saying, is that copyright serves a useful purpose. The current implementation provided by the U.S. Congress does not, but the concept itself does.

Rather than sitting at home illegally distributing copies of copyrighted works (covertly shipping GPL code in your proprietary product) and then taking a plea bargain deal (nullifying the concept of civil disobedience) why not just get your representatives to not support assenine changes to copyright laws?

Re:What BMI will say

[10101001 10101001]

Um, no. Copyright is defined in the Constitution.

Copyright is defined, yes, though not in name.

It grants the creator of the work thr right to control how and when the a copy of the work is created and distributed.

Yes, that's what copyright does, but you're ignoring that the Constitution only lists it as a thing Congress *might* do, not *must* do.

If this right did not exist, there would be drastically less incentive to create, and the public domain would become void of artistic works.

First, you're right in that there would be less incentive to create. But it's not clear that a monetary or non-monetary incentive makes better books. All money seems to guarantee is more books. A higher percentage of garbage might be the only result.

Second, even if copyright were to be abolished right now, all works currently copyrighted would fall into the public domain. All works *already* in the public domain would still be there. So, there's no way that the public domain would become void of artistic works. In fact, the fact that books and the like were written *prior* to the advent of the printing press/copyright would seem to indicate that artistic works would still be created. I have a strong belief that many people are in general artistic.

That before the modern age, most people were illiterate meant that stories and songs were passed along in oral traditions, which greatly limited the range of stories possible (it's harder to pass along n books in oral tradition than written). So, the greatest sign would be that even the poor would still be authors without the help of copyright. Forks of works would be rampant, however, and truly ingenious ideas would spread eventually. Before you say that copyright was the source of such, I'd like to point out that the expanse between the first thought of copyright and most ingenious ideas was many years. It happened that copyright coexisted with the enlightenment, the industrial revolution, and now the information age. It's not at all clear that copyright was the source, as the printing press came first.

Re:What BMI will say

[starrsoft]

Arghhh!! Don't say that!! "It is the duty of citizens who feel that laws are unjust to break them." Don't you know how powerful the RIAA is? They have powers that governments don't have! They could be outside your house right now! I know that they are ev...

+++ATH
NO CARRIER

Re:What BMI will say

[pyros]

yes, I'm wrong about the Constitution defining copyright. I was too focused on responding to the overall tone of eliminating copyright entirely because their are enough p2p users sharing music that society has decided copyright is old and busted.

My post tried to say two things: majority rule has lots of potential to be oppresive of the rights of the minority; and the idea of copyright serves a useful purpose.

The current length of copyrights, and the restrictions on technology, makes them useless as a method to keep works entering the public domain. Continuing to distribute songs illegaly is not changing any laws for the better. Taking an active role in the congressional debate will.

All of you who think there is nothing wrong with offering the entire Sony Music catalog for free download to the entire world is ok, yet bitched about Linksys not releasing their GPL code for the WRT54G can just STFU. Copyright is what gave us the right to keep them in line (by not adhering to the terms of the GPL, plain old copyright law is used to determine the redistribution rights, and it says "you can't do that"). You're stomping all over just like they did, only you're not convincing Congress you're right about it like Linkss was convinced they were wrong about it. Use the same tactics for music that were used with Linksys. Write letters to Congress explaining why 75 years after the authors death hurts the public domain. Vote against representatives who support the INDUCE act. Then write a letter to whomever you did vote for saying why.

Re:What BMI will say

[Igmuth]

But the problem is, these things cost money. Not just the artist, who spends his time, but the studio where the music is recorded and mixed, the company that makes the CDs (or host the web site). All of these things cost money.

Re:What BMI will say

[cofaboy]

Copyright was introduced by an ENGLISH king, say again an ENGLISH king, it was for limited time only but was essentially a granting of power to the holders of that copyright. The current situation of extending copyright, ( whenever a big corporate body is involved ), is wrong as it does not limit that copyright. Where does he public domain gain if copyright ia alway extended? America, I quote that because they are the biggest extenders and I quite like the yanks, don't ask about governments even my own, were the worst for copyright observance when it was a new independant country, and most of the copyrights were British. Now that the majority of copyrights are held by America ( check it out before you flame me ) the government and companies, not the people, are up i arms about it. It seems that every one has neglected this thing called public domain where all the real people live

Re:What BMI will say

[hunterx11]

Art has always existed and always will, regardless of whether or not copyright exists; however, the vast majority of full-time artists already barely make a living. Without any copyright law, only the rich or people with rich patrons could afford to be full-time artists.

Re:What BMI will say

[syberanarchy]

I never said you defended the RIAA. I said that it would appear you take the stance of "it's the copyright law, and that's that, like it or not." Also, I took you to task for comparing copyright infringement to violating another man's wife.

I see the need for copyrights to exist. But they no longer serve the purpose they were designed for.

As to the GPL, you're barking up the wrong tree - unlike some /.'ers, I don't view it as some kind of sacred cow to be idolized. It too has its flaws. Furthermore, I would suggest that if "real" copyright law had a single shred of common fucking sense to it, and you didn't have to get a seperate license every time you wanted to use the material/program/etc. in a seperate/different/modified way, there would be no reason for the GPL. Again, it's all about context - Valve might have a legitimate complaint with a cybercafe using pirated Half Life copies, but nobody comes to a cybercafe to hear music. Is it a nice bit of background ambience? Sure. Does it bring in the money? No.

The GPL, and Creative Commons, seem to have been built in response to the fact that copyright is broken.

Do you think John Ashcroft's thugs would kick down the doors of the 5 DC++'ers they raided if some film student complained about a moderately successful student film being shared on the networks? No. The only time copyrights seem to matter is when the owners are also contributors to some campaign or another.

Copyright extension is the problem. Okay. Now what do you suggest we do about it? And by we, I mean the public as a whole. Maybe slashdotters will boycott the RIAA, but the average member of the uninformed, apathetic public won't.

Do you think the critters in DC will do the right thing? No. They've proven that with the Bono act and the DMCA. The system is broken, and unless the public makes the abuses of the copyright cartel a major campaign issue (hint: they won't), then the only way to fight the system is from outside.

Seriously - how do you fix a system when those at its controls are apathetic?

Re:What BMI will say

[schemanista]

There does come a point in every middle-class person's life where they have to put aside the illusion that they are Star Fleet officers for a minute and start thinking and acting like Ferengee in order to ensure the survival of themselves, their friends, their dreams, and their culture.

I hope I die before I get old.

Or at least that I have better metaphors than Star Trek to help me through middle age.

Re:What BMI will say

[pyros]

You said "People like you are the reason that the RIAA's line of "copyright ends when we say so" stays as the official mantra of the public." Apparently I misinterpreted that as saying I defend the RIAA.

Also, I took you to task for comparing copyright infringement to violating another man's wife.

I already explained the point I was making with the prima nupta example. The OP used two arguments to defend copyright infringement of music: the public says it's ok; and no physical property is stolen so there is no loss. I wasn't likening the acts to each other, just pointing out that majority rule ("if the public decides") isn't always right. I chose that particular example because, like copyright infringement, nothing is physically stolen from you.

Furthermore, I would suggest that if "real" copyright law had a single shred of common fucking sense to it, and you didn't have to get a seperate license every time you wanted to use the material/program/etc. in a seperate/different/modified way, there would be no reason for the GPL

No idea what you're talking about. What separate license? When I download and install GPL software, I agree to the license that if I modify it and distribute those changes I'll distribute the cod eto those changes. I don't get a new license every time I use it. Are you referring to the BS about buying a CD is just a license to listen to it on that CD, so if you want it on tape you have to buy a new license by buying the tape too? That courts have maintained that converting between formats is protected fair use.

Again, it's all about context

No it isn't, copyright infringement is copyright infringement. If one is illegal then so should be the other. Distributing copyrighted works without consent of the author is illegal, whether that work is software, music, literature, photograpy, film, or whatever.

Lets further consider how to release open source software without copyrights. First off, the only way to ensure that modified and redistributed versions stay open (which is a valid wish of the author, even if you personally prefer the BSD license), would be thru contracts. In order to make sure those contracts are in place between you, the author, and everyone obtaining the source, you either need to not make it available for anonymous download/distribution and authorize each distribution explicitly after securing the contract, or you would need to use click-thru licenses. So I really think that copyright is the mechanism that enables open source, rather than open source being a protest of copyright.

Regarding what should be done about it, get involved in the government process, as I've said in two other posts in this thread. Write to your current representatives to tell them what you want them to do. Go visit them in person at their office. Write an opinion piece for your local news paper. Run for office. They only have power as long as people vote for them.

I feel that getting actively involved in the process is better than passively breaking the law in the name of civil disobedience. This is especially true when we live in a country where the political process is open to everyone. And also especially true when the people who claim civil disobedience don't take the punishment and fight it in the courts. That's the part that carries effect, and so far everyone is taking a plea bargain and paying off the RIAA.

I get tired of people saying the govrenment isn't going to get ti right so I'm going to break the law and not fight to get it changed. I think that is apathetic.

Maybe slashdotters will boycott the RIAA, but the average member of the uninformed, apathetic public won't.

That's why I inform them, so they cease to be uninformed and apathetic.

Re:What BMI will say

[alset_tech]

The musicians are in the middle of the battle, and those who keep signing with RIAA labels have shown where their allegiances lie. Thus, they'll get no pity from me.

This is the most self-serving attitude I have ever encountered (that says so much when you read /.) When you find a better way for musicians to get large-scale distribution and pay for the best recording facilities available, let me know. Blame the RIAA, blame the Big Five, blame yourself for being an ass towards people who wanted to share their creative works with you. Don't blame people who work shit-jobs and tour and gig on their own dime for years and then see an opportunity to finally "make it."

It's obvious that you have never witnessed the hours of effort people put into recording, but it's akin to stating that hard-working, talented people who are on a stage on Broadway 300+ nights per year are the enemy for signing a contract with a huge organization that has high ticket prices.

My music is not yours to give away.

One other note: When did people forget that the _real_ reason the RIAA began a crusade against fair use is people mass-distributing music to strangers? Using the "my-right-to-make-a-copy-for-my-friend" argument is justified, but not the end-all, catch-all that some people seem to think it is.

Re:What BMI will say

[NanoGator]

"If it weren't for piracy, we would've made even more money."

This is probably why nobody's taking them all that seriously. I've heard quotes like "Two billion songs traded per month". Their claims are being crushed under the weight of their ridiculous numbers.

It's for this reason there is so much debate about the difference between 'theft' and 'infringement', and why there are so many debates here on it. I hope some of you that wave your paws and say "bah, you're all thieves" will at least acknowledge that little detail. There are a lot of people out there who have downloaded music simply to broaden their tastes. Seems like 2 billion 'stolen' songs a month would prevent growth, right?

Re:What BMI will say

[NanoGator]

"Name a reason why people would keep making books, music, movies, etc, if people could freely, and legally copy them, and make derivatives and knock offs?"

There was an article on Slashdot a few months ago about Magna conventions. At these conventions (in JAPAN!!!!) lots of fan-fic comics were being sold. Though they'd be carted off to jail due to copyright concerns here, they're not frowned on down there. The main reason that this doesn't destroy the industry is that, instead, it keeps love for these series alive.

The interesting thing about IP, especially in the content industry, is that typically the main inspiration for something is difficult to transfer to another. (ask the people who think Brannon and company should burn in hell) I think a lot of artists out there are quite confident they could make something successful even without copyright laws to protect them. I can certainly speak for myself.

Re:What BMI will say

[Sancho]

Nice way to get your point across--just avoid the next sentence which does provide, if not extra justification, clarification of the sentence. In the very next sentence, I said that we wouldn't have the same variety.

Just too bad the Sheepdots who moderate didn't read my post before modding yours up.

"Win this battle." Do you think copyrights are evil? You know that copyrights are precisely what makes the GPL valid, don't you? Maybe you're just a general anarchist....

Re:What BMI will say

[StillAnonymous]

I dunno.. Why do people keep writing software and giving it away for free? Where's the incentive?

The truth is, there are enough people that create for the love of the craft to make it all worthwhile. People who are in it purely for the money tend to be inferior at their craft anyways.

Re:What BMI will say

[syberanarchy]

The best musicians - the ones who do it primarily for the "love of the game" so to speak, do it because they enjoy it. A musician with any talent whatsoever doesn't need "the best studio equipment" to sound good. The only ones who need the "best" equipment are those who need said equipment to cover up their inadequacies.

As far as exposure, this goes into that outdated bullshit ideal that it's not worth playing the music if you can't reach the masses through huge, glitzy MTV promotion. If you want to reach people, you have many ways of doing so. Be creative - what's to stop you from making your song at or around the same filesize as a RIAA-issued song that is mass downloaded, naming it as such, and reaching people that way? Spoof-marketing, perhaps?

What's to stop you from shelling out a bit of cash to be featured on a local music scene late night program? What's to stop you from releasing your album as a rar with a link to your homepage, where you sell your tees and coffee mugs for revenue? Dropping flyers on cars with a link to your website, with the promise of free music...and a t-shirt shop, if you're so inclined.

Oh, but I guess it is much easier to sit back and let big daddy record company "manage" your career, even if that means you see 10 cents or less out of every 18 dollar record sale.

As to your music not being mine to give away, that's the risk you run by dealing in an industry where the content is easily copied. You can accept it, change, and adapt, or be pulled into obscurity, kicking and dragging all the way. The RIAA seems to be doing the latter.

The fact remains that net-savvy music lovers have been spoiled. They have been spoiled by having an entire world of free content at their fingertips. You're never going to wean the kids off it, and you're never going to take their cake away by force. So you have to do something that actually takes a little work and thought - you have to offer a product that can compete with free. I don't know how you do that, because it's not my job to know. But you don't do it by limiting your music store database to popular music. About the only way the RIAA can win this is through pooling their resources, offering every last song they own for download on the itms or something similar with no DRM, for a price so low it makes downloading it seem silly.

Because after all, while you may not feel I should distribute your music, what is to stop me from doing so? Your wishes? The unjust copyright laws? I don't mean to sound smug, but it seems that there are two kinds of musicians out there in the world - those who do it for the love of doing it, and those who absolutely do not want a single human ear to ever sense their product without the exchange of cash first.

Finally, it is the artists fault to some degree. They should know by now that the file sharing "threat" is putting the current way of doing things on shaky ground. You are judged by the company you keep, and when you join the mafia (which, at the core, describes the RIAA), don't be surprised when you're labeled as a scumbag with the rest of them.

Re:What BMI will say

[Igmuth]

So, I assume you don't write any sort of software for a living. Though, I never said anything about people who do it purely for the money. I was pointing out that no matter how much you love doing something, if you can't make a living with it, it can't be anything more than a hobby.

Re:What BMI will say

[LuYu]

This comment by Sancho is just begging for a reply, so here goes:

Of course, the copyright system itself is the reason we have book, media, etc.

And no books existed before copyright? You are kidding, right? The Statute of Anne was passed in 1710. China managed to get along without copyright for the first 700 or so years of movable type printing (starting in about 1041) and had been producing woodblock prints, in the absence of copyright, since at least the 6th century. Are you trying to tell me there were no books before the Statute of Anne was passed?

I have been meaning to say this for a long time: People write books for other reasons than profit. The claim might even be made that works for hire are not art at all since profit is not a motivation for true art. Whether or not that is true, people write books for lots of reasons. Some people, on occasion (like thousands of Slashdotters, for instance) might actually have something to say to the world.

The system allows for the (supposedly limited) monopoly on ideas so that artists could make a living and produce their content.

Once again, you are kidding, right? If the RIAA was paying artists well, they would not be working at your local cafe. Starbucks employs more rockstars than the affiliates of the RIAA. Without copyright, they would be doing the same jobs. We just would not have to pay for Britany Spears' breast enlargements. Let's face it, utopia is life without Eminem.

Without such laws in the first place, it's unlikely that we'd have the variety and multitude of movies, books, television shows, etc. that are out there.

This is totally incorrect (see preceding response). It is entirely likely that there would be more variety in sources of information. Imagine if there were five versions of Star Wars, and potential audience members could choose the version of the story that best suited their tastes. George Lucas made a kids version of Star Wars, which in many people's opinion (11,124 out of 36,362 to be exact) ruined the story. Maybe somebody else could make an adult version with darker characters and no Jar Jar Binks. Would that be variety?

Some say it's a bad thing, some say it's a good thing, but in a free society that should be all about choice, it's pretty definitive of our ideals. Lots to choose from.

The question is: Whose choice are we talking about here? The vendor's choice or the buyer's choice? It appears these days that the record industry wants to decide beforehand what the buyers should buy and feed it to them. This is totally backwards. In a free market, the vendor is subject to the whim of the buyer. The vendor is basically a beggar asking for the privilege of exchanging something for the buyer's valuable money. The buyer chooses whether or not to purchase goods or services, not the vendor. This is unless of course you advocate laws that force purchases on ordinary people to support the economy. Do you?

Re:What BMI will say

[LuYu]

The thing is, quietly breaking laws for personal gain is not civil disobedience. It's just lawbreaking.

That is assuming that sharing files, even copyrighted music files, is breaking the law. Unfortunately for your argument, not all of Us The People accept the *AA's version of that argument.

Most of the sharing done on P2P networks would fall under unregulated uses (NOT even fair use) in the real world. If I voluntarily gave a CD I owned to one of my friends, it would be perfectly legal. If I played it for my friend over the telephone (transmitted it), that would be legal, too. If I copied it once, that would be fair use. So, many of the elements involved in such sharing are perfectly legal.

The *AAs have claimed that many uses that are legal are not. They claim that the music or movies or whatever is their property. This is plainly not true. If someone steals a CD from a store, they have stolen property. If someone copies the music onto their harddrive, they have stolen nothing and created a legal backup. The *AAs do not own information... period.

Finally, you should think about the scope of Fair Use. Fair Use was not defined as a term in Title 17 until 1976 with the Copyright Act of that year. However, the practice of defining Fair Use by the courts has existed almost as long as copyright has existed in US law. How can this be?

Well, basically, Fair Use is what is called common law which is based on commonly accepted practices. If most people behave in such a way, the law follows the commonly accepted practice unless specifically legislated against. Fair Use was a reaction of the courts to protect people from doing obviously reasonable things with copyrighted material.

Now it is common practice to download songs. This practice has not hurt the *AAs. They have had record profits in a dismal economy. Of course they see the possibility that they could get more profits if there was some way to make people pay for all this downloading. This is called greed. So, they accuse everybody and their grandmother (literally) of "stealing" that which they do not own, and cry bloody murder about file sharing.

The truth is, the *AAs are just lying. I do not accept their version of the law. And before you choose to accept, you should consider that online all speech is governed by copyright if such arguments are accepted. Maybe you should pay a fee every time you quote someone. Imagine how much it would cost to post on Slashdot.

Just because the press says something is illegal does not make it so.

Re:What BMI will say

[alset_tech]

Because after all, while you may not feel I should distribute your music, what is to stop me from doing so? Your wishes? The unjust copyright laws? I don't mean to sound smug, but it seems that there are two kinds of musicians out there in the world - those who do it for the love of doing it, and those who absolutely do not want a single human ear to ever sense their product without the exchange of cash first.

I distribute my music freely online. Just because I give it out without charge doesn't stop it from being mine and give you the right to re-distribute. I know I can't stop you, but that doesn't make it right. It's about respecting another person's wishes.

Re:What BMI will say

[ultranova]

But when your friend avoids the need to buy a copy of a book, the bookstore and the publisher do not lose anything they had.

By this same logic, if your employer decides not to pay this months salary, you haven't lost anything you had, so it's okay. In fact, anyone indebted to anyone else could just refuse to pay, on the grounds that the deptor has only lost potential money.

Large-scale counterfeiting should also be perfectly okay; sure, it causes a huge inflation by vastly increasing the amount of money in circulation, and thus eats away the potential buying power of the money in your wallet, but you still haven't lost a single cent.

In a free market system, no business is entitled to cry "foul" just because a potential customer chooses not to deal with them.

Of course, this argument falls apart since copyright infringement is illegal, and businesses most certainly are entitled to cry "foul" if their loss of customers is caused by their competitors (pirates) engaging in illegal activities.

If the public decides it can share copies, then the publisher is not entitled to expect to be paid for each copy, and so cannot claim there is a "loss" when it is not.

By this logic, if the public decides it can loot a store, the storekeeper cannot claim he suffered a loss.

I'm not saying that copyright infringement is similar to theft (or that it's not), I'm just saying that the public deciding it can do something in no way makes doing that something right, moral or legal.

In other words, the "loss" comes from the copyright system; it is not an inherent part of copying. Copying in itself hurts no one.

Yes, it does. It creates competition for the "legitimate" copies of the copyrighted work, likely to drive down the sales. Of course it might also spark interest for the work and thus drive up the sales. Hard to say which effect is going to win in the long run; but the potential for harm most certainly exists.

However, all this is irrelevant. The question is actually very simple: Is the creator of a work entitled to a payment when someone uses a copy of his work ? And if he is, what limits, if any, does this right have ?

Playing around with the definition of the word "loss" does nothing to answer these questions. Pedantry might have a place in the courtroom and in the mouths of politicians, but not in public discussion.

And in case anyone is wondering, I do copy things, mostly manga and anime, because I'm an impatient person and the publisher publishes 1 volume per half a year, and because some more obscure anime titles might never be translated, and because I don't have a region-free DVD player, so I can't play any US DVD's anyway (talk about shooting yourself to the foot...).

Re:What BMI will say

[LuYu]

"Win this battle." Do you think copyrights are evil?

Hmmm. That is hard to say. The anti-circumvention provisions in the DMCA are evil. The CTEA is certainly evil. So, it depends on whether the parent was talking about part of copyright or all of copyright. You are attempting to corner the parent into an all or nothing argument.

The fact is, this is a fight about freedom. Online, copyrights are infinitely more powerful than they are in the real world. While the copyright owners cannot police what you say among your friends in realspace, they can in "cyberspace". The DMCA has been misused to fight against political dissent and corporate criticism. It has also been used to maintain monopolies in places where it should not (like printer cartrages). Years of film and news that would have been publicly accessible if it were not for copyright extensions is rotting away in lockers, doing society no good. These issues are a challenge to all of our freedom. This all or nothing argument just creates a barrier to anything getting resolved.

You know that copyrights are precisely what makes the GPL valid, don't you? Maybe you're just a general anarchist....

The GPL would not be necessary in the absence of copyright. Think about that. I am not advocating the total removal of copyright from the law books, but the GPL is a response to the draconian control that is a grotesque feature of modern copyright law in many countries. Laws are supposed to protect our freedom, not take it away.

Finally, the absence of copyright is not anarchy. Unless you would also argue that the absence of monopolies is anarchy, this argument is unsupportable. Government granted monopolies are anti-capitalistic relics of European feudalism. Perhaps there are justifications for limited monopolies, but every monopoly granted by any government constrains the freedom of its citizens. Asking for a reassessment of government excesses in granting monopolies is not the same as advocating anarchy.

Re:What BMI will say

[LuYu]

Copyright is defined in the Constitution.

No it is not. The power of Congress to create laws granting limited monopoies over information is defined in the Constitution. Here is the clause:

Section 8--1 The Congress shall have Power ... 8 To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

See? The word "copyright" does not appear in the Constitution.

It grants the creator of the work thr right to control how and when the a copy of the work is created and distributed.

Every time somebody uses the word "control" relating to copyright it makes my skin crawl. Copyright is not about control. It is about giving the creator a limited and short term advantage in the marketplace before competitors jump in. It is like a head start in a race. It grants no rights about how the work is to be used by those who buy it.

This also claims that copyright is a right. This is obviously not so. Copyright is not inalienable. It is government granted. That makes it a priviledge. Rights are something that you gain because of the fact that you are human or a citizen. True rights are irrevocable and non-transferable. I cannot give you my right to free speech, and nothing you do can take it away. Copyright is nothing like this. Copyrights are granted. They have limited terms (theoretically at least). They can be taken away. They can be sold. These are not the qualities of rights.

You and many people have to stop thinking that copyright grants you rights over other people. It grants you nothing of the kind. Copyright is around to temporarily protect one vendor from other vendors; nothing more.

Re:What BMI will say

[Sancho]

Hmmm. That is hard to say. The anti-circumvention provisions in the DMCA are evil. The CTEA is certainly evil. So, it depends on whether the parent was talking about part of copyright or all of copyright. You are attempting to corner the parent into an all or nothing argument.

Copyright itself, is nothing more than a limited monopoly on an intangible product. The anti-circumvention provisions in the DMCA have nothing to do with copyright. They have to do with preventing people from illegal copying.

So the question is not cornering the parent. In asking, "Is copyright evil?" the DMCA doesn't come into play at all.

The GPL would not be necessary in the absence of copyright. Think about that. I am not advocating the total removal of copyright from the law books, but the GPL is a response to the draconian control that is a grotesque feature of modern copyright law in many countries. Laws are supposed to protect our freedom, not take it away.

You're almost right. Without copyright, the GPL would be meaningless. With copyright, all rights are reserved by default, and then the author grants rights to the people who receive a copy of the work. With the GPL, the rights that are given away come at a price--if you make changes and redistribute, you must redistribute under the GPL. Without copyrights, I could receive source code from Linus, make changes, then redistribute as binary-only. He would have no recourse to stop me, because with no copyright, I'm allowed to do whatever I want with the "intellectual property". Software licenses in general, including the GPL, would be meaningless.

Re:What BMI will say

[LuYu]

Are you trying to say that people will not pay people to write software without copyright? Think again. Companies with new products and new ideas are always going to need new custom applications. Everything changes, and software will have to change as everything else does.

While hardware may have reached the power and speed required for most business applications, software has not even begun to reach its limits. Computers are just at the beginning of where most people are learning what is possible. Each set of realized possibilities will create another wave of possibilites not previously imagined.

If programmers run out of jobs, it will not happen during your lifetime.

Re:What BMI will say

[LuYu]

Copyright itself, is nothing more than a limited monopoly on an intangible product.

No, again. Copyright is nothing more than a limited monopoly on the act of copying and distributing information under claimed protection. The information itself is not a product. The copy is.

The anti-circumvention provisions in the DMCA have nothing to do with copyright.

You have a wonderful sense of humor. Whether or not the anti-circumvention provisions in the DMCA should have anything to do with copyright is irrelevant. They are written into Title 17. They are a part of copyright.

They have to do with preventing people from illegal copying.

This is also incorrect. They have to do with preventing unauthorized access which in many, if not most, cases does not constitute illegal copying.

So the question is not cornering the parent. In asking, "Is copyright evil?" the DMCA doesn't come into play at all.

It absolutely does. Your argument was based on the idea that the anti-circumvention provisions are not related to copyright. However, they are written into the copyright statute, so, unless you can argue that they are not in Title 17, I will just have to deny that argument outright.

As for your final argument, yes, that would be true, but no one could make you pay for the privelege to access that software. If you wanted to work on it, no one could legally keep you away from it. There would also be no recourse if your lab assistant distributed the source of your binaries to the world. In any case, the effect would probably be somewhat similar to the GPL if not exactly like the Free BSD Licence. No one would be able to tell you what you could not access.

Re:What BMI will say

[lew3004]

Well, let me ask you this bright guy: What the hell is the difference? Once you own the performance rights you own the performer. You can choose to promote the performer or destroy them; and it's all legal under today's law. THAT'S why artists should stop selling their souls.

Re:What BMI will say

[Sancho]

Ignoring your nitpicks, because while some of them are technically accurate, you are only using them to make yourself look right in the argument, while the spirit of the words holds true regardless.

As for the last bit:
As for your final argument, yes, that would be true, but no one could make you pay for the privelege to access that software. If you wanted to work on it, no one could legally keep you away from it. There would also be no recourse if your lab assistant distributed the source of your binaries to the world. In any case, the effect would probably be somewhat similar to the GPL if not exactly like the Free BSD Licence. No one would be able to tell you what you could not access.

The effect would be nothing like the GPL. Your premise seems to rely on the idea that without a legal backing, you can't force someone to buy software. That's pretty inaccurate. Without legal backing, software producers who want to force you to pay for software just have to rely on technical means: activation (ala Microsoft), periodic phoning home, etc. would all prevent the majority of people from pirating. Even if somewhere down the line the software was cracked, I suspect that most people wouldn't crack it, and future versions would employ other methods to prevent the cracking. There would always be a limited period of time in which you could make someone pay for the privilege of accessing your software. But even that isn't the point of the GPL, is it?
Right now, under copyright law, there are instances of people offering code under non-gpl compatible licenses. And the moderately extreme GPLists seem to come out in droves to denounce that software. Imagine how people would react to closed-source derivations of GPL'd software if copyright was magically deleted from the civil and criminal codes tomorrow. I daresay people would still be upset, despite your assertion that it would be "similar to the GPL".

Re:What BMI will say

[Master of Transhuman]

You want a reason?

Because they would still make money at it, that's why.

So-called "piracy" - even if legally sanctioned and highly effective technologically - is no more pervasive than any other market effect.

Which means people would still make money from their products simply because at least as many people - and probably more - would buy from the source than the unlicensed distributors.

Aha, you say, what about recouping production costs? The answer to that is the same as any other product with competition. You reduce your costs as far as feasible, market your product properly, and add incentives to buy from you than your competitors. The biggest incentive being that you are the originator of the product. As I've said before, the best way for musicians to make money today is live shows over the Net. And also importantly, you budget your production costs based on your expected ROI which would be known in a legal copying world just as much as in today's world.

There is NO economic basis for IP laws. The purpose of a free market is to accelerate to the max the production and dissemination of products beneficial to the species. The removal of IP laws would do this (in the absence of any other coercive constraints on the market - which is the real problem here.)

In the end, the real issue is human stupidity. Without a development of human rationality, NO scheme - political, economic, or social - can be made to work. This is why I am a Transhumanist.
All of these issues are ultimately irrelevant since the only issue of importance is the stupidity and irrationality of humans.

And that issue is going to be solved in this century.

But you won't like it.

Re:What BMI will say

[Master of Transhuman]

IP is the total antithesis of property.

It is an attempt to extend concepts of contract over the basic concepts of property.

And it is done for coercive reasons.

It is entirely against the concept of freedom in every respect.

You have absolutely no clue about either my motivations or my arguments.

Enemies list? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Right. I made it through Vietnam and eight years of Federal prison, and I'm worried about your "enemies list".

Moron.

Re:What BMI will say

[jschottm]

Nice statement. Pity that I have never been deemed worthy of getting mod points.

Something we don't know

[ThisNukes4u]

Maybe the BMI could tell us something we couldn't figure out for ourselves. We know the music artists aren't starving, its not too hard to figure out when they are driving around H2's and flashing their bling-bling.

Re:Something we don't know

[shark72]

"Maybe the BMI could tell us something we couldn't figure out for ourselves. We know the music artists aren't starving, its not too hard to figure out when they are driving around H2's and flashing their bling-bling."

I think you're confusing the performers -- the pretty people whose photos are on the cover of the CD -- with the songwriters and composers who work behind the scenes creating the music that's recorded by the music stars. Sometimes they're the same person (in the case of a singer/songwriter) but often they're not.

A career as a composer or songwriter is often shitty, backbreaking work for little or no recognition. Very few Hummer H2s for the majority of those who've made this their chosen profession.

And it's BMI who looks out for these people.

Re:Something we don't know

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who has four protruding and one torn disc I'd have to say this work isn't backbreaking.
Unrewarding perhaps but backbreaking it is not.

Re:Something we don't know

[Master of Transhuman]

The smart ones - like The Corrs - are both.

The Corrs have said that while most wannabes go for the recording contract, they went for the publishing contract first, because that contract allowed them to spend their precious time writing songs and practicing their musical skills (instead of having to work at odd jobs for a living) and building up a backlog of content that they then could shop to get a recording contract.

Paid off for them in thirty million albums sold worldwide.

And while I have a couple dozen MP3's and a number of downloaded music videos about them, I don't own a single CD or DVD (yet - I'm considering buying something now for various reasons.)

But I did spend $40 to see them live at The Warfield in San Francisco this past August 11.

In my view, entertainers need to start making their money from live shows (which is not easy given the venues money grabs and the expenses involved.) I think they need to start streaming live (or pre-recorded live) shows over the Net to subscribers to make the bulk of their revenue.

You can't pirate live while it's happening - only after the fact (by recording the stream). And most fans would pay money (maybe not much money because contrary to popular opinion, art really isn't high on most people's financial priorities) to see their favorite acts live on a weekly basis, say. Why would a fan pay money to a pirate to get a recorded stream when he can pay the same money to the band to get a live stream?

Maybe the artists wouldn't get rich, but it would pay their expenses.

And nobody is guaranteed the right to get rich - only the opportunity to make a living.

"Effect" bottom line?

[Colonel Cholling]

From the article:
Everyone knows that piracy can effect an artist's bottom line

Perhaps they mean affect. Unless they mean that piracy can bring an artist's bottom line into existence-- an interesting concept.

Re:"Effect" bottom line?

[keiferb]

Unless they mean that piracy can bring an artist's bottom line into existence-- an interesting concept.

Hey, it worked for the original MS Windows... I seem to remember some statistics that show that most people who got hooked on the whole 'windows' thing did so as a result of piracy.

Reminds me of South Park

[imehler]

Those Bastards! They did have enough for their 17th corvettes, solid gold diamond encrusted swimming pools and harem full of supermodels after all - that FBI agent LIED to us!

Still

[6169]

Phew, so the artists aren't really starving, but we still can't all go back to "borrowing" music from our friends instead of each purchasing our own copy.

I'll stop doing that when I feel the price for an album has settled to a more reasonable price point.

Re:Still

[jratcliffe]

"I'll stop doing that when I feel the price for an album has settled to a more reasonable price point."

I think that it's reasonable that you rent me your car for nothing but the cost of gas and maintenance. I'll be buy sometime tonight to pick it up. Sound fair?

Re:Still

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, c'mon over. And bring your girlfriend as security deposit like last time.

Re:Still

[6169]

I disagree with your analogy, because you are implying that by paying less than I currently am for an album, I'm getting something for free, and somebody else is getting shafted. I don't think that's true. It shouldn't cost 90% of my $17 to edit the tracks, produce the album art, make the product, and advertise it. That's an incredible profit margin.

That system was created before the technology to do all of that cheaply became commonplace. Excellent software exists to record, edit, and mix tracks, and the hardware needed to do so well doesn't cost that much more than a high-end audio card. There are plenty of very talented artists and graphics designers who would jump at the chance to do cover art. The cost of the physical media and case is marginal. The last hurdle is advertising and promiting the album, but the internet provides an incredible medium for this. All we need is apropriate demand, which the record companies are doing their best to stifle.

That is why I don't feel that paying a little less for a CD (and still giving the artists more than they get now) is a bad thing.

Re:Still

[Wehesheit]

except you analogy is full of shit because you are removing my property from me for a period of time, keep trying though and don't mind the RIAA cock in your ass.

Re:Still

[Simonetta]

It shouldn't cost 90% of my $17 to edit the tracks, produce the album art, make the product, and advertise it.

I certainly doesn't cost that much. Half or so of the $17 goes to the retailer. A few dollars of the remaining $10 goes to the wholesale distributor. A dollar or so remaining goes to the 'artist' in theory, but in reality record contracts are written so that almost all of the money that would go to the 'artist' goes to record company support companies or individuals. These are the CD pressers, the insert printers, the recording studios, and the record producers. All the money for these people comes out of the 'artist's' royalities.
As a consequence, these support people have no reason not to charge insane amounts of money for their 'necessary services'. Books old and new on the recording industry from a band's perspective document vast amounts of the 'artist's' advance money be wasted by these people. Both the books "Star Maker Machinery" and the recent "So You Want To Be A Rock'n'Roll Star" describe how a record producer forced on the group by the record company at many hundreds of dollars per hour would spend days adjusting the snaps on a snare drum to get the 'perfect' sound - burning up thousands of dollars of the band's studio budget.
These are the people who are responsible for the absurd cost of RIAA product, not the MP3 downloaders.
In fact, by altering the financial framework of the music industry, the P2P downloaders are actually revitalizing the music industry by forcing them to cut out all fat and waste that that has built up in the product generation process since the beginning of the pop music album era in the 1960s.

Re:Still

[dubstar]

You can have a copy of my car for free, just let me fetch my matter replicator..

Re:Still

[IndependentVik]

This is blatant flamebait, but the man has a point. Why are we so willing to compare borrowing a cd from a friend to something like car theft? It's not even remotely the same thing, and the fact that people seem to swallow the RIAA propoganda so easily disturbs me. For my part, I've cut back on the RIAA machine and have started buying most of my music from cdbaby.com (yes, I'm too lazy to link, it's just a copy/paste, damnitt!).

Re:Still

[GuyFawkes]

My friends can do this anytime they please, only caveat is they bend it they fix it, and it is returned in a similar condition.

It's called friendship.

car / bike / disk full of multimedia, who cares, not me.

Re:Still

[IndependentVik]

I like how you use the term "borrow" for copying. It's not illegal to truly borrow a CD; it's quite illegal to borrow it and copy it while it's in your possession. It's also illegal to copy it and put it up on the internet for millions to get for free. Copying CDs and distributing mp3s on the net don't constitute "borrowing". Moron...

Two notes, AC:

1) I don't get and then keep music from p2p. Last week I did download a few Franz Ferdinand tracks, however, and upon finding them to my taste I went to bleep.com to purchase some copies that would get music to the band.

2) Copying a CD is just not the same as stealing a car. If I have to really explain why that isn't so . . . well, you'd be a moron ;)

Cheers.

Re:Still

[IndependentVik]

*sigh*

MONEY to the band. Maybe I am a moron . . .

I sense the potential for confusion

[tepples]

BMI != BMG

BMG is a record label.

BMI is a performance rights organization representing songwriters and their publishers. It handles royalties for radio play of over 4 million copyrighted songs. The other major performance rights organizations are ASCAP and SESAC.

Re:I sense the potential for confusion

[starrsoft]

I think this article was presented a bit out of context. (i.e. "how the RIAA skews its sales statistics while strangling fair use.") This is after all an organization that "handles royalties for radio play". This does nothing to counteract the argument that piracy is hurting music sales. This is the profits of playing music on the radio, which would logically be greater, because of file sharing not less.

I think the problem the RIAA has with file sharing is that is shifts the profits an artist receives to being funneled through (with usual middleman skim-off) BMI type companies instead of BMG (RIAA) type companies. This article isn't and shouldn't be about RIAA type sales not decreasing; it is about the revenue, that music lovers direct to artists, shifting to other industries as a result of technological evolution.

Re:I sense the potential for confusion

[PineHall]

Thank you I read the article and then its reference and I got confused with this last paragraph shown below (http://bmi.com/news/200408/20040818a.asp):

"Representing more than 300,000 songwriters, composers and music publishers with a repertoire of 4.5 million musical works from around the world, BMI licenses more than half the music performed in America. Founded in 1939, BMI operates on a non-profit basis, paying more than 85% of revenue collected to copyright owners."

They don't sound "evil". They are not the record company.

Re:I sense the potential for confusion

[wasabii]

paying more than 85% of revenue collected to copyright owners." Copyright owners = the record company's

Re:I sense the potential for confusion

[shark72]

"paying more than 85% of revenue collected to copyright owners." Copyright owners = the record company's"

I'm not sure how you made that connection. BMI is a performers' rights organization. They represent (and help collect money for) songwriters and composers, not record companies. Songwriters and composers, on the whole, make absolutely terrible money, and it's organizations like BMI that look out for them.

It's covered here.

Re:I sense the potential for confusion

[proj_2501]

not in this case. radio stations pay a license to the songwriter, as playing a recording of a particular performance on the radio is considered a separate performance from the original recording.

Re:I sense the potential for confusion

[William Baric]

So you mean that if I don't buy a record, money will magically appear in the pocket of BMI ?

Re:I sense the potential for confusion

[Paradise Pete]

They don't sound "evil"

Try owning a bar or restaurant. BMI will send around of its "boys." Got a CD player? OK, that's several hundred dollars per year in royalties. Oh, is that TV? Well, music is sometimes played on TV, so we have to count that, too. Karaoke once a week? Pay up. My BMI bill in my dinky little bar was $1,500 a year. And no negotiating. They just come in and tell you how much you owe.

Re:I sense the potential for confusion

[mikefe]

If you look at the typical contract, you will see that the "copyright holder" *is* the record company.

Re:I sense the potential for confusion

[tepples]

If you look at the typical contract, you will see that the "copyright holder" *is* the record company.

This is true only if the record label and the music publisher are owned by the same company, such as WB Records and Warner/Chappell Music, both owned by WMG. The "copyright owners" in the context of this article are music publishers, who typically split royalties 50-50 with the actual songwriters.

Re:I sense the potential for confusion

[shark72]

"If you look at the typical contract, you will see that the "copyright holder" *is* the record company."

I think I see where you and the other fellow are confused. There are multiple copyrights. Copyrights on the words and music remain with the songwriter and composers and/or their publishing companies -- the folks represented by BMI, the company we're discussing. These are the folks that BMI means when they refer to "copyright holders."

The copyright on the recording often belongs with some combination of the record company, the engineer, and/or the producer. The record company typically has exclusive rights to distribute the recordings (this is how they recoup the considerable expense associated with producing and distributing the CD), which are licensed to the record company by the copyright holders.

Just to be clear, BMI represents -- and pays -- composers and songwriters... not record companies. They're different revenue streams. Record companies get their money by selling CDs. BMI collects money through public performances.

I hope this helps clear it up.

-1, obvious

[rootofevil]

seriously, when are they going to realize that P2P isnt hurting anything.

this will likely be spun as "look how well our lawsuits are working, people are actually buying music again"

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

High?

[JamesKPolk]

Is this a high even if you adjust for inflation?

Am I the only person here

[jb.hl.com]

Who still buys RIAA artist CDs?

Recently I've bought about 4 CDs, totalling about 75 dollars of music (50 gbp). Why? Because I like the artist, I want the included artwork and gimmicks and because it is only fair that the artist, the record company and the music store and anyone else involved in the production of the record get paid. If you like an artist, I mean REALLY like an artist, you will be happy to pay for their music. Can't call yourself a fan of some music if you're not willing to pay for it,

YMMV.

Re:Am I the only person here

[Shadow99_1]

Um I buy music, but not from any major label... I go out of my way to support bands I like who aren't signed to major labels and I support small 'indy' labels.

Why? Because I like their music and I can accept it as good music. They write their own stuff. They stick to their artistic ideals. And they will keep doing it as long as they find it interesting to do.

Why don't I support bands with major label deals? Because most don't have much real talent. Most don't write their own songs. Most submit to the whims of the labels marketing department rather than sticking to their artistic gifts. And finally most are at the utter whim of the labels themselves. One bad record and they may never be heard from again.

I wish the band Ra (try to search for them, not all that easy) would drop their contract with their label, though they will loose all rights to their work (it's owned by the label as pretty much every artists is). They have talent, but got no exposure and seem to have dropped compltely off the map... That happens all to often with bands with real talent, but aren't the next boy band or talentless bimbo girl that the music label can push around...

Re:Am I the only person here

[Soul-Burn666]

"If you like an artist, I mean REALLY like an artist, you will be happy to pay for their music."

Sure, i'll be happy to pay _THEM_. I'm very unhappy to pay a lot of money on a CD and most of it goes to untalented people in suits that take huge sums of money compared to how hard they worked for it, instead of going mostly to the artists.

Re:Am I the only person here

[merdark]

If you like an artist, I mean REALLY like an artist, you will be happy to pay for their music. Can't call yourself a fan of some music if you're not willing to pay for it

It is not so much that people are not willing to pay for music. It's that people are not willing to pay 75USD for only 4 CDs. And especially when those CDs come with copy protection which prevents people from using them on a number of playback devices. Consider also that a very small fraction of that 75USD goes to your favorite band. A small fraction is also for manufacturing. The VAST majority of it goes to the record label, and various middle men allowing them to make BILLIONS in profit.

Finally, I any many others do not listen to *pop* music. Why would I give money to a group which tries it's best to brainwash me into buying pop, and uses unfair tactics to dissuade me from buying music I like? Electronica music is often far more expensive than pop, and imports (read non-US) are often DOUBLE. I live in Canada. The lables have the nerve to label a Canadian group I like as an IMPORT ?! and charge me double to buy it, in CANADA.

Am I really supporting my favorite artist by giving money this way? The RIAA will not promote them. In fact, they try their best to make it hard for people to even buy their music. And why have all the music stores in Canada dropped any non-RIAA music? I am now forced to order such music from abroad.

Perhaps you should give more thought to who you are really supporting here. Promotion money for Briteny Spears? Or are you paying to see your favourite band buried?

Re:Am I the only person here

[dubstar]

I purchase the CD's of the artists I appreciate.. The tactics of the RIAA make me think twice about making any of those purchases though.

Can't call yourself a fan of some music if you're not willing to pay for it,

Thats not at all true, and rather akin to saying I can't be a fan of Picasso if I'm not willing to buy his paintings.

Re:Am I the only person here

[lidocaineus]

How terrible for you. There is STILL plenty of good music out there that are on major labels. Yes, it sucks when your fave indie get signed to a big label, but fuck that; I'm not going to deprive myself of enjoying new material from a band that I really enjoy because of politics. Yes, the noble thing is NOT to support them when they indulge in things against your personal views, but otherwise what I would suggest at that point is to bring up the issues with the band (yes, plenty will listen) as well as making your views plain to the 'evil' record company by supporting various interest groups and organizations promoting your ideals.

Just as my taste is not dictated by what is popular or hitting the bland airwaves, I will similarly not restrict myself from the opposite.

Re:Am I the only person here

[nikko1221]

You're not alone, I buy also buy CD's. However it makes me the happiest when I can buy directly from an artist owned and operated website. They Might Be Giants have started their own artist-to-listener store at www.theymightbegiants.com

Their site points out the obvious "it skips the middle man". I'm glad not to support some swaggering no talent record company dork who has no benefit to the artistic process, except for being and Executive VP of High CD Price Justification, and screwing the artist.

I wish there was a way to directly pay the songwriters on a shareware-type basis. Sort of a "hey, I had Napster'ed a few of your songs and really liked them alot. Here's $10, keep up the great work."

Re:Am I the only person here

[recursiv]

Who still buys RIAA artist CDs?

Oh, just a couple of people... here and there.

Re:Am I the only person here

[Shadow99_1]

See I believe in following through with my principals and that means letting go of bands that make bad choices. Not that I haven't tried to stop some of them from making those choices... But some guy they hardly know doesn't quite inspire them to change their minds on what is commonly percieved as 'the greatest thing ever' for a musician. It's not my fault I try to stop them, but I can almost guarentee any band I like will get butchered through the label 'purchase' of their souls and I won't like what they do anymore or they'll fade away if I still do, because they weren't 'hip' enough for the label... It never fails...

Re:Am I the only person here

[lidocaineus]

Saying that you will let go of a band because they make a decision that's bad in your eyes, despite not changing style, personalities, or talent is the most childish thing I've ever heard of. Let's see, you won't support them once they sign, so now they've lost a fan and you've probably contributed to a possible failure, and now you've got NO music from them. The other choice is purchasing the music despite their "sell out" status, and now you have more music from them that you wouldn't have gotten otherwise. So no music, or music that's been 'labelized'. Sorry, I'll take the latter.

Now if the band ends up becoming a completely different entity and loses all of what brought them to that point, you have a valid statement, but that is neither guaranteed NOR does it happen all the time.

As to the idea that getting signed is considered a panacea by most bands... well, you're way off. If bands these days still don't know what signing to a major entails (which in some situations really does involve handing over a piece of your soul), they deserve all the punishment they get. Most bands know, and are very hesistant to sign a deal; if they started out with nothing but fan support, you bet your ass they'll listen to their core group if they're on the cusp of a big decision.

Re:Am I the only person here

[Vantage13]

I think you're jumping to conclusions here

Saying that you will let go of a band because they make a decision that's bad in your eyes, despite not changing style, personalities, or talent is the most childish thing I've ever heard of.

You seem to think he's electing to no longer support the band simply because they've "sold out"

Now, I know people like this. People who whenever a little known band becomes popular assume they've "sold out" and stop liking them. However, I don't think that's what the grandparent poster is referring to.

The grandparent poster is saying he disagrees with the bands view and thinks it's a mistake. Which is a valid opinion. Now he also, let's say (since I do not personally know the grandparent poster), has his own personal belief that he will not support any RIAA bands. Therefore, now that this band is on an RIAA label he cannot support them, whether he likes them or not. Doing so would be a violation of his strong belief. Violating that belief would in fact be a case of him "selling out" his own beliefs.

I don't see how that's childish at all. I respect the fact that he will stick to his belief even though he still likes the band.

It's unfortunate that there's is a conflict for sure, but it's about his principles, not whether the band themselves has "sold out"

Re:Am I the only person here

[lew3004]

Even if they only produce 1 song of 30 that you actually like? Better wait for the "Greatest Hits' version then. Idiot.

Slight correction...

[ca1v1n]

No, the artists are still starving. BMI is doing well though.

Re:Slight correction...

[shark72]

"No, the artists are still starving. BMI is doing well though."

Remember, BMI is a non-profit performing rights organization run by and for songwriters and composers. They're not a record company and their revenue stream is not related to CD sales. They're the good guys -- if (God help you) you decide to become a professional songwriter or composer, you want to join BMI (or its sister organization, ASCAP) because they look after you and make sure you get paid for public performances of your work.

Re:Slight correction...

[black mariah]

It should also be noted that unlike a record company, performance rights organizations such as ASCAP and BMI do not take a percentage of profits. They charge a yearly fee for their services, and that is all they make. At times, their enforcement of royalty payments has been heavy-handed, but overall ASCAP and BMI are the good guys.

This is beyond boring...

[Anonymous Coward]

Enough damned RIAA-related posts already.

We know they are wrong, we know that some music must be sold in order for musicians to survive, and we know that sharing of music will never end.

The editors of Slashdot need to exercise some restraint. In any case, the signal : noise ratio on this site has become steadily worse in the past year.

Wake up and provide some more interesting material, kiddies.

Re:This is beyond boring...

[SlashdotLemming]

Enough damned RIAA-related posts already.

When RIAA posts stop generating site traffic, they'll stop posting them.

Songwriters make more than artists

[tepples]

Perhaps the recording artists are struggling to recoup, but the songwriters aren't. This shows that the way to make money in the record business is to write songs for other artists to cover, as it's the songwriter who gets paid when a song is played on the radio. However, songwriters run the risk of copyright infringement.

BMI is not the RIAA

[common middle name]

As far as I know BMI handles royalties for broadcast rights and things like "covers" and songwriting credits. It has nothing to do with sales of pre-recorded music which is what the RIAA claims is hurt by piracy. When you buy a cd from a major label band BMI doesn't see any money. They only benefit from the radio station you listen too playing a BMI artist's songs or the local kareoki bar patrons singing along to a recording. This has nothing to do with pre-recorded music or file sharing. Nothing to see here...move along.

Re:BMI is not the RIAA

[rackrent]

Those are truly valid points, but how often have we seen a particular band, literally "shoved down our throats" on commercial radio (Clear Channel, I'm looking at you). Companies such as BMI obviously have the leverage to promote bands in such a way such that Creed, for example, sells umpteen million albums, and a band that no one's ever heard of, like Evanescence suddenly appears and sells millions more.

Maybe it's my circle of friends, but I've never met anyone who actually liked either of these bands, yet they've always gotten huge airplay. (Don't get me started on Altar Bridge.)

For what it's worth, I believe companies like BMI are behind getting sub-standards like those I mentioned (and certainly many others) airplay, while many other bands who are more sophisticated, never see the light of day....or the airwaves, or whatever.

Re:BMI is not the RIAA

[Zorilla]

Those are truly valid points, but how often have we seen a particular band, literally "shoved down our throats" on commercial radio (Clear Channel, I'm looking at you).

Tell me about it. That was one expensive doctor bill.

Re:BMI is not the RIAA

[direktor]

The parent article is right. BMI has nothing to do with album sales. AND, contrary to the article I'm replying to, BMI does not have the leverage to promote bands. BMI is an administration company...they're like a payroll service for songwriters. Ars kinda screwed up with this one, hinging their whole article on a piece of info that's not really pertinent.

Re:BMI is not the RIAA

[Ohreally_factor]

Mod this way up.

People (ahem, Cowboy Neal and applemasker or *coughcough* "Ceasar"), don't submit (or post) stories that do nothing more than 1) foster greater misunderstanding of the issues, and 2) demonstrate your ignorance, which in this case is great.

Re:BMI is not the RIAA

[shark72]

"Companies such as BMI obviously have the leverage to promote bands in such a way such that Creed, for example, sells umpteen million albums, and a band that no one's ever heard of, like Evanescence suddenly appears and sells millions more."

While BMI could do something like this, that's not their job. That's largely the job of the record company.

BMI collects royalties for performance rights and distributes them to composers, songwriters and music publishers. While they (as well as the other artist rights' society in the US, ASCAP) will tout the list of big-name artists who are BMI members, they're not in th business of promoting some of their artists over others -- they serve all of their members.

"For what it's worth, I believe companies like BMI are behind getting sub-standards like those I mentioned (and certainly many others) airplay, while many other bands who are more sophisticated, never see the light of day....or the airwaves, or whatever."

Not really. Any songwriter or composer may join BMI. They are a performers' rights organization, not a PR firm, advertising agency, or record company.

Re:BMI is not the RIAA

[Ohreally_factor]

Did he mean literally literally or figuratively literally?

Re:BMI is not the RIAA

[black mariah]

BMI does no such thing, and has absolutely no incentive to. It doesn't matter how many albums a band sells, they still pay the same fees to BMI that everyone else does; about $300 per year.

Friends?

[YrWrstNtmr]

....but we still can't all go back to "borrowing" music from our friends instead of each purchasing our own copy.

The entire online community is not your 'friend'.

Re:Friends?

[Rightcoast]

And then it happened... a door opened to a world... rushing through the phone line like heroin through an addict's veins, an electronic pulse is sent out, a refuge from the day-to-day incompetencies is sought... a board is found. "This is it... this is where I belong..." I know everyone here... even if I've never met them, never talked to them, may never hear from them again... I know you all... Damn kid. Tying up the phone line again. They're all alike...

It's not about money, it's about controll

[argoff]

In the next few years, it will be easier to nuke every city in the planet than it will be to reign in the unrestricted flow of information. The Media industries simply can't maintain their monopoly alone anymore, so they're trying to microregulate all the technology industries and fear monger everyone else.

PS: which executive candidate do you think is in the pocket of the media industries, and which do you think is in the pocket of the tech industries?

Re:It's not about money, it's about controll

[buxton2k]

I'm beginning to think that the only really effective solution is to do away with music copyrights almost altogether. Traditionally (before recording technology), artists made money off of live performances (if at all). I think eventually we'll see recorded musci (CDs, mp3s, etc.) all seen as simply the marketing for live performances. Artists may have to take out a loan to get a CD cut, but small, independent studios and CD production companies will do the work as contractors. You won't be signing with them, but hiring them to use their equipment.

The effect will be that making a CD will be seen a (possible necessary or not, depending on the situation) marketing tool, similar to flyers, posters and newspaper ads now, to draw audiences to your live performance. You won't expect to ever recoup the cost of the CD from actual sales, but every download of an mp3 equals greater visibility and name recognition.

Bringing an artist's bottom line into existence

[tepples]

Unless they mean that piracy can bring an artist's bottom line into existence-- an interesting concept.

"They're pirating our records!"

"How can we get them to buy our records? What's something we can offer that the pirates can't?"

"Ummm... liner notes?"

"Bingo. Let's have $TEEN_FEMALE_SINGER get her butt done and put more pictures in the liner notes of her next album."

So then the label advances $TEEN_FEMALE_SINGER the money for cosmetic surgery on her backside, effecting her bottom line.

Re:Bringing an artist's bottom line into existence

[MikeXpop]

"How can we get them to buy our records? What's something we can offer that the pirates can't?" "Ummm... liner notes?"

Funny you should say that. I downloaded Sgt Pepper the other day (I own it twice on vinyl and didn't want to bother with bringing the record player downstairs), and when it finally was done I discovered much more than just the FLACs. There were something like 5 pictures of the front, back, inside cover, cd, etc. Then there was a word document that contained all the linear notes and pictures.

Inflation

[tepples]

How much did a vinyl record typically cost in the early 1980s? Now double it. For one thing, many CD albums first published in the last few years would fit on three or four sides of 12 inch vinyl; for another, the dollar is worth less compared to groceries in 2004 than it was in 1984.

Re:Inflation

[shark72]

You're absolutely correct -- in fact, the price of music has not kept up with inflation. That record on sale for $9.99 in 1984 would cost $17.60 in today's dollars; meanwhile (believe it or not) the average price of a new CD is now down to about $13.50.

Re:Inflation

[dcuny]

You're right - I don't believe you. It's not that I doubt your veracity, it's just that your numbers don't jibe with my own experience.

The price of a newly released CD runs about $18 at my local Tower Records. That's a hell of a sticker shock, with our without inflation.

The price of an re-released album runs around $12 for a "super saver" that's been out for over 20 years.

The only way I can figure that you get an "average" price of $13 is to include CD singles in your price.

Re:Inflation

[VoxCombo]

A real studio still takes way over $20,000 to set up. More in the range of ten times that. 2,000 gets you a computer in a bedroom, not a studio.

Also, duplication can be had for about 50 cents per CD (i doubt this figure includes packaging), but professional replication (as opposed to duplication which is done on CDRs, not regular CDs) costs much more. A typical major label, large quaqntity release costs about $1 per CD to manufacture and package. SMaller quantities cost more per unit, up to the $3 per CD range

Marketing is insanely more enpensive now than it was in the '80s, and marketing costs are such a large piece of the pie, that it nearly renders production and manufacturing costs irrelevant in the big sceme of things.

Re:Inflation

[shark72]

No problem, that figure surprises a lot of people. The data is here (note I was a little high; it's $13.29 now, down from $13.79 last year). The reason why many folks balk at that average price is because it's a mathematical average of all new CDs sold, and I think many if not most Slashdotters don't buy the most popular music (but they might be "sharing" it ;-) ).

It's common practice nowadays for retailers to put a hot new release out at $11.99 or $12.99. During the first few weeks at that price, it will sell a metric buttload of copies, thus offsetting the relatively few copies of $17.99 CDs that are sold at the same time. Thus $13.29 is the average price, and not the typical price when you look at all the CDs on the market, unweighted by their popularity.

Re:Inflation

[shark72]

Your comments are very astute. Producing a CD costs a lot more than many Slashdotters realize. More importantly, the record company's income ends at the $10 or so at which they sell it into the channel.

As consumer goods go, CDs have very low net margins. The devil's always in the details; in this case, the detail is the difference between "gross" and "net."

Re:Inflation

[Igmuth]

While I agree with your point about there being lots of hidden costs that many people don't realize; I just want to nitpik and say the the large upfront cost for a recording studio gets broken up over numerous albums. Though that being said, many private studios still do charge a hefty fee, since they are out to make money, just like every other buisness in the world.

Re:Inflation

[10101001 10101001]

In 1984, you could get a 256KB memory computer for $5000. Even the cheap $300 computers today provide 128MB memory (not to mention 20GB+ HD). The difference, of course, is that while computers have gotten much more powerful, involve more competitors, and are substantially cheaper, the record -> CD transition wasn't as much of a technological break-through and less competition occurs. I'd probably be singing a different tune if CDs actually were approaching their cost of manufacturing, like computers..

Re:Inflation

[10101001 10101001]

What you can do with a computer is worth a lot more than what its components are worth. Computers still only cost near their manufacturing cost. The fact is that most copyrighted works *aren't* worth much more than their medium cost, since you either can't legally do much with them or you wouldn't anyways (ie, the same argument that most people don't actually advantage from the freedom of source code directly in free software). You don't use entertainment to expand businesses (exception being entertainment makers and possibly the medium makers). The copyrighted work is rarely a tool (exceptions are things like advertisement slogans).

Blank CDs could even be said to be worth more, as the content possibly expressed on them is greater than that of an already pressed CD. Of course, the opposite side of the coin is that pre-pressed CDs are worth more as pressing a CD takes time, so them doing it saves you time which is worth money.

Copyright is an artificial creation because some signers of the Constitution thought copyright might be necessary to produce artistic and scientific works. It doesn't follow inflation or manufacturing pricing. That was my point, actually. Talking about inflation like it somehow should be a larger factor in cost ignores fundamentally what copyright is. Well, I also used the computer example to show that there were goods that decrease substantially during an inflationary period; ie, I was being a bit misleading the other direction.

Re:Inflation

[lew3004]

I cry foul.....I paid upwards of $20.00 for LP's not that long ago. Are you trying to tell me that CD's and manufacturing methods have made NO progress in the music industry when it comes to economics? Last I heard it costs about $.01 to physically make a recordable CD.

Artists? Starving?

[blair1q]

When was the last time Van Gogh collected a royalty check?

Corporate ownership of music should be outlawed.

It's unnecessary.

Re:Artists? Starving?

[Anonymous Coward]

When was the last time Van Gogh collected a royalty check?

Yeah, so when's the new Van Gogh CD coming out?

BMI is not a record company!

[shark72]

BMI is a performance rights organization. They are not part of the money flow involved with buying a CD. They are non-profit, run by and for artists and composers -- the "good guys" according to many Slashdotters.

They handle public performances. Not CD sales..

Again: BMI = good guys. They collect money for artists and performers -- the little guys. And this money does not come from CD sales. It would be a stretch to claim that P2P would have any effect on BMI's revenue stream. It's all explained here.

This has to be the mother of all straw men, folks.

Re:BMI is not a record company!

[Ohreally_factor]

I agree (as I posted elsewhere) that this whole topic is stupid, based on "Cesar"'s (writer of the article at Ars), applemasker's (story submitter), and Cowboy Neal's (Editor and international bon vivant) gross ignorance. BMI has nothing to do directly with RIAA.

I'm not so certain that automatically gives them a free pass and a clean bill of health. Weren't they one of the groups behind the bill that killed internet radio?

Re:BMI is not a record company!

[antiMStroll]

From BMI' site:

" BMI also licenses non-broadcast general music users, such as nightclubs, discos, hotels, bars, restaurants and other venues. While it is virtually impossible to log and make a separate distribution for such performances, they are accounted for by BMI's basic premise that the material used in such venues reflects the songs currently being performed on commercial broadcasting stations. Therefore, royalties collected from general music users are distributed on the basis of performances on commercial radio and television stations."

They're the same clowns strong arming taxi companies, restaurants, dentists - any commercial venue with a radio on. I'm not sure I'll group them with the 'good guys'.

Re:BMI is not a record company!

[Dachannien]

The connection between BMI's royalties figures and the effect of P2P on the music industry was misrepresented in the /. blurb. But there is almost certainly a causal relationship between the two: shared music generates greater interest in particular artists, increasing the occurrences of those songs generating performance royalties.

Re:BMI is not a record company!

[shark72]

Thanks for being a beacon of sensibility in this utterly retarded thread.

"I'm not so certain that automatically gives them a free pass and a clean bill of health. Weren't they one of the groups behind the bill that killed internet radio?"

It would make sense that BMI and ASCAP would be behind the push to require that Internet radio stations pay royalties to composers and songwriters as do traditional radio stations. However, since I have an understanding of how hard the typical songwriter or composer works, and how shitty the pay is, I have no problem with this. It's a bit like an advocacy organization's efforts resulting in the price of clothing going up by a few bucks with the direct result being factory workers being paid a living wage. Royalties on radio airplay go to the people who need it the most. Despite many Slashdotters' attempts to portray professional songwriters as cocaine-snorting Hummer drivers, it's simply not the reality.

Re:BMI is not a record company!

[shark72]

"But there is almost certainly a causal relationship between the two: shared music generates greater interest in particular artists, increasing the occurrences of those songs generating performance royalties."

Agreed 100%. While this in itself is not a rationale for piracy (the revenue stream from CD sales goes, in part, to a different set of underpaid, hard working everyday people), I am certain that unauthorized dissemination via P2P results in more radio and club play.

Re:BMI is not a record company!

[mog007]

They are non-profit

So is the RIAA... just because an organization is non-profit offically doesn't mean they're not a greedy organization.

Re:BMI is not a record company!

[dfl]

A good (INSIGHTFUL!) point.

There's surely a causal relationship, but it is likely complicated. P2P sharing of the latest pop hit probably means more radio requests and hence a bigger payout to the composer under the BMI formula. But what about the occasional spike in sharing of a song that isn't going to show up on any chart used by BMI?

In a sane system where P2P was treated more like radio and not like an illegal drug market, it would be very easy for BMI to track P2P activity and adjust the payout to arists appropriately.

Re:BMI is not a record company!

[black mariah]

The difference being, the RIAA is funded by a collection of corporations with billions of dollars in the banl. BMI and other performance rights organizations are funded directly by the artists they represent.

Re:BMI is not a record company!

[shark72]

"They're the same clowns strong arming taxi companies, restaurants, dentists - any commercial venue with a radio on. I'm not sure I'll group them with the 'good guys'."

I'm not sure how the typical Slashdotter would have songwriters and composers make their money. The common Slashdot rationale for piracy is that artists make their money from public performances anyway -- well, it's BMI who makes sure that they get their money this way. Songwriters and composers largely make absolutely shitty money in exchange for lots of hard work, and they depend on royalty checks to eat and feed their families, while the record company-manufactured stars get the fame and fortune. I would not choose the word "clowns" for a non-profit organization that helps make sure that songwriters and composers get that already miniscule slice of the pie.

I think one way to value a society is by how it values its artists. It's chilling that many Slashdotters are upset that somebody's looking out for this largely underpaid segment of society.

Re:BMI is not a record company!

[antiMStroll]

Mastercraft gets no payment when a piece of art is created with its tools. Microsoft doesn't get a cut when Word is used to write a novel. This isn't about the right to make a living, it's about the means. Not withstanding the distinction between "artist" and "performer", everyone has to "eat and feed their families", not everyone demands a body of constrictive legislation and army of domestic snitches to do so in the means they desire.

There are few people in this world who get to become and do all they want, I see no reason those in the arts should get special dispensation in that regard, especially considering how widely the term 'arts' is applied and how much of zero value it covered by it. The market's in a glut and if activities like those I mentioned are necessary to "feed the family" it's time to realign the life goals.

Re:BMI is not a record company!

[syberanarchy]

For bands, it's called concerts. Touring. Busting your ass in venues across the country. Discs should be looked at as marketing.

Songwriters, I could give a fuck about - if you can't write your own material, you shouldn't be performing. It's not like writing/directing, where the director (in theory) brings the writer's vision to life. A songwriter should be a performer, and vice-versa. If not, then you're only doing half your job.

Radio play is fair game for royalties because the radio company is making money off that artist's music through advertisers.

On the other hand, do you really think a dentist or a taxi driver is going to be valued over his/her competitor because they have some RIAA-pwn3d musak in the background? Doubt it. By these "rights groups" stance, I should be paying up anytime I have a group of friends over who hear the song their members own. Never going to happen.

That's why shit like that should be off limits - because if you're going to make music, you have to realize that you can't get your fucking panties in a jar every time someone hears it without tithing.

At this point, I think every band that signs with a label deserves what they get. Musicians should know by now that the RIAA is out to screw them, and if nobody signed, they'd be out of business tommorow, as would MTV. That, or maybe the contracts would change.

The public is dumb - they like only what they are told to like. But those who actually create and perform the content should be a little smarter.

Copyright never killed anyone?

[DrSkwid]

not quite true

"Barrowing" music?

[CaptainTux]

but we still can't all go back to "borrowing" music from our friends instead of each purchasing our own copy.

It always gives me a chuckle when I see someone call outright stealing "borrowing". Let's look at two key differences between the two:

1: When one borrows something it usually deprives the lender of the objects use until the borrowed item is returned. This is true of borrowing a CD. Your friend no longer has use of that CD until you return it.

2: When something is borrowed, it is usually returned or expected to be returned.

"Borrowing" music from a friend in the form of a copied CD or MP3 or downloading music from strangers (and no, they are NOT your "friends") on the internet does not meet the definitions of borrowing.

I believe music SHOULD be able to be freely copied, shared, etc across the net. I think it's a viable revenue stream for the artists and labels and that most people will go and buy the CD eventually if they really like it. But let's not muddy the waters just to appease our own guilty minds: it isn't borrowing and it's not sharing music between friends because you consider the entire world your friend. It's stealing. Let's at least be honest.

Re:"Barrowing" music?

[HeghmoH]

It always gives me a chuckle when I see someone call outright stealing "borrowing". Let's look at two key differences between the two:

It always gives me a chuckle when I see someone call copyright infringement "outright stealing". Let's look at two key differences between the two:

1: When one steals something, it usually deprives the original owner of the objects. This is true of stealing a CD from a music store. The store no longer has that CD to sell to its customers.

2: When something is copied against the will of the copyright owner, the copyright owner loses nothing but an abstract potential.

"Stealing" music from a friend in the form of a copied CD or MP3 or downloading music from strangers on the internet does not meet the definitions of stealing.

I believe people SHOULD respect copyright, because it causes people to make valuable contributions to society. But let's not muddy the waters to make a point against those who may disagree; it isn't stealing just because you disagree. It's copyright infringement. Let's at least be honest.

Re:"Barrowing" music?

[latroM]

I believe people SHOULD respect copyright, because it causes people to make valuable contributions to society.

And people can't ever enjoy those contributions without chains, at least not in their lifetime. If the copyright was shorter people would see the benefits of the copying monopolies, to the society as whole, and probably respected the copyright law. The current system favours only the **AA and it pirates from the public domain.

Re:"Barrowing" music?

[Barto]

Except it's not stealing and you're a troll.

Saying something over and over and over again doesn't make it true, and no matter how many times you say "copying is stealing," it isn't the case.

I'm not passing a moral judgement on the kind of massive file sharing you are referring to but whatever the morality, it is not stealing or theft.

Re:"Barrowing" music?

[lew3004]

Fuck off.....you're an asshole. The word "borrow" is seldomly used on this site. Jerk off.

One quibble:

[Sheetrock]

Piracy undoubtedly diminishes sales, but the extent to which this is the case is debatable.

While I don't agree with stealing music, I would argue with the term "undoubtedly" at least until some decent market studies are done proving that P2P isn't actually generating more music purchases in general.

Because I've heard more then enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that it's a possibility. It might not be sustainable if the RIAA opened the floodgates and said "download what you want, pay for what you like", thereby removing any stigma involved in music theft, but under current circumstances I'd bet plenty of new music purchases have been made.

with todays technology there is NO reason...

[3seas]

... to pursue the consumer in legal battels...

For with todays technology there is no need to subsidize a new band for testing success.

To put it in simple terms, a new band establishes themselves a level of popularity, via the internet, where upon reaching a reasonable level (if they can), becomes into a position of having record companies bid on handeling the new artist. Leaving it up to the artist to prove themselves and in the process not tale away from established artist..

such a direction will flush out the record industry dead weight.

Rush for "Growth"

[exi1ed0ne]

It should be far from amazing that the people who are making large sums of cash are the first ones to scream "thief!" If business believes that internationalization and lowering of trade barriors is good for the economy (see the theory of comparative advantage) then they should not be allowed to legislate their monopoly though expanded copyright, DCMA, etc. Let free trade really rule and see what happens!

when did we not borrow copies?

[fermion]

Phew, so the artists aren't really starving, but we still can't all go back to "borrowing" music from our friends instead of each purchasing our own copy.

When did we not borrow copies? Before P2P we made tapes. I suppose before recorded records we just stole the music and lyrics and sang it ourselves. To this day we burn CDs.

I don't think the issue is borrowing or copying or stealing. I think the issue is how much will it cost to do business in prerecorded media, and who will be willing to enter that business with those costs. Clearly small labels have always had a tough time. The big guys are and have been making money hand over fist for a very long time, at least the past 20 years.

Leakage or piracy or whatever is part of the cost. So is the drugs, prostitution, and violence. Some people are never going to buy a recording. Some always will. The goal should be to encourage the middle to buy without pissing them off and pushing them to the end that never buys. This is a worthwhile goal. P2P and ITMS is part of that goal. I know people that are buying music again because of these services.

Brining into existance

[nurb432]

In some cases, that may be true...

Re:I'm hungry

[ToasterTester]

Recording companies and contracts are more like insurance companies. They are taking the risks on the artist. They pay for the recording, marketing, manufacturing, and distribution. IF the artist is a flop the recording company has lost the money not the artist. SO the recording companies pray out of all the groups they sign a one or two will make it big. That will help the recording company recoop losses from the failed artist. So while they do make lots of money off off a couple artist they are loseing on others.

Yes, the artist if they sell have to pay back recording costs before they make money themselve and some only break even. That is why songwriter royalities are so important to artists. The artists may not make money off records themselve, but make money from their song writing.

When a record is played on the radio, or a CD sold part of the money goes to the record company in the past called mechanical royalites. Then another part of the money go to song writer royalities. Plus we aren't talking about much money a few cents per play. That what many artist have to pay the bills with.

>>> but we still can't all go back to "borrowing" music from our friends Borrowing from friends sound innocent, trouble is it's long term borrowing, and not alway friends, but strangers on the internet. Theft is theif. In the past the recordind companies accepted so much of this "borrowing" between friends. But when people started sharing with anyone and everyone you blew it for everyone. So don't blame the record companies and artist who want to get paid. You abused the system and now EVERYONE is paying for your greed.

it's not the artists that aren't starving...

[twiggy]

Phew, so the artists aren't really starving, but we still can't all go back to "borrowing" music from our friends instead of each purchasing our own copy.

Actually, the artists are still starving, it's the labels that aren't... see The Problem With Music, by Steve Albini. The labels are making plenty of money, choking the artist's bankrolls, and then blaming piracy for the supposed industry decline (and convincing artists it's piracy that is killing their bankrolls)...

Re:I'm hungry

[tchdab1]

Precisely.
The fact that the controllers are making huge profits does not mean that a fair or even any percentage of those profits are being shared with the content creators. This has been one of the oft-quoted reasons or justifications for p2p sharing - my $18.00 towards the CD means little or nothing to the unfortunately locked-in contract signees, so why fatten the profiteers?
Check out Courtney Love's (google) screeds on the way the industry does business and how all but the biggest names often end up owing money to their handlers even after big sales are racked up.

The handlers are not hurting, they are using their position to hurt AMAP, maximize control and profits.

Go America.

Meanwhile, back in reality...

[isecore]

RIAA should really wake up from their cinderella-sleep. The reason why sales are going up is BECAUSE of piracy.

How else can people decide how to buy music? For at least a decade pretty much every album has contained 1 somewhat catchy tune, while the rest has been crap. No one wants to spend money on that, so you pirate it in order to find out if the album is good or not.

Also, it's a great way of finding new music that isn't stuck in the corporate circus that is the recording industry, and when that new exciting album turns out to be good - you buy it. I've done this myself on plenty occasions.

The only artists complaining about lack of income are those rappers on MTV - you know, the ones who have videos that look like corporate commersials and need money to pay for all their bling-bling.

Re:Meanwhile, back in reality...

[BlacKat]

This is so true it's not even funny... I have at /least/ 50 CD's I would NOT have even thought twice of bying pre-P2P.

I bought them because I had downloaded some of the artitsts music via P2P and really enjoyed it and wanted better quality. Legally owning a copy and getting the "extras" is also a nice benefit. ;)

Re:Still-Robin Hood Tactics.

[tarunthegreat2]

On the contrary, it is "our" actions that have forced, I repeat forced the music companies to start offering single-song downloads at 99c per song. I'm pretty ok with that, and think so are all of the free-as-in-beer people. There's just one major problem that's left to be tackled. How are the online stores gonna be able to hold the enitre music collection of songs stretching from the 15th Century till today? So basically, if you wanted t download "Head to Toe" by Lisa Lisa and The Cult Jam, you'd ONLY be able to find it on Kazaa.

Re:Still-Dodge ball.

[tarunthegreat2]

In other news, economists have found that countries with extremely high-rates of taxation (barring Scandinavia) tend have extremely large underground economies i.e. black markets....could be it be that people don't like to declare their assets (i.e. cheat on their taxes) when they know that they'll lose 50% to a beaureaucratic-all-consuming Behemoth?
Believe it or not, there are such things as extortion and unfari market practises. Somehow Microsoft is a teh Devil sux0r, but the music companies are all honest-hearted hard-workin' regular joes?

Beware the spin

[Spuffin]

I'm sure they'll come out with a press release saying something to the affect of:

"Recent tactics against piracy are working, which caused our profits to climb this past year. We look forward to using more strong-arm tactics to further increase our profits."

Okay, so maybe I added the last part.

Re: Artists don't get what you pay for CD's

[Alwin Henseler]

If you like an artist, I mean REALLY like an artist, you will be happy to pay for their music

I'm sorry to say, but you wasted a large part of that 75 dollars of yours. A big chunk of it was taken by distributors, record company, songwriter, and possibly others. Only a (possibly small) part ends up on the artist's bankaccount.

You may consider asking an artist if it's somehow possible to donate to them directly. If they say: "sorry we can't take your money" (stupid!...), go buy their CD. But if they say "Sure! Here's my bankaccount number" (smart!... they've seen the light), you determine the easiest method of getting their music, you decide what you feel their work is worth, and the artist gets 100% of that.

Sheeple

[nnet]

Just Say No To RIAA Produced Music(R).

Support independent artists, listen to their music, not the MTV/corporate garbage foisted on the public. Don't accept crap. Tell the RIAA with your dollars that you're fed up with their crappy music, and monopoly. Stop buying/listening to RIAA produced crap.

Ogg Stream IPv4
Ogg Stream IPv6

Re:Sheeple

[common middle name]

It would be nieve to beleive that only *Major* record labels are experiencing lost sales to piracy. The idea that your average Kazaa luser is copying the new Radiohead or Strokes album off the net but going to a store or other legitimate retail outlet to buy the latest Matador, Touch & Go, Dischord, "insert indie label name here" band is misguided at best.

Not for profit

[Inv8r Zim]

Just to take issue with the headline, Broadcast Music International is a non-profit entity, so saying its profits hit a record high is misleading. They collect royalties for musical artists' radio, TV and other media performances, but they do not "Profit!" from them.

My band, which had a major label deal in the nineties but imploded in a drug fueled haze over a decade ago, still see an incremental uptick in BMI checks every quarter. Go figure.

Grammar for Geeks: affect vs. effect

[Proudrooster]

Remember that:
Affect is a verb.
Effect is a noun.

So then the label advances $TEEN_FEMALE_SINGER the money for cosmetic surgery on her backside, affecting her bottom line.
Checkout Grammar for Geeks

Recently, I started attending college and made this same fatal mistake several times in a paper. A quick way to remember the difference is "affect the effect" or "When you affect a situation, you have an effect on it." Overall, you demonstrate good punctuation and writing style. :)

"You are so convinced that you believe only what you believe that you believe,
that you remain utterly blind to what you really believe without believing you believe it."
-Carlotta

Re:Grammar for Geeks: affect vs. effect

[bleak sky]

You miss an important point: effect can be used as a verb--it just means something different than affect.
To effect something is to build it or bring it into existence.

Thanks for playing, though.

Re:Grammar for Geeks: affect vs. effect

[IndependentVik]

Actually, you're correct, but only in most instances. The problems is that effect can also be a verb:

effect
Function: transitive verb
1 : to cause to come into being
2 a : to bring about often by surmounting obstacles : ACCOMPLISH b : to put into operation
(source: m-w.com)

Affect can be a noun as well, though it's rarely used outside of the field of psychology. It means "the conscious subjective aspect of an emotion considered apart from bodily changes" (again, from m-w.com).

Re:Grammar for Geeks: affect vs. effect

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Good point, but we all learned affect/effect in school. The correct verb there, in my opinion, is "effect". To effect, when used as a verb (admittedly rarely), means to cause or create. To affect is to change. In this case, they may have created the artist's bottom line, in which case effect is correct.

Re:Grammar for Geeks: affect vs. effect

[pommiekiwifruit]

As other posters have noted, you still need to work on your grammar :-)

A cute feature of google is that you can type "define:effect" into it to get a definition of that word. The 8th meaning listed, "act so as to bring into existence", is the one intended by the post to which you were replying.

I try to remember the rule that "ice is a noun; is is a verb" for license/licence and practice/practise, but I have heard that US usage is different anyway :-(

"Chock full of links"?

[TheFrood]

No, it's chock full of 404's. Here are the correct links:

open and vicious attack on fair use
bring civil cases themselves
bends its statistics

You know what BMI does, right?

[werdna]

BMI does not sell records, and its revenues do not depend upon record sales. BMI is one of three main competing performance rights associations (ASCAP and SESAC are two others), who control the exclusive right to publicly perform (as opposed to distribute and reproduce) music. Typical licensees are restaurants, night clubs and radio stations.

Presumably, even pirates eat, party and listen to the radio.

Not that I don't sympathize with your position, but BMI is in a different business from the RIAA.

Re:You know what BMI does, right?

[hackstraw]

Typical licensees are restaurants, night clubs and radio stations.

Yeah, and you too can license music for your home (at least how I read it). These licenses for restraunts and night clubs do not say anything about acquiring the music itself. In fact, if you go to a record store and buy RIAA CDs personally, you do not have the right to play that in a restraunt or night club without a BMI license.

Anyway, my point being is that for $15 bucks a year (assuming you have less than 250 people regularly come to your home) you can legally license basically all of the recorded music to play in your home and this license does not even mention that you must also legally buy the music from the RIAA. So borrowing CDs or getting them from a p2p source seems to me OK because you have the license to play the music.

Read the PDF license application here.

Am I missing something here, or is this too simple?

An easy answer to your question

[werdna]

The artists don't make money when the BMI does. BMI represents composers, not artists.

At least two copyrights are implicated whenver you listen to a recorded song; (1) the copyrght of the musical work (noticed with a "c-in-circle"); and (2) the copyright of the phonorecord (noticed with a "p-in-circle"). The composer owns the (c), the performing artists own the (p).

BMI collects license fees from places like nightclubs for the right to publicly perform the song. That fee is divided using arcane formulae among subscribing composers. It has nothing to do with record sales.

Re:Still-Robin Hood Tactics.

[mesach]

google somehow seems to believe that a gig of storage would only cost then $7/year, that is 7 songs sold in 1 year to make the cost of that gig of storage of music viable... i think they can hold all the music if they just consulted google on how they did this for g-mail

In other news, the RIAA is now lobbying...

[ZackSchil]

In other news, the RIAA is now lobbying to ban friendship, stating that it has lost over 500 billion dollars in profits in the last month alone. Both major political parties have issued public statements that appear to contain 3-4 pages of dog barking. Ralph Nader issued a 10,000 word rebuttal, filled with outrage but no one seemed to notice. They were too busy watching Celebrity Fear Factor.

Artists are doing alright? That is news to me

[b00tang]

Maybe people think that because they see a new video on MTV with their favorite artist leaning back against an array of sweet cars that all musicians are doing plenty fine and that it is ok to steal their music. Maybe I feel like I am different because I only agree with half of that statement. My band played a few shows with and was good friends with a band that has since been signed to Victory records. Sure Victory isn't Sony or BMG but no small label none the less. Since signing the band has had shirts printed and other merchandise to sell at shows along side their cds. Instead of driving around in hummers they barely make it to their shows in the oldest van you could imagine. They have a great job, playing music to appreciative fans all across the world, but they are heavily in debt to the label and barely making it. When one of their songs was sold to MTV to be played on battle of the sexes for many thousands of dollars the band saw none. The band sees no worthwhile money from record sales. No matter how many times people say "stop pirating it hurts the artists" it still won't be true in most cases. Of course piracy doesn't hurt profits for musicians, it is free advertising so people are more inclined to go to concerts or buy merch, the places most musicians get their money anyway. (and if i am horribly wrong on this it would be good to be corrected because I really do believe this)

Something just occured

[bairy]

There is a general hatred for RIAA and all the other idiots because CDs are so expensive and because so much goes to the record company and very little to the artist.
Why not download an album, then send $15 directly to the artist, maybe send a couple of bucks to the record company.

OK It's not feasible of course, but if it was possible it might just give the record companies a kick in the pants.

Ok, so this isn't the most useful of posts but an interesting thought.

Census reports growth in population too, BFD.

[Anonymous Coward]

Higher per capita is what matters, not overall growth. Be wary of propaganda, whether it's for or against RIAA....because truth is ultimately what matters.

If BMI expands it's reach into 10 new nations/markets in 2005, it could easily post higher growth, while it's sales actually DROP in their pre-established markets.

I wanna know what's going on per-capita, in established markets. THEN I'll believe the hype, or anti-hype, as it were.

Back to Economic Basics

[gyges]

Hmmmm .... so they saw an increase in revenues. Last time I checked that is not the same as profit, despite what the post says. BMI built its revenu by adding artists to its catalog, not through retail sales or any direct consumer interaction. If anything this gives record companies more to cry about since they are allegedly being squeezed harder at both ends (BMI on one side, pirates on the other).

Tower is expensive

[tepples]

Wal-Mart sells recent release CD albums for $13.88, and Best Buy roughly matches that price. Check walmart.com and bestbuy.com for selection to rival many specialist record stores.

Re:Tower is expensive

[tepples]

Why is a $13.42 price for a Beatles CD wrong? The Beatles' recordings are still in demand.

Re:Tower is expensive

[Paradise Pete]

Wal-Mart sells recent release CD albums for $13.88, and Best Buy roughly matches that price.

So the best price around is $13.88, and yet somehow the average price is about $13?

Re:Tower is expensive

[tepples]

Not all specific CD titles average at $13 per copy. The "average" figure takes into account other releases such as "Toto Super Hits" that I picked up at Best Buy for $8 or so.

Re:Tower is expensive

[vsprintf]

Why is a $13.42 price for a Beatles CD wrong? The Beatles' recordings are still in demand.

Perhaps because I've already purchased all the albums before, and the music is 40 years old and should be public domain by now?

Re:What I will say

[bechthros]

Prove it.

Inflation in music recordings measured

[Simonetta]

A music recording price shouldn't be measured in dollars which are constantly decreasing in value.
A better measurement is 'minimum wage units'; that is, the number of hours a person would have to work at the minimum wage rate (in the year in question) to buy a certain product.

In the mid 1960s, a recording of a hit pop song (in 45RPM single vinyl format - the 7-inch disk with the big hole) would cost $0.79 in Walmart-like discount stores. The minimum wage of the period was about $1.20/hr. The cost of a song was roughly 0.7 MWU. An album of usually two or three hit songs and eight filler songs would cost $2.60 for the mono version and $3.60 for the stereo. Let's say 2.5 MWU for convenience.
Today the Federal minimum wage in the USA is $5.15, but many states push it to $6. Let's use $6. A single hit recording of today in disk format would cost $4.20 in mid-1960s prices using MWU units and an album (in portable disk format) would cost $15 today at 60s prices in MWU units.

P2P downloaders have forced the price of a single song down in real terms but at the cost to the consumer of not having the content on a physical portable disk. The price of albums has remained roughly constant in MWU terms in the past 40 years.

Re:Inflation in music recordings measured

[vsprintf]

[Waves hand]Today the Federal minimum wage in the USA is $5.15, but many states push it to $6. Let's use $6. A single hit recording of today in disk format would cost $4.20 in mid-1960s prices using MWU units and an album (in portable disk format) would cost $15 today at 60s prices in MWU units.

So why does thirty-year-old music, which the industry no longer promotes, advertises, or has any associated costs aside from pressing a 10-cent disc, still cost $16 for a CD?

This is what we need...

[generationxyu]

Record companies (not the RIAA) and artists (not Lars Ulrich) coming out against the DMCA and the restrictions against fair use and P2P. Get the artists to say that they make money off of filesharing. This is an old argument, but a true one... I first heard Modest Mouse when a friend of mine burned me a CD of theirs. I fell in love with the band, and bought that and their four other albums. I've also spread the word that Modest Mouse rocks my socks, and gotten several other people into them as well.

Patronage

[Anonymous Coward]

> When was the last time Van Gogh collected a royalty check?

Vincent van Gogh was largely supported financially by his brother Theo (http://www.vangoghgallery.com/misc/bio.htm), and wasn't much of a success while alive.

In fact, many of the great artists were either unable to support themselves with their art or were supported by - and hence beholden to - rich patrons. The modern equivalent of a rich patron is a corporate contract, such as promoting Pepsi or writing ad jingles.

Do you really want art to be supported by ad jingles and soft drink promotions? By harkening back to the "good old days" of patronage, that _is_ what you're suggesting. I hope you don't think we'd get any less Britney or N'Sync that way.

Re:Patronage

[blair1q]

No.

I want art to be supported by paid-for downloads.

Technology that exists today.

The problem is corporations that use it in a ham-fisted manner to hold onto "rights" to music they didn't create; and use that collective power to bully people and skim profits.

record profit

[name773]

get it? record profit
heh

All-Time Profits Despite The Sky Being Blue

[noidentity]

Also, they reported all-time profits being high despite the oceans being filled with salty water. In addition, this was despite 1+1 totaling two.

CD sales have nothing to do with artists starving

[serutan]

The idea that copyright infringement takes food out of musicians' mouths is another of the recording industry's big lies. Musicians under record contracts generally get NOTHING from CD sales. The way contracts are written all expenses of manufacturing, advertising, distribution, etc, etc, are taken out of the musician's share of the profits, usually leaving ZERO. What musicians get out of having a recording contract is exposure which gets them better paying gigs. They get the same exposure whether you buy a CD, copy it from a friend, hear it on the radio or find it lying on the street.

Janis Ian, who has been making records since the 1970s, has a very informative essay about file sharing and the mechanics of being a recording artist.

Corporate power is unhealthy for society.

[jbn-o]

Then we need to teach corporations what is enough. The concept of a trade-off is missing in this debate, that with more corporate power, we trade away our freedom to share even noncommercial verbatim copies with our neighbors. Society needs to restructure corporate power so that they can pursue sufficient profit, not endless profit at the expense of anything else. This is a non-trivial task but it is possible; we're not dealing with a natural system. Corporate power arrived through a series of legal decisions which created the near-person status and assigned them the power to pursue profit without regard for other things. We can take that power away and we should before more damage is done.

Re:Corporate power is unhealthy for society.

[CantGetAUserName]

Actually, corporations used to have much less power. The first thing corporations did was to get the law changed to remove the most tiresome checks on their behaviour.

At one time, a corporation could be /required/ to prove it was acting for the public benefit to even continue existing. How badly would that chestnut screw any number of companies today?

Oh, and the reason I'm referring to corporations as persons is because they effectively are now anyway (legally they are or some such b******s). Fine, I'll play that game. If they're all persons, though, they're a bunch of complete sociopaths with no moral sense (by definition, IIRC - motivated by profit only). Don't we normally lock these kinds of people up?

Re:I'm hungry and record execs should starve

[nikko1221]

And just like any other industry, the companies that make the best business decisions should prosper. If a record company spends too much money signing hundreds of crappy bands that nobody want to hear, they should fail.

If more industries operated with the amounts of failures that record companies and movie studios constantly produce, the world economy would suck.

BMI != RIAA ... or am I confused?

[argent]

What does the BMI income from performances have to do with the RIAA members' income from media sales?

What BMI will say-Right to entertainment.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe better questions are...does the public have a right to entertainment? If so, is it a natural right, or an artificial one?

Skewed Figures!? NO WAY!

[Mulletproof]

"Arstechnica is running a story chock full of links to other interesting things about BMI's amazing record profit and how the RIAA skews its sales statistics while strangling fair use."

WOW! This IS news!! Y'know, I could swear I've seen this episode of slashdot before somewhere... Like that rerun you somehow keep catching for the 5,000th time...

Mea Culpa

[ca1v1n]

I saw "BMI" and thought "BMG". Thanks for catching me.

Go vote

[tepples]

Well, not enough of us you voted for legislators who would make the music public domain.

Re:Go vote

[vsprintf]

Well, not enough of us you voted for legislators who would make the music public domain.

Go vote? Thanks for the advice. I'm one of the voices on Slashdot continually advocating voting, but my vote doesn't count heavily when representatives of both parties have become nothing more than boot-licking beggars to industry. And it's not about "legislators who would make the music public domain"; By law, the music should have already been public domain.

BMI?

[spikestabber]

What does the British Midlands airline have to do with music? Oh wait...

Re:No taxation without representation!

[elflord]

In a free market system, no business is entitled to cry "foul" just because a potential customer chooses not to deal with them.

In a free market system, both sides have the right to walk away from the deal. A system where you forcefully impose your will on the other party (for example, by illegitimate copying) amounts to extortion or fraud, it isn't a "free market" at all.

BMI is a non-profit organization!

[wheatwilliams]

Broadcast Music International collects royalties for songwriters. It does not make a profit! It collects royalties for songs recorded by record companies (and sold as CDs or downloads) and broadcast by radio stations. BMI then turns the royalties over to the songwriters, keeping a percentage for operating costs. The Recording Industry Association is a trade organization that represents the interests of record companies, who sell records. There is no connection between the two, per se. But it is a distortion to say that BMI makes a profit. What this article is refering to is that, by their count, the community of professional songwriters in America is making more money than they were the last time somebody counted. You must also note that there are two other organizations in the US that collect songwriting royalties on behalf of songwriters. One is ASCAP, which is non-profit, and the other is SESAC, which is a for-profit, private company. If you are a professional songwriter, you affiliate with either ASCAP, BMI or SESAC for your career, and the one you select is the one that collects royalty money for you.

Re:BMI is a non-profit organization!

[argent]

But it is a distortion to say that BMI makes a profit.

Fair enough. OK, then say 'BMI's members profits'?

The point is, there's a connection being drawn between BMI and the RIAA that doesn't seem warranted. Will you agree with that?

far too simple

[werdna]

There are typically two copyrights at issue for each recorded musical work you are dealing with: (i) the musical work itself, (the c-in-circle on your CD cover) owned by the composer; and (ii) the phonorecording of the work (the p-in-circle on your CD cover), ownership varies between performing artists and studio.

The rights BMI licenses are performing rights of a musical work at a venue. They give no right at all to duplicate or replicate a phonorecording (there is no performance right for the phonorecords).

I can't tell you whether your BMI license would cover particular conduct until you tell me what conduct you have in mind, but the sense i have of what you want to do isn't close. BMI can't give you the right to download or upload music. Nor, and this is important, can they give you the right to digitally transmit it.

Further, not that BMI only covers about half of the songs "out there." You probably need to purchase ASCAP and SESAC licenses as well if you want (nearly) plenary coverage of all copyrighted musical works.

End game motherfuckers.

[CrazyJim1]

End game is a global library. I've done the math and have predicted lots of shit in the past.

It houses: Media, music and movies, and books.

This media is ORGANIZED, which will do magic your minds may not even comprehend. For one it would make public school educations FUN and make finding a date easy.

I won't even get into the good shit, of the possibilities of utopian living as a result.

Read book #6, starting down half way where I talk about how the FBI is grinding gears.

www.geocities.com/James_Sager_PA

Go read the book, and stop arguing whether its borrowing or stealing, it doesn't fucking matter, your personal opinion is not going to stand in the way of progress.

Book 7, ORGANIZED END GAME

[CrazyJim1]

Read my book, it kicks ass, and tells you whats going to happen in the future. http://www.geocities.com/james_sager_pa/love7.html

Re:Copyright is meant to protect the publisher

[LuYu]

So, in summary, you are saying that now that the Internet exists, copyright is obsolete. Did I get that right?

You just argued yourself in a circle. Even if that whole line of logic were completely correct, the Internet, just as you said, destroys your whole argument. An author can now publish a book that only costs him the time to write it and distribute it to the whole world. If it is good, it will be advertised by fans. All free. Where is copyright necessary in your model?

Oh, and by the way, you said:

Before the printing press was invented, it was very difficult to copy a book, so it was not easy to make a living as an author.

You should have said "Before printing was invented" because Gutenberg's printing press was invented centuries after the Chinese started printing. They were not foolish enough to use metal or lithographers. They used wood. So the costs associated with printing were much less than in Europe. For centuries China printed many more books than Europe as well. This all happened in the absence of copyright which was no introduced into China until the 19th or 20th centuries.

So, basically, your argument is wrong with or without the Internet.

Re:I'm hungry

[lew3004]

Insightful my ass.......who the hell is modding these posts?

Re:Copyright is meant to protect the publisher

[LuYu]

No, I did not read your subject line. Sorry for that.

As for the woodblock printing, thousands of hours is certainly an exaggeration. According to Matteo Ricci, a Jesuit Missionary in the 16th Century, woodblocks could be carved in roughly the same amount of time it took a typesetter to set a page. Therefore, such a method would incur less expense as wood is cheaper than metal. Also, on-demand printing would be possible as the woodblocks would not have to be destroyed when a new book was to be printed.

Regardless of whatever techniques may have been subsequently invented in Europe, the fact remains that books were always more expensive in the West. Matteo Ricci commented that books in China were sold at "ridiculous prices" or something like that. And books in Chinese today are still often a fifth of the price of a comparable English book. Capitalism kept prices down in China. Monopolism kept prices up in Europe. But there was never any shortage of authors in China.

fair use / piracy-friendly

[Time Clock Software]

What's hard is that to be able to tell the true economic difference between an artist who says it's ok to copy their work, and one who vigorously persues the file-sharing public, is that we don't really have a control group and test group. even if an artist were friendly to copying (and the record label allowed it) for a specific work, and not another, trying to determine the relative popularity between the two with or without allowed file sharing seems like a statistical nightmare to figure out.

Adding to that - most file-sharers never check anything to see if it's ok to copy a specific item, so the effect of allowing or not allowing it may have no noticeable effect.

So all we're left with is speculation, for the most part. It would be nice if a disinterested third party could find a way to come up with the reality behind it all, but it is so complex that a clinical approach would miss real-world factors.

Then you have to ask if making the laws so that artists make as much money as possible is really the goal. Protecting artists is important but it's not the only thing.

Personally I try to make sure I buy anything I download for convenience, even if it is a trial copy of software and I am able to accomplish my tasks before the trial expires, because I think they deserve it. This is a recent effort, in years gone by I did not do this.

Once I have gotten the benefit (watched it, heard it, used it) how very easy it is to NOT pay for something, (media or software) if I don't HAVE to. And even worse, this is true even if it is priced at a "no big deal" price. I have to make myself do it. And therein is where I'd love to see studies of the end effect to the artist or publisher of file sharing. How do the new sales compare to lost sales? how does brand awareness affect future products? How does a "penniless youth" following mature into a following with means over time? And if someone decided, based opn those findings, that file-sharing specific media was allowable, how many current consumers would stop paying?

Eric

Re:Copyright is meant to protect the publisher

[LuYu]

If you read Ricci closely, you'll see that he does not believe the Chinese method would lend itself well to European type.

Yes, he did say that. However, if you flip that around, you realize that he really meant that movable type is nearly impossible in Chinese while it is an option for phonetic scripts. This does not mean that Latin did not have the option of woodblock printing. It means that Chinese did not have the option of movable type. Given that an arguably simpler option was available to Europeans, why were their books never cheaper than Chinese books?

Granted, it would not take thousands of hours to copy a 24-page woodblock book, but those are essentially novelties -- not significant works like the Bible or Principia.

I was saying that, according to Ricci, the per page time cost was about the same, but the Chinese materials were cheaper. That applies regardless of the number of pages.

Remember, the nature of Chinese (the language) simply made books cheaper to produce, so copying wasn't an issue.

I would like to know what, in your opinion, in the "nature of Chinese (the language)" makes books cheaper to produce. I was arguing cheaper materials, but I have never seen anyone argue the script was cheaper to print. In fact, the curator at a local museum argued vehemetly that the reason that Western Chinese scholars did not include Chinese in their books was because the cost was prohibitive. That seemed odd since Chinese was printed long before any other script, but I do not doubt a few publishers used that as an excuse. So what is it in the nature of Chinese language that makes it easier to print?

The nature of Latin pretty much requires more expensive books, and thus copyright laws came about.

I have always thought this to be a cultural issue. Copyright appears to be much like a disease that originated in England and spread to the rest of the world during their subjugation of it. Maybe I am wrong, though. Whether or not I am wrong, this poses the opposite question: What is it in the nature of Latin scripts that makes them more expensive to print?

Contrast that with how the complexity of their characters made computers more expensive until bitmapped displays became ubiquitous.

This is only novel if your first supposition was correct and there is something inherent in the Chinese script that makes it cheaper to reproduce. Otherwise, it just follows the Western belief that Chinese is just more difficult than phonetic scripts. Of course, the computers were originally developed by and for people who wrote in Latin characters. That would tend to bias the whole thing in the favor of the developer's script usage.