Slashdot Mirror
Universal Wants a Slice of Apple's iPod Pie
vought writes "According to a Reuters report, Universal is now taking the precendent set by Microsoft's Zune and moving to force Apple to include a royalty payment with each iPod.
In the words of Universal Music's Doug Morris, 'These devices are just repositories for stolen music, and they all know it. So it's time to get paid for it.' Does Microsoft's precedent mean the start of a slippery slope that will add a 'pirate tax' to every piece of hardware that touches digital music?"
Doug Morris,
In the regretful, embarrassing, yet immortal words of Dick Cheney...... " Go F$@% yourself ".
I personally take offense at the allegation that there is *any* stolen music on my iPod or any of my computers. All of my music has been purchased on CD or the iTunes Music store as it is on most of the peoples iPods and computers that I know of. Your allegation suggests that you actually do not know about your potential customers, their desires, technology or most disturbingly, the music industry itself. Apparently, you also don't seem to be able to understand that you need to out-compete the piracy industry by offering a quality product at a reasonable price and in a manner that is easy for people to pay for. Marketing 101 tells us that the way to make money is to create a product people want and then remove any barriers that will prevent people from *willingly* giving their money to you in exchange for those goods or services. The iTMS has shown you how it is done, yet you get in bed with Microsoft who apparently cannot design a device that will compete in the same arena with the iPod, then you force people to buy points that they can then exchange for music *and* you want a slice of the hardware market. If you want into that market, why not create your own hardware? To do anything else is leveraging your monopoly to extort money from another industry and the last time I checked, that behavior is illegal.
So, quit whining about all the pirates and do something constructive that adds to your product or services rather than placing restrictions on your product that makes it less appealing to the end user or customer. Oh, and while you are at it, you might want to put more energy on finding good musical talent for the music industry. Its out there, but you need to stop focusing on engineered pretty boy and girl acts and put more effort into finding and promoting real talent.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
God, I hope they do this. Because if I have to pay a Pirate Tax, then doesn't that mean I can pirate all the Universal Stuff I want... since I've already paid the tax?
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
IIRC Canada has a system like this, where part of the purchase price of blank media goes to royalties for stuff that is assumed to be copied to it.
If they charged a fee for each device and let us have free, legal file sharing (since we paid for the content with our device fee) it sounds semi reasonable.
Of course that's not what they are talking about so...
I hope Apple tells them where they can take their Zune and stick it where the sun won't shine. This is just one more reason not to buy a piece of crap Zune. I certainly won't be trading in my iPod for a Zune EVER.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
So I guess now once you buy an ipod, you can download as much pirated Universal music you want, right?
Does Microsoft's precedent mean the start of a slippery slope that will add a "pirate tax" to every piece of hardware that touches digital music?"
That's not necessarily a bad thing, as long as I get to download as many songs as I want in exchange for said tax. If you're forcing me to pay you money to legitimize my iPod, then it should also legitimize any illegal music I might have on there.
Also, I resent the implication that my iPod has stolen music on it. It doesn't.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
...songs bought through the Itunes Store are stolen?
how litle respect society has for the ban on copyright that we're living under. The fact that it is so unenforced doesn't help either.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Fuck you. I've spent hundreds of dollars at the iTunes Store, and thousands buying CDs at retail over the past 15 years. Again, fuck you.
"What we elect to call imagination is mere combination of things not heretofore combined." - Frank Norris
"These devices are just repositories for stolen music, and they all know it,. So it's time to get paid for it."
Riiiight. So umm... despite the fact that there's absolutely zero proof, a general assumption is being made... which spreads to ALL digital-music listeners... and say that they want money.
So... going by this theory, cable companies should charge everyone who watches TV because they all steal satellite signals?
YES! Everyone on earth is a digital thief, so let's make a profit off of it!
Planet Zebeth - Metroid with a twist
Does that mean that they won't be able to sue you for copyright infringement if you do? I mean - fair's fair you know.
Plus, I think that's how the law might interpret it. "I'm not infringing - I paid. See my receipt?"
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
What's next, are we going to convict KitchenAid for assault with a deadly weapon?
A car can hold stolen merchandise, so can a handbag. A gun can be used in a hold up. You're telling me we all have to pay, they'll have to up the price of iPods, because some one might abuse them? I'm a firm defender of copyrights but this is just nuts. Making everyone pay is no answer. DRM away but don't make me pay because of what some one else might do. That crosses a massive line and makes me want to boycott Universal products. Not that they have anything I want in the first place which makes it doubly insulting.
The insanity of taxing a piece of hardware for what a small portion of its users could possibly use it for aside
(Has this guy even heard of iTunes? People are paying for this stuff), if he wants a tax on the ipod to cover stolen music which it could be used to play, then I think implicit in that is the allowance that, after paying this tax, you can use an ipod to play all the stolen music you want, legally. I belive the recordable digital media tax in Canada works something like this. But what you can't do is tax someone for something, and then sue them for doing the same thing that tax covered.
I really haven't had enough interest in an iPod to buy one. But if this goes through, I may buy one just to join in the classs action suit. I'd love to own a small piece of Universal, and especially a small piece of this jackass's skin. It would make a great bullseye on my dartboard.
If I pay the "Pirate Tax" that means that the producers have been paid, and I never have to pay for another Universal song on my iPod. What a great idea no! No more RIAA suing, as everyone already has their cut for any pirated music. ... Oh, you want a royalty, but still want me to pay for every song, and you still want to sue me if I have a song I can't prove I paid for? So what exactly is the royalty for?
----
If I was Apple, I'd purposely stop selling music recorded on the universal label for a month just as a show of "F@#$ with us and get slapped". The artists on that label would rip Doug Morris to shreds as soon as they lost their itunes sales...
direct quote from wikipedia - "As of September 2006, the Store has sold more than 1.5 billion songs"...
I really don't pirate music -- honestly. I've downloaded a few mp3s and if I like them, I buy the album. Now if they add a pirate tax to my mp3 player, that's a green light for me to turn pirate. I've paid my tax.
What kind of logic is this???
Either you fight the pirates and try to sell your music via the iTMS or you get a royalty payment and let your music be available for free.
I'm fed up with the *AAs trying to tell me that I owe them money. I don't. I go see the GOOD movies in theater (there's one coming out every eon or so, maybe you need to check that?) and when I want to watch something, well I have Blockbuster and NetFlix.
Music-wise? Most of the bands they produce suck, and I'd much rather go to a concert, and find the occasional song playing on a radio station than buy a CD or DRM files, because they just want a constant money stream. My wallet says no, and I live just fine without music. Ever walk outside without an iPod plugged into your ears? Sometimes a good hike without music does you good.
The *AAs are beyond a pain in the ass, they're thieving not just people, but businesses as well, and I sure hope that Apple takes them to court for diffamation on that one.
---- I am certain of only one thing : I know nothing else.
You listen with them, we have to charge you for the privilege.
we know you have to use them for listening to illegal music.
"Dark Wings, Dark Words"
I'll gladly pay a royalty/tax on my iPod in exchange for a license allowing me to legally put Universal Music Group music on my iPod - however obtained.
If you just want more money from me without giving me anything in return then I'm sorry, I think you are SOL.
Have a nice life.
I think Mr. Morris should be modded down for his obviously riotous and hateful flamebait of a statement.
Let's face it, there is a large amount of pirated music available on the various p2p networks. Regardless of whether the copyright owner would have sold a copy of the track to the consumer had it not been for p2p, the fact remains that by downloading the track and listening to it the owner has provided the consumer entertainment that the owner offered for a cost elsewhere. If the levy could be offered and hooks to the p2p networks added such that it could track which produces should get what proportion of the pie, wouldn't that make more sense than constant RIAA court cases. I'd love to see a defense against one of these suits someday along the lines of I've paid my license fee and that covers the download that I'm being sued for. For this sort of thing to really work though, the cost would have to be much less than the 99c per track (iTunes model) due to the fact that most people will download songs never to listen to them, broken downloads, quality issues of p2p downloaded tracks etc.
To the grammar Nazis, the above was stream of consciousness, don't bitch too much.
leave it to a french owned company to do something stupid.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
I don't steal music and I don't steal movies. I still buy CDs, but immediately place them in my computer and never touch them again. I also buy from the iTunes store. ALL of the music in my library was purchased by me and me alone. I don't have receipts for all of it, but I own it.
The idea that I should be taxed because someone MIGHT steal products with a device is offensive. In that case, why not tax electrical sockets? Everyone knows that everyone that uses electricity steals movies and music. And what else would someone need a computer at home for? That should be taxed too.
I hope these companies are punished. They do not represent the interest of the artists, consumers, or society at large. They are thugs.
What kind of environment do you have to be raised in that instills a sense of entitlement so absolute that it reduces onlookers to standing agape in stunned silence?
These people need to be kept away from sharp objects and heavy machinery until they grow up.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
God, I hope they do this. Because if I have to pay a Pirate Tax, then doesn't that mean I can pirate all the Universal Stuff I want... since I've already paid the tax?
Seriously, if we're paying a surcharge because "These devices are just repositories for stolen music, and they all know it,. So it's time to get paid for it.", then using their own logic, it almost seems like a pre-paid license to pirate. I don't know how these vultures can't see it that way. (That is, assuming they have a concept of logic).
Oh, and anyone who refers to copyright infringement as "stealing" is either an idiot, or has an agenda. In this rare instance, we see someone who happens to be both.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
According to Wiki, as of Dec 2004, it no longer applies to mp3 devices and such (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_media_tax#Canad a ).
a nd ).
However, there's one in Finland....of all things, based on the "per min" capacity with a max of 15euros per device. (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_media_tax#Finl
Doug Morris: Steve, I think we should get $1 for every iPod you sell.
Steve Jobs: No.
Doug Morris: We asked Microsoft for $1 for each Zune sold, and they said "Yes".
Steve Jobs: They were desperate. We're not. By the way, how has the Zune deal been working out for you?
Doug Morris: So far, we've gotten $52.
Microsoft knew it won't make wonders with the first iteration of their product. Much like with their other attempts at entering a new market, they sell at loss, taking experiments just to see the outcome and trying to damage the competition as much as possible.
Hence the "precedent" with Universal. I personally don't see how the deal with Zune obligates or pressures Apple into signing a deal as well.
Especially since iTunes is already a loss leader for them, hence they won't just agree Universal eating even more of their hardware profit for something as vague and abstract as "stolen music" tax. Apple isn't selling stolen music on their iPods. End of story.
You can expect Apple making few announcements about banning Universal from their store or something like that and that'd be the end of the story, if it even goes that far.
Does the Universal company, as a whole, not have enough money already. We should start a shitty movie movie tax. Every time i sit down and waste a couple hours of my life watching some piss poor excuse for a movie, that universal worked ever so hard to present, i should get %10 of my hourly wage.
This is what happens when you dabble in both content and hardware. As they say, 'you sleep with dogs, you get fleas.' If Apple didn't have iTMS, they could more easily tell Universal to suck a fat dick.
In the end, this is just a negotiating ploy by Universal toward getting 1) a bigger cut of the pie, or 2) non-uniform pricing. This is the next logical step, and I'm sure they gave MS "friend" prices in exchange for being the first official hardware manufacturer to pay a pirate tax. Not much to see here...
I find it ironic and strangely fitting that the current thought of the day/moment at the bottom of the page as I read this is, "Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. -- General Omar N. Bradley."
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Apple may end up paying these fees, but I imagine that it would only be out of their interest to help with the iTunes online store. If anything, this "tax" would be good, since it would help the smaller portable manufacturers who would not pay this. There is nothing legally binding about this "tax," so these measures are only out of company relations.
... and I just might pay it.
Likelyhood? None.
So wasn't it in September that Steve Jobs got on a stage and pointed out that iTMS is now in the top five music sellers in the world? I.E. They were competing and gaining significantly on Walmart and such? And that they were the ONLY digital service that could claim this? I'm confused where these iPods with all this pirated music comes from if one of the top five music sellers in the world sells music that can only be listened to on iPods (and iTunes). Perhaps he would like to sue Apple and have to explain his logic to a judge?
Mike Scanlon
Doug Morris has said that he thinks all iPod owner's are thieves who owe him money but it isn't clear why he specifically thinks he's owed a dollar for every Zune--a dollar he'd make if he sold a little more than one song. He is not offering **anything** back to the end user--no indemnity, nothin'. Based on Doug Morris' guilty until proven innocent view of iPod owners, I don't see why he doesn't simply ask the police to arrest all iPod owners on sight or, at the very least, demand a list of all iPod owners from Apple so UMG can file lawsuits against all of them since they are all known thieves and that is the natural progression of Doug Morris' claims combined with the RIAA's sue anything that moves stance.
What seems likely is that Morris is demanding an approximation 3% tariff on the sales price like the 3% tariff the industry **already** receives from the sale of all recordable CDs marked "for music." As with Morris proposed "iPod" tax, the public receives nothing in return for music CD-R tax which was supposed to compensate the recording industry in return for not suing equipment manufacturers over Home Recording. As history shows, The Audio Home Recording Act did nothing to squelch the industries thirst for litigation, so there is no reason to think that giving in to an "iPod" tax will do anything along those lines.
If UMG wants to "tax" iPods, they need to give something up in return--like submitting to compulsory licensing for download as they have to for radio station playback and Jukeboxes.
One this happens . . . no more RIAA or MPAA lawsuits. IF we are paying them . . . then download all you want.
Am I missing something. No more whining from the RIAA or others.
http://www.planetisaac.com/2006/11/1-pirate.html
-- A computer without Windoze is like a choclate cake without mustard
force Apple to incl Music's Doug Morris, "These de So it's time to get paid for it." Do "pirate tax" to every piece of hard
Good job on the ads, guys. http://rockingraven.com/slashdot.jpg
Haida Manga
I wonder whether a class action defamation lawsuit against the media companies would work. When they make blanket allegations that anyone seen carrying an iPod is guilty of committing a crime doesn't that impugne the integrity of anyone in the street with white headphones?
I'm not paranoid - everyone really is out to get me.
it's interesting how because i own an ipod, all of a sudden i'm a thief. I'd love to see a suit against them for defamation - I for one dont have stolen music on my ipod, and i'm sure i'm not alone in this.
They have this shit up in Canada for recordable media...but the Canadians seemed to have kept the cost and scope reasonable.
I have too easy a time imagining this 'fee' increasing every year, every time you buy a new music-related device.
So yeah...they pull this off and I will have ZERO ethical issues about copying every bit of music I can find. Greedy fucks.
Blar.
I think all music players should have a pirate tax on it, much like CD-R's (and I assume DVD Recordables of any type) do. Heck, add the pirate tax to computers. Because in a weird sense, it'd shut down the RIAA. One could argue that he payed the tax asked for by the music companies, so they have a right to use their music, basically a 1-time all access subscription. Heck, apple should just tell Universal, "Fine, but we're no longer going to pay you royalties on our songs, any money we make on the music is ours because our ownership base has already paid for it.
I've looked at various people's ipods and in every single case the contents were just their CD collection plus some stuff they bought from itunes. No copying.
Plus, ipods don't count as repositories of music--you can only download music to the ipod, you can't upload it back out so any unauthorized copy is a dead-end once it gets to the ipod. It's not in the same category as Kazaa or bittorrent.
As many have already said before...Does this mean that any and all stolen (as if) music that is found to be on my ipod (note, I don't have one yet) would then be considered legit?
Or is this just yet another example of some suit who doesn't understand the reality of the digital world?
Just this last week I went out and purchased a CD (My first in many, many, many years) which I inspected before I ever walked away from the rack with it to ensure that there was no DRM. Why? Because I know how I listen to music...XM or MP3. The first thing I did when I got home was to plop the CD into the drive on my linux box and rip it to mp3. The CD, I'm not even sure where it is at the moment. The mp3 files are on the external 250GB Hard Drive in my laptop bag and on the external 250GB Hard Drive attached to the desktop computer. I won't touch the CD ever unless I have a complete drive melt-down and need to rebuild my music collection.
The point being that I didn't steal them and everyone who I know that owns an ipod paid for the music that they have.
delights in being a dick.
He'll let Universal think that they're going to get a little piece of the action and then tell them to go pound salt.
I hope they don't give in
I wrote about this about a week ago when I first heard of it on my blog and instead of coping all that here, I'm just going to include the link.
http://sams-rants.blogspot.com/2006/11/universal-m usic-group-can-kiss-my_14.html#links/
...to do some kind of formal study on exactly how much pirated music is out there on various media players. I'm not saying this guy is right, and he's certainly a jerk for saying it like that, but I can't help but wonder what the numbers really are.
Personally my gut feeling is that it's similar to the BitTorrent situation. Yeah, there are lots of legitimate uses for it, but you know that a large percentage of traffic is of questionable legality. I personally have about 50 pirated songs (mostly top 40 pop junk) and around 350 legit songs (ripped from my own cds).
Would never fly in the criminal system, so why is it common practice in the civil one?
This is garbage. At least i dont contribute to their wealth and power. Too bad many others still do. The 'industries' need to die.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
A lot of people are saying 'great a a tax, now I can download for free and not worry about being sued'
Not going to argue with that, but what I will say is I can't but think of the precident in the UK with the BBC. Theoretically I have already paid for all the content the BBC produces. Therefore I should own the copyright to it? Then why the hell are the BBC DVDs I buy copyright BBC Worldwide? Why don't I own the copyright to the BBC DVDs I bought? Is anyone aware of a case of the BBC suing someone for copyright infringement who has a TV license*?
Times like this I try to forget what the law says and ask what is fair. I also remember that the copyright holder has the right to do whatever they like with their product** - I have no need to use it if I am not happy with their terms. i.e. am I actually that worse of because Joe Blogs has released XYZ piece of music under terms that I feel are unacceptable, than I would be if Joe Blogs had never produced that piece of music at all?
Can we have the next slashdot poll as what encourages you to buy music - be it hearing a song on the radio, from an mp3 copied from a friend, from a CD borrowed from a collegue etc. I know I have never bought Music without listening to it via some free method first. To shut down all avenues of free music would stop me dead.
* Yes there were a few cases a while ago, but this was before the BBC had the whole lost Dr Who episode debacle.
** Your own definition of Fair rights of course must stand up in court.
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
I'm just wondering if there are any provisions in the DMCA or Patriot Act that would allow us to legally kick the stupid right out of Morris' stupid head. Or, failing that, is there any way I can give him cancer via e-mail?
Imagine if they expect that tax to eventually maintain their current revenues, it's going to be a HUGE tax.
Copyright is what holds offer and demand in balance. Otherwise there is NO WAY to know what amount the tax should be. For example, would the tax be the same whether new music in a given year is good or crap? This is a path to hell.
I like how greedy (mostly US) companies and entities make assumptions about things in the world (as if US laws even apply outside of the US -- I am in Canada and I find it quite funny whenever a US lawmaker acts like the laws he is trying to pass will ever be enforced upon the 5.5 billion people on this planet who don't fall under US jurisdiction. Oh wait... Iraq is not part of the US and they are under US jurisdiction. How incorrect of me. But anyways, so what if some people with iPods are consuming pirated music? What about those that are not? Are they going to screw over all those who have legitimate music with this tax, or do they have some ingenious way to only punish the bad people? By putting a piracy tax, are they basically saying "Ok... since we can beat some of the pirates, we are just going to get paid anyways by charging for the hardware... then it is all ok."? If that's what they are saying, would they be inviting current non-pirates who eventually do get screwed with this piracy tax to just go ahead and pirate music then? Perhaps people will reason the tax makes piracy ok? It is amusing how industries screw over one group of consumers of a product due to the acts of another group. In Canada, there was (I am not sure if there still is) a HUGE tax imposed on every blank CD bought in this country. The tax was a fixed amount, and with the really low prices of cds, the tax was often more than the price of the CD! And why? Because it was believed these CD's were being used to pirate... stuff. Mostly music I presume. And what about all those people using CD's for data backups or for industrial use? Tough luck you say? Yeah... free country, my ass. How about the Internet connection pirates use to download pirated stuff off the Internet with. Should that be taxed as well for piracy? How about the computer you bought to copy your MP3's? Is that to be taxed? What about the freaking car you drove in down to the mall to buy that iPod? It is technically also an accessory to the "crime" of piracy. Fact is... this all sounds like lunacy. You can't punish all the users of a given technology just because a group of people (not all people) have found a way to use that technology illegally. I think most of you slashdotters will find at least one illegal way to use practically every product you ever consume on a daily basis.
WOW! This means if I get a Zune, I can download all the music I wantfor free. Way to go Micrsoft! I am on my way to the store right now.
honestly, i'd hope that apple would just tell them that they'd happily pull all universal content from the itms and call off their conversations until they took that idea off of the table.
then we'd lose the ability to purchase songs from such talents as ludacris, ciara, lloyd banks, the killers,dmx, elton john, and dashboard confessional. oh no. it's not like we can't get that stuff legally through other channels.
This is like requiring shoppers at Walmart to pay a fee for stolen merchandise. That's only going to encourage further theft (gee, I already paid for it...it's not like I'm getting a five finger discount), and it's ridiculous from the start.
Wow, I had no idea that Microsoft cut that shady deal. Now the Universal seems to have quite literally declared they should have a right to both have their cake and eat it, too. They want you to both pay for the music and pay for not paying for it.
I don't own a media player, but now I know that if I ever get one, it won't be a Zune.
I thought UMG was included in the 2004 deal, but according to Wikipedia its wholly owned by Vivendi still. Damn French.
This PSA is played on a local College Radio station in my area (wnhu.net). The ext was taken from the creator's website (downhillbattle.org):
PSA #1: Hypocrites
(Approximately 80 seconds)
According to the major record labels, everyone who downloads a song off the internet is a thief. But there's a lot they aren't telling you.
For example:
Did you know that when you buy a major label CD virtually none of your money makes it to the musician? It's true: When you pay $15 for a CD, the artist royalty is about 75 cents.
But most major label artists don't even get that--musicians don't get any royalties until they pay back all the costs of recording and promotion. That means they don't get anything until they sell at least 500,000 or a million CDs! Here's another way to look at it: for most CDs at the record store, NONE of the money goes to the musician.
So when the major label CEOs tell you that sharing music is "stealing from musicians", they're
A) Lying through their teeth
and
B) Hypocrites
The real thieves are the corporate record labels, and giving them your money just perpetuates a system where musicians get screwed and independent music gets locked out of the mainstream.
The best part of all this is that--thanks to filesharing--the corporate record companies are dying off, while independent labels are thriving. Musicians, radio DJs, everybody. We finally have a chance to change the music business.
Don't buy major label CDs. Support independent musicians. Take back music.
Does Microsoft's precedent mean the start of a slippery slope that will add a "pirate tax" to every piece of hardware that touches digital music?
Supply and demand applies here:
85% of all MP3 players are iPods.
After briefly debuting as the 7th most popular MP3 player, the Zune dropped to 13th most popular.
Universal gets three choices here:
Put up (only sell music through the Zune store as that is, let's face it, the only influence they have) and deal with only having the 13th most popular MP3 player market to go after... Not going to happen.
Shut up... Also not likely to happen.
Neither... They'll whine loudly, whilst sensibly not daring to cut their noses off to spite their faces, and occasionally create hype inducing headlines.
The previous MP3 taxes on hardware got through five plus years ago when MP3s were something weird the kids do. Passing laws to fine people who don't get a vote is really easy. In the half decade since, huge numbers of middle Americans have bought iPods and they're a part of mainstream society. The ignorance and "aren't l33t pirates bad!" claim doesn't work so well when middle American voters realize it suddenly applies to them and they'd be voting to make their toys more expensive.
So, Zune is such an embarassing joke it can hardly be called a trend setter, Universal won't dare actually boycot iTunes in order to make a point and MP3 players are so popular that the laws that got snuck through in the past now get soccer moms outraged. They can't affect it through business models or laws... Game over.
In much the same way, I want endless women. However, I control such a small part of the dating market that even if I boycot women, I doubt it'll bother them half as much as it'll bother me. I can't get a law passed that forces women to like me because it'd be political suicide for politicians. So, much like universal, that leaves me whining loudly about how things should be and yet nothing actually changing.
With all of the talk of how much file sharing costs the media companies,
...
perhaps it would be good to look at the costs of the copyright monopoly on the public.
After all, the purpose of copyright law was supposed to be innovation to benefit the public.
What is the public cost/benefit of a 10 year copyright monopoly?
What is the public cost/benefit of a 20 year copyright monopoly?
What is the public cost/benefit of a 50 year copyright monopoly?
What is the public cost/benefit of a 95 year copyright monopoly?
What is the public cost/benefit of a 1000 year copyright monopoly?
A 95 year copyright is well beyond any point that is providing extra incentive to create new works. And actually, it prevents derivative works from being created, and only creats incentive to hoard and hide information.
Why does the government allow such monopolies at no cost to the big publishing/media companies?
If copyright is going to be this long, then there should be some cost associated with a government granted information monopoly. Any such cost should be exponential to encourage new innovation. Then the income from such a fee would compensate the public (by creating new public works) in exchange for the "rights" that the government gave to media companies to milk works of dead or non-person artists.
Since I buy all of my Music of iTunes, does that mean I'm entitled to a tax refund from Universal when they start charging a piracy tax?
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
Re: Doug Morris
Steve Jobs:
Please ignore the ravings of this raving, avaricious lunatic. You currently have one of the best models of on-line music store available, and as they say, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" As you know, the Zune is a piece of crap and not even a viable competitor to iPod so you need not worry about the ravings of Doug Morris who obviously does not understand any shred of modern technology. In fact, should Universal threaten to pull any of their music, simply show them the door and tell them not to let the door knob hit them on the way out. Giving in to Universal's demand for a "piracy tax" on all iPods is like asking Seagate to put a "piracy tax" on all their hard drives (I hope he doesn't read this and get any ideas). Please don't give in to this stupidity.
The record industry is interesting. It is so powerful, that it can make change and introduce new products and formats (like CD), yet ultimately it has a product that people can do without.
And they are 'doing without' in droves. People are buying Wiis and DVDs and getting cable TV and video off YouTube. They are loosing market share and blaming piracy. Blaming the unnameable is truly the last bastion of an industry that is dying. It means that, at AGMs, the directors will have an excuse for bad
profitability, when inaction is their only excuse. If you hold shares in a large music company, time to ask them what product they plan on releasing when they have become irrelevant due to their inaction.
Years ago, they could have made a cheap, effective, simple service. Instead - everyone copied music, found what they like and bought CDs because they felt like they should support the artist. Record sales went up. Then Napster got a sued, Audiogalaxy got shutdown, and the punters should no longer try before they buy.
RIAA continues to sue... people continue not to buy.
It's time to wake up record companies. It's not too difficult. iTunes will save your ass. If you leave it 2 more years - iTunes will own you ass. You will have to bend over and lick Apple's boots. Do you realise that you are 1 freakin step away from having someone like Apple set up a service to post produce 100000 punters Garage Band files and then release them? The only thing you have is radio stations who you collaborate with. The advertising revenues for these are not going too well. Do you feel you owe it to them to ensure they join you in a symbiotic slide into oblivion?
I have bought my last 2 years worth of music though iTunes. I don't need a CD. I don't need all
the wasted plastic and paper. I don't need to waste resources to have music. I don't need the stores,
the transport, the manufacturers. Sound only needs to be touched and felt in 1 way - through bass
pounding in your chest... not through yet another breaking CD container.
In my next incarnation, I hope to come back as a code monkey.
I should get a royalty for every wasted tax dollar, every minute I've wasted listening to the same damn song over and over, every wasted hour I've spent watching Hollywood shite. My life has been STOLEN from me and now it's time to get paid. For every SECOND of crappy music played anywhere in the world, I propose I get a royalty of .0001 cents. I need that every month in the form of gold bullion. All I need is a few dozen senators to take my bribes and pass a law and there's nothing they can do. They have to pay me.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
Why stop there? Why not also charge a theft tax on all computers (i haven't seen any mp3 players that do the illegal copying by themselves), flash cards, hard drives, cell phones, headphones, headphone cord extensions, ipod accessories? All stereo equipment? Throw in every single music related website as well, since they're promoting music in general. MTV? Radio? Without those outlets people would have no idea what to download. After a while, Universal can stop releasing music altogether...
This demand has legal trouble stamped all over it.
For starters this seems like a violation of the anti-trust statutes. Universal knows they have no legal means to compel apple to pay them money for every iPod sold so instead they are trying to blackmail them into doing so by threatening to stop selling apple their songs. Whether or not the iPod is used to play/possess illegal songs is totally irrelevant. Refusing to let apple sell their songs on iTunes won't stop ipods from being used for illegal music, in fact it would likely increase it. This is nothing but a clear cut case of a company using it's monopolistic practices to extort money, exactly the sort of thing the anti-trust laws were designed to prevent. At least MS could come up with a non-laughable (just a bit of a snicker) claim that their bundling practices were for the consumer's benefit, Universal has no such case.
More interestingly what happens when the RIAA sues someone who had illegal music on their ipod and they argue in court that the ipod surcharge gives them the right to do so? While I'm skeptical that such a claim could succeed one never knows. Also, even if the poor victim of the lawsuit loses this point it puts Universal in an interesting position. In order to successfully sue people using their ipods to play illegal music they must admit apple wasn't purchasing *anything* with the surcharge. That makes it even harder to claim that the surcharge was part of a valid business deal rather than something they coerced using monopolistic power.
--
I know one thing for sure though. The second I find myself paying a surcharge on a device I purchase to the RIAA I will make a point of not purchasing music for that device. At the moment I buy songs from itunes not too infrequently but if I've already paid $5 to the RIAA I will always search for an illegal copy first. Maybe in the long run they will realize people have an innate sense of fair play. If you don't insist on DRM and sell songs for a reasonable price people will choose to pay money so the artists are compensated but the second you pick someone's pocket claiming you need to be paid for what you were going to steal people will stop feeling bad about stealing from you.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
I've never heard of a company that produces tape or CD players having to give a percentage to the music industry? Why would an iPod be any different? You can just as easily pirate music with those devices.
I RTFA looking for this juicy little quote and couldn't find it anywhere. Am I blind or did the submitter make up a quote for Mr. Morris?
If Apple is responsible to Universal for theoretical copyright infringement, then Universal is liable to the American taxpayers for every piece of theoretical violence incited by, in connection with, or even vaguely related to the music. We'll start the annual bill for Universal at 1 trillion. We can start talking back payments and interest on those later.
(Insert happy face here.)
Mr. Morris is right! As he said, we all know it. We don't need any proof or anything like that, and we don't care about exceptions. You need to pay!
Likewise, are just a bunch of criminals and scum. We all know it. So why don't we just lock them all up and gas them? Or at least force them to pay a "criminal fee" since we all know they're criminals.
(BTW, this post is sarcasm in case it's not obvious to some of you.)
Home audio recording act unless I've been misinformed. Allows you to copy CDs from friends without fear of being sued.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
If Apple sticks it to Universal (not that they don't have their own interest in doing this), I promise that I'll buy me a mini Mac. Maybe even an iPod or two. :-)
If such a tax is paid, does that preclude them from bringing any claims for copyright violations?
If not, does it establish the fair market value of any alleged copyright violations, such that in litigation if they won they would only be entitled to the nominal tax amount?
If you happen to have a standalone CD recorder, with your rack system, and nice turntable and dual cassette and receiver, you can only use Audio CD-R/Ws. Data CD-R/Ws won't work. :D
They also charge you more for the Audio CD-R/Ws. They are of no different quality. I believe the ones I tried to use once on my PC felt like cheaper quality, actually. But they include a fee because the only thing you will be doing with them is copying music. And they figure that's prone to piracy and infringement.
Data CD-R/Ws can be used for more than just illegal music, though. They can be used for illegal pictures, software, movies, and games!
Seriously, though, there are other non-infringing uses for Data CD-R/Ws, more so than the infringing portion, so the "good" thus outweighs the "bad."
Still, with the standalone CD burner, you normally have to own the source material (CDs, Tapes, etc). I don't think you can copy/record off the radio. Course, why would you have a CD burner? For yourself, or to give others? There are so many questions there....
With the iPod, normally its your own music, for your own use. And you use it when you are away from your originals. You could take a stack of CDs with you, and hope they don't warp in the heat, or get stolen or lost. But its fair use, imo. Still, its only use is audio. Well, was. Now it can hold movies and music videos too.
I don't know if they tax VHS tapes, as there's no data-vhs option.
That's complete nonsense. I use my iPod Nano EVERY DAY to listed to PODCASTS, not downloaded music. It's absurd to assume that every possible device that holds audio content is used for copyright violation (which isn't even stealing, but whatever).
Now I understand how MS was able to get away with using a wifi connection to transfer DRM crippled songs between devices.
Isn't this almost like a Mafia protection scheme? Pay this "pirate tax" because we know you're gonna do it anyways, but we'll still sue you if we can? Is that the new plan? If you can't sue all your users, make them pay extra out of spite? And the Better Business Bureau/Department of Commerce/FTC hasn't done anything why?
I really think these guys are fighting a losing battle. The fact that their schemes get more bizzare each month only proves they're starting to realize it.
Insert Sig Here
Seriously, can he ever make it more apparent that all they can see is Green?
Sure go ahead and target the most successful mp3 player, and accuse them of being accomplices to a crime. Because obviously I Pods are the only mp3 players on this planet. If their goal was actually genuine (if that is possible), and if mp3 players were (somehow) responsible for all of the music theft... Why should Apple be taking the bulk of the punishment? This entire case just irritates me... I really hope no deal is made with Universal. I mean... what does this mean for the consumer? Will this extra tax get passed down to us? Will IPods become more expensive? Or will the ITunes prices increase?
Not that they have anything I want in the first place which makes it doubly insulting.
Yeah, but that insult there is exactly the point.
The point is that right now you are providing no revenue for Universal.
If they get this license fee in place, then you will. Even though you do not consume and have no desire to consume Universal product.
Don't mistake their retarded rhetoric for their true intentions.
They know that most people use their iPods legitimately to hold music they purchased on CD or through iTunes. They know that, if they are able to slip this license fee in, most people will still continue to buy their products legitimately. Very few people doing that today will be put off enough to stop.
So for them, it only increases their income without them having to do a damn thing more. And they know it.
"Piracy tax" is just the dressing they use to hide their real intention to siphon money they aren't entitled to from unsuspecting consumers. They're calling you a bloody pirate just as an excuse to be able to steal from you. They are the ones that want to be the pirates.
The enemies of Democracy are
I hate frivolous lawsuits as much as the next honest bloke, but having all ipod owners unite and sue Doug Morris for defamation would be worth the trouble. He just called us all thieves without proof.
i dont have an iPod, i keep all my pirated music on my computer.
There is no legally just way for such a tax to be divvied, so the RIAA must be banking on legislation from morally bankrupt politicians. Even if we were to concede that a portion of iPod sales should go back to the content creators the RIAA still have no right to the money. Independent music labels are equally deserving. Anyone who creates content that could *possibly* be stored on an iPod are also be equally deserving. Every citizen should be entitled to a piece of this pirate tax, as they all have potential copyrights that can be infringed upon by the evil iPod. When the RIAA insists that they're deserving of this pirate tax because of the majority of infringements are being perpetrated against them all hell will break loose. If reparations are to be determined by volume then the system will be horribly abused. I can just see it now .... Soon everyone's inboxes will be filled with free music with copyrights owned by spammers. No DRM, the only catch is that the license precludes you from transferring it across mediums. With a concerted effort the RIAA's claim would soon vanish.
..If they're going to make us pay a "pirate tax", then that means we can download as much as we like. They've been compensated, and we no longer have to feel like pirates. I'll take the flat rate pirate tax plan to purchase all my music from now to eternity.. at least for as long as it's reasonable.
"These devices are just repositories for stolen music, and they all know it," UMG chairman/CEO Doug Morris says. "So it's time to get paid for it." is from this interview http://billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.js p?vnu_content_id=1003380831 not the article referenced by the parent.
Maybe I'm missing something, but in reading the linked article (which is quite short) I don't see the inflammatory quote the submitter attributed to Doug Morris. All he says in that article is, we struck a deal with Microsoft for the Zune, it'd be nice if we could do the same with Apple for the iPod. Unless someone else points out something I missed, I'm writing the submitter off as a troll (and apparently a successful one).
It's here: http://malfy.org/
Dateline Nov 29th 2006: Universal today announced that henceforth they will be called "Standard Music".
I heartily agree. It would be nice to have a reference for that quote...
" NEW YORK (Reuters) - Universal Music Group Chief Executive Doug Morris said on Tuesday he may try to fashion an iPod royalty fee with Apple Computer Inc. in the next round of negotiations in early 2007.
Universal, the world's largest music company, owned by French media giant Vivendi, was the first major record label to strike an agreement with Microsoft Corp. to receive a fee for every Zune digital media player sold.
"It would be a nice idea. We have a negotiation coming up not too far. I don't see why we wouldn't do that... but maybe not in the same way," he told the Reuters Media Summit, when asked if Universal would negotiate a royalty fee for the iPod that would be similar to Microsoft's Zune.
"The Zune (deal) was an amazingly interesting exercise, to end up with a piece of technology," he added."
that's it. the whole article. i don't see here where Morris makes the flame bait comment about stolen music. looks like the article is more of a troll than Morris....
There's no way that what Doug Morris is suggesting would ever be fair. (well, what is in the record industry?...)
:(
Many people put indie label stuff on their iPods, and much other unclassifiable music, why should Universal get some $$ and not other labels?
What will happen at this point is anyone's guess, but I would consider that Apple's dominance of the market makes it such that it could fight back.
Otherwise there will be no end to this slippery slope. Warner Bros, Sony/BMG, EMI and all the others will claim the same.
Then it'll be the turn of major indies to hit Apple for a piece of the pie.
Therefore I pray that Steve Jobs and Apple's board of directors will have the sanity and foresight to resist what could be a very sad precedent
for the nascent digital music marketplace.
Just as in the SCO / Linux case, this may be a watermark moment, one that will help forever define our future with regards to recorded music.
Doug Morris is only projecting his own frustrations and those of his company's shareholders, and barely clinging to his job due to the lackluster corporate
earning results for the last 3 quarters at Universal certainly gives him far more motivation to do the saber-rattling act to show what a tough negotiator he is.
(well, that and what evil plotters Micro$oft are for pursuing what some call a 'scorched-earth' policy, so that if Zune fails, they'll make sure everyone else
fails, or at least truly suffers along with them...)
In the current picture of the digital marketplace today, Universal stands to lose out far more than Apple by refusing to renew the license on the existing terms.
Actually, if you retrace Doug Morris' steps and read some recent quotes, (and unless I am mistaken) he was also the most vociferous one behind the concept
that one-size-fits-all pricing had to end, and that his top-tier new artists should get more per download than his deep catalog titles.
Therefore, an interpretation of this would be that this is posturing well in advance of Apple's contract renewal to establish that he will not settle for 'One Price - One Rate',
which Apple has so far been steadfast about. This particular point appears to be one which Apple will have to concede to keep their rights to the Universal catalog,
and wil lead to an inevitable industry-wide restructuring of how downloads are priced.
All joking aside, I really could care less if J-Lo and Britney Spears' downloads jump to $1.49, that in itself is a bit of a joke, but an acceptable one...
Some days I do feel extremely ahsamed and embarrassed for still being a part of what's left of the record business, and likely to be summarily judged as being in
cahoots with the rest of the vultures....Today is just one of those days.
Z.
It's not apple's job to help the riaa and their artists recoup their losses due to piracy. That's like placing a tax on crowbars because people break into cars with them.
Why must people be so stupid?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
I'd like to see the availability of more storage media with royalties included, such as flash memories "for music", hard drives "for music" etc., such that any content you record to them is considered "paid for" regardless of how it was obtained, for individual use only. This provides peace of mind to those who want it and avoids legislative demands for intrusive auditing software.
While we're at it, let's have a new category of CD-R "for music resale", with a higher royalty charge but which allowed you to copy any content you like and offer it for commercial sale. Once a fair and reasonable royalty could be decided for that, we'd soon find out if the record companies really are any good at what they do.
With their continual barrage of attention-getting headlines, music distributors are cleverly distracting us from their own ill-gotten gains through:-
- overpricing of CDs
- exploitative contractual arrangements with artists
- racketeering in the distribution of royalties collected.
I have no problem with royalty-inclusive iPods and MP3 players, so people can legally enjoy what (until now) may have been considered bootlegged content. However, this should always be the consumer's choice. There is no need for any new legislation here.
As consumers, each one of us represents one small voice, a potential sale. Personally, I can live without Universal's content if necessary.
I'm looking in the linked article and I don't see the quote anywhere. The article itself is very short, so it's not that I'm missing it in all the text.
Did you link to the wrong article, or are you over-sensationalizing the article?
The only quote in the article is:
http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/whoownswho.html
It's well worth checking out. Many so-called "Indie" labels aren't. This chart does NOT include all of them since it's a bit outdated, but is a good starting point.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
So, who's going to be the first one to organize an "iPod owners society" and file a libel suit against Morris?
microsoft is always sucking up to republicans and big business. I hate it.
This is like requiring shoppers at Walmart to pay a fee for stolen merchandise.
Uh, shoppers do pay for stolen merchandise. It is part of the retail markup. Like returns and warranty work, the accountants probably have an account for losses due to theft, a percentage of sales based on historical averages goes into the account, actual losses are charged against the account, and there are probably tax deductions. So shoplifters are not stealing from the CEOs pockets, they are stealing from the taxpayers who partially subsidize the losses via tax deductions and the shoppers who pay slightly inflated prices.
Re: The iPOD tax
I have purchased Apple products for years and I currently have 6 Macs in my house. I do not pirate (steal) music and in fact have bought a number of complete CDs from iTunes - as well as physical CDs from elsewhere. If you cave into the RIAA, I will take my business elsewhere.
ME
This message was brought to you by "Lack of Sleep."
I feel so terribly bad for these poor starving media capitalists. One survey I read listed a dramatic 12.8% decline in the purchase of diamond encrusted back scratchers. I've even heard that some rappers are secretly using 1/2 cubic zirconia in their "grill". I can't think of a better industry to subsidize.
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/09/ 1444238
Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
Since when is paying for something *once enough to please the **AA?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
The quote is not from the article but something Doug Morris has been quoted as saying.
It seems to have come from a Nov 10 Billboard piece:s p?vnu_content_id=1003380831
http://billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.j
"Looking good Vern."
Looks like Microsoft screwed us over again. Is it just me or do they have no concern at all for their customers?
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
This is the Candle-Maker's Union railing against the introduction of the light bulb. After all, if people are allowed to produce light in their own homes without wax, the whole candle industry would crumble. And then where would we be? Candles have introduced a whole new world of light, and without the candle industry, all will be lost--rampant crime in the streets, homes darkened and shuttered for safety.
Nobody can produce light bulbs on a sustainable basis--the economics of the situation prevent it. You burn one candle per night, which supports the industry that keeps you safe. But if you only buy a single light bulb each year, well--NOBODY can succeed in a business model with such margins--light bulbs will be more expensive to produce than you can charge!
No, the only way to keep the world lit and safe is to ensure that the wax-handlers and wick-dippers are kept employed. We dare not tinker with this model--we play with bulb "technology" at our peril.
Think of the bees!
Or you can just pay me to not produce light bulbs, and then I don't care.
Doug Morris
CEO
Universal Candles
Don't trust anyone under thirty.
It will be an outright incitement to pirate more.
Oh man. check the insolence - theyll tax when purchasing, they'll sell the songs for cash, adn then they'll ALSO sue and try to suppress people who they think is 'pirating'.
isnt there anyone in america that can say "fuck off" to these motherfucking bastards so that they should hear in a manner they can understand ?
Read radical news here
So even Jobs has to eat humble pie! But of course he'll just pass the "tax" onto the iPod consumer. Hmm I wonder if Job will pay me for every iPod sold - let's see what's his phone number........
I'm not an expert, but what you describe sounds like a perfect example of public goods theory applied to taxation. Something (in this case mp3s) with zero marginal cost requires only that the cost of production be covered in order for it to be permissible (in fact, obligatory?) to provide the thing to everyone.
The normal way of doing this for other public goods (e.g. defense) is through taxation. How is music different?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
I dont get it. Arent there taxpayers who vote ? Is it a goddammit kingdom that is run by fuckin suit elite ? Arent any of you willing to say "nay" to these proceedings ? blow your senator's ears off about those practices so they are forced to take a stance ?
Read radical news here
THey did this with DAT years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_ Act
:-)
It worked great for that technology.
And some of you ask "why do people hate microsoft" and say "you fuckin linux zealot" ...
See ?
Its microsoft again that brought that precedent with zune. AGAIN microsoft. again microsoft, after the fuckin novell deal that given them somehow the right to shit out totally clueless sentences like "linux owes us". again microsoft, RIGHT after their launch of their ever-first personal player, zune, causing another crapola for us that we dont know how it will effect us in future.
ALWAYS microsoft. it seems that they are just media cartel's and rich elite's fucking little right hand.
Read radical news here
It started in 2001 for cdr-s, and it extended to any device able to stock files. ipods, dvd-rs, and yes, hard disks. For a 40 to 80 GB disk (so any portable player with the same capacity falls into that category) the tax is 28 euros. 28.
The tax goes to the SACEM (the French RIAA), who then redistributes "to the artists" the money. The redistribution process is far from clear, but hey, it is a law.
Are they trying to encourage piracy? I mean, if I pay a 'pirate tax' on my mp3 player, I might aswell get my money's worth, right?
"Women are just like ninjas; They lie even when it is more convenient to tell the truth." ~ Unknown
"These devices are just repositories for stolen music, and they all know it,. So it's time to get paid for it," is not from the Reuters press release. I think it originally appeared in the Billboard article announcing the Zune launch, unless it comes from an earlier interview with Doug Morris.
In no trade branches too !
You go and try to exthort cash PER UNIT some other company produces, distributes, sells and supports !
Get a load of that ! What kind of arrogance is this ?
And thereby marking ALL purchasers of that particular product as 'potential pirates' with the argument too, which is something that is punishable by civil law in many european countries - indirect insult.
What a degree of spoiledness, and arrogance is that those people are able to DARE do such moves ?
Read radical news here
..because that's exactly what happens. The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 levied royalties on the sales of all digital recording devices and media, and Congress allocated a portion of the sales of audio cassette tapes to the RIAA back in the 80s. This is just the latest act in a long history of extortion.
I don't know which is worse, the fake quote or the Slashdot crowd being all too ready to believe it.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
I've paid for all the music on my iPod. It's all on the up and up. I've purchased a good portion of it through the iTunes Store.
If I had known that instead of valuing me as a customer they would treat me as just another "pirate", I wouldn't have paid for any of this shit.
And now they want to tax good paying customers like me for migrating to the latest platform?
Fuck you. Why don't I just pirate it from now on if it's all the same to you?
Apple should yank itunes sales for universal for a few months.
suddenly this moron will change his mind.
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
No-one has been sued in Canada - the law at present seems to say that file sharing is LEGAL. The money collected from sales of ALL MP3 players, CD's, DVD's etc, goes to the music biz in some form and de facto allows us Canadians to unlimited file share. You cant have a tax on file sharing to make up for lost revenue and then go after people for doing what they have just paid a tax for.... Logically, Universal are making a HUGE mistake by calling DAP owners thieves - thats going to have a nasty rebound on their sales - online or offline. I predict we are seeing the beginning of the end for record companies - I dont see why we need them any more. Record your music on a computer, market it through various online stores and then see if a PR company will pick you up to help publicise youtr efforts. Once the band is popular - dont make CD's, only sell through online stores. It saves plastic, paper, time trouble etc. And it dumps the greedy dinosaurs at Universal etc. in the toilet. Apple might be wise to start their own record company - call it Apple records Inc. (!), and start taking on artists ONLY for online sales.
New iTunes announcement: "iTunes will no longer carry Universal music, movies, or television shows of any kind. What's more, we've added a special filter to all iPods which disables the ability to play back Universal music, movies, and television shows. We will happily refund your money for any iTunes purchases of Universal product, and charge back the royalty fees payed to Universal."
Of course, then the Apple stock would implode.
This is a good thing. The harder the pop music industry pushes, the more acceptable popular, prominent, etc. open source tech solutions will be. and they will thrive. it will not take a work of genius for somebody smarter than me to cook up an affordable, elegant, .ogg media player that will render today's popular devices moot.
and yes, by "elegant" I mean that a brilliant company will capitalize on apple's wonderous style/interface research and fabricate a produkt sufficiently different from best in class ipod to be legal, yet radically flexible, affordable and superior.
like a pair of starbury sneakers: quality and style at an appropriate price.
The RIAA, via our so-called "free enterprise" system, has utterly disenfranchised at least 95% of all musicians. It's a fact in the U.S. that if you're a musician you are either grossly overpaid (les than 5% of us) or you have to keep a day job just to finance your real vocation. And God help you if your health won't sustain all that anymore, you simply have to give up performing.
As a musician in precisely that situation I am not merely justified in "pirating" content, it is my duty!
Fuck the RIAA -- Getcher download on!
It like driving a little over the speed limit on a road where EVERYONE does it. Not technically legal, but not not something that will be enforced unless you take it to ridiculous levels.
Actually in my state, California, it is technically legal, at least under typical conditions.
My last three speeding tickets were all 85-90MPH, two by CHP and one by SJPD, and for each one I wrote a letter which began: "I do not deny driving in excess of 65MPH, but [...]"
The results:
#1 (Watsonville) I got my money back and a letter saying Not Guilty.
#2 (Palo Alto) I never heard anything and the ticket did not go on my record.
#3 (Redwood City) It was Dismissed and I got my money back including the ~$200 FTA fine.
And I never even stepped in a court house, except for once because of the FTA.
What does my magic form letter say? I am not going to spoil the fun - let your fingers do the googling you can figure it out. But I will tell you that the speeding laws don't say what most people might think.
'These Recycle Bins are just repositories for our music, and they all know it. So it's time to get paid for it.'
Theoretically I have already paid for all the content the BBC produces. Therefore I should own the copyright to it?
Your incorrect on your wording. The BBC owns the copyright, or "right to copy (distribute)", the content they produce. If you buy a DVD published by the BBC, you own that DVD. You have property rights to the DVD (meaning you can buy the DVD, own and watch the DVD, and sell the DVD), but you have no rights to distribute the contents of said DVD.
I think what you're trying to get at, and I want to make clear for everyone, is that this is clearly a legal case of double-dipping. This Universal rep makes it quite clear in his quote:
In the words of Universal Music's Doug Morris, 'These devices are just repositories for stolen music, and they all know it.
Right now, Universal (as represented by the RIAA) is suing the pants off of anybody they catch pirating music. Without bringing into question the validity of these lawsuits, if Universal is going to sue people for violating copyright, they certainly cannot also impose taxes under the assumption that people are violating copyright. Doing both is what is known as double-dipping; you collect payment assuming that people violate copyright, then you collect payment again when you catch them violating copyright.
Clearly, Universal hasn't consulted with their legal department on this issue. But then again...I suppose if you're paying your lawyers (and the government) enough, you can tell them what the law is supposed to be...
Does anyone else perhaps think microsoft may well have known they were going to establish a precedent which they could then turn around and attempt to impose on PC hardware vendors?
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
You can see where Universal would like to go with this...
Microsoft sets the admittedly ridiculous precedent.
Universal goes after Apple. If Apple caves then....
well surely all those MP3-playing cell phones are full of pirated music and should be subject to the tax, as should all those nasty PC's and Macs running iTunes, not to mention all those millions of flash drives--they are surely only being used to copy and distribute copyrighted music, and of course all those iPod accessories are complicit in the pirating ways of the iPod owners and should be subject to the tax. yada yada yada.
Unlike other technology, earlier mp3 music players, apple's ipod was designed with a legitimate music distribution mechanism in mind. Music labels cannot very well argue that music bought on Itunes and downloaded to an Ipod has been stolen. While the ipod may be used to play illegally acquired music this is not Apple's fault. The music Apple sells is protected. The music sold by record labels can be copied illegally -- if they have a problem with illegal distribution then they should fix their distribution method (e.g. only sell music through Itunes).
Since we will be paying the tax for potential pirating, thus, pirating will be allowed since we already paid for it. Canada's courts said as much themselves that if you are going to charge everyone for that tax, then they are free to do the activity which the tax is paying to allow you to do. If you get sued by Universal after paying the tax, I would have a motion to dismiss on those grounds immediately.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
Heck with the justice system... there is nothing like guilt by them wanting money. Makes me glad I don't listen to much music.
Just google the quote. Here's the first result: http://www.insanely-great.com/news.php?id=6726
Universal should be paying me to listen to the crap.
I, for one, welcome this tax, but after paying it I'll fire up eMule AND BitTorrent and download 80GB of music, since I've already paid for my sins. See, you can't have it both ways. Either you don't charge this tax or I don't pay for music. It's that simple. For the record, my 4GB nano doesn't have a single illegal tune on it. I buy CDs and rip them into 192kbps VBR AAC files. Oh, and if Universal goes titsup tomorrow - I don't give a shit. I don't listen to any of their artists.
link. Just in another article.
How many ways will RIAA companies try to profit from the idea that they're getting stolen from? If a "pirate tax" comes into effect will they stop suing people for outrageous sums, or what?
Doug Morris,
You're a cunt.
Many of the CDs I own, I bought because I first heard samples of the artist's work on the radio. Others have been bought from the performer at a concert or dance. My family and I have bought very few CDs from the major labels, though, since the RIAA began suing its customers.
The way the record companies have ripped off the artists, their business model deserves to die anyway. The recording industry's notoriously creative accounting does not lead me to trust their claims that their revenues are down. And even if revenues are down, the likely cause is boring, homogenized product (*cough* Clear Channel *cough*) combined with competition from other forms of entertainment. They have no right to assume that if people are opting not to buy their overpriced product, then they must be acquiring it illicitly. This particular consumer is choosing to do without, thank you.
The RIAA and BSA don't have a God- or Congress-given right to a perpetual revenue stream any more than the player-piano-roll and buggy-whip distributors did. They can keep their greedy fingers out of my pockets.
Seriously, this just reeks of a mafia-style protection racket. You pay us, we let you be... otherwise...
Their expectation of the shrink rate has already been calculated into their everyday low, low pricing. If America had a sudden attack of conscience and retail theft dropped 50% they'd happily cut another two pennies off that pack of Oreos and laugh loudly in the general direction of all the stores trying to sell it 5 cents higher. No guarantee that their theft premium was 4 cents or less to begin with, of course.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
Other possible RIAA plants (this story only):
- #17043086 (User: Man in Spandex)
- #17043272 (User: LO0G)
- #17042814 (User: seriv)
- #17043858 (User: j-beda)
- #17043038 (User: Jerry Rivers)
- #17043474, #17043550 (User: pandrijeczko)
On a side note, the quote in the summary, "These devices are just repositories for stolen music, and they all know it,. So it's time to get paid for it," is not from the Reuters press release. It originally appeared in the Billboard article announcing the Zune launch, and was discussed on slashdot.Apparently, you also don't seem to be able to understand that you need to out-compete the piracy industry by offering a quality product at a reasonable price and in a manner that is easy for people to pay for.
This is bullshit. The reason we have copyright laws in the first place is because it has been judged impossible for content producers to out-compete pirates, because the pirates do not have to pay for the production of the content in the first place.
Are you adequate?
Okay, it's clear we need some expert advice on this one.
... because then the major legal use would be driven by illegal acts. I know, 'Yea Yea, the hunting crowd...' - this is indeed a legal, but small range of permissible use.
I've observed most of the replies fall into one of the following categories. Sadly, I too am not a lawyer, so I'll have to do the best I can with the sequencing. A large part of this revolves around undefined terms.
Set A: Tax = License
Proposed: "Piracy tax" - Extrapolated RIAA meaning: "Additional levy to cover prosecution costs of 'Pirates', defined as people who do not have hard media or a saved store receipt tied to every piece of music' "
Paying a loss recovery fee does not enable you to become a member of the loss-causing group. The original quote is an example of emotional hyperbole, and is not indicating every single person as a member of the criminal class. The 'correct' interpretation of the quote would be "Sufficient numbers of iPods are repositories of music which we define as illegal, to justify us inserting this charge".
This statement itself can be disputed; however, the original assumption is therefore proved incorrect. To summarize: *you* may indeed not have any offending music, for which the RIAA is sorry to impose, and therefore if you send an image report and a spreadsheet tallying your music to its source, you might qualify for a rebate of the piracy fee.
This is what the RIAA presumably means. The second half of the threads hope that a judge *re-interprets* the fee as not existing cost recovery, but as a version of the 'involuntary license' princple that was first discussed in the days that live bands were nervous about Vinyl recordings. The hope here is a sort of de-facto one time fee enabling unlimited usage of all music forever.
B. Extension of Principle with Hyperbole
This series siezes upon the clearly combative figurative language of the quote, combines it with a misinterpretation, then makes an unwarranted statement of presumed shock. "Oh No, the car I bought has a cost recovery charge for stolen vehicles and/or damage caused by people driving illegally". Automotive is a sufficiently mature industry that I don't hear people clamoring for exact breakouts of what goes into 'true cost'. I am fairly certain there are additional levies of various kinds built into the price structure somewhere, but implicitly stated. A cost recovery fee does not mean "I can ignore the speed limit and drive as I like".
Someone with serious knowledge should compare all this with the gun industry. Guns have among the largest "non-permissible use" profiles of any item sold. Certainly relatively few people should "need it for protection"
C. Precedent with hyperbole
These are the threads that begin pseudo-guessing the legal extrapolations of this levy being passed. There is a fairly clear tone indicating the poster does not believe in their post; they are meant as 'if this could pass, so ends the world of rationality'. "If this passes, will I have to pay a murder prosecution tax on dinner knives?"
Movies ( ! ) notwithstanding, I rarely hear of rampant abuse of social opinion of judges. At least at the appeal level, the concept of legal precedent is pretty careful; the worst 'extrapolations' will of course not come to pass. Therefore, the posts in this light here are meant for emotional effect, which is a form of logical fallacy in discussion.
When pressed in court, I am sure the RIAA will amend their position if so needed. Inflammatory statements are distinct from actual policy implementation. I think Steve Ballmer has contributed to this theory of business as well. I hope a judge finally taggs the RIAA upon creating 'excessive psychological damage from overarching efforts without sufficient basis in proof'.
So, any IP Lawyers care to remark on these matters?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I seem to recall some certain historical figures threw a party for similar reasons. I think we call them heroes now. I think it will be time soon for a demonstration of the founding principals of the home of the free and the land of the brave.
This is ruse to create a win win situation, for Universal. It creates more hype for iPOD and Zune which provide Universal with revenue streams via on-line music SVCs vs other players, and thus more opportunity for on-line music sales. Whether Apple would ever cave to such bombastic remarks is uncertain but I am guessing unlikely. May even drive more users to buy the iPOD in support of Apple supposed defiance. Though if they did cave Universal still gets upside $. Slightly OT - but amusing and sort of ironic Disney's big hit Pirates of the Carribean, movie & theme park attraction, glorify pirating and Disney is thrilled to make $ off this concept, yet appalled when their products are pirated. Realize nothing new for entertainment at expense of Disney.
and everyone knows it!
Maybe this could work. A small fee on storage devices, with the proceeds going to ... ah, now there's the rub.
...
To whom?
The performer?
The writer?
The producer?
The person who "owns" the copyright?
The record company?
Britain used to do this cassette tapes, I think.
Bah! As far as I can see, the whole record industry is a trap, a snare for small players, who they rip off unmercifully. And this is balanced by some succesful bands who make a lot of money. But basically it's a nasty, self serving industry.
It suprises me that more (especially new, small) bands have not said "The heck with it, let's just bung all our music on MP3.com and see if we can boost our concert prices". But no, they seem unable to resist the charm of the BIG record copany. And they get ripped off. Again.
And so do we with pretty high CD prices. About AU$29 here in Sydney. Which ain't bad for a marginal cost of $0.50.
Hmm, back to writng code
"Cats like plain crisps"
No, you're constructing a straw man.
When Apple paid Creative, it was for the use of Creative's patents. I don't necessarily agree with the judgment, but that's what it was about. So you're right, that certainly doesn't give me any moral or ethical -- much less legal -- right to go out and steal stuff from Creative, at least not unless you espouse a somewhat extreme form of IP anarchism.
Anyway, the difference between that deal, and the Zune deal (or the Canadian 'media tax') is that Creative's deal with Apple doesn't make any comment about the actions of the users. It's purely between Apple and Creative. What Universal is saying in demanding its pound of flesh, is that users are criminals, and therefore the users should be made to pay for their criminal behavior, before they even do it. That's fundamentally different from a patent licensing deal.
In short, Universal is engaging in collective punishment -- trying to extort money from everyone who buys an Apple product, because they assume they will all be used for piracy. Since I'm going to get punished in that case either way, whether I pirate or not, then I might as well pirate.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Maybe Hollywood should pay royalties to Hong Kong and European film companies for all of those god awful remakes they do.
Yes this is true, but it is also true for the record labels (except pirates cut into the big music markups...I'd wager Walmart actually feels the effect more, and can certainly account for it more accurately with physical products missing). However, Walmart does not charge everyone an arbitrary dollar for the privilege of entering the stole. Actually, if I want to stick to my original analogy, I should say for owning a car, on the assumption that everyone who owns cars steals from Walmart.
Also, just as a side note, goods which are intended for resale are not taxed. But you are also correct in pointing out that the losses are spread out among the various stakeholders, which includes customers and taxpayers. It also includes the shareholders, and if it continues long enough, the CEO's too.
Hey, we'll import your prescription drugs and you can import our tax free CDRs/DVDRs and we'll call it even :)
I don't know about this, I think there is a tax on blank CDs/DVDs as there is and has been one on both blank cassette tapes and vhs tapes. It's just not noticable as the tax isn't itemized or anything.
FalconShould there be a Law?
So does this mean that they are going to stop suing people for absurd amounts of money? because if that's the case that'd be fine with me.
Universal Music Group 2200 Colorado Avenue Santa Monica, CA 90404 USA Tel.: +1 310 865 500 Give them a call, write them a letter. Let them know no more purchases of their music, games or any other product. I'll be damned if I'm going to buy anything from a company that desires to take money from me for absolutely no service from them.
Didn't care that much for the hassle of music until hard disc drives came down in price enough for me to rip my CDs. After I got my iPod I suddenly got interested in buying a lot more music. My collection is at least x3 or x4 larger than it used to be because of the iPod.
I suspect that the concept of iPods driving more music sales simply hasn't occured to this moron.
Pawn shops are just repositories for stolen items, and everyone knows it. So it's time for a tax on pawn shops, to put money back in the pockets of the people.
Somehow I don't think my similar proposition is going to catch on either.
I heard someplace that the Zune comes preloaded with music, so wouldn't that justify the royalties being paid. I suppose it would only justify if Universal owns the copyrights the the preloaded music. I don't know what labels Universal owns. Maybe someone could check that out--does universal own any of these songs?
The iPod doesn't come preloaded with music (as far as I know; I don't have one. Though I've heard of people selling their iPods with the music on them).
Well, it's not some intangible "something" in Canadian law that makes copying OK: when the canadian arm of the RIAA went and got the copyright law changed to get a "pirate tax", somebody in the system included explicitly the right for individuals to take copies of whatever music they wanted in the bill. The RIAA got screwed by the Parliament, and 15 years later The People get on with their lives without rackets.
Moreover, canadian privacy laws blocks the ISP's from giving away names, and the courts have rejected the bogus process the RIAA uses to get the courts to give them the names in the US.
I, for one, am building a shrine to the "unknown RIAA-tricker" every day I load up MP3's.
You're not old until regret takes the place of your dreams.
You can't infringe copyright if something isn't for sale (if there are no lost sales, there are no monetary damages). If they aren't selling the MP3 for something I have on a CD, then I'm not infringing their copyright if I rip it myself. Period. End of sentence. Thus, it's perfectly possible to have a player full of non-infringing content.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Well, it's the recording industry. What does it do? Records the music well, copies it to CD, markets the band via radio, commercials, full color posters in Borders, MTV, etc. If musicians can somehow foot the bill (somewhere around $10K for great quality music recording and mixing for one CD), throw it on the internet, and let the people decide who's good or not. Top 100 internet songs in this category, that category, etc. Popular bands, likely the good ones not just the RIAA-pushed catchy ones, will draw larger concert venues, etc.
End result? You don't need a huge marketing conglomerate behind you. Most musicians are starving anyway, this may actually give the non-millionaires a fighting chance because they'll be marketed on talent, not advertising.
These are the same people who've been saying "Apple must raise prices. The current prices are unsustainable" for years, and yet they aren't getting paid more. Apple's in the driver's seat for these kinds of negotiations unless Zune really takes off, so I wouldn't worry about it. In the article he says it would be "nice to have". Well, sure, we'd all love a raise.
This is a business negotiation between two companies. I don't really care if Apple agrees to split the profit on iPods or not, but it won't change what I'm willing to pay for an iPod.
The iPod and iTunes Music Store are reasons why I actually pay for my music. I do not download and store illegal content on my iPod. Apple made it easy to purchase and download music at affordable prices, and rightfully deserves what profits they collect off the iPod. I would not want Universal getting a cut on something they did not produce. They're already getting a cut of the music sales, and that is all they're entitled to. Apple actually "gets it" that customers will buy things legally if it's easy to buy (at affordable prices), and fast/easy to obtain.
no, it's like home buyers having to pay a tax to go to Walmart for stolen merchandise.. after all, houses are just repositories for stolen merchandise and everyone knows it.
How we know is more important than what we know.
A decade or two ago, the music industry was threatening huge lawsuits against anyone who dared to import a consumer DAT deck (read: Sony, who at that time did not own record labels or studios). In light of the Betamax ruling, the Congress should have told the music industry to go **** itself.
Instead we got the AHRA, with taxes on standalone digital audio recorders, taxes on their media (this is where you get "music CD-Rs"), AND copy protection forced into the taxed standalone devices, to boot.
One of the things we were supposed to get from the AHRA: the record companies were supposed to leave computers and accessories alone. So what happened when a company (Diamond) made a device (the Rio MP3 player) that was exempt from the AHRA copy protection and tax regime? The RIAA sued Rio, under the very law (AHRA) that had earlier been touted as a solution to this type of lawsuit!
The RIAA lost their court case. But isn't it interesting how we got DRM anyway?
Believe me, if Walmart could, they would. Walmart has no leverage on car manufacturers. Universal, on the other hand, does have leverage over companies who sell music.
Dear Music Industry (RIAA),
I propose that if a portion of my music player pays for "pirated music," that pirated music is no longer "stolen," but paid for. Therefore, all current litigation against music pirates must be stopped and p2p sites are legal in any form.
Sincerely,
Common Sense
Dude, if everyone using an Ipod has it filled with stolen music, that says more about the complete and utter failure of your industry to accommodate willing customers than it does about the iPod.
I, personally, have a 1 gig MP3 player that I use on occasion. My entire music collection fills less than half of it. All of it is pirated. (Usually pirated in the sense of me having a standing invitation to steal whatever music I want from my brother's collection of cds, but occasionally downloaded.)
I don't like Apple. (Sorry, Apple fans.) I don't like iTunes. I don't care enough about any cd to spend 15 bucks for it. I'd be willing to start listening to music on a regular basis if the music industry made it easy and convenient for me to give them a reasonable amount of money in exchange for DRM-free mp3s. Especially if I knew that a significant portion of the money I spent goes to the artist. Why is this so difficult to ask for?
His logic is similar to those losers who cheat with the online games: I'm sure others cheat too, so it's just fair that I cheat.
Sure, there are such people, but no, not everyone is. One should not make assupmtions that others share same morales as you do.
So I guess that means the millions of tunes sold on Apples online store do not go on ipods? They must either go on a computer hard drive and that's it or deleted? How stupid are these lawyers or whoever thought of this tax?
In Massachusetts, and many other states, we have a stamp tax on pot. For each gram over an ounce, one is required to have paid the tax on said amount. Now pot is still illegal, but if you are found to not of paid the tax, they can tack tax evasion onto your sentance. Or if you get off light, then just charge you for tax evasion.
So a tax is not just a lisence to steal, its a lisence for the goverment to add a larger sentance onto your current offence. I bet that all those that have a media player manufactured by those that have yet to pay the tax, then the consumer, if sued by the RIAA, will have tax evasion clipped onto the lawsuit...
3 degrees of separation from Vladimir Putin
I'm not arguing with you, but that's a very long list, covering everybody on A&M, Def Jam, Geffen, Interscope, Motown, Mercury, Polydor, and more. I'd hate to give up some of the names on those lists.
Another idea: shaft Universal by buying only used CDs, because the labels get no additional royalties after the first sale. (Neither do the artists, of course.) Rip your favorite tracks and sell or trade the CDs back to the store. This is (AFAIK) entirely legal to do, supports small local businesses, and depending on your tastes you'll save at least 30%, often 50%, and sometimes much more compared to buying new CDs or iTunes tracks.
If you have the time and really know what you're doing, you can even make money from the record labels! Buy CDs cheaply at flea markets, charity thrift shops and garage sales, then sell or trade 'em at the record store. Don't count on paying the rent by buying retail and selling wholesale this way, but you might be able to pay for your music habit and even make a profit. (Warning: stores that deal in used merchandise are always picky, and many of the CDs, records, books, etc. at thrift shops etc. are there because they are very common or unpopular or damaged and thus near-impossible to sell. The CDs at your local thrift shop may have been donated by the local used record store getting rid of worthless stock!)
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
Is there a citation for this quote? I followed the link, and this quote isn't in the article. Maybe it was removed?
Not that I don't believe he said it, but it seems a little irresponsible to say "In the words of..." and then not provide a reference so that we can verify he was actually dumb enough to say that.
My iPod is used for audiobooks and mp3 of class lectures. Does this mean that Universal will owe me whatever pirate-fee they want on each iPod?
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
There isn't a single unlicensed track anywhere on my iPod. Not even one unauthorized sample.
I take it you don't have any Pop Will Eat Itself then, and I doubt they're the only band that didn't clear their samples. But then again, you're not breaking the law by listening to them, the record label that signed them broke the law (in PWEI's case, RCA, now owned by Sony).
Any good parasite knows that its survival hinges on its not killing the host. Any record label that moves to cut its artists out of the loop has pronounced its own death sentence. I think it's called Hubris.
I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
when companies go to bed with mshaft? I too feel that this is about mshaft being too inept or too unwilling to have the will power to design ORIGINAL good products, not crib or buy up and then kill off or so intensely modify the bought stuff that the customers end up ditching some of the stuff because they don't recognized it anymore.
When I finished reading the slash submitter article summary, I thought:
There might be a Pirate TAX, but maybe there will be PyroTaxknicks. And, those who are quiet and more inclined to pirate, there will just be enhanced Pirate Tactics...
And, boy, from reading the seething, indignant, furious responses, some of those execs need to rethink how they treat their customers: "Assume their all guilty, and if not guilty, what the hell? Charge 'em as if they are, anyway."
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Aaaah, and I bought a Chili Peppers record. I feel so dirty. Never gonna do that again.
...because that never is going to happen. This article is specific to the iPod, but in Europe plans are already made to introduce a generic tax for all devices that include storage, whether that's an iPod or a DVD-recorder or a generic mp3-player : the tax would go to the likes of RIAA and the MPAA in Europe.
It would be very naive to think that once this tax is introduced, you can freely copy stuff. It's a simple game : he who has the most marbles at the end wins, and that's that.
Just to take away the surprise: you are not the one that will have the most marbles at the end if this tax is introduced.
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
Mp3 player, tax...
'These devices are just repositories for stolen music, and they all know it. So it's time to get paid for it.'So...My logic is that if I am paying up front when buying my mp3 player for these repositories for stolen music, should I therefore have the right to that copyright music merely by paying for my Zune/iPod? Hence can not be prosecuted for downloading vast quantities of illegal music at a later date? "Judge, I paid for the tax levied on my device for containing illegal works hence I have the right to have illegal works on this device." The tax on the player, of course, is paying for the rights as per Doug Morris' word. The copy on your PC could be considered a backup ;)
Karem
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
Your Honor, I'm a musician, I sell my self-published CDs on the street (presents a copy of the CD and receipts for X blanks as evidence), and I would like, please:
1. the devolution of the levy tax on the CDs I used to record MY music;
2. X * 700 / total tax paid for everyone for MB of blank media, including iPods, etc.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
I currently own every file that's on my iPod and my laptop -but if I have to pay a "pirate tax" then it's time for me to start pirating files...
www.dalantech.com
So if I've read this correctly only Universal will get a piece of the pie in Zune sales because they have leverage and probably a truckload of good lawyers. So, what about the small companies that don't get payed because of a lack of (il)legal force? I would be fine with some kind of tax if I would know this went to the artists (all the artists not just of one music company) and not some CEO who wants another tropical island for christmas.
It once again proves this isn't about piracy of music but just about money and the idea that they are loosing out one some of it. And yet again all people who buy music players are marked as possible criminals even if it's known that it's perfectly possible to have legal digital music. So why would people have to pay twice?
A few years back people were screaming murder about piracy and the fact that it would destroy the record industry. I've yet to withness such a thing, even slight declines in revenue are not worth mentioning.
Ordinarily I'm a big opponent of the culture in the US that says sue for everything. However, in this instance, I'd love to see a class action back in Doug Morris' face from all the iPod owners whose reputations have been tarnished by this persons remarks.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
This is utterly ridiculous...
How arrogant must these people be to assume that people will listen to anything other than their over-hyped drivel.
Not to mention that it's grossly unfair to tax people who are not using ipods to listen to downloaded mp3s... Infact, many people will simply take the attitude of "I've already paid, therefore i can download what i like"
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Mmm... I hate to be the bat to the eagle of your dreams (particularly because I share them), but Universal's legal team isn't retarded. Any deals made with apple will use phrasings that imply absolutely zero responsibility, debt, or loss of rights for the record company. Trading a pittance tax for their entire libraries... particularly by accident... unfortunately there's no way in hell. Their sin is greed, not stupidity.
Relax I just want some peanuts.
I don't know about Canada, but in Europe (at least France and Germany), we have those taxes, and yet they have the right to sue the hell out of you if you pirate music.
So in fact we pay the "pirate" tax and get no benefit for it. I for one, have no trouble "pirating" majors content due to the fact i have paid those fucking taxes, and they do not provide DRM-free music... but if I get caugth, sure as hell, it's illegal.
In France at some point (on december 25th at 11pm last year.. no joke), when the gov attempted to pass a DMCA-like law, a dozen members of the parliament managed to pass a law that said the contrary: if you paid a certain tax you could share music on p2p networks legally... but well, this was later dropped by the gov and it got back to the chamber, got a lot of "angry"' public exposure, but in the end the DMCA-like (EUCD / DADVSI) made it. And NO, they have not removed the fucking taxes on CDs, DVDs, USB sticks etc...
The most fun in the law, is that there is a faire use copy exception... which which can be equal to ZERO copies, as it is the case for DVDs! Yet you pay taxes on free DVDs...
We come back to the issue that because something can be used for an illegal purpose, that doesn't mean that there should be a presumption that it will be so used. Does an iPod have a legitimate purpose, and would the majority of its usage be for this legal purpose?
Once again, we see the behaviour of an industry which knows it is in its death throes. The distribution of music from artists to consumers will have been effectively disintermediated within 10 years, so the interests of the music distribution business are now limitted to squeezing the last cash they can from their historic position of influence. They don't care who they piss off because in time they will lose the customers whatever they do. Think SCO.
The last scintilla of doubt just rode out of town
If I purchase any media that comes with "pirate tax" then I'll have no problem using pirated stuff. Heck, I even should do that. It's paid for already after all.
Fuck http://mafiaa.org/
Treat me like a criminal, and I'll act like one. After reading a statement like that, Im going to avoid paying for anything from Universal (records/movies) if I can. Well done dick heads.
Yeah, yeah, I know, but it was kind of an impulse thing while food shopping. Anyway, the title in question was Mission Impossible 3. Action, suspense, all the usual crap.
Well, when I got it home and opened the case, I got a surprise. There was a little note inside, thanking me for not being a pirate (yaaar !).
Ok, I thought, that's fair enough, but as I bought the damn thing what was the point ? Are the pirates now sticking little notes inside cases saying "Fuck you film producers" or "Yay, stick it to the man" ? Is this a battle of mindshare, in which case it shows the studios are *really* scared ?
So, anyway, I turned the note over and found to my astonishment, that by buying this DVD I am helping to stop violent crime ! Apparently in a raid on market traders, one of the traders vehicles contained an "open bladed kitchen knife" and a "stun gun". Apparently he was later arrested. What he was arrested for they don't go on to elaborate. Quite how possession of these items constitutes violent crime I don't know either.
I guess I'm just pissed off with the FUD they're spreading. And "thousands of pounds worth of pirate film and music products" constitutes a couple of hundred DVDs/CDs at the most, given that they are probably using studio figures. Hardly worth the expensive manpower for a "major surveillance exercise".
Needless to say the film probably had anti-piracy warnings at the beginning, but strangely I didn't get to see them'These devices are just repositories for stolen music, and they all know it. So it's time to get paid for it.' OK, so once Apple pays for the "stolen" music, iPod users must legally own the music, right? Let the free downloading begin! No? They want money from Apple and from legal buyers? Imagine that.
Don't trust anything that bleeds for a week and lives.
So, Universal, you want me to pay a fee because it's possible I might have some of your music on my iPod? You want me to pay a one time license fee for access to your entire back catalogue, as I find it? Okay!
Weapons of Mass Analysis
does any one know if the RIAA members who have artists on itunes is still charging their artists a "packaging charge" when they sell music on Itunes? there was a lawsuit about this previously but i have not seen anything in the news lately...
(yes i know i suck at spelling fell free to correct my grammar and/or spellin i dont care, im still not going to change
My first reaction:
If the price of my new iPod is going to include a royalty payment to major music studios, that means I really CAN freely download all the movies and music I want. That would be big shift from my current policy.
At present, my iPod only contains music from own CD collection, and tunes that I've purchased from the iTunes Store. I'm in the majority camp of iPod owners.
- Andy's Big Toe.They called me "Old Hickory", but I'm really an old stick in the mud.
but if Universal wants its fees as a per device license, they should forgo any per track royalties, so consumers don't end up paying them twice.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
This is utterly ridiculous! The major label industry is desperately trying to regain the huge profits they've gotten away with for years. I could slap Microsoft for setting such a stupid precedent!! As many have stated, my iPod contains no music that I have not purchased, along with lots of MY OWN music. I'll be damned if I will pay Universal for storing my music.
Start this week by removing, or refusing to add, universal group music to your collection. Hit the bastards in their wallet.
clancey
1. Gather some Open Source Developers.
2. Make a game.
3. Game features Jack Thompson having butt sex every time he files frivolous lawsuits.
4. Distribute the game on the tubes, free of course, (as in beer and speech).
5.????
6. Profit = Ole' Jack trying to shut down an open source GPL'ed game starring himself, thus occupying all his time so he can leave the rest of society alone.
Profit Result, problem solved.
they also want a cup of coffee and to pat the waitress on the ass. But if they get fresh they'll end up swallowing their teeth along with the pie; the fry cook doesn't like guys messing with his girl.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
If someone breaks into my house and steals something and the police catch him, I don't "get paid" for it. I just get my stuff back.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
"Anyone who didn't see this coming from a mile away after the Microsoft/Universal deal might not have brains at all." - PA
I sent the following to universal music
________________
I have recently read on several news sites that you are wanting to receive Royalties on Ipod sales.
In the words of Universal Music's Doug Morris, "These devices are just repositories for stolen music, and they all know it. So it's time to get paid for it."
If this happens may I begin Downloading from P2P networks?
After all its not stealing if your being paid for it!
I would advise Doug Morris to engage his brain before engaging his mouth.
thanks
~Dan
________
Am awaiting a response
Does this mean that all purchasers of Zunes or iPods will effectively be admitting to piracy ?
I used to work at a radio station as a music and programming director. Promoters interested in pushing their music on the air would *CONSTANTLY* offer free posters and stickers, free concert tickets, and most importantly, free CDs. And usually not just 1, but like 5. The idea was "give them away if you want to, keep them if you don't."
I find it *VERY* hard to believe that Doug Morris would pay for any of the music he has around his house. He probably receives specially autographed master copies from Beck, Kanye West, Trent Reznor, et al. I'm sure he receives free copies of the competition to check their A&R.
Maybe he takes the high road and doesn't take any of the free copies just floating around, but somehow I doubt it. Because those companies don't actually value the music they produce intrinsically - why else would they send radio stations $50-100 worth of their merchandise for free?
I'd bet there are a lot of older executives at the Big 5 who would never pay for the new Jay-Z album, but could get a free copy of it with a phone call.
C'mon Apple, let Universal pull their stuff from iTMS and see what happens. I bought my iPod way back when there wasn't even half the music on iTMS as there is now. It certainly wasn't because Universal had their library on there. I think it would be a great case study to watch them pull their content and go down in flames while the other studios sit back and see if they should follow suit or not. When they realize just how much they stand to lose it may even put Apple in a better position for future negotiations (or at least keep them from making other boneheaded threats).
Leave it to MS to screw up the online music distribution model that actually worked and that the studios could agree upon...sheesh...
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
No, going faster doesn't equal "less reaction time". You made that up, just now. At higher speeds, you are supposed to follow at a farther distance. This makes up for the increased speed. I always try to leave enough room that, if a brick wall were to materialize and stop traffic dead, that I would still have time to brake without rear-ending them.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
And every EULA will have a "I swear solemnly I'm up to no good" paragraph :)
SIG SEGV
We could wipe out all accidents, but it would take much longer to get anywhere. I think we have a nice balance of speed/death right now.
Blar.
Nothing to see here. Stop trolling Slashdot with bizarre conspiracies and move along.
Also, just as a side note, goods which are intended for resale are not taxed.
I am only claiming that losses due to theft are tax deductible.
At least they got one thing right in that the iPod is generally intended for music (well, now video/pictures, but it was originally for music and still tends to lean that way).
CD's, DVD's, etc are just for data-storage, and everyone who burns a copy of software, backups, or whatever else is paying to compensate so-called "piracy" when they are not contributors.
"These devices are just repositories for stolen music" Based on that, are they requesting payments from hard drive manufacturers as well? How about computer resellers?
So once you have paid the "Pirate Tax", RIAA/MPAA and the other Gestapo's have their $ and cannot sue anyone, ever again. QED - bring it on kids! And next time, think it through.
MS does not pay Zune royalties because of any legal or moral obligation. MS does this solely to pressure Apple to do the same. MS has deeper pockets, hence paying royalties hurts Apple more.
Mr. Doug Morris is too dense to realize this, and actually thinks MS pays royalties to avoid getting sued. Now he's concluded that all mp3 player manufacturers are obliged to pay royalties. What a tool.
It appears that we are now prepaying for content. That means that we get all of the content we want for no additional distribution fees since we have paid up front for our content.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Why just the other day I was thinking to myself, 'There ought to be an easier way to give my money to UMG.' This sure beats taking out a fin, finding an envelope and stamp, digging out an address, and making the trek out to the mailbox. Let's face it, the Universal Music Group DESERVES our money. Sure I don't listen to Ashlee Simpson, Lindsay Lohan, or the Doggy Style All Stars but who am I to say where my money should go? And why on earth should an independent society for artist rights like ASCAP, BMI, or SOCAN be responsible for distributing money collected from what is essentially a blank media tax? They'll just divy up the money to artists and music publishers according to boring, measurable criteria like record sales/radio play, etc. I want my money going directly to the LABEL to do whatever they see fit with no public oversight! Maybe the artists don't need the money this month and the coke-head A&R guy needs it instead? Did you ever think of that? Thank God UMG is FINALLY standing up for its rights and Microsoft had the good sense to listen when it agreed to implement a UMG tax in the Zune! Apple, pay attention, or I'll just have to mail the money I was GOING to spend on a new iPod directly to UMG instead!
Hey,
M = Roman numeral for 1000
MM = 1000x1000 = 1000000 = 1 million
I'm not buying one more song not one track. I've had it! They make me pay crazy prices and they fuck their own customers any way they can.
+1 Agree -1 Disagree
Let me state this: I DO NOT LISTEN TO MUSIC ON MY MP3 PLAYER! THERE IS NOTHING PIRATED ON MY MUVO!
If this trend continues, what the world needs is a kit. Flash memory / small embedded OS / amplifier / earphone plug / etc. Just like we build PCs from parts to avoid the Microsoft Tax on the preinstalled OS, we can build our own OGG and MP3 players from a kit.
If someone wants to make money, this would be good...
(I don't personally want a hard-drive based player - I'd rather have an almost indestructible flash memory player. But, it's a kit, and you can have whichever you want.)
> You're missing the point though... His statements were wrong.
:-)
No they weren't! You're misreading those comments (which I've also read; in fact, what I probably remember was probably your exchange with him). What he said was that it was international because the companies that make it up were foreign corporations. You're using a different definition of "international" than what he means by it and complaining that he's not using the definition you are!
As for the rest, it's the RIAA coordinating the cases or it sure looks like it because it's my understanding that the same law firms are handling all this and they're all using the same strategy... the label has to be the plaintiff because they hold the relevant copyrights, but that doesn't mean the RIAA itself isn't behind it all.
All the info is on his website, so it's not like he's trying to mislead you or something, but he's a lawyer so he's only going to talk about his side of the case--not the parts that go against his client's interests. I think that's one of those legal ethics things or something.
Don't get me wrong--he comes off a bit strong and he is quite unwilling to waste any time explaining things to people he doubts will understand it anyhow--but that's not exactly unheard of here on Slashdot, y'know
quick google search turned this up.
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
What I said.
So... Universal is seeking remuneration from Apple for marketing a device that contributes to illegal behavior.
Remind me, again... What's the position of the entertainment industry when it comes to lawsuits against them for publishing content that contributes to the criminal behavior of minors?
He might come across this morning's Zune story... You know, the one that indicates 75% of retailers are still recommending the iPod and analysts don't think Zune will present any kind of formidable competition.
Then he might want to look at the overall maturity and decline in CD and DVD sales looming on the horizon. After that, he might then take a look at Apple's iTunes Music Store sales of music and video.
Finally, Morris *might* come to the realization that Ali G's Ice Cream Glove was, in retrospect, a more sound business strategy than this.