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?"
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
"...so any unauthorized copy is a dead-end once it gets to the ipod"
Well not exactly. It is possible to sync the ipod to iTunes then rip a cid of any track, at which point you can do whatever you want with it. It is also possible to freely extract the songs off the iPod, or share them via browser with anyone.
The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
" 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....
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.
It's a tax assuming that we download so how can they expect to charge anyone with infringement if they are being compensated already. (and personally, I don't really give a shit if it's enough compensation)
The music industry asked for the levies and got them. The courts here don't seem to have much sympathy for them.
I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
There is an interesting argument here that even Universal's artists might not get a cut from that money - namely, if their contract with the label doesn't explicitly stipulate a cut from licensing electronic devices, they're all fucked over. At least if the current behavior (i.e. iTunes licensing splits) are something to judge by.
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."
THey did this with DAT years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_ Act
:-)
It worked great for that technology.
"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.
The Doug Morris quote is not from this article. His inflammatory remark is from the earlier Microsoft agreement.
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...
The difference here is that the license fee they are charging here is explicitly to reimburse the RIAA for music which is pirated by iPod users.
The levy for mp3 players was overturned, so if you've been charged it recently, you've been ripped off.
it's more of a grey area
No, it's pretty black-and-white. Before the CRIA launched their first lawsuit, the Copyright Policy branch of the Heritage Ministry stated that they believed downloading music (whether from p2p sites, or a website) was not copyright infringement, as long as the person downloading was doing it for their own use. It was a gray area then.
When the CRIA launched their suit, the judge agreed with the Heritage Ministry, and said that the CRIA had not shown that any law had been broken - people putting music on their hard drives would probably be so they could listen to it themselves, which is not against the law. Sharing it out is not making a copy (the copy isn't made until the person downloading it begins the download, so therefore they are the one making the copy.)
Not technically legal
No, it's perfectly legal. As long as you're making the copy for your own personal use, it's perfectly legal.
Being Canadian and all, I have read about this law for the "media tax" and so on, basically they compared downloading music to going to the library and making a photocopy of a book or its pages and so on. But what they explicitly said was wrong was "advertising" your shares. Or basically saying openly "Hey I have music, come download from me!". That is illegal.
So basically, you can download but you can't share.
No. The AAA did a study - promptly buried by certain interests - that concluded that speed does not cause accidents. It does, however, affect the severity of an accident when one occurs.
Differentials in speed cause accidents. If everyone drives 80, that is safer than most people driving 55 and a couple driving 35. IF there is accident at 80, damage and injuries will be more severe, but it is far more likely that someone going 55 and someone else going 35 will have that accident.
That comment was standard NYCL paranoia. He accuses anyone who disagrees with him and presents a case he can't easily dismiss of being an RIAA plant. I'm on his foes list, and I've been here since long before we were talking about the RIAA.
I got onto his foes list by calling him on his bullshit statements. He claimed that the RIAA is a global company. It's not (hint, one of the A's stands for America). He claimed that the RIAA had 4 members when they have hundreds. Pointing out that he was wrong on those two comments got me accused of being an RIAA shill and onto his foes list.
In light of that, maybe you should take his comments about RIAA shills with a little salt... an ocean or two ought to do it.
Just google for the right thing. Important ideas in boldm
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/tocd11c7a1.ht
Basic Speed Law
22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.
Speed Law Violations
22351. (a) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway not in excess of the limits specified in Section 22352 or established as authorized in this code is lawful unless clearly proved to be in violation of the basic speed law.
(b) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima facie speed limits in Section 22352 or established as authorized in this code is prima facie unlawful unless the defendant establishes by competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not constitute a violation of the basic speed law at the time, place and under the conditions then existing.
that was palo alto traffic court for a ticket in cupertino (280) and redwood city for highway 1 near hwy 84. Key words: "traffic light, weather dry and clear, road straight and well maintained, visibility unlimited" In addition to the basic speed exception to the >65 law, you can also argue the minimum speed rule