The pen has two items inside the pen that wear out: the battery and the ball. The battery needs to be replaced every 3 - 6 months (read: 2-4 times a year). The ball needs to be replaced 3-4 times a year. Those figures were from their web site. The battery is $7.99 US, and the ball is $6.99 US. That means that using the pen could cost up to $40 US per year--Not to mention the $79.99 US price tag. Compare this to, say the M$ Intellimouse Explorer: $80 with no deteriorating parts. Now what is the better deal? The savings you experience will more than pay for your first Carpal Tunnel surgery when/if you need to have it.
Focus should be on the tables and desks we are forced to use, not on the pointing devices. A good computer desk height (at least for me) is 26 inches. The desk barely clears your legs, and forces you arms to be in a more relaxed position. Most people use desks that were designed for writing (usually around 30 inches high), where they were designed so that you didn't have to slump very far to write (back injuries are worse than RSI in my opinion).
The bottom line: use the best tool for the job. If you are a graphic artist, use a pen tool or graphics tablet that is better than that pen. Even if you spent $200 on the pointing device, it will pay for itself in 3 years. If you have general purpose needs, stick with the mouse for now.
Personally, I think the best breakthrough would be something like MICI (Musical Instrument Cerebral Interface).
My company engages in the same type of development cycle. We follow the published Software Engineering Institute (SEI) guidelines (we aim for level 3, although we don't always achieve it). Basically, the SEI requirements are a method of successfully managing a large software project. The positive things that come out of the requirements are a way for management to know the technical staff's ability (through metrics gathering), a way to grease the wheels of communication between developers, peer reviews, and effective client management. Many of these controls and processes are necessary for a corporate culture so that the pointy haired types can go and find work for us programmers. It also helps the pointy haired types to tell the paying customer that if they want to change the software requirements for the 12th time that it will cost x amount of dollars. By using the quality controls that have been learned from academia (peer reviews, open communication, and written design), the SEI has proven to management that the software sold will be better and cost less to develop.
With open source projects, many of those controls are unnecessary because the pointy haired boss is removed from the picture. So what is left? All the good points from the engineer's view. We have a large number of peer-reviews (more than any company could produce). The main difference here is that unlike a formal peer-review, you don't generate a list of defects for the programmer to go back and address--the reviewer has the ability to make direct changes. You have open communication. In fact, a lot of corporate entities could learn from the openness of communication. The development mailing lists are excellent tools, and it helps newbies get up to speed quicker. Granted there is a fair amount of noise on some of the lists, but the gains far outway the annoyance. In fact, the only thing that open source software may be able to learn from corporate life is the pre-written design/requirements documents. Many projects start without a specific direction in mind, or don't effectively communicate that direction, and consequently run into problems. What helps them, and what replaces the written documentation, is the open communication. In fact, the development lists is, many times, the 'white board' so to speek where the design is discussed before implementation. So your dev list archives become the replacement for your peer-reviewed documentation. In some ways it is better, because you get all the reasoning and ideas behind why they are going in a specific direction. In other ways it is not as good, because you have to fish through all the reasons and justifications to arrive at what is going on. All in all, the average developer has a better idea of the design and why we didn't use algorithm xyz that you thought (in theory) was so great.
MP3's business is centered around getting people interested in the unsigned bands, and selling you CDs that the band put out. MP3 gets a certain percentage of the CD sales, and the artist gets mo money. It isn't just a free download site. Notice that no band (at least that I am aware of) has released all the songs on their records as freely downloadable MP3s. They release some free (much like the music industry releases singles) to get you interested in buying the album. Kinda kool, huh?
>What gives them that right? By entering into contract with one of these three companies, an artist liscences them to police their copyrights. With the standard license, the artist basically says "do whatever you need to protect my music".
>What law provides them that power? Contract Law.
>If there's no law authorizing such a right, then why are they allowed to do it? Contract law is a very convoluted form of law practice. I only know enough to whatch for certain clauses, and to take ALL contracts to a lawyer to review BEFORE you enter into any contract and contest every clause you disagree with. If you can't reach agreement, then don't enter into the contract.
>As far as I can tell, this is a civil matter, there're no laws actually involved. Or does US copyright law specifically appoint ASCAP/BMI/whoever as copyright police? The record companies basically force the artists hand in this regard. Basically, if you are going to be signed, you must have your work protected by one of the three big companies (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC). ASCAP is big in pop music, BMI is big in alternative/Christian music, and SESAC is big in world music. In effect, the record companies refuse to play policeman--it takes up too many resources. If they left it to the artist, they run the risk of the artist being too permissive (and thus they lose revenues) or too restrictive (and thus they lose market share). By using these companies, both the artist and the record company operate under a known set of rules that they can build a business with.
If an artist refuses to be signed, and protects their own rights (which is a whole lot more work), then we probably wouldn't have all this crap going on today. So what do we do? If we have a band, control your own destiny--you may not make millions per year, but tens of thousands is ok if you can gain the following for it.
Remember, an artist makes most of its money touring and royalties are secondary income. Record companies are big machines, and they can offer you an easier access to radio air play, a video on VH-1, and a big tour with lots of promotional support behind it. Record companies came into business not to get artists heard, but to sell records and create a demand for the phonographs. They have since grown, and many artists simply give up rights they should protect in order to get heard.
If we could set up a Artist and Repetoir company that catered to unsigned bands, providing a lobbying system for air play, and bringing in money for both the artist and the promoting companies, then we could have a competing model that would totally change the business operates. Unfortunately, I have no clue on how to do this. Otherwise, I would. Music is one of my passions. That is why I went to school to learn how to record and mix it (unfortunately, the starting pay wasn't enough to support me).
The way their web licensing contract is written, in its current form, that is exactly what can cause you to have to pay the royalties. According to the article, they aren't pursuing that right now.
It is a current work in progress, so expect it to change. Maybe with a little bit of pressure, it can happen.
Even if it's at a church function (no payment necessary).
The only two times you don't have to pay (in a public forum) is when it is PART of a school curiculum, or PART of a worship service.
I suppose that if you had your block party to worship the moon, and claimed the cover charge was an offering to the god (lower case), you might get away with it....
That's a very reasonable plan, and I wanted to do something along those lines myself. The start-up fees (mostly liscensing) and the head-ache of needing to contact EVERY artist who's music you wanted to sell makes it prohibitive. If you charged $0.25 per mp3, the artist will still receive more than TWICE their royalties (with the exception of a couple artists who can command upwards of $1.00 or more per 5 minutes of a song).
Alot of people don't realize the power that these companies wield (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC). They have the legal right to enter any store, club, resteraunt, or place of business and demand to see proof of current licensing (with their company, of course). Let me qualify place of business: any retail or business site that plays music covered by ASCAP (& etc.) to generate revenue or productivity. In other words, if the store or office pumps the music over the phone or intercomm, then they are liable. This now includes web sites (you can check out their web licensing contract and fees at their respective sites-- ASCAP, BMI, SESAC). As you can see, they are rather steep--and you have to be careful who you link to.
I find that this truly bites for a couple reasons. The first, I wanted to set up a web site akin to mp3.com that you paid legitimate fees for copyrighted music so I could pay the artists royalties (a cause I deeply believe in). The licensing not only forbids that (I would have to individually contact every record company individually to do it), there fees are prohibitive. Especially the up-front fees. Secondly, it bites because if someone you directly link to decides to distribute music (in any format) on his site, I am liable. I think there reasoning behind it is that I generate revenue (?!) because of that link. I am glad that they can't make you liable for some moron who decided to do the same thing links to you site (you have no real control over that).
I have attempted to contact these companies for alternative liscensing agreements that would permit the site I wanted, but received no response. So, unless you can be assured that you can use GPLd music, you are SOL (remember, a band who does a cover of protected music cannot release their version under GPL, FPL, or any other open distribution license).
Comming from an Audio Engineer's point of view, and being given an overview of Copyright Law by one of the best legal minds in the enterntainment industry, I think we need to evaluate what the artist's interests are. We all know that the record label's interests are to make money. Consequently, they are the ones that are initiating SMDI specification. The artists still don't see half of all the money that the record company generates on the sales of the albums.
The current process for a signed artist for creating a record and making money follows. The record company gives the artist a loan (for a secular artist starting out, it can be upwards of $500,000) to create this album in the studio. The record label usually assigns a producer--but artists with more clout can choose their own. The producer collects an up front fee for his services, and a percentage on the net sales of the songs he works on. The artist spends the next few months in a studio coming up with new songs. While the artist collects performance royalties on all the songs they record, that money is used to pay the record company back for there overly generous loan. They probably won't see any money from that set of royalties for two years. If the artist actually writes the song, then they will actually receive royalties on that right away. The real money the artist sees is from touring. That is where any artist worth their weight will cash in.
If the artist wants to see more money in their pockets, they can become their own record label. The artist formally known as Prince is a big advocate of this. The problem is getting the distribution channels open. If you already have a name established, then you should have comparably fewer trials in this area.
Royalties are payed each time the song is played on the radio, performed live, or sold in a CD. The standard royalties are ~6.9 cents per five minute song. If a song is over five minutes, it will receive an additional 1.5 cents per minute (rounded up to the full minute, so one second over five minutes is considered a 6 minute song). The actual numbers I gave you are a few years old, but they are in the ball park. That makes roughly 70 cents per CD (or $1.40 if they also wrote every song on the CD). When you have sheer numbers, the royalties can really add up.
I am a firm believer in keeping the royalty scheme intact. I don't believe that the record companies have anybodies interests but their own in tact. The royalty scheme was created along with the original Copyright Act to protect artists from being exploited by the record companies--much like unions were created to protect the worker from the abuses of large manufacturing companies. That is why all record company contracts (to my knowlege) are decidedly written in their favor. Only a fool would never negotiate over even one point on the contract.
The royalty payment scheme is enforced by one of three bodies (if the artist registers with them): ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC. There may also be a couple other smaller companies to perform this function. Basically, if ANY venue plays songs protected by their repetoir, the venue must pay a standard fee. Clubs, radio stations, and stores have a set yearly fee they have to pay (along with web sites that play songs in their repetoir--which includes an independant band's cover of a song they protect). Juke boxes and such have a per use fee. (here is a little known fact that I learned: any magnetic digital media has a small digital 'tax' that goes into the music industry--every disk, dat, or backup tape--regardless of what it is actually used for) (that was introduced when the record industry was afraid of consumer DAT tapes and drives).
It all comes down to a big racket. The artist and the consumer are the two big losers. So how do we fix the problem and keep artists and consumers happy? I don't know. Releasing a single on MP3 to generate interest in buying a CD is an excellent idea. It gives the consumer a taste of what the artist can do. The gain in good will offsets the loss in revenues, and consequently the artist will get a larger following. The Greatful Dead are testimony to that with their liberality in letting the consumers tape their shows.
While the artist is in control of the copyright (this also applies to software), they can use it as real property (like real estate). They can buy, sell, and bequeath it. American copyrights (after 1970) are good for 50 years after the death of the author. If they so choose, they can grant the general public the LISCENSE to freely copy and distribute any song they choose. That distribution does not include performance rights which would be a separate liscence. That way the artist holds on to the copyright so they can collect from radio stations and CDs, but still allow the net to distribute that song freely without fear of litigation. If the artist so chooses, they could even donate the song to the public domain, thereby releasing their right to the copyright.
Remember that once a song, software, or any creative work is written--it is copyrighted (In American copyright law--I can't say for international copyright law). The only thing registering it at the Library of Congress does is provide definitive proof that you came up with that creative work first. They don't perform any checking whatsoever. If someone tries to sue you for violating their copyright, that registry is the proof of the date that you created it. Sometimes you came up with it first, sometimes you didn't. Either way, if they didn't register it, then the case is thrown out because they have no proof.
Slashdot Mirror
The pen has two items inside the pen that wear out: the battery and the ball. The battery needs to be replaced every 3 - 6 months (read: 2-4 times a year). The ball needs to be replaced 3-4 times a year. Those figures were from their web site. The battery is $7.99 US, and the ball is $6.99 US. That means that using the pen could cost up to $40 US per year--Not to mention the $79.99 US price tag. Compare this to, say the M$ Intellimouse Explorer: $80 with no deteriorating parts. Now what is the better deal? The savings you experience will more than pay for your first Carpal Tunnel surgery when/if you need to have it.
Focus should be on the tables and desks we are forced to use, not on the pointing devices. A good computer desk height (at least for me) is 26 inches. The desk barely clears your legs, and forces you arms to be in a more relaxed position. Most people use desks that were designed for writing (usually around 30 inches high), where they were designed so that you didn't have to slump very far to write (back injuries are worse than RSI in my opinion).
The bottom line: use the best tool for the job. If you are a graphic artist, use a pen tool or graphics tablet that is better than that pen. Even if you spent $200 on the pointing device, it will pay for itself in 3 years. If you have general purpose needs, stick with the mouse for now.
Personally, I think the best breakthrough would be something like MICI (Musical Instrument Cerebral Interface).
My company engages in the same type of development cycle. We follow the published Software Engineering Institute (SEI) guidelines (we aim for level 3, although we don't always achieve it). Basically, the SEI requirements are a method of successfully managing a large software project. The positive things that come out of the requirements are a way for management to know the technical staff's ability (through metrics gathering), a way to grease the wheels of communication between developers, peer reviews, and effective client management. Many of these controls and processes are necessary for a corporate culture so that the pointy haired types can go and find work for us programmers. It also helps the pointy haired types to tell the paying customer that if they want to change the software requirements for the 12th time that it will cost x amount of dollars. By using the quality controls that have been learned from academia (peer reviews, open communication, and written design), the SEI has proven to management that the software sold will be better and cost less to develop.
With open source projects, many of those controls are unnecessary because the pointy haired boss is removed from the picture. So what is left? All the good points from the engineer's view. We have a large number of peer-reviews (more than any company could produce). The main difference here is that unlike a formal peer-review, you don't generate a list of defects for the programmer to go back and address--the reviewer has the ability to make direct changes. You have open communication. In fact, a lot of corporate entities could learn from the openness of communication. The development mailing lists are excellent tools, and it helps newbies get up to speed quicker. Granted there is a fair amount of noise on some of the lists, but the gains far outway the annoyance. In fact, the only thing that open source software may be able to learn from corporate life is the pre-written design/requirements documents. Many projects start without a specific direction in mind, or don't effectively communicate that direction, and consequently run into problems. What helps them, and what replaces the written documentation, is the open communication. In fact, the development lists is, many times, the 'white board' so to speek where the design is discussed before implementation. So your dev list archives become the replacement for your peer-reviewed documentation. In some ways it is better, because you get all the reasoning and ideas behind why they are going in a specific direction. In other ways it is not as good, because you have to fish through all the reasons and justifications to arrive at what is going on. All in all, the average developer has a better idea of the design and why we didn't use algorithm xyz that you thought (in theory) was so great.
MP3's business is centered around getting people interested in the unsigned bands, and selling you CDs that the band put out. MP3 gets a certain percentage of the CD sales, and the artist gets mo money. It isn't just a free download site. Notice that no band (at least that I am aware of) has released all the songs on their records as freely downloadable MP3s. They release some free (much like the music industry releases singles) to get you interested in buying the album. Kinda kool, huh?
>What gives them that right?
By entering into contract with one of these three companies, an artist liscences them to police their copyrights. With the standard license, the artist basically says "do whatever you need to protect my music".
>What law provides them that power?
Contract Law.
>If there's no law authorizing such a right, then why are they allowed to do it?
Contract law is a very convoluted form of law practice. I only know enough to whatch for certain clauses, and to take ALL contracts to a lawyer to review BEFORE you enter into any contract and contest every clause you disagree with. If you can't reach agreement, then don't enter into the contract.
>As far as I can tell, this is a civil matter, there're no laws actually involved. Or does US copyright law specifically appoint ASCAP/BMI/whoever as copyright police?
The record companies basically force the artists hand in this regard. Basically, if you are going to be signed, you must have your work protected by one of the three big companies (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC). ASCAP is big in pop music, BMI is big in alternative/Christian music, and SESAC is big in world music. In effect, the record companies refuse to play policeman--it takes up too many resources. If they left it to the artist, they run the risk of the artist being too permissive (and thus they lose revenues) or too restrictive (and thus they lose market share). By using these companies, both the artist and the record company operate under a known set of rules that they can build a business with.
If an artist refuses to be signed, and protects their own rights (which is a whole lot more work), then we probably wouldn't have all this crap going on today. So what do we do? If we have a band, control your own destiny--you may not make millions per year, but tens of thousands is ok if you can gain the following for it.
Remember, an artist makes most of its money touring and royalties are secondary income. Record companies are big machines, and they can offer you an easier access to radio air play, a video on VH-1, and a big tour with lots of promotional support behind it. Record companies came into business not to get artists heard, but to sell records and create a demand for the phonographs. They have since grown, and many artists simply give up rights they should protect in order to get heard.
If we could set up a Artist and Repetoir company that catered to unsigned bands, providing a lobbying system for air play, and bringing in money for both the artist and the promoting companies, then we could have a competing model that would totally change the business operates. Unfortunately, I have no clue on how to do this. Otherwise, I would. Music is one of my passions. That is why I went to school to learn how to record and mix it (unfortunately, the starting pay wasn't enough to support me).
The way their web licensing contract is written, in its current form, that is exactly what can cause you to have to pay the royalties. According to the article, they aren't pursuing that right now.
It is a current work in progress, so expect it to change. Maybe with a little bit of pressure, it can happen.
If they have to pay, yup.
Even if it's at a church function (no payment necessary).
The only two times you don't have to pay (in a public forum) is when it is PART of a school curiculum, or PART of a worship service.
I suppose that if you had your block party to worship the moon, and claimed the cover charge was an offering to the god (lower case), you might get away with it....
But I wouldn't try that.
That's a very reasonable plan, and I wanted to do something along those lines myself. The start-up fees (mostly liscensing) and the head-ache of needing to contact EVERY artist who's music you wanted to sell makes it prohibitive. If you charged $0.25 per mp3, the artist will still receive more than TWICE their royalties (with the exception of a couple artists who can command upwards of $1.00 or more per 5 minutes of a song).
Alot of people don't realize the power that these companies wield (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC). They have the legal right to enter any store, club, resteraunt, or place of business and demand to see proof of current licensing (with their company, of course). Let me qualify place of business: any retail or business site that plays music covered by ASCAP (& etc.) to generate revenue or productivity. In other words, if the store or office pumps the music over the phone or intercomm, then they are liable. This now includes web sites (you can check out their web licensing contract and fees at their respective sites-- ASCAP, BMI, SESAC). As you can see, they are rather steep--and you have to be careful who you link to.
I find that this truly bites for a couple reasons. The first, I wanted to set up a web site akin to mp3.com that you paid legitimate fees for copyrighted music so I could pay the artists royalties (a cause I deeply believe in). The licensing not only forbids that (I would have to individually contact every record company individually to do it), there fees are prohibitive. Especially the up-front fees. Secondly, it bites because if someone you directly link to decides to distribute music (in any format) on his site, I am liable. I think there reasoning behind it is that I generate revenue (?!) because of that link. I am glad that they can't make you liable for some moron who decided to do the same thing links to you site (you have no real control over that).
I have attempted to contact these companies for alternative liscensing agreements that would permit the site I wanted, but received no response. So, unless you can be assured that you can use GPLd music, you are SOL (remember, a band who does a cover of protected music cannot release their version under GPL, FPL, or any other open distribution license).
Comming from an Audio Engineer's point of view, and being given an overview of Copyright Law by one of the best legal minds in the enterntainment industry, I think we need to evaluate what the artist's interests are. We all know that the record label's interests are to make money. Consequently, they are the ones that are initiating SMDI specification. The artists still don't see half of all the money that the record company generates on the sales of the albums.
The current process for a signed artist for creating a record and making money follows. The record company gives the artist a loan (for a secular artist starting out, it can be upwards of $500,000) to create this album in the studio. The record label usually assigns a producer--but artists with more clout can choose their own. The producer collects an up front fee for his services, and a percentage on the net sales of the songs he works on. The artist spends the next few months in a studio coming up with new songs. While the artist collects performance royalties on all the songs they record, that money is used to pay the record company back for there overly generous loan. They probably won't see any money from that set of royalties for two years. If the artist actually writes the song, then they will actually receive royalties on that right away. The real money the artist sees is from touring. That is where any artist worth their weight will cash in.
If the artist wants to see more money in their pockets, they can become their own record label. The artist formally known as Prince is a big advocate of this. The problem is getting the distribution channels open. If you already have a name established, then you should have comparably fewer trials in this area.
Royalties are payed each time the song is played on the radio, performed live, or sold in a CD. The standard royalties are ~6.9 cents per five minute song. If a song is over five minutes, it will receive an additional 1.5 cents per minute (rounded up to the full minute, so one second over five minutes is considered a 6 minute song). The actual numbers I gave you are a few years old, but they are in the ball park. That makes roughly 70 cents per CD (or $1.40 if they also wrote every song on the CD). When you have sheer numbers, the royalties can really add up.
I am a firm believer in keeping the royalty scheme intact. I don't believe that the record companies have anybodies interests but their own in tact. The royalty scheme was created along with the original Copyright Act to protect artists from being exploited by the record companies--much like unions were created to protect the worker from the abuses of large manufacturing companies. That is why all record company contracts (to my knowlege) are decidedly written in their favor. Only a fool would never negotiate over even one point on the contract.
The royalty payment scheme is enforced by one of three bodies (if the artist registers with them): ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC. There may also be a couple other smaller companies to perform this function. Basically, if ANY venue plays songs protected by their repetoir, the venue must pay a standard fee. Clubs, radio stations, and stores have a set yearly fee they have to pay (along with web sites that play songs in their repetoir--which includes an independant band's cover of a song they protect). Juke boxes and such have a per use fee. (here is a little known fact that I learned: any magnetic digital media has a small digital 'tax' that goes into the music industry--every disk, dat, or backup tape--regardless of what it is actually used for) (that was introduced when the record industry was afraid of consumer DAT tapes and drives).
It all comes down to a big racket. The artist and the consumer are the two big losers. So how do we fix the problem and keep artists and consumers happy? I don't know. Releasing a single on MP3 to generate interest in buying a CD is an excellent idea. It gives the consumer a taste of what the artist can do. The gain in good will offsets the loss in revenues, and consequently the artist will get a larger following. The Greatful Dead are testimony to that with their liberality in letting the consumers tape their shows.
While the artist is in control of the copyright (this also applies to software), they can use it as real property (like real estate). They can buy, sell, and bequeath it. American copyrights (after 1970) are good for 50 years after the death of the author. If they so choose, they can grant the general public the LISCENSE to freely copy and distribute any song they choose. That distribution does not include performance rights which would be a separate liscence. That way the artist holds on to the copyright so they can collect from radio stations and CDs, but still allow the net to distribute that song freely without fear of litigation. If the artist so chooses, they could even donate the song to the public domain, thereby releasing their right to the copyright.
Remember that once a song, software, or any creative work is written--it is copyrighted (In American copyright law--I can't say for international copyright law). The only thing registering it at the Library of Congress does is provide definitive proof that you came up with that creative work first. They don't perform any checking whatsoever. If someone tries to sue you for violating their copyright, that registry is the proof of the date that you created it. Sometimes you came up with it first, sometimes you didn't. Either way, if they didn't register it, then the case is thrown out because they have no proof.