"Meanwhile, honest people, may, for the first time, enjoy the pleasurable experience of legal and licensed copying and sharing of their music - thats about 95% of us. Thats who we designed MediaMax for."
For the first time? My wife has been buying CDs and transferring them to her Rio for a year and a half. It isn't a pleasurable experience for her to use the MediaMax WMA tracks- her box don't do WMA.
I work in pro video and have emplyed the DiVX codec many times for delieverng samples of work, etc. It is very convienient for me. However, how can anyone, let alone the hoards of slashdot'ers who love DiVX, claim it has DVD quality at a sigificantly smaller file size. I don't buy it. I have seen files people purport as DVD quality, using DiVX VBR, and there are numerous quality problems. I really doubt the viability of this codec as a high quality standard. This is not to say that MPEG2 is a great codec either, it is not, but at its target bitrates it is very very good.
I was under the impression that all of these things are recoupable expenses -- the label may front the money, but it comes back out of the artist's record sales.
Just as I as an investor in your business should recoup my expenses when you make it. My company just got fronted for a new ProTools|HD system- state of the art. It was an upfront loan of $30,000. We have to pay that back. It ain't no freebee.
How much should a record company make for denying access to thousands of equally good would-be artists who can't get a record deal because they're not as easy to dangle in front of teeny-boppers?
If an artist is viable they can get there chances. But working in this industry there are a lot of head cases/egos who, even though talented, will not be tolerated. Plus, if an artist IS NOT a song writer he is near worthless. Real money is made through publishing: synch rights to film, TV and commercials. Big money there. If you do not write you have no clout. Face it: that is the real talent. I know a guy who is not an artist pocket $50,000 from one synch deal. The guy who sang it got nothing- they got a sound alike to re-record it for the commercial.
In my work with indie artist who want to break big I always give them the yellow brick road: hone your talent, learn to write or buy the publishing rights to songs you have written for you, don't make a demo, make a finished album, make great promo materials including a promotional video (not a music vid, but a four minute documentary). The more you have in line when signed the more you retain. Majors do not like to develop talent. they like to buy finished product that is on its way.
Unfortunatly it is always the same. They think they don't need to improve musically (even the best use vocal coaches), they think they can cover someones songs and a label will pick them up because they are golden.
It is not that I don't have sympathy for the artist, I just don't have it for the dumbass artist. I've known more than one afraid to get a lawyer to deal with contract in case it scares off the major. WHAT??? You need a lawyer!
For every whining "I don't get what I should" artist out there is a person who did it right and barganed for what they deserve. Don't think "I make an album, they sign me." Market your album indie wise. Spend bucks, sell 2000. The industry will come then, and you are in a barganning position.
Tat is another falsehood perpetrated by the "free music" community. Yes, the live concerts and t-shirts are usually the bands income (except with EMI records, who is buying Warner). However, any band/artist that writes his own material will retain half publishing rights. These get sold to TV, movies, commercials, etc. That is where the money is! Get a song into a movie an the songwriter can pocket $20,000+ in one shot. Its cmpletely negotiable. One song in a film netted the writer $100,000. Luckily the publishing company (may or may not be the label) spends a load of time trying to sell this information to other markets. Also, notice that I am not really talking artist here: the songwriter makes this money. If you are a recording artist who doesn't write you don't make much money.
I bet Billy looks forward to the day he makes music for free and slings fries at McDonalds on the side to pay the bills. Let me ask you a question: how much should an artist make? The label pays for the recording/mixing/mastering of the CD, pays for the videos, TV commercials, a roomful of promoters get them TV and print interviews, the label pays for the website, CD pressing, artwork. They may spend up to a million dollars on a project. If it fails they absorb the loss, not the artist (if he can't repay the advance it is written off). But if it makes it big the artist makes big bucks.
As an indie they might make more money per CD sale, but that is a larger percentage of a smaller pie. With a major you make a smaller percentage of a much larger pie.
How many indie artists can afford to own mansions and multiple fast cars, and vacation in foreign countries?
Yeah, all my friends are talking about IUMA artists. I hear them from car stereos everywhere. I mentioned Britney Spears to some friends yesterday and they were all like: Britney Who??? Then they turned away to listen to the new IUMA artist Solid State Reciever.
Wow. Maybe Coldplay should join IUMA, because they haven't gotten many fans from the classic distribution method. Plus, I hear they are begging in the street because they get no money from EMI.
Grow up: without the majors spending millions on promotion, most bug acts would be giving up to get real jobs.
"...protecting the revenue stream created by an out-of-date distribution system."
How is giving it away for free an better. No matter what you say such as "if only we had a viable digital sales system we would use it," and "if only the artists would get more money," you defenders of freedom will still steal it anyway.
I work in the industry. Most bands get an advance then have to pay it back from sales, but also get an advance to cover expenses in starting up a tour where the real money is made. With the amount of BLOW a few of these bands use, they must get a pretty good amount. Also, EMI is doing more profit sharing, which is the future.
Without the labels ponying up the money for promotion, how will you get to know who they are? How many indie acts can you name right now? How many label acts? Face it: that money makes these people stars.
I over it when the industry (of which I am a member) calls these technologies encryption. Non are. They are meant to fool CD-ROM drives usually by having CD-Enhanced content override the CD play and some kind of fake error data that trips up the more sophisticated error checking on CD-ROMS, letting the dumb CD audio players pass the data.
They are trying to add on capabilities that were never envisioned when the Red Book specification was made in the late 70s. Really encrypt the data and the CD player will not know what to do!
I don't think so. Even if it has SCMS, it should allow a digital copy (SCMS allows one digital copy, but not a copy of a copy on consumer equipment). But once you get the bitstream in the computer, thats it. You can compress it, copy it, etc.
I believe the system IS public domain, but the term "Dewey Decimal System" is a trademark. They are using that term to advertise. They probably could have got away with using the system ut calling it "the Generic Library Organizing System." That would be legal, I think. Trademarks do not bcome public domain.
Looks like the "dewey decimal system" is a trademark, but isn't the system itself public domain. It was invented in 1876. Evreything before the mid-20s is in the piblic domain.
Ah, but this is a business that could be construed as misleading the users as to what they are paying for. How many of these recipients are going to plead that they paid 29.95 to sharman networks and thought that made it legal. Why do they think this. Could it be that Sharman does not make it clear what can happen to you if you illegally use the service?
The EULA may or may not be binding. Several legal experts in the field of computer law believe they are challengable on the front that they are made to encourage users to NOT read them. Also, a 12 year old cannot legally enter into any contract without a probate judge giving consent, even if the parents give consent and sign a contract with them. All such contracts are not legally binding.
My point: The users should have to pay, but the software manufacturer cannot mislead and there is cause to believe they are doing this.
The RIAA has posted on this. They acknowled trading between friends as has happened since the days of cassettes. There is no problem there. But allowing access to millions of other is not sharing with friends. Do you know these friends? Are they not anonymous to you. It is a question of volume.
Good points, but in truth ignorance of the law is no excuse. Just because you don't know it is illegal does not protect you.
You also said: They also make a good point about paying a service to access the material. Their service should be paying the licensing fees.
You are dead on there. But they do not because they say they are a conduit, not a saes service. However, they may be liable for getting their users sued because so many do not realize the legal ramifications of their actions. Seems Kazaa's owners do not warn their consumers well. Let's see these people sue Kazaa to recoup their losses.
You answered your own question. You are not sharing if you record a song from the radio or a movie from HBO. That is fair use. Uploading them to millions of others is illegal dstribution, a violation of copyright. Grow up and learn the law.
I was reading about some of the people sued so far. One of them is a fater whose two sons were downloading. Much like the 12 year old both claimed ignorance of wrongdoing. Of course, ignorance of the law is no excuse. It seems to me that Sharman networks, however, is ultimatly responsible. They provide the conduit for illegal downloads but do not give ample warning to their users that the user may be sued for A LOT of money. I know their EULA says not to use it illegally, but who reads that, and does it point out which songs may get their users in trouble? I encourage all those sued to counter sue Sharman for misleading them.
Slashdot Mirror
"Meanwhile, honest people, may, for the first time, enjoy the pleasurable experience of legal and licensed copying and sharing of their music - thats about 95% of us. Thats who we designed MediaMax for." For the first time? My wife has been buying CDs and transferring them to her Rio for a year and a half. It isn't a pleasurable experience for her to use the MediaMax WMA tracks- her box don't do WMA.
I would have defeated it without trying. I have autorun off on all my drives. If I realized that and told people, would I be liable.
I work in pro video and have emplyed the DiVX codec many times for delieverng samples of work, etc. It is very convienient for me. However, how can anyone, let alone the hoards of slashdot'ers who love DiVX, claim it has DVD quality at a sigificantly smaller file size. I don't buy it. I have seen files people purport as DVD quality, using DiVX VBR, and there are numerous quality problems. I really doubt the viability of this codec as a high quality standard. This is not to say that MPEG2 is a great codec either, it is not, but at its target bitrates it is very very good.
Just as I as an investor in your business should recoup my expenses when you make it. My company just got fronted for a new ProTools|HD system- state of the art. It was an upfront loan of $30,000. We have to pay that back. It ain't no freebee.
How much should a record company make for denying access to thousands of equally good would-be artists who can't get a record deal because they're not as easy to dangle in front of teeny-boppers?
If an artist is viable they can get there chances. But working in this industry there are a lot of head cases/egos who, even though talented, will not be tolerated. Plus, if an artist IS NOT a song writer he is near worthless. Real money is made through publishing: synch rights to film, TV and commercials. Big money there. If you do not write you have no clout. Face it: that is the real talent. I know a guy who is not an artist pocket $50,000 from one synch deal. The guy who sang it got nothing- they got a sound alike to re-record it for the commercial.
In my work with indie artist who want to break big I always give them the yellow brick road: hone your talent, learn to write or buy the publishing rights to songs you have written for you, don't make a demo, make a finished album, make great promo materials including a promotional video (not a music vid, but a four minute documentary). The more you have in line when signed the more you retain. Majors do not like to develop talent. they like to buy finished product that is on its way.
Unfortunatly it is always the same. They think they don't need to improve musically (even the best use vocal coaches), they think they can cover someones songs and a label will pick them up because they are golden.
It is not that I don't have sympathy for the artist, I just don't have it for the dumbass artist. I've known more than one afraid to get a lawyer to deal with contract in case it scares off the major. WHAT??? You need a lawyer!
For every whining "I don't get what I should" artist out there is a person who did it right and barganed for what they deserve. Don't think "I make an album, they sign me." Market your album indie wise. Spend bucks, sell 2000. The industry will come then, and you are in a barganning position.
Tat is another falsehood perpetrated by the "free music" community. Yes, the live concerts and t-shirts are usually the bands income (except with EMI records, who is buying Warner). However, any band/artist that writes his own material will retain half publishing rights. These get sold to TV, movies, commercials, etc. That is where the money is! Get a song into a movie an the songwriter can pocket $20,000+ in one shot. Its cmpletely negotiable. One song in a film netted the writer $100,000. Luckily the publishing company (may or may not be the label) spends a load of time trying to sell this information to other markets. Also, notice that I am not really talking artist here: the songwriter makes this money. If you are a recording artist who doesn't write you don't make much money.
It also cuts the money artists get dramatically. A song can be downloaded a million times and the artist still makes ZERO!
I bet Billy looks forward to the day he makes music for free and slings fries at McDonalds on the side to pay the bills. Let me ask you a question: how much should an artist make? The label pays for the recording/mixing/mastering of the CD, pays for the videos, TV commercials, a roomful of promoters get them TV and print interviews, the label pays for the website, CD pressing, artwork. They may spend up to a million dollars on a project. If it fails they absorb the loss, not the artist (if he can't repay the advance it is written off). But if it makes it big the artist makes big bucks.
As an indie they might make more money per CD sale, but that is a larger percentage of a smaller pie. With a major you make a smaller percentage of a much larger pie.
How many indie artists can afford to own mansions and multiple fast cars, and vacation in foreign countries?
Yeah, all my friends are talking about IUMA artists. I hear them from car stereos everywhere. I mentioned Britney Spears to some friends yesterday and they were all like: Britney Who??? Then they turned away to listen to the new IUMA artist Solid State Reciever.
Wow. Maybe Coldplay should join IUMA, because they haven't gotten many fans from the classic distribution method. Plus, I hear they are begging in the street because they get no money from EMI.
Grow up: without the majors spending millions on promotion, most bug acts would be giving up to get real jobs.
"...protecting the revenue stream created by an out-of-date distribution system." How is giving it away for free an better. No matter what you say such as "if only we had a viable digital sales system we would use it," and "if only the artists would get more money," you defenders of freedom will still steal it anyway.
I work in the industry. Most bands get an advance then have to pay it back from sales, but also get an advance to cover expenses in starting up a tour where the real money is made. With the amount of BLOW a few of these bands use, they must get a pretty good amount. Also, EMI is doing more profit sharing, which is the future.
Without the labels ponying up the money for promotion, how will you get to know who they are? How many indie acts can you name right now? How many label acts? Face it: that money makes these people stars.
I over it when the industry (of which I am a member) calls these technologies encryption. Non are. They are meant to fool CD-ROM drives usually by having CD-Enhanced content override the CD play and some kind of fake error data that trips up the more sophisticated error checking on CD-ROMS, letting the dumb CD audio players pass the data.
They are trying to add on capabilities that were never envisioned when the Red Book specification was made in the late 70s. Really encrypt the data and the CD player will not know what to do!
All they will do is piss off end users with this.
I don't think so. Even if it has SCMS, it should allow a digital copy (SCMS allows one digital copy, but not a copy of a copy on consumer equipment). But once you get the bitstream in the computer, thats it. You can compress it, copy it, etc.
Arista knows a whole bunch of hackers will buy the CD just to use it to find a way around the "encryption." That's a few sales in the pocket!
I believe the system IS public domain, but the term "Dewey Decimal System" is a trademark. They are using that term to advertise. They probably could have got away with using the system ut calling it "the Generic Library Organizing System." That would be legal, I think. Trademarks do not bcome public domain.
Looks like the "dewey decimal system" is a trademark, but isn't the system itself public domain. It was invented in 1876. Evreything before the mid-20s is in the piblic domain.
Ah, but this is a business that could be construed as misleading the users as to what they are paying for. How many of these recipients are going to plead that they paid 29.95 to sharman networks and thought that made it legal. Why do they think this. Could it be that Sharman does not make it clear what can happen to you if you illegally use the service?
Seems Durwood is in a pickle, doesn't it?
The EULA may or may not be binding. Several legal experts in the field of computer law believe they are challengable on the front that they are made to encourage users to NOT read them. Also, a 12 year old cannot legally enter into any contract without a probate judge giving consent, even if the parents give consent and sign a contract with them. All such contracts are not legally binding.
My point: The users should have to pay, but the software manufacturer cannot mislead and there is cause to believe they are doing this.
The RIAA has posted on this. They acknowled trading between friends as has happened since the days of cassettes. There is no problem there. But allowing access to millions of other is not sharing with friends. Do you know these friends? Are they not anonymous to you. It is a question of volume.
Good points, but in truth ignorance of the law is no excuse. Just because you don't know it is illegal does not protect you.
You also said: They also make a good point about paying a service to access the material. Their service should be paying the licensing fees.
You are dead on there. But they do not because they say they are a conduit, not a saes service. However, they may be liable for getting their users sued because so many do not realize the legal ramifications of their actions. Seems Kazaa's owners do not warn their consumers well. Let's see these people sue Kazaa to recoup their losses.I believe that in crimes parents are responsible for their children until they are 18.
You answered your own question. You are not sharing if you record a song from the radio or a movie from HBO. That is fair use. Uploading them to millions of others is illegal dstribution, a violation of copyright. Grow up and learn the law.
Angy Mob? Just cause everyone feels they can loot stores during a riot does not mean it isn't stealing.
I was reading about some of the people sued so far. One of them is a fater whose two sons were downloading. Much like the 12 year old both claimed ignorance of wrongdoing. Of course, ignorance of the law is no excuse. It seems to me that Sharman networks, however, is ultimatly responsible. They provide the conduit for illegal downloads but do not give ample warning to their users that the user may be sued for A LOT of money. I know their EULA says not to use it illegally, but who reads that, and does it point out which songs may get their users in trouble? I encourage all those sued to counter sue Sharman for misleading them.