The court system. If it's a criminal case, the prosecutor estimates the value; the judge might use their own estimate when sentencing.
"Is someone with an 80gig iPod carrying around -millions- of dollars of copyrighted material? By RIAA's definition... ?"
If you were caught selling iPods preloaded with popular music, the prosecutors might put a market value on it of about a buck a song, or $12 an album -- it's really not that hard to figure out the going rate.
An RIAA represntative might chime in with an amicus brief if they thought that the prosecutors were undervaluing the pirated works in question.
An 80GB iPod can hold about 20K songs. That's a bit off from your estimate of a million bucks, but I still would not want to risk selling preloaded iPods.
"11A. Above-the-line filmmakers (director, writer, actors) make their real money from box office attendance, not from DVDs."
I am not sure why you said that. More and more deals include back end from DVD sales, and more and more films are making the bulk of their revenue from DVD rentals and sales. You've heard the joke about some movie releases simply being an advertisement for the DVD? There's a whole lot of truth in it.
"11B. The hundreds of people that work on movies make their money from their weekly salary, and never see a penny more if the movie is popular. These people are paid regardless if the film is a work of art or paint-by-numbers dreck."
Some are salaried; some are hired on a per-film basis. Whether they'll be paying the rent next year depends largely on how the industry does this year. You should know this: if the movie industry does great next year and the number of film productions doubles, you'll have a much better chance of making money. If the number is cut in half as film companies scale back their production schedules or move production offshore, you'll have a tougher time of it.
Actually, a lot of their points seem to be direct responses to many of the Slashdot/digg memes.
"Important to understand this. Among poor people who don't own computers or cd players, there was a surpisingly low amount of file sharing or purchasing of pirate CDs. Go figure."
Believe it or not, this is lost on lots of people. Just a few weeks ago when an article about software piracy in India came accross Slashdot, a common retort was that the average income in India is something like $2,000 a year, and thus they simply can't afford that software. As you've no doubt figured out, the average income includes the millions of dirt farmers who have no computer, let alone running water, and the pirated software is being used by that segment of the Indian population that can afford mobile phones, computers, designer clothes, et al. just fine. Yet it's a good enough statistic for us to justify piracy.
"If unpopular music were traded most frequently would it still be unpopular? or would it then be popular? I've just gone cross-eyed."
This is another direct salvo against the rationale that you hear all the time around here: "the real reason that music sales are off is because today's music sucks!". Yet the list of top pirated songs matches up with the top ten tracks sold. 90% of popular music sucks in any given year; this is something that people learn as they get older; thus the common perception that it's only today's popular music that's awful; nostalgia helps us forget that the top music in, say, 1993 was pretty crappy, too. The music-listening public has just as much appreciation for today's sucky pop music as we always have; we're simply pirating it a lot more than we used to.
"Judging from your story about buying a Beatles song book for $10 bucks, I know that you really haven't grasped the issue at hand, and don't play much guitar."
(comments about the paucity of sheet music snipped)
The GP was relating his experience in learning to play the bass. When it comes to guitar, you're absolutely correct that many song books treat the tabs as an afterthought, but I'm absolutely correct that it did just fine for my purposes; ie. having something to read when I was learning to play the guitar. That's what his post, and my reply were about: learning an instrument (not exactly duplicating some arbitrary performer's bass solo or fret work). While sheet music may not be accurate, it's suitable for the task of learning how to play an instrument. The lack of tab sites should not be used as a reason to stop practicing.
"I've played guitar for over 25 years. If I sit down and transcribe a song to tab by ear, is that not reverse engineering? Isn't that supposed to be allowwed?"
Sure, it's allowed. Just don't publish your copy of the song -- the music publishers (who are often the composers themselves) have claimed that right, via copyright law.
In particular, don't publish unauthorized copies as a for-profit business, as guitartabs has done. If you do, you're likely to incur the wrath of the music publishing associations.
It's sorta like recorded music. In most places, you're legally allowed to make a copy of music you've bought yourself, as long as you don't share that copy with anybody else.
Remember, publishing rights is a great revenue stream for composers and lyricists... a revenue stream where they typically get a much bigger cut than via CD sales. And, in most cases (and this is the great part) the record companies don't see any of the money! You're right that it's not the RIAA's property... but we're not talking about record companies here.
I guess we can take the position (and many do) that if an artist wants to make money off their work in any way -- even if the revenue doesn't involve a record company, it's a Bad Thing, because then they're a businessperson, and not an artist, and... well, you know the rest of the rhetoric.
My take on it is this: if they want to claim their ownership of their words and music and running their own ad-supported lyric/tab sites (which is the intent of the publishing companies), then more power to them! By using the official sites, we'll help them make money that (with few exceptions) the record companies will never see. We're coming a lot closer to directly financially supporting the artists.
By comparison, guitartabs keeps all the ad revenue to themselves. They publish others' work, and none of their revenue goes back to the composers or lyricists. In this regard, they are worse than the record companies. They're more comparable to allofmp3 or a P2P network -- they help you get what you want for free or cheaply, but no money goes to the artist. When we use P2P or allofmp3, we can perhaps be glad that we are preventing money from going to the record company -- but there's no record company here. In the case of publishing rights, the publishers are often the composers and lyricists themselves.
"It is bleedingly obvious that tablature is made and distributed for scholarship. In fact, I was attempting to teach my self how to play bass guitar. I got relatively good at it until the tab sites started shutting down. Now I haven't practiced in months."
While you make some good points, I think you go too far in inferring that the copyright holders' defending of their rights is to blame for your not practicing.
I learned to play guitar in the days before the Internet. I did so using books of songs. I had a Beatles songbook that probably cost all of $10, and similar collections. They did just fine in giving me songs to learn to play. On occasion I would buy the sheet music for one particular song -- at two or three bucks, it was not a bargain compared to the collections -- but it was not a financial hardship.
"The sheet music publishers need to get over themselves. People who want to casually learn to play an instrument aren't going to go and pay hundreds of dollars for lessons and buy the sheet music of their favorite artists."
Paying for lessons and buying sheet music aren't linked. One can do one, the other, or both. Sheet music is readily available pretty cheaply; this is unrelated to the cost of lessons.
"The really sad thing is that these lawsuits are killing what copyright was designed to protect, promotion of the arts."
The music publishers are doing this because they want to launch their own ad-supported sites with tabs, lyrics, and sheet music. Keep in mind that music publishers are very often the composers and lyricists themselves; with few exceptions, composers and lyricists get a much bigger piece of the pie vs. CD sales, and the revenue stream for music publishing typically bypasses the record company altogether -- and this is a good thing. We talk about ways to support the artists without supporting the record companies... this is a great way to do it.
Here's how it works out for supporting the composers and lyricists for the various methods of getting your sheet music and tabs:
Using an ad-supported lyric/tab site sanctioned and operated by the publisher: the composer and lyricist make money.
Buying sheet music or tabs the old fashioned way: the composer and lyricist make money.
Using an unauthorized ad-supported site like guitartabs: The webmaster (who likely has no relation to the composer and lyricist) makes money. The composer and lyricist make doodley squat fuck all.
Now, back to guitartabs. Here we have the situation of a third party (the webmaster) making money off of somebody else's work even though they were not part of the creative process. This is exactly why we hate the record companies, because they do something very similar.
If you want to support artists, that's great -- I agree with you 100%. Why not buy the sheet music and tabs you want, or wait and use the tab/lyric sites operated by the publishers themselves? That way, you support the artists, not some guy who's making a living by making unauthorized copies of others' work.
Your support of guitartabs sounds similar to the common rationale for P2Ping music -- sure, the artist doesn't make any money, but you are "supporting" the artist by reproducing their work. I think a majority of artists would agree that financial support is better.
I've gotten refunds at the movie theatre several times... but maybe that's just in my area.
Agreed that it would be nice if there were a law stipulating that record stores must issue unconditional refunds. Then we could all just rip, rip, rip away and build our music collections for nothing more than the time it takes to buy the CD and then return it. If human nature changes (particularly among one of the biggest music-buying segments, teenagers) and the honor system is suddenly more popular, then a law like this might be feasible. Of course, if this change in human nature occurred, we really all would be using BT to trade those Linux distros like we say we do.
"Stop calling it "intellectual property theft"? It's copyright violation. "Property theft" implies stealing someone's tangible goods (or ideas) and passing it off as your own, which is clearly not what's going on here. It's an unauthorized reproduction (and possibly public display or sale) of an artistic work."
I was going to post a similar rant against metaphorical use of the concept "theft," but you stole my thunder.
Somebody should just make some black t-shirts to sell at DEFCON and elsewhere that read "It's only theft if the GPL, or somebody I sympathize with, are involved."
"Except the MPAA can't summon police forces to take care of inside jobs... that would be civil infractions that wouldn't immediately carry criminal charges (maybe they can peg fraud or something, but IANAL)."
A few people have faced criminal charges as a result of leaking screeners. Here's one example.
It's a similar situation in the retail industry: employee theft and other "inside jobs" are a big part of the loss, yet retailers still attempt to stop shoplifting. In the movie industries, retail industries, and many other professions, walking and chewing gum at the same time is an important skill. Slashdotters have often suggested that the MPAA take care of screener leakage "first" rather than picking on unrelated pirates -- but why not do both at once?
"Be creative and come up with a new business model or go extinct."
It's interesting that you mention that. "The record companies need to find a new business model" is a pretty common statement on Slashdot.
Here in the US, the record companies are trying just that. Perhaps seeing a future where they won't be able to make money selling individual copies of music, they are being creative and trying to get money from the radio stations (both terrestrial and online) for the playing music. It hasn't gone over well around here. Likewise, a few years ago, when the record companies stated that concert prices would be going up due to losses due to piracy, Slashdotters similarly called bullshit.
Yet another case of being careful what you wish for. I think that when we say "find a new business model" what we're really implying is "find a new business model that doesn't involve asking for money from anybody" or "find a new business model which involves going out of business." Sure, we need them to find a new business model that doesn't rely on making money off of selling music, but they can't make money off of anything else, either.
Apparently The Chronicle misquoted him; he stated that they are on track to hit that number by June -- which is more in line with my projections using the actual sales data that's publicly available.
Agreed that "Microsoft guy lies" makes a better story than "Newspaper makes editing error."
I dunno if Microsoft is lying. I may have underestimated their sales... I was doing some linear analysis based on the NPD data and how NPD data relates to the products I sell (computer peripherals). I'm the first to admit that my estimates may be off, and the Microsoft guy may be fibbing as well.
"So Mr. Bach is puffing up a number and then claims this is 10% of "the category," which is also misleading. Apple has sold over 100,000,000 iPods and are currently selling something goofey like 10,000,000 a quarter. When you consider that there are many other "hard disk" players that are just as good or better than Zune, there it's unlikely M$ has anything like 10% of any market but the one for Brown Zunes."
I think you're confusing two metrics: "installed base" and "market share." The latter looks at the current sales, not historical sales. Last month Microsoft had 8% of the dollar share of the hard drive segment. You're absolutely correct that Microsoft's installed base isn't anywhere 10%, but that's not what he claimed.
This is the case for all industries. For example, Kia might have (I'm guessing) 5% of the market share of compact sedans in the US based on how many they sold last month; it's counted this way despite the fact that GM has been making compact sedans for almost a century and has much higher installed base. See the difference?
Also agreed with you that the Zune is a mediocre piece of hardware (the 1G iPod was somewhat sucky, too, and the first Nomad Jukebox was a huge POS). But I think they'll stick around until they get it right. Linux and OSX each have a share of the desktop space that's similar to that of Microsoft's share of the MP3 player space, but (thankfully) Linux and OSX will stick around, too.
"Where to? Putting them on store shelves is nothing more than supply chain squeezing. Sooner or later, they are going to end up in a landfill like thousands of Lisas did. [fortunecity.com] You should be able to put them in a much smaller space than the Lisa, so M$ will have beaten Apple in one small way."
Yeah, I'm familiar with packing the channel. I should have been more clear: they have sold through (ie. to customers) rather than sold in (to the channel) close to a million units. In case you're curous, it breaks down like this:
Black: 234K units
White: 83K units
Brown: 68K units
Pink: a whopping 2.7K units (although I believe they also said it's their #1 color now; I guess it was a good May for them)
That's US retail only, as of April, reported by NPD. They'll probably sell through another 40K units in May, for a US retail total of 428K. In my experience (I don't sell MP3 players, but I sell other computer peripherals) NPD misses about 20% - 30% of the US retail market, and you can add another 30% or so for Canada and Latin America (this is an educated guess, but a guess), and another 10% or so for direct sales. That's approaching 800K units. May and June should be good for them (tide raises all boats, etc.) due to the Memorial Day and BTS promotions at retail.
You mentioned packing the channel. A healthy channel load for a product with this volume is maybe 8 - 10 weeks. They may be loading in more for the Back To School promotions -- let's say 12 weeks. That's about 90K additional units.
The expected next step is to call me a Microsoft fanboy. The reality is that I love my iPod and my girlfriend loves her Zen Vision (not the:M, the original wide one) -- which (and here I go incurring the wrath of the Apple folks) with the exception of its thickness, is superior to the iPod in every way. The valley being what it is, I'm friends with the marketing folks for both the iPod and the Zen, so (presumably) like you, I would love to see Microsoft fail. But, nonetheless, whether we like them or not, they're on track to hit their 1MM unit forecast.
You seem very passionate in your feelings about Microsoft. I think there's room on Slashdot for disinterested debate using facts, rather than strictly conjecture. I hope you agree.
"And then the people at M$ like to just make up a number that sounds big and an excuse for it that sounds good but is wrong. It's called lying."
Perhaps true in general, but in this case, the NPD numbers back up the guy's statement. They've moved close to a million units. Lots of "yeah, but..." responses today, but the fact is, they've moved close to a million units.
For what it's worth, the "hard drive" and "flash" segments weren't designated so by Microsoft in an effort to inflate their numbers. Folks in the industry were using those segments prior to Microsoft's entry. However, it could be that the first guy to break it up into those segments did so to make his numbers look bigger.
"Well, for one thing, the Zune doesn't have 10% of the market. That was one million zunes shipped, not sold. For another thing, he's probably artificially limiting the category the Zune is in, like only > 20Gb media players or something."
Microsoft has sold through close to 1MM units. If they haven't yet hit it, they will soon.
You're correct on your 2nd point. The Zune has about 10% of the hard drive player market (8% in April). People in the industry like to break up the market into "hard drive" and "flash" segments.
"I like that point but I'm pretty sure Zune doesn't have 10% of the MP3 player market by a long shot."
In April (the latest month for which NPD data was published) they had almost 10%. Total US retail market was $88MM and they sold through $7.2MM. That's 8%. Apple had 81% and the rest was... well, "the rest."
When you add in flash players, Microsoft's share goes down considerably, as Microsoft's share of the flash player market is 0%.
"Didn't MS do this when talking about their 10 Million Xbox 360 sales over the Holidays? I know that in Sony press releases, they generally talk about shipping to retailers rather than people buying the unit."
I wouldn't be surprised; that sounds familiar. Either way, Microsoft has sold through (not sold in) about 1MM units. Independent data confirms it.
"You can't count giving 850,000 away for free as a "sale"."
They are counting units sold at retail. In case this still isn't clear... they are referring to units which customers buy by paying for them at a store such as Target or Best Buy.
It's interesting to see the theories that people are throwing out there. At any rate, glancing at the April NPD data:
Total US retail market size for hard drive MP3 players was about $88MM (down from $117MM in March)
Apple had the top four spots and did about $72MM of that
Microsoft had spots #5, #7, #8 and #10 and did about $7.2MM -- interestingly, almost exactly 1/10th of Apple's business
Before anybody tries to extrapolate that by dividing by the retail price and multiplying by the number of months that the Zune has been on the market -- keep in mind that this is US retail data only, and that the MP3 player market is very seasonal. For instance, Microsoft sold $44MM worth of players at US retail in December.
Looking at the NPD data as a whole, two things are clear:
Microsoft has likely sold about a million units. There's no use in debating this point. We can all go back to talking about how the Zune's wireless sucks.
Apple still owns the market. This should lessen the need to come up with theories about how Microsoft hasn't sold a million units.
Re:Best Buy, Comp USA, Wal-Mart?
on
A Million Zunes Sold
·
· Score: 1, Informative
"1,000,000 sold to vendors perhaps? Sold to customers might be different but if there are 1 mil Zunes on shelves or in stock out there M$ can claim "million sold.""
Sorry, no. That 1MM units is sell through to customers, not sell in to retailers. Companies almost never refer to sell in numbers, as quantity sold in is liable to be returned.
I've seen the NPD data. Microsoft isn't lying here.
"several groups (both religious and secular) will be protesting. come join us!"
Oh, dear. The big meme the creationists are presently pushing is "teach the controversy." This is a huge straw man, because there is no controversy, as far as teaching science is concerned. By even making a big deal about this, you may actually be helping promote the creationist agenda.
"Or, you can try to understand my point was that the RIAA is not paid per resale, which was my whole point. I was saying that how is buying a used CD any different from downloading if in both cases the RIAA isn't getting paid? (Well, ignoring the profits of the resale store. I'm not saying they are bad, but rather that from the RIAA's perspective, they are the same)"
You're absolutely correct. Record labels (occasionally through their mouthpieces, like Garth Brooks) have waged campaigns against the trade of used CDs. There is nothing they can do about it legally (although they've probably tried; right of first sale and all that), but they've occasionally tried to protect their interests. They've also done it in more positive ways, like remastered releases, new formats like SACD and DualDisc, and so on -- making the new product as attractive as possible vs. the used product.
You put it very well when you pointed out ignoring the profits of the record store. Here on Slashdot, we tend to think of just two people who get the money when you buy a CD:
The artist, who gets 5%.
The RIAA (or the record company), which gets gets 95% (and presumably locks it in a bank vault somewhere, to be seen only when coke-addicted record executives roll around in it naked).
But as you've alluded to, when you buy vs. pirate, lots of other people see a piece of the pie. In the case of a used CD, it's just the record store. If it's new, then the money goes to lots of people who were somehow involved in getting the music from the state of "lyrics and chords written on a piece of paper" to the finished product in your hand.
"copyright infringement != theft. That's why people aren't locked up for it. They're sued."
Serious question here: why do you say this? People do go to jail for copyright infringement; it's usually reported here on Slashdot with the expected response. It looks like you've been around on Slashdot to see this covered. If you can honestly tell me that you've never heard of somebody being locked up for copyright infringement, I'll beelieve you -- I'll just be very surprised!
I'm certain it's fairly common knowledge that "crimes which involve theft" and "crimes for which you can go to jail" are distinct sets. There's a union between the two, to be sure, but unless I've misread you, you're stating that the latter is a subset of the former. To use a touchy example, the crime of rape. Yes, yes, one could say that a rapist "steals the victim's innocence," but it's not theft. Yet -- just as if you pirate enough software or music -- you can go to jail for it.
"When you pay for that System of a Down CD, 95% of that money (number made up off top of my head, point is, vast majority) goes to... the RIAA/its affiliates. Bands make money off of tours, merchandise, etc."
Very true. Another example: I'm director level at a computer peripheral company. I'm responsible for some $40MM worth of business, yet my salary is (sound familiar?) less than 10% of gross sales. My company, like record companies, uses the rest to pay everybody else who was involved in creating, shipping, and selling my products.
This is, sadly, how it works with most industries. I'll grant that this is a surprise to most people and it really is via the record industry that many Slashdotters have learned this unfortunate fact about the business world -- but two wrongs still do not make a right.
What somebody needs to do is come up with a business model for a record company where the record company funds all the costs of production, promotion, distribution, and so on, yet does not attempt to recoup those costs before paying the artists. The first Slashdotter to do this will be very popular indeed.
"Actually, any artist can collect fees from Russian music collecting agency. And Russian collecting agency is also a non-profit organization."
Okay, pretend you're a moderately successful artist. You sold 1,000 copies of your album on iTunes last month for which you netted about $1K. You suspect that allofmp3 also sold about 1,000 copies of your album last month (you have no way of knowing... artists have asked allofmp3 to release sales data, but they refuse). They sold them for $0.60 each, to which the collecting society perhaps got about $0.06, of which you might see $0.04. So, somewhere out there, somebody has $40.00 for you.
After finding ROMS' site and the English version thereof, you get to this page before you hit a wall. If says that if you had "concluded an agreement" with ROMS (which you most likely have not), you are entitled to compensation, but ROMS does not tell you how you can go about this. You might note that by comparison, the corresponding page on ASCAP is much more useful. This is because ASCAP is run by and for artists, and is looking out for your best interests. Unlike ROMS, they're not a front for a pirate site.
At what point do you give up, and admit that the Russians effectively get to keep your $40?
"parent is modded funny, but its an informative sort of statement.. do some research and find out how much, exactly, artists are compensated for cd sales by the riaa.. i think you'll find several conflicting points of data, all well below a "reasonable" amount. (think fractions of a percent)"
I've talked to people who've done quite well on sales through iTunes -- the $0.15 per track estimate is about right, in the instances I've confirmed. It's actually much higher than that for many indie artists (whose labels tend to pay them more), and unsigned artists who use CDBaby make much more.
Selling 1,000 albums and making $0.15 per track will only net you $1,200 -- but those same copies downloaded from allofmp3 will net you something approaching fuck all. And, I know we all like to think of artists as living a life of luxury, but you have to understand that for many artists, that is simply not the case. They need that $1,200 to pay the rent. A check from CDBaby or your record label for $1,200 will help you pay the rent. A non-existent check from allofmp3 will not.
You can talk about how a pirated copy from allofmp3 might ultimately help you, as it might create the interest which might allow you to travel to the pirate's town to perform live, where he might buy a ticket, or even buy a t-shirt. But paying the rent in the here and now beats pleasing some random pirate who might buy a shirt.
If you disagree, come to work for me for free. I can use some coders, some designers, and some editors and copyrighters. I might recommend you to my friends. If you believe that abstract concepts like giving your work away for free and making others happy are more important the realities of selling your work for money to pay the rent, let that start with you.
Slashdot Mirror
"But... who quantifies that?"
The court system. If it's a criminal case, the prosecutor estimates the value; the judge might use their own estimate when sentencing.
"Is someone with an 80gig iPod carrying around -millions- of dollars of copyrighted material? By RIAA's definition... ?"
If you were caught selling iPods preloaded with popular music, the prosecutors might put a market value on it of about a buck a song, or $12 an album -- it's really not that hard to figure out the going rate.
An RIAA represntative might chime in with an amicus brief if they thought that the prosecutors were undervaluing the pirated works in question.
An 80GB iPod can hold about 20K songs. That's a bit off from your estimate of a million bucks, but I still would not want to risk selling preloaded iPods.
"11A. Above-the-line filmmakers (director, writer, actors) make their real money from box office attendance, not from DVDs."
I am not sure why you said that. More and more deals include back end from DVD sales, and more and more films are making the bulk of their revenue from DVD rentals and sales. You've heard the joke about some movie releases simply being an advertisement for the DVD? There's a whole lot of truth in it.
"11B. The hundreds of people that work on movies make their money from their weekly salary, and never see a penny more if the movie is popular. These people are paid regardless if the film is a work of art or paint-by-numbers dreck."
Some are salaried; some are hired on a per-film basis. Whether they'll be paying the rent next year depends largely on how the industry does this year. You should know this: if the movie industry does great next year and the number of film productions doubles, you'll have a much better chance of making money. If the number is cut in half as film companies scale back their production schedules or move production offshore, you'll have a tougher time of it.
Actually, a lot of their points seem to be direct responses to many of the Slashdot/digg memes.
"Important to understand this. Among poor people who don't own computers or cd players, there was a surpisingly low amount of file sharing or purchasing of pirate CDs. Go figure."
Believe it or not, this is lost on lots of people. Just a few weeks ago when an article about software piracy in India came accross Slashdot, a common retort was that the average income in India is something like $2,000 a year, and thus they simply can't afford that software. As you've no doubt figured out, the average income includes the millions of dirt farmers who have no computer, let alone running water, and the pirated software is being used by that segment of the Indian population that can afford mobile phones, computers, designer clothes, et al. just fine. Yet it's a good enough statistic for us to justify piracy.
"If unpopular music were traded most frequently would it still be unpopular? or would it then be popular? I've just gone cross-eyed."
This is another direct salvo against the rationale that you hear all the time around here: "the real reason that music sales are off is because today's music sucks!". Yet the list of top pirated songs matches up with the top ten tracks sold. 90% of popular music sucks in any given year; this is something that people learn as they get older; thus the common perception that it's only today's popular music that's awful; nostalgia helps us forget that the top music in, say, 1993 was pretty crappy, too. The music-listening public has just as much appreciation for today's sucky pop music as we always have; we're simply pirating it a lot more than we used to.
"Judging from your story about buying a Beatles song book for $10 bucks, I know that you really haven't grasped the issue at hand, and don't play much guitar."
(comments about the paucity of sheet music snipped)
The GP was relating his experience in learning to play the bass. When it comes to guitar, you're absolutely correct that many song books treat the tabs as an afterthought, but I'm absolutely correct that it did just fine for my purposes; ie. having something to read when I was learning to play the guitar. That's what his post, and my reply were about: learning an instrument (not exactly duplicating some arbitrary performer's bass solo or fret work). While sheet music may not be accurate, it's suitable for the task of learning how to play an instrument. The lack of tab sites should not be used as a reason to stop practicing.
"I've played guitar for over 25 years. If I sit down and transcribe a song to tab by ear, is that not reverse engineering? Isn't that supposed to be allowwed?"
Sure, it's allowed. Just don't publish your copy of the song -- the music publishers (who are often the composers themselves) have claimed that right, via copyright law.
In particular, don't publish unauthorized copies as a for-profit business, as guitartabs has done. If you do, you're likely to incur the wrath of the music publishing associations.
It's sorta like recorded music. In most places, you're legally allowed to make a copy of music you've bought yourself, as long as you don't share that copy with anybody else.
"How do the artists feel about this?"
Remember, publishing rights is a great revenue stream for composers and lyricists... a revenue stream where they typically get a much bigger cut than via CD sales. And, in most cases (and this is the great part) the record companies don't see any of the money! You're right that it's not the RIAA's property... but we're not talking about record companies here.
I guess we can take the position (and many do) that if an artist wants to make money off their work in any way -- even if the revenue doesn't involve a record company, it's a Bad Thing, because then they're a businessperson, and not an artist, and... well, you know the rest of the rhetoric.
My take on it is this: if they want to claim their ownership of their words and music and running their own ad-supported lyric/tab sites (which is the intent of the publishing companies), then more power to them! By using the official sites, we'll help them make money that (with few exceptions) the record companies will never see. We're coming a lot closer to directly financially supporting the artists.
By comparison, guitartabs keeps all the ad revenue to themselves. They publish others' work, and none of their revenue goes back to the composers or lyricists. In this regard, they are worse than the record companies. They're more comparable to allofmp3 or a P2P network -- they help you get what you want for free or cheaply, but no money goes to the artist. When we use P2P or allofmp3, we can perhaps be glad that we are preventing money from going to the record company -- but there's no record company here. In the case of publishing rights, the publishers are often the composers and lyricists themselves.
"It is bleedingly obvious that tablature is made and distributed for scholarship. In fact, I was attempting to teach my self how to play bass guitar. I got relatively good at it until the tab sites started shutting down. Now I haven't practiced in months."
While you make some good points, I think you go too far in inferring that the copyright holders' defending of their rights is to blame for your not practicing.
I learned to play guitar in the days before the Internet. I did so using books of songs. I had a Beatles songbook that probably cost all of $10, and similar collections. They did just fine in giving me songs to learn to play. On occasion I would buy the sheet music for one particular song -- at two or three bucks, it was not a bargain compared to the collections -- but it was not a financial hardship.
"The sheet music publishers need to get over themselves. People who want to casually learn to play an instrument aren't going to go and pay hundreds of dollars for lessons and buy the sheet music of their favorite artists."
Paying for lessons and buying sheet music aren't linked. One can do one, the other, or both. Sheet music is readily available pretty cheaply; this is unrelated to the cost of lessons.
"The really sad thing is that these lawsuits are killing what copyright was designed to protect, promotion of the arts."
The music publishers are doing this because they want to launch their own ad-supported sites with tabs, lyrics, and sheet music. Keep in mind that music publishers are very often the composers and lyricists themselves; with few exceptions, composers and lyricists get a much bigger piece of the pie vs. CD sales, and the revenue stream for music publishing typically bypasses the record company altogether -- and this is a good thing. We talk about ways to support the artists without supporting the record companies... this is a great way to do it.
Here's how it works out for supporting the composers and lyricists for the various methods of getting your sheet music and tabs:
Now, back to guitartabs. Here we have the situation of a third party (the webmaster) making money off of somebody else's work even though they were not part of the creative process. This is exactly why we hate the record companies, because they do something very similar.
If you want to support artists, that's great -- I agree with you 100%. Why not buy the sheet music and tabs you want, or wait and use the tab/lyric sites operated by the publishers themselves? That way, you support the artists, not some guy who's making a living by making unauthorized copies of others' work.
Your support of guitartabs sounds similar to the common rationale for P2Ping music -- sure, the artist doesn't make any money, but you are "supporting" the artist by reproducing their work. I think a majority of artists would agree that financial support is better.
I've gotten refunds at the movie theatre several times... but maybe that's just in my area.
Agreed that it would be nice if there were a law stipulating that record stores must issue unconditional refunds. Then we could all just rip, rip, rip away and build our music collections for nothing more than the time it takes to buy the CD and then return it. If human nature changes (particularly among one of the biggest music-buying segments, teenagers) and the honor system is suddenly more popular, then a law like this might be feasible. Of course, if this change in human nature occurred, we really all would be using BT to trade those Linux distros like we say we do.
"Stop calling it "intellectual property theft"? It's copyright violation. "Property theft" implies stealing someone's tangible goods (or ideas) and passing it off as your own, which is clearly not what's going on here. It's an unauthorized reproduction (and possibly public display or sale) of an artistic work."
I was going to post a similar rant against metaphorical use of the concept "theft," but you stole my thunder.
Somebody should just make some black t-shirts to sell at DEFCON and elsewhere that read "It's only theft if the GPL, or somebody I sympathize with, are involved."
"Except the MPAA can't summon police forces to take care of inside jobs... that would be civil infractions that wouldn't immediately carry criminal charges (maybe they can peg fraud or something, but IANAL)."
A few people have faced criminal charges as a result of leaking screeners. Here's one example.
It's a similar situation in the retail industry: employee theft and other "inside jobs" are a big part of the loss, yet retailers still attempt to stop shoplifting. In the movie industries, retail industries, and many other professions, walking and chewing gum at the same time is an important skill. Slashdotters have often suggested that the MPAA take care of screener leakage "first" rather than picking on unrelated pirates -- but why not do both at once?
"Be creative and come up with a new business model or go extinct."
It's interesting that you mention that. "The record companies need to find a new business model" is a pretty common statement on Slashdot.
Here in the US, the record companies are trying just that. Perhaps seeing a future where they won't be able to make money selling individual copies of music, they are being creative and trying to get money from the radio stations (both terrestrial and online) for the playing music. It hasn't gone over well around here. Likewise, a few years ago, when the record companies stated that concert prices would be going up due to losses due to piracy, Slashdotters similarly called bullshit.
Yet another case of being careful what you wish for. I think that when we say "find a new business model" what we're really implying is "find a new business model that doesn't involve asking for money from anybody" or "find a new business model which involves going out of business." Sure, we need them to find a new business model that doesn't rely on making money off of selling music, but they can't make money off of anything else, either.
If you were genuine in your question of whether the Microsoft guy was lying, here's your answer:
http://blogs.business2.com/apple/2007/05/microso fts_zune.html
Apparently The Chronicle misquoted him; he stated that they are on track to hit that number by June -- which is more in line with my projections using the actual sales data that's publicly available.
Agreed that "Microsoft guy lies" makes a better story than "Newspaper makes editing error."
I dunno if Microsoft is lying. I may have underestimated their sales... I was doing some linear analysis based on the NPD data and how NPD data relates to the products I sell (computer peripherals). I'm the first to admit that my estimates may be off, and the Microsoft guy may be fibbing as well.
"So Mr. Bach is puffing up a number and then claims this is 10% of "the category," which is also misleading. Apple has sold over 100,000,000 iPods and are currently selling something goofey like 10,000,000 a quarter. When you consider that there are many other "hard disk" players that are just as good or better than Zune, there it's unlikely M$ has anything like 10% of any market but the one for Brown Zunes."
I think you're confusing two metrics: "installed base" and "market share." The latter looks at the current sales, not historical sales. Last month Microsoft had 8% of the dollar share of the hard drive segment. You're absolutely correct that Microsoft's installed base isn't anywhere 10%, but that's not what he claimed.
This is the case for all industries. For example, Kia might have (I'm guessing) 5% of the market share of compact sedans in the US based on how many they sold last month; it's counted this way despite the fact that GM has been making compact sedans for almost a century and has much higher installed base. See the difference?
Also agreed with you that the Zune is a mediocre piece of hardware (the 1G iPod was somewhat sucky, too, and the first Nomad Jukebox was a huge POS). But I think they'll stick around until they get it right. Linux and OSX each have a share of the desktop space that's similar to that of Microsoft's share of the MP3 player space, but (thankfully) Linux and OSX will stick around, too.
"Where to? Putting them on store shelves is nothing more than supply chain squeezing. Sooner or later, they are going to end up in a landfill like thousands of Lisas did. [fortunecity.com] You should be able to put them in a much smaller space than the Lisa, so M$ will have beaten Apple in one small way."
Yeah, I'm familiar with packing the channel. I should have been more clear: they have sold through (ie. to customers) rather than sold in (to the channel) close to a million units. In case you're curous, it breaks down like this:
That's US retail only, as of April, reported by NPD. They'll probably sell through another 40K units in May, for a US retail total of 428K. In my experience (I don't sell MP3 players, but I sell other computer peripherals) NPD misses about 20% - 30% of the US retail market, and you can add another 30% or so for Canada and Latin America (this is an educated guess, but a guess), and another 10% or so for direct sales. That's approaching 800K units. May and June should be good for them (tide raises all boats, etc.) due to the Memorial Day and BTS promotions at retail.
You mentioned packing the channel. A healthy channel load for a product with this volume is maybe 8 - 10 weeks. They may be loading in more for the Back To School promotions -- let's say 12 weeks. That's about 90K additional units.
The expected next step is to call me a Microsoft fanboy. The reality is that I love my iPod and my girlfriend loves her Zen Vision (not the :M, the original wide one) -- which (and here I go incurring the wrath of the Apple folks) with the exception of its thickness, is superior to the iPod in every way. The valley being what it is, I'm friends with the marketing folks for both the iPod and the Zen, so (presumably) like you, I would love to see Microsoft fail. But, nonetheless, whether we like them or not, they're on track to hit their 1MM unit forecast.
You seem very passionate in your feelings about Microsoft. I think there's room on Slashdot for disinterested debate using facts, rather than strictly conjecture. I hope you agree.
"And then the people at M$ like to just make up a number that sounds big and an excuse for it that sounds good but is wrong. It's called lying."
Perhaps true in general, but in this case, the NPD numbers back up the guy's statement. They've moved close to a million units. Lots of "yeah, but..." responses today, but the fact is, they've moved close to a million units.
For what it's worth, the "hard drive" and "flash" segments weren't designated so by Microsoft in an effort to inflate their numbers. Folks in the industry were using those segments prior to Microsoft's entry. However, it could be that the first guy to break it up into those segments did so to make his numbers look bigger.
"Well, for one thing, the Zune doesn't have 10% of the market. That was one million zunes shipped, not sold. For another thing, he's probably artificially limiting the category the Zune is in, like only > 20Gb media players or something."
Microsoft has sold through close to 1MM units. If they haven't yet hit it, they will soon.
You're correct on your 2nd point. The Zune has about 10% of the hard drive player market (8% in April). People in the industry like to break up the market into "hard drive" and "flash" segments.
"I like that point but I'm pretty sure Zune doesn't have 10% of the MP3 player market by a long shot."
In April (the latest month for which NPD data was published) they had almost 10%. Total US retail market was $88MM and they sold through $7.2MM. That's 8%. Apple had 81% and the rest was... well, "the rest."
When you add in flash players, Microsoft's share goes down considerably, as Microsoft's share of the flash player market is 0%.
"Didn't MS do this when talking about their 10 Million Xbox 360 sales over the Holidays? I know that in Sony press releases, they generally talk about shipping to retailers rather than people buying the unit."
I wouldn't be surprised; that sounds familiar. Either way, Microsoft has sold through (not sold in) about 1MM units. Independent data confirms it.
"You can't count giving 850,000 away for free as a "sale"."
They are counting units sold at retail. In case this still isn't clear... they are referring to units which customers buy by paying for them at a store such as Target or Best Buy.
It's interesting to see the theories that people are throwing out there. At any rate, glancing at the April NPD data:
Before anybody tries to extrapolate that by dividing by the retail price and multiplying by the number of months that the Zune has been on the market -- keep in mind that this is US retail data only, and that the MP3 player market is very seasonal. For instance, Microsoft sold $44MM worth of players at US retail in December.
Looking at the NPD data as a whole, two things are clear:
"1,000,000 sold to vendors perhaps? Sold to customers might be different but if there are 1 mil Zunes on shelves or in stock out there M$ can claim "million sold.""
Sorry, no. That 1MM units is sell through to customers, not sell in to retailers. Companies almost never refer to sell in numbers, as quantity sold in is liable to be returned.
I've seen the NPD data. Microsoft isn't lying here.
"several groups (both religious and secular) will be protesting. come join us!"
Oh, dear. The big meme the creationists are presently pushing is "teach the controversy." This is a huge straw man, because there is no controversy, as far as teaching science is concerned. By even making a big deal about this, you may actually be helping promote the creationist agenda.
"Or, you can try to understand my point was that the RIAA is not paid per resale, which was my whole point. I was saying that how is buying a used CD any different from downloading if in both cases the RIAA isn't getting paid? (Well, ignoring the profits of the resale store. I'm not saying they are bad, but rather that from the RIAA's perspective, they are the same)"
You're absolutely correct. Record labels (occasionally through their mouthpieces, like Garth Brooks) have waged campaigns against the trade of used CDs. There is nothing they can do about it legally (although they've probably tried; right of first sale and all that), but they've occasionally tried to protect their interests. They've also done it in more positive ways, like remastered releases, new formats like SACD and DualDisc, and so on -- making the new product as attractive as possible vs. the used product.
You put it very well when you pointed out ignoring the profits of the record store. Here on Slashdot, we tend to think of just two people who get the money when you buy a CD:
But as you've alluded to, when you buy vs. pirate, lots of other people see a piece of the pie. In the case of a used CD, it's just the record store. If it's new, then the money goes to lots of people who were somehow involved in getting the music from the state of "lyrics and chords written on a piece of paper" to the finished product in your hand.
"copyright infringement != theft. That's why people aren't locked up for it. They're sued."
Serious question here: why do you say this? People do go to jail for copyright infringement; it's usually reported here on Slashdot with the expected response. It looks like you've been around on Slashdot to see this covered. If you can honestly tell me that you've never heard of somebody being locked up for copyright infringement, I'll beelieve you -- I'll just be very surprised!
I'm certain it's fairly common knowledge that "crimes which involve theft" and "crimes for which you can go to jail" are distinct sets. There's a union between the two, to be sure, but unless I've misread you, you're stating that the latter is a subset of the former. To use a touchy example, the crime of rape. Yes, yes, one could say that a rapist "steals the victim's innocence," but it's not theft. Yet -- just as if you pirate enough software or music -- you can go to jail for it.
"When you pay for that System of a Down CD, 95% of that money (number made up off top of my head, point is, vast majority) goes to... the RIAA/its affiliates. Bands make money off of tours, merchandise, etc."
Very true. Another example: I'm director level at a computer peripheral company. I'm responsible for some $40MM worth of business, yet my salary is (sound familiar?) less than 10% of gross sales. My company, like record companies, uses the rest to pay everybody else who was involved in creating, shipping, and selling my products.
This is, sadly, how it works with most industries. I'll grant that this is a surprise to most people and it really is via the record industry that many Slashdotters have learned this unfortunate fact about the business world -- but two wrongs still do not make a right.
What somebody needs to do is come up with a business model for a record company where the record company funds all the costs of production, promotion, distribution, and so on, yet does not attempt to recoup those costs before paying the artists. The first Slashdotter to do this will be very popular indeed.
"Actually, any artist can collect fees from Russian music collecting agency. And Russian collecting agency is also a non-profit organization."
Okay, pretend you're a moderately successful artist. You sold 1,000 copies of your album on iTunes last month for which you netted about $1K. You suspect that allofmp3 also sold about 1,000 copies of your album last month (you have no way of knowing... artists have asked allofmp3 to release sales data, but they refuse). They sold them for $0.60 each, to which the collecting society perhaps got about $0.06, of which you might see $0.04. So, somewhere out there, somebody has $40.00 for you.
After finding ROMS' site and the English version thereof, you get to this page before you hit a wall. If says that if you had "concluded an agreement" with ROMS (which you most likely have not), you are entitled to compensation, but ROMS does not tell you how you can go about this. You might note that by comparison, the corresponding page on ASCAP is much more useful. This is because ASCAP is run by and for artists, and is looking out for your best interests. Unlike ROMS, they're not a front for a pirate site.
At what point do you give up, and admit that the Russians effectively get to keep your $40?
"parent is modded funny, but its an informative sort of statement.. do some research and find out how much, exactly, artists are compensated for cd sales by the riaa.. i think you'll find several conflicting points of data, all well below a "reasonable" amount. (think fractions of a percent)"
I've talked to people who've done quite well on sales through iTunes -- the $0.15 per track estimate is about right, in the instances I've confirmed. It's actually much higher than that for many indie artists (whose labels tend to pay them more), and unsigned artists who use CDBaby make much more.
Selling 1,000 albums and making $0.15 per track will only net you $1,200 -- but those same copies downloaded from allofmp3 will net you something approaching fuck all. And, I know we all like to think of artists as living a life of luxury, but you have to understand that for many artists, that is simply not the case. They need that $1,200 to pay the rent. A check from CDBaby or your record label for $1,200 will help you pay the rent. A non-existent check from allofmp3 will not.
You can talk about how a pirated copy from allofmp3 might ultimately help you, as it might create the interest which might allow you to travel to the pirate's town to perform live, where he might buy a ticket, or even buy a t-shirt. But paying the rent in the here and now beats pleasing some random pirate who might buy a shirt.
If you disagree, come to work for me for free. I can use some coders, some designers, and some editors and copyrighters. I might recommend you to my friends. If you believe that abstract concepts like giving your work away for free and making others happy are more important the realities of selling your work for money to pay the rent, let that start with you.