"And the quality of these videos is something you'd only look at in tiny resolution on a computer, and probably only once or twice."
The quality of shared online content will only get better, and illegal video content will become more of a threat to legitimate video sales.
It still makes sense for content owners to guard future revenue streams now that CD sales are declining.
Yes, I mean in my opinion. And I'd say my opinion is rather informed - I'm not a lawyer, but I've studied copyright and IP in-depth. I was a music business major in college, and I've written several papers on copyright law and internet filesharing.
Based on my experience and research, I feel that I am justified in making the estimation that I did. I did not try to disguise my opinions as facts. I feel very confident that others who are familiar with the issues at hand would make a similar estimate.
"Material is not authorised or unauthorised. It's the use that's important. If I've bought a CD and it's stopped working, or if you want to listen to it on your car cassette deck - then I'm morally - and in some jurisdictions legally - allowed to use a backup, or copy a friend's copy, onto a blank cassette tape etc."
I agree with you, that this is morally correct, and I agree with your feeling that it should be legal everywhere.
But, I'll state again: Let's be real here - that sort of use represents an insignificant minority of TPB users. Yes, I know that that is jsut another one of my opinions. I'll once again say that it is, at least, a relatively informed one.
First off, this is so wrong. Until today I was sharing my own independent movie production through TPB. So the "solely" part is incorrect.
Let's be real here. TPB is probably used 99% for unauthorized material. That's close enough to count as "solely".
But in any case, it is still not illegal to link to copyrighted material in Sweden. There are several precedental legal cases from the past years that establishes this. And this is the main point.
This may be true, so I am not disagreeing. However, the interesting thing about copyright law, is that it is constantly changing, both domestically and internationally. The internet is so relatively new, that the laws that govern it have not matured yet, and are constantly in flux.
So, let's be real again - while they may have skipped through a loophole in Swedish law, anyone can see that they are playing with fire by violating the spirit of international copyright law. Sweden has a vested interest in pleasing copyright holders in other nations if they wish to be a part of the global economy. It was really only a matter of time, and TPB must have known that.
Google has many uses which have nothing to do with copyright infringement. The Pirate Bay exists SOLELY for the unauthorized distribution on copyrighted works.
In my country, this is an important distinction. IN the US, you may have heard of the important Betamax decision in which the "substantial non-infringing uses" test was codified, and VCRs declared legal.
I'm not familiar with Swedish law, but in most countries the law is not blind to intent, so TPB is very different from Google in this way.
Do you see the little pair of curved lines before and after the sentence taken from the article? Those are called quotation marks, and they imply that the sentence has other stuff before and after it.........
So instead of jumping to a silly conclusion, try drawing a logical inference and assume there is language similar to the US "substantial non-infringing uses".
1. UK copyright for music lasts for 50 years. The Beatles' works are still protected in the UK.
2. US copyright protection has historically been weaker than other developed nations. The reason the US lengthened its copyright protection was to comply with international regulations set forth at the Berne Convention. I'm not sure what nations you're talking about with a "less draconian attitude", but I assure you we're not ahead-of-the-curve when compared with other developed countries.
This is not to say I agree with the Berne Convention. As I stated in another post, I feel the 1909 statute that set copyright at 56 years was very reasonable, and the current length - life of the author plus 70 years - is pushing it
Interestingly, there is a provision in US copyright law that states the losing party in a copyright infringement case pays both parties' legal fees (a bit unusual in the US legal system). This protects innocent parties from malicious prosecution.
It's common in civil cases for an innocent party to just settle to avoid big legal fees, but in a copyright case an innocent party will have their legal fees paid by the **AA when they are found not-guilty due to lack of solid proof.
Now, put aside your hatred of the **AA for a minute and try ot think objectively:
1. Innocent parties are SOLIDLY protected from any costs if they are truly innocent and go to trial
2. There has yet to be a case where the defendent has gone to trial
Maybe, just maybe, the **AA's proof is pretty solid, and all the people that they have accused are actually guilty?
I'm not saying this definitively, because I don't know the exact methods that are being used, but this is at least some good food for thought.........
yes, I am aware there were lots of very popular things released before 1978, but they still make up a small percentage compared to current works.
Also, the beatles catalog raises a few interesting copyright issues (I'm deviating from the point, but oh well). The songs and the original sound recordings that were released before 1978 would be in public domain. However, when a song is reworked it creates a new copyright for the sound recording (but not the song). So therefore, the song "Love Me Do" would be public domain, and people would be free to copy and distribute the original recordings, but the remastered version that appeared on The Beatles Anthology would still be protected under a sound recording copyright.
The Copyright Act of 1790 had an original term of 14 years, with a renewal period of 14 years. The first Star Wars would be in public domain, but the rest would still be protected
This was lengthened in the early 1900s (1910 comes to mind) to 28 years, with a 28 year renewal period. I think this was necessary due to the changing nature of copyright ownership. Copyrights are often owned by corporations rather than individuals, and a 28 year ownership was a little too finite in the new world, as opposed to the 1790 world.
Copyright terms were lengthened again in 1973 and 1990 (don't quote me on either......I'm going on memory), and you can make a good case that those were unnecessary (and I'd agree with you).
Either way, works older than 28 years account for a very small percentage of piracy, and works older than 56 years account for much much less.
I agree with a lot of people that eMusic is a great service, and a great deal. I use it, in fact.
But I didn't see anywhere in the article where it mentioned that emusic is actually making money. There is a section wth the heading "is it making money" in which they don
't actually answer that question........they just spew some facts about market share.
Last I heard, eMusic was hemorraging money. I guess they're suffering the same fate as many dot-coms - great idea, great service, losing money big time.
It sounds nice, but ticket prices would have to skyrocket to cover the marketing expenses of a record label.
As it stands, the record label takes NOTHING from live concerts, and they make all their money from CD sales (that's why the record labels' share of CD sales is much bigger than the artists'). If that income from CD sales went away, then there would just not be enough money to market on the national level. Marketing would be confined to a local or regional level by the show promoter, which may not necessarily be a bad thing, but it sure would be difficult to launch a nationwide tour without the support and marketing of a record label.
whoops, I menat to reply to a different parent, so my article sound a little out-of-context. Anyway......
There is no savings for packaging and distribution.
Labels make 62 cents per download, or $6.20 per $10 album.
Record labels sell CDs wholesale for approx $10.25.
Trust me when I say packaging and distribution costs are way way less than $4 per CD, therefore, margins are much lower for the record labels on digital downloads when compared to CDs. It's actually a quite common misconception. People are often surprised how low the per-unit costs of a CD are, and how high the fixed costs of production and marketing are.
Back in the days of shellac 78 rpm records, breakage really was that high, and shipping really was that expensive. As technology progressed, shipping became less expensive, and new media (vinyl records, CDs) broke less. The deductions were left in simply out of standard practice. Here's why:
Two record labels are offering contracts to an artist. Label A offers a contract with a 16% royalty, and hidden in the boilerplate (fine print) are a bunch of deductions, makign the effective royalty more like 11%. Label B offers a 14% royalty, but without the traditional boilerplate, making the actual royalty more like 13%. Label A's contract looks better at first glance, so labels are reluctant to take away the boilerplate for fear that they will not be able to compete.
If I may draw a comparison, it's for the same reason that stores advertise their prices before tax, instead of with tax included. If one store decided to start advertising their prices with tax included, even if they noted that, their price would still appear higher.
Is it a little deceptive, maybe........The fact is, it's standard, and every entertainment lawyer knows this, and figures it into the language of the contract when it's being written. So really, it's just a more complicated way to get to the same end
Bottom line is this: if SONY is charging artists for shipping and breakage on digital downloads, then it's in the artist contract. My suggestion to the artist: get a better lawyer!
The 4 cent Apple figure is PROFIT, while the record label share they give is GROSS. After all the expenses that go into making a record, and all the people that get paid out of that share, i doubt the record label profit is much higher than 4 cents.
Geez, I never thought I'd see a misleading article attacking record labels on Sladshdot...............
The musician is paid out of the record label and the publisher share (the article is a little misleading in this).
Don't forget, musicians sell the copyright to their songs to a publisher in return for a royalty, and the copyright to the sound recording to the record label in return for a royalty.
1. In a standard publishing deal, the songwriter gets 50% of the publishing (it's NEVER lower than this), and very often the songwriter share is higher if he is also the artist and doesn't need the publisher to really do any work (an administrative deal, in which the artist pockets around 85% of publishing).
2. The artist gets paid out of the record label's share in the form of mechanical royalties. These vary wildly, depending on the artist's contract (which depends on how much clout the artist has).
The figures are also misleading because teh 4 cent Apple figure is PROFIT, while the record label share they give is GROSS. After all the expenses that go into makign a record, and all the people that get paid out of that share, i doubt the record label profit is much higher than 4 cents
While I retired from gaming a long time ago, so much of my early teens were spent playing Palladium games (almost all of them, with Ninjas and Superspies being my favorite)
I can remember spending hours reading the books, because the stories were so good - intriguing, with engaging stories, varied themes, etc.
It would be nice to see a company with a well-developed game system like White Wolf take over the company and adapt the worlds to their game system.
On the other hand, if it weren't for Palladium, I probably would have gotten out more as a kid - so I guess I blame Palladium for making me into such a geek.
gee, why would a guy in his shoes want to make a lot of noise in the press? I'm sure it has nothing to do with his campaign. (for those outside of NY, he's running for Governor)
1) Apple has no relationship with the RIAA, so will you idiots please stop saying that, Apple is in bed with the record companies, which is NOT the same thing
When people talk about they RIAA, most of the time they mean the 4 major record labels it represents. It's just easier to say RIAA, because most people don't know what "The Big 4" means.
And true, plenty of non-RIAA labels work with Apple as well, but the big players in negotiating the rules were the big 4.
What I'm commenting on is the implication that Apple cares more about pleasing the RIAA than pleasing their customers.
To any business, the customers are the only thing that matters. Without happy customers, there is no profit. Apple is making concessions to the RIAA because, in the end, it's the best thing for their customers. While doing what they do will alienate some niche markets, such as yourself, Apple made the decision that will be good for the majority of their customers.
It's common in any industry for suppliers and distributors to partner like this. It's just good supply chain management.
Whether you agree with the RIAA or not (let's not get into that), Apple is just trying to keep its suppliers happy, which leads to a better supplier-distributor relationship.
You're having a problem with confusing two different concepts
1. What is realistically correct given current circumstances
2. What is morally correct
While you can argue all you want that piracy is a boon even for the music industry, and that it is good for consumers, yadda yadda. The one fact remains........
When I create something, I SHOULD be able to sell it for whatever I want. If I write a song, and want to sell it on 8-track only for $1000 each, then that SHOULD be my perogative because it is MY PRODUCT and nobody else has any right to say what should be done with it.
A "fair" price for MY product is what I WANT TO SELL IT FOR. The consumer can choose to buy it and have the song, or to not buy it and not have the song.
When you say: "If any intangible media is good enough, it WILL turn a profit if handled correctly" You are simply not correct...............Pricing music so low that the price only justifies added convenience over piracy is not viable. Music simply cannot be produced that cheaply while turning a profit. Some artists don't care about turning a profit, and that is their perogative. They can choose to give their music away all they want.
While many pirated CDs today are still profitable, the battle over IP will go on, and piracy will only become easier as time goes on. This is not just about music. This is about the value of IP. It's about all information.
Please spare me your insults. Honestly, your sophomoric view of economics makes you sound like some kid who withdrew from ECON 101 after two weeks.
When I write a song, it is my duty to offer it to you in a manner that is more convenient than just taking it
You are entitled to the fruit of my efforts at your greatest convenience. Who am I to set the price for the things I create?
Everybody knows that the capitalist system of making a product and selling it for enough money to make a profit is PURE GREED! You obviously have a very thorough knowlege of how much it costs to make a recording, and you know our dirty little secret - we're all rolling in money!
I should "adapt" to people who don't feel like paying for my music. I should try to make it "convenient" for them!
Thank you for reminding me that you have a built-in entitlement to my music, and the only way I can make money off of it is to price it so low that the costs of making and recording my music will never ever be recouped.
Down with Capitalism!
Slashdot Mirror
Based on my experience and research, I feel that I am justified in making the estimation that I did. I did not try to disguise my opinions as facts. I feel very confident that others who are familiar with the issues at hand would make a similar estimate. I agree with you, that this is morally correct, and I agree with your feeling that it should be legal everywhere.
But, I'll state again: Let's be real here - that sort of use represents an insignificant minority of TPB users. Yes, I know that that is jsut another one of my opinions. I'll once again say that it is, at least, a relatively informed one.
So, let's be real again - while they may have skipped through a loophole in Swedish law, anyone can see that they are playing with fire by violating the spirit of international copyright law. Sweden has a vested interest in pleasing copyright holders in other nations if they wish to be a part of the global economy. It was really only a matter of time, and TPB must have known that.
Google has many uses which have nothing to do with copyright infringement. The Pirate Bay exists SOLELY for the unauthorized distribution on copyrighted works.
In my country, this is an important distinction. IN the US, you may have heard of the important Betamax decision in which the "substantial non-infringing uses" test was codified, and VCRs declared legal.
I'm not familiar with Swedish law, but in most countries the law is not blind to intent, so TPB is very different from Google in this way.
Do you see the little pair of curved lines before and after the sentence taken from the article? Those are called quotation marks, and they imply that the sentence has other stuff before and after it.........
So instead of jumping to a silly conclusion, try drawing a logical inference and assume there is language similar to the US "substantial non-infringing uses".
1. UK copyright for music lasts for 50 years. The Beatles' works are still protected in the UK.
2. US copyright protection has historically been weaker than other developed nations. The reason the US lengthened its copyright protection was to comply with international regulations set forth at the Berne Convention. I'm not sure what nations you're talking about with a "less draconian attitude", but I assure you we're not ahead-of-the-curve when compared with other developed countries.
This is not to say I agree with the Berne Convention. As I stated in another post, I feel the 1909 statute that set copyright at 56 years was very reasonable, and the current length - life of the author plus 70 years - is pushing it
Interestingly, there is a provision in US copyright law that states the losing party in a copyright infringement case pays both parties' legal fees (a bit unusual in the US legal system). This protects innocent parties from malicious prosecution.
It's common in civil cases for an innocent party to just settle to avoid big legal fees, but in a copyright case an innocent party will have their legal fees paid by the **AA when they are found not-guilty due to lack of solid proof.
Now, put aside your hatred of the **AA for a minute and try ot think objectively:
1. Innocent parties are SOLIDLY protected from any costs if they are truly innocent and go to trial
2. There has yet to be a case where the defendent has gone to trial
Maybe, just maybe, the **AA's proof is pretty solid, and all the people that they have accused are actually guilty?
I'm not saying this definitively, because I don't know the exact methods that are being used, but this is at least some good food for thought.........
yes, I am aware there were lots of very popular things released before 1978, but they still make up a small percentage compared to current works.
Also, the beatles catalog raises a few interesting copyright issues (I'm deviating from the point, but oh well). The songs and the original sound recordings that were released before 1978 would be in public domain. However, when a song is reworked it creates a new copyright for the sound recording (but not the song). So therefore, the song "Love Me Do" would be public domain, and people would be free to copy and distribute the original recordings, but the remastered version that appeared on The Beatles Anthology would still be protected under a sound recording copyright.
not quite...but close
The Copyright Act of 1790 had an original term of 14 years, with a renewal period of 14 years. The first Star Wars would be in public domain, but the rest would still be protected
This was lengthened in the early 1900s (1910 comes to mind) to 28 years, with a 28 year renewal period. I think this was necessary due to the changing nature of copyright ownership. Copyrights are often owned by corporations rather than individuals, and a 28 year ownership was a little too finite in the new world, as opposed to the 1790 world.
Copyright terms were lengthened again in 1973 and 1990 (don't quote me on either......I'm going on memory), and you can make a good case that those were unnecessary (and I'd agree with you).
Either way, works older than 28 years account for a very small percentage of piracy, and works older than 56 years account for much much less.
I agree with a lot of people that eMusic is a great service, and a great deal. I use it, in fact. But I didn't see anywhere in the article where it mentioned that emusic is actually making money. There is a section wth the heading "is it making money" in which they don 't actually answer that question........they just spew some facts about market share.
Last I heard, eMusic was hemorraging money. I guess they're suffering the same fate as many dot-coms - great idea, great service, losing money big time.
It sounds nice, but ticket prices would have to skyrocket to cover the marketing expenses of a record label.
As it stands, the record label takes NOTHING from live concerts, and they make all their money from CD sales (that's why the record labels' share of CD sales is much bigger than the artists'). If that income from CD sales went away, then there would just not be enough money to market on the national level. Marketing would be confined to a local or regional level by the show promoter, which may not necessarily be a bad thing, but it sure would be difficult to launch a nationwide tour without the support and marketing of a record label.
Dell's supply chain model was so innovative when it was introduced, but that competitive advantage won't last forever.
This new "secret" channel may be their way of testing a new innovative model.
OMG! Congratlations on posting the first-ever correct interpretation of fair use on Slashdot.
I know this is a little off-topic, but it just *sniff sniff* makes me so happy.
whoops, I menat to reply to a different parent, so my article sound a little out-of-context. Anyway......
There is no savings for packaging and distribution.
Labels make 62 cents per download, or $6.20 per $10 album.
Record labels sell CDs wholesale for approx $10.25.
Trust me when I say packaging and distribution costs are way way less than $4 per CD, therefore, margins are much lower for the record labels on digital downloads when compared to CDs. It's actually a quite common misconception. People are often surprised how low the per-unit costs of a CD are, and how high the fixed costs of production and marketing are.
here's the deal with breakage and shipping:
Back in the days of shellac 78 rpm records, breakage really was that high, and shipping really was that expensive. As technology progressed, shipping became less expensive, and new media (vinyl records, CDs) broke less. The deductions were left in simply out of standard practice. Here's why:
Two record labels are offering contracts to an artist. Label A offers a contract with a 16% royalty, and hidden in the boilerplate (fine print) are a bunch of deductions, makign the effective royalty more like 11%. Label B offers a 14% royalty, but without the traditional boilerplate, making the actual royalty more like 13%. Label A's contract looks better at first glance, so labels are reluctant to take away the boilerplate for fear that they will not be able to compete.
If I may draw a comparison, it's for the same reason that stores advertise their prices before tax, instead of with tax included. If one store decided to start advertising their prices with tax included, even if they noted that, their price would still appear higher.
Is it a little deceptive, maybe........The fact is, it's standard, and every entertainment lawyer knows this, and figures it into the language of the contract when it's being written. So really, it's just a more complicated way to get to the same end
Bottom line is this: if SONY is charging artists for shipping and breakage on digital downloads, then it's in the artist contract. My suggestion to the artist: get a better lawyer!
The 4 cent Apple figure is PROFIT, while the record label share they give is GROSS. After all the expenses that go into making a record, and all the people that get paid out of that share, i doubt the record label profit is much higher than 4 cents.
Geez, I never thought I'd see a misleading article attacking record labels on Sladshdot...............
The musician is paid out of the record label and the publisher share (the article is a little misleading in this).
Don't forget, musicians sell the copyright to their songs to a publisher in return for a royalty, and the copyright to the sound recording to the record label in return for a royalty.
1. In a standard publishing deal, the songwriter gets 50% of the publishing (it's NEVER lower than this), and very often the songwriter share is higher if he is also the artist and doesn't need the publisher to really do any work (an administrative deal, in which the artist pockets around 85% of publishing).
2. The artist gets paid out of the record label's share in the form of mechanical royalties. These vary wildly, depending on the artist's contract (which depends on how much clout the artist has).
The figures are also misleading because teh 4 cent Apple figure is PROFIT, while the record label share they give is GROSS. After all the expenses that go into makign a record, and all the people that get paid out of that share, i doubt the record label profit is much higher than 4 cents
While I retired from gaming a long time ago, so much of my early teens were spent playing Palladium games (almost all of them, with Ninjas and Superspies being my favorite)
I can remember spending hours reading the books, because the stories were so good - intriguing, with engaging stories, varied themes, etc.
It would be nice to see a company with a well-developed game system like White Wolf take over the company and adapt the worlds to their game system.
On the other hand, if it weren't for Palladium, I probably would have gotten out more as a kid - so I guess I blame Palladium for making me into such a geek.
I guess my follow-up question is this:
What's the current trend in hiring?
That's great if cuts have slowed, but I'd like to know if that means the net number of jobs is increasing
gee, why would a guy in his shoes want to make a lot of noise in the press? I'm sure it has nothing to do with his campaign. (for those outside of NY, he's running for Governor)
And true, plenty of non-RIAA labels work with Apple as well, but the big players in negotiating the rules were the big 4.
In a way, yes, I am agreeing with you.
What I'm commenting on is the implication that Apple cares more about pleasing the RIAA than pleasing their customers.
To any business, the customers are the only thing that matters. Without happy customers, there is no profit. Apple is making concessions to the RIAA because, in the end, it's the best thing for their customers. While doing what they do will alienate some niche markets, such as yourself, Apple made the decision that will be good for the majority of their customers.
It's common in any industry for suppliers and distributors to partner like this. It's just good supply chain management.
Whether you agree with the RIAA or not (let's not get into that), Apple is just trying to keep its suppliers happy, which leads to a better supplier-distributor relationship.
You're having a problem with confusing two different concepts
1. What is realistically correct given current circumstances
2. What is morally correct
While you can argue all you want that piracy is a boon even for the music industry, and that it is good for consumers, yadda yadda. The one fact remains........
When I create something, I SHOULD be able to sell it for whatever I want. If I write a song, and want to sell it on 8-track only for $1000 each, then that SHOULD be my perogative because it is MY PRODUCT and nobody else has any right to say what should be done with it.
A "fair" price for MY product is what I WANT TO SELL IT FOR. The consumer can choose to buy it and have the song, or to not buy it and not have the song.
When you say: "If any intangible media is good enough, it WILL turn a profit if handled correctly" You are simply not correct...............Pricing music so low that the price only justifies added convenience over piracy is not viable. Music simply cannot be produced that cheaply while turning a profit. Some artists don't care about turning a profit, and that is their perogative. They can choose to give their music away all they want.
While many pirated CDs today are still profitable, the battle over IP will go on, and piracy will only become easier as time goes on. This is not just about music. This is about the value of IP. It's about all information.
Please spare me your insults. Honestly, your sophomoric view of economics makes you sound like some kid who withdrew from ECON 101 after two weeks.
you're right.
When I write a song, it is my duty to offer it to you in a manner that is more convenient than just taking it
You are entitled to the fruit of my efforts at your greatest convenience. Who am I to set the price for the things I create?
Everybody knows that the capitalist system of making a product and selling it for enough money to make a profit is PURE GREED! You obviously have a very thorough knowlege of how much it costs to make a recording, and you know our dirty little secret - we're all rolling in money!
I should "adapt" to people who don't feel like paying for my music. I should try to make it "convenient" for them!
Thank you for reminding me that you have a built-in entitlement to my music, and the only way I can make money off of it is to price it so low that the costs of making and recording my music will never ever be recouped. Down with Capitalism!