Such a license would cost Kwik-Fit roughly ??30,000 per year
Crazy Fuckin' shit!
Edit:
Cue keithvanhorn saying don't do the crime if you can't pay the fine!
ha, i think this is apples and oranges. artists aren't losing money (or potentially losing money) every time Kwik-Fit employees blast their car radio....that is, unless Kwik-Fit has such good car stereos that they are "performing" for all of their neighbors.
my argument has never been what you stated btw. in fact, i don't agree that the punishment (over 200 grand) fits the crime for that woman did. but, the fact is that she violated the law...a good law, imo, because it protects artists' work. unfortunately, if they made the penalties any less severe, consumers would have ZERO fear of "facing the music", because not only would there be a small risk of getting caught (which there already is), but even if they did get caught, the penalty wouldn't serve as a deterrent. At least for now, and partially due to the publicity of this case, people MIGHT think twice before logging on to limewire.
my argument has never been what you stated btw. in fact, i don't agree that the punishment (over 200 grand) fits the crime for that woman did. but, the fact is that she violated the law...a good law, imo, because it protects artists' work. unfortunately, if they made the penalties any less severe, consumers would have ZERO fear of "facing the music", because not only would there be a small risk of getting caught (which there already is), but even if they did get caught, the penalty wouldn't serve as a deterrent. At least for now, and partially due to the publicity of this case, people MIGHT think twice before logging on to limewire.
I dunno. Again, I was proposing that the fine be more comparable to a speeding ticket. Speeding tickets DO slow people down -- at least when cops are visibly nearby. Not that I particularly like this scenario, but if people believed there were cops "visible" on torrent sites and blogs that could hit em with a $125 ticket w/o warning, they might think twice.
Instead, they've hit one woman with a back-breaking bill. So everyone stops downloading for a moment to shake their heads at her back luck, and then go right back to double-clicking on that torrent for the entire Neil Young discography.
See the thing is. They don't protect artist, it's really about protecting copyright holders.
If the RIAA was really about protecting artist, you'd see things in the media once in a blue moon on them fighting for an artist against a major label. How many artist have been at a minimum ripped off to a maximum of having their whole life's work stolen from them???
I never see any label or so called music artist advocacy group looking out for them.
Such a license would cost Kwik-Fit roughly ??30,000 per year
Crazy Fuckin' shit!
Edit:
Cue keithvanhorn saying don't do the crime if you can't pay the fine!
ha, i think this is apples and oranges. artists aren't losing money (or potentially losing money) every time Kwik-Fit employees blast their car radio....that is, unless Kwik-Fit has such good car stereos that they are "performing" for all of their neighbors.
my argument has never been what you stated btw. in fact, i don't agree that the punishment (over 200 grand) fits the crime for that woman did. but, the fact is that she violated the law...a good law, imo, because it protects artists' work. unfortunately, if they made the penalties any less severe, consumers would have ZERO fear of "facing the music", because not only would there be a small risk of getting caught (which there already is), but even if they did get caught, the penalty wouldn't serve as a deterrent. At least for now, and partially due to the publicity of this case, people MIGHT think twice before logging on to limewire.
You are unreal! This has nothing to with artists and art. It has been pointed out a hundred times in this thread, but you continue to ignore fact.
I think you do have a good point. Instead of spending 100s of 1,000 of dollars to persecute one person they would be better off trying to bust as many people as possible.
Then you would quit stealing. Something you admit doing even though you believe that it hurts artists. Who you say you support even though you steal from them because you wont get caught even though you think the laws that you think protect them are fair even though you wont follow those laws because you wont get caught even though you think it is stealing from artists who you say you support even though you steal from them because you wont get caught even though you think you should get caught and fined thousands of dollars because that is fair because it is a good law even though you wont follow it because you know you wont get caught.
I hope you were telling the truth about donating to Darfur. It would be nice to know you have redeeming qualities.
Hello. My name is Ian Rogers. I???ve been building digital media applications since 1992, dropped out of a Computer Science PhD program to tour with Beastie Boys in 1995, and have been purchased by both AOL and Yahoo! in the ten years since then, with a stint running the new media department for a record label in the middle. Currently I work at Yahoo! Entertainment on Yahoo! Music.
First, a question: How many of you have tried Amazon???s MP3 download service?
Back in 1999 I ran Winamp.com for Rob and Justin. Napster came on the scene and we thought, ???Wow! There???s a market for MP3s!??? We had millions of people using Winamp, visiting Winamp.com for skins and plugins ??? it was by far the largest community of MP3-lovers. We naively and enthusiastically suggested to labels that we???d be a great place to sell MP3s. The response from the labels at the time was universally, ???What???s MP3???? or ???Um, no.???
Instead they commenced suing Napster. We were naive to be sure, but we were genuinely surprised by the approach. Suing Napster without offering an alternative just seemed like a denial of fact. Napster didn???t invent the ability to do P2P, it was inherent in TCP/IP. It was like throwing Newton in jail for popularizing the concept of gravity.
Nullsoft subsequently built and prematurely released a program called Gnutella which became the basis for true P2P of the coming years. When Tom Pepper told Time Magazine that Gnutella was for ???sharing recipes??? he really said it all: This is so much bigger than just sharing music. This is physics. It???s trivial for one person to transfer bits from one person to another. Trivial. Unstoppable. PUT YOUR ENERGY ELSEWHERE, we thought out loud.
I caught a lot of heat from my music industry friends for Nullsoft???s Gnutella leak. In a long and impassioned email in 1999 I wrote to everyone I knew in a band, at a label, or music journalism (whatup, Jay!) and urged them to sell their content to their users in the format they were asking for: MP3. Make it easy, I wrote, and convenience will beat free.
Well, we (you included) did lots of other things instead. While running ???New Media??? at Grand Royal I released the first day/date digital/physical release with At The Drive-In???s ???Relationship of Command???. Thanks to EMI requirements (hi Ted! hi Melissa!) it was DRM???d WMA and we sold about 12 copies in the first month, probably all to journalists. Years later I helped Yahoo! build Yahoo! Music Unlimited, a Windows Media Janus DRM-based subscription service. Record labels for their part participated in no end of control experiments: SDMI, Liquid Audio, Pressplay, Coral, etc, and they continue to this day.
But now, eight years later, Amazon???s finally done what was clearly the right solution in 1999. Music in the format that people actually want it in, with a Web-based experience that???s simple and works with any device. I bought tracks from Amazon (Kevin Drew and No Age), downloaded them, sync???d them to my new iPod Nano, and had them playing in my home audio system (Control 4) in less than five minutes. PRAISE JESUS. It only took 8 years.
8 years. How much opportunity have we lost in those 8 years? How much naivety and hubris did we have when we said, ???if we build it they will come???? What did we spend? And what did we gain? We certainly didn???t gain mass user adoption or trust, two prerequisites to success on the Internet.
Inconvenient experiences don???t have Web-scale potential, and platforms which monetize the gigantic scale of the Web is the only way to compete with the control you???ve lost, the only way to reclaim value in the music industry. If your consultants are telling you anything else, they are wrong.
Yahoo! Music demonstrates this scale discrepancy perfectly. Yahoo! is the world???s #1 Internet destination. Hundreds of millions of people visit Yahoo! each month. Yahoo! Music is the #1 Music site on the Web, with tens of millions of monthly visitors. Between 10 and 20 million people watch music videos on Yahoo! Music every month. Between 5 and 10 million people listen to radio on Yahoo! Music every month. But the ENTIRE subscription music market (including Rhapsody, Napster, and Yahoo!) is in the low millions (sorry, we don???t release subscriber numbers, but the aggregate number proves the point), even after years of marketing by all three companies. When you compare the experiences on Yahoo! Music, the order of magnitude difference in opportunity shouldn???t be a surprise: Want radio? No problem. Click play, get radio. Want video? Awesome. Click play, get video. Want a track on-demand? Oh have we got a deal for you! If you???re on Windows XP or Vista, and you???re in North America, just download this 20MB application, go through these seven install screens, reboot your computer, go through these five setup screens, these six credit card screens, give us $160 dollars and POW! Now you can hear that song you wanted to hear???if you???re still with us. Yahoo! didn???t want to go through all these steps. The licensing dictated it. It???s a slippery slope from ???a little control??? to consumer unfriendliness and non-Web-scale products and services.
But this isn???t news, nor is it particular to the digital age. History tells us: convenience wins, hubris loses. ???Who is going to want a shitty quality LP when these 78s sound so good? Who wants a hissy cassette when they have an awesome quadrophonic system? Who wants digitized music on discs now that we have Dolby on our cassettes? Who wants to listen to compressed audio on their computers???? ANSWER: EVERYONE. Convenience wins, hubris loses. [check Fredric Dannen???s comments here]
I???m here to tell you today that I for one am no longer going to fall into this trap. If the licensing labels offer their content to Yahoo! put more barriers in front of the users, I???m not interested. Do what you feel you need to do for your business, I???ll be polite, say thank you, and decline to sign. I won???t let Yahoo! invest any more money in consumer inconvenience. I will tell Yahoo! to give the money they were going to give me to build awesome media applications to Yahoo! Mail or Answers or some other deserving endeavor. I personally don???t have any more time to give and can???t bear to see any more money spent on pathetic attempts for control instead of building consumer value. Life???s too short. I want to delight consumers, not bum them out.
If, on the other hand, you???ve seen the light too, there???s a very fun road ahead for us all. Lets get beyond talking about how you get the music and into building context: reasons and ways to experience the music. The opportunity is in the chasm between the way we experience the content and the incredible user-created context of the Web.
By way of illustration (and via exaggeration), in a manner of speaking iTunes is a spreadsheet that plays music. It???s context-free. You just paid $10 for that album ??? who plays drums? I dunno, WHY DON???T YOU GO TO THE WEB TO FIND OUT, BECAUSE THAT???S WHERE THE CONTEXT IS.
But the content experience on the Web is crap. Go to Aquarium Drunkard, click an MP3. If you don???t get a 404, you???ll get a Save As??? dialog or the SAME GOD DAMN QUICKTIME BAR FROM 1995. OMFG. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? THIS IS ALL WE???VE ACCOMPLISHED IN 15 YEARS ON THE WEB? It makes me insane.
So we have media consumption experiences with no context (desktop media players) and an incredible, endless, emergent contextual experience where media consumption is a pain in the ass, illegal, or non-existent (the Web). FIX IT. Your fans are pouring their music-loving hearts into blogs, Wikipedia, etc and what tools have you given them to work with? Not much, unfortunately.
This is what I???m vowing to devote my energy, and Yahoo!???s energy to.
Lets envision the end state and drive there as quickly as possible. Lets not waste another eight years on what is obvious today. Lets build the tools of a healthy media Web and reward music-lovers for being a part of it.
In the end you get what you pay for. I won???t spend another dime paying engineers to build false control, making listening to music harder for music-lovers. I will put all of my energy into making it easier and making the experience better. I suggest you do the same.
Such a license would cost Kwik-Fit roughly ??30,000 per year
Crazy Fuckin' shit!
Edit:
Cue keithvanhorn saying don't do the crime if you can't pay the fine!
The fact is though. If you use music to benefit your workers enviroment, why should you not pay for the privilige?
Artwork, drinks machines & all other aspects of workers enviroment command fees, why should the music be any different.
This is the way the music industry is heading, with sales falling, rights management is where the money will be coming from. Is the system perfect, no way, but that doesn't mean the general premise of it is unsound.
These licence fees DO revert back to writers and performers. Are they skewed towards big companies? definately, but that doesn't mean the little guys don't get a share.
Now I don't work for the PRS, but for a similar organisation, and a colleague has recently tracked down a performer who was not registered with us because there was ??4000 waiting for me. He didn't miss it, but he was legally entitled to it, and is now happy to have that.
People, writers and performers on here need to get their business heads on, because there is money out there potentially waiting for them. As this is a predominately american board, you may not be aware, that just becasue the US doesn't have a fair system of paying performers for airplay (although there is a very small digital right), it doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't. People could be missing out on funds through lack of knowledge.
You are unreal! This has nothing to with artists and art. It has been pointed out a hundred times in this thread, but you continue to ignore fact.
yes, it really does. copyright laws are the legal device from which artists are able to protect their work. if an artist chooses to give up their copyright, that is a completely unrelated issue.
I think you do have a good point. Instead of spending 100s of 1,000 of dollars to persecute one person they would be better off trying to bust as many people as possible.
Then you would quit stealing. Something you admit doing even though you believe that it hurts artists. Who you say you support even though you steal from them because you wont get caught even though you think the laws that you think protect them are fair even though you wont follow those laws because you wont get caught even though you think it is stealing from artists who you say you support even though you steal from them because you wont get caught even though you think you should get caught and fined thousands of dollars because that is fair because it is a good law even though you wont follow it because you know you wont get caught.
I hope you were telling the truth about donating to Darfur. It would be nice to know you have redeeming qualities.
I don't know why you are attacking me. Is it because I support artists and not thieves? You don't seem to understand that there is a difference between a good law and a penalty that is not proportionate to the "good law" that was broken. Laws that protect copyrights are essential. If you don't understand that, pm me, and I will explain it to you. As far as the penalties are concerned, I have already said over and over that the punishment (in this woman's case) did not fit the crime. However, because of the problems with enforcement, i agree that a severe penalty, such as the one imposed on this woman, is, for the time being, the only way to DETER this crime.
If you can offer up another way to deter people from infringing lawful copyrights, i'd love to hear it.
btw, you need to quit with this "redeeming qualities" shit. you don't know me, right?
it's not an effective deterrent. They need to quit wasting time and money on this bullshit. The RIAA could be more effective if they pressured the majors to distribute music in a format consumers actually wanted, ensuring a profit for the groups these law suits are aimed at "protecting". DRM for profit is bullshit, piracy will always occur. If it can be read, it can be pirated. Give a consumer something more convenient than the black-market, and they will pay for the service. Right now, it's a dog and pony show that is financially crippling music listeners, seemingly at random- not to mention that it is economically unsound.
it's not an effective deterrent. They need to quit wasting time and money on this bullshit. The RIAA could be more effective if they pressured the majors to distribute music in a format consumers actually wanted, ensuring a profit for the groups these law suits are aimed at "protecting".
DRM for profit is bullshit, piracy will always occur. .
amazon has mp3s that are in normal format. they have 2 of the 4 major labels right now, and will probably get all 4 by the holiday season, according to this month's Rolling Stone.
you say piracy will always occur, but who knows what technological advances are in the works.
i think amazon is one of the few big stories out right now regarding music distribution that is headed in the right direction.
For most people, amazon is more convenient than filesharing software, blog searches, etc. They simply use their web UI to click on a song and purchase it at $9,249 less than the RIAA thinks we should pay for songs. There is no software to install (a la soulseek, et al). Most people really aren't that computer literate when it comes to dl'ing and installing software/troubleshooting, etc. which comes with the territory with most file sharing, bit torrenting or whatever.
Amazon found a DRM-free way to make it more convenient for consumers (not that providing cheap mp3 files is revolutionary, just a legit site w/ no DRM), and they will profit for the service they have provided.
"If they really wanted to do something for the great majority of artists, who eke out a living against all odds, they could tackle some of the real issues facing us:
* The normal industry contract is for seven albums, with no end date, which would be considered at best indentured servitude (and at worst slavery) in any other business. In fact, it would be illegal. * A label can shelve your project, then extend your contract by one more album because what you turned in was "commercially or artistically unacceptable". They alone determine that criteria. * Singer-songwriters have to accept the "Controlled Composition Clause" (which dictates that they'll be paid only 75% of the rates set by Congress in publishing royalties) for any major or subsidiary label recording contract, or lose the contract. Simply put, the clause demanded by the labels provides that a) if you write your own songs, you will only be paid 3/4 of what Congress has told the record companies they must pay you, and b) if you co-write, you will use your "best efforts" to ensure that other songwriters accept the 75% rate as well. If they refuse, you must agree to make up the difference out of your share. * Congressionally set writer/publisher royalties have risen from their 1960's high (2 cents per side) to a munificent 8 cents.Many of us began in the 50's and 60's; our records are still in release, and we're still being paid royalty rates of 2% (if anything) on them.If we're not songwriters, and not hugely successful commercially (as in platinum-plus), we don't make a dime off our recordings. Recording industry accounting procedures are right up there with films. * Worse yet, when records go out-of-print, we don't get them back! We can't even take them to another company. Careers have been deliberately killed in this manner, with the record company refusing to release product or allow the artist to take it somewhere else. * And because a record label "owns" your voice for the duration of the contract, you can't go somewhere else and re-record those same songs they turned down. * And because of the re-record provision, even after your contract is over, you can't record those songs for someone else for years, and sometimes decades. * Last but not least, America is the only country I am aware of that pays no live performance royalties to songwriters. In Europe, Japan, Australia, when you finish a show, you turn your set list in to the promoter, who files it with the appropriate organization, and then pays a small royalty per song to the writer. It costs the singer nothing, the rates are based on venue size, and it ensures that writers whose songs no longer get airplay, but are still performed widely, can continue receiving the benefit from those songs."
Back in the 70's when I worked at various clubs that had live music there was most definitely a performance fee.
It may no longer be law, but at that time it was.
Side thought.
Who wants to bet as more & more Artist start leaving labels (Like Radiohead) that the labels turn around and make deals with all major venues. Suing anyone not in the "recording Artist union" from playing there.
Demonoid is blocking downloads from Canada because of a lasuit by some recording artist's union or something. I wonder if other torrent sites are soon going to go the way of the dodo...
Wasn't sure whether to post this here or in the Radiohead thread, but...
Just bought the Bmore band Celebration's new LP on 4AD, and it comes with a ticket for three free downloads of the entire album in digital format. Are a lot of bands/labels doing this?
I see that as a very viable alternative to the Radiohead model, and one that makes a lot more sense to bands that have a modest fanbase (and can't afford to press $80 deluxe editions of their music, let alone garner worldwide attention with the release of their new album).
--Like Radiohead, it acknowledges in a positive, friendly manner the access we have to free music due to dling and file-sharing
--Like Radiohead, it offers something better to the person willing to spend some cash
--Unlike Radiohead, it offers the digital version at a high-quality transfer rate
--Unlike Radiohead, you don't have to spend $80 to get the vinyl version
--Like Radiohead, it plays on your guilt, basically asking "we know you have the ability to effortlessly share this music for free, but out of respect to us could you limit doing so to 2-3 friends?"
"If they really wanted to do something for the great majority of artists, who eke out a living against all odds, they could tackle some of the real issues facing us:
* The normal industry contract is for seven albums, with no end date, which would be considered at best indentured servitude (and at worst slavery) in any other business. In fact, it would be illegal. * A label can shelve your project, then extend your contract by one more album because what you turned in was "commercially or artistically unacceptable". They alone determine that criteria. * Singer-songwriters have to accept the "Controlled Composition Clause" (which dictates that they'll be paid only 75% of the rates set by Congress in publishing royalties) for any major or subsidiary label recording contract, or lose the contract. Simply put, the clause demanded by the labels provides that a) if you write your own songs, you will only be paid 3/4 of what Congress has told the record companies they must pay you, and b) if you co-write, you will use your "best efforts" to ensure that other songwriters accept the 75% rate as well. If they refuse, you must agree to make up the difference out of your share. * Congressionally set writer/publisher royalties have risen from their 1960's high (2 cents per side) to a munificent 8 cents.Many of us began in the 50's and 60's; our records are still in release, and we're still being paid royalty rates of 2% (if anything) on them.If we're not songwriters, and not hugely successful commercially (as in platinum-plus), we don't make a dime off our recordings. Recording industry accounting procedures are right up there with films. * Worse yet, when records go out-of-print, we don't get them back! We can't even take them to another company. Careers have been deliberately killed in this manner, with the record company refusing to release product or allow the artist to take it somewhere else. * And because a record label "owns" your voice for the duration of the contract, you can't go somewhere else and re-record those same songs they turned down. * And because of the re-record provision, even after your contract is over, you can't record those songs for someone else for years, and sometimes decades. * Last but not least, America is the only country I am aware of that pays no live performance royalties to songwriters. In Europe, Japan, Australia, when you finish a show, you turn your set list in to the promoter, who files it with the appropriate organization, and then pays a small royalty per song to the writer. It costs the singer nothing, the rates are based on venue size, and it ensures that writers whose songs no longer get airplay, but are still performed widely, can continue receiving the benefit from those songs."
Bill Withers was one of greatest songwriters of the 70s. A string of brilliant lps on Sussex. Then Columbia took over his contract, and refused to release his records. In the 80s he was resorting to releasing his songs on other artists records (like Grover Washington).
The Constitution of the United States Of America call for copyright protection to (and I paraphrase here) promote the advancement of the arts. Mark Twain and Irving Berlin and Disney and the Gershwin heirs have perverted our copyright laws as a well to enrich generations of nonartists.
The record companies have perverted our copyright laws through the use of corrupt high paid lawyers to rip off artists and stifle art.
I would be the first to support the RIAA's action if our copyright laws and those enforcing them were not so corrupt.
2007 is turning out to be a terrible year for the music industry. Or rather, a terrible year for the the music labels.
The DRM walls are crumbling. Music CD sales continue to plummet rather alarmingly. Artists like Prince and Nine Inch Nails are flouting their labels and either giving music away or telling their fans to steal it. Another blow earlier this week: Radiohead, which is no longer controlled by their label, Capitol Records, put their new digital album on sale on the Internet for whatever price people want to pay for it.
The economics of recorded music are fairly simple. Marginal production costs are zero: Like software, it doesn???t cost anything to produce another digital copy that is just as good as the original as soon as the first copy exists, and anyone can create those copies (meaning there is perfect competition and zero barriers to entry). Unless effective legal (copyright), technical (DRM) or other artificial impediments to production can be created, simple economic theory dictates that the price of music, like its marginal cost, must also fall to zero as more ???competitors??? (in this case, listeners who copy) enter the market. The evidence is unmistakable already. In April 2007 the benchmark price for a DRM-free song was $1.29. Today it is $0.89, a drop of 31% in just six months.
P2P networks just exacerbate the problem (or opportunity) further, giving people a way to speed up the process of creating free copies almost to the point of being ridiculous. Today, a billion or so songs are downloaded monthly via BitTorrent, mostly illegally.
Eventually, unless governments are willing to take drastic measures to protect the industry (such as a mandatory music tax), economic theory will win out and the price of music will fall towards zero.
When the industry finally capitulates and realizes that they can no longer charge a meaningful amount of money for digital recorded music, a lot of good things can happen.
First, other revenue sources can and will be exploited, particularly live music, merchandise and limited edition physical copies of music. The signs are already there - the live music industry is booming this year, and Radiohead is releasing a special edition box set of their new album for ??40.00 simultaneous to the release of their ???free??? digital album.
Second, artists and labels will stop thinking of digital music as a source of revenue and start thinking about it as a way to market their real products. Users will be encouraged (even paid, as radio stations are today) to download, listen to and share music. Passionate users who download music from the Internet and share it with others will become the most important customers, not targets for ridiculous lawsuits.
The price of music will likely not fall in the near term to absolutely zero. Charging any price at all requires the use of credit cards and their minimum fees of $0.20 or more per transaction, for example. And services like iTunes and Amazon can continue to charge something for quality of service. With P2P networks you don???t really know what you are getting until you download it. It could, for example, be a virus. Or a poor quality copy. Many users will be willing to pay to avoid those hassles. But as long as BitTorrent exists, or simple music search engines like Skreemr allow users to find and download virtually any song in seconds, they won???t be able to charge much.
Update: There are some blog responses to this post that are, inevitably, complaining about fairness. Arguing against basic economics makes about as much sense as arguing against gravity. Zero marginal cost + competition (anyone can create a copy of a song) results in a zero price, unless government creates artificial barriers to a free market.
Update 2: NBC Universal chief Jeff Zucker: ???We need, across the board, to move IP enforcement up the agenda of the federal government.??? Scary stuff.
Update 3: Paul Glazowski writes a rebuttal, essentially arguing from the fairness perspective. I talk about the fairness argument in the comments below a lot. As I say below, gravity may not be fair, either, but its inevitable. Paul also says the medium has ???value,??? which I don???t dispute. But the fact is that zero marginal production cost plus perfect competition (every consumer is also a potential producer of any song) inevitably equals a zero price. I think Paul???s main point is, even though he doesn???t say it, that government should step in and set a ???fair??? price of $5 - $8 per album. Of course, that will involve getting the feds involved to enforce these laws (see update 2 above), or some kind of music tax (which creates really, really bad incentives).
Update 4: The discussion below is awesome. I think I???d like to do a podcast or video debate with someone who disagrees strongly. Paul Glazowski, mentioned in the third update above, seems to disagree strongly and intelligently and may be willing. If there are any pro-label types out there, I???d be happy to consider them as well. Let me know. Perhaps we could get Scoble or Gillmor to video this for us, too.
The Amazon thing is a step in the right direction. But it is a monopoly and basically unfair. Why should only one web site be allowed to distribute mp3s? When I opened my shop in 1990 I was allowed to sell any domestic release on vinyl, tape or plastic laminated aluminum I could get my hands on. Seems to me I should be allowed to sell anything that Amazon is allowed to sell as long as I buy it from a legit source. Any distribution plan that is based on limiting access is doomed.
Such a license would cost Kwik-Fit roughly ??30,000 per year
Crazy Fuckin' shit!
Edit:
Cue keithvanhorn saying don't do the crime if you can't pay the fine!
The fact is though. If you use music to benefit your workers enviroment, why should you not pay for the privilige?
Artwork, drinks machines & all other aspects of workers enviroment command fees, why should the music be any different.
This is the way the music industry is heading, with sales falling, rights management is where the money will be coming from. Is the system perfect, no way, but that doesn't mean the general premise of it is unsound.
These licence fees DO revert back to writers and performers. Are they skewed towards big companies? definately, but that doesn't mean the little guys don't get a share.
Now I don't work for the PRS, but for a similar organisation, and a colleague has recently tracked down a performer who was not registered with us because there was ??4000 waiting for me. He didn't miss it, but he was legally entitled to it, and is now happy to have that.
People, writers and performers on here need to get their business heads on, because there is money out there potentially waiting for them. As this is a predominately american board, you may not be aware, that just becasue the US doesn't have a fair system of paying performers for airplay (although there is a very small digital right), it doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't. People could be missing out on funds through lack of knowledge.
What about doctor offices and tire shops that have tvs in the waiting room? Should there be a fee involved so artists like Montel and Vana are not being ripped off?
The fact is though. If you use music to benefit your workers enviroment, why should you not pay for the privilige?
But plz be serious. 30,000 pounds a year for a license to play music in ur shop?
Does this mean ever record store in the world shop be sued? I'm pretty sure none pay a license.
To put that in context. Kwik-Fit in their words (are) the leading fast-fit supplier of tyres in the country and carry stocks of over 600,000 products from leading manufacturers including Pirelli, Michelin, Continental, Dunlop and Firestone. With over 570 Centres in the UK you're never far from a Kwik Fit'
so thats 30,000 / 570
When I worked in a record shop in the UK, we had to have this licence, Yes. I can't speak for other countries laws though. I can tell you this is on the lowish end of bug nusiness scales. If you don't like the sound of that I have heard fees that would give you a heartattack.
2007 is turning out to be a terrible year for the music industry. Or rather, a terrible year for the the music labels.
I get so sick of this label bullshit - it's just not true. For the last 6 years the majors have been whining about their businesses going down the pan whilst enjoying the highest album sales ever. They have lost big numbers of CD single sales but it's an overpriced, outdated format.
The majors grudgingly supply their catalogues to a few preferred digital distributors in return for huge set-up fees and fat licensing deals whilst all the time making it as tough as possible to do business with them. The bigger labels need to step up and create a worthwhile digital proposition themselves instead of talking loudly and carrying ever bigger sticks.
The music business at its heart is run by lawyers. The labels now hope that new RIAA-fired legislation will be their saviour but an entertainment business based on fear is no substitute for a proper business model. That Ian Rogers piece says it all.
Good thing she didn't downlaod Boscoe or else the fine may have been higher....
The recording industry won a key fight Thursday against illegal music downloading when a federal jury found a Minnesota woman shared copyrighted music online and levied $222,000 in damages against her.
Jurors ordered Jammie Thomas, 30, to pay the six record companies that sued her $9,250 for each of 24 songs they focused on in the case. They had alleged she shared 1,702 songs online in violation of their copyrights.
Such a license would cost Kwik-Fit roughly ??30,000 per year
Crazy Fuckin' shit!
Edit:
Cue keithvanhorn saying don't do the crime if you can't pay the fine!
The fact is though. If you use music to benefit your workers enviroment, why should you not pay for the privilige?
Artwork, drinks machines & all other aspects of workers enviroment command fees, why should the music be any different.
This is the way the music industry is heading, with sales falling, rights management is where the money will be coming from. Is the system perfect, no way, but that doesn't mean the general premise of it is unsound.
These licence fees DO revert back to writers and performers. Are they skewed towards big companies? definately, but that doesn't mean the little guys don't get a share.
Now I don't work for the PRS, but for a similar organisation, and a colleague has recently tracked down a performer who was not registered with us because there was ??4000 waiting for me. He didn't miss it, but he was legally entitled to it, and is now happy to have that.
People, writers and performers on here need to get their business heads on, because there is money out there potentially waiting for them. As this is a predominately american board, you may not be aware, that just becasue the US doesn't have a fair system of paying performers for airplay (although there is a very small digital right), it doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't. People could be missing out on funds through lack of knowledge.
What about doctor offices and tire shops that have tvs in the waiting room? Should there be a fee involved so artists like Montel and Vana are not being ripped off?
I'm in the UK so we do have a 'tax' for TV watching essentially and I have to admit, I'd much rather pay a flat tax and have less adverts between my programs, but thats not really the point you are making.
The benefit of this 'tax' seems to well in relations to the BBC output.
Big stars and labels are often sighted as examples when fees are debated as to how unfair the fees are. As I gave the example above little people also benefit, and sometimes, PRS & PPL income are all these artists live on. Care to comment on whether that is a good or a bad thing?
Just because the system is skewed towards the big companies doesn't mean at least in my opinion that the system isn't at its heart a good idea. Use peoples creations. Pay for that usage. Much as I'd love to live in a Utopian world where everything I want is free, sadly I don't
Oh and I don't know who Vana is
As for the fact that music institutions don't do things for the little fellas, how about
The RIAA is part of the coalition to make radio stations pay a usage fee to each and every performer that receives airplay on Amercian radio.
From what little I know of the RIAA I am no real fan, but they are working for performers aswell on what would be a huge revenue stream for them if it could be accomplished. I think a lot of the time its perception and these companies are only heard of when they are suing single mothers for downloading rather than for the potentially positive things these organisations often do.
As an aside I find it funny that for Rights organisations worldwide the Axis of evil is China, Iran, North Korea & The US. (Pakistan also doesn't pay a performance share, but that wouldn't make the point work so well)
The thing is that study after study has shown that downloading has very, very little impact on declining album sales. RIAA is chasing after a red herring and making the rest of us pay for their crusade.
C'mon, now--the only thing such studies tell us is that their methodology was somehow fundamentally flawed.
Young people don't pay for music anymore. It's over. I don't know how anyone could continue to deny that.
you are right. ive always harbored this belief that if you made it easy for people to buy it they would, but on a larger, long term level, its over. i havent paid for new music in nearly a decade, i cant continue to expect that other people will.
I went out and bought 10 CDs this past week most of which I had illegally downloaded first and listened to thoroughly. I just think it's really important to support those artists. It's pretty shameful that people IN THE RECORD INDUSTRY (not just you, B) are like, "I haven't paid for new music in years".
Also, I got really geeked when I got home with all this music, even though I had heard a lot of it before... I miss the feeling of going and picking up a grip of new shit. I never really like MP3s but I will buy them for single songs if I don't want the rest of the record. $10 for a full album on itunes seems really steep.
The thing is that study after study has shown that downloading has very, very little impact on declining album sales. RIAA is chasing after a red herring and making the rest of us pay for their crusade.
C'mon, now--the only thing such studies tell us is that their methodology was somehow fundamentally flawed.
Young people don't pay for music anymore. It's over. I don't know how anyone could continue to deny that.
you are right. ive always harbored this belief that if you made it easy for people to buy it they would, but on a larger, long term level, its over. i havent paid for new music in nearly a decade, i cant continue to expect that other people will.
it does suck though.
Nah, CD sales are very healthy. You have more downloaders but more people buying physical products too. 85% of people with iPods load them up from CDs transferred to their computers, not from internet downloads...
Comments
ha, i think this is apples and oranges. artists aren't losing money (or potentially losing money) every time Kwik-Fit employees blast their car radio....that is, unless Kwik-Fit has such good car stereos that they are "performing" for all of their neighbors.
my argument has never been what you stated btw. in fact, i don't agree that the punishment (over 200 grand) fits the crime for that woman did. but, the fact is that she violated the law...a good law, imo, because it protects artists' work. unfortunately, if they made the penalties any less severe, consumers would have ZERO fear of "facing the music", because not only would there be a small risk of getting caught (which there already is), but even if they did get caught, the penalty wouldn't serve as a deterrent. At least for now, and partially due to the publicity of this case, people MIGHT think twice before logging on to limewire.
I dunno. Again, I was proposing that the fine be more comparable to a speeding ticket. Speeding tickets DO slow people down -- at least when cops are visibly nearby. Not that I particularly like this scenario, but if people believed there were cops "visible" on torrent sites and blogs that could hit em with a $125 ticket w/o warning, they might think twice.
Instead, they've hit one woman with a back-breaking bill. So everyone stops downloading for a moment to shake their heads at her back luck, and then go right back to double-clicking on that torrent for the entire Neil Young discography.
See the thing is. They don't protect artist, it's really about protecting copyright holders.
If the RIAA was really about protecting artist, you'd see things in the media once in a blue moon on them fighting for an artist against a major label. How many artist have been at a minimum ripped off to a maximum of having their whole life's work stolen from them???
I never see any label or so called music artist advocacy group looking out for them.
You are unreal! This has nothing to with artists and art. It has been pointed out a hundred times in this thread, but you continue to ignore fact.
I think you do have a good point. Instead of spending 100s of 1,000 of dollars to persecute one person they would be better off trying to bust as many people as possible.
Then you would quit stealing. Something you admit doing even though you believe that it hurts artists. Who you say you support even though you steal from them because you wont get caught even though you think the laws that you think protect them are fair even though you wont follow those laws because you wont get caught even though you think it is stealing from artists who you say you support even though you steal from them because you wont get caught even though you think you should get caught and fined thousands of dollars because that is fair because it is a good law even though you wont follow it because you know you wont get caught.
I hope you were telling the truth about donating to Darfur. It would be nice to know you have redeeming qualities.
^That's what I was going to say.
The fact is though. If you use music to benefit your workers enviroment, why should you not pay for the privilige?
Artwork, drinks machines & all other aspects of workers enviroment command fees, why should the music be any different.
This is the way the music industry is heading, with sales falling, rights management is where the money will be coming from. Is the system perfect, no way, but that doesn't mean the general premise of it is unsound.
These licence fees DO revert back to writers and performers. Are they skewed towards big companies? definately, but that doesn't mean the little guys don't get a share.
Now I don't work for the PRS, but for a similar organisation, and a colleague has recently tracked down a performer who was not registered with us because there was ??4000 waiting for me. He didn't miss it, but he was legally entitled to it, and is now happy to have that.
People, writers and performers on here need to get their business heads on, because there is money out there potentially waiting for them. As this is a predominately american board, you may not be aware, that just becasue the US doesn't have a fair system of paying performers for airplay (although there is a very small digital right), it doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't. People could be missing out on funds through lack of knowledge.
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat073107.html
yes, it really does. copyright laws are the legal device from which artists are able to protect their work. if an artist chooses to give up their copyright, that is a completely unrelated issue.
I don't know why you are attacking me. Is it because I support artists and not thieves? You don't seem to understand that there is a difference between a good law and a penalty that is not proportionate to the "good law" that was broken. Laws that protect copyrights are essential. If you don't understand that, pm me, and I will explain it to you. As far as the penalties are concerned, I have already said over and over that the punishment (in this woman's case) did not fit the crime. However, because of the problems with enforcement, i agree that a severe penalty, such as the one imposed on this woman, is, for the time being, the only way to DETER this crime.
If you can offer up another way to deter people from infringing lawful copyrights, i'd love to hear it.
btw, you need to quit with this "redeeming qualities" shit. you don't know me, right?
But plz be serious. 30,000 pounds a year for a license to play music in ur shop?
Does this mean ever record store in the world shop be sued? I'm pretty sure none pay a license.
DRM for profit is bullshit, piracy will always occur. If it can be read, it can be pirated. Give a consumer something more convenient than the black-market, and they will pay for the service.
Right now, it's a dog and pony show that is financially crippling music listeners, seemingly at random- not to mention that it is economically unsound.
amazon has mp3s that are in normal format. they have 2 of the 4 major labels right now, and will probably get all 4 by the holiday season, according to this month's Rolling Stone.
you say piracy will always occur, but who knows what technological advances are in the works.
For most people, amazon is more convenient than filesharing software, blog searches, etc. They simply use their web UI to click on a song and purchase it at $9,249 less than the RIAA thinks we should pay for songs. There is no software to install (a la soulseek, et al). Most people really aren't that computer literate when it comes to dl'ing and installing software/troubleshooting, etc. which comes with the territory with most file sharing, bit torrenting or whatever.
Amazon found a DRM-free way to make it more convenient for consumers (not that providing cheap mp3 files is revolutionary, just a legit site w/ no DRM), and they will profit for the service they have provided.
http://janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html
This stuff kills me.
"If they really wanted to do something for the great majority of artists, who eke out a living against all odds, they could tackle some of the real issues facing us:
* The normal industry contract is for seven albums, with no end date, which would be considered at best indentured servitude (and at worst slavery) in any other business. In fact, it would be illegal.
* A label can shelve your project, then extend your contract by one more album because what you turned in was "commercially or artistically unacceptable". They alone determine that criteria.
* Singer-songwriters have to accept the "Controlled Composition Clause" (which dictates that they'll be paid only 75% of the rates set by Congress in publishing royalties) for any major or subsidiary label recording contract, or lose the contract. Simply put, the clause demanded by the labels provides that a) if you write your own songs, you will only be paid 3/4 of what Congress has told the record companies they must pay you, and b) if you co-write, you will use your "best efforts" to ensure that other songwriters accept the 75% rate as well. If they refuse, you must agree to make up the difference out of your share.
* Congressionally set writer/publisher royalties have risen from their 1960's high (2 cents per side) to a munificent 8 cents.Many of us began in the 50's and 60's; our records are still in release, and we're still being paid royalty rates of 2% (if anything) on them.If we're not songwriters, and not hugely successful commercially (as in platinum-plus), we don't make a dime off our recordings. Recording industry accounting procedures are right up there with films.
* Worse yet, when records go out-of-print, we don't get them back! We can't even take them to another company. Careers have been deliberately killed in this manner, with the record company refusing to release product or allow the artist to take it somewhere else.
* And because a record label "owns" your voice for the duration of the contract, you can't go somewhere else and re-record those same songs they turned down.
* And because of the re-record provision, even after your contract is over, you can't record those songs for someone else for years, and sometimes decades.
* Last but not least, America is the only country I am aware of that pays no live performance royalties to songwriters. In Europe, Japan, Australia, when you finish a show, you turn your set list in to the promoter, who files it with the appropriate organization, and then pays a small royalty per song to the writer. It costs the singer nothing, the rates are based on venue size, and it ensures that writers whose songs no longer get airplay, but are still performed widely, can continue receiving the benefit from those songs."
It may no longer be law, but at that time it was.
Side thought.
Who wants to bet as more & more Artist start leaving labels (Like Radiohead) that the labels turn around and make deals with all major venues. Suing anyone not in the "recording Artist union" from playing there.
If you download, I don't think it's to much of a biggie. When one things goes down, 5 more pop up.
Just bought the Bmore band Celebration's new LP on 4AD, and it comes with a ticket for three free downloads of the entire album in digital format. Are a lot of bands/labels doing this?
I see that as a very viable alternative to the Radiohead model, and one that makes a lot more sense to bands that have a modest fanbase (and can't afford to press $80 deluxe editions of their music, let alone garner worldwide attention with the release of their new album).
--Like Radiohead, it acknowledges in a positive, friendly manner the access we have to free music due to dling and file-sharing
--Like Radiohead, it offers something better to the person willing to spend some cash
--Unlike Radiohead, it offers the digital version at a high-quality transfer rate
--Unlike Radiohead, you don't have to spend $80 to get the vinyl version
--Like Radiohead, it plays on your guilt, basically asking "we know you have the ability to effortlessly share this music for free, but out of respect to us could you limit doing so to 2-3 friends?"
No, I don't know you. I will try to get off my high horse. Sorry to pick on you.
Bill Withers was one of greatest songwriters of the 70s. A string of brilliant lps on Sussex. Then Columbia took over his contract, and refused to release his records. In the 80s he was resorting to releasing his songs on other artists records (like Grover Washington).
The Constitution of the United States Of America call for copyright protection to (and I paraphrase here) promote the advancement of the arts. Mark Twain and Irving Berlin and Disney and the Gershwin heirs have perverted our copyright laws as a well to enrich generations of nonartists.
The record companies have perverted our copyright laws through the use of corrupt high paid lawyers to rip off artists and stifle art.
I would be the first to support the RIAA's action if our copyright laws and those enforcing them were not so corrupt.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/10/04/the-inevitable-march-of-recorded-music-towards-free/
Michael Arrington
2007 is turning out to be a terrible year for the music industry. Or rather, a terrible year for the the music labels.
The DRM walls are crumbling. Music CD sales continue to plummet rather alarmingly. Artists like Prince and Nine Inch Nails are flouting their labels and either giving music away or telling their fans to steal it. Another blow earlier this week: Radiohead, which is no longer controlled by their label, Capitol Records, put their new digital album on sale on the Internet for whatever price people want to pay for it.
The economics of recorded music are fairly simple. Marginal production costs are zero: Like software, it doesn???t cost anything to produce another digital copy that is just as good as the original as soon as the first copy exists, and anyone can create those copies (meaning there is perfect competition and zero barriers to entry). Unless effective legal (copyright), technical (DRM) or other artificial impediments to production can be created, simple economic theory dictates that the price of music, like its marginal cost, must also fall to zero as more ???competitors??? (in this case, listeners who copy) enter the market. The evidence is unmistakable already. In April 2007 the benchmark price for a DRM-free song was $1.29. Today it is $0.89, a drop of 31% in just six months.
P2P networks just exacerbate the problem (or opportunity) further, giving people a way to speed up the process of creating free copies almost to the point of being ridiculous. Today, a billion or so songs are downloaded monthly via BitTorrent, mostly illegally.
Eventually, unless governments are willing to take drastic measures to protect the industry (such as a mandatory music tax), economic theory will win out and the price of music will fall towards zero.
When the industry finally capitulates and realizes that they can no longer charge a meaningful amount of money for digital recorded music, a lot of good things can happen.
First, other revenue sources can and will be exploited, particularly live music, merchandise and limited edition physical copies of music. The signs are already there - the live music industry is booming this year, and Radiohead is releasing a special edition box set of their new album for ??40.00 simultaneous to the release of their ???free??? digital album.
Second, artists and labels will stop thinking of digital music as a source of revenue and start thinking about it as a way to market their real products. Users will be encouraged (even paid, as radio stations are today) to download, listen to and share music. Passionate users who download music from the Internet and share it with others will become the most important customers, not targets for ridiculous lawsuits.
The price of music will likely not fall in the near term to absolutely zero. Charging any price at all requires the use of credit cards and their minimum fees of $0.20 or more per transaction, for example. And services like iTunes and Amazon can continue to charge something for quality of service. With P2P networks you don???t really know what you are getting until you download it. It could, for example, be a virus. Or a poor quality copy. Many users will be willing to pay to avoid those hassles. But as long as BitTorrent exists, or simple music search engines like Skreemr allow users to find and download virtually any song in seconds, they won???t be able to charge much.
Update: There are some blog responses to this post that are, inevitably, complaining about fairness. Arguing against basic economics makes about as much sense as arguing against gravity. Zero marginal cost + competition (anyone can create a copy of a song) results in a zero price, unless government creates artificial barriers to a free market.
Update 2: NBC Universal chief Jeff Zucker: ???We need, across the board, to move IP enforcement up the agenda of the federal government.??? Scary stuff.
Update 3: Paul Glazowski writes a rebuttal, essentially arguing from the fairness perspective. I talk about the fairness argument in the comments below a lot. As I say below, gravity may not be fair, either, but its inevitable. Paul also says the medium has ???value,??? which I don???t dispute. But the fact is that zero marginal production cost plus perfect competition (every consumer is also a potential producer of any song) inevitably equals a zero price. I think Paul???s main point is, even though he doesn???t say it, that government should step in and set a ???fair??? price of $5 - $8 per album. Of course, that will involve getting the feds involved to enforce these laws (see update 2 above), or some kind of music tax (which creates really, really bad incentives).
Update 4: The discussion below is awesome. I think I???d like to do a podcast or video debate with someone who disagrees strongly. Paul Glazowski, mentioned in the third update above, seems to disagree strongly and intelligently and may be willing. If there are any pro-label types out there, I???d be happy to consider them as well. Let me know. Perhaps we could get Scoble or Gillmor to video this for us, too.
What about doctor offices and tire shops that have tvs in the waiting room? Should there be a fee involved so artists like Montel and Vana are not being ripped off?
To put that in context. Kwik-Fit in their words (are) the leading fast-fit supplier of tyres in the country and carry stocks of over 600,000 products from leading manufacturers including Pirelli, Michelin, Continental, Dunlop and Firestone. With over 570 Centres in the UK you're never far from a Kwik Fit'
so thats 30,000 / 570
When I worked in a record shop in the UK, we had to have this licence, Yes. I can't speak for other countries laws though. I can tell you this is on the lowish end of bug nusiness scales. If you don't like the sound of that I have heard fees that would give you a heartattack.
I get so sick of this label bullshit - it's just not true. For the last 6 years the majors have been whining about their businesses going down the pan whilst enjoying the highest album sales ever. They have lost big numbers of CD single sales but it's an overpriced, outdated format.
The majors grudgingly supply their catalogues to a few preferred digital distributors in return for huge set-up fees and fat licensing deals whilst all the time making it as tough as possible to do business with them. The bigger labels need to step up and create a worthwhile digital proposition themselves instead of talking loudly and carrying ever bigger sticks.
The music business at its heart is run by lawyers. The labels now hope that new RIAA-fired legislation will be their saviour but an entertainment business based on fear is no substitute for a proper business model. That Ian Rogers piece says it all.
When will these damn record labels give in and join us?
CD'S ARE THE PAST!!!!!!!!!! MP3'S ARE NOW!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm in the UK so we do have a 'tax' for TV watching essentially and I have to admit, I'd much rather pay a flat tax and have less adverts between my programs, but thats not really the point you are making.
The benefit of this 'tax' seems to well in relations to the BBC output.
Big stars and labels are often sighted as examples when fees are debated as to how unfair the fees are. As I gave the example above little people also benefit, and sometimes, PRS & PPL income are all these artists live on. Care to comment on whether that is a good or a bad thing?
Just because the system is skewed towards the big companies doesn't mean at least in my opinion that the system isn't at its heart a good idea. Use peoples creations. Pay for that usage. Much as I'd love to live in a Utopian world where everything I want is free, sadly I don't
Oh and I don't know who Vana is
As for the fact that music institutions don't do things for the little fellas, how about
http://www.musicfirstcoalition.org/#/about/coalition/
The RIAA is part of the coalition to make radio stations pay a usage fee to each and every performer that receives airplay on Amercian radio.
From what little I know of the RIAA I am no real fan, but they are working for performers aswell on what would be a huge revenue stream for them if it could be accomplished. I think a lot of the time its perception and these companies are only heard of when they are suing single mothers for downloading rather than for the potentially positive things these organisations often do.
As an aside I find it funny that for Rights organisations worldwide the Axis of evil is China, Iran, North Korea & The US. (Pakistan also doesn't pay a performance share, but that wouldn't make the point work so well)
you are right. ive always harbored this belief that if you made it easy for people to buy it they would, but on a larger, long term level, its over. i havent paid for new music in nearly a decade, i cant continue to expect that other people will.
it does suck though.
Also, I got really geeked when I got home with all this music, even though I had heard a lot of it before... I miss the feeling of going and picking up a grip of new shit. I never really like MP3s but I will buy them for single songs if I don't want the rest of the record. $10 for a full album on itunes seems really steep.
Nah, CD sales are very healthy. You have more downloaders but more people buying physical products too. 85% of people with iPods load them up from CDs transferred to their computers, not from internet downloads...