Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media The Almighty Buck

Record Labels May Have to Pay Double Royalties 388

Posted by michael from the couldn't-happen-to-a-nicer-bunch dept.
douglips writes "News.com.com.com brings us this article explaining how record labels may be bitten by CD copy protection. At issue is the mechanism that places duplicate WMA tracks on the CD. The labels are thus selling two copies of each song, and may be required to pay twice as much to music publishers. So not only is the DRM ineffective, it also could be a huge legal liability for labels."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Record Labels May Have to Pay Double Royalties More

Record Labels May Have to Pay Double Royalties

Comments Filter:

  • The little guy gets paid? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by VinceWuzHere ( 733075 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @04:48PM (#7966541)
    I wonder if this means the lyrics writers and all the other "little people" behind the scenes will get paid twice - finally the value of what they are worth...

    • Re:The little guy gets paid? (Score:5, Funny)

      by lucabrasi999 ( 585141 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @04:52PM (#7966610) Journal
      I wonder if this means the lyrics writers and all the other "little people" behind the scenes will get paid twice

      Are you insinuating that the "little people" in the record business don't get paid their fare share? That the lawyers and record executives, have, for decades, kept all the money themselves and screwed over the songwriters? That record companies are huge, bloated bureacracies that add little value to the creative process? That....

      OK, you sold me.


    • I wonder if this means the lyrics writers and all the other "little people" behind the scenes will get paid twice - finally the value of what they are worth...

      Hey man, Hobbits prefer little folk to little people. Where is your Slashdot-Enhanced Political Correctness?

      Oh, wait... you were referring to the starving taiwanese children that assemble the cases and run the printers for the album inserts?

    • Re:The little guy gets paid? (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Artists : Since only half of the 2 billion tracks you distributed were authorized we are suing you under DMCA for $150,000 per track. That'll be 150 trillion
      dollars please.

      RIAA : Whaaaaaaa?

    • Re:The little guy gets paid? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gcaseye6677 ( 694805 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @06:20PM (#7967575)
      I highly doubt the record labels will pay out twice. They'll say something along the lines of "We're not paying you twice, if you don't like it, sue us." We can all imagine just how much of a chance an artist has at prevailing in a suit against the well funded RIAA.
      • no, no, no.

        There *is* more than a snowball's chance in hell here. If you read the topic, it says label would pay the PUBLISHER, not the artist. I'm not sure exactly how that all works, or even if that's right, but if you look on a cd, you'll see something along the lines of "All songs published by SomethingSomething/BMI [bmi.com]." Where BMI is one of a few publishing houses.

  • Let me quote Nelson Muntz, (Score:5, Funny)

    by IvyMike ( 178408 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @04:48PM (#7966544)
    Ha-Ha!

  • let me be the first to say... (Score:5, Funny)

    by wo1verin3 ( 473094 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @04:48PM (#7966549) Homepage
    (or maybe second)

    That wow, that sucks eh? Having to pay more to ship your product? Poor little labels.... spending money to infringe on customers fair use rights didn't work out for you? *light punch in arm* Aw com'on slugger, it'll be okay.
    • That wow, that sucks eh? Having to pay more to ship your product? Poor little labels....

      I think little labels may be exact the people that will be most hurt by this. I've purchased some very quality cds for about $9 (which is much more fair IMHO,) from smaller labels who carry less-than-famous artists. Could be a major hit to these small record labels, which may not have huge amounts of revenue.

    • Re:let me be the first to say... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by i_r_sensitive ( 697893 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @05:34PM (#7967043)
      First off, they aren't paying for anything, people who buy music are, they aren't going to eat that cost, just pass it along. After all, the money they've spent has been in reaction to a perceived threat to their revenue stream, this is not a cost I would expect anyone to happily defray.

      Secondly, what is this fair use rights? I strongly suspect in the end it boils down to your assertion that you should get something for nothing. That is an incorrect assertion. If you are talking about the try then buy "right" then I would suggest you explore how much that relationship is based on trust, and what little reason the other side has to trust the average consumer in view of the rampant exhcange of illegally copied/distributed material.

      Back in the tape to tape or CD to tape days these concepts had meaning. It wasn't easy to perform large scale unlawful copying. The music industry turned a bit of a blind eye to the whole affair because it was not perceived as a negative. Throw in the internet and peoples (mistaken) impression that it is nothing more than unlimited freedom with no responsibility, and that equation changes drastically, and rapidly. Factor in that people seem to now expect the music industry to accept that people can defraud them of their due revenues by unlawful copying and distribution is not only narcisistic and short-sighted, it is unrealistic and plainly not going to happen.

      I would suggest you consider what you think is fair use, is it really fair? If it is fair, is it predicated on trust that has been abused and broken? Would it be fair from the other side of the equation? Is it fair to the artists who ultimately produce the work in question? Is greed a sufficient justification to deprive these folks of what they are due from their creations? Hey even if you know that they are getting ripped off by the label worse than the consumer, please explain to me how it is depriving them of what revenues they can generate demonstrates aawareness of or support for their plight?

      Bottom line, there are consequences, this is just another one, a slightly humorous one, but just another consequence. Go ahead, keep on pulling the Kitty's tail, that will make it better...

      • Re:let me be the first to say... (Score:5, Informative)

        by nathanh ( 1214 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @06:47PM (#7967896) Homepage
        Secondly, what is this fair use rights? I strongly suspect in the end it boils down to your assertion that you should get something for nothing. That is an incorrect assertion.

        That's right, you've made an incorrect assertion.

        If you are talking about the try then buy "right"

        And another one.

        Fair use rights means the right to use your legally purchased goods however you see fit. That's why it's called fair (as in unobstructed) use (as in application).

        If I buy a pair of scissors then I have the fair use rights to use those scissors to cut paper, or cloth, or as a substitute screwdriver. They're my scissors. How I use those scissors is nobody's business but my own.

        When I buy a CD I also have these fair use rights. I can listen to the music in my car. Or my house. Or on a portable player. I can use it as background music while I wash the dishes, or play it loud and throw my arms around like a pretend conductor. I can use that CD as I see fit.

        And this includes using the music on that CD in ways that the seller did not intend. That includes using it on a portable MP3 player, or in a compilation disc for my car. My fair use rights gives me that permission.

        DRM takes away my fair use rights because it unfairly stops me using the music in perfectly legitimate ways. DRM is an obstruction to my usage of the CD and the music. That's why it's not fair.

        So when you equate "fair use" with piracy and illegal copying, you are incorrect. Fair use has nothing to do with piracy. It has everything to do with fair use of the goods you have already paid for.

      • Re:let me be the first to say... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by DA-MAN ( 17442 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @06:52PM (#7967937) Homepage
        What you don't seem to understand is that the Music Industry seems to want it both ways.

        When I purchase a CD for full price, if I purchased a license, I should be able to get another if my cd gets damaged for the price of the media (blank cd's are under $0.25, I assume they get an even better deal than this when they mass produce them). This is not how it currently works I should also be able to get different formats for the price of the media. If I bought a cd, why can't I download the mp3 for a modest $0.10 cent bandwidth fee?

        If they aren't licensing me the music, are they selling me the cd? Doesn't that mean I should be legally allowed to copy my cd if it get's damaged? After all it is MINE! If my cd gets damaged, I would have to pay full price for something I already own. If my car get's a scratch, I can give it a paint job, I don't have to go out and buy a new car. The same is not true for cd's.

        What is pissing everyone off with their restrictions is that they aren't being clear with what it is you get when you buy a cd. Is it a licensed product? Is it a sold product? There are different rules for each, and they want the protection of a license, without dealing with the drawbacks.

  • The labels are thus selling two copies of each song, and may be required to pay twice as much to music publishers.

    Only if the people involved are idiots...oh...nevermind.

    • What about the lyrics? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Nakito ( 702386 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @05:10PM (#7966844)
      Consider this: on almost every album since Sgt. Pepper, the record labels have included printed lyrics along with the album itself. Lyrics are, of course, copyrighted. So the copyrighted lyrics are provided twice, in two different formats: once printed and once sung. Does this mean that lyricists have been cheated for 35 years?
      • usually when lyrics are printed, the booklet says something like "used by permission." this does not mean that nobody is getting screwed, but at least there is some sort of formal notification of rights being stated.
      • Consider this: on almost every album since Sgt. Pepper, the record labels have included printed lyrics along with the album itself.

        Almost none of the CDs I've bought in the past 5 years have included any lyrics.

        So the copyrighted lyrics are provided twice, in two different formats: once printed and once sung. Does this mean that lyricists have been cheated for 35 years?

        No, because there are two different types of copyright in play here.

        The printed words are covered by mechanical copyright. The audio

  • Canadian Artists (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tobechar ( 678914 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @04:50PM (#7966577)

    So far in Canada, artists have not been paid a cent from the CD-R royalties we all pay.

    Where does it all go? Well, at least we know where it doesn't go.

    • Re:Canadian Artists (Score:5, Informative)

      by i_r_sensitive ( 697893 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @05:04PM (#7966773)
      Every Candian Band that has received a SOCAN grant since the CD-R tax started is living proof of the fallacy of that statement.

      No, you are correct, the monies are not paid directly to the artists, but rather to SOCAN, which then uses those monies for grants, etc. etc. A little of what you recorded now going to the artists of tomorrow, but the money does go to the artists. I also believe that some of that money is distributed to SOCAN members as royalty payments as well, but I'm not 100% on that one.

      • If I'm not mistaken, we in the US have to pay a royalty tax on CD-R media as well -- it's not quite the level of extortion that exists in Canada, but it's still there. I have two questions.

        Could Canadians mail-order CD-R media (or other products subject to the extortion fee set up by the criminal recording outfit) from the US to bypass this tax that has been implemented by crooked politicians?

        Because we're paying money to the recording industry -- both in the US and in Canada -- and not receiving any con

    • Re:Canadian Artists (Score:5, Informative)

      by schon ( 31600 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @05:19PM (#7966917)
      So far in Canada, artists have not been paid a cent from the CD-R royalties we all pay.

      Not true. [neil.eton.ca]

      Most of the money ($28M) collected for 2000 and 2001 has been distributed, with 66% of it going to songwriters, and ~19% going to musicians/singers. (The remaining ~15% went to record labels.) They say they should have a good start on distributing the money collected for 2002 ($26M).

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @04:50PM (#7966582)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Of course you know what will happen next... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cherveny ( 647444 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @04:50PM (#7966587) Homepage
    If the payments are made, then of course the labels profits will fall. So, what will they say next quarter to make their shareholders happy? "It's all because of those damn internet pirates. We need more legislation against them, or our profits will continue to fall."
  • ...RIAA is hung by their own batard by Record Labels. Hillary Rosen is seen being burned at the stake as a bit...er...witch, while iPod-Lugging geeks worldwide chant "burn, baby, burn".

    Hey, a man can dream, can't he?

    Joe

  • Lame (Score:2)

    by BLAMM! ( 301082 )
    Seems like a lame charge, but no lamer than the copy protection shenanigans.

    Two wrongs don't make a right, but do two lames?

    • Re:Lame (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      make an mp6?

    • No... (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      But two limes can make a margarita. How 'bout we all just chill out and have a drink?
  • If the labels pay 2x, does that mean the costs of CDs will be going back up?

  • No problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mao che minh ( 611166 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @04:51PM (#7966594) Journal
    The record industry will just price-fix in the added costs, problem solved.

  • A silly proposition (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @04:51PM (#7966600)
    And I suppose if they included .ogg, .rm, .wma, .mp3, .mp4 files, each would be a copy and therefore to be charged for?

    Whether or not the record companies deserve this, it's basically an asinine proposition that everyone possible be reimbursed every particular format included on a CD. Very, very last century. But, what do you expect from artists like Metallica?

  • THAT'S OK!! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @04:51PM (#7966605)
    They can just pass the cost on to the consumer. Problem solved!

  • Muhahahahahaha!!!!!!!!! (Score:3, Informative)

    by JRHelgeson ( 576325 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @04:52PM (#7966607) Homepage Journal
    They've underrmined their own authority by means of their own greeed!

    They've made their bed, and now they're finding they don't want to sleep in it?

    Why, thats just awful...

    • "They've made their bed, and now they're finding they don't want to sleep in it?"

      Or they're setting up a nasty problem. If the Record Companies have to pay for having two copies of a song on one disc, then they can claim that somebody who dupes their CDs to use in their cars are obligated to pay royalties to have those copies.

      Though I'd be surprised if the RIAA was smart enough to think of something like that.

  • FNORD (Score:5, Interesting)

    by virgo cluster ( 741002 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @04:52PM (#7966615)
    Might this be the lame excuse for the shift to Digital Restriction only CDs? Because it serves the customer because it doesn't have to be twice as expansive?

    • Re:FNORD (Score:3, Informative)

      by Have Blue ( 616 )
      The number of standalone CD players in the world is orders of magnitude greater than the number of PCs. It will be a very, very long time before that switch makes economic sense.

  • Solution: CD with DRM Software (Score:5, Insightful)

    by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @04:54PM (#7966634)
    Why do they have to put copies of the tracks in both formats on the disk? Why can't the labels create a small software application that hides the raw data tracks from PCs and "allows" the CD owner to create DRMed files? This would bypass the "pay royalties twice for distributing two copies of each track" problem.

    • Re:Solution: CD with DRM Software (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MikeXpop ( 614167 ) <mike&redcrowbar,com> on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @05:05PM (#7966786) Journal
      I'm sure my stereo will love that.
    • Can you imagine if when recorded music first became widely available and used if live musicians successfully sued to have the technology banned or heavily taxed because it would put them out of business? Apply that kind of logic to every sector and you've got a world of nothing but amish lawyers and tax collectors.

      Whats far more ridiculous though is they think its sensical to inconvience the paying consumer when they could just get a no strings attached version online. I'm sure the vast majority of peopl
    • That's sort of what they do now. On protected CDs there are normal "fixed" tracks for CD players. When you put the CD in a PC, it can't read the broken CD tracks/ directory so it defaults to a copy of wma files. You typically have to hook up on the net to play them and get a "license" for your windows media player. But then you have offical copies [OK, they're loaded with DRM but that's a different issue].

      This is classic of the industry shooting itself in the foot!!! That policy was a great concessi

  • I don't see the problem... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by smack_attack ( 171144 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @04:54PM (#7966636) Homepage
    They already charge twice as much as a CD is worth.

  • Redamndiculous (Score:3, Insightful)

    by happyfrogcow ( 708359 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @04:54PM (#7966638)
    Even though this is comming from "Music publishers and songwriters, who are entitled to payments of a few cents for every copy of a song sold," this is so rediculous I don't even know where to begin.

    the whole recording industry is so out of touch, not just the RIAA stormtroopers.
  • REAP WHAT YOU SOW... INSTANT KHARMA... CHICKENS COME HOME TO ROOST...
    OK enough already. I guess I just want to say, that this is the kind of news that puts a BIG ol' grin on my face. Don't get me wrong - I don't believe in stealing copyrighted material and screwing the artist (besides, as most of us know, the record companies already do a fine job in this respect).
    It's just nice to see occasionally, that bullshit legislation can blow-up in the face of the almighty lobbylists and greed mongers.
    Let's pr

  • That's ok (Score:5, Insightful)

    by freidog ( 706941 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @04:55PM (#7966658)
    the labels will just double the price of CDs and blame it on file swapping.
    You didn't think the consumer would get out of getting screwed did you?
    • That would start an all out war. I don't know anyone who would have moral trouble with P2Ping a couple of songs off an album if the price point was much higher. Cable tv and audio recordings seem to be the two things that increase in price as the technologies become more and more common.
    • "the labels will just double the price of CDs and blame it on file swapping."

      In order to thrwart piracy and prevent prices from going up, we will use anti-piracy measures and raise the cost of music.

      Actually yes, I could see the record industry doing that, but no it won't happen. If they want me to buy DRM infested music, they will have to lower the price. Afterall, I can't do as much with it.
  • This one comes with each song in six formats, all performed by the RIAA Rent-A-Cops. "We make money so you don't have to". Keepin' it in the the family.
  • There's a simple solution to this problem: we'll have the big five [about.com] charge consumers twice the price of a DRM CD because they're getting twice the product.

    How's that for added value?

    • IMO if CD prices were to suddenly double because the Big Five get it into their heads that they're selling twice as much music, it would likely hasten the fall of the Big Five even further.

      Current CDs cost approx. $10-15 right now - could you imagine paying up to $30 for a CD which only used to be $15?

  • The neat thing about this: (Score:3, Interesting)

    by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) * on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @05:01PM (#7966726) Homepage
    Yes, the record companies will have to pay more ( which will become a higher consumer cost, mind you ), but what's really cool is if they don't play ball with the publishers, the publishers have the right to sue for "damages", which could be substanially more than the actual missing royalies.

  • When will they learn (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rhetoric ( 735114 ) <rhetoricNO@SPAMcolumbus.rr.com> on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @05:02PM (#7966754)
    That any CD I can play, I can rip. It's AUDIO rofl. At very worst I can just play it back and record it to another device, unprotected. Big deal.... DRM for audio is such a joke.. This isn't intended to be flamebait, it just seems so ludicrous to me.

  • This is so unfair! (Score:5, Funny)

    by rjelks ( 635588 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @05:04PM (#7966775) Homepage
    How can the labels stay in business if they have to pay double royalties to the greedy artists. The artists are already getting a fat $0.50 for every $17.00 CD sold. First the record companies lost billions in sales to the evil pirates and now DRM is going to cost them more profits. Will the RIAA be able to afford their paratroopers now? What will this do to their lawsuits. This is a travesty of justice! Why oh why won't someone think of the children? - p.s. - HaHA! - nelson -
  • That adding copy protection to things creates additional overhead and expense?

  • Not As Simple As That? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tonyr60 ( 32153 ) * on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @05:06PM (#7966794)
    I have a couple of issues with the logic that 2 copies of the song are being sold.

    First up, is it not really a single user license to play the song that is being sold?

    And, only one copy of the music can be played at any one time.

    So how is the copyright holder disadvantaged by this?
    • Your last comment about only being able to play one bit of music at a time isn't necessarily true. What about people with multiple soundcards, and a player app that can run in parallel and read two separate files (not necessarily from CD) and output them to different sound drivers?
    • Your first comment about purchasing a license is incorrect. When you buy a CD, you are flat-out purchasing the physical media and the information encoded on it. You own it, but copyright laws says you cannot distribute copies. Never get lead into an argument about "licenses," because there are none at the consumer's level, period.

  • Hmmm (Score:4, Funny)

    by Kadagan AU ( 638260 ) <kadaganNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @05:07PM (#7966806) Journal
    If you're buying two copies, but only using one, doesn't that mean you have one to give away via an file sharing network? I mean, I rip all my CDs and use only one mp3 copy. So I've got a spare copy that I can give away, right?
    1. The Studios agree to pay up to the artists, then increase the price of the CDs to cover costs (plus a small additional margin).
    2. More artists ask for their CDs to be "copy protected" so they can get more money.
    3. More consumers get annoyed with CDs that won't play properly and do strange things to their computers.
    4. More consumers stop buying CDs and switch to on-line alternatives, and not necessarily those with the RIAA "seal of approval".
    5. All of the above.
    6. The Studios realise that it was a bad idea and stop u
  • This would officially make record companies the world's largest distributors of "pirated" tracks. Boy would I love to see an enforcement team from the Recording Artists Coalition [recordinga...lition.com] sweep down on RIAA headquarters wearing police-style jackets and baseball caps with "RAC" emplazoned on them, demanding that all member record companies cough up years of unpaid royalties for these pirated tracks.

  • Let me see if I understand this... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Copperhead ( 187748 ) <.talbrech. .at. .speakeasy.net.> on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @05:10PM (#7966837) Homepage
    Customer : I should be able to rip music off the CD I just purchased for my own personal use without having to pay for a new "license". I bought this CD with the understand that I was purchasing the music for my personal use, and don't need to purchase a license for each new copy.

    Record Labels : No way... just because you bought the CD does not give you the right to all the contents to do with as you wish. However, just to be nice, we will give you a low-quality, non-transferable rip of the song.

    Artists : Wait... aren't you making another copy of the song? Since are selling two different copies of the song for every CD you sell, we're going to charge you twice the royalty.

    Record Labels : No, we purchased the song from you for a particular customer, not for an individual copy of the song. As long as a single customer uses the song, we can do whatever we want with it.

    Customer : Wait... isn't that what I just said?

  • Wgat will be the impact on consumers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Crypto Gnome ( 651401 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @05:19PM (#7966913) Homepage Journal
    I hate to be such a downer, but if past performance is any indicator, these "additional costs" will be hoovered directly out of consumers bank-accounts.

    Look at the whole "audio+data" CD phenomenon (from the consumers perspective) in the first place.
    • Yesterday you sold me a CD which was (more often than not, to all intents and purposes) full to capacity with standard CD audio format music
    • Today you sell me a CD which is now only partially filled with aforementioned "standard ... music" - (because some of the space previously used for standard cd audio format music is now being used for DATA (in this case, a second copy of the music)
    Don't look now, but you the consumer just paid the same amount for less music.

    Just to be clear here, they sold you TWO copies of the music, in the same amount of space ====> so you received LESS MUSIC than you "normally/previously" would, for NO LESS MONEY.

    Given this trend in the music industry, in the near future they'll be selling us Holographic Storage DISCs with a terabyte of data-space, with only one (3 minute, CD-Quality) song on it (the rest of the space is 'computer format' of the same song, plus anti-piracy technologies). It'll still cost $25-$35 in most cases, and will ONLY play on a custom media player that is specific to that music-label. Due to the intricacies of the technology, swapping HS-DISCs takes approximately 5 minutes, and the "music subscription" on HS-DISCs expires in 24 hours.
    • Not really...most albums are only ~35 minutes in length.

      It's a simple breakdown...most songs are only about 3 minutes and some odd seconds long...lets say 3:45...

      Most albums only have ~10 songs on them...

      So, our 3:45 song on each track comes out to ~35 minutes. This leaves more than enough room for extra copies of the songs, music videos, etc...as a matter of fact, the band Offspring has a tendency to include music videos from the previous album in this extra space. It's actually very kewl when a speci

  • Is this about the atrists, then? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Milo Fungus ( 232863 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @05:19PM (#7966915)

    Until last year, it was the record labels that were widely viewed as the stumbling blocks to taking the music industry into the digital age...

    ...the focus on digital licensing has switched to scattered music publishers and songwriters, which typically receive between 7 and 8 cents for each physical copy of a song sold. Ordinarily wielding far less power, and commanding far fewer financial resources than the record labels, this scattered group of individuals and associations now is proving a more potent force in the digital transformation.

    The music industry has been saying over and over again that piracy hurts the artists [aftra.org] . Their crackdown on p2p filesharing, their use of DRM schemes (such as the copy-protected CD's in question), and their public relations FUD are all supposedly motivated by their uncompromising zeal to protect the livelihood of artists.

    Really? No foolin'? Well, this is a golden opportunity to show us all that you really meant it. If all of these efforts are about protecting artists, then you would never think to violate a publishing contract over it. Right?

    [Silence... A leaf blows by...]

    Oh. Well, that's what we all suspected, I guess.

  • It follows the labels own ideas (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gr8_phk ( 621180 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @05:22PM (#7966938)
    The labels want you to pay for every version of a song you use. You pay for the ability to use it in a CD player, again to use it on an iPod, again to use it in some other form. Using the same thinking, they should pay the artists for each time you buy a song in one of these forms. They just didn't think about it when they released the twofers and now it's a problem.
  • The RIAA went after MP3.com who was allowing customers to download mp3s if they bought a cd, that way the customer could listen to the music before the CD arrived in the mail. If we all remember that went to court, and now the publishers have legal precedence.

  • technology fails us (Score:4, Funny)

    by prockcore ( 543967 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @05:33PM (#7967040)
    If only there was a way for the computer to read the audio data on the cd. Then they wouldn't have to include both the audio data and the wmas for computer users.

    Then if the user wanted WMAs, he could somehow "rip" this audio data into any format he wanted.

    Too bad this technology eludes us.

  • Translation... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by scovetta ( 632629 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @05:36PM (#7967060) Homepage
    We'll all be paying more for CDs. Since the big players own the market, they can do whatever they want, and they'll just sue everyone else. The little guys don't have the big name artists so nobody cares about them anyway. They'll continue to make non-DRMed-up-the-ass CDs and no one will buy them, but if you want the new Outkast CD, welcome back $21.99! But hey, they're doing this for the artists, remember?

    And no, the big guys will NOT pay the artists more, they'll slip one by or change their contracts or whatever. Money Power.

  • So, what are we buying anyway? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PotatoHead ( 12771 ) <doug.opengeek@org> on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @07:21PM (#7968215) Homepage Journal
    Is it a license, or a copy to enjoy?

    They cannot have it both ways. If they intend to sell us a license, don't we need to see the terms and enter into some sort of contract? (God forbid the EULA for music CD's.)

    If they sell us a license, does that not mean we have paid for a given piece of music. If we lose the media, we still have the license right?

    If they sell us a copy to enjoy, then we can do what we want with our copy so long as we don't sell it for money. As long as I can give a CD for a christmas gift, I say we are buying copies, not licenses.

    Which is it? Want your cake and eat it too?

Slashdot Top Deals

In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble. -- Alan Perlis

Close