Re: Outdated unenforceable rights
When a rightsholder can't control the reproduction (or attempting to do so is uneconomic), then they license the works.
Copyright stopped being purely about copies about 150 years ago.
Double whammy: The music tax based on deep packet inspection
"The innocent man must be punished!" - Mark Corrigan "If you start treating everybody like criminals, then pretty soon everybody starts acting like a criminal," says PRS economist Will Page, referring to the Spanish digital music experience. Spain is the best warning yet of what happens when you slap a clumsy music tax on …
-
Wednesday 14th July 2010 16:24 GMT Mystic Megabyte
More copyright material needed
The solution is that *everybody* records an original song or poem, using a random lyric generator if necessary.
Get your copyright on it.
Get a bittorrent client that will automatically upload it with any track being sought.
Claim your share of the royalties, as you have no contract with a record label then all monies come to you.
Result.
(Vogon poetry could get into the charts like this, not that you would notice any difference!)
-
Wednesday 14th July 2010 17:34 GMT copsewood
popular material will be downloaded more
And this will show up in the sampling. Not many people will download Vogon poetry. Also you don't need expensive and involuntary deep packet inspection if a large enough sample will accept a small discount or some other incentive in exchange for the hassle of hosting a download program which reports to the performing rights societies information about what is most popular.
-
-
Wednesday 14th July 2010 17:26 GMT Anonymous Coward
"Music copyright infringement in Spain is now rampant"
Oh no it's not. Music copyright infringement in Spain doesn't happen because we pay a tax on recordable media, in return for which we are legally entitled to make private copies of copyrighted works for private use. The tax, in theory, gets divvied up between various artists compensation schemes.
The music, or whatever, is both licensed and paid for up front, so get off the freetard bandwagon. It's not theft. It's not freetardery. It's not infringement.
There are, of course, 3 flaws in this cunning plan:
1) This is Spain, so the chances of a large lump of cash making it's way to it's intended destination without mishap is pretty limited, in my experience.
2) The tax wasn't thought out that well and should probably be higher. I don't, however, recall being consulted whether the tax was a good idea at the time; and I would suggest that if the Artist's organisations didn't negotiate a proper settlement at the time, then that is entirely their problem. Maybe there's an artist's union who can sue them for incompetence. Given that the tax was mandatory and also taking into account the music industry's treatment of people in general (also in Spain with the assumption that media is automatically going to be filled with downloaded goodies); bitching about it now is probably not going to garner much sympathy.
3) Having slapped a mandatory tax on on the population in return for a concession (the ability to legally download media); the population would be daft not to take advantage of that concession. I have to pay that tax on media whether or not the data I'm going to store on it is mine.
But it's not freetardery, or whatever negative-connotation buzzword you want to use this week. The artist's associations fucked up the negotiations and failed to secure adequate compensation. Sooner or later, the concessions will stop (with the tax -mysteriously- remaining in place) and we in Spain are filling our boots while the sun shines.
-
Thursday 15th July 2010 09:59 GMT Just Thinking
Not sure
I think that the main flaw in the Spanish system is that it is fundamentally unfair to make people pay for music they probably don't even want just because they have an internet connection or need to use blank media.
The reason the tax isn't "high enough" is because there are limits to how much unfair tax you can impose on people before they do something about it.
-
Thursday 15th July 2010 15:58 GMT Oliver 7
I'm with you
I agree with you and, if we see that kind of implementation in the UK, we will most likely see the same behaviour predominate.
However perhaps the tax is so 'low' because there would be no way to properly compensate the rights holders, or to put it another way, the rightsholders have such an inflated idea of the value of their content that they could never be satisfied.
The main problem, in my eyes, with digital content is that it is reproduced and distributed at a comparatively tiny cost however it is charged at virtually the same price as physically distributed content. The Internet is slowly bringing economic realites to bear on rights holders but they're fighting it all the way.
-
-
Wednesday 14th July 2010 17:27 GMT Ocular Sinister
I've said it before, but I'll say it again
A big, portable hard disk when you go to visit your mates is a far more effective way of pirating music/films/whatever. Leave it copying while you go to the pub or whatever - a few hours later you've swapped! Taxing/blocking/dicking around with the internet won't stop piracy or even slow it down. Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if more people pirated things this way nowadays anyway - I certainly haven't used torrent or similar for years!
-
Wednesday 14th July 2010 17:27 GMT Anonymous Coward
Happy Paying
Well I'm happy paying for products where I can however I'm in a situation where I can pay £30 an episode for something in a foreign lanugage 6 months after it aired, after shipping and theft taxes probably £45 per 30 minute episode.
Or I can get it subtitled and free upto a week after it aired.
Now I was a supporter of the models created by crunchyroll however in the UK you pay the same as a yank and only get a 1/3rd of the series.
IMO if a distriubter doesn't distribute to your region they can get fucked.
As to music I have a vast stolen collection of a few groups, however I also have several thousand pounds worth of merchandise and have seen a several of thousand pounds worth of concerts. I don't see much point in paying £30 an album, £10 shipping and £10 import tax.
Fortunatly nowdays companies like AVEX have very good youtube accounts, of course shit companies like Sony lick balls. But hey ho that's life.
Of course there are then TV shows that'll never be shown in your region, that goes back down to if they wont distrobute to you they can get bent.
As an aside i can understand people downloading most western music as at best it's substandard and the performances are boring, and when it comes to TV shows it's hard to figure out why someone who has skyplus shouldn't be allowed to download a yank series that will air on a channel they have access too. They wont see ads and they already pay for the channel so why should they have to wait 6months +
Anyway DPI is a crock of turd, seeds will just move to encrypted only channels combined with compressed and password protected files rendering dpi a waste of time simply punishing the masses by increases in cost of service and likely degrading service due to processing overhead.
-
Wednesday 14th July 2010 18:22 GMT Sean Timarco Baggaley
Planet Logic: A planet invisible even to the Hubble Space Telescope.
"As an aside i can understand people downloading most western music as at best it's substandard and the performances are boring..."
If it's so shit, WHY WOULD YOU DOWNLOAD IT? Why waste hard drive space—which is most assuredly NOT free—on something you dismiss as dross?
Oh, right: you're a hypocrite. Gotcha.
-
Wednesday 14th July 2010 19:25 GMT DavCrav
Why download it?
Because it is shit, but not quite so shit that it isn't even worth downloading for free? Also, you can delete it to free up room for more of said shit.
On the flip side, if you download "all" modern music, you might find some good stuff, which you can buy, go to concerts, etc.. The current music industry model is that you should pay for all the shit as well, on the off-chance that you find something good.
I'm making no comments about morality or anything, but I can see why some people don't take this music industry line. Also, some people are arseholes who wouldn't pay even if it were good. How about: both extremes in this debate are arseholes, and you can guarantee that the people shitted on by said arseholes will be the reasonable people in the middle.
-
Thursday 15th July 2010 09:58 GMT Anonymous Coward
@DavCrav
Learn to read
I didn't say I downloaded it, just that I can understand why other people do. I mean when I did listen to western music a lot I tended to record it on tape from the radio and then play it again and again and in my mates car etc. I used to have a sizable collection of Rage against the machine, chilli peppers, and soad cd's until i left them in a bag in a pub never to be seen by me again.
Anyway reading is too hard for you, so go back to dribbling.
Nowdays my combined western music folder includes 101 top classical tracks as purchased from iturds, the amatuer transplants (again from iturds) and incredibad (iturds once again).
Anyway I love how stupid people take a single paragraph then obsess over it, take a comment as a whole genius.
-
-
-
Wednesday 14th July 2010 17:27 GMT Anonymous Coward
unlicensed media
And how, pray tell, does the ISP know if their DPI has found "unlicensed media" or simply found a copy of your "owned" media? They can't ever know. Even if they took apart the file bit by bit they would never know. Therefore, they would never have a legal way to differentiate one type of media from another. I can see that going nowhere.
-
Wednesday 14th July 2010 17:33 GMT Doug Glass
This Sort of Thing ...
...will continue and prices will continue to rise as long as people will pony up the coin. I haven't bought music since vinyl platters were phased out so the corporate money grubbers are doing without my hard earned retirement stipend.
Too much legitimate free music to pay for it. If you got to have CD x or soundtrack y the pay the price and STFU. The only truth you tell is with your pocketbook; the rest is bullshit smoke and mirrors stuff to make you think you're really protesting.
-
Wednesday 14th July 2010 19:23 GMT jake
This is just an attempt ...
This is just an attempt at the recording industry regaining a monopoly on the distribution channels. It won't work. That cat bolted out of it's stable years ago, and it ain't going back into the can any time soon.
Note that I'm not commenting on the right or wrong of copyright infringement, merely pointing out that the RI can no longer control the distribution channels.
-
Wednesday 14th July 2010 19:26 GMT Andrew Orlowski
Nope
No it isn't. The proposal comes from the songwriters, not the recording industry.
Reading too many blogs that rant about the RIAA can rot the brain ;-)
(You're right about major labels losing control of distribution, that's why they're trying so hard to regain it via private deals with music startups, with opaque accounting.)
-
-
-
-
Friday 16th July 2010 13:09 GMT Andrew Orlowski
Re: Fascinating.
I invited you to think more deeply about the music business, because you'd made a beginners error. And you replied with a link that's eight and half years old.
Funny how often people do that, or link to the Steve Albini essay, which is 18 years old.
Why is there is no new thinking in Freetardia, just the same old whinges? Because thinking about things reveals complexities and contradictions which don't fit on a bumper sticker or badge?
-
Saturday 17th July 2010 10:32 GMT jake
@Andrew
"I invited you to think more deeply about the music business, because you'd made a beginners error."
No. I didn't. You interpreted it as such. Again, re-read mine for content. (My highschool band and I recorded at Rochdale in the late '70s & early '80s, not that we were any good ... one of our singles was broken on the air by John Peel in 1979 (with reason ... I'm playing it now, and it's AWFUL! ::grins::) ...
"And you replied with a link that's eight and half years old."
Age doesn't make it any less correct. Remember, it's the perspective of an industry insider. I think she has more of a clue than you or I ... drop her an email, I have. She's a LOT more approachable than most celebretards. Might make for a good "interview article".
"Why is there is no new thinking in Freetardia, just the same old whinges?"
There is plenty of new thinking, if your eyes are open to it. It's the so-called "logic" of old & tired business models that, for the most part, are the same old whinges[1].
"Because thinking about things reveals complexities and contradictions which don't fit on a bumper sticker or badge?"
Re-read the link (which I won't repost (today)). Think about it, with regard to your complexities and contradictions. There are no bumper stickers or badges ... just the opinion of a long-term industry insider. I'd write my own variation, but I'm not as loquacious as Janis ... she has already put it a LOT better than I can.
During the meanwhile, I have a funny feeling you & I would enjoy a conversation over a pint or two. Relax & have a homebrew :-)
[1] c.f. "home taping is killing the recording industry" et ali.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 14th July 2010 21:38 GMT John Smith 19
If Dettica and DPI is the answer
You know they have *got* to asking the *wrong* question.
And what's with "former" spook outfit.
They still seem hand in blouse with GCHQ (and the meglamanical "Mastering" the Internet) and are owned by that bastion of transparency BaE Systems ("Bribes, what bribes? Saudi slush fund? You're speaking a foreign language. la la la I can't hear you.").
-
Wednesday 14th July 2010 23:13 GMT disgruntled yank
Ah, yes
Back about 1981, the motion picture industry concluded that VCRs were a threat to its revenues and proposed that it be compensated by a tax on recording tape. What I chiefly recall is that MPAA hired one of the first bipartisan super-lobbying firms (Decter and ???). I don't think it succeeded.
My problem with such proposals is that downloaded music is not in general an enhancement to my quality of life, it is a subtraction. Most of the the music I hear in public--from car radios, from leaky earphones, in Borders, Whole Foods, Starbucks--is not what I would choose to listen to. At best it leaves me indifferent, commonly it irritates me. And I'm supposed to pay for this?
-
Thursday 15th July 2010 09:15 GMT Jellied Eel
I would pay to download stuff
If I *could* pay to download stuff.
Today I bought 4 DVD's that are probably on a torrent site somewhere. I bought them because I like movies and I want more made. If I could browse new releases and back catalogues, I'd buy more DVDs. Why can't I pay, download it, watch it on my DVD player, laptop, or whatever I choose to watch it on. So give me what the illegal distribution would give me for convenience and flexibility, just give me a payment option. How hard can that be?
-
Thursday 15th July 2010 09:15 GMT heyrick
Random thoughts
I feel it is futile to demand to have exactly what you pay for, in a sense that if you're a shining example who has never downloaded a track "illegally" (and this includes watching it on YouTube), to say "I don't want to pay to support the freetards". For there are some that will not (or perhaps cannot) download media, and then there are those who suck more than they can possibly watch in their lifetime. Is it unfair? Perhaps. But it is more or less how social security and taxation work. I don't pay less because I have no children needing educated, and likewise I don't pay less because I don't spend every waking hour ripping off movies.
So long as such a levy is "acceptable", I think it would provide a reasonable peace of mind for knowing that you aren't going to get threatening emails out of the blue for some minor infraction, perhaps something we weren't really aware of, or something somebody else (kids, for instance) did. I would normally believe that copyright is something that should be defended, but the way it is being handled right now makes me question the very validity of it all.
As for the levy. Well... Perhaps this is best handled by 'secret' negotiations with the ISPs to work out an acceptable cut, and then the media punters can back off screwing with laws and privacy and such. Just, you know, back the hell away. But do NOT announce the licence deal. Just, back away. Why is this important? Because you and I know EXACTLY what would happen if news broke that downloading was a free for all. It would be best just to neither confirm nor deny. People who wish to "take the risk" can go ahead, those who think it's a crock can never touch a P2P client. And everybody pays "a little". I'm not sure I'd give even "a little", but it might be the best means of satisfying both sides.
Oh, sure, you'll complain. Why should you pay for so-and-so to download camcorder versions of movies that haven't even been released. Well... how many of you are getting the bandwidth you are paying for? And I mean reliably. It is no good saying you get your full 8 megabit if that's only in the early hours, on a full moon.
For the freetard bandwidth issue, I was under the impression that all the good stuff was on usenet. I remember comp.sys.acorn.binaries and such in the late '90s, the thought of having a gigabyte-sized file to contend with fills me with dread! Are the binaries still chopped into 16K or 32K chunks? UUenc or MIME? D'you know how much baggage something like that adds? P2P (or anything binary-based) is positively efficient in comparison!
@ AC "Happy paying" - you quote £30 for an album and £10 shipping. Lucky you! I looked up an album on Amazon.co.jp and the album cost about £20, and the shipping cost *more*! This isn't to content with importation issues (do I pay yet more on customs/duty?). In the end an actual real live Japanese person got the album in Tokyo and brought it back. Hardly the ideal solution, but in comparison... [PS: said album is on my local Amazon for about £40, need I say more?]
Finally - for everybody bitching about Spain's levy. You might want to ask yourself if it is not something in the Spanish mentality. In France, we pay for media copying. On every single damn CD, DVD, USB memory device and SD card. Some sites/catalogues list prices for France and Belgium, the latter being maybe 3-4 euros cheaper. Just like in the UK, certain authorities are pushing to make filesharing be a criminal offence punishable by death. And if such laws are brought into force (aka the HADOPI is-it-isn't-it game (dopey indeed)), there is absolute resounding silence on the matter of repealing the obligatory levy on media. I guess, at the end of the day, the media companies want to be paid for EVERYTHING, regardless. Fine business model, isn't it? Do you think it will not go unnoticed if we're suckered for paying a levy against an action that is illegal? Is that not in itself illegal? You wanna count my packs of DVDs (for recording stuff off British telly) and SD cards (photography) and multiply that by "sort-of-three-euros"? God's sake, the question isn't "why should I download", but more "why aren't I?". I am *paying* already. And now they would want to make me pay AND be a criminal too. All I can say is remember what the French did to their royals. They might be cack at wars, but "Vive la revolution!" (today being, cough, Bastille Day and all!) is something the French do with flamboyance.
That said, that such a situation has come about shows what a bunch of useless idiots are running the country. But, hey, that's not news - we could point to pretty much any government and insult it. It's what they're there for...
[and if you've actually read this far, smile, for I upvote your patience and reading abilities!]
-
-
Thursday 15th July 2010 09:24 GMT Anonymous Coward
Why so worried?
Last I checked, music was still being made. I'd even say that because of technology there's more people enjoying and listening and making music than ever... never has it been easier to make an album, promote one's self, or even learn how to play an instrument. Cds still sell, vinyl sales have only increased in the past few years, companies are making a profit selling mp3s... It's a good time for music, WHY on earth would we need to have a tax to support it?!
-
Thursday 15th July 2010 09:39 GMT SDoradus
Nesson's tactics are beginning to look better
Did anyone notice Andrew's reference to an earlier article (Kick me again, RIAA) in which he "failed" the tactics of defence attorney Nesson? "He failed to show why disproportionate statutory damages are harmful, which could have had a lasting constitutional effect."
It looks like Nesson won after all. The judge (Gertner) has just issued her ruling; Nesson has established the constitutionality defence can prevail - that is, arbitrarily high statutory damages are indeed a due-process violation.
Hm. Actually I have some sympathy for Mr Orlowski's position here, particular in as much as Nesson's client still wound up with a US$60,000 + bill. But the constitutional precedent is frankly huge, and if the client writes a book he'll probably wind up in profit from the affair.
-
Thursday 15th July 2010 09:56 GMT Andrew Orlowski
Re: Nesson's tactics are beginning to look better
That isn't the case Nesson was fighting.
A minimum amount would have sent the message that the law is an ass. Judge Gertner didn't do this, quite the opposite:
"I reduce the jury’s award to $2,250 per infringed work, three times the statutory minimum, for a total award of $67,500. Significantly, this amount is more than I might have awarded in my independent judgment. But the task of determining the appropriate damages award in this case fell to the jury, not the Court. I have merely reduced the award to the greatest amount that the Constitution will permit given the facts of this case."
Note: greatest amount, not minimum amount.
-
-
Thursday 15th July 2010 12:38 GMT Toastan Buttar
Spotify
"Legal services like Spotify might stand a greater chance of swimming, as opposed to sinking, if they did not face the challenge of competing with illegal, free services,"
Spotify is THE way to listen to new music on a try-before-you-buy basis.
Search -> Click -> Listen. Instantaneously.
It kicks illegal file sharing in the arse.
-
Thursday 15th July 2010 13:12 GMT PGregg
Decriminalise?
Why attempt to decriminalise something which is not criminal in the first place?
Another important thing to know is that you can not contract your way out of a criminal act. i.e. No two parties can agree anything is allowed or permitted, if it is a criminal act. If the Music industry wants to criminalise the public for P2P, then it can never commercially levy, tax or contract against that action.
The original article's reporting appears to have bought into the whole "copyright infringement is really theft/piracy" argument and fails to point out, that legally, the definitions of the terms are clear and not the same.
-
Friday 16th July 2010 09:05 GMT Anonymous Coward
intentionally left blank
It's projects like the-album.cc which really make me smile. Produce an album funded by crowd-sourcing funds, and then release it completely free and under creative commons. Nice approach! The amazing thing is, not only did they get the 100% funding, people continued to fund after the goal was reached. Cutting out the middleman and getting the publicity this way is a really nice step and is the equivalent of investing in the artist(s) you like rather than investing in the fattening of some trumped up record label.
-
Friday 16th July 2010 13:09 GMT Andrew Orlowski
Re: intentionally left blank
How lovely, but they're basically hobbyists, and this isn't really working out for hobbyists.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/23/sellaband_titsup/
(Public Enemy have scaled back their fundraising target yet again...)
The middleman still adds value, some reasons were explained here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/28/will_page_1000_fans/
-
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
