|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 151 responses total. |
krj
|
|
response 119 of 151:
| 
Dec 12 22:03 UTC 2003 |
Much of the stuff I saw about the RIAA hiring the head of the ATF
revolved around Waco metaphors, or else Prohibition, with the RIAA
having hired their own G-Man.
-----
A copyright body in Canada handed down three interesting rulings:
1) Unauthorized downloading of copyrighted music from the Internet
is not prohibited in Canadian law, though unauthorized uploading
is illegal.
2) MP3-ish digital music players are to have a levy placed on them
based on memory/hard disk size, said levy to reimburse the copyright
industry. The levy tops out at Can$25 for a player with 20GB or more
capacity. 1 to 10 GB players are $15. Small machines are $2.
3) It was proposed that the Canadians would levy a 49-cent (Can) charge
per CD-R blank, essentially doubling the cost of blank media.
However, this proposal was rejected for now and will not be revisited
until the end of 2004. This charge, IIRC, was deemed unfair to
blank-media users who are not duplicating copyrighted music.
http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20031212.gtlevydec12/BNS
tory/Technology/
|
krj
|
|
response 120 of 151:
|
Dec 18 06:52 UTC 2003 |
Despite those rulings, however, the CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry
Association?) promises to start bringing file sharing lawsuits to
Canada as soon as possible, and the IFPI (international trade group)
wants lawsuits against P2P users in Europe.
-----
Here's a highly entertaining piece of anti-RIAA propaganda:
http://www.whatacrappypresent.com
|
mcnally
|
|
response 121 of 151:
|
Dec 18 08:24 UTC 2003 |
interesting..
|
gull
|
|
response 122 of 151:
|
Dec 18 15:01 UTC 2003 |
Sounds like Canada is getting the worst of both worlds. Users have to
pay a mandatory royalty fee, then they get sued for copying files anyway.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 123 of 151:
|
Dec 18 18:49 UTC 2003 |
As long as the RIAA and their international analogs are the only ones
lobbying heavily on these issues, we're all headed for the worst of
both worlds..
|
goose
|
|
response 124 of 151:
|
Dec 19 21:03 UTC 2003 |
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/19/1611238
from the above link:
"My Way News is reporting that a Federal appeals court ruled that the RIAA
can't compel the ISP to provide the name of the downloaders in their case
against Verizon. In fact, the court said that one of the arguments the RIAA
used 'borders upon the silly.' I believe most here will agree that this is
great news."
|
mcnally
|
|
response 125 of 151:
|
Dec 19 23:02 UTC 2003 |
Since I'm working for a phone company / ISP these days, I'm particularly
happy not to have to worry about being handed additional work by the RIAA.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 126 of 151:
|
Dec 21 05:48 UTC 2003 |
An article in Salon recently claimed that some week in December 1969
was the greatest week in rock history, as _Abbey Road_, Led Zeppelin's
second album, CSN's first album, Santana's first album, and half a
dozen other notable rock albums all charted in the top ten on the same
week.
In claiming that something like that was unlikely to happen again, the
author stated that it was easier to make the top ten in those days
because albums in general sold many fewer copies than they do today.
This struck my curiosity, because part of the argument in this topic is
that record sales have been dropping. I guess one should ask, compared
to what standard? Have sales been artificially high over the past 2-3
decades, and a drop should not be so alarming?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 127 of 151:
|
Dec 21 06:54 UTC 2003 |
Perhaps in the current day we have fewer major-label record releases
which are expected to sell many more copies apiece? There's certainly
less variety on the radio and I'd be pretty willing to believe there're
fewer choices on record store shelves (assuming you can even find a real
record store anymore..) It wouldn't surprise me to learn that back when
there were five times as many albums being released (to just make up
a number) an album only had to sell half as many copies (making up another
number) to make the top ten..
|
orinoco
|
|
response 128 of 151:
|
Dec 21 20:23 UTC 2003 |
I know I've heard that movies need to sell tickets more _quickly_ these days
than they used to. I wouldn't be surprised if that was true of albums
too -- I get the impression that records are expected to sell quickly and then
disappear, rather than stick around at a medium-high level of sales (the way,
say, "Dark Side of the Moon" or "Back in Black" have). So that might account
for some of the difference in statistics too: even if overall record sales
are dropping, the expected first-week or first-month sales figures for a
successful album might be rising, the same way first-weekend ticket sales for
hit movies are still rising.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 129 of 151:
|
Dec 21 22:00 UTC 2003 |
Given the pay-for-play system that prevails on most commercial radio
stations today, underperforming records probably aren't given time to
become sleeper hits or build up a cult following. Anything that isn't
an immediate hit is probably considered too expensive to promote.
|
twenex
|
|
response 130 of 151:
|
Dec 21 22:06 UTC 2003 |
Yer don't say...
|
keesan
|
|
response 131 of 151:
|
Dec 21 22:48 UTC 2003 |
Who pays whom for play?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 132 of 151:
|
Dec 22 00:23 UTC 2003 |
Record companies pay "independent promoters" to play their records.
Promoters pay radio stations for control over their playlists.
As a result there's very little chance you'll hear a record played
on commercial radio stations unless the record company has payed a
promoter a considerable sum of money to have it aired. Apparently,
although the end effect of the system is not a great deal different
than the "payola" practices made illegal in the 50s & 60s, it's not
actually illegal because the record companies aren't paying the
radio stations or disc jockeys directly (not that most disc jockeys
get to choose what they play anymore..)
I really don't pretend to understand the legal issues but the matter
has been pretty well documented in recent years.
|
keesan
|
|
response 133 of 151:
|
Dec 22 00:43 UTC 2003 |
Are record companies still trying to charge internet radio stations which want
to play their music? In the early years of vinyl records they apparently
tried to make the radio stations pay them, until they realized it made money
for them if the station played their records.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 134 of 151:
|
Dec 22 02:42 UTC 2003 |
I believe they are, though the license fee was significantly reduced.
It's still a substantial burden on Internet radio, as far as I know.
|
keesan
|
|
response 135 of 151:
|
Dec 22 04:27 UTC 2003 |
Considering the quality of internet radio, you would think anyone who listened
to a piece on it and liked it would want to go buy the CD instead of recording
from the internet. And that the companies would therefore pay the stations.
|
remmers
|
|
response 136 of 151:
|
Dec 22 14:38 UTC 2003 |
"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
|
tpryan
|
|
response 137 of 151:
|
Dec 22 15:02 UTC 2003 |
I thought an internet radio station that reaches less than
100 (fixed by real capacity) is charged more per playing than a
radio station that can reach 100,000 or more.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 138 of 151:
|
Dec 22 17:17 UTC 2003 |
To the best of my (admittedly limited) knowledge the radio station
is charged nothing, so that's probably true.
|
goose
|
|
response 139 of 151:
|
Dec 22 18:05 UTC 2003 |
Radio stations pay royalties to the groups such as ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, etc.
everytime they play one of the agencies songs. It's how songwriters get
royalties.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 140 of 151:
|
Dec 22 18:21 UTC 2003 |
Hmmm.. I thought they didn't. Guess I was mistaken.
|
gull
|
|
response 141 of 151:
|
Dec 23 14:53 UTC 2003 |
There are two copyrights associated with any given track -- the
songwriter's copyright on the song, and the record company's copyright
on the performance. Radio stations don't have to pay performance
royalties but they do have to pay songwriter royalties.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 142 of 151:
|
Dec 23 16:23 UTC 2003 |
And last I heard, it is an all-or-nothing license for BMI,
ASCAP, etc. No partial payment for playing less than 10 percent
music, such as for talk stations.
Which means that when a sports-talk station is playing
Gary Glitter's 'Rock & Roll', as a theme, there is a probability
that he is missing royalty payments on that.
|
tod
|
|
response 143 of 151:
|
Dec 23 16:43 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
