My goodness. Is there anyone left they haven't pissed off? Waaah.
.. I can't afford my new Benz this month.
.. Waaah.
.. What a bunch of jerks.
I can just see the next one: We think everyone should have a meter on their car radio and have to pay per song played. The money goes straight to us of course..
. Wonder how many of the members / employees actally PAY for their media? ;) Maybe we should all start following the 'trails' they leave behind at their ISP's , etc !
!!!
!! If anyone wants to start this investigation.
.. I'll be among the first to volunteer/help out :) Hoho.
.. , as well as Microsoft, are making total asses of themselves.
But they won't die just because of that. They have enough money and have bought or extorted enough influence to plague us for years. MS has many rivals to their own product, so they will wither if they stop lying and bullying.
doesn't need to worry - they get taxpayers' money to keep them alive. What is needed is a company that would forget about CDs, , etc. and aim directly for the NEW consumers, those abhorred by RIAA: MP3/whatever player owners, etc.
And NO . None of it does anything more than hinder portability, anyway. It SHOULD work.
Consumers would actually purchase the right to listen with no strings attached (and would be glad to act against wannabe puppeteers), and the ease of distribution, and absence of any costs associated with copyright enforcement (just as it used to be not that long ago - and yet they sold well) would allow for VERY low prices (per track or album) and very high royalties (in percentage) to the songwriters. It should work..
. once it has gained momentum. Initial costs (advertising, etc) would be staggering, that is to be expected.
But, it would deprive true thieves (who want to own, but never pay), and dorks (who want everyone to own nothing, but pay nonetheless) of their most common excuses. And as for trying out before buying , there should be freely available encodes with _rapidly_ decreasing quality. That is enough to know both what the track contains, and its quality, without deriving full pleasure from listening.
I know it's very idealistic. But no more so than anyone else's ideas. Especially RIAA's.
I read somewhere that it works out to around either $0.025 per song, or per CD, that will go to the artists, if this is approved. Which would, very much literally, mean that piracy could not hurt them at all.
Even if you download a CD with 10 songs, you could send them a quarter for their effort. Meanwhile, the music labels would be making a full dollar per CD. About 35 times more, for doing literally nothing.
So long, rich performers. You'll make more money being indy and selling your stuff over the internet.
Quote:A PANEL OF JUDGES?
...by seeking that a panel of copyright judges lower the rate.
..
???
I don't see why they can't negotiate on thier own...
. Why should the judges tell the publishers songwriters what they can charge for their creative work? When you go to court, you never know what's going to happen.
Maybe the judges will increase the royalities!
Quote:.
I read somewhere that it works out to around either $0.025 per song, or per CD, that will go to the artists
That would be $25,000 for selling one million CDs...
You can see from the mansions, cars, girls, gold, and drugs, that the successful artitst are making MUCH more than that! It's my understanding that the standard deal is about $1.00 per CD.
But, there is a catch...
They loan the artist the money for studio time, making the video, and maybe some promotion. The artist might get a small cash advance too. If the CD doesn't sell enough to break-even (most CD's don't), the arist doesn't have to pay back the company, but they never collect any royalties.
The record company doesn't make any money either. (The company has to make-up the money on successful artists.) Saw this editorial in the San Fran Examiner.
News RSS