Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Colleges Secretly Test Music-Industry Project

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the area-51-flavors-and-then-some dept.

Education 208

An anonymous reader writes "The music industry is still pushing Choruss, a controversial blanket-licensing scheme, but it is far less innovative than first described. Six colleges are setting it up now, but they refuse to have their names released because the issue is a political landmine — and who wants to be associated with the recording industry?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Boobs (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29992232)

Big round puffy boobs.

That is all.

Re:Boobs (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29992254)

Pics or GTFO.

Re:Boobs (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29992316)

I don't go for big boobs. I like a relatively small, pert pair 'o boobs.

That is all.

The music industry is retarded (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29992234)

and that is no secret

Re:The music industry is retarded (4, Insightful)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 4 years ago | (#29993536)

What's retarded is that is secret? Why is this secret? Why is the copyright treaty secret? The only conclusion I can come up with is that they're up to no good.

National Security is a joke (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29992260)

the government wants to enslave you

Still feeds the beast (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29992264)

I don't want to feed the recording industry if at all possible.
I want to reward artists as much as possible.

Last thing I actually bought: World of goo.
Last music CD I bought: Can't remember
Last digital music I bought: Never

Re:Still feeds the beast (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29992284)

Agh I wish, I made the mistake of spending about $40 in iTunes in High School. I no longer have any of the tracks I bought from iTunes. If only I were as wise as you, oh mighty AC

Re:Still feeds the beast (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29993530)

40 bucks = 40 songs.

Getting your song DRM-free costs 30c per song.

40x30=120, you'll pay 12 dollars to get the DRM-free copies.

Re:Still feeds the beast (1)

Golddess (1361003) | more than 4 years ago | (#29994558)

Don't you still need a copy of the DRM'd version though? Also, not all previously bought DRM'd music is available in the current iTunes store.

Thank you, RIAA... (0, Flamebait)

reverendbeer (1496637) | more than 4 years ago | (#29992270)

...Thank you for allowing ever single music-oriented organization in the world to believe, accurately or not, that they have rights, imagined or not, upon every and anything that they produce and that compensation, in some manner, should be expected and demanded.

Re:Thank you, RIAA... (4, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29993902)

Six colleges are setting it up now, but they refuse to have their names released

The music industry says there are six colleges, but the six won't let their names out? How are they supposed to keep a service used by all their students secret?

I call bullshit on these lying bastards. Everything the RIAA labels do is based on a lie, starting with the lie that P2P costs sales when every study says "pirates" spend more on music than anybody. Well, P2P does cost RIAA labels sales; if you buy two or three indie CDs, that's money you don't have to buy an RIAA CD.

And thank you, reverendbeer, for pointing out that these lying bastards DON'T own rights to all music. They don't. We need to call these lying sociopaths out at every opportunity.

Blanket licensing is never legal (5, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#29992288)

The Canadians have their blank CD tax ostensibly because blank CDs are used to copy music. Great. But is it then legal to copy music in Canada? No. How does that even work?!

Doing this other blanket licensing stuff will enjoy similar respect in that anything acquired will be decidedly illegal until proven otherwise and even with proof, there is little doubt in my mind the recording industry will respect it as legal.

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (5, Informative)

TrancePhreak (576593) | more than 4 years ago | (#29992454)

Last I heard it was legal in Canada to make a copy of a borrowed CD for yourself, as long as you don't sell it. This was the basis for the CD taxes.

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (5, Informative)

DeadDecoy (877617) | more than 4 years ago | (#29992622)

The music industry created a loophole in Canadian copyright laws when it asked for a levy on blank audio media. These $0.21 to $0.24 levies on blank media raised millions of dollars for music publishers, but also legalized copying in the digital age, to the consternation of the music industry. Canadian courts have ruled that consumers have the right to copy any recording from the original copy even those they do not personally own. This consumer right has been extended by the courts to include peer-to-peer downloads.

Canadian Copyright Law [wikipedia.org]
So Canadians are allowed to make copies regardless of ownership because they are already taxed for it.

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (2, Interesting)

Interoperable (1651953) | more than 4 years ago | (#29993756)

I think it only applies to music that's put onto media covered by the levies, it's ambiguous whether it covers p2p downloaded content on your iPod and it remains illegal to upload music so no seeding.

Re: tax on iPod (in Canada) (1)

An anonymous Frank (559486) | more than 4 years ago | (#29993958)

I remember when I bought my first iPod there was a form I could fill and send in to get the "blank media" tax refunded.

This was some years ago so I don't know if it still works that way.

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (1)

sukotto (122876) | more than 4 years ago | (#29994292)

Iirc, it's legal to download music in Canada. It's illegal to provide downloads

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (1)

schon (31600) | more than 4 years ago | (#29994402)

Iirc, it's legal to download music in Canada.

Correct, but only if you are downloading it for your own personal use.

It's illegal to provide downloads

Incorrect.

There is no law against "making available", and "making available" is not covered under copyright. If you deliberately make copies to provide them to others, that would be illegal. If you make copies for yourself (by downloading or ripping them), and those copies just happen to be shared by filesharing software, that is not illegal.

Man, silly world... (0, Troll)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#29993176)

Why does the world still have this bizarre belief that taxes are for what they say. Call me cynical, but as soon as the gov't gets its hands on a stack of loot, its going to spend it as it pleases. The rationale for raising taxes is usually an excuse.

Re:Man, silly world... (2, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#29993450)

Part of it is that we look around and see silly things like roads, so apparently some of the money is being spent on the things they say it is being spent on.

Re:Man, silly world... (1)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 4 years ago | (#29993560)

Where I live, the roads are inadequate and decaying, making me wonder how much, if any, of the tax money is going towards the roads. The road work I see is almost always devoted to paving the same section of road over and over again, even when said section is silky smooth. One such section has had this done three or four times since I've been driving on it. Another section with a massive pothole has been left untreated for years. So what money goes into the system is very poorly allocated.

Re:Man, silly world... (0, Troll)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29993692)

>>>Part of it is that we look around and see silly things like roads

And roads are funded by gasoline tax NOT the compact disc tax, so your example is completely and totally irrelevant. Also I paid nearly $25,000 in taxes last year. That's equivalent to a new car every single year - that's an insane amount of taxation. It's equivalent to spending the first third of each year as an indentured servant to Uncle Sam. This is a revival of serfdom.

Re:Man, silly world... (2, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#29993850)

Read the parent comment again (and your own apparently), it is a screed against taxes of any form, not against the Canadian cd tax.

Re:Man, silly world... (1)

Interoperable (1651953) | more than 4 years ago | (#29993772)

There's an independent organisation to distributed the levies to big content producers. They'd be pissed if the government spent the money first.

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (2, Insightful)

mirix (1649853) | more than 4 years ago | (#29992460)

What's exceptionally comical is that indie bands, burning CDs of themselves - still pay the levy to big music... wtf?

I do think it's made burning dubs de facto legal though...

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 4 years ago | (#29993576)

The levy isn't paid to big music. It's paid to SOCAN [wikipedia.org] , which in turn distributes the tariff to its members based on need. That indy band, if it's a member of SOCAN, will probably be getting more than they pay into the levy out of it.

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (2, Informative)

Stereoface (1400061) | more than 4 years ago | (#29992532)

The idea with that is the Blank Media Levy- It's run by the CPCC, which is the Canadian Private Copying Collective. http://www.cpcc.ca/english/index.htm [www.cpcc.ca] They're an extension of SOCAN, and the money generated from the sales goes back to the artists. It works out great for starving musicians, and in general yeah- Blank CDs are mostly used to copy copy written material. The fact is that Blanket licensing is already in use and in affect almost everywhere. Bars, Clubs, Shopping malls, Radio stations- they all pay blanket licenses to use music. The problem with this idea- letting users get a subscription to all the music they want. It has to expire. As an artist, no way would I let someone download my entire library of songs for a monthly fee. It's simply not fair. Also- if indie bands want to use burned CDs for music- they can get a rebate from the CPCC. I did it when I was starting out- used 500 CDs and got all of the rebate back... Something like 30 cents a disc back then. It really is a great system. For more information visit http://www.socan.ca/ [socan.ca]

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#29992878)

As an artist, no way would I let someone download my entire library of songs for a monthly fee. It's simply not fair.

Why not? Serious question. If I subscribe to a service with a monthly fee, it's because I want to be able to listen to lots of new stuff. If you're not producing new stuff, then once I've downloaded everything from you that I want then I won't pay you any more. How is this different to buying a CD? You don't get paid every time I listen to a CD and you don't get paid if I sell the CD to someone else later. If your music is good, then I'll want to download your next album, so I'll keep paying the subscription and when you release something new I'll download that too and you'll get more money. If it's not good then I won't download anything else from you.

The problem with the Canadian system is that there's a disconnect between the music people copy and the people who get paid. If someone likes a band and gives a copy to their friend, this is not recorded anywhere. If they sent a link to download it, covered by their monthly subscription, then it would be and the bands that produce the music people download would get more money.

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (2, Informative)

Stereoface (1400061) | more than 4 years ago | (#29993022)

The problem with the monthly subscription is that barely any of that would go to the artist directly- essentially you'd be downloading my music for a fraction of the retail cost. It makes no sense for me other then for promotion to give massive discounts on music. Hell music in general is already discounted so much as it is. I think a monthly subscription is only fair if when the subscription ends you lose access to my music. It's a long discussion whether musicians should give away money to promote themselves, but those kinds of people can't quit their day jobs very easy.

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (2, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#29993186)

You're confusing two issues then. Not paying the musicians is not fair, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the monthly subscription model. If 90% of revenues from the subscription went to the musicians and was divided amongst the ones that had been downloaded, would that be unfair? You are making blanket statements that you would never consider the monthly fee model for your music and in doing so are being as guilty as the RIAA in your unwillingness to adapt to more appropriate business models.

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (2, Interesting)

Stereoface (1400061) | more than 4 years ago | (#29993262)

Well if they were just offering a streaming service then all you'd have to worry about is Performance royalties. But in this case they're offering to give you the file. If this Choruss company is going to give me my Mechanical royalties (9.1 cents) on every song distributed then I'm happy, but if it's a blanket just to save them money as music resalers- then it's pointless. I can already get everything off itunes and the royalties are paid out properly.

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#29993468)

Well, if other artists are willing to sell their music at such low low prices, it may start making sense for you to do so (as you may well get more money if you sell some music at low prices than if you sell no music at all).

If you could collect $0.01 a day from 30,000 people, you aren't doing too badly there, even after paying income taxes.

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (1)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 4 years ago | (#29993570)

You can still make money in the only form that cannot be duplicated: concerts.

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (1, Troll)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29993744)

>>>I think a monthly subscription is only fair if when the subscription ends you lose access to my music.

By this reasoning, all my previous employers should continue paying me a residual fee for the rest of my life, just because I created some schematics for them. (Or else return the schematic to me.) I don't understand why artists believe they have the right to eternal payments, when none of the rest of us workers have that right. We work; we get paid. When we get fired or laid-off, we stop getting paid, and the employer keeps what he paid for. The same should be true for songs and singers

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 4 years ago | (#29992990)

It works out great for starving musicians

No, it doesn't. Wikipedia says this:

The Canadian Private Copying Collective has developed a methodology by which the proceeds are distributed to rights holders based on commercial radio airplay and commercial sales samples, ignoring radio/college airplay and independent record sales not logged by Soundscan.

Which means that if I copy your music, and you don't get played on radio, you don't get a cent from it. Celine Dion does though. Which IMO is completely bizarre and a perversion of how things should be. If somebody's going to get paid I'd rather it be the right person.

In other countries with the same system the money goes to local artists. So in Germany, a german artist would be getting paid for your music.

and in general yeah- Blank CDs are mostly used to copy copy written material

You must be kidding. Who carries burned music CDs around anymore? I buy CDs pretty much exclusively to burn Linux distros, my brother to distribute his own (graphics) work. Nobody uses CDs to pass music around anymore. They use portable hard drives, laptops, and so on, and carry their music on portable MP3 players. Most of those are taxed too, but the proportion is much lower than for a CD, and they're all rewritable so the payment is a one time one regardless of how much music goes through it.

I object on principle to this system and avoid buying CDs and CD-Rs because of it.

The problem with this idea- letting users get a subscription to all the music they want. It has to expire. As an artist, no way would I let someone download my entire library of songs for a monthly fee. It's simply not fair.

It's not a blanket license then, is it?

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (2, Informative)

Stereoface (1400061) | more than 4 years ago | (#29993058)

Well to be honest, if you don't get played on the radio- then you're not at the level to care about how important royalties are to an artist. That's fine. Indie artists and Niche artists have their following too, but generally to make a living off music you need it on the radio/charts. A correction on the SOCAN payouts- If you do get played, and counted by Neilson, your money sits with SOCAN until you sign up- if you haven't already. Your money doesn't go to another artist like you mentioned. They'll get payed for their own material.

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (2, Insightful)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 4 years ago | (#29993158)

Well to be honest, if you don't get played on the radio- then you're not at the level to care about how important royalties are to an artist. That's fine. Indie artists and Niche artists have their following too, but generally to make a living off music you need it on the radio/charts

Radio stats don't necessarily match the popularity in other mediums though. Here radio stations keep playing various 80s stuff everybody heard 500 times before. So long radio stations keep playing ancient hits those people will keep getting paid, even if nobody cares anymore.

A correction on the SOCAN payouts- If you do get played, and counted by Neilson, your money sits with SOCAN until you sign up- if you haven't already. Your money doesn't go to another artist like you mentioned. They'll get payed for their own material.

We're talking about different things.

You're saying that the part SOCAN has to pay you according to how much you get played on radio doesn't go to somebody else if you're not signed up. Right.

But what I'm saying is two things.

First, if I pay $1 of tax on some CDs, and put some of your music there, and you don't get any significant airtime, that money doesn't go to you -- most of it will go to Celine Dion and other popular artists, even if it's your music what I'm storing. I consider that fundamentally unfair -- why should any of my tax go to people I don't care about? As a result I choose not to buy media, which means I don't pay tax, which means neither you nor she get paid.

Second, if I pay $1 of tax on some CDs in Spain, and put some music there, the money gets spread between local artists, and Celine Dion never sees a cent of it even if it's her music there. Spanish artists for some reason do get paid, while I absolutely don't care about their music and don't want to support it. Again, same thing, I consider this to be unfair and choose to act in such a way that nobody gets paid.

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (1)

Stereoface (1400061) | more than 4 years ago | (#29993224)

Oh well, I completely agree with you then. In that respect it isn't fair. But there are many different ways an artist can collect money from a fan or a potential fan. I think Canada is one of the better places for cultural support- ironically the place with the worst piracy rates- but hey I guess you can't have it both ways. I just think they should bring back the iPod levy. They used to have it- something like $40 ontop of every ipod- but now they don't have it due to the increase of legitimate online sales through itunes. It's fair too, I guess. But anyways back to the main point- the article is talking about giving Colleges a blanket license for music, and being able to prevent the students from being liable. That just makes no sense to me. What could they possibly gain out of that?

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 4 years ago | (#29993310)

But there are many different ways an artist can collect money from a fan or a potential fan.

I agree with one and one only of them: the fan buys music from the artist.

I disagree with any taxes or any systems where any artist except the one's music I'm playing gets paid. It's simple - if anybody but you would get paid in exchange for me having your music, I won't pay anybody at all.

I just think they should bring back the iPod levy. They used to have it- something like $40 ontop of every ipod- but now they don't have it due to the increase of legitimate online sales through itunes.

No freaking way.

If they do that here, I'm not buying another player, and will listen to music from my laptop until I can figure a way of getting an untaxed player (such as shipping it from another country, or buying one while on holidays there)

It's fair too, I guess. But anyways back to the main point- the article is talking about giving Colleges a blanket license for music, and being able to prevent the students from being liable. That just makes no sense to me. What could they possibly gain out of that?

No, it isn't fair. I don't torrent music and refuse to pay for any such system. If such a system is mandatory whether I want it or not, I'll refuse to use it and complain until I get my share of the money back.

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 4 years ago | (#29993858)

I agree with one and one only of them: the fan buys music from the artist.

I disagree with any taxes or any systems where any artist except the one's music I'm playing gets paid. It's simple - if anybody but you would get paid in exchange for me having your music, I won't pay anybody at all.

My understanding is that most artists make most of their money by doing concerts. Especially when deals with the recording industry are concerned, the music industry as a whole is set up so that the corporate bastards get the money, and the people who are actually doing the creating get nothing.

There are a handful of radio stations that do their part to support small and indie artists. My personal favourite is Live 88.5 here in Ottawa ( http://www.live885.com/ [live885.com] ). Among other things they do, they run an annual contest that's akin to battle of the bands, but with increasingly large prizes with each round of the contest, from $5000-$250,000 in funding for an indie band. That's a lot of money for somebody who's just starting out, and they've actually helped make a few indie artists that're now getting mainstream play in other countries because of it.

But you need to keep in mind that, by and large, artists are being given the shaft by an industry that's set up to keep them producing work for a pittance. SOCAN does keep the levies they collect as part of the blank media levy on a separate ledger from the airtime royalties, and I agree with you that they should really distribute the blank media levy on basis of need rather than existing popularity. But I do not agree that they should stop with the levy entirely... as a country, we don't do enough to support our starving artists, and seem to really only recognize them when they've achieved popularity. Until that cultural bias changes, I will continue to support the blank cd levy as a form of voluntary taxation to support musicians. (and no, I'm not using that as justification to download/pirate... I actually don't pirate at all... my entire MP3 collection is stuff I've ripped from CD's that I have purchased legally... and a substantial portion of that is Canadian indie music... I'm actually listening to the new Fantasies album by Metric as I type this, and it's entirely possible that I have something Stereoface has produced, if he's telling the truth about having published CD's and being a member of SOCAN)

And I agree with Stereoface that a blanket license to all music is a bad idea. I can only guess that the RIAA is realizing that their campaign of terror isn't working, and that it's really giving them a bad reputation, and so they're trying to salvage what face they can before it all comes crashing down. I'm all for encouraging people to buy more music legally, but unless you can guarantee that a *significant* portion of the money I'm sending you is actually going to the artist, then I won't be willing to sign up for it. That's the reason I don't buy music online if I can help it... I have no way to guarantee that the money's actually going to the artist. If the artist is selling digital versions of their work through their own band website, then I will buy it... otherwise, I'm going to buy the CD... it may be a shittily designed industry, but at least that way I know that some of the money I'm spending is actually going to the artist.

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 4 years ago | (#29994114)

But I do not agree that they should stop with the levy entirely... as a country, we don't do enough to support our starving artists, and seem to really only recognize them when they've achieved popularity. Until that cultural bias changes, I will continue to support the blank cd levy as a form of voluntary taxation to support musicians.

No. The levy is a perversion of the rightful order of things.

It doesn't support "starving artists", it supports whoever gets played on radio, and those generally don't need that much support as they're fairly popular already. The starving artists that barely get played if ever on radio don't benefit from it.

Supporting based on "need" (who determines it? how?) isn't much better. I don't want to pay people who aren't popular because they don't make good music.

Also, the amount of money that results from the money doesn't have that much to do with music. In some countries, hard disks are taxed. If some development results in the sales of hard disks going up significantly, every artist will get richer, even if the disks were bought by datacenters to store sales databases. That's wrong. Conversely, if the datacenters decide they have enough storage and stop buying more, artists will suffer, which is also wrong.

There's a very simple way of rewarding music creation: The artist makes a song and sells it, and I buy it. That way only the right person gets rewarded for the right act. They make better music, they get richer. They make crap, they don't get money. That's how it should be.

Until that cultural bias changes, I will continue to support the blank cd levy as a form of voluntary taxation to support musicians.

And I'll continue to oppose it, buy less than I used to before it existed, and find ways of avoid paying for it (legally).

I'm all for encouraging people to buy more music legally, but unless you can guarantee that a *significant* portion of the money I'm sending you is actually going to the artist, then I won't be willing to sign up for it.

Funny, that's precisely the reason I'm against the levy.

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 4 years ago | (#29994380)

Good job actually reading what I wrote... specifically, the line right before the one you quoted. It's bad juju to quote yourself, but I think in your case I can make an exception...

they should really distribute the blank media levy on basis of need rather than existing popularity

But clearly, you didn't see it. So good job. Props. You deserve a cookie.

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#29993116)

I buy CDs pretty much exclusively to burn Linux distros

Most distros can install from USB these days... it's way faster!

An older computer that can't boot from USB will need a CD, but that's the only reason not to use USB.

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (1)

macshit (157376) | more than 4 years ago | (#29993524)

Which means that if I copy your music, and you don't get played on radio, you don't get a cent from it. Celine Dion does though. Which IMO is completely bizarre and a perversion of how things should be. If somebody's going to get paid I'd rather it be the right person.

If there were any justice, Celine Dion would be required to pay us every time her "music" is played on the radio!

Not that mere money could undo the damage of course...

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#29992550)

But: Do we care?

No, really! Are we really so weak and pathetic to care, whenever the designated crazy person of the world goes on again, declaring him a new set of rights?

I don't see this ever happening.

Oh, those who have a very twisted view of what is "politically correct", and the weakest spines in the whole universe, will cave in so the dwarf.

But unofficially, everyone will simply ignore them. Hell, look at Sarkozy. Officially: "Oh hell yeah, we need the 3 strikes law". Unofficially he shares so much music, that he already got caught. Twice

I bet money, that every single one of those who are so pathetic to officially support them, are unofficially the biggest file sharers on the planet. I mean imagine you being the manager of one of the big four for a whole continent or country! Will you just leave that huge back archive laying around? LOL. No. way. in. hell! ^^

And the rest of us? We couldn't even follow their fucked up rules, if we wanted!

This whole itty bitty tiny industry that is the music reproduction and artist extortion industry (hell, the toilet seat industry is bigger!), is in its final throes. Acting all crazy and funny. Meanwhile the musician industry is growing, rising, and more successful that it ever was.

Great times lay ahead.

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#29992570)

Oh boy... I'm sorry for the typos. I swear, I proofread it. It's just that this is the first thing I did in the morning. I should have proofeaten my breakfast first, perhaps. ^^

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#29992608)

Individuals do not have access to government. Government is influenced by money. The corruption is plain and obvious for all to see and neither the government nor those who are influencing government with money are the slightest bit ashamed.

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (1)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 4 years ago | (#29993630)

Government is influenced by money, but those in government are primarily influenced by a maintenance of their power. They also absolutely love to use this power, and love even more to acquire more of it for themselves. The bribes and corruption are only symptoms of this root cause.

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (1)

magamiako1 (1026318) | more than 4 years ago | (#29994058)

So what exactly happens in the absence of government? Or a Representative Democracy? Would abusive, rich, powerful individuals just disappear?

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29992578)

According to the Canadian Copyright Act, Canadians can personally make a copy of a CD from any source (original or not). This backup is for personal use, not anyone else to use.

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (1)

belmolis (702863) | more than 4 years ago | (#29992616)

In Canada it is legal, under Section 80 of the Copyright Act [justice.gc.ca] , to copy a recording for one's personal use. It is not legal to distribute copies.

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (3, Interesting)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#29992648)

the cd tax is so flawed it's not funny. only artists who sell over a certain number of cd's ever see a cent, so if i'm a local band who produces an album, burns it to 3000 cd's to try get some kind of exposure, your album is actually taxed and some cocksucker affliated with *AA profits off it via the tax you paid....

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (3, Informative)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#29993502)

3000 is probably the wrong number to use in that argument, you can get 1000 cds stamped (and printed and shipped) for $750, your sales better be awful incremental if burning blanks a few at a time makes more sense than risking the $750 for nice looking stamped discs. $1100 gets you retail ready packages.

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 4 years ago | (#29993960)

If you sign up for SOCAN, you can actually get reimbursed 100% of the levy that you spend on blank cd's to promote your own work. Since membership in SOCAN is free (as in beer) if you apply online, and costs only a one-time fee of $25 if you apply on paper, there's not any reason for an artist to *not* join SOCAN.

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29994062)

so if i'm a local band who produces an album, burns it to 3000 cd's to try get some kind of exposure, your album is actually taxed and some cocksucker affliated with *AA profits off it via the tax you paid....

The sad fact is some local bands actually pushed for this when pushing to expand copyright law.

Of course the media interests told the bands they would make some insane amount of money if the laws are passed, and with no critical thinking used, their greed had them vote for the very thing that made that situation happen.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not accusing you or your example band of being this way, but there are a good number that are.

The industry used the artists own greed against them. If only there wasn't so much collateral damage, I'd say they got what they deserved.

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (1)

s4ltyd0g (452701) | more than 4 years ago | (#29993078)

commenting to undo an erroneous mod

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (1)

ze_jua (910531) | more than 4 years ago | (#29993832)

Same shit in France.

Every blank media (even extrenal hard drives, USB keys, flash cards and iPods!) have very big "tax" going to the SACEM (French RIAA), but it doesn't give us the right to use these blank medium to... record music!!

(In fact the system is a bit more complex, but the summary is correct).

Free bonus, the tax is indexed on the size of the media (in bytes, not in centimeter ;) !

Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29994310)

From TFA:

On the basis of those initial talks, the colleges would pay the music industry a blanket licensing fee, similar to what radio stations pay to air popular songs. There was also discussion of the record labels' signing a "covenant not to sue" for any illegal downloading of their songs by users on participating campuses, he said.

If there's no sueage covenant, why in the HELL would any school even consider this hare-brained scheme? I hope the names of these schools (if indeed they exist; Warner is a lying sociopathic entity whose word on anything can't be trusted) are revealed soon so I can make sure my daughter doesn't go there (I hope it isn't LLCC; she's applying there). How can a university run by idiots be any good?

Think about it -- students can get RIAA material from their "service" but not indie material, but if they download indie music from morpheus (is "scatterbrain.mp3" a RIAA song? Some of the hundreds with that name are, hundreds are not) they get sued. I've been saying all along that the RIAA's war on file sharing was really just a war on independant music labels. Where are the Federal anti-trust police?

Anonymous Cowards? (3, Interesting)

plastick (1607981) | more than 4 years ago | (#29992302)

Sure they're scared of being sued! Just look at the track record.

You know, this wouldn't even be so much of a problem if the music industry (these publishers) charged a reasonable price for a CD that costs them a few cents to make. You know... a CD with 7 songs on it where 5 of the songs suck, 1 song is ok, and you really only wanted that 1 song you paid the $30 bucks for.

Instead, they want to sue Apple over royalties for the 30 second song previews on iTunes.

Music's worth it; labels aren't. (3, Interesting)

weston (16146) | more than 4 years ago | (#29992604)

wouldn't even be so much of a problem if the music industry (these publishers) charged a reasonable price for a CD

I don't think that $12-$15 (or a buck or two per track) is really an unfair price for even a half-decent CD, really (and I don't think many people pay $30). It may be vanishingly cheap to transmit bits or print them into plastic and foil discs, but it's a lot of work to create music. Paying for it is one good way to make sure the people who make it can keep doing it. Not that it's not good for artists to sometimes sell lower or even give music away, and not that I don't agree there's a lot of crap out there that isn't worth paying for. Just that the most common prices don't seem unreasonable to me given the work involved in making music.

The labels and publishers, on the other hand... increasingly irrelevant middlemen and control freaks who add a lot of overhead and a questionable amount of value.

Re:Music's worth it; labels aren't. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29992816)

I think there is an idea, that goes like...
If an artist simply sold their music, and let people pay what they want to pay. Like instead of a fixed price, there'd be a suggested price, and you pay what you want to pay. (Probably best to have a $2 minimum or something.)

Re:Music's worth it; labels aren't. (4, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#29992936)

Fair price is a misleading question. The real question is whether they are pricing their product in the best way to maximise profits and I strongly suspect that they are not. I pay about the cost of an album every month to a company that lets me rent DVDs (two at once, as fast as I can watch them and post them back) and stream an unlimited number of TV shows and films. In comparison with this, an album seems stupidly expensive. According to iTunes, I haven't listened to any of my albums more than 128 times and very few more than 30 times. There aren't any that I've been listening to with 100% of my attention, so in terms of money per time spent entertained, music is much more expensive than video.

At the current prices, I'll buy 2-6 albums per year. If you priced an album at $1-2 then it would be an impulse purchase. If I heard a song I liked on Radio Paradise, then I'd buy the rest of the album to see if I liked it. Perhaps I'm unusual, but I suspect that I'm no. The cost of producing music has dropped a lot in the last few decades, but the cost of buying it has not. Meanwhile, the cost of other forms of entertainment has dropped a lot and music seems proportionally much more expensive. I've read a couple of studies indicating that around 5-15/track is the optimum price for maximising profit when selling music but the music industry seems to think that 99/track is the right price (which is fine) and that they should expect the same number of sales that they'd get with 5/track (which is completely unreasonable) and then blame piracy for their failure to adapt.

Coincidentally, Ars published quite a nice round up on this subject today [arstechnica.com] .

Re:Music's worth it; labels aren't. (3, Interesting)

koiransuklaa (1502579) | more than 4 years ago | (#29993202)

I don't think that $12-$15 (or a buck or two per track) is really an unfair price for even a half-decent CD, really (and I don't think many people pay $30).

/me raises hand...

Normal CD price here is 20€ which at current rates is $29.5. Add to the insult the fact that there are no web stores that would sell non-DRM music to a linux user in Finland (I'd love it if someone proves me wrong, btw).

Re:Music's worth it; labels aren't. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29993758)

iTunes on Wine.

Only thing I can think of.

Re:Music's worth it; labels aren't. (1)

EvilIdler (21087) | more than 4 years ago | (#29994216)

http://www.klicktrack.com/klicktrack/home [klicktrack.com] have Memento Materia and other strangeness.
MP3s at highest bitrate. About the rates of iTunes.

http://www.emusic.com/ [emusic.com] might or might not accept you. They seem to be doing a lot of strange things to non-American visitors, but their selection is wide enough to lie for ;)
Plain MP3 or XUL-based downloader. Cheaper than iTunes.

http://magnatune.com/ [magnatune.com] for independent artists.
FLAC, Vorbis, MP3, AAC, WAV. No iTunes comparison, but you can either buy downloads or CDs cheap for listening, or you can licence it for other uses.

Other online music stores: Google a bit for ways to get a US-registered debit card and mailbox :)
I fully support lying and cheating to get the music - we're sitting here with money in hand, but they won't take it.

Re:Music's worth it; labels aren't. (5, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#29993320)

If we had a free market and sane copyright terms I would agree with you. The way I usually end any argument about "artists rights" and the *.A.As is this-

Steamboat Willie is STILL under copyright. The man has been worm food (or a Popsicle, depending on whom you believe) for going on half a century but one of his FIRST works, one made when airplanes were made out of cloth and antibiotics were still but a dream, is STILL under copyright.

If we hadn't had the public domain stolen from us thanks to treasonous bribery we all could go to a nice public domain website and download all the music up to the mid 70s for absolutely free. Artists could use that material to create new and exciting works by remixing, sampling, and using snippets in their original compositions. Instead thanks to treasonous bribery in all likelihood your grandchildren, if they are very lucky and live to be VERY old, might actually one day see the music of Jimi Hendrix and the Stones make it into the public domain. That is of course if that damned mouse doesn't cause copyrights to simply be extended forever, again thanks to bribery.

So while I haven't heard shit from an RIAA artist I would bother even stealing, I say if you like it please steal the fuckers. After all they have stolen from you, me, our children, our families, by robbing our public domain from us to fill their greedy pockets. The copyright system was a CONTRACT nothing more. In return for a LIMITED copyright We, The People, got a richer public domain. But the contract has been broken, and until We, The People, are again allowed a place at the bargaining table all rights granted by that contract should be ignored. Considering they are ignoring our end of the contract, why shouldn't we do the same?

Re:Music's worth it; labels aren't. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29994056)

Mod parent up.

Re:Music's worth it; labels aren't. (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#29993638)

I don't think that $12-$15 (or a buck or two per track) is really an unfair price for even a half-decent CD, really

It's not horrible, but I think part of what ticks people off is the impression that the record labels save lots of money by distributing online and also get a bigger cut of the price, and yet they keep the price the same and sit around complaining about how they're not making enough money. I don't think people are quite as upset about paying the $10-$15 for an album as they're upset about that money going to, as you say, "increasingly irrelevant middlemen". The perception is that, if you cut out that middleman, the price could drop significantly without diminishing the amount actually going to the people making the album.

Is that fair? I don't know for sure. If anyone thinks that perception doesn't reflect the reality of the situation, then I'd love an alternate viewpoint.

Re:Music's worth it; labels aren't. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29993852)

In some ways I see where you're coming from but at the same time I think this is the most common defense of stupidity that I've ever seen on Slashdot. Why is it that people here feel the need to defend people who aren't willing to figure out their place in the universe at the time they sign a contract with a label?
 
The labels are only rip offs to some artists who are too lazy to understand their agreement prior to agreeing to it. For some artists the labels afford them a freedom of not having to deal with the business aspect of the industry and they feel they are paying a fair price. I would agree with this. If an artist is unwilling to do the heavy lifting that a label does for them they need to pay for the service.
 
Independents have been out there for as long as recorded music has been a mainstay for public consumption. The choices are in place and always have been for today's artists. Stop pandering to their ego trips that make them think that they are somehow outside the same conditions that you and I have to face every day.

Re:Anonymous Cowards? (1)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 4 years ago | (#29993658)

You know, this wouldn't even be so much of a problem if the music industry (these publishers) charged a reasonable price for a CD that costs them a few cents to make.

Well, since all valuation is subjective, I don't think anyone can come to a fair price. What you see as fair may to me be horrendously expensive.

I like to spell 'Israel' liek 'I$rael.' (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29992348)

lol I$rael.

Israeli aggression more like I$raeli aggre$$ion amirite??

The United Jew$ of I$rael! lol
Amerikkka!

Let's turn it around. (4, Interesting)

NoPantsJim (1149003) | more than 4 years ago | (#29992386)

How's this for an idea. A band signs with a college instead of a record label. The college pays the band, everyone at the college gets their music for free.

Yeah, probably not the greatest of plans, but much better than a college handing it's own students over to the RIAA.

Awesome. (1)

weston (16146) | more than 4 years ago | (#29992516)

How's this for an idea. A band signs with a college instead of a record label. The college pays the band, everyone at the college gets their music for free.

Awesome. And the band gets an education from the college, instead of the record industry!

Though to be fair, I'm sure the record industry is a very educational experience...

Re:Let's turn it around. (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#29992526)

The college pays the band, everyone at the college gets their music for free.

You have a strange definition of 'free'. Plus, that's just one band. This is nothing like the college handing its students to the RIAA. Read the article.. the spokesperson actually speaks some sense, apart from his bullshit about "being excited which price point is optimal for the recording artist" or whatever he said. Presumably that means the cheapest they can pay them while still keeping them onboard.

This kind of service is a *good* idea, it's just the fact that it's being controlled by the RIAA that is scary.

infinite, free music for a one time fee? (0, Flamebait)

Dr. Hellno (1159307) | more than 4 years ago | (#29992434)

I loathe the recording industry as much as anyone, but it's really, really hard to hate them for this one. Of course they'd be shooting themselves in the foot, no student would ever pay for music again. And it's probably not great for the artists. But seeing as the whole industry is going down the tubes anyway, I fully support this initiative to provide me with infinite music in the meantime.

Re:infinite, free music for a one time fee? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29992464)

Won't most of the students get sued the day after graduation, when they are no longer associated with the college and haven't deleted their music collections?

Re:infinite, free music for a one time fee? (1)

yayotters (833158) | more than 4 years ago | (#29992536)

The article said that music would be kept even AFTER ceasing payment. With this in mind and the compatibility with multiple mp3 players, it seems like there may not be any form of DRM on the downloaded music either.

Re:infinite, free music for a one time fee? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29993588)

It REALLY helps when people actually READ what folks say. You get to keep the music forever. Even if you only pay for one month. Yes, he really DID say that.

What about... (4, Informative)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 4 years ago | (#29992512)

...the people who don't listen to music, or don't want to financially support the RIAA, or have any other reason to not want to pay for this license? Is there an opt-out option? A quick glance through TFA didn't say so either way.

Re:What about... (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#29992934)

There are people who don't listen to music? That's probably the saddest thing I've ever heard.

As for the rest of it, that's the nature of Taxation. Everyone pays because everyone can benefit, and it's up to them if they choose to. The cost won't be covered by only some paying. Plus, there's the deficit to be made up from people unable to pay.

Tax isn't bad when it's done right; I.e., when the revenue raised is appropriated appropriately.

Re:What about... (1)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 4 years ago | (#29992980)

There are people who don't listen to music? That's probably the saddest thing I've ever heard.

Okay, so I meant the RIAA's music. Or music that isn't included in this deal. I, personally, listen to independent music that probably wouldn't be found in their catalog.

As for the rest of it, that's the nature of Taxation. Everyone pays because everyone can benefit, and it's up to them if they choose to. The cost won't be covered by only some paying. Plus, there's the deficit to be made up from people unable to pay. Tax isn't bad when it's done right; I.e., when the revenue raised is appropriated appropriately.

Except that taxes are normally set by governments... when corporations can tax the public, we're screwed.

Re:What about... (2, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#29993690)

What about this:

The most unusual feature of Choruss is that users would be able to download any song in the collection to their own computers, with no restrictions. Unlike Apple's iTunes, which charges about a dollar per song for unrestricted downloads, this would be an all-you-can-grab song buffet. Want to make CD's? Sure.

What if they want to make CDs, and then they want to sell those CDs? Copyright only governs the creation of a copy, but once a copy is created you're generally allowed to sell it. Does the license forbid such reselling? Is it enforceable?

Re:What about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29994228)

I think opt-outs for a lot of things are bad. This, if ever fully implemented, should be opt-in. The same goes for credit card companies sharing info with affiliates and everything else of that nature.

RIAA is more hated than IRS (2, Insightful)

Etylowy (1283284) | more than 4 years ago | (#29992524)

And music was supposed to be entertainment..

Re:RIAA is more hated than IRS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29994378)

But it is an entertainment. At least to me, to find songs, download them for free and not being caught.

At least it's exciting.

The really interesting part of the article... (2, Interesting)

supersat (639745) | more than 4 years ago | (#29992694)

... is this paragraph:

Noank Media, a company based on a Harvard University research proposal, is working on a blanket-license program that would charge colleges and other institutions a flat fee. Users would install software that would count every time they played a song, for the purpose of distributing royalties to the musicians.

What? How do they expect that to work? Are service providers going to force me to install some metering software? How will it count plays on portable music players?

Re:The really interesting part of the article... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29992726)

It's in your interest to report what you like, so authors make profit and investors can invest in similar things (that you would like). Of course, reports passed to the licensing company should be in percentages or otherwise you are influenced to lie, as lots of downloads=higher blanket fee.

Re:The really interesting part of the article... (2, Interesting)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 4 years ago | (#29992788)

They'd better have a Linux version. Or are you going to have to run Windows or OS X if you buy into this license?

Re:The really interesting part of the article... (1)

mathx314 (1365325) | more than 4 years ago | (#29994116)

Even more likely: only Windows. When I came to college I was offered a subscription to Ruckus, a now-defunct service where you could download music for free but only listen to it before your subscription expired at the end of your time at school. Of course, everyone with a Mac or Linux (yeah, there were a few) were out of luck.

Re:The really interesting part of the article... (1)

EvilIdler (21087) | more than 4 years ago | (#29994264)

OS X? Dream on. They'll tell you the same as they do when you want a Linux version: Tell you to install Windows. The fuckers.

This system is as usual initiated by people who don't know anything about technology. You'd think they at least knew about iPods (generic MP3 players might be a stretch - the average person over 50 is a technological moron ;). Hacks to stop the counter will be ready by official launch day.

Re:The really interesting part of the article... (4, Insightful)

user4574 (1645049) | more than 4 years ago | (#29993296)

Whether they have some kind of intrusive metering software or not, what I'm wondering is how they think they can pull off paying out per-play royalties to artists from a flat-fee, unlimited-download subscription model. The maths, they don't add up.

Re:The really interesting part of the article... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29993398)

More to the point....I listen to music on my computer all the time, but *I'M* the only one listening.
Since I've already "purchased" the music, why the h*** do they think I want to pay MORE each and every time I listen to it?

so they are going to GIVE AWAY the music, and only charge for the listening? don't think that will work too well.

Re:The really interesting part of the article... (1)

jellyfrog (1645619) | more than 4 years ago | (#29993916)

They're not charging for the listening... they're distributing the payments you have already made ($ per month) to artists depending how much you listen to them. ie. if you listen to one band 50% of the time, 50% of your monthly $30 will go to that band.

Re:The really interesting part of the article... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29993594)

Here's a better idea, everyone installs Spotify - Does the same job (if you get the paid for version) and none of this bollocks and risk of being sued for overusing any sort of 'fair use' program that may come about

evil (1)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 4 years ago | (#29993018)

Huh, Choruss sounds a lot like My Precioussss ...
figures.

Blanket licence - whatever next (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29993388)

So now they want to licence blankets, good job I use a quilt and sheets... Plus I'm sure I own the blankets I've got - I didn't have to sign any licence agreement, or click through some gobbledegook screen when I bought them.

And why should the music industry be trying to make money out of bedding anyway?

Maybe I'm losing the plot.

Cornell University, the first to deny :-) (1)

Laxator2 (973549) | more than 4 years ago | (#29993890)

Just to remember one thing, when Microsoft pushed their Windows clusters (yes, there is such a thing) Cornell was the only university which bought such clusters and forced their students to use them. This time I am sure they did not sign up to the "project" ...

Here's two other anonymous cowards (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29994608)

I know two Universities testing this...because I have set up this turd.

University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Purdue

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?