BMI Reports All-Time Profit High Despite Piracy 335
applemasker writes "Arstechnica is running a story chock full of links to other interesting things about BMI's amazing record profit and how the RIAA skews its sales statistics while strangling fair use." Phew, so the artists aren't really starving, but we still can't all go back to "borrowing" music from our friends instead of each purchasing our own copy.
What BMI will say (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What BMI will say (Score:5, Insightful)
Cheers,
Erick
Re:What BMI will say (Score:5, Interesting)
The owners of copyrighted material often say they suffer "harm" and "economic loss"
resulting from illegal copying. Like most arguments put forth by copyright enthusiasts, it holds little water - for several reasons:
The claim is mostly inaccurate because it presupposes that the copying individual would otherwise have bought a copy from the publisher. That is occasionally true, but more often false; and when it is false, the claimed loss does not occur.
The claim is partly misleading because the word "loss" suggests events of a very different nature--events in which something they have is taken away from them. For example, if the bookstore's stock of books were burned, or if the money in the register got torn up, that would really be a "loss." We generally agree it is wrong to do these things to other people. But when your friend avoids the need to buy a copy of a book, the bookstore and the publisher do not lose anything they had. A more fitting description would be that the bookstore and publisher get less income than they might have got. The same consequence can result if your friend decides to play bridge instead of reading a book. In a free market system, no business is entitled to cry "foul" just because a potential customer chooses not to deal with them. The claim is begging the question because the idea of "loss" is based on the assumption that the publisher "should have" gotten paid. That is based on the assumption
that copyright exists and prohibits individual copying. But that is just the issue at hand: what should copyright cover? If the public decides it can share copies, then the publisher is not entitled to expect to be paid for each copy, and so cannot claim there is a "loss" when it is not.
In other words, the "loss" comes from the copyright system; it is not an inherent part of copying. Copying in itself hurts no one.
Re:What BMI will say (Score:5, Insightful)
Now lots of people, including myself, believe that copyright has gotten out of hand. The extensions, for example, are completely unnecessary to the original goal. I don't think anyone here believes that it will take 70+ years for an author these days to recoup their investment plus make a profit on their book. In fact, since copyright depends upon the life of the author, we're truly just allowing for the estate of the author to live off of their work, something that doesn't jive (in my opinion) with the purpose of copyright.
But what it all comes down to is that it doesn't matter. We live in a society where copyright is the law. Copyright infringement isn't stealing, but it is against the law. A person doesn't deserve to download to music just because they'd never buy it anyway, so the store+record company+artist isn't going to lose anything. If you don't like the law, work to get it changed. But it doesn't mean it's acceptable to break it and justify it with crap like that.
Re:What BMI will say (Score:3, Interesting)
I am sorry, but that is utter crap. The average citizen or even groups of millions of citizens of low income have zero or near zero hopes of changing the law in the US. You can carry on with your righteous theories all day long, but you're absolutely wrong. It is the duty of citizens who feel that laws are unjust to break them. It is an honor to break laws that are created b
Re:What BMI will say (Score:3, Insightful)
That is assuming that sharing files, even copyrighted music files, is breaking the law. Unfortunately for your argument, not all of Us The People accept the *AA's version of that argument.
Most of the sharing done on P2P networks would fall under unregulated uses (NOT even fair use) in the real world. If I voluntarily gave a CD I owned to one of my friends, it would be perfectly legal. If I play
Re:What BMI will say (Score:5, Interesting)
WRONG! You shouldn't start your post with a logical fallacy. Creative works were produced long before the notion of copyright ever existed therefore you can never assert that copyrights were the cause without extra justification.
Really, you should build up to the logical fallacy that way it is more believable.
This of course is why we will probably never win in this battle. Nobody who cares enough about truth is willing to blatantly lie to take down blatant liars.
Re:What BMI will say (Score:5, Interesting)
Books (and libraries) predate the concept of copyright by a very long time.
The system allows for the (supposedly limited) monopoly on ideas so that artists could make a living and produce their content.
Actually copyright was invented to give the state control over use of the printing press. Resulting in the business model of the third party publisher. Media invented afterwards copied the same business model.
Without such laws in the first place, it's unlikely that we'd have the variety and multitude of movies, books, television shows, etc. that are out there.
Movies and televison postdate the invention of copyright, so it's anyone's guess how they might work without it. Whereas books predate the concept by thousands of years.
It's very much evident that authors will write books without copyright even existing. It's also far from clear that the existance of copyright does much to encourage authorship anyway.
Re:What BMI will say (Score:3, Insightful)
This comment by Sancho is just begging for a reply, so here goes:
And no books existed before copyright? You are kidding, right? The Statute of Anne [copyrighthistory.com] was passed in 1710. China managed to get along without copyright for the first 700 or so years of movable type printing (starting in about 1041) and had been producing woodblock prints, in the absence of copyright, since at least the 6th century [printersmark.com]. Are you trying to tell me th
Re:What BMI will say (Score:5, Interesting)
Um, no. Copyright is defined in the Constitution. It grants the creator of the work thr right to control how and when the a copy of the work is created and distributed. If this right did not exist, there would be drastically less incentive to create, and the public domain would become void of artistic works. The problem is that the original terms of copyright have been extended far beyond the point of any usefulness. When you say "if the public decides" you are ignoring the fundamental protection from the tyranny of the majority that the constitution affords us all. Would you sing the sae tune if the public decides they all have the right of prima nupta and line up to have sex with your wife on your wedding night to bless the union? You won't have been robbed of any property or income.
Re:What BMI will say (Score:5, Insightful)
If this right did not exist, there would be drastically less incentive to create, and the public domain would become void of artistic works.
Good point, except that the public domain IS becoming void of artistic works, and will continue to do so for the next 75+ years thanks to the work of the late Sonny Bono and other "public servants."
Probably longer than that, actually - I can see it now: the MICKEY II AP act - Money In Copyright Key II American Prosperity act - will ensure that copyrights last for up to 90 years after the corporation that bought them for pennies of the dollar goes bankrupt.
They (the corporations) are not holding up to their end of the bargain (limited copyright). So why should I hold up to my end by buying their music instead of taking what should rightfully be in the public commons? (I don't listen to music from the current times, thanks.) Because the law says so? You're going to have to give this free thinker a better reason than that, Jack.
The musicians are in the middle of the battle, and those who keep signing with RIAA labels have shown where their allegiances lie. Thus, they'll get no pity from me.
Re:What BMI will say (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, people who really love to write, compose music, etc AND are already insanely wealthy -- wealthy enough to write for the benefit of others for free while at the same time supporting their families without any additional income. So, how many people do you think fall into that category? We could just go down the list of great american authors and see how many we would have had if there was no financial incentive to produce books... can you name one? I mean I know for a fact that Hawthorne, Twain, Melville, Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Steinbeck, and Salinger would not have written as prolifically if at all if there had been no prospect for financial incentive. The prospect of future returns paying either for previously incurred expenses or to sustain their overly extravagant lifestyle was a major part of the reason they chose to write.
More importantly, though, I think you completely misunderstand the nature of our economic system. Right now, for example, lawyers are rewarded handsomely when they successfully represent their clients. That makes law a profitable field, and because people like to have money it makes law a competitive field. More people try to become lawyers and, as a result, we have much better lawyers now, on average, than we did say 50 years ago. (read some case law and it will be quite obvious to you that the quality of representation has improved). Awarding copyright to artists does the same thing -- it makes the creation of art a competitive field. I don't want to read a book some idiot with family money put together, published, and distributed because I have very little interest in reading anything that a substantial portion of the population isn't willing to pay to read. (Substantial portion here doesn't imply mainstream, simply large enough to support a boutique publisher's overhead).
But this brings about another problem... if there is to be no copyright then who will pay to publish and distribute the books? Who will pay for the endless rounds of editing that go into every book you buy? Maybe you distribute electronically, though that has been wildly unsuccessful so far because people (and that is who we care about here, remember) don't like to read off of computer screens. They do that enough at work, and so maybe they print it out themselves for 4 cents a page... and so this 1200 page book in my hand would cost me $48 to print up. That is cheaper than the $60 that I paid for it, but that does not include the editing or the compensation for the writer...
For some reason, though, you were stupid enough to repeatedly make the point that copyright is without merit, and that it serves no constructive purpose in our society. How exactly would this society-without-copyright exist in your fairytale world? How would the creators of intellectual property profit from their massive investments of time, energy, and money? Maybe Steinbeck would write and publish his own books, you know, in that free time between 18 hour shifts as a bricklayer. Maybe Hemingway would have been able to write "The Sun Also Rises" imbetween digging ditches. I doubt it, though.
What irks me the most, though, is that a small-minded cretin like you infers from the fact that you can see no usefulness to one of the most important development in property rights in the last 3000 years that no one else has thought about the issue. You completely ignore the very real fac
Re:What BMI will say (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think I'd mind living in a world where this is the case.
-Z
Re:What BMI will say (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What BMI will say (Score:5, Interesting)
What video these days doesn't push a product or three? Heck, videos contain enough commericals now that I wouldn't be surprised if MTV actually started showing videos again.
Smaller artists, like many of my friends, make most of their money from live performances... despite being signed to "major labels."
Sadly, these major labels often sign many artists to keep them from signing with other groups. Paying them a small fee and then "vaporwaring" their music keeps them out of the competition.
The music companies are bastards, bastards them all.
Re:What BMI will say (Score:3, Insightful)
No, we should start purchasing our own copy from our friends instead of the RIAA. That way our friends will remain our friends and we won't be giving our money to monopoly cartels who will be using it to extort us and to put us and our friends in prison for the crime of listening to music.
There does come a point in every middle-c
Re:What BMI will say (Score:4, Insightful)
dude, videos *are* commercials. They advertise the band's song/recording/performance, depending on the video. They're four-minute long chunks of TV that MTV is *paid*, usually by the bands themselves, to put on. The bands also pay for the production of the video as well. And you'll notice that they tend to come out right before a album relase or tour - they're just commercials to sell a product. That was the whole beauty of MTV when it started - it was basically a channel of 24-hour commercials that people would beg to watch. Same goes these days for M2 and fuse.
Somewhere along the line, MTV decided to introduce original programming, but keep it as low-budget as possible, hence reality television - no stars, no writers, no directors, no sets. Just producers, assistants, and a dozen or so poor saps ready to humiliate themselves on network television for a chance at a measly half a mil... after signing all the insurance waivers, of course. The budget benefits of reality programming are the reason it'll be around for a long time.
Re:What BMI will say (Score:3, Insightful)
All he was saying is that artists made most of their money elsewhere. Considering that it's quite well documented that the recording industry rips off it's artists big time(and the parent was talking about just that, in fact), I wouldn't be suprised.
A lot of people pay for their music for the warm fuzzy feeling of knowing that the artists are being paid, while still knocking the music industry for their profit hoarding, screwing both the artists and the customers(see: price
Re:What BMI will say (Score:5, Informative)
Why would they say that? BMI collects royalties on performance rights, not CD sales. CD sales have nothing to do with their revenue stream.
Remember, BMI is a non-profit artists' rights agency, collecting royalties for composers and songwriters for performances -- not sales -- of music which was written or composed by their members.
Re:What BMI will say (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What BMI will say (Score:2, Insightful)
I have a little problem with music these days: why would I buy a record that I can't listen to because it is copy-protected?
I understand that Kazaa punks pirate music, but each day, I hear more and more stories of people who bought CDs and return them for a refund because it's not working... Piracy was the problem, now it's the only solution to hear the music you bought.
Re:What BMI will say (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What BMI will say (Score:5, Informative)
Cheers,
Erick
Re:What BMI will say (Score:2)
Re:What BMI will say (Score:3, Insightful)
Because they are a $60 billion company (well, the parent is - the electronics division is $32 billion.)
The entire US record industry is less than $15 billion. The GLOBAL music industry is worth around $32 billion.
In other words, Phillips could theoretically buy the entire industry and put them all out of business.
So they do want they want and the RIAA can kiss their ass.
Sony is in a more difficu
Re:What BMI will say (Score:2)
The CDs I didn't buy as a result of hearing on the radio or in a movie theatre, I bought because I heard them played by friends and liked them.
Very, very rarely do I buy a CD without knowing that I like what's on it beforehand. The money
Something we don't know (Score:3, Insightful)
Songwriters make more than artists (Score:2)
Perhaps the recording artists are struggling to recoup, but the songwriters aren't. This shows that the way to make money in the record business is to write songs for other artists to cover, as it's the songwriter who gets paid when a song is played on the radio. However, songwriters run the risk of copyright infringement [slashdot.org].
Re:Something we don't know (Score:5, Insightful)
"Maybe the BMI could tell us something we couldn't figure out for ourselves. We know the music artists aren't starving, its not too hard to figure out when they are driving around H2's and flashing their bling-bling."
I think you're confusing the performers -- the pretty people whose photos are on the cover of the CD -- with the songwriters and composers who work behind the scenes creating the music that's recorded by the music stars. Sometimes they're the same person (in the case of a singer/songwriter) but often they're not.
A career as a composer or songwriter is often shitty, backbreaking work for little or no recognition. Very few Hummer H2s for the majority of those who've made this their chosen profession.
And it's BMI who looks out for these people.
"Effect" bottom line? (Score:2, Informative)
Everyone knows that piracy can effect an artist's bottom line
Perhaps they mean affect. Unless they mean that piracy can bring an artist's bottom line into existence-- an interesting concept.
Re:"Effect" bottom line? (Score:2)
Hey, it worked for the original MS Windows... I seem to remember some statistics that show that most people who got hooked on the whole 'windows' thing did so as a result of piracy.
Bringing an artist's bottom line into existence (Score:5, Funny)
Unless they mean that piracy can bring an artist's bottom line into existence-- an interesting concept.
"They're pirating our records!"
"How can we get them to buy our records? What's something we can offer that the pirates can't?"
"Ummm... liner notes?"
"Bingo. Let's have $TEEN_FEMALE_SINGER get her butt done and put more pictures in the liner notes of her next album."
So then the label advances $TEEN_FEMALE_SINGER the money for cosmetic surgery on her backside, effecting her bottom line.
Re:Bringing an artist's bottom line into existence (Score:2)
Funny you should say that. I downloaded Sgt Pepper the other day (I own it twice on vinyl and didn't want to bother with bringing the record player downstairs), and when it finally was done I discovered much more than just the FLACs. There were something like 5 pictures of the front, back, inside cover, cd, etc. Then there was a word document that contained all the linear notes and pictu
Grammar for Geeks: affect vs. effect (Score:3, Funny)
Affect is a verb.
Effect is a noun.
So then the label advances $TEEN_FEMALE_SINGER the money for cosmetic surgery on her backside, affecting her bottom line.
Checkout Grammar for Geeks [planetoid.org]
Recently, I started attending college and made this same fatal mistake several times in a paper. A quick way to remember the difference is "affect the effect" or "When you affect a situation, you have an effect on it." Overall, you demonstrate good punctuation and writing style.
"You are so convinc
Brining into existance (Score:2)
Reminds me of South Park (Score:4, Funny)
Still (Score:4, Interesting)
I'll stop doing that when I feel the price for an album has settled to a more reasonable price point.
Inflation (Score:2)
How much did a vinyl record typically cost in the early 1980s? Now double it. For one thing, many CD albums first published in the last few years would fit on three or four sides of 12 inch vinyl; for another, the dollar is worth less compared to groceries in 2004 than it was in 1984.
Re:Inflation (Score:5, Insightful)
You're absolutely correct -- in fact, the price of music has not kept up with inflation. That record on sale for $9.99 in 1984 would cost $17.60 in today's dollars; meanwhile (believe it or not) the average price of a new CD is now down to about $13.50.
Re:Inflation (Score:3, Informative)
No problem, that figure surprises a lot of people. The data is here [npd.com] (note I was a little high; it's $13.29 now, down from $13.79 last year). The reason why many folks balk at that average price is because it's a mathematical average of all new CDs sold, and I think many if not most Slashdotters don't buy the most popular music (but they might be "sharing" it ;-) ).
It's common practice nowadays for retailers to put a hot new release out at $11.99 or $12.99. During the first few weeks at that price, it w
Re:Still (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Still (Score:3, Insightful)
That system was created before the technology to do all of that cheaply became commonplace. Excellent software exists to record, edit, and mix tracks, and
Re:Still (Score:3, Insightful)
I certainly doesn't cost that much. Half or so of the $17 goes to the retailer. A few dollars of the remaining $10 goes to the wholesale distributor. A dollar or so remaining goes to the 'artist' in theory, but in reality record contracts are written so that almost all of the money that would go to the 'artist' goes to record company support companies or individuals. These are the CD press
Re:Still-Robin Hood Tactics. (Score:2)
Re:Still-Dodge ball. (Score:2)
Believe it or not, there are such things as extortion and unfari market practises. Somehow Microsoft is a teh Devil sux0r, but the music companies are all hone
I sense the potential for confusion (Score:5, Informative)
BMI != BMG
BMG is a record label.
BMI is a performance rights organization representing songwriters and their publishers. It handles royalties for radio play of over 4 million copyrighted songs. The other major performance rights organizations are ASCAP and SESAC.
Re:I sense the potential for confusion (Score:4, Informative)
I think the problem the RIAA has with file sharing is that is shifts the profits an artist receives to being funneled through (with usual middleman skim-off) BMI type companies instead of BMG (RIAA) type companies. This article isn't and shouldn't be about RIAA type sales not decreasing; it is about the revenue, that music lovers direct to artists, shifting to other industries as a result of technological evolution.
Re:I sense the potential for confusion (Score:2)
"Representing more than 300,000 songwriters, composers and music publishers with a repertoire of 4.5 million musical works from around the world, BMI licenses more than half the music performed in America. Founded in 1939, BMI operates on a non-profit basis, paying more than 85% of revenue collected to copyright owners."
They don't sound "evil". They are no
Re:I sense the potential for confusion (Score:2)
Re:I sense the potential for confusion (Score:4, Informative)
"paying more than 85% of revenue collected to copyright owners." Copyright owners = the record company's"
I'm not sure how you made that connection. BMI is a performers' rights organization. They represent (and help collect money for) songwriters and composers, not record companies. Songwriters and composers, on the whole, make absolutely terrible money, and it's organizations like BMI that look out for them.
It's covered here [bmi.com].
Re:I sense the potential for confusion (Score:3, Informative)
"If you look at the typical contract, you will see that the "copyright holder" *is* the record company."
I think I see where you and the other fellow are confused. There are multiple copyrights. Copyrights on the words and music remain with the songwriter and composers and/or their publishing companies -- the folks represented by BMI, the company we're discussing. These are the folks that BMI means when they refer to "copyright holders."
The copyright on the recording often belongs with some combinat
-1, obvious (Score:5, Interesting)
this will likely be spun as "look how well our lawsuits are working, people are actually buying music again"
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm hungry (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, the artist if they sell have to pay back recording costs before they make money themselve and some only break even. That is why songwriter royalities are so important to artists. The artists may not make money off records themselve, but make money from their song writing.
When a record is played on the radio, or a CD sold part of the money goes to the record company in the past called mechanical royalites. Then another part of the money go to song writer royalities. Plus we aren't talking about much money a few cents per play. That what many artist have to pay the bills with.
>>> but we still can't all go back to "borrowing" music from our friends Borrowing from friends sound innocent, trouble is it's long term borrowing, and not alway friends, but strangers on the internet. Theft is theif. In the past the recordind companies accepted so much of this "borrowing" between friends. But when people started sharing with anyone and everyone you blew it for everyone. So don't blame the record companies and artist who want to get paid. You abused the system and now EVERYONE is paying for your greed.
Re:I'm hungry (Score:2)
The fact that the controllers are making huge profits does not mean that a fair or even any percentage of those profits are being shared with the content creators. This has been one of the oft-quoted reasons or justifications for p2p sharing - my $18.00 towards the CD means little or nothing to the unfortunately locked-in contract signees, so why fatten the profiteers?
Check out Courtney Love's (google) screeds on the way the industry does business and how all but the biggest names often end up
High? (Score:2)
Am I the only person here (Score:5, Insightful)
Recently I've bought about 4 CDs, totalling about 75 dollars of music (50 gbp). Why? Because I like the artist, I want the included artwork and gimmicks and because it is only fair that the artist, the record company and the music store and anyone else involved in the production of the record get paid. If you like an artist, I mean REALLY like an artist, you will be happy to pay for their music. Can't call yourself a fan of some music if you're not willing to pay for it,
YMMV.
Re:Am I the only person here (Score:5, Interesting)
Why? Because I like their music and I can accept it as good music. They write their own stuff. They stick to their artistic ideals. And they will keep doing it as long as they find it interesting to do.
Why don't I support bands with major label deals? Because most don't have much real talent. Most don't write their own songs. Most submit to the whims of the labels marketing department rather than sticking to their artistic gifts. And finally most are at the utter whim of the labels themselves. One bad record and they may never be heard from again.
I wish the band Ra (try to search for them, not all that easy) would drop their contract with their label, though they will loose all rights to their work (it's owned by the label as pretty much every artists is). They have talent, but got no exposure and seem to have dropped compltely off the map... That happens all to often with bands with real talent, but aren't the next boy band or talentless bimbo girl that the music label can push around...
Re:Am I the only person here (Score:2)
Sure, i'll be happy to pay _THEM_. I'm very unhappy to pay a lot of money on a CD and most of it goes to untalented people in suits that take huge sums of money compared to how hard they worked for it, instead of going mostly to the artists.
Re:Am I the only person here (Score:2)
It is not so much that people are not willing to pay for music. It's that people are not willing to pay 75USD for only 4 CDs. And especially when those CDs come with copy protection which prevents people from using them on a number of playback devices. Consider also that a very small fraction of that 75USD goes to your favorite band. A sm
Slight correction... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Slight correction... (Score:2)
"No, the artists are still starving. BMI is doing well though."
Remember, BMI is a non-profit performing rights organization run by and for songwriters and composers. They're not a record company and their revenue stream is not related to CD sales. They're the good guys -- if (God help you) you decide to become a professional songwriter or composer, you want to join BMI (or its sister organization, ASCAP) because they look after you and make sure you get paid for public performances of your work.
Re:Slight correction... (Score:2)
This is beyond boring... (Score:2, Insightful)
We know they are wrong, we know that some music must be sold in order for musicians to survive, and we know that sharing of music will never end.
The editors of Slashdot need to exercise some restraint. In any case, the signal : noise ratio on this site has become steadily worse in the past year.
Wake up and provide some more interesting material, kiddies.
Re:This is beyond boring... (Score:2)
When RIAA posts stop generating site traffic, they'll stop posting them.
BMI is not the RIAA (Score:3, Informative)
Re:BMI is not the RIAA (Score:2)
Maybe it's my circle of friends, but I've never met anyone who actually liked either of these bands, y
Re:BMI is not the RIAA (Score:2)
Tell me about it. That was one expensive doctor bill.
Re:BMI is not the RIAA (Score:2)
Re:BMI is not the RIAA (Score:2, Informative)
Re:BMI is not the RIAA (Score:3, Informative)
"Companies such as BMI obviously have the leverage to promote bands in such a way such that Creed, for example, sells umpteen million albums, and a band that no one's ever heard of, like Evanescence suddenly appears and sells millions more."
While BMI could do something like this, that's not their job. That's largely the job of the record company.
BMI collects royalties for performance rights and distributes them to composers, songwriters and music publishers. While they (as well as the other artist r
Re:BMI is not the RIAA (Score:3, Informative)
Re:BMI is not the RIAA (Score:2)
People (ahem, Cowboy Neal and applemasker or *coughcough* "Ceasar"), don't submit (or post) stories that do nothing more than 1) foster greater misunderstanding of the issues, and 2) demonstrate your ignorance, which in this case is great.
Friends? (Score:4, Funny)
The entire online community is not your 'friend'.
It's not about money, it's about controll (Score:4, Interesting)
PS: which executive candidate do you think is in the pocket of the media industries, and which do you think is in the pocket of the tech industries?
Artists? Starving? (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporate ownership of music should be outlawed.
It's unnecessary.
BMI is not a record company! (Score:5, Informative)
BMI is a performance rights organization. They are not part of the money flow involved with buying a CD. They are non-profit, run by and for artists and composers -- the "good guys" according to many Slashdotters.
They handle public performances. Not CD sales..
Again: BMI = good guys. They collect money for artists and performers -- the little guys. And this money does not come from CD sales. It would be a stretch to claim that P2P would have any effect on BMI's revenue stream. It's all explained here [bmi.com].
This has to be the mother of all straw men, folks.
Re:BMI is not a record company! (Score:2)
I'm not so certain that automatically gives them a free pass and a clean bill of health. Weren't they one of the groups behind the bill that killed internet radio?
Re:BMI is not a record company! (Score:2)
Thanks for being a beacon of sensibility in this utterly retarded thread.
"I'm not so certain that automatically gives them a free pass and a clean bill of health. Weren't they one of the groups behind the bill that killed internet radio?"
It would make sense that BMI and ASCAP would be behind the push to require that Internet radio stations pay royalties to composers and songwriters as do traditional radio stations. However, since I have an understanding of how hard the typical songwriter or composer
Re:BMI is not a record company! (Score:4, Insightful)
" BMI also licenses non-broadcast general music users, such as nightclubs, discos, hotels, bars, restaurants and other venues. While it is virtually impossible to log and make a separate distribution for such performances, they are accounted for by BMI's basic premise that the material used in such venues reflects the songs currently being performed on commercial broadcasting stations. Therefore, royalties collected from general music users are distributed on the basis of performances on commercial radio and television stations."
They're the same clowns strong arming taxi companies, restaurants, dentists - any commercial venue with a radio on. I'm not sure I'll group them with the 'good guys'.
Re:BMI is not a record company! (Score:2)
"They're the same clowns strong arming taxi companies, restaurants, dentists - any commercial venue with a radio on. I'm not sure I'll group them with the 'good guys'."
I'm not sure how the typical Slashdotter would have songwriters and composers make their money. The common Slashdot rationale for piracy is that artists make their money from public performances anyway -- well, it's BMI who makes sure that they get their money this way. Songwriters and composers largely make absolutely shitty money in e
Re:BMI is not a record company! (Score:2)
Re:BMI is not a record company! (Score:2)
"But there is almost certainly a causal relationship between the two: shared music generates greater interest in particular artists, increasing the occurrences of those songs generating performance royalties."
Agreed 100%. While this in itself is not a rationale for piracy (the revenue stream from CD sales goes, in part, to a different set of underpaid, hard working everyday people), I am certain that unauthorized dissemination via P2P results in more radio and club play.
Re:BMI is not a record company! (Score:3, Insightful)
So is the RIAA... just because an organization is non-profit offically doesn't mean they're not a greedy organization.
Re:BMI is not a record company! (Score:2)
Copyright never killed anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)
"Barrowing" music? (Score:2, Insightful)
It always gives me a chuckle when I see someone call outright stealing "borrowing". Let's look at two key differences between the two:
1: When one borrows something it usually deprives the lender of the objects use until the borrowed item is returned. This is true of borrowing a CD. Your friend no longer has use of that CD until you return it.
2: When something is borrowed, it is usually returne
Re:"Barrowing" music? (Score:5, Insightful)
It always gives me a chuckle when I see someone call copyright infringement "outright stealing". Let's look at two key differences between the two:
1: When one steals something, it usually deprives the original owner of the objects. This is true of stealing a CD from a music store. The store no longer has that CD to sell to its customers.
2: When something is copied against the will of the copyright owner, the copyright owner loses nothing but an abstract potential.
"Stealing" music from a friend in the form of a copied CD or MP3 or downloading music from strangers on the internet does not meet the definitions of stealing.
I believe people SHOULD respect copyright, because it causes people to make valuable contributions to society. But let's not muddy the waters to make a point against those who may disagree; it isn't stealing just because you disagree. It's copyright infringement. Let's at least be honest.
Re:"Barrowing" music? (Score:2)
And people can't ever enjoy those contributions without chains, at least not in their lifetime. If the copyright was shorter people would see the benefits of the copying monopolies, to the society as whole, and probably respected the copyright law. The current system favours only the **AA and it pirates from the public domain.
One quibble: (Score:2)
While I don't agree with stealing music, I would argue with the term "undoubtedly" at least until some decent market studies are done proving that P2P isn't actually generating more music purchases in general.
Because I've heard more then enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that it's a possibility. It might not be sustainable if the RIAA opened the floodgates and said "download what you want, pay for what you lik
with todays technology there is NO reason... (Score:2)
For with todays technology there is no need to subsidize a new band for testing success.
To put it in simple terms, a new band establishes themselves a level of popularity, via the internet, where upon reaching a reasonable level (if they can), becomes into a position of having record companies bid on handeling the new artist. Leaving it up to the artist to prove themselves and in the process not tale away from established artist..
such a direction will flush o
when did we not borrow copies? (Score:3, Insightful)
When did we not borrow copies? Before P2P we made tapes. I suppose before recorded records we just stole the music and lyrics and sang it ourselves. To this day we burn CDs.
I don't think the issue is borrowing or copying or stealing. I think the issue is how much will it cost to do business in prerecorded media, and who will be willing to enter that business with those costs. Clearly small labels have always had a tough time. The big guys are and have been making money hand over fist for a very long time, at least the past 20 years.
Leakage or piracy or whatever is part of the cost. So is the drugs, prostitution, and violence. Some people are never going to buy a recording. Some always will. The goal should be to encourage the middle to buy without pissing them off and pushing them to the end that never buys. This is a worthwhile goal. P2P and ITMS is part of that goal. I know people that are buying music again because of these services.
it's not the artists that aren't starving... (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, the artists are still starving, it's the labels that aren't... see The Problem With Music [negativland.com], by Steve Albini. The labels are making plenty of money, choking the artist's bankrolls, and then blaming piracy for the supposed industry decline (and convincing artists it's piracy that is killing their bankrolls)...
Sheeple (Score:2)
Support independent artists, listen to their music, not the MTV/corporate garbage foisted on the public. Don't accept crap. Tell the RIAA with your dollars that you're fed up with their crappy music, and monopoly. Stop buying/listening to RIAA produced crap.
Ogg Stream IPv4 [ardynet.com]
Ogg Stream IPv6 [diix.org]
Not for profit (Score:2, Informative)
My band, which had a major label deal in the nineties but imploded in a drug fueled haze over a decade ago, still see an incremental uptick in BMI checks every quarter. Go figure.
"Chock full of links"? (Score:5, Informative)
open and vicious attack on fair use [arstechnica.com]
bring civil cases themselves [arstechnica.com]
bends its statistics [arstechnica.com]
You know what BMI does, right? (Score:5, Informative)
Presumably, even pirates eat, party and listen to the radio.
Not that I don't sympathize with your position, but BMI is in a different business from the RIAA.
In other news, the RIAA is now lobbying... (Score:3, Funny)
This is what we need... (Score:3, Interesting)
An easy answer to your question (Score:3, Informative)
At least two copyrights are implicated whenver you listen to a recorded song; (1) the copyrght of the musical work (noticed with a "c-in-circle"); and (2) the copyright of the phonorecord (noticed with a "p-in-circle"). The composer owns the (c), the performing artists own the (p).
BMI collects license fees from places like nightclubs for the right to publicly perform the song. That fee is divided using arcane formulae