Most of my game catalogue is on Steam these days

I remember when I signed up for the Steam service and paid for my first game - it was Half-Life 2, naturally

At the time, I thought it vastly different to the conventional model (and psychological security) of buying your games on CD / DVD at retail. I actually paused before committing to the order.... weighing up the pros and cons of online only distribution when I could just wander down to the store instead

Fast forward to today and, given the choice, I'll elect to buy a game via Steam over any other method. No expanding collection of physical media, no waiting in queues at retail stores where pushy assistants are trying to sell me wares I don't want and - one of my favourite points - no laborious installation processes and/or the need for a disc to be present in the drive to play the game.

I haven't even touched on the low price aspect of Steam which, except for some AAA new releases, sees software available for quite a bit less than in retail stores. I don't think I'm alone in seeing single games or multi-title packs priced at what could be said to be impulse buy pricing.

One thing I would like to know is how the revenue from a purchase via Steam is divided up. Knowing how small a percentage goes to the developer / publisher from conventional sales, I wonder how platforms such as Steam fare by comparison.

Musicians, by and large, get into music because they enjoy it. Present anyone with an opportunity to do what they enjoy and earn money from it and they'll be hard-pressed to turn such an offer down.

A few days ago, Techdirt ran a very interesting article about the way in which major record labels perform accounting for their royalty statements to artists. It makes for fascinating, if horrifying, reading on how artists get a very raw deal most of the time.

With that said, the answer still doesn't lie in piracy or copyright infringement, as the end result of that scenario will be exactly as the BBC article predicts: "...you need good musicians to create the music we all love and unless they are rewarded, unless they can pay the bills, they'll drift out of it"

Copyright (as in law) in the modern world is supposed to exist so as to allow those whom are engaged in the creative sector can profit from their creativity and thus earn a living from their endeavours

My sole source of income is from the work I do as an editorial and commercial photographer, so copyright legislation supposedly benefits me as it serves to protect my income from less than scrupulous entities whom would rather appropriate my work without compensating me

Of course the trouble with photography is that it's largely those who do have the funds and ability to legally license my work that are the most reluctant to "cough up" - even when caught red-handed

I do think that the RIAA and PRS are at best more than a little misguided in their efforts - and, at worst, they're practising corporate extortion.

I'll quote from Wikipedia article on Statutory Damages

"the original rationale for statutory damages was that it would often be difficult to establish the number of copies that had been made by an underground pirate business and awards of statutory damages would save rights holders from having to do so"

So: in pursuing individuals for damages of between $750 (minimum) and $150,000 (maximum) per work infringed, a person whom downloads a movie or song is being treated like a for-profit criminal gang

I believe that copyright legislation needs to undergo reform so that the penalties for infringement more appropriately reflect the scale and intent of the infringement.

The issue is that you're paying for a license to listen to the music in a certain format; you don't pay for (or own) the music itself.

The problem arises when those whom hold the licenses see fit to exert extreme control over the what, where, how, when, why and who can listen to the music to which they hold the licensing rights - hence the RIAA's lawsuit against the RIO mp3 player (arguing against format shifting) and, earlier still, when Universal Studios et al. filed suit against Sony Corp because their intoduction of Betamax video recorders permitted time shifting, which was argued to be an infringement

It certainly appears that, when the methods used to distribute (and provide accountings for) licensed media start to slide towards obsolescence or irrelevance, the 'industry' seems to go through the classic stages of grief: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance.

I'll hazard a guess that the music licensing industry is somewhere between the second and third stages

I shoot editorial content for WireImage / Getty Images and can most assuredly say that I get 50% of net royalties on whatever they license. In the last twelve months, I've earned $2832 in royalties; not my most productive year but, then again, I've only shot eleven events for them in that period... probably a a total of one weeks worth of work on aggregate.

Also, on three other occasions I was asked to file a set of images as a "stringer" - that's a short way of saying "work for hire" i.e. I'd get a one-time fee for the pictures which Getty would then wholly own. I was paid $225 for each time I worked on such basis.

Just register the work with the Copyright Office and, if someone rips it off, you could file suit for up to $150,000 statutory damages - see 17 U.S.C. 504(c)(2)

In awarding statutory damages courts may consider, among other factors, the expenses saved and the profits earned by the defendant, the revenues lost by the plaintiff, the deterrent effect on the defendant and third parties and the conduct and attitude of the defendant. Accordingly, statutory damages for willful infringement may be partially punitive in nature and may exceed the amount necessary for compensation.

Of course the trick here is to find legal representation that will be happy to file suit without it costing you an arm and a leg to get to court in the first place... something that those with deep pockets predicate on when they rip off Joe Public...