Comments on: Big Music’s UK defeat http://www.p2pnet.net/story/12897 p2pnet.net offers not-your-lamescream news on movies music digital media P2P peer-to-peer TV television file sharing freedom of speech open source product news Wifi mobiles company news games video games game consoles security marketing DRM Internet radio web radio Fri, 22 Aug 2008 03:01:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: ben http://www.p2pnet.net/story/12897#comment-149236 ben Thu, 26 Jul 2007 04:49:15 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/12897#comment-149236 This extension would only prove worthy to the obscenely rich. I mean come on, paul mcartney is worth around 500 million pounds, can he really claim he needs the royalties? I'm sorry but i have no sympathy. Copyrights and patents are manifestly for the rich. This extension would only prove worthy to the obscenely rich. I mean come on, paul mcartney is worth around 500 million pounds, can he really claim he needs the royalties?

I’m sorry but i have no sympathy. Copyrights and patents are manifestly for the rich.

]]> By: Rafael Venegas http://www.p2pnet.net/story/12897#comment-149108 Rafael Venegas Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:53:35 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/12897#comment-149108 THE LOGIC WAS FLAWED So, if recordinf copyrights are exteded 20 years, the pool of records that will share the money (a fixed amount) paid by radio stations will increase, meaning that the per song income is reduced. With the proposed change more recording owners (not necessarily artists) would share the fixed income money so less money would be paid fr the recordingd. THE LOGIC IS Actually the only meaningful way to increase income to recording owners (not necessarily artists, I repeat) is to increase the amount of money that is paid by radio stations, and that was not part of the law change requested. Increasing the pool of songs that share the pot in no way increases payments to recording owners. THE LOGIC WAS FLAWED

So, if recordinf copyrights are exteded 20 years, the pool of records that will share the money (a fixed amount) paid by radio stations will increase, meaning that the per song income is reduced.

With the proposed change more recording owners (not necessarily artists) would share the fixed income money so less money would be paid fr the recordingd.

THE LOGIC IS
Actually the only meaningful way to increase income to recording owners (not necessarily artists, I repeat) is to increase the amount of money that is paid by radio stations, and that was not part of the law change requested. Increasing the pool of songs that share the pot in no way increases payments to recording owners.

]]>