Comments on: $100M ASCAP license fee decision

By: Ryann

Ryann — Fri, 02 May 2008 17:42:33 +0000

Now that MySpace, Imeem, and Last.fm have made their deals with the record industry, you can expect to see a lot more of this type of vicious litigation. In the back of music executives’ minds, they know that streaming music on the Internet is like playing music on the radio without the payola. Now, they have control of a couple of big name internet sites; they are going to go after anyone else using their music to make a little change like a junk yard dogs.

Forget about starting any new streaming music networks unless you have a couple of million dollars to pay off Sony, Warner, EMI, and Universal. And, even then they may not let you play in the yard. The record industry is all about control. They have to control where and how people listen to music to make sure they are getting their gigantic cut. If they let everyone stream their music, they are losing a big element of control and that is bad for business.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 02 May 2008 15:10:10 +0000

“I gather from the article, that they had some sort of contract in advance, detailing some sort of license to use copyrighted works and the payment of these fees was in dispute.”

The articles has many statements that does not agree with the case being one of simply not paying a debt. If it was a matter of not paying for the license, then it was a simple case of non payment. Nothing historic about that.

BTW, does anyone know how ASCAP will split the money? ASCAP claims they pay composers and authors in accordance to the results of a foolish sampling plan. I suspect none of the money will reach the composers and authors, as the sampling plan cannot take into account this windfall money.

By: Stray Mongrel

Stray Mongrel — Thu, 01 May 2008 22:32:51 +0000

This is referring to a “company making profit from the works of” and not “free distribution of” which is what I think is the fulcrum of the p2p argument today.

Artists deserve a piece of the pie, and I agree, if there is profit being made, they deserve a part of it.

File sharers don’t make money. Often it’s the opposite, it cost money to share, at least ISP fees.

It is very interesting that they used the words “license fees” alot, and not “copyright infringement” and “damages”. I gather from the article, that they had some sort of contract in advance, detailing some sort of license to use copyrighted works and the payment of these fees was in dispute.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 01 May 2008 22:07:36 +0000

I dont see the words “copyright infringement” anywhere or “damages”.

Or is copyright infringement only for the RIAA victims such as kids?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 01 May 2008 14:02:30 +0000

utter lunacy, is there no sanity left? u ppl r maniacs!