|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 25 2013 @ 01:14 PM EDT |
The article provides a snapshot of a royalty statement for terrestrial radio
broadcasts. It looks like he made about $1300 in royalties on about 19,000
performances of his song.
PJ, in response to your wondering: if the relationship remains linear for 1
million performances (and I have no idea if it does), that would be about $68.5k
for a million plays on terrestrial radio.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 25 2013 @ 02:16 PM EDT |
Ah, but Pandora paid an amount to the song's publisher and the standard
deal
is for every dollar that goes to the publisher, a dollar goes to the songwriter.
But, some publishers will ask for a portion of the songwriters' share. In
addition
the holder of the copyright for the recording got paid. The
questions I
would find somewhat interesting would be what are Pandora's
revenues per
million plays, what is its profit per million plays. A million
plays in the time
period is what percent of total tracks tracks played in the
period? Does Mr.
Lowery get his fractions of pennies if the listener hits "Next
Track" a few seconds
in? If he does, it is not pro-rated for listening
time. But, paid enough?
Well, that's a
question with two sides. I'm for
the songwriter getting paid when there is
revenue for the person playing the
song. I do note I have some
indifference regarding the record companies being
paid for play. As the ones
actually selling something, plays are free
advertisements (unless the record
companies send some payola, I mean
promotional funds, to the programmer.)
But with radio (and other media)
performance rights fees are calculated by
revenues whereas the
compulsory
license fees set by Congress are per listener, regardless of revenue.
It was
done that way to protect traditional radio, by making internet webcasting
more
expensive.
Again, paid enough? I made some music in 1993. Only a dozen
people heard
it,
so I didn't make any money then and I certainly don't see any
money today. So,
he was part of a moment and created an archetypal song for a
certain
demographic, so .... he .... deserves?... an annuity? Besides,
any one
with a working knowledge of the record business knows that popularity
rises and
falls, the way to make money is to diversify risk, meaning, be a
manager or a
record company or a performance venue, though even these are high
risk and
failures are routine. As to the artist, if one is lucky enough
to
have a record deal and sell enough records so the advances were paid back,
and
was then lucky enough to sell enough records to live an upper-middle-class
living during his or her peak pop years from 25-36, then... well, I don't even
see
his point. For an artist, recording revenue is one stream, but the more
accessible
and durable streams are from performance and merchandise. I don't
fault any
one who would like a living wage from work or product done years ago
and
for whom the only
required current effort is to walk to mailbox, endorse
and deposit the check.
It's okay to want that. I don't think one should expect
that. Besides, if Mr. Lowery
wants more plays from Pandora and the like, he
could hire a publicist and re-
ignite interest in his band. Though, I suspect
the return on investment is not
enough. I would think that Pandora might do
well to sell listener data to the
recording artists who might find it more
efficient to market to the select people
who really like the band, assuming
those folks aren't already in fan clubs.
Or perhaps
Mr. Lowery wants to
eliminate the
compulsory license so he can ask (and maybe get, maybe not get)
more for his
valued track. Meanwhile all internet podcasters have to find and
negotiate
individual licenses with the recording copyright and the songwriting
rights
holders for any pre-recorded music they wish to webcast or include with
their
podcasts. Is Mr. Lowery really going to do that much better than
$17.00 under
that regime? If anything, by forcing the value of his song to
be the same as the
value of a Beatles song, it means someone will consider his
song, because
it is just as profitable in a subscriber/buffet style of delivery
and may promote
subscriber growth and retention. No one really knows if there
will be a burn-out
factor with Pandora, but limited library would be one factor
if there is. If
suddenly the cost
of the track was negotiable, the mainstream
popular items and the big-volume
subscription webcasters that emphasized the
current hits would push out the
low-volume quirky
stations, in the same way
that radio formatting constricted in the 1970s and the
Crowns and Barnes and
Nobles best-seller-discounters wreaked havoc on the
local full-library book
store in the 90s. Now, there's a school of capitalism that argues that that was
a
great thing
to happen, but from the point of view of the non-popular author,
it wasn't.
The way songwriters and recording rights holders are paid is
that a central
clearing agency gets metrics on tracks performed and collects
from the web
caster. Then funds are disbursed based on totality of tracks
played. Does Mr.
Lowery expect that all songwriters and all recording owners
get all performance
logs to cross-check the payment they received? Really?
Clearly there is some
room for negotiation with the record companies, otherwise
we would not have
heard of the deals announced prior to Apple's iRadio
announcement, in which
case, Mr. Lowery chose the wrong label, one that doesn't
have the power to get
more. Tough cookies as the free market people
say.
Though, maybe I miss the point. Perhaps Mr. Lowery likes the
government-
granted monopoly called copyright but is against the occasional
government-
imposed statutory licensing fees. Nah. That would be silly. Maybe he
is arguing
for a totally
free market, in which case maybe he is out his
copyright and definitely his lunch
money—he clearly is the small book store
owner in the
book scenario—but maximum value is being created for somebody. And
internet delivered music would be less interesting for many of
us. Yay?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: red floyd on Tuesday, June 25 2013 @ 02:23 PM EDT |
SJVN mentions in the article that he's never seen anyone use
Mageia.
I'm a bit
disappointed here. As a Mageia user, and follower of its forums, I
think that
most of the non-BRIC users switched over to Mageia
when Mandriva had its
financial meltdown; and I think that SJVN should have
known this. It was major
Linux news when Mandriva nearly went under, and
switched its
focus. --- I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a
*CITIZEN* of the United States of America.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 25 2013 @ 04:43 PM EDT |
Article link.
As P.J. mentioned:
When companies
partner with MS - they can expect customers to leave!
There's a lot of
water under that Microsoft bridge. And there are those of us who remember
specific details.
One such detail is how MS sunk the notebook market.
That - like the tablet market - really started out on Linux. And then MS moved
in... and part of their licensing deals was that the hardware was to be hobbled.
Such as having a requirement that the maximum of 1 Gig ram would be on the
devices - no more. People were easily buying devices of greater power prior to
MS' involvement. Yes: you understand that correctly, the moment MS got involved
the technology came with a lesser value to the customer ... add in the insult of
a greater cost to the customer and it's a pretty good insult.
Some
customers like myself don't like being insulted. So when Barns And Noble
originally spoke of the Nook - I was intrigued. But the moment they entered a
deal with MS my interest was lost because I fully expected the Nook to be
trimmed down in customer value.
Did that happen? I can't say... but with
MS in the picture I fully expect if I buy a Nook I'll end up
disappointed.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 25 2013 @ 11:53 PM EDT |
The latest Firefox* takes us a step further to the almost old idea of the
browser being the computer - well, the interface part of it at least.
Legend has it that this prospect is what woke Microsoft up to the Internet and
the dangers it posed for a platform-centric company.
This is early-nineties old, so Microsoft have learned their lesson. Not.
From the TC article:
"Microsoft, so far, remains the only major vendor who has decided to go
ahead with a different standard for the same functionality"
[shaking head]
*and Google Chrome
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JamesK on Wednesday, June 26 2013 @ 08:00 AM EDT |
"On Tuesday night the British inventor of the internet accused the west of
hypocrisy over online snooping.
Sir Tim Berners-Lee told the Times: "In the Middle East, people have been
given access to the internet but they have been snooped on and then they have
been jailed."
I thought he invented the web browser. The Internet was an outgrowth of a U.S.
DARPA project.
---
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 26 2013 @ 10:47 AM EDT |
"PJ: That's if you believe governments can't already decrypt
everything."
They can't. They just don't certify anything as "secure" if *they*
can't break it.
Which makes you wonder about the encryption that ToR is using. The USA uses it
for their own people in dangerous situations, but if they can break it, so can
anyone else. Then again, half of ToR's security is that it makes your
communications dodge being flagged as interesting.
Then again, the best security is gained by sharing your security system with
your opponents, with both of you imporoving the underlying system, abd just
using different keys. That way, neither of you want the other to be able to
break it.
When the incentive is: "I'd rather not have this broken so my stuff can't
be read rather than be able to read other people's stuff" you get good
security. Linux has been working on this principle for decades now. (Having a
mutual enemy attacking both of you helps)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 26 2013 @ 01:35 PM EDT |
And he, too, was a consumer and a taxpayer.
Michael Jordan was a basketball player. Babe Ruth played baseball. Walter Payton
played for the Chicago Bears. PJ is a blogger.
We need to develop an appreciation for understatement.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jbb on Wednesday, June 26 2013 @ 02:49 PM EDT |
link
Very interesting article. Thanks for including
it as a news pick. I want to comment on PJ's remark:
That's if
you believe governments can't already decrypt everything.
I
believe governments cannot break strong encryption and I think you should
believe it too.
There are two basic approaches to breaking strong
encryption: brute force and a clever attack. Even though the NSA has the
computer power to gather all human communication world-wide (which is why the
Snowden revelations, while an extremely important confirmation, were not a
surprise to many) they don't now and never will have the computer power to break
strong encryption by brute force (unless there is a major breakthrough in
quantum computing).
The NSA has a lot of very smart people working for it
but it doesn't have the same overwhelming superiority in smartness that it has
in computer power. IoW throwing money at the computer power problem works while
as for smartness, no so much. If the smartness inside the NSA is on a par with
the smartness outside the NSA then they are not even close to coming up with a
successful clever attack. There have been many mindbendingly clever attacks
such as timing attacks but they have been hard to implement trivial to
counter.
I realize the above argument is somewhat akin to saying trust
me, I'm a doctor so here is a more practical way of seeing it. You have to
admit that communication between an NSA contract employees and the Guardian
newspaper and/or Wikileaks would be of great interest to the NSA (despite the
laughable denials of such interest by their director).
So if you believe the
NSA has the ability to capture almost all electronic communication world-wide
then why were Snowden's revelations such a surprise to them? Why wasn't he
nabbed before the leaks were published?
Electronic contact was made and
electronic information was exchanged that led the Guardian (and the Washington
Post) to fully believe Snowden was for real and was telling them the truth.
Even if the NSA was not able to break all strong encryption in real-time, I have
to believe at least some of the secret communication between Snowden and
journalists was captured and decrypting these messages after the fact must be an
extremely high priority. Well, I suppose people who don't believe in the
strength of strong encryption could say that the NSA has decrypted all of that
communication but is just sitting on it because they don't want their technical
capability to be known. AFAIK, there can never be a counter to such an
argument.
Still, I think it is very important for you to believe that
strong encryption works. The only hope we have for privacy is if almost
everyone uses strong encryption for almost all of the electronic communication.
If everyone uses it for most of their communication then it will no longer be a
red-flag for extra attention from the NSA since (as long as you don't live in
Lake Wobegon) you can't give all communication extra attention. You are not
just protecting your own communication, you are helping to protect everyone
else's as well.
I've previously suggested here that there should be a
big
push to get more people to use strong encryption for most
of their
communication. I sincerely hope the Snowden
revelations will eventually lead to
making this finally
happen. IMO, naysaying strong encryption is going
full
speed ahead in the wrong direction because it provides a great excuse for
people to continue to be lazy and not put in the small extra effort needed to
use strong encryption in their daily communication. Even Snowden said the NSA
cannot break strong encryption, although he also said the NSA can easily breach
security at the end points as a way of getting around it. Still, strong
encryption is one of the best tools we have in the fight for privacy so its use
should be encouraged, not discouraged.
--- Our job is to remind
ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Wednesday, June 26 2013 @ 09:16 PM EDT |
Why thank you Colleen Chien, but I already know
everything I need to know
about patent trolls, and I think
most of my colleagues here on Groklaw do as
well.
I read her article, and the whole time I was reading it,
it
struck me as somehow off target. I assumed it was some
staff writer
regurgitating what she had read elsewhere, but
when I was done I checked out
her bio...
Colleen Chien is an associate professor and
patent expert at
Santa Clara University Law School who has testified before
Congress and been cited by the White House on the subject of
trolls.
She also seems to be a fan of Professor Mark
Lemley. I am
not.
The problem with her theses, I think, is that she
launches into the subject full of assumptions. She never
stops to question
whether we really need patents, or if
there is any proof they stimulate
enterprise (other than
enterprising trolls, that is) or promote "the arts". Of
course she is part of the system. She can't see past her
nose. She reveals her
lack of insight most clearly in this
statement...
Second,
we lack a consensus about software patents being the
“problem.” While many
programmers and younger software and
e-commerce companies despise software
patents — relying
instead on network effects and first-mover advantage — other
software companies have invested a lot in their patent
portfolios, which tend
to cover core rather than
applications-level technology. These companies make
money
licensing their patents and don’t want them to be
invalidated.
The best proposals strike a balance by focusing on patent
quality. Instead of targeting all software patents, they
just target the
broadest and more questionable ones.
She just doesn't get
it. In the first place, if we
imagine that there are "quality" software patents
and others
that are "bad" patents, how in the world can you separate
them?
Just eliminating functional claiming won't cut it. I
am certain there are
endless software patents that are well
specified, even though they don't
represent invention.
Ms. Chien seems to be labouring under the
impression that
software companies wouldn't "innovate" and invest without
patents. That whole premise is there unstated, and
unchallenged. Ms. Chien
doesn't know what she is talking
about. How did computer technology ever
advance in the days
before they started granting software patents? Has she ever
asked herself that? If she isn't a software engineer, how
can she possibly
know the value and significance of software
patents? I know, because I am a
software engineer, and I can
tell you, most patents I have seen do not
represent
"invention", other than the everyday kind of creativity that
is the
hallmark of our chosen profession.
She really shows her ignorance when
she gets to this
part...
These other software companies
have invested a lot in their
patent portfolios, which tend to cover core rather
than
applications-level technology. These companies make money
licensing their
patents and don’t want them to be
invalidated.
So what
has that got to do with anything? We should feel
sorry for them or something?
Their feelings have no bearing
whatsoever on the debate. Elsewhere she talks
about
"stakeholders" as some group we must all cater to. Hang on
their Ms.
Chien (a name which I think means "dog" in
French), we are all stakeholders
here. Not just patent
attorneys and Law professors and patent holders.
Now, when it comes to the so-called smartphone wars, the
President’s proposals ... to take off the table the
“nuclear” option of a
product ban. Finally, when competition
is measurably harmed, antitrust
authorities could get
involved.
Nowhere does she show any
understanding about what is
really going on in these patent wars - how it is
all a plot
by Microsoft & Apple to kill Google. The "nuclear option" is
currently Samsung's only defence against Apple, who are
drooling at the
thought of collecting on that ridiculous
billion dollar judgement. You can't
just jump in and claim
SEPs shouldn't be permitted to be used to block imports.
You
have to look at the big picture. Something is very, very
wrong when Apple
gained a billion and a half dollar
judgements based on the patent portfolio
they used against
Samsung. That is an astronomical sum of money! You tell me,
Ms. Chien, do you really think Apple's patents are worth
that? If you do, you
are totally out to lunch. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|