decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Re: My Song Got Played On Pandora 1 Million Times and All I Got Was $16.89 | 293 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
My Song Got Played On Pandora 1 Million Times and All I Got Was $16.89
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 | # ]

Re: My Song Got Played On Pandora 1 Million Times and All I Got Was $16.89
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 | # ]

The most popular end-user Linux distributions are...
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 | # ]

Barnes & Noble Sinks Most in 17 Months as Loss Doubles
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 | # ]

Firefox 22
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 | # ]

Germany blasts Britain over GCHQ's secret cable trawl
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 | # ]

SSL: Intercepted today, decrypted tomorrow
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 | # ]

Shakespeare was a content provider
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 | # ]

SSL: Intercepted today, decrypted tomorrow
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 | # ]

Everything You Need to Know About Trolls
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 | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )