• Music owners plan rights database
    27 replies, posted
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/int/news/-/news/technology-12265544[/url]
[quote]That will enable the rights owners to get paid each time their song is played online or via mobile services.[/quote] And here I was thinking this would be beneficial to us, how silly of me.
I though this was gonna be a database for the customers, not the publishers :smith:
Didn't you guys know you don't own the music you pay for?
Another reason why the music industry is a complete joke.
[QUOTE=TurbisV2;27629273]Didn't you guys know you don't own the music you pay for?[/QUOTE] Same goes for games.
[img]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/50922000/jpg/_50922380_000243752-1.jpg[/img] Goddamnit BBC, now this is going to be burned into my retinas tonight.
So this is supposed to [i][b]prevent[/b][/i] piracy?
[QUOTE=TurbisV2;27629273]Didn't you guys know you don't own the music you pay for?[/QUOTE] There are times when it's morally okay to ignore those little EULAs on things and this is one of them [editline]24th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=leach139;27632197][img_thumb]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/50922000/jpg/_50922380_000243752-1.jpg[/img_thumb] Goddamnit BBC, now this is going to be burned into my retinas tonight.[/QUOTE] Ozzy is one of the sexiest men alive and you should feel privileged to have been allowed to gaze upon his visage
Sounds good to me, it'll help out the artists, companies and anyone involved with the songs a shit ton.
[QUOTE=BigPalooka;27633268]So this is supposed to [i][b]prevent[/b][/i] piracy?[/QUOTE] By providing good alternatives... Like Steam.
Its a fucking song, "Illegal music".
[QUOTE=TurbisV2;27629273]Didn't you guys know you don't own the music you pay for?[/QUOTE] That's the idea. You own the one copy and nothing else. So you can't distribute it and hurt the creators potential revenue. Which theoretically should help encourage creativity, but of course the corps find a way to make that work for profit rather than creativity.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;27628586]And here I was thinking this would be beneficial to us, how silly of me.[/QUOTE] If anything this will lead to an [i]increase[/i] in piracy because people won't want all this drm shit
How 'bout those who don't listen to music online (I couldn't care less about Spotify), but carry a good old PMP like me, huh?
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;27638411]How 'bout those who don't listen to music online (I couldn't care less about Spotify), but carry a good old PMP like me, huh?[/QUOTE] This isn't meant for users. This is meant for business people and programs/applications assuring that the people who holds the rights for the songs they have in their services/products get their fair share.
[QUOTE=dgg;27638501]This isn't meant for users. This is meant for business people and programs/applications assuring that the people who holds the rights for the songs they have in their services/products get their fair share.[/QUOTE] slap some sarcastic quotation marks on "fair" and you're spot on
it's not fucking drm did you guys even read the fucking article?
song should belong to the people who made them -not companies
[QUOTE=Lazor;27639138]it's not fucking drm did you guys even read the fucking article?[/QUOTE] This is the internet. Most people skim over the article, and then spew whatever crap comes out of their mouth. It's just a fact of life, really. Anywho, I guess it it "helps" the artists, it's a good thing. It probably won't have that big an impact on us, other than sending revenue where it is supposedly due. And it probably only effects music streaming services, so it likely won't change MP3s. Could mean we get Spotify in the US, though. That'd be alright.
[QUOTE=W0w00t;27642695]song should belong to the people who made them -not companies[/QUOTE] Written versions of the songs belong to the artists who wrote them but master recordings, what you hear on spotify etc are owned by the people who played for the recording. Unless stated otherwise.
[QUOTE=dgg;27638501]This isn't meant for users. This is meant for business people and programs/applications assuring that the people who holds the rights for the songs they have in their services/products get their fair share.[/QUOTE] Oh ok... they will get screwed anyway, just like Android phone said: [QUOTE=Android phone;27639018]slap some sarcastic quotation marks on "fair" and you're spot on[/QUOTE] Hahaha :v:
[QUOTE=Android phone;27639018]slap some sarcastic quotation marks on "fair" and you're spot on[/QUOTE] Haha, well, that's a different matter. At least they will actually get paid rather than not paid at all.
Instead of letting the distributors choose, why can't I just pay 100% to the band?
[QUOTE=kaze4159;27649963]Instead of letting the distributors choose, why can't I just pay 100% to the band?[/QUOTE] bandwidth, greed.
So fucking greedy.
[QUOTE=W0w00t;27642695]song should belong to the people who made them -not companies[/QUOTE] Only if that is the decision of the artist. When an artist writes a song, it belongs to him, and only him. When he decides he wants to share it, and make money at the same time (No one is blaming him, this is how it should be) then he will [b]usually[/b] sign with some company to help him make his fortune. But companies like this are also in it to make money (still, understandable) and so they will take take something, like a portion of the profits or rights to the song itself. [b]No one[/b] is forcing [b]anyone[/b] to sell the rights to their song, but they do it anyway.
[QUOTE=kaze4159;27649963]Instead of letting the distributors choose, why can't I just pay 100% to the band?[/QUOTE] because uh the band signed an agreement with the record label what do you think record labels do it for free or something?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.