MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Jul 02, 09 - 01:44 pm Comment from: Mormegil

MDN's take is bang on

Jul 02, 09 - 01:49 pm Comment from: db

I'm confused... How did they get the recordings without permission in the first place? Did they buy the CD's and upload them to their servers?

Jul 02, 09 - 01:55 pm Comment from: MacDave

@db

zUNE tANG probably squirted the songs over to 'em...

Another potential lawsuit against Microsoft is brewing also.

Windows Search Service is changing the default IE 8 search from Google to Bing without any user action.

Google apparently predicted this would occur and had a auto block in place.

Same old Microsoft.

Search: "CNET Prevent your search default from being changed"

Jul 02, 09 - 02:16 pm Comment from: HolyMackerel

Presumably the music labels are getting paid since the dispute is only about 'authorization' not lost sales revenue. What low lifes!

Jul 02, 09 - 02:18 pm Comment from: Jersey_Trader

I assume that anyone working for Microsoft that wants to keep their job would buy their music from Microsoft's Zune Music Service. Those employees (the team players) maybe the ones that Microsoft lays off last. Steve Ballmer is going to have to sort out employees somehow. He can't use innovative, quality, cutting edge or cool. They don't work there. Never did!

Jul 02, 09 - 02:19 pm Comment from: HMCIV

Waiting with bated breath (possibly baited breath) for somebody brilliant in the RIAA to sue Apple.

Jul 02, 09 - 02:31 pm Comment from: Cubert

judy,
I tried, but my PC here at work redirected me to Bing.com where it said, "Nothing to see here. Carry on."

Jul 02, 09 - 02:41 pm Comment from: DLMeyer

Ummm ... $150,000 for "each copyright infringement "? Sure, few were sold, but 100,000% of value?

Jul 02, 09 - 03:13 pm Comment from: Demon

This stems from the rental Licenses. Some of the music provided is/was not licensed for sale and they (Microsoft, RealNetworks and Yahoo) were selling songs only licensed to be rented under subscription contracts. In most case they were re-encoding the songs without DRM themselves and making them available for sale which is a very, very big no, no.

It took Apple so long to get rid of the DRM because the labels had to re-encode the songs and re-submit them to iTunes. Apple could have re-encoded the complete iTunes multi-national stores catalogs in less then a few days if they had the master AIFF Files but, they do not. So, it falls to the labels to manage their catalogs in the iTunes Store. That's one of the reasons their are minor inconsistencies. Some labels build Artist pages and some do not, Some make sure that the Artist pages are propagated across each of the countries the Artist's music is in and some only do the artist page for the artist's home country. It's also why you'll still find Some Music Videos with DRM while must of the music videos are DRM free as well. Apple is still working on getting all the labels on board DRM Free Music Videos. By the next contract I'm sure they'll all be on board with DRM Free Music Videos as well.

Jul 02, 09 - 03:39 pm Comment from: HolyMackerel

Jamie Thomas was fined $9,250 per song. If MS, RN and TH have sold a million songs this case could be worth BBBBBillions…

Jul 02, 09 - 03:40 pm Comment from: _Bill_

"$150,000 for each copyright infringement" - They do realize that these are companies, not children or elderly private citizens; right?

Jul 02, 09 - 04:13 pm Comment from: Zune Tang®

Hey MAC sheep, don't get your panties in a bunch. This is all a small misunderstanding. A simple renegotiation with the labels which could include broadening the scope of music subscriptions will clear everything up. The labels have a great relationship with Real, Yahoo and Microsoft—unlike the animosity with MAC.

I might just add some David Lee Roth and Ratt to my Zune music subscription just to make you MAC fangirls jealous. Dorks.

Your potential. Our passion.™

Jul 02, 09 - 05:00 pm Comment from: Road Warrior

Careful Zune Thang, remember what happened the last time you tried to make girls jealous by playing Lou Rawls' "You'll Never Find" after inserting your Zune sideways.

Just in case you forgot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NJeKCbVLuc

Jul 02, 09 - 06:14 pm Comment from: British Mac Head

@Road Warrior

Ouch, priceless!!!

PMSL 8-o

That reminded me of:

"The most common format of music on an iPod is stolen".

@Zune Tang®

No, the record companies just weren't making any money out of the companies, because you and the other two Zune owners are not really a market. And when they don't make money, they sue – it's in their nature!

Jul 02, 09 - 07:12 pm Comment from: ken1w

@ db

> I'm confused... How did they get the recordings without permission in the first place?

It probably means they had the rights to sell certain songs "a la carte," but did not have the right to offer those songs "all you can eat" through a subscription (aka rental) arrangement. That would explain why Apple and Amazon are not included.

I will never understand how the revenue for a subscription-based music service can be fairly distributed. How much does the service provider keep. How much do the labels get, and how do they divide that amount to each of the labels? Once the label gets the money, how are the artists compensated?

Jul 02, 09 - 07:56 pm Comment from: aka Christian

@Demon - How do you know all this stuff? Are you in the biz?

@ken1w - I'm guessing they use the same sort of pay scheme that radio stations do. I read about it years ago but couldn't remember the process, so I looked it up and found this:

"Most commercial stations have music locenses from ASCAP, BMI and SESAC, allowing them to play pretty much all available music.

"This money goes to the writers, not the artist. The performance royalty is a battle in progress now.

"The amount paid to the above licensing organizations varies as it is determined by a number of factors. These may include market size, station revenue, and other factors."

I don't know how accurate that is, but it was posted in answer to pretty much the same question as yours.

MDN that made me laugh! Thanks

Jul 03, 09 - 07:37 am Comment from: Road Warrior

Finally someone else gets the humour. Thanks British Mac Head, it makes it worth the effort.

Jul 03, 09 - 09:26 am Comment from: blucaso

Demon - sorry to correct you, but this is simply not the way I understand the iTunes process to work. It sounds good, but I think it's pure speculation on your part.

I've read several places that the iTunes DRM was a wrapped, encoded by iTunes, and added at the time of purchase. Each song is encoded with a digital "key" locked to your iTunes account (hence, your computer can recognize and play your DRM files, but not someone else's.)

The way you suggest it works wouldn't work, every DRM file would be identical. The record companies provide Apple (and others) with master digital files, the DRM coding is done by Apple's servers on the fly.

The only reason for the delay in providing DRM-free files is the record company contracts and legal clearance, and programming in the store.

This just in...Music companies sue music companies.

Jul 03, 09 - 05:23 pm Comment from: derekcurrie

$150,000?!

Just so folks know, this is the amount agreed upon recently between the US Gov. and the RIAA for maximum copyright infringement fines.

And please note that the $150,000 applies Per Tune, Per Customer. It is NOT just for each particular tune. It is for every single SALE of the affected tunes.

So what does this mean?
Either:
(A) These bozoid companies get their butts sued off with possibly Real and Yahoo dropping dead in bankruptcy and Microsoft merely squirting blood out its eyes.
(B) The RIAA takes their balls in these guys' balls in their hands and squeeze until they promise to be their slaves for all eternity. What horror would result? Knowing the RIAA...

Jul 06, 09 - 09:20 am Comment from: GRANDxADMIRAL

And I'm sure the music companies can't wait to share the $$$ with the artists involved

...