Pandora Sued By Sony, Warner Over Copyright Infringement

[exfileme]

The music industry is a total mess.

Pandora Sued By Sony, Warner Over Copyright Infringement : Read more

 

[daekar]

Who buys music anymore?

And isn't there a time limit on copyrights? Copyrights were not created so huge conglomerates could accumulate the legal right to control the collective accomplishments of mankind.

The RIAA gets no sympathy from me. If the entire music industry collected tomorrow leaving only the small Indy companies left I'd be tickled to death.

 

[Camikazi]

Who buys music anymore?

And isn't there a time limit on copyrights? Copyrights were not created so huge conglomerates could accumulate the legal right to control the collective accomplishments of mankind.

The RIAA gets no sympathy from me. If the entire music industry collected tomorrow leaving only the small Indy companies left I'd be tickled to death.

Believe copyrights can last from 95 years to the life of the author or more depending on how it was made. In other words they last practically forever.

 

[smeghead4269]

Who buys music anymore?

If I had a dime for every time I've heard that question...

Justin Timberlake sold 2.43 million copies of "20/20", which was the best selling album of 2013. So the answer to your question (and several "who buys _____ anymore" questions for that matter) is millions of people around the world. Yes, music sales are declining and will likely continue to do so, but just because you don't buy music anymore doesn't mean no one does.

 

[Martell1977]

The RIAA shot themselves in the foot long ago and now have no idea what they are doing. I can't even count how many times back in high school that I would hear a good song or two on the radio and go buy the CD, only to find that those were the only good songs and the rest were filler garbage. Or that the version I heard was a radio edit and was far superior to the album version.
Then Napster came out, then others and they started suing their customers. Once people could buy singles, I know many people that would download the songs from an album, listen to them all and buy only the ones that actually liked. But that meant higher sales but less money as people weren't forced to pay for all the garbage.
The families of the classic music stars got millions for the music over the years and IMO there should be a point where, unless used for commercial purposes (i.e. in advertisements, movies) should be open for free usage. If someone decides to buy a copy, great, but there should be a cut-off point.

 

[Spectre694]

This is starting to get stupid again. It is like napster all over again.

 

[oxiide]

Who buys music anymore?

And isn't there a time limit on copyrights? Copyrights were not created so huge conglomerates could accumulate the legal right to control the collective accomplishments of mankind.

The RIAA gets no sympathy from me. If the entire music industry collected tomorrow leaving only the small Indy companies left I'd be tickled to death.

Believe copyrights can last from 95 years to the life of the author or more depending on how it was made. In other words they last practically forever.

Basically yeah, though I believe that its something like the creator's lifetime + 50 years. The courts are often very generous to the copyright holder in renewing the copyright, though, as Disney could certainly attest to.

 

[knowom]

Who buys music anymore?

And isn't there a time limit on copyrights? Copyrights were not created so huge conglomerates could accumulate the legal right to control the collective accomplishments of mankind.

The RIAA gets no sympathy from me. If the entire music industry collected tomorrow leaving only the small Indy companies left I'd be tickled to death.

Neither were patents, but it's in the same mess system as Copyrights system is in.

 

[CaptainTom]

Who buys music anymore?

If I had a dime for every time I've heard that question...

Justin Timberlake sold 2.43 million copies of "20/20", which was the best selling album of 2013. So the answer to your question (and several "who buys _____ anymore" questions for that matter) is millions of people around the world. Yes, music sales are declining and will likely continue to do so, but just because you don't buy music anymore doesn't mean no one does.

AMEN! Some of us are willing to pay people for their work.

 

[ddpruitt]

Doesn't that mean that the RIAA puppet SoundExchange is going to refund Pandora for royalties the should have never paid to begin with?

This is why I have no problem downloading music from huge artists and why I buy directly from smaller artists. It's in the RIAAs best interest to keep the system obfuscated so that no one can tell how much they're really raking in.

 

[rwinches]

Oh please, stop with the holier than thou crap. Plenty of DCs and DLs are being sold. Plenty of movie tickets sold (at high prices) movies purchased and rented.

Remember mix tapes?
Remember borrowing or lending tapes or CDs, so you could have a copy of a song or album?
Remember borrowing a VCR or DVD to watch a movie.
Remember how much is spent on video rentals, (and now streaming).
That has been going on for decades and the music industry is still here and artists are still making millions.
Not all income is from music there is tons to be made in merchandising, just look at KISS.

You can not forget that consumers in each demographic only have just so much to spend on entertainment be it movies, movies on DVDs, movie rentals DVD or Streamed, music live, music on CDs or DLed.

So since the amount is finite then the claim that a borrowed copy of a track whether physically or electronically shared does not represent a loss of income in the "Billions", especially when you consider how often is that copy played or viewed as compared to how long it sits on a drive or shelf.

This is just greed plain and simple. Just bean counters and lawyers justifying their salaries.

It all started with VCRs when tapes cost $69 for a movie cause any lower would hurt the industry and Recording VCRs were going to kill the industry (even though less that one third actually recorded anything).

Then it was CDs that were going to kill the industry and their introduction was delayed even though you needed four CD and special setup to view movies of which only a handful were available, and CD recording drives were expensive.

Then it was DVDs were going to destroy the industry.

Now its streaming music and movies.

The Sky is Falling, The Sky is Falling.

 

[g00ey]

I think that the reason why Sony, Warner et al are suing Pandora is because they can and because that there is a chance for them to earn a shiny penny from the lawsuit.

 

[web11]

Screw the RIAA and MPAA I pay for a seedbox just so I have the pleasure of not giving them a dime. Their ridiculous lawsuits and lobbying in Congress needs to be stopped.

 

[icecreambarr]

Aren't the RIAA and MPAA making money off of seeds they didn't sow? Pandora, please agree to pay all royalties directly to the artists and their families. Cut out the middle man by playing their own self serving card against them.

...edit... voted myself up accidentally.

 

[basroil]

Aren't the RIAA and MPAA making money off of seeds they didn't sow? Pandora, please agree to pay all royalties directly to the artists and their families. Cut out the middle man by playing their own self serving card against them.

Thing is that the artists usually don't own the rights to their own work, the RIAA and MPAA do (well, companies under their flag), so any arguments discussing royalties to artists is pointless.

 

[DrBackwater]

Why doesn't pandors just stream music from youtube to their site, it doesn't actually punished them but youtube and the community included.

Everyone does it these days with no actual way of owning nor playing their content as the uploader who uploaded will be punished. (downside is most songs will be blocked based on location.)

I like those dollar sign sun glasses, any one know where to purchase them from.

 

[daekar]

[QuoteThing is that the artists usually don't own the rights to their own work, the RIAA and MPAA do (well, companies under their flag), so any arguments discussing royalties to artists is pointless.[/quote]
This is the problem, in a way.

 

[Evolution2001]

Funny hearing the labels talking about "unfair competition" when they are in bed with iHeart Radio a.k.a. ClearChannel. This is more about collusion between ClearChannel, the RIAA, and "the Big 3" banding together to get Pandora and other radio streaming services shutdown either through "bankrupting Pandora via continued litigation" or via exorbitant licensing fees.

 

[teddymines]

I don't see how the music industry can survive as it is. Pandora allegedly uses its subscription dollars and advertising revenue to pay the RIAA, but the dirty little secret is that everybody skips or avoids or turns down the volume when commercials come on, so the advertisers are not getting their money's worth (at least from me they don't).

 

[Evolution2001]

I don't see how the music industry can survive as it is. Pandora allegedly uses its subscription dollars and advertising revenue to pay the RIAA, but the dirty little secret is that everybody skips or avoids or turns down the volume when commercials come on, so the advertisers are not getting their money's worth (at least from me they don't).

Most of it probably comes from the subscription model. I've been a PandoraOne subscriber since it's inception, so I'm commercial free. That being said, the subscription fee goes up for me next year. I think it's going up like $4 or something. For now, it's still worth it to me.

 

[teddymines]

I don't see how the music industry can survive as it is. Pandora allegedly uses its subscription dollars and advertising revenue to pay the RIAA, but the dirty little secret is that everybody skips or avoids or turns down the volume when commercials come on, so the advertisers are not getting their money's worth (at least from me they don't).

Most of it probably comes from the subscription model. I've been a PandoraOne subscriber since it's inception, so I'm commercial free. That being said, the subscription fee goes up for me next year. I think it's going up like $4 or something. For now, it's still worth it to me.

If enough people do not pay, they will have to re-think their model. I'm all for compensating musicians, so why is the industry set up with the RIAA sitting between musicians and those who want to listen? Seems like independent music creation and exposure through other channels would be more beneficial for everyone except the suits.

 

[ya right]

Rich people trying to get filthy rich at the expense of the rest of the population.

RIAA is junk.

Let the artists control thier property.

 

[Christopher Shaffer]

Who buys music anymore?

If I had a dime for every time I've heard that question...

Justin Timberlake sold 2.43 million copies of "20/20", which was the best selling album of 2013. So the answer to your question (and several "who buys _____ anymore" questions for that matter) is millions of people around the world. Yes, music sales are declining and will likely continue to do so, but just because you don't buy music anymore doesn't mean no one does.

People who care about fidelity, for one. Streaming is still mostly only so-so quality, and iTunes sells shit bitrates for the same price as a CD.

I still buy CDs when I can get my hands on them, or order if needed so that I can do my own rips. 128/256 VBR doesn't cut it.

I'm actually about to buy a USB turn-table so I can convert directly from vinyl.

People who grew up in the 90s or after and have never even heard a record (note that I'm only 34, even though I sound like an old man right now) don't appreciate the dynamic range that music had before the digital age.

If you've never heard an album that was cut on tape and transferred to 180g vinyl you've probably never even known how amazing it can sound. And one doesn't need to be an audiophile to hear the difference.

So who buys music? People who actually LISTEN to it. The rest of you using it as background noise probably wouldn't understand that concept.

 

[icecreambarr]

... using it as background noise...

Great observation! I've never thought of the iPod zombies in that context.

I'm using this in discussion from now on, thanks CS.

 

[Christopher Shaffer]

... using it as background noise...

Great observation! I've never thought of the iPod zombies in that context.

I'm using this in discussion from now on, thanks CS.

Note that this description isn't actually based on MY observation, but instead feedback from people I meet who themselves describe their music tastes as, "I don't really care, I just put it on as background noise".

I'm not judging, people literally do this, but music lovers really LISTEN to the music and fidelity makes a huge difference.

From a technical standpoint, dynamic range is severely impacted by compressed audio files due to the methods used to compress it in the first place. Again, not an opinion but indeed a fact of how audio compression works. You can actually hear this yourself. Just listen to a song from a CD or vinyl with lots of peaks and valleys in volume and highs/lows throughout the song. Then convert the same song into 128, 192 or even 256 and you'll hear exactly what I mean, especially through headphones.