So who's going to wipe all their MP3 player copies.

[CHJ]

More money wasted on daft law making

Wonder how many highly paid man hours this is going to cost.

 

[n0legs]

I won't be wiping any of my copies.
I've been buying original CDs for a long time. Some of the oldest have suffered from "disc rot" and have become unplayable, so the copies I made from them for playing in the car have become my only working copies.
I wonder if the publishers would willingly replace my originals? I doubt it.

 

[dzj]

How would they enforce this anyway?

On a side note, what a sweet deal it would be if I received a small royalty every time someone opened a door
or window I made! And no copying!

 

[RossJarvis]

Is it illegal for me to overhear music that's being played in a car or on someones headphones? I really need to know in case it's best to stay indoors with earplugs in. It's getting very worrying hearing next doors TV through the walls as I've not got a license :? :shock:

 

[RogerP]

Jo Dipple, CEO of UK Music, said: "It is vitally important that fairness for songwriters, composers and performers is written into the law.

" My members’ music defines this country. It is only right that Government gives us the standard of legislation our music deserves.

"We want to work with Government so this can be achieved."

... translated this means.
"We want to screw the customers for every last penny".

 

[worn thumbs]

I remember when CD's were first introduced they were a lot more expensive than the older media.It was justified on the basis that there were very few plants that could produce them.Strangely enough,the price never went back down when the production facilities became widespread.I can't help thinking that the recording business is a bit like the typewriter business was in the nineties and not too far from the point of expiring.

 

[RogerS]

Says it all, really.

In the early 1990s she edited the “Dear Jo” column for the Daily Mirror.

Jo Dipple. A message to you from all your listeners and readers. Two words.

" Go swivel"

 

[Sporky McGuffin]

I remember when CD's were first introduced they were a lot more expensive than the older media.It was justified on the basis that there were very few plants that could produce them.Strangely enough,the price never went back down when the production facilities became widespread.

I could be misremembering, but weren't CDs around £15 when they came out? Now new releases are typically around a tenner from Amazon. Factor in inflation and they're much cheaper now. That said, the price of a CD has little to do with the cost of production of the CD itself - IIRC the jewel cases cost more to make than the CDs.

Personally I went over to Spotify; a tenner a month is less than I was spending on CDs for a much wider library.

 

[CHJ]

Having been involved with small batch pressing of CD's (not copying) 1000+ If I remember correctly they were in the small tens of pence including the master die.

They were specialist catalogues for the The British Numismatic Society(British Museum) so that world wide members had access to reference library titles.
Amazing what you can do with simple database programs and a bit of html.

The costs were low enough for them to be distributed with the annual society report anyway without incurring additional charges.

I suspect the real underlying problem is that the creator of any retail item is the person least rewarded, those involved getting it to Joe public taking by far the greater cut.

 

[Sporky McGuffin]

I suspect the real underlying problem is that the creator of any retail item is the person least rewarded, those involved getting it to Joe public taking by far the greater cut.

The breakdown I found (at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23840744 ) suggests:

For an £8 CD:

£2.40 to the record company
£1.36 to VAT
£1.36 to the retailer
£1.04 to the artist
72p to manufacturing
64p to distribution
48p copyright costs

 

[Tom K]

Killing off their own industry like the Public Performance License scam. Turn off the music and lower sales.

 

[artie]

Is it illegal for me to overhear music that's being played in a car or on someones headphones? I really need to know in case it's best to stay indoors with earplugs in. It's getting very worrying hearing next doors TV through the walls as I've not got a license :? :shock:

A few years ago I was bombarded with phone calls trying to sell me some license or other if I played music at my business which could be heard by the public.

They were unsuccessful.

 

[finneyb]

I suspect the real underlying problem is that the creator of any retail item is the person least rewarded, those involved getting it to Joe public taking by far the greater cut.

The breakdown I found (at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23840744 ) suggests:

For an £8 CD:

£2.40 to the record company
£1.36 to VAT
£1.36 to the retailer
£1.04 to the artist
72p to manufacturing
64p to distribution
48p copyright costs

Who gets the copyright money? The artist?

 

[JakeS]

Who gets the copyright money? The artist?

The source article describes it as "administering copyright". Which I suspect is a euphemism for "paying for lawyers to fight court cases such as the one described in this thread and bribing politicians to pass even-more-restrictive copyright laws".

 

[DiscoStu]

I think this is more about the trend for music streaming and what they are trying to do is protect artists from people streaming their music and writing it to MP3.

To use the door example above.

If you made a door and sold it then you'd get paid - just like someone buying your music.

However if you managed to negotiate a deal whereby everyone paid every time they used it then you'd probably also expect to get paid when they did. What you wouldn't expect is for someone to use it once and then walk off with it under their arm.

Music isn't free people create it for a living and therefore it's only right that they get paid.

That said if I have paid for a track then I have paid the artist their dues and I expect to be able to put that on any device that I own whether that be CD, MP3 player, phone, laptop or even vital.

I also think that once you've paid for it then you should be able to maintain that. So for example I bought a CD in 1986 and now it won't play, I should be able to obtain a copy of the CD for the cost of the CD and not pay all the other fees again. The same should be true for films. If I bought a VHS film in 1980 then I should be able to get a DVD or Blu ray version without having to double pay the artists and studios and taxes etc.

I think something like Apple music will be interesting, I'm not sure if we are ready to move to completely on demand and not own our music (and I'm sure films will follow)

 

[JakeS]

I think something like Apple music will be interesting, I'm not sure if we are ready to move to completely on demand and not own our music (and I'm sure films will follow)

Everyone I know has been using Spotify for years - I'm the last holdout in my group of friends who actually buys music CDs from time to time. I'd suggest that a significant number of people are very ready to move completely to on-demand and not own their own music! Films, if anything, have been the vanguard of this - NetFlix has been popular longer than Spotify has, Virgin Media has their own on-demand services, and I don't doubt Sky does as well one way or another. BBC iPlayer is another very popular service.

Off-topic, is there anything Apple Music does that Spotify doesn't, or are they just claiming to have invented the wheel again?

 

[Rhossydd]

Music isn't free people create it for a living and therefore it's only right that they get paid.

Absolutely right.
There are too many people that fail to understand the issue of intellectual property rights and aren't prepared to pay for other people's work.

I also think that once you've paid for it then you should be able to maintain that. So for example I bought a CD in 1986 and now it won't play, I should be able to obtain a copy of the CD for the cost of the CD and not pay all the other fees again. The same should be true for films. If I bought a VHS film in 1980 then I should be able to get a DVD or Blu ray version without having to double pay the artists and studios and taxes etc

I think this is a issue harder to justify.
If you buy a car a part of the cost is design, R&D, advertising etc, if you then crash it would you expect to buy another one without those costs ?
Also products like DVD and Blu-Rays are significantly different to an original VHS, you're buying a better quality product and one with added features like menus and possibly added content too, so not really 'like for like'.

 

[MMUK]

Music isn't free people create it for a living and therefore it's only right that they get paid.

That said if I have paid for a track then I have paid the artist their dues and I expect to be able to put that on any device that I own whether that be CD, MP3 player, phone, laptop or even vital.

I also think that once you've paid for it then you should be able to maintain that. So for example I bought a CD in 1986 and now it won't play, I should be able to obtain a copy of the CD for the cost of the CD and not pay all the other fees again. The same should be true for films. If I bought a VHS film in 1980 then I should be able to get a DVD or Blu ray version without having to double pay the artists and studios and taxes etc.

In principle I agree. However, what I don't agree with is how little the artist gets from your £8, or whatever your CD costs. It's the record label that gets the lion's share, the artist gets a pittance! Simon Cowell and X Factor is a good example - he gets around 80% of all earnings for doing **** all!

 

[rafezetter]

If you buy a car a part of the cost is design, R&D, advertising etc, if you then crash it would you expect to buy another one without those costs ?.

This is not what has happened with the reversal of the law, if you crashed a car and made it unusable, then by all means all costs as normal should be incurred.

Copying a media to safeguard it's future use is not the same thing. I guarentee you all music created since the first day of punchcard sheet music was, and still is, stored on a "master" and that each and every version after that is a copy of that original; thus safeguarding that there is always one surviving and most importantly WORKING copy. (and for many medias since then MORE copies of that original have been made for the very same reason - all the films that were shot on celluloid is a prime example).

How is this any different?

An artist or publisher only incurrs one charge at each and every single stage up to manufacture of the copies for distribuition.

ONE charge for the studio, ONE charge for the producer etc etc etc. The artist gets paid a royalty for all sales, and air time it then receives, a not insignificant sum.

Why is that not enough now when it was enough before? Especially considering that with the publics ability now to buy back catalogued titles from online music vendors, a great many artists are now receiving royalties for music written decades ago that had not sold a cassette or LP for many many years.

Its greed that has fueled this, pure and simple. Millionaires have been made of artists just because of ONE song - just exactly how much money are you expecting to get for that work? At some point the artist, publisher and everyone else involved up to the point of retail has to accept they have had fair recompense for that work and move on.

 

[Sporky McGuffin]

The vast majority of recording artists aren't rich though, it's a very small minority that make even a modest living.