Spotify fails to properly licence Eminem.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Mihle said:

Steaming have enabled new artists with good music to be discovered faster and growing faster than they otherwise would have done

Youtube has actually been very good for this.  

 

Although I am sure you meant streaming and  not streaming.

[DumbAsshole32]

.

[yolosnail]

1 hour ago, -Kriss- said:

Eminem has barely made anything at all these last 5 years

Exactly! Money is running tight

[Zodiark1593]

16 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

 

We still haven't found that happy medium where services, prices and content is balanced and the market self regulates.  In the 80's it was pay through the nose for music, in the 2000's is was free and everywhere,  now we are still in the free and all over the place state, but we have some semblance of services that could begin to meet everyone's needs. 

Could always go the British route and require a "Music License" to listen to broadcasted and internet music.

 

*hopes RIAA doesn't read this*

[yolosnail]

3 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Could always go the British route and require a "Music License" to listen to broadcasted and internet music.

 

*hopes RIAA doesn't read this*

We only need a license to listen to play music in a public place, you don't need a license to play music in private

 

 

[Zodiark1593]

9 minutes ago, yolosnail said:

We only need a license to listen to play music in a public place, you don't need a license to play music in private

 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom

[ARikozuM]

I don't really care for piracy. If you're a record label, I will probably pirate or go to iTunes to see if your album is worth the money. If you're an indie, you aren't even part of the establishment and are less likely to get revenue, thus I will purchase directly from the website. 

 

The music industry consistently tries to get copyright on everything even those that fall under fair use. I have no sympathy for them.

[yolosnail]

1 minute ago, Zodiark1593 said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom

We can listen to the radio without a TV license

Quote

Do I need a TV Licence to listen to the radio?

No, you do not need a TV Licence to listen to the radio (including on BBC iPlayer).

 

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ102

 

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

I don't really care for piracy. If you're a record label, I will probably pirate or go to iTunes to see if your album is worth the money. If you're an indie, you aren't even part of the establishment and are less likely to get revenue, thus I will purchase directly from the website. 

 

 

Thank you, that is a pretty important distinction.  While I don't feel right taken content from anyone without paying for it,  at least you understand that a few large labels and bad managers do not make up the entire industry.

 

EDIT: to add:

 

Quote

The music industry consistently tries to get copyright on everything even those that fall under fair use. I have no sympathy for them.

This is a cart before the horse problem at worst and a chicken/egg at best,  if there was no piracy there would be no need to go to such extremes to increase revenue/control.   The music industry did not engage in such extreme copyright wars prior to the internet or failure of sales, even though Disney did and other industries have been using copyright and patents for hundreds of years to control the market.

[Tech_Dreamer]

Someones desperate for money. *wink wink*

[ARikozuM]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

This is a cart before the horse problem at worst and a chicken/egg at best,  if there was no piracy there would be no need to go to such extremes to increase revenue/control.   The music industry did not engage in such extreme copyright wars prior to the internet or failure of sales, even though Disney did and other industries have been using copyright and patents for hundreds of years to control the market.

I wouldn't explain it like that. They consistently try to increase their allotted "profitability bubble" to absurd [lengths of time]. The [other] issue is that they offer less and less of a value than was otherwise expected. It has become more of an assembly line, yet prices remain at the same amount, even if adjusted for inflation. The music industry regularly tries to get more of the pie for themselves and has gone after indies for "taking a verse" or other nonsense. 

 

I don't think anyone is entitled to 100+ years of protection when they're making billions in revenue. Happy Birthday is copyrighted and that song is almost 130 years old. It makes no sense to protect something for that long. Mickey Mouse? Same thing. He's gotten, what, 900x more money than he put in to his original skits? That's more than enough to claim profitable. The copyright should have ended long ago. 

 

As far as Eminem, if the label knew, they should have been on Spotify immediately with C&D and licensing forms. If they paused to see what would happen, they've far surpassed their limit of protection (in my opinion). Right now, what should happen is Spotify should sign licensing, but not be penalized farther than what the licensing arrangements from their normal value from years prior rather than current values up until normal license expiration.

 

Edit: If we talk about games, we need to form a justifiable period where every game enters EoL and all server code gets put up publicly. If the company isn't going to support their product, they should not claim property over it when there are users still wanting and able to fix the issues and keep the program alive. 

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

I wouldn't explain it like that. They consistently try to increase their allotted "profitability bubble" to absurd [lengths of time]. The [other] issue is that they offer less and less of a value than was otherwise expected. It has become more of an assembly line, yet prices remain at the same amount, even if adjusted for inflation. The music industry regularly tries to get more of the pie for themselves and has gone after indies for "taking a verse" or other nonsense. 

But you can't claim the reaction to piracy is the cause of piracy.   If we look at the time lime of all that has happened it is quite distinct and clear.  

 

3 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

I don't think anyone is entitled to 100+ years of protection when they're making billions in revenue.

Why?  what does their income have to do with their rights,  You have no more right to limit control over their own product than they do to limit yours.  Size of income is irrelevant.

 

3 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Happy Birthday is copyrighted and that song is almost 130 years old. It makes no sense to protect something for that long. Mickey Mouse? Same thing. He's gotten, what, 900x more money than he put in to his original skits? That's more than enough to claim profitable. The copyright should have ended long ago. 

This is just opinion,  your opinion carries no more weight than anyone else's.

 

3 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

As far as Eminem, if the label knew, they should have been on Spotify immediately with C&D and licensing forms. If they paused to see what would happen, they've far surpassed their limit of protection (in my opinion).

As far as I know statue of limitations for this type of thing is 21 years.  There is nothing in law that says you can't observe and collect evidence to ensure you aren't suing for something you aren't entitled to.

3 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Right now, what should happen is Spotify should sign licensing, but not be penalized farther than what the licensing arrangements from their normal value from years prior rather than current values up until normal license expiration.

 

Why though?  what if they did it on purpose?  if they deliberately stitched the books to not pay royalties then they should be punished.

3 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Edit: If we talk about games, we need to form a justifiable period where every game enters EoL and all server code gets put up publicly. If the company isn't going to support their product, they should not claim property over it when there are users still wanting and able to fix the issues and keep the program alive. 

Don;t really want to talk outside of the music industry as they all differ slightly.  There is less evidence in the other entertainment industries as to the effect of piracy, whilst music is pretty black and white.

[ARikozuM]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Why?  what does their income have to do with their rights,  You have no more right to limit control over their own product than they do to limit yours.  Size of income is irrelevant.

The point of copyright and patent are to allow the creators to make money on their products. If it hits a certain threshold of time, it should dissolve protections. Otherwise, we get a lot of control in those that are able to produce more whereas smaller players cannot protect their own material.

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

The point of copyright and patent are to allow the creators to make money on their products. If it hits a certain threshold of time, it should dissolve protections. Otherwise, we get a lot of control in those that are able to produce more whereas smaller players cannot protect their own material.

Smaller players have the same access and protection of copyright as the larger players. 

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Smaller players have the same access and protection of copyright as the larger players. 

They can't fight at the same level nor draw it out as long. Also, why are we only talking about what is and not what could/should be?

[mr moose]

Just now, ARikozuM said:

They can't fight at the same level nor draw it out as long. Also, why are we only talking about what is and not what could/should be?

Here the issue is not copyright but nuisance lawsuits.   This is an issue with all laws (patent, CR, contractual, government legislation).   The problem is not to change CR but to change the laws surrounding how companies sue and holding them responsible for suing smaller companies.