http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36723
This is good news if it goes through.
I can only hope it is true…
That would be awesome
:lol:
The problem is the most favored nation clause, present in a lot of online pricing. I know apple has been forced into one of these agreements, which are basically anti-competition, and monopolistic.
Say Apple pays all music companies $x per song. If they were to sign an agreement with just one company to pay $y pers song, they would then be required to up the payment per-song to every company to $y, if $x < $y. Its bullshit and trickery, and I hope the RIAA gets fucked.
Good I hope they lose their ass on this.
All their bullshit is finally gonna bite them in the ass if this is true/happens.
+1 Couldn’t have said it better.
:tup:
This is of particular interest to me… When I do a mix for someone, I have NO LEGAL WAY to pay for the rights to chop up a song and include it in a mix for a SINGLE customer. I can pay around $1 per song to sell compilation CDs, but as soon as I edit the song(s) and add other beats, etc., I have no way to pay for those rights.
It seems insane to me that I can sell the WHOLE song for $1 (like iTunes), but I can’t sell a TINY PART of it.
The bigger problem for me is that in order to bring this up to the powers that be, I’d be putting myself at risk, and I’d be in hot water with the Harry Fox Agency again.
They’re not suing “Russia”, they’re suing a website based in Russia called allofmp3.com, but yes for a few trillion dollars.
but Russia will CRUSH THEM!
those prices that the inquirer listed are quite a bit more reslistic, and more hwat I would figure… Even at $2.80 PPL who have 1000’s of songs would owe a lot of money… but they wouldn’t owe their first 5 children to slave labor for the RIAA.
well the numbers they came up with aren’t random, from what I understand any civil lawsuit has a maximum damage assessment of 300%, so $.70 * 3.00 = $2.80 per-song.
EDIT: argh, all my calculus knowledge and simple multiplication thwarts me.