[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Totally OT] paying for music (was Re: [OT] Re: Stallman Admits to Copyright Infringement)

On 17-May-00, 06:53 (CDT), Jimmy O'Regan <jimregan@litsu.ie> wrote: 
> On Tue, 16 May 2000, Steve Greenland wrote:
> ) So I can loan out my CDs up to about 1283 times each, making the worst
> ) case assumption that each loanee makes a copy. (Based on a list price
> ) of $12.99, and an assumption (aka wild-assed guess) that the copyright
> ) holder makes %30 of that.)
> ) 
> Actually, the part that gets considered for payment to the copyright
> holder is generally only around 20% and from that, there's the performance
> payment, the copyright royalty, yet another cut for the record  company. 
> Subtract another 10-20% from that for the publishing company, and you can
> probably understand why people like Metallica are getting so annoyed over
> that sort of thing.

Actually, I don't (well, I do, but for the sake of argument:).

Suppose I copy and keep MP3s of Metallica's latest albmun, and then
send them (the band, directly), US $2. They have made more from me than
they would have if I'd bought the CD. The only people who lose are the
industry parasites. 

(By the way, did you notice that he RIAA managed to get a law passed
though the House that basically classifies the what the artists do as
"work-for-hire", e.g. the companies would own the copyright, not the
artist. See http://wallofsound.go.com/news/stories/donhenley050900.html)

None of this, of course, belongs on debian-devel or debian-legal.


Reply to: