Schroedinger's streaming service just died(pluralistic.net)
pluralistic.net
Schroedinger's streaming service just died
https://pluralistic.net/2022/06/21/early-adopters/#heads-i-win
116 comments
Congress doesn't even bother reading the bills they pass. Most of the actual details are deferred to the administrative bureaucracy.
That's where the real power is.
That's where the real power is.
The deep state is a real thing. I don’t think it has to be explicitly negative, but there are a lot of unelected bureaucrats that hold a lot of power with minimal accountability and visibility.
Such as? Not trying to be pedantic, just looking for a more specific example. Are you talking about political appointees or public servants? If so, where? What agencies?
Here is a right-coded example of a hypothetical agency behavior with many claimed historical occurrences:
Suppose you are the EPA and you'd like to implement some environmental rule that might or might not be strictly within your legal powers.
You work out a deal with a friendly organization and they sue you for improper stewardship of the environment (with details, obviously, according to the rule you want to implement). Then, instead of fighting their lawsuit, you settle it, agreeing to their demands -- which consist of the rule you wanted to implement. That rule is now one you are obligated to enforce pursuant to a legal agreement, instead of something you implemented on your own authority. This structure tends to prevent normal accountability mechanisms from working.
(As a side note, I'm always surprised, when I see descriptions of this tactic, that it's permissible for an agency to agree to take actions that are notionally not within the power of the agency. I would be interested to know more about what exactly is going on there.)
Suppose you are the EPA and you'd like to implement some environmental rule that might or might not be strictly within your legal powers.
You work out a deal with a friendly organization and they sue you for improper stewardship of the environment (with details, obviously, according to the rule you want to implement). Then, instead of fighting their lawsuit, you settle it, agreeing to their demands -- which consist of the rule you wanted to implement. That rule is now one you are obligated to enforce pursuant to a legal agreement, instead of something you implemented on your own authority. This structure tends to prevent normal accountability mechanisms from working.
(As a side note, I'm always surprised, when I see descriptions of this tactic, that it's permissible for an agency to agree to take actions that are notionally not within the power of the agency. I would be interested to know more about what exactly is going on there.)
On June 17, the Secretary of Interior ordered the Department of Interior to take down a public website detailing settlement agreements and final dispositions.
Score one for losing transparency into the cycle of bureaucrats funding former bureaucrats of similar political alignment by abusing the courts.
It's really sad when you realize that Trump's administration (when the initial rule establishing the website) was more transparent than Bidens. Before, the settlements were posted immediately; now, if you even know about them at all, you need to wait months after filing a FOIA to find out about it.
Some of the more prolific groups have been getting 1 to 3 million dollars a year from the settlements alone.
Score one for losing transparency into the cycle of bureaucrats funding former bureaucrats of similar political alignment by abusing the courts.
It's really sad when you realize that Trump's administration (when the initial rule establishing the website) was more transparent than Bidens. Before, the settlements were posted immediately; now, if you even know about them at all, you need to wait months after filing a FOIA to find out about it.
Some of the more prolific groups have been getting 1 to 3 million dollars a year from the settlements alone.
Fascinating. Thanks. It's not surprising to see some of these types of things getting thrown out in the end when challenged by someone on the other side of the agreement.
Rocky flats was one of the only times one agency raided another. Wild stuff.
Heads of many agencies are appointed, but all of the institutional knowledge of say the NSA, CIA, FBI, etc is buried within the organization. If you want anything done you must work within those organizations. Places like the OMB and the layers that support congress. Power brokers from their day like Karl Rove and Grover Norquist. The lobbyists that actually write the laws congress signs, the “negotiators” they use to horse trader. The military more directly serves the president, but these other agencies have accreted tremendous power. I don’t think it is some grand conspiracy, but the US government is a massive organism and some of its organs are harder to control than others.
In simple terms: were they elected and do you pay for their salary?
In simple terms: were they elected and do you pay for their salary?
Are you talking about Government employees or lobbyists? BTW, notice that their power is circumscribed by the law. When that changes their powers change.
Lmao what? They write the laws! Think tanks are literally paid to draft legislation
Think tanks are not the government. They are private institutions.
Typically when one uses the term "deep state" you mean someone working in the government that has their own agenda and/or are acting on a specific conspiracy / cabal agenda counter to the direction of, say, the administration providing the guidance and direction. This is why the person asked about employees vs. lobbyists.
Typically when one uses the term "deep state" you mean someone working in the government that has their own agenda and/or are acting on a specific conspiracy / cabal agenda counter to the direction of, say, the administration providing the guidance and direction. This is why the person asked about employees vs. lobbyists.
Yea, its the normal government and the deep state is the fact that its actually controlled by corporations and lobbyists. The corporations and lobbyists and think tanks are the deep state. They're the ones really in control, spreading propaganda and getting Americans to vote against their personal interests. Politicians are the biggest cucks for capitalism because they all get rich in office by fearing the corporate lobbyists and giving them the legislation that they want. That's the deep state
Whilst I agree that external moneyed interests control the US government to a large degree via the aforementioned mechanisms, this is not what people refer to when they say Deep State.
Deep State refers to government employees who hold a lot of power e.g. heads of alphabet agencies, their close underlings, etc and wield it in such a way that there's little recourse for the average American.
Both these moneyed interests AND the Deep State exert an influence that citizens should seek to regulate.
Deep State refers to government employees who hold a lot of power e.g. heads of alphabet agencies, their close underlings, etc and wield it in such a way that there's little recourse for the average American.
Both these moneyed interests AND the Deep State exert an influence that citizens should seek to regulate.
What I'm saying is that those people in government who could be considered "deep state" are the ones appointed due to the money in politics. I agree that there is unaccountability but it all comes down to money and corporate power
The ones with the money and corporate power are pulling the strings of those who they install
The ones with the money and corporate power are pulling the strings of those who they install
Yea its the corporations, lobbyists, think-tanks and those who pay them. Its consolidation of corporate power. Its fascism
It's a nice fantasy, but it's simply not the case in my experience. The details are deferred because you want to be able to adapt some things faster than you can change a law and you want it done with a comment period by subject matter experts, rather than by legislators.
In general, however, those agencies are slow moving (requires comment period, must decide given bounds, funding limited, etc) and pretty narrowly handcuffed / acting within the statute. Recently even those narrow powers have been rejected by the courts (see admin law judges, CFPB single director, etc).
In general, however, those agencies are slow moving (requires comment period, must decide given bounds, funding limited, etc) and pretty narrowly handcuffed / acting within the statute. Recently even those narrow powers have been rejected by the courts (see admin law judges, CFPB single director, etc).
If that's the case, that's because the people are choosing crappy politicians who let that happen. If a father of a family lets the five-year old decide where to live, what to eat, and what to buy, that doesn't mean the five-year old has the power, it just means that the father has voluntarily given the power to him. However, he could take it back whenever he felt like it.
Same thing goes for lobbyists. They would have zero power if politicians gave them zero power. If the population would be smart and informed, this wouldn't happen. So, what's happening now is totally a result of democracy, which of course is a totally ridiculous idea^1, but it's still democratic.
[1]: Let people who have absolutely no idea how to run things decide who should run things. That's like if the passengers of an airplane, having zero experience with aviation, deciding on who the captain should be.
Same thing goes for lobbyists. They would have zero power if politicians gave them zero power. If the population would be smart and informed, this wouldn't happen. So, what's happening now is totally a result of democracy, which of course is a totally ridiculous idea^1, but it's still democratic.
[1]: Let people who have absolutely no idea how to run things decide who should run things. That's like if the passengers of an airplane, having zero experience with aviation, deciding on who the captain should be.
> That's like if the passengers of an airplane, having zero experience with aviation, deciding on who the captain should be.
I guess they would vote for an airliner captain? E.g. most people go to doctors for medical adcive rather than new age mumbo jumbo. I don't see the problem in this particular case.
I guess they would vote for an airliner captain? E.g. most people go to doctors for medical adcive rather than new age mumbo jumbo. I don't see the problem in this particular case.
A surprisingly large number of people go in for the new age mumbo jumbo or, uh, old-timey mumbo jumbo. And that despite quite heavy regulation on medical claims and on the qualifications of medical practicianers.
Folks still need to get re-elected, even if it's heavily favoring lobbyists. That is still SOMETHING, rather than a company creating something out of thin air. In this the OP is correct. It's not a lie, and your vote counts.
For what it's worth, it's not so much lobbyists as the ability to generate dollars period (many lobbyists aren't actually very good at this), and there's still power there in numbers as seen in recent elections so don't sell yourself short if you have a compelling case to make. Just sayin'! :)
For what it's worth, it's not so much lobbyists as the ability to generate dollars period (many lobbyists aren't actually very good at this), and there's still power there in numbers as seen in recent elections so don't sell yourself short if you have a compelling case to make. Just sayin'! :)
We need to have a national proposition system that let citizens put forth legislative bills into the ballots, to let the citizens vote on the strongly concerned matters. When Congress obviously is not doing their jobs, the citizens should have a way to pick up the slack. It's a better way to check and balance the sellout of the legislative branch to the lobbyists.
Please no. I lived in California for much of my life. Statewide propositions are plenty thanks.
It's too easy to get voters to vote for things that are deceptively drafted, and then you're stuck with it forever.
It's too easy to get voters to vote for things that are deceptively drafted, and then you're stuck with it forever.
[deleted]
Our system was literally designed to prevent citizens from having any say. See the supreme court and the reasons Alexander Hamilton said it was needed
"Prevent us from having any say"??
Legislators are directly elected, president is elected somewhat indirectly but largely by popular vote, administrative rule making has notice and comment process, Article 3 judges are appointed by President and confirmed by legislature... everything derived from the will of the people. It sounds like you are upset that more people aren't as upset at the same things you are. That's not a problem with the government, that's a problem with the populace.
Organize a petition to have your congressional rep submit a bill for what you want. If they refuse, find someone to run who will do it. Actually do something, don't just post online about how the government isn't working... make it work for you!
Legislators are directly elected, president is elected somewhat indirectly but largely by popular vote, administrative rule making has notice and comment process, Article 3 judges are appointed by President and confirmed by legislature... everything derived from the will of the people. It sounds like you are upset that more people aren't as upset at the same things you are. That's not a problem with the government, that's a problem with the populace.
Organize a petition to have your congressional rep submit a bill for what you want. If they refuse, find someone to run who will do it. Actually do something, don't just post online about how the government isn't working... make it work for you!
Much of what you describe is an evolution from the original design.
https://theconversation.com/the-right-to-vote-is-not-in-the-...
> At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Madison expressed the prevailing view that “the freeholders of the country would be the safest depositories of republican liberty,” meaning only people who owned land debt-free, without mortgages, would be able to vote. The Constitution left voting rules to individual states, which had long-standing laws limiting the vote to those freeholders.
> In the debates over the ratification of the Constitution, Madison trumpeted a benefit of the new system: the “total exclusion of the people in their collective capacity.” Even as the nation shifted toward broader inclusion in politics, Madison maintained his view that rights were fragile and ordinary people untrustworthy. In his 70s, he opposed the expansion of the franchise to nonlanded citizens when it was considered at Virginia’s Constitutional Convention in 1829, emphasizing that “the great danger is that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the Minority.”
There's a reason the Constitution, as originally written, doesn't actually guarantee anyone the right to vote. Even today, it wouldn't be unconstitutional to, say, ban redheads or people born on Tuesday from voting.
https://theconversation.com/the-right-to-vote-is-not-in-the-...
> At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Madison expressed the prevailing view that “the freeholders of the country would be the safest depositories of republican liberty,” meaning only people who owned land debt-free, without mortgages, would be able to vote. The Constitution left voting rules to individual states, which had long-standing laws limiting the vote to those freeholders.
> In the debates over the ratification of the Constitution, Madison trumpeted a benefit of the new system: the “total exclusion of the people in their collective capacity.” Even as the nation shifted toward broader inclusion in politics, Madison maintained his view that rights were fragile and ordinary people untrustworthy. In his 70s, he opposed the expansion of the franchise to nonlanded citizens when it was considered at Virginia’s Constitutional Convention in 1829, emphasizing that “the great danger is that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the Minority.”
There's a reason the Constitution, as originally written, doesn't actually guarantee anyone the right to vote. Even today, it wouldn't be unconstitutional to, say, ban redheads or people born on Tuesday from voting.
> Even today, it wouldn't be unconstitutional to, say, ban redheads or people born on Tuesday from voting.
I think the 14th amendment would block any such ban, since 15/19/24/26 make it clear that this is a right people have by default.
And that's ignoring how hair color ties into race.
I think the 14th amendment would block any such ban, since 15/19/24/26 make it clear that this is a right people have by default.
And that's ignoring how hair color ties into race.
> since 15/19/24/26 make it clear that this is a right people have by default
No, they say the opposite. They set up specific conditions you can't use to disqualify for voting. It's a short list.
> And that's ignoring how hair color ties into race.
SCOTUS is pretty good at that. See the just announced Marietta case; Congress said you can't discriminate against end-stage renal failure patients. An insurer decided they'd get around it by not covering outpatient dialysis - of which 99.5% of patients are end-stage renal failure - and SCOTUS permitted it.
Kagan's dissent correctly pointed out it's like banning yarmulkes and claiming you're not discriminating against Jews.
No, they say the opposite. They set up specific conditions you can't use to disqualify for voting. It's a short list.
> And that's ignoring how hair color ties into race.
SCOTUS is pretty good at that. See the just announced Marietta case; Congress said you can't discriminate against end-stage renal failure patients. An insurer decided they'd get around it by not covering outpatient dialysis - of which 99.5% of patients are end-stage renal failure - and SCOTUS permitted it.
Kagan's dissent correctly pointed out it's like banning yarmulkes and claiming you're not discriminating against Jews.
> No, they say the opposite. They set up specific conditions you can't use to disqualify for voting. It's a short list.
Those amendments don't directly give maximum protection, but they establish it as a right, which seems to indirectly give pretty good protection.
Those amendments don't directly give maximum protection, but they establish it as a right, which seems to indirectly give pretty good protection.
We needed the various amendments because it was entirely legal to forbid voting based on race, gender, age, etc. That implies it's still legal to forbid voting based on other reasons not listed.
The 24th and 26th were making adjustments to voting restrictions that were allowed by the 14th. Those rules applied to everyone in theory.
The 15th is kind of iffy, but slavery interacts weirdly with citizenship to begin with. And before the 15th there was nothing calling voting a right.
As far as the 19th goes, the 14th was in big part scoped to male voters at the time.
Overall I think it would be pretty hard to argue the constitutionality of any restriction that isn't applied "evenly".
The 15th is kind of iffy, but slavery interacts weirdly with citizenship to begin with. And before the 15th there was nothing calling voting a right.
As far as the 19th goes, the 14th was in big part scoped to male voters at the time.
Overall I think it would be pretty hard to argue the constitutionality of any restriction that isn't applied "evenly".
Wow it sounds like we shouldn't be forbidding people from voting at all, why the hell would we make specific carve outs. Its absolutely absurd, almost like the people who wrote the legislation wanted it that way
Its only illegal if you're explicitly excluding people
Oh but if you make laws that just happen to make it harder for black people and Latinos to vote, its just a bad coincidence yea? Awe so sad, wish we could do something about it!
Oh but if you make laws that just happen to make it harder for black people and Latinos to vote, its just a bad coincidence yea? Awe so sad, wish we could do something about it!
I feel that both are needed, almost like a third house that is a populist based voting system. You get issues with mob mentality and it can cause tragedies just as easy as representative systems can.
That is lame counterargument from lazy and ignorant citizenry.
Democratically accountable legislature is still democratically accountable legislature when the citizens pay attention or participate or not. People are supposed to work their ass off in democracy when they fight for political power. Instead they treat it as a opinion contest that should have options they like.
Democratically accountable legislature is still democratically accountable legislature when the citizens pay attention or participate or not. People are supposed to work their ass off in democracy when they fight for political power. Instead they treat it as a opinion contest that should have options they like.
> lobbyists hold the power and the system is not really accountable anymore
Yes, and the problem is not limited to copyright
Yes, and the problem is not limited to copyright
https://citizenstakeaction.org/ Organizing for campaign finance reforms to return power to voters.
I like the format of your comment (leaving aside the political agenda):
"This is the organization. And this is the idea."
All I see on the sociopolitical HN threads is an avalanche of brilliant ideas. But ~nobody is organized, is trying to organize, or even is theorizing about it. It just feels so empty and futile, makes me weep deep inside.
"This is the organization. And this is the idea."
All I see on the sociopolitical HN threads is an avalanche of brilliant ideas. But ~nobody is organized, is trying to organize, or even is theorizing about it. It just feels so empty and futile, makes me weep deep inside.
I think he's talking about the original copyright law from 1790, back before congress lost the ability to pass productive legislation
Yea, too bad that doesn't matter because it was modified. So that literally doesn't matter
Well that was a top down undemocratic law designed to enforce censorship and stop the proles getting out of line, so not really.
"Easy" solution: have the people who got rich with alternative platforms lobby as well
Good news about the Four Tet decision. He's been a consistently high-quality, highly-innovative EM creator for over 20 years. Hopefully getting 50% of the streaming and download take instead of 13% will rock that industry.
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-61871547
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-61871547
By coincidence, after reading this submitted article and not knowing the named artist, I completed the game “Universal Paperclips” by “Everybody House Games” today, and the brief credit scroll listed
(Edited slightly)
‘10 MIDI’ by Four Tet, (c) 2017 BMG
(Edited slightly)
Is this just wordplay? When you click "Buy now", are you just buying a license?
Is "ownership" just a byproduct of physical goods? If I say I own a record, the proof is basically in the pudding. But how do I prove I own an MP3 file? I'd probably need to do something like show a receipt for it. But then again, what if I have shown that receipt to 100 people I've sold "my" copy of the MP3 file to? With physical reality, exact duplication is difficult, and is already covered under those existing laws.
It seems like computing was big on licensing, even when tech was nascent and there wasn't clearly reams of money to be made in it, there must be a reason for it.
Is "ownership" just a byproduct of physical goods? If I say I own a record, the proof is basically in the pudding. But how do I prove I own an MP3 file? I'd probably need to do something like show a receipt for it. But then again, what if I have shown that receipt to 100 people I've sold "my" copy of the MP3 file to? With physical reality, exact duplication is difficult, and is already covered under those existing laws.
It seems like computing was big on licensing, even when tech was nascent and there wasn't clearly reams of money to be made in it, there must be a reason for it.
The issue, as outlined in the article, is that artists get different rates for whether a song was "sold" or "licensed" (with licensing giving a much higher percentage to the artist), and while services presented their sales as license agreements to the end customer, they presented them as sales to the artists, allowing the streaming service to restrict user rights while also not paying artists the much higher percentage.
There are of course different ways to interpret what a sale of a digital good is (as you note), but legally speaking with regard to the status quo, it seems like something large might be changing. Either end users might find they have a lot more rights (the ones they've traditionally had for purchased items), or artists will get a lot more money because they've been getting screwed for decades for licensed works, or possibly we'll see new legislation codifying the current status quo to protect the large media companies (because for some reason legislators often seem to think past ability to make money is a reason in itself to protect the method in which it was done, regardless of legality).
There are of course different ways to interpret what a sale of a digital good is (as you note), but legally speaking with regard to the status quo, it seems like something large might be changing. Either end users might find they have a lot more rights (the ones they've traditionally had for purchased items), or artists will get a lot more money because they've been getting screwed for decades for licensed works, or possibly we'll see new legislation codifying the current status quo to protect the large media companies (because for some reason legislators often seem to think past ability to make money is a reason in itself to protect the method in which it was done, regardless of legality).
I think it's important to note that streaming services mostly take a fixed fee. This dispute was between the artist and the label. The difference in royalties was part of the record deal and Four Tet reached a settlement with this former record label.
And then, along came the blockchain and NFTs... one receipt per purchase??
This obviously doesn't help the streaming services, but, this - or something similar would help solve the quantum entanglement of digital music.
This obviously doesn't help the streaming services, but, this - or something similar would help solve the quantum entanglement of digital music.
While I understand that NFTs could be used as a receipt for a digital purchase -
the NFT system would have to scale impossibly well to keep track of the infinite copies of infinite digital goods multiplied by the billions of people.
Blockchain might be amazeballs but it doesn't seem to scale THAT well.
Blockchain might be amazeballs but it doesn't seem to scale THAT well.
This metaphor is really not appropriate. We are really just talking about the definitions for 'Sale' and 'License' in a contract which we haven't been given access to read.
NFT's don't solve this, unless we are talking about making licenses transferrable, but the author seems pretty clear that any form of license isn't acceptable in their eyes.
NFT's don't solve this, unless we are talking about making licenses transferrable, but the author seems pretty clear that any form of license isn't acceptable in their eyes.
It depends on whether you consider the difference in royalty rates to be just wordplay.
> It depends on whether you consider the difference in royalty rates to be just wordplay.
Royalty rates are a completely different issue to the text shown when you are purchasing - but wouldn't you expect different royalty rates for different types of product/media as an artist?
As in, if I sell a vinyl record of your new single for $10 with your photo on the front and plaster it all over the record shops (with high distribution and manufacture costs) that the fee might be different than what I pay you for a $0.99 MP3 download (lower price but zero incremental cost), and that the $0.99 download fee might be different to the fee that the artist would charge for a live broadcast (highly dependent on licence context)?
Royalty rates are a completely different issue to the text shown when you are purchasing - but wouldn't you expect different royalty rates for different types of product/media as an artist?
As in, if I sell a vinyl record of your new single for $10 with your photo on the front and plaster it all over the record shops (with high distribution and manufacture costs) that the fee might be different than what I pay you for a $0.99 MP3 download (lower price but zero incremental cost), and that the $0.99 download fee might be different to the fee that the artist would charge for a live broadcast (highly dependent on licence context)?
No, certainly not. It does seem wrong for one group to claim one thing, and then another group to claim a different thing, both of which serve their own financial ends and not the actual content creators.
Having said that, I was mostly talking about the difference between licensing and buying from a consumer's perspective. There are still a ton of restrictions which come with "owning" something, but those are just ignored by the author because those were laws passed by a legislature and not a license term by a private company.
Having said that, I was mostly talking about the difference between licensing and buying from a consumer's perspective. There are still a ton of restrictions which come with "owning" something, but those are just ignored by the author because those were laws passed by a legislature and not a license term by a private company.
From a consumer perspective, ownership comes with first sale rights (e.g. the right to resell) but a license doesn't. There has been little progress so far on "owning" purely digital copies of anything because copyright holders oppose it and many activists oppose the DRM that would be required to enforce reselling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
We don't need DRM to enforce reselling. Equipment and methods to reproduce physical media are widespread today and there isn't a way to prevent copying and then reselling. Other than the marginal cost of CDs, Vinyl, cassettes, etc.
Purely digital just drops that cost from a few cents to nothing. DRM free music stores have existed for over a decade and already de-facto operate in this manner.
There isn't a practical reason to require DRM in order to have ownership over a digital copy of a song.
Purely digital just drops that cost from a few cents to nothing. DRM free music stores have existed for over a decade and already de-facto operate in this manner.
There isn't a practical reason to require DRM in order to have ownership over a digital copy of a song.
>But how do I prove I own an MP3 file?
It's not your job to prove you own something but their to prove you stole it.
> their [job] to prove you stole it.
That's a sound legal principle, but unfortunately it doesn't apply in all situations and in all jurisdictions:
"If the defendant is considered to have a criminal lifestyle, the court ... must decide whether he has benefited from his ‘general criminal conduct’ and, if so, by how much. ... The burden is on the defendant to rebut any assumption made."
https://www.rahmanravelli.co.uk/expertise/confiscation/confi...
That's a sound legal principle, but unfortunately it doesn't apply in all situations and in all jurisdictions:
"If the defendant is considered to have a criminal lifestyle, the court ... must decide whether he has benefited from his ‘general criminal conduct’ and, if so, by how much. ... The burden is on the defendant to rebut any assumption made."
https://www.rahmanravelli.co.uk/expertise/confiscation/confi...
> But how do I prove I own an MP3 file?
Ownership of digital assets is determined by physical possesion and legal ownership of the storage medium in which those assets are.
The only exceptions to this rule are in copyright law (regulating what you can do with a copy you own) and personal data laws such as GDPR.
Ownership of digital assets is determined by physical possesion and legal ownership of the storage medium in which those assets are.
The only exceptions to this rule are in copyright law (regulating what you can do with a copy you own) and personal data laws such as GDPR.
I own my files because you cannot take them from me. That is all that there is to it.
> But how do I prove I own an MP3 file?
The letters N, F, and T echo about in the background.
The letters N, F, and T echo about in the background.
Which will then contain a link to the file, since storing the whole file on the chain is too expensive. Still, you'll now pay >50$ for each file, 98% of which are transaction fees - surprisingly surpassing the already horrible pay ratio of music labels.
> Which will then contain a link to the file
Why? You already have a copy on your local machine ("local machine" being anywhere you'd want to play that file). What's more important is the hash; if you really care about remote storage, IPFS kills both those birds with one stone.
> Still, you'll now pay >50$ for each file, 98% of which are transaction fees
There are other NFT-capable blockchains besides Ethereum, you know :)
Why? You already have a copy on your local machine ("local machine" being anywhere you'd want to play that file). What's more important is the hash; if you really care about remote storage, IPFS kills both those birds with one stone.
> Still, you'll now pay >50$ for each file, 98% of which are transaction fees
There are other NFT-capable blockchains besides Ethereum, you know :)
As someone who loves organizing my music, a file hash would be a shitty solution. I want to be able to edit tags and transcode the song (e.g. for iTunes compatibility) without losing ownership.
As long as you retain the original (which you probably should anyway, especially if you're converting to a lossy format or downloaded it that way in the first place) and can redo the conversion on demand, I don't expect that to be much of an issue.
A Shazam-esque audio fingerprinting approach could work here, too (though obviously IPFS won't give you that for free like it would a file hash). Might be troublesome for remixes, though.
A Shazam-esque audio fingerprinting approach could work here, too (though obviously IPFS won't give you that for free like it would a file hash). Might be troublesome for remixes, though.
TIL Record Labels were double dealing the license vs. purchase royalties. That's really sad, and I'm glad somebody finally made some case law out of this that will benefit artists moving forward.
EDIT: I forgot it was settled out of court so it's not "case law" but definitely tells record labels that they will probably lose in the future. They must owe billions...
EDIT: I forgot it was settled out of court so it's not "case law" but definitely tells record labels that they will probably lose in the future. They must owe billions...
Except as noted in the linked BBC coverage, Four Tet's case was settled out of court (because he could not afford to fight it) and thus establishes no legal precedent for other artists to leverage.
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know the appropriate term, but though not a precedent it certainly is a smell. Settling out of court might mean the label in question was of the opinion that they very well might lose if they went to court, this is bolstered by your point that the artist probably couldn't afford to fight it; this implies that the record label could have gone to court, confident they could bleed the plaintiff dry, but the risk of that strategy was too great.
So whatever the term is, it does crack the door open a little bit (hopefully).
So whatever the term is, it does crack the door open a little bit (hopefully).
>Four Tet
Wow... Haven't heard that name in a long time. Saw him at the MFA in Boston so long ago i can barely remember. Great artist, I'm glad he at least showed it could be a reasonable line of argument.
Wow... Haven't heard that name in a long time. Saw him at the MFA in Boston so long ago i can barely remember. Great artist, I'm glad he at least showed it could be a reasonable line of argument.
The album "new energy" has become one of my all time favorites.
Check out some recent work. He still produces some insanely hi quality tracks, not all under the "four tet" moniker. Some of the ungoogle-able "unicode hell" releases are very good, and his "KH" tracks are dancefloor killers.
Check out some recent work. He still produces some insanely hi quality tracks, not all under the "four tet" moniker. Some of the ungoogle-able "unicode hell" releases are very good, and his "KH" tracks are dancefloor killers.
Yeah, there's no chance that this golden goose could ever be killed in a modern democracy. If the companies would still be profitable paying 50% royalties, then the 38% difference between that and 12% royalties represents the amount the industry will be able to spend (without thinking about it for a moment) to bribe politicians, create fake public-interest organizations and think-tanks, and settle cases like this.
> to bribe politicians, create fake public-interest organizations and think-tanks
In other words to fool you, the voter. But if you've been fooled, how do you know these things? Are you acting on your knowledge and voting against those corrupt politicians and against those who agree with the propaganda? How does nobody else know this?
In other words to fool you, the voter. But if you've been fooled, how do you know these things? Are you acting on your knowledge and voting against those corrupt politicians and against those who agree with the propaganda? How does nobody else know this?
I'm sure people know but have given up since it's hopeless. It doesn't really matter who you vote for. Republicans and democrats alike can be bribed, er, sorry, I meant lobbied. I'd love to be wrong about this. Someone tell me which politician I can vote for to restore the length of copyright back to its original 14 years.
Could I sell my bandcamp account?
The irony of this is that bandcamp seems to be a far more direct-to-the-artist model than any streaming service (which is why I use it), because it (it's hard to avoid puns here) records which albums I've purchased so that I can listen to them via the app / website or download lossless copies of said albums for my own curated library and to be able to listen to offline. This, however, gives my account a certain value as to the content accessible through it, and therefore my account has some resale value* - but this resale pays nothing to the artist or label or bandcamp; it's much more like a physical item (other than that if bandcamp goes under then it's lost, or if bandcamp don't like their accounts being re-sold it could get terminated due to breach of terms of service or something like that).
* my musical taste means that this resale value is very low and it would be difficult to find a purchaser, but that's beside the point.
The irony of this is that bandcamp seems to be a far more direct-to-the-artist model than any streaming service (which is why I use it), because it (it's hard to avoid puns here) records which albums I've purchased so that I can listen to them via the app / website or download lossless copies of said albums for my own curated library and to be able to listen to offline. This, however, gives my account a certain value as to the content accessible through it, and therefore my account has some resale value* - but this resale pays nothing to the artist or label or bandcamp; it's much more like a physical item (other than that if bandcamp goes under then it's lost, or if bandcamp don't like their accounts being re-sold it could get terminated due to breach of terms of service or something like that).
* my musical taste means that this resale value is very low and it would be difficult to find a purchaser, but that's beside the point.
The terms of service might not let you sell it, but I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to change the email address and password on the account and give the login details to someone else in exchange for some money.
I can't believe how long this battle has been going on. It's been decades since the whole music industry reshuffle, and both artists and consumers continue to get shafted.
Given a two-decade gap between 12% and 50% artist revenues, it seems like a series of label-oriented class actions should begin brewing, to the tune of tens of billions.
I feel like this issue is brought on by the fact that it seems like copyright law hasn't been properly reexamined for the modern era. I support the notion that the ideal model is people pay the rightsholder in order to enjoy the media, and offering resale of pure-digital media instead leads to some weird "You make money based on the peak simultaneous number of owners, rather than the number of people who consumed it", which just doesn't make any sense to me as an economic model.
So yeah, you see labels calling the user purchase one thing, in order to make it line up with the intent of the consumer relationship, then on the royalties they call it a different thing to make it line-up with that intent. I don't feel the publishers are violating the intent of these relationships at all, it's just that copyright law being extremely out of date requires stupid language games. The correct solution is to re-examine copyright law to either establish that the intent is you pay the rightsholder to get access for you as a distinct individual, or that the intent is that you are purchasing resalable access, and be done with this nonsense.
I absolutely don't blame artists for trying though, the labels screw them so it seems fair that they should try to screw the labels.
So yeah, you see labels calling the user purchase one thing, in order to make it line up with the intent of the consumer relationship, then on the royalties they call it a different thing to make it line-up with that intent. I don't feel the publishers are violating the intent of these relationships at all, it's just that copyright law being extremely out of date requires stupid language games. The correct solution is to re-examine copyright law to either establish that the intent is you pay the rightsholder to get access for you as a distinct individual, or that the intent is that you are purchasing resalable access, and be done with this nonsense.
I absolutely don't blame artists for trying though, the labels screw them so it seems fair that they should try to screw the labels.
You can resell books, movies, music, and games. Why should it matter if they're distributed through a digital or physical medium?
Copyright is just abused to milk as much money as possible and restrict usage.
Copyright is just abused to milk as much money as possible and restrict usage.
Here's the news story without the editorializing. Maybe change the link?
Four Tet wins royalty battle over streaming music https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-61871547
Four Tet wins royalty battle over streaming music https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-61871547
More and more I feel copyright just doesn't make any sense in the digital age. Software engineers have already cottoned on and started doing open source, I hope we see a similar movement for art and media.
personal anectode: I'm born in 1986 and had internet since 1998. Immediately got into contact with IRC's XDCC file-sharing and Usenet bin groups. Never paid for music, started burning CDs in 1999 and owned the first commercial MP3 player. Only when Spotify came around, I started to pay for music out of lazyness to further take care of my HDD sized, tediously managed and tagged MP3 (and later M4A) library.
So at least for a large part of my life, that crazy industry didn't get a dime from me. Reading about their practices now makes me feel even less sorry.
So at least for a large part of my life, that crazy industry didn't get a dime from me. Reading about their practices now makes me feel even less sorry.
in another world, it is still alive.
> eat its cake and have it, too
Someone been watching Manhunt
Someone been watching Manhunt
Did it tho?
>Schroedinger's streaming service just died
It's both alive and dead at the same time. Like the cat.
It's both alive and dead at the same time. Like the cat.
> The confiscation of your rights to your digital media depends on the fiction that you are licensing the music, not buying it. The fact that there's a giant "buy now" button on the interface notwithstanding, tech and entertainment companies maintain that you are engaged in a licensing deal, like an advertiser buying synch rights for a hamburger commercial.
This post makes everything seem needlessly complicated - you are buying a licence, there is no contradiction here.
How else would digital media / sale of MP3's work without licences? Is the author suggesting that everyone should legally be able to freely transfer/distribute their MP3's to anyone with no legal limit?
I don't see any alternative to licences mentioned anywhere in the post - just lots of handwaving about some sort of wave function collapse (where wave function collapse just means a contract that has different terms for a digital purchase instead of a physical purchase).
This post makes everything seem needlessly complicated - you are buying a licence, there is no contradiction here.
How else would digital media / sale of MP3's work without licences? Is the author suggesting that everyone should legally be able to freely transfer/distribute their MP3's to anyone with no legal limit?
I don't see any alternative to licences mentioned anywhere in the post - just lots of handwaving about some sort of wave function collapse (where wave function collapse just means a contract that has different terms for a digital purchase instead of a physical purchase).
> where wave function collapse just means a contract that has different terms for a digital purchase instead of a physical purchase
That's not what the article states. The author is saying that the same transaction - IE: my 'buying' a track on iTunes, for example - is considered a license transfer, between me and the record company, and a sale, between the record company and the artist.
This superposition of license and sale for the same transaction is collapsed into a license - so: no transfer rights, no right to make copies, etc. - when the record company it talking to me.
On the other hand - when the record company is talking to the artist - the superposition collapses to a sale, so the artist gets 13% of the value instead of the 50% they would get if it was a license sale.
That's not what the article states. The author is saying that the same transaction - IE: my 'buying' a track on iTunes, for example - is considered a license transfer, between me and the record company, and a sale, between the record company and the artist.
This superposition of license and sale for the same transaction is collapsed into a license - so: no transfer rights, no right to make copies, etc. - when the record company it talking to me.
On the other hand - when the record company is talking to the artist - the superposition collapses to a sale, so the artist gets 13% of the value instead of the 50% they would get if it was a license sale.
It's just a sale of a licence.
If I'm a Domino's franchisee, and I pay Domino's a different commission for an order placed online vs a customer walking into the store, the pizza isn't in a state of quantum superposition - that's just making a simple concept overly complex by incorrectly throwing quantum words at it. The concept is just that different things have different prices in the master agreement.
If I'm a movie theatre that happens to sell a DVD of the same movie, when a customer comes in they also aren't in a shrodingers-cat quantum dilemma superposition state, it's just the simple idea that different things have different prices and different compensation structures for artists.
If I'm a Domino's franchisee, and I pay Domino's a different commission for an order placed online vs a customer walking into the store, the pizza isn't in a state of quantum superposition - that's just making a simple concept overly complex by incorrectly throwing quantum words at it. The concept is just that different things have different prices in the master agreement.
If I'm a movie theatre that happens to sell a DVD of the same movie, when a customer comes in they also aren't in a shrodingers-cat quantum dilemma superposition state, it's just the simple idea that different things have different prices and different compensation structures for artists.
The quantum superposition thing is just a cheeky metaphor for a sketchy-sounding accounting practice, I wouldn’t read too much into the wave-function collapse analogy.
It's a metaphor which makes it sound more complex than it is.
All they are describing is that they have agreed to different royalty rates for different types of sale.
I have zero doubt that the contracts will have very clear definitions of what counts as a 'sale' and what counts as 'licensing', but this article just pretends that it is highly ambiguous in order to make a strange analogy to quantum mechanics.
All they are describing is that they have agreed to different royalty rates for different types of sale.
I have zero doubt that the contracts will have very clear definitions of what counts as a 'sale' and what counts as 'licensing', but this article just pretends that it is highly ambiguous in order to make a strange analogy to quantum mechanics.
You're trying to prove your point, but you haven't really understood what it is about. The transaction is treated differently from an accounting perspective, as a license and a sale at the same time (this is what the wave collapse joke is about), with the effect both of ripping off the artists and limiting buyer rights.
They get the rights management from licensing on the user side (no "giving away old albums to a friend" possible), while giving artists the lower cut as if it was a physical album sale with high distribution costs. It has nothing to do with digital vs physical sales, you could play the same trick with a CD sale.
They get the rights management from licensing on the user side (no "giving away old albums to a friend" possible), while giving artists the lower cut as if it was a physical album sale with high distribution costs. It has nothing to do with digital vs physical sales, you could play the same trick with a CD sale.
Why are the labels paying the "sale" royalty to their artists if no such thing is occurring? Was the track sold or was it licensed?
They sold a license.
This is like saying "Was a movie ticket sold or was it admission?" - you can purchase admission, so it's a nonsense question.
The contracts will then define what a particular transaction means in a particular context, and what the royalty rate is. Without seeing the exact contracts and definitions of 'sale' and 'license', which are suspiciously absent in the article, then the whole premise of the article is IMO missing substance.
This is like saying "Was a movie ticket sold or was it admission?" - you can purchase admission, so it's a nonsense question.
The contracts will then define what a particular transaction means in a particular context, and what the royalty rate is. Without seeing the exact contracts and definitions of 'sale' and 'license', which are suspiciously absent in the article, then the whole premise of the article is IMO missing substance.
Fair enough on the contract details. Neither of us know the language used in the artist contracts. I'm willing to bet many of those were drawn up in the age before digital distribution, hence the arguments.
I'm not confused by the concept of purchasing ("buying") a license. I get that! But if the label is using one concept to determine the royalty rate, but switching to a difference concept to determine the customer's rights, then there's still a problem. Again, I don't know the details of the artists' contracts. But I do know this is probably relevant for some subset of artists whose contracts don't deal directly with digital distribution. In those cases, when terms like "license" and "sale" are used to denote different things, there's a problem if the labels use "sale" on one hand, and "license" on the other hand. If they sell me a license, the artist should be paid the "license" rate.
I'm not confused by the concept of purchasing ("buying") a license. I get that! But if the label is using one concept to determine the royalty rate, but switching to a difference concept to determine the customer's rights, then there's still a problem. Again, I don't know the details of the artists' contracts. But I do know this is probably relevant for some subset of artists whose contracts don't deal directly with digital distribution. In those cases, when terms like "license" and "sale" are used to denote different things, there's a problem if the labels use "sale" on one hand, and "license" on the other hand. If they sell me a license, the artist should be paid the "license" rate.
If we follow that train of reasoning, that it counts as a "sale" when a license is sold, then what are the license royalty rates for? All paid licenses are sold!
> How else would digital media / sale of MP3's work without licences? Is the author suggesting that everyone should legally be able to freely transfer/distribute their MP3's to anyone with no legal limit?
What would be wrong with the same first sale doctrine that applies to physical instances of digital media (such as CDs) ?
CD: You buy it, you are free to resell it to someone else; you are not free to make copies.
Digital data only: You buy it, you can resell it someone else (0); you are not free give additional copies to anyone else (1)
(0) not likely to happen (1) you can of course make your own copies, eg. for backup or across devices
Would enforcing such a legal structure be possible? Yes and no. Everyone knows that once you could rip CDs, the legal structure for that format was already severely challenged by people's actual behavior, so there's nothing particularly new there.
What would be wrong with the same first sale doctrine that applies to physical instances of digital media (such as CDs) ?
CD: You buy it, you are free to resell it to someone else; you are not free to make copies.
Digital data only: You buy it, you can resell it someone else (0); you are not free give additional copies to anyone else (1)
(0) not likely to happen (1) you can of course make your own copies, eg. for backup or across devices
Would enforcing such a legal structure be possible? Yes and no. Everyone knows that once you could rip CDs, the legal structure for that format was already severely challenged by people's actual behavior, so there's nothing particularly new there.
> Digital data only: You buy it, you can resell it someone else (0); you are not free give additional copies to anyone else (1)
Sounds like you are buying a transferable licence?
(If this isn't a licence, what would you call it? As presumably once you have 'sold' it, it can still reside on your laptop but you aren't allowed to play it).
Sounds like you are buying a transferable licence?
(If this isn't a licence, what would you call it? As presumably once you have 'sold' it, it can still reside on your laptop but you aren't allowed to play it).
It's not a license. It's a purchase of an item that becomes your own possession, and a law that covers what you can do as far as resale (also applies to books).
It's not a license because it cannot be revoked by whoever sold it to you.
It's not a license because it cannot be revoked by whoever sold it to you.
> It's not a license. It's a purchase of an item that becomes your own possession, and a law that covers what you can do as far as resale (also applies to books).
So once I sell it, if it's still on my hard-drive am I allowed to listen to it in your world?
And if I have it but am not allowed to listen to it, what is that lack of playing-permission called if not 'not owning a license'?
> It's not a license because it cannot be revoked by whoever sold it to you.
Licences can be irrevocable, so this isn't a necessary property of a licence.
So once I sell it, if it's still on my hard-drive am I allowed to listen to it in your world?
And if I have it but am not allowed to listen to it, what is that lack of playing-permission called if not 'not owning a license'?
> It's not a license because it cannot be revoked by whoever sold it to you.
Licences can be irrevocable, so this isn't a necessary property of a licence.
> So once I sell it, if it's still on my hard-drive am I allowed to listen to it in your world?
I don't recall the precise case law that applies to CDs. There's certainly a version of things (probably the one desired by record companies) in which one or both of these is true (a) you can't rip it (b) you can't listen to the rips after you've sold it.
Remember, methods of enforcing such a legal regime are distinct from the regime itself.
> Licences can be irrevocable, so this isn't a necessary property of a licence.
With networked digital technology, it is not always a matter of the legal terms of the license. If the playback mechanism requires contacting a remote server, whether you have a license of not does not matter if said server is no longer in existence.
And sure, licenses can be irrevocable, but those connected with digital media, in general, have not been.
I don't recall the precise case law that applies to CDs. There's certainly a version of things (probably the one desired by record companies) in which one or both of these is true (a) you can't rip it (b) you can't listen to the rips after you've sold it.
Remember, methods of enforcing such a legal regime are distinct from the regime itself.
> Licences can be irrevocable, so this isn't a necessary property of a licence.
With networked digital technology, it is not always a matter of the legal terms of the license. If the playback mechanism requires contacting a remote server, whether you have a license of not does not matter if said server is no longer in existence.
And sure, licenses can be irrevocable, but those connected with digital media, in general, have not been.
I just mean that a lot of the chats in this thread seem to be saying “if we didn’t have licences, the alternative would be x”
Where x describes a licence, just with different licensing terms.
Where x describes a licence, just with different licensing terms.
> So once I sell it, if it's still on my hard-drive am I allowed to listen to it in your world?
The same is possible with physical media. Analog media can be duplicated with varying levels of loss, digital media can be duplicated with no loss, and then the original item resold. Why must digital files be treated significantly differently, and suddenly DRM is required to even allow legitimate resale?
If copyright owners had their way, they’d automatically get a blanket license to everyone’s content, while giving the individual person zero rights. The historical behavior of the industry (all the way back to Thomas Edison) indicates that this would be the case.
The same is possible with physical media. Analog media can be duplicated with varying levels of loss, digital media can be duplicated with no loss, and then the original item resold. Why must digital files be treated significantly differently, and suddenly DRM is required to even allow legitimate resale?
If copyright owners had their way, they’d automatically get a blanket license to everyone’s content, while giving the individual person zero rights. The historical behavior of the industry (all the way back to Thomas Edison) indicates that this would be the case.
> How else would digital media / sale of MP3's work without licences? Is the author suggesting that everyone should legally be able to freely transfer/distribute their MP3's to anyone with no legal limit?
How about a simple purchase of a copy, with its use being limited only by current copyright law? A.k.a, no copying, redistributing, derivative work-making, etc. (Absent fair use cases)
How about a simple purchase of a copy, with its use being limited only by current copyright law? A.k.a, no copying, redistributing, derivative work-making, etc. (Absent fair use cases)
How is this practically different to the current situation? (i.e. what can I do here that I can't do at the moment?)
Fair use I pressume.
I understood the point of the post to be about musicians not getting licensing royals.
It's a post that talks about the specifics of what a contract defines as a 'sale' and a 'licensing' vs what OP personally defines a 'sale' and a 'licencing' to mean, without actually sharing how the contract defines 'sale' and 'licencing' (which will be explicitly defined in a definitions section).
But IMO because there isn't that much substance there, this idea that a 'sale' might have different definitions is referred to as a 'quantum state' rather than sharing the actual definition of 'sale' used whatever contract they are referencing.
But IMO because there isn't that much substance there, this idea that a 'sale' might have different definitions is referred to as a 'quantum state' rather than sharing the actual definition of 'sale' used whatever contract they are referencing.
[deleted]
I feel like we need to stop lying to ourselves like this.
Copyright is getting ridiculously out of hand because lobbyists hold the power and the system is not really accountable anymore.