Costume Designer Claims Riverdance Needs To Pay A Royalty For Every Performance

from the riverdance! dept

In the latest sign of bizarre and ridiculous lawsuits brought about by the belief that every concept and idea must be owned and licensed, Richard alerts us to the news that the folks behind the infamous Riverdance show are being sued by the costume designer who created outfits for the show in the mid-1990s. While the original agreement had the show paying royalties to the clothing designer to the tune of 60 euros per performance, that deal ran out in 2001. Now, the designer, Jen Kelly complains that Riverdance continues to "use and modify his designs without licence or payment." Frankly, it seems pretty silly to think that a stage show should need to pay the clothing designer for every performance and that it would be some sort of violation of that designer's rights to "modify" the designs. Next, will designers start demanding that people pay a royalty fee every time they wear the clothes outside the home? After all, isn't that a "public performance"?

30 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Gershwin Heirs Fight Over Copyright Royalties

from the oh-please,-make-it-stop dept

The heirs of George and Ira Gershwin (the famous songwriting brothers) were leaders (right alongside Disney) in the fight for copyright extension a decade ago. They insisted that it wasn't about the money, but about making sure that their work wasn't presented in a way of which they disapproved ("Someone could turn 'Porgy and Bess' into rap music" was the complaint from Mark Gershwin, conveniently ignoring that much of the Gershwin's work pulled concepts from African American music). Yet, if it's not about money, why are the Gershwin heirs suddenly involved in legal battles all about who gets the money?

Copycense points us to the news of a variety of legal battles from the heirs on different sides of the family squabbling over who gets what rights to foreign royalties. Of course, they're fighting over who still gets to make money on songs that were all written prior to 1937 (when George died). When those songs were written, the "promise" copyright gave them would have already put all those songs in the public domain by now. One would think these heirs (none of them actually direct descendants of either George or Ira -- since neither had children) would be thrilled that the government went back on the promise it made to the public and granted them even more monopoly rents for a few more decades and kept quiet. But, apparently, that's not the way these things go.

37 Comments | Leave a Comment..

F. Scott Fitzgerald Made $8,397 On Great Gatsby; His Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It

from the just-as-Jefferson-intended? dept

There have been an increasing number of questions raised about both the length of copyright and the fact that it passes on to heirs after the original creator passes on. The original purpose of copyright had nothing to do with creating a welfare system for the children of content creators, no matter how much some content creators would like it to work that way. Economist Greg Mankiw points out a "factoid" that drives home the oddity that comes from such long copyrights:

Royalties from The Great Gatsby totaled only $8,397 during Fitzgerald's lifetime. Today Gatsby is read in nearly every high school and college and regularly produces $500,000 a year in [F. Scott Fitzgerald's daughter] Scottie's trust for her children.

The article this comes from goes into great detail into F. Scott Fitzgelald's earnings over his lifetime, and what's striking is that with a different sort of copyright system in place, he barely seems to rely on copyright royalties at all to make money. Instead -- like most jobs -- he recognizes he needs to keep producing new works to earn money, selling stories to various publications, along with working for Hollywood studios in addition to his novels. How much things have changed.

133 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Australian Clubs Looking To Play Independent Music To Avoid Insane New Royalties

from the send-them-some-indie-music dept

We've been discussing how collections societies around the globe have been making a mad dash to get governments to tax more things or to simply massively expand existing collection taxes on music. One stunning example we gave was how the Phonographic Performance Company of Australia (PPCA) was pushing to increase fees by ridiculous amounts (in one example from $125/year to $19,344). Apparently, part of the setup is that clubs and restaurants have to pay a much higher per patron fee, and the number of patrons is based not on the actual number of patrons -- but on capacity. PPCA and others like them continue to insist that all of the value in a restaurant or club comes from the music, and thus those places should pay these extortionate rates, even if actual human beings don't come to fill up the place (so much for the music actually bringing in the crowds). But it looks like at least some clubs in Australia are pushing back. Sambo points us to the news that many are trying to build support for a protest effort where these clubs will only play independent music and avoid all music licensed to the PPCA. Of course, in the US, we've seen ASCAP and BMI tell clubs that do similar things that it doesn't matter -- since they might accidentally play their music. Still, it looks like these kinds of moves, that often would bankrupt these clubs and restaurants, are having an unintended consequence of helping to promote non-PPCA music. So, if you're a musician and you want to get heard in Australia, try licensing your songs under a Creative Commons license or something and highlight that anyone can play the music without having to pay a ridiculous PPCA tax.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

As If Performance Royalty Threat Wasn't Enough, ASCAP, BMI Want To Increase Radio Royalties

from the squeeze-squeeze-squeeze dept

While the RIAA keeps pushing and pushing for a performance tax for radio stations, it looks like ASCAP and BMI on the songwriter/composer side are apparently now looking to increase their existing tax on stations (via Michael Scott). As you probably know, right now, stations do pay royalties to ASCAP and BMI for the "performance right" on music they play on the radio, which gets distributed to the composers and songwriters. But performers don't get a royalty, as Congress recognized (correctly) that radio was free advertising for musicians. So, the first battle is about adding another tax, but this newer battle would be about increasing the existing one.

Again, this shouldn't be a surprise. As we've been detailing lately, ASCAP, BMI and other similar groups around the world have gone on something of a rampage lately, trying to get larger and larger fees from just about any use of music -- including ringtones, the 30-second previews on iTunes, and YouTube videos embedded in blogs (despite the fact that YouTube already pays a fee). Sucks to be a terrestrial radio station these days. Not only do you have a ton of new competition from other sources, but the rest of the industry is looking to tax you until you're gone.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Music Publishers, Songwriters To Congress: Our Royalties Should Be Guaranteed, No Matter What The Market Says

from the songs-from-luddites dept

In digging deeper into the request from music publishers and songwriters' representatives after they started demanding performance royalties for the 30-second previews in iTunes, Greg Sandoval was able to get a copy of the letter that was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee concerning copyright laws from the National Music Publishers Association, ASCAP, BMI and the Songwriters Guild. Reading the quotes is stunning, in that you could basically paraphrase them as saying "we are luddites -- do not let technology change the way the world works." Here's one quote:

"Technology should not be used to strip rights from songwriters, composers and music publishers. The choice of certain audiovisual delivery systems or methods over others should not result in a diminution of creators' rights or royalties."

Read that one carefully. They are saying that as technology changes, and as the market changes, their royalties should never be allowed to drop. Notice that they're not taking responsibility for adapting to a changing market. They're not saying that they need to adjust and put in place smarter business models. No, they're saying that Congress somehow needs to guarantee that no matter what happens in the market, their royalties remain the same.

What's really revealing is that this quote highlights the fact that these representatives view their royalties as "rights" to be protected -- not revenue to be earned.

No wonder they're lashing out and doing all sorts of ridiculous stuff like trying to get extra royalties on embedded videos, ringtones and 30 second previews. These are the same groups that have publicly decided they need to try to start a PR campaign against people who are trying to protect user rights and fair use. Since that time, we've noticed various people associated with ASCAP and the Songwriters Guild putting up various blogs attacking copyright skeptics in the most ridiculous ways. There's one, which isn't worth pointing out, where a lawyer who works with these groups regularly mocks Larry Lessig, William Patry, Michael Geist and myself -- using nicknames and making up fanciful stories about us. It's the sort of activity you'd expect from a 12-year-old.

It looks like these groups simply feel entitled to having the government force everyone to hand over money. Songwriters who belong to these organizations are being led down a dangerous path. It seems like there's room in the market for groups to represent songwriters' interests without being anti-fan or anti-technology. Quite clearly, ASCAP, BMI, NMPA and the SGA do not fall into that category. Instead, they're pretending that the world owes them money just for existing, and they're going to lash out anyone who tries to suggest otherwise.

59 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Senegal President Wants Royalty On Tourist Trap He Built

from the something's-not-right-here dept

While some may point out that the bigger issue in this story may be ego, hubris or (perhaps) corruption, the story of Senegal's President Abdoulaye Wade, and his $27 million statue has a ridiculous intellectual property twist, as well. Apparently, Wade had the government spend $27 million on a statue with a "heroic" pose -- this is a country where the per capita yearly income seems to be in the low four figures (CIA Factbook says $1,600). Approximately half of the country lives in poverty. So, clearly, what they need is a giant expensive statue. But the IP angle is that Wade is claiming, since the statue was his idea, he, personally, should receive 35% of any tourism revenue, as a royalty. So, just to get this straight -- he appears to have used a bunch of taxpayer money to spend millions on a statue -- and he wants to personally get a huge cut of all tourist revenue. And while this may be driven by corruption, it's the sort of concept that would only occur to someone in a world where such "ownership" and demands for royalties after an idea is put in place are commonplace.

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Court Refuses To Dismiss Allman Bros. Lawsuit Against UMG; iTunes Royalties At Stake

from the a-license-or-a-sale? dept

There have been a number of lawsuits over the past few years from artists who are complaining about how the major record labels account for iTunes sales. The question is whether or not a song sold on iTunes is the same as a CD sale (a tiny tiny royalty) or more like licensing a song for a commercial (more like a 50% royalty). Obviously, the record labels want iTunes treated like a CD. But musicians have a reasonable argument that an iTunes sale may be a lot more like a typical license, as a big part of the reason in the discrepancy in the royalty rates is that there's no (expensive) physical packaging and distribution to handle. The Allman Brothers were one of the first to file lawsuits on this issue suing both Sony Music, and then a couple years later, Universal Music Group (I'm still not clear why they sued the two separately, years apart). Eminem also had sued UMG over this issue and lost, as a jury said iTunes was more like a CD sale.

UMG tried to get the case from the Allmans dismissed, but davebarnes alerts us to the news that the court has refused to dismiss the case, and it will proceed to a full trial. Of course, like Eminem, the Allmans may lose the trial, but it's better than having the case dismissed outright. Of course, if the Allmans win, it will create a bunch of similar lawsuits in short order, as pretty much every artist will be demanding a lot more iTunes revenue.

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..

How Performing Rights Groups Funnel Money To Top Acts And Ignore Smaller Acts

from the nice-trick dept

It's no secret that most of the traditional "recording industry" really is structured almost entirely to help the big name acts, but whenever we write about the collections organizations like ASCAP and BMI we get angry people sending in emails and comments insisting that it's unfair to lump those two in with the RIAA, since they're really out to help the actual musicians, even the small guys. Uh huh. Of course, we've already shown how ASCAP and BMI and their overly aggressive attempts to collect royalties from just about everywhere actually have been known to harm up-and-coming singers, such as by destroying the ability for many venues to host open mic nights. ASCAP has been particularly aggressive lately in making bizarre claims about how embedding YouTube videos requires a license (despite the fact YouTube already pays ASCAP -- so it wants to double count) and how ringtones represent a public performance. These are pure money grabs that make it that much more difficult for anyone to help promote up-and-coming musicians and songwriters. Is it any wonder, in the meantime, that the organization is spending time setting up efforts to try to push back against people who support open culture and content sharing? It apparently would prefer that the songwriters they "represent" not know about these efforts that actually do quite a bit to harm the vast majority of songwriters out there.

But, back to the original point. ASCAP, BMI and their supporters insist that they're not as bad as the big, mean RIAA, and that they're especially focused on providing important royalties to less well known artists. Except... even that may be questionable, at least when it comes to live performance royalties (admittedly, a smaller segment of overall royalties). Reader btr1701 sent in some email exchanges from a mailing list, which I won't share directly since I don't have approval, concerning a jazz musician trying to find out why she doesn't receive any live performance royalties, despite knowing that these organizations collect them, supposedly on her behalf. In response, she's told that ASCAP and BMI only distribute that royalty money to "the top 200 grossing US tours of the year." If you're smaller than that? Too bad. Except... they do have one minor exception. If you play "serious music" (no joke), then they'll pay you your royalties. So, the musician asks what is "serious music" and is told it's "generally considered to be classical music."

The musician tried re-registering her own (jazz) compositions as "serious music" but it "does not appear to have made any difference whatsoever" and she notes that she is "yet to receive a single penny... for any US performance or radio broadcast of any kind" despite the fact that her music has been performed in the US for almost ten years, and "the vast majority of performances of my music take place in the US."

I went looking for some more details, and it appears that, indeed, ASCAP and BMI have a policy in place to only provide performance royalties to the top 200 grossing tours in the US. If you're a "smaller" act, the only way to get paid is to be an opening act on such a tour. Otherwise? Too bad, you're on your own. Aren't you glad you signed with ASCAP or BMI? Update Good clarifications in the comments on this. Despite what the musician was told originally, it appears that it's not that ASCAP and BMI only pay the top 200 tours, but that they only monitor them (it's not explained how they know ahead of time which are the top 200) in order to figure out who to pay. The end result, of course, is functionally quite similar. If they're only monitoring the top 200 grossing tours, then the likelihood of them finding out about songs from less well known composers is close to nil. But those big names? They get more than their fair share.

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

RIAA Loses To Yahoo Over Webcasting Rates

from the finally dept

Well, finally. The RIAA has lost its case against Yahoo over what royalties the Launchcast service needed to pay. As per usual, the RIAA kept trying to add on additional fees. Rather than just webcasting fees, it also wanted an additional royalty for being an interactive service. This is a neat trick that the RIAA has been pulling a lot lately. In the past, every time some new technology comes along, the recording industry runs screaming and crying to Congress about how unfair it is, and how it needs a special new royalty for that new technology/service. But here, because Launchcast was online and combined elements of different services, the RIAA simply figured it could lump all the different royalties together and get Launchcast/Yahoo to pay multiple times for each use of a song. The entertainment industry sure does love trying to get everyone to pay multiple times for the same thing.

But, it appears the court was having none of that, saying that the service didn't provide enough user control to make it an interactive service that would require a different license (though, it still has to pay the basic webcasting fees). The ruling here did not take kindly to the RIAA's argument that being able to choose which station you wanted to listen to (or that you could skip songs) made it somehow interactive beyond regular radio:

"Launchcast listeners do not even enjoy the limited predictability that once graced the AM airwaves on weekends in America when 'special requests' represented love-struck adolescents' attempts to communicate their feelings to 'that special friend'."

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..

More Musicians Pissed Off Over Their Own Music Videos Being Taken Off YouTube

from the nice-job,-labels... dept

Eric points us to yet another story of yet another artist getting pissed off that his own videos have been pulled from YouTube. The writeup suggests that this is about competing record labels issuing bogus DMCA-style takedowns on artists as a part of their competitive fervor, but I'm not sure that's true in this case. The artist, Calvin Harris, is based in the UK, who is signed to Sony Music. In the UK, due to a royalty dispute, Google has removed all official major label music from the site. So contrary to TechCrunch's reporting, it seems that this may just be collateral damage of the silly royalty dispute, rather than nefarious competitors issuing bogus takedowns. Still, the point remains: this dispute, which the music industry claims is to "help" artists, is actually doing exactly the opposite.

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why The New Webcasting Rates Are A Death Sentence For Webcasters

from the plainly-ridiculous dept

When the announcement came out this week that webcasters had somehow "come to an agreement" with SoundExchange over webcasts, what was unbelievable was that many presented this as a "victory" for webcasters. Hell, even SoundExchange made public statements about how it was disappointed by the rates, but it was an "experiment." But when you looked at the actual numbers, this made no sense. The rates are ridiculously high when compared to royalty rates for traditional radio or satellite radio. Michael Robertson breaks down the numbers and explains away the myths of this deal. It will almost certainly bankrupt nearly every webcaster out there. Robertson focuses on the big webcasters, and points out that the 25% royalty rate promoted by the press isn't accurate at all, and for a company like Pandora the real rate will be north of 40% of revenue -- which is not even close to sustainable.

Meanwhile, small webcasters don't get much of a break either. Live365 is pointing out that these rates will basically kill off every webcaster it hosts by requiring a $25,000 fee. As the company notes, the guy running the Armenian folk music station for $10/month isn't going to pay $25,000 and certainly isn't going to make enough revenue to pay up.

Make no mistake: these new rates are effectively going to kill off a significant portion of online webcasters. The recording industry, of course, doesn't find this problematic, because they don't like the fact that they can't control webcasters the way they can radio, so they are fine with taxing them out of business. But what a waste of what technology allows. These days, anyone can and should be able to effectively express their own musical views by webcasting what they like. And that's about to become prohibitively expensive for no reason other than that SoundExchange/RIAA have a gov't granted monopoly over any kind of broadcasting.

67 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Beck Re-Recording Other Classic Albums And Giving Them Away For Free

from the licensing? dept

Hypebot points out another fun experiment by a popular musician. Beck is apparently gathering random friends, and each week (with little or no rehearsal) they're picking someone else's classic album and re-recording it in its entirety and then giving away a free song from the session. This is the sorta thing that makes tons of sense (Hypebot calls it "a GOOD IDEA") and is something that's fun to do, and can help energize Beck's fans, the fans of the other artists playing along and the fans of the original performers/songwriters, as well. But, of course, there's always a cloud that hangs over any fun music project. Already in the discussion on Hypebot there are questions about royalties and who has to pay whom for what rights. When recording cover songs there are compulsory rates, but even then the matter isn't entirely clear, apparently. And, of course, some people are complaining that this just shows that he's "unoriginal." Of course, that simply shows a near total misunderstanding of the history of music -- which has always been about sharing and recreating the works of others.

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Yahoo Drops Fantasy Sports Lawsuit Against NFL Players Association; Reasoning Not Clear

from the what-happened-here? dept

Last month, we wrote about Yahoo going to court to make sure it didn't need to pay any royalties to the NFL's Player Association in order to offer up fantasy football data. This would be consistent with recent rulings that have noted that services offering fantasy sports offerings don't need to pay up for the use of data (factual information) such as player names and stats. Oddly, however, Yahoo has now dropped the case, though no one seems quite sure why. It's possible that the NFLPA has said that it won't seek money, but if that's the case, why was the lawsuit filed in the first place?

3 Comments | Leave a Comment..

DJs Buy Their Own Music Online With Stolen Credit Cards To Grab Royalties

from the scheming dept

A group of people in the UK have been arrested after they allegedly put their own music on the iTunes Music Store and Amazon, then purchased it with stolen credit-card numbers. Police say they made 19 tracks and put them up in the shops, then spent about $750,000 on the music, grabbing about $330,000 in royalties from the purchases. It's quite the scam, since one difficulty in stealing credit-card numbers is converting them into cash. One way to do this is to sell the numbers themselves; another common way for people to do this is to take a stolen card, then go buy gift cards from a store with it, then sell the cards on the street at a discount. But selling Wal-Mart gift cards and hawking them on the street seems like an awful lot of work, compared to what a criminal with a computer and some music software can do. Of course, it's not too smart to continually buy the same tracks over and over with 1,500 stolen cards...

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Dutch Music Collection Society Loses Artist Royalties In The Stock Market

from the good-job,-guys dept

The various music collection societies keep insisting that they're just the important middlemen helping make sure artists get the royalties they're due. Except, for some reason, they keep getting caught not actually giving that money to artists, but hanging on to it themselves. Billboard reports that the Dutch collection society, Buma/Stemra, is happily telling people that revenue rose by 2% last year -- though, oddly, the Billboard report leaves out one rather interesting detail. Reader Marcel de Jong notes that Buma/Stemra invested a bunch of the money it collected for artists into the stock market and then lost a chunk of it, so it's paying artists less money than it collected for them. What's unclear is if Buma/Stemra would have paid out more if it had made money... and also why it's gambling on the stock market with money it supposedly collected for artists.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Aretha Franklin Wants Royalties For That Hat She Wore...

from the oh-really? dept

It's always amusing to see what people feel they "deserve." Reader Brad writes in to point out that Aretha Franklin apparently told a radio reporter recently that she deserves royalties for any sales of the famous hat she wore to the inauguration. It's unclear if she was joking (one hopes she was)... But it does seem to be a common theme, where people suddenly think they automatically deserve a cut of something, despite not having set up an agreement for that beforehand. Newspapers want a cut of Google's revenues. Record labels want a cut of ISP revenue (and Apple's revenue). It just happens so often that it's worth calling out -- even in a totally ridiculous discussion about a hat. No one deserves a cut of anything if they didn't actually negotiate it beforehand.

23 Comments | Leave a Comment..

PRS Threatens Woman For Playing Radio To Her Horses Without Paying A Licensing Fee

from the this-is-called-extortion dept

When I was in the UK recently, I was surprised to hear just how much most folks hate PRS -- the collections society in charge of getting various businesses to pay for playing music. PRS is also the group that has caused music videos to be pulled from YouTube after demanding much more money than was economically feasible. But, where PRS really shines is in threatening tons of small businesses. Over the years, we've had stories on PRS threatening car repair shops, because mechanics in the garage were playing their radios loud enough that customers in the waiting room could hear them. That's a public performance, according to PRS. Then they went after a police station because some cops were listening to radios. Then they went after a children's charity for singing Christmas carols without paying up. The group has even been known to call up small businesses and if they hear music in the background, demand payment, including one case involving a guy working at home with his dog. Apparently, that constitutes a "public performance."

The latest (sent in by a few folks) is that PRS has now threatened a woman who plays classical music to her horses in her stable to keep them calm. She had been turning on the local classical music station, saying that it helped keep the horse calm -- but PRS is demanding £99 if she wants to keep providing such a "public performance." And it's not just a one-off. Apparently a bunch of stables have been receiving such calls.

Obviously, this is not a case of random excessive attempts by PRS to squeeze more money out of people. It's become systematic. The group seems to believe that playing music in almost any situation now constitutes a public performance and requires a licensing fee. You just know they're salivating over the opportunity to go after people playing music in their cars with the windows down.

67 Comments | Leave a Comment..

How Not To 'Save' The Music Industry: Ask The Folks Who Benefited From Old Inefficiencies

from the oh-come-on dept

There's a group in the UK called "MusicTank," which is supposed to represent something of a "think tank" around the music industry. It was the head of MusicTank, back at Midem, who "joked" about how everyone there could solve the industry's problems, because all the stakeholders were present, "except the consumers, since they can't afford to be here." That should give you an idea of one of the main reasons why the industry is in so much trouble. It never really considers the folks who actually listen to the music to be a serious constituent.

That's become obvious again, as MusicTank is out pushing its new whitepaper, called "Let's Sell Recorded Music!", which is based on a series of talks that the group held. But reading through the actual paper, three things quickly become clear:

1. The group started with the wrong premise: how to sell recorded music. What they should have been looking at was how to make money from recorded music. The two things are quite different, and starting with the wrong premise entirely will lead you down the wrong road.
2. While this paper does consider the "consumer viewpoint" and does make some decent points about consumers and music, it never looks at how consumers interact with music beyond buying or downloading. It doesn't look at the many ways that a fan might support a band.
3. Most importantly, the paper spends a lot of time getting the perspective of the various collections societies. This gets to the root of the problem. These collections societies are middlemen who profit off of the inefficiencies of the old system. Asking them how to fix the system is always going to get the same answer: just create yet another licensing right and let us handle the collecting of it.

It's that last issue that is clearly the big problem with the music industry moving forward. You're never going to get an industry to move forward when you think that (a) the consumer (i.e., the demand side) isn't a major constituent and (b) you're asking those who profit from the inefficient system to define how the new more efficient system will work. The whole process of collective licensing is a joke that needs to be done away with. The collections societies not constituents -- they're the parasites feeding off an old system that doesn't need them anymore.

30 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Eminem Loses Lawsuit Against Universal Music: Jury Says Digital Music Sales Are Like CD Sales

from the so-much-for-that-plan dept

A few years back, a few bands, including Cheap Trick and the Allman Brothers sued their record labels claiming their cut of iTunes sales wasn't right. It was basically a contractual suit. Since there are a million and one different licenses to deal with, the record labels were treating digital sales the same way they treated CD sales -- of which the artists get a tiny tiny percentage. However, these bands noted that it seemed like digital sales was much more similar to a deal where they were licensing their music for use in another product -- such as a commercial or a movie. In those deals, the bands get a much bigger cut. A little while later, Eminem filed a similar lawsuit -- though somehow (great lawyers there...) thought that it was all Apple's fault and sued Apple. It looks like that got sorted out eventually, and Eminem refocused the lawsuit on Universal Music. And... didn't get very far. Last week a jury found that Universal Music was right: a digital sale is just like a physical sale, and thus the significantly lower royalty rate applies. You can bet pretty much every major record label just breathed a huge sigh of relief (even though an appeal is likely), because a ruling in the other direction would take away a hefty chunk of margin from their digital sales.

25 Comments | Leave a Comment..