Music licensing and Zune
November 10, 2006 8:47 AM
If Microsoft pays Universal music 1.00 for each Zune sold, to help them recoup losses due to piracy, does that mean that I can put any Universal music I want on the device?
I read here that Microsoft is paying Universal $1.00 for each Zune they sell. In the article, the guy from Universal says
Each of these devices is used to store unpaid-for material," music mogul David Geffen told "The New York Times". "This way, on top of the material people do pay for, the record companies are getting paid on the devices storing the copied music.
Does this mean that I can grab any music that universal owns the license to, and put it on my Zune?
From what I understand, Canada has a similar system where sales of blank CDs, etc, are taxed, with the $ going to the Canadian music licensing organization. Does that mean Canadians can get their music from p2p sites and legally use it?
I read here that Microsoft is paying Universal $1.00 for each Zune they sell. In the article, the guy from Universal says
Each of these devices is used to store unpaid-for material," music mogul David Geffen told "The New York Times". "This way, on top of the material people do pay for, the record companies are getting paid on the devices storing the copied music.
Does this mean that I can grab any music that universal owns the license to, and put it on my Zune?
From what I understand, Canada has a similar system where sales of blank CDs, etc, are taxed, with the $ going to the Canadian music licensing organization. Does that mean Canadians can get their music from p2p sites and legally use it?
I believe the Canadian levies thing (which was initiated by the Federal Gov't, not by any one label) did, for a while, allow Canadians to dl music for free (or, at the least, many people were saying this was the case)--however, CRIA (Canada's equally idiotic version of RIAA) is now crying foul. After years of taking our money on all "blank media" (including iPods and other mp3 players), they're now saying they also want to make the trading of music illegal (and keep the fucking levies).
At the same time, much of the sales of blank media in Canada must skirt the levies. How can I purchase blank CDs for a few pennies each if indeed money is being kicked back to the feds. It doesn't seem possible.
In addition, not all Canadian music labels belong to CRIA (as not all USA'n labels belong to RIAA)--so, as someone who listens primarily to independent music, the levies have always stuck in my craw. None of the money I've paid on various media and devices has ever made it to the artists I support and all of it has made it to the labels and artists I hate.
In short, MS caving to Universal was idiotic and sets a horrible precedent. I was shocked when I heard about it last night.
As a music lover, I'd avoid Universal's catalog as a result of this move. Their insistence that I people with mp3 players MUST be pirates and thieves of their music is ridiculous.
posted by dobbs at 9:06 AM on November 10, 2006
At the same time, much of the sales of blank media in Canada must skirt the levies. How can I purchase blank CDs for a few pennies each if indeed money is being kicked back to the feds. It doesn't seem possible.
In addition, not all Canadian music labels belong to CRIA (as not all USA'n labels belong to RIAA)--so, as someone who listens primarily to independent music, the levies have always stuck in my craw. None of the money I've paid on various media and devices has ever made it to the artists I support and all of it has made it to the labels and artists I hate.
In short, MS caving to Universal was idiotic and sets a horrible precedent. I was shocked when I heard about it last night.
As a music lover, I'd avoid Universal's catalog as a result of this move. Their insistence that I people with mp3 players MUST be pirates and thieves of their music is ridiculous.
posted by dobbs at 9:06 AM on November 10, 2006
As gfrobe says, no.
On the other hand, this is not precedent-setting. The audio cassette tape manufacturers paid a similar fee per cassette sold to cover the losses incurred (real or otherwise) by the record labels when copies were made onto that media.
posted by mzurer at 9:08 AM on November 10, 2006
On the other hand, this is not precedent-setting. The audio cassette tape manufacturers paid a similar fee per cassette sold to cover the losses incurred (real or otherwise) by the record labels when copies were made onto that media.
posted by mzurer at 9:08 AM on November 10, 2006
mzurer, it is precendent-setting in the sense that it is one company doing it, not an industry-wide thing such as when the casette tape levies happened--which I believe was the result of a court action, not a decision come to between the industries. I could be wrong about that but that's how I remember it.
posted by dobbs at 9:12 AM on November 10, 2006
posted by dobbs at 9:12 AM on November 10, 2006
Yes. Clearly, if you pay for a "Zune", part of that price has gone towards paying for Universal's "unpayed-for material". So you've payed for that material, so it's not unpaid-for, therefore it must be paid-for, and since you're the one who paid for it, you must own it, since we own things that we pay for.
QED.
posted by mr_roboto at 9:49 AM on November 10, 2006
QED.
posted by mr_roboto at 9:49 AM on November 10, 2006
The question has been answered: no.
To expound: when the government places levies on recordable media, it's generally some sort of compromise enacted into law. So, citizens may pay a levy but in return the law says that non-commercial copying is perfectly legal. And the law may specify that the levy actually be distributed to artists in some fashion.
The Zune money goes to Universal. Consumers get nothing for it in return. Artists won't get shit either.
"Universal, which releases recordings from acts like U2 and Jay-Z, said it would pay half of what it receives on the device to its artists. The company is expected to receive more than $1 for each $250 device, according to executives who were briefed on the pact." --NYTimes
One might assume from the above that artists would get something. However, the terms of the deal are SECRET, only Universal execs and Microsoft know what they are, and there is NO PENALTY for lying to the New York Times in describing this deal. Additionally, it is well known that the recording industry has been working on extracting money from the P2P services, and is specifically trying to extract money in a way that is NOT called "royalties", so they have zero obligation to pass the money on to artists. So, I feel 100% confident that no artist will ever see a dime from this.
Universal executives: WIN! Big bonuses this year.
Universal artists: Lose. No paychecks for you.
Microsoft: Lose. Zune more expensive.
Consumers: Lose money, can still be sued for copyright infringement. Lose-Lose.
posted by jellicle at 9:56 AM on November 10, 2006
To expound: when the government places levies on recordable media, it's generally some sort of compromise enacted into law. So, citizens may pay a levy but in return the law says that non-commercial copying is perfectly legal. And the law may specify that the levy actually be distributed to artists in some fashion.
The Zune money goes to Universal. Consumers get nothing for it in return. Artists won't get shit either.
"Universal, which releases recordings from acts like U2 and Jay-Z, said it would pay half of what it receives on the device to its artists. The company is expected to receive more than $1 for each $250 device, according to executives who were briefed on the pact." --NYTimes
One might assume from the above that artists would get something. However, the terms of the deal are SECRET, only Universal execs and Microsoft know what they are, and there is NO PENALTY for lying to the New York Times in describing this deal. Additionally, it is well known that the recording industry has been working on extracting money from the P2P services, and is specifically trying to extract money in a way that is NOT called "royalties", so they have zero obligation to pass the money on to artists. So, I feel 100% confident that no artist will ever see a dime from this.
Universal executives: WIN! Big bonuses this year.
Universal artists: Lose. No paychecks for you.
Microsoft: Lose. Zune more expensive.
Consumers: Lose money, can still be sued for copyright infringement. Lose-Lose.
posted by jellicle at 9:56 AM on November 10, 2006
I think it's precedent setting in that it's a hardware manufacturer. Will the makers of DVD players soon have to start paying a portion of their revenues to movie studios?
It will also be interesting to see who blinks when Apple has to renew its licenses with the labels.
posted by gfrobe at 10:09 AM on November 10, 2006
It will also be interesting to see who blinks when Apple has to renew its licenses with the labels.
posted by gfrobe at 10:09 AM on November 10, 2006
All it says is that Microsoft are crap negotiators and Universal knew they needed it more than it needed them, hence the payment. Microsoft are buying Universal's endorsement of their product, nothing more.
I don't think it has anything to do with assuming the device will be used for piracy. That's a big fat red herring.
posted by cillit bang at 10:56 AM on November 10, 2006
I don't think it has anything to do with assuming the device will be used for piracy. That's a big fat red herring.
posted by cillit bang at 10:56 AM on November 10, 2006
MS caving to Universal was idiotic and sets a horrible precedent
Actually, given MS's new focus on its own device rather than encouraging an ecosystem of 3rd-party devices, it makes perfect sense.
Should this become a precedent and eventually propel legal manoeuvring to such a degree that *all* mp3 players have to pay a "poll tax" to several content companies in order to be sold, we could expect to see consolidation in the market and a reduction in the number of players sold. Effectively, it creates a high barrier to entry and penalises small manufacturers. MS can afford to pay such a levy, many others can't or won't. Ultimately, it is part of a strategy to create an MS/Apple duopoly in the mp3-only marketplace, instead of the rather fractured situation at present. Finally, it moves the entire market towards a subscription model, which MS would love to get into with the mobile phone makers.
posted by meehawl at 11:02 AM on November 10, 2006
Actually, given MS's new focus on its own device rather than encouraging an ecosystem of 3rd-party devices, it makes perfect sense.
Should this become a precedent and eventually propel legal manoeuvring to such a degree that *all* mp3 players have to pay a "poll tax" to several content companies in order to be sold, we could expect to see consolidation in the market and a reduction in the number of players sold. Effectively, it creates a high barrier to entry and penalises small manufacturers. MS can afford to pay such a levy, many others can't or won't. Ultimately, it is part of a strategy to create an MS/Apple duopoly in the mp3-only marketplace, instead of the rather fractured situation at present. Finally, it moves the entire market towards a subscription model, which MS would love to get into with the mobile phone makers.
posted by meehawl at 11:02 AM on November 10, 2006
Um, no. That's just a new market setup, that's not paying them a dollar so you can take what you want.
posted by Gideon at 11:06 AM on November 10, 2006
posted by Gideon at 11:06 AM on November 10, 2006
Well, you could give it a try, and if you're caught, it would be an interesting defense.
posted by fvox13 at 12:07 PM on November 10, 2006
posted by fvox13 at 12:07 PM on November 10, 2006
Will the makers of DVD players soon have to start paying a portion of their revenues to movie studios?
You don't think that already happens?
posted by rbs at 3:12 PM on November 10, 2006
You don't think that already happens?
posted by rbs at 3:12 PM on November 10, 2006
Maybe if you get sued for what you have on your Zune you can petition the judge to take that $1 off the $10,000 in damages.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 6:28 PM on November 11, 2006
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 6:28 PM on November 11, 2006
This thread is closed to new comments.
Essentially it's sin tax that based on Universals assumption that people will fill their player with illegal music. And because they can extort MS to pay the surcharge on the threat of withholding Uni music from the Zune store, MS caved and subsequently set an awful precedent.
posted by gfrobe at 9:04 AM on November 10, 2006