An indemnity clause doesn't mean you won't get sued. It doesn't mean your client (the one indemnifying you) won't get sued. It means that if you get sued, the client contractually agrees to pay you back for judgments against you and in favor of the plaintiff artist/publisher.

A contract, or any portion of a contract for an illegal purpose, or a contract term that is itself illegal (e.g., contracting away an inalienable right) is not enforceable. So I don't think the relative depth of the editor and end user would even be relevant. If it's shown that you are knowingly using the indemnity clause to break the law, you're extremely unlikely to collect from your indemnifier.

Same result as discussed above. Don't try to indemnify yourself against an illegal act.

Bob.

Hey Sonic,

What's the difference between a brown noser and a ass kisser?

Depth perception! lol! Anyway thanks for the strokes! Help me figure out my upside down flash problem and I will be your friend for life!

Since the forum has given so much to me I figure this is a way I can give back. I LOVE this place! : ) The people here are some of the kindest and most helpful. Jay, Bob down under, JM, Spot in particular. I wish the world operated like the Sony forums, everyone working together. Now let's all hold hands.......Kumbaya my lord, Kumba....Ok enough of the hippy talk! ; )
I am in the music business and regularly deal with the major labels. I license full albums and reissue them. So the game is a lot different than what we are talking about here.

I think they guy who found out about http://www.zoomlicense.com/
is a hero to amatuers who want to do the right thing when making a few DVD's with a pop music bed, lets say for the baseball team or legit wedding videographers. The key here is how many songs Zoom gets cleared.

Zoom and Uni sync are very encouraging signs that the majors are turning a corner and adjusting to the times. I think it is just a matter of time until other labels follow suit. Quite frankly imho audio for video is the future for the music business as music only has lost it's value with consumers.

There is no doubt that the UNI Sync thing is an experiement and they are going for songs that are easy to clear or the label has full control of. It's the path of least resistance. if they see growth, no doubt they will go through the effort of clearing more difficult artists and streamline the process even more. It's found money in a time of struggle.

I just got this email from a high up at a majors Sync office. The bold type are replies to my questions. It may add some insight to the prevailing attitude at the majors. Which right now is; if you can't do a certain volume, don't waste my time. Let's face it time is money, there's lots of attorneys, artists and management involved and everyone needs to get paid. It's old school music business and it seems that Uni Sync is the first to break ranks, which is a very gutsy move. We should flood Uni with requests so they get the message loud and clear. MAKE IT REASONABLE FOR US SMALL GUYS AND WE WILL COME RUNNING TO YOU! Sonic please keep us posted of your progress with UNI.

Here's the replies.

Me:
Question 1

I am putting together a video based web site which I will have some performers doing cover versions of songs. All the videos will be used for promotional purposes, I will not be selling them. Furthermore all the video will be done in Flash and is therefore NOT downloadable. Viewers will be able to watch the video on my site and that's it, they will not be able to transfer it to any device.

For example if an artist does a Stevie Ray Vaughn song what do I do? With it being a promotional piece does it exclude me from paying mechanicals? If I have to pay mechanicals, how much will they cost and how do I apply for them?

IF YOU ARE DOING COVER VERSIONS AND NOT USING ANY OF THE ORIGINAL MASTER RECORDING YOU DO NOT NEED TO DEAL WITH THE RECORD COMPANY. YOU NEED TO DEAL WITH THE PUBLISHER OF THE COMPOSITION (the writers of the song).

Question 2

My friend works for a large company. They put together sales videos for the sales people to pump them up. They show it once to about 500 people. They often use pop music as a bed for the videos. Who do they pay? How do they do it? How much will it cost? THEY NEED TO CONTACT THE RECORD COMPANY ( WHO OWNS THE MASTER RECORDING / ARTIST RECORDING) and THE PUBLISHER (WHO OWNS THE COMPOSITION – SONG AND REPRESENTS THE SONG WRITERS). FEES VARY DEPENDING ON TERM, TERRITORY, METHOD OF DISTRIBUTION, ARTIST/SONG SELECTED. TYPICAL RANGE FOR A 1 YEAR LICENSE $7,500 FOR Master Rights and $7,500 for Publishing Rights (for NON SUPERSTAR ARTISTS)

Question 3

A small time video producer makes a video for 1) a client/corporation 2) a wedding 3) his kids baseball team and wants to use some pop music. Who does he pay? How much? And how? SAME ARE FOR QUESTION #2

This is where the disconnect is, and moreover a very difficult situation for the labels. it's a question of value and scale. Currently they get very, very big money for commercials and movies that use pop music. How can they charge a small time guy less without de-valueing their product? It's a rock and a hard place.

My best guess is we are going to see some good stuff break free and some other stuff NEVER break loose. Forget about the Beatles, Pink Floyd and Neil Young.

All this is going to take some time, but there is definately some movement.

Capitol/EMI go to Licensing Solutions

http://www.emimusicpub.com/worldwide/index.html

Warner/Chappel COMING SOON!

http://www.warnerchappell.com/wcm_2/synchronized.jsp?menu_status=synchronization

Nothing showing up at Sony/BMG yet.

http://www.sonyatv.com/

Edit - here's another source. Don't have time to figure out exactly what they do but. it's related http://www.slynth.com/

In google news I searched music publishing. EMI and Sony just recently assigned new presidents to the publishing divisions.

http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=358684

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117960601.html?categoryid=16&cs=1

"The times they are a changin" - Do I have to pay to say that? ; )

>>>Most pontificate <<<

Point taken, Sonic ra; I should lighten up!

Reply to Cclub, 3/6/2007: >>What do I do for a living?<<

I am financially independent (as long as I am very careful); the money I have made making videos for others is minimal. I video edit for the fun of it. I am a video diarist and I call myself a serious amateur. I.e., I have no practical experience in the business. Why do you ask? I suspect you feel that my answer affects the validity of my position on copyright. I read all copyright threads. My rant was based on THE POSTS I READ from those who DO make at least part of their living making videos. These people (speaking of the Vegas forum group as a whole) have freely given me editing advice which has solved problems that had me pulling my hair out.

Farss, 3/6/2007: “You are very, very wrong in [the] assumption”…”that all artists would be more than happy to sell you the right to use their music.” And that “they very much have the right to not want anyone to do that.” If that is the meaning you took from my posts, then I did not express myself clearly. I am fully aware that artists have the right to say: this person who shares my social and political beliefs can use my work but that person who is less morally pure cannot. And that artists have no hesitation in exercising that right. E.g., the kerfuffle over Rush Limbaugh using Chrissie Hynde's song as his theme.

I wonder if the manufacturer of a frying pan has the right to control its use: e.g., to see that it is never used to cook food for union organizers or atheists or PETA activists. Maybe he does. My understanding is that you can discriminate against anyone in any way as long as such discrimination is not based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and a few other specified characteristics. But think of the outrage if the frying pan guy tried to do such a thing. Such rights have nothing to do with ensuring that those who create an artistic work get the economic benefits that accrue to it; and they engender contempt for the copyright laws, be they the DMCA or its antecedents.

Now *I* have the right to say that person X can use my work and person Y can't; because my work is not for sale (mainy because no one has ever offered me any money for it). Chrissie Hynde shouldn't have that right. She's in the business for the money. She should be legally bound to sell her work to whomever pays the price she freely set; just like the frying pan guy. Ah! But art is different: it feeds the soul and makes life so much better. So do frying pans.

Spot/DSE, 3/2/2007, responding to sonic ra: This post dealt with the problem of pricing a song licence.

Spot/DSE says “no, there’s not [a price for just about any song].” He points out the multitude of things that affect the price.

I don’t get it: You make a product but you can't figure out what to charge so you don’t sell it? Solution: the copyright holder charges whatever the hell he wants. Sure, I guess he takes into account his costs (performer, writer, union, guitar picks) just like the frying pan guy (raw materials, wages, taxes, fixed overhead, transport, etc.) Frying pan guy seems to be able to come up with a rational price for his product. The artiste can't?

In any case, having visited the websites that Totally Lost informed about in his latest posts, it appears the licencing problem *may* be on the way to being at least partially solved.

I think the big point being missed here is that artists and labels OWN the music. As consumers we are merely LICENSING it from them for our PERSONAL pleasure/use. To take it literally, you don't own any music, it is property of the artist/label. However you do own the carrier of signal be it an LP or CD.

How very concise, tote. That's it exactly.

I can't wait any longer for Universal, so I got an okay song from stockmusic.net for $30...Not as good, but I'm trying to do the right thing here.

The client liked it enough, and I was able to parlay my project into some other promotional stuff for the hotel...Even better, I found a great artist from ap to let me use one of his songs for free on the next one I'm putting together (2 of 3).

These are really small budget things, but I would've paid up to $500 to use that song from Universal. Oh well. Their loss...Screw 'em. I'll just sit motionless in a room occupied by no more than 10 people and listen to the album I puchased for $11.99. I'll spare them the publicity, and spare me the "what was that awesome song you used?" questions.

Hey Sonic,

Sorry to hear about Uni dragging thier feet. Was the tune you used marked as an "easy clear" or something like that?

I was surprised to see some Steely Dan songs listed on their service. Not the whole catalog, but just selected tunes. It was up on a grid and the last box was something like "easy clear" or some phrase that made me think it was pre cleared. All the SD songs DID NOT have that boxed checked off. Which gave me the impression that it would take some time.

Just for kicks I hope you see the Uni thing through, right up to the part where you have to pay. I am very curious how long they will take and what number they come up with. BTW what was the song name?

Did you see the links above to similar services from Capitol/EMI and WB?

I just read a press release from the Motion Picture Association of America that said it has LOST $1.2 billion in profits from DVDs pirated in SE Asia. Now the net profit on a DVD is about $3 max which means they are saying about 300,000,000 pirated DVD were imported from Asia last year. That represents DVDs that look genuine and were bough from real high street stores at the rate of 3 per every family in the USA. I find this hard to believe unless major high street retailers are doing the selling. The sales of DVDs at car boot sales or on a Saturday after noon at Hollywood and Vine must be no more than a few thousand at best.

Who thinks the PMAA is for real here, and if so who is selling these DVDs?

MH Stevens: "the Motion Picture Association of America ...said it has LOST $1.2 billion in profits from [pirate] DVDs."

This is Hollywood fantasy. They figure every pirate DVD represents a genuine DVD that they could have sold. Pirate DVDs are available everywhere in Mexico. (I've never seen them for sale in the US.) They sell for about 20 pesos (less than US$2). They are compressed to fit on ordinary CDs (700-800 MB) so you can imagine the quality they are. Worse than VHS. At the risk of sounding racist, they are something that only a poor Mexican family could watch. Hollywood's real copy protection is the superb quality of their product--but they don't understand that.

or you can just go to a street corner in Greenwich Village and buy em'. Or any swap meet.

I don't believe those numbers are for the US, Michael. I'm expecting they're for the world. Pirate DVDs are all over Asia, most of the time they're hard to tell the difference. Same in Russia.
I've seen Sound Forge and Photoshop discs that are virtually indistinguishable from the real thing. Replicated, not duplicated. Someone has big bucks to set up these sorts of operations.
It's obvious that those numbers are inflated, but at the same time, you're a little low on the net of a new first line release. Supersavers, yes. Around 3.00 on a cleared release. Those are usually sold for around 5-7.00, and bin product is around a buck, depending on quantity.
Then there are the unreleased movies that get out, those are the ones that Hollywood claims do the most damage.
Without hard numbers, I'd guess the number is inflated by 20% or so. It's still a significant number.

“Replicated, not duplicated.”

I suppose you are referring to the packaging, printing on the disk, etc. Absolutely any program is available in any large city in Mexico for about $10. Of course, every one of those sold represents a lost sale of the full retail price of the program ripped right out of the hands of the employees/stockholders of the company. It just isn't possible that the people that buy them are those that would have no hope of paying the price of a genuine copy. Dream on.

“Then there are the unreleased movies that get out, those are the ones that Hollywood claims do the most damage.”

Made with a video camera in a theatre? Or some Hollywood insider sold his pre-release DVD to the bad guys? Doesn’t matter, I guess: whatever Hollywood claims it lost, well who could doubt that? Certainly not you.

>>>Replicated<<<

I believe that means pressed not burned. Hence the "big money" comment; you don't do that with software.

This is the very scary part of the equation and one that gets little attention. In some parts of Asia I'd wager IP piracy is bigger than the drug business, we're not talking cottage industries here, it's full on replication facilities churning out 1000s of copies per day. I'd hazard a guess there's serious political and military involvement in this trade.
It's so entwined into the economies of many place in Asia it'd take a very brave man with a private army to shut it down. Sure there's token raids but the operators are given 48 hours warning so they can move all the expensive plant around the corner, a few fall guys get left behind for the photo shoot and then it's back to business.

Bob.

Surely that isn't so, Bob....Why would anyone in Asia want to invest in replicating a disc right down to the hologram on the back of the container, when they could hire some kid in a Latin American country to bang em' out one at a time with a printer and DVD burner? That replication stuff is expensive.
<tongue out of cheek now)

Blockbuster and Hollywood video have shut down all operations in several foreign countries, saying that "It's cheaper for people to buy high-quality pirate goods than it is for people to rent." I'm sure those closures figure into the MPAA numbers. Blockbuster's closures range from Spain to Peru to Hong Kong to Ecuador to Singapore.
They have switched their brick/mortar strategy to used DVDs and their revenue model to online rentals and moving towards downloadables.
it's not just in those countries, either. While Russia, China, India Mexico, and Malaysia lead the piracy groups, Canada is allegedly responsible for nealy 20% of the pirated films out there in the past 2 years, according to both Billboard and Variety.
It's high time to wage war on Terrence and Philip.

Spot/DSE, 3/13/2007 10:53:49 PM: “or you can just go to a street corner in Greenwich Village and buy em' [HQ pirate DVDs]. Or any swap meet.”

Hmm…so if you’re living in Des Moines, where do you buy ‘em? In other words, how big a problem is this in the US where piracy is not tolerated?

Spot/DSE: 3/14/2007 11:10:19 AM: “Blockbuster and Hollywood video have shut down all operations in several foreign countries, saying that ‘It's cheaper for people to buy high-quality pirate goods…While Russia, China, India Mexico, and Malaysia lead the piracy groups, Canada is allegedly responsible for nealy 20% of the pirated films out there in the past 2 years, according to both Billboard and Variety.”

Spot, do you believe EVERYTHING Hollywood, etc. tells you? You don’t think maybe Billboard and Variety were quoting the same Hollywood press release? I’m telling you, there are no HQ pirate DVDs generally available in Mexico. I also happen to be a Canadian and Canada doesn’t tolerate piracy any more than the US. You think somebody selling pirate DVDs off the back of a pickup in Canada wouldn't get nailed but fast, eh?

So maybe you mean the secret, underground factories that nobody knows about, where Communists make pirate movies to undermine the American economy and suck out their vital juices?

The problem is, you just can't sell this ideology of the Sanctity of the DMCA and Holy reverence for Hollywood in more rational parts of the world. They’re just not buying. The only thing that works is US pressure on foreign governments. That's effective but as soon as the pressure lets up…well, you know what happens then, eh? It’s a digital age: the cat is out of the bag, the toothpase is out of the tube and Hollywood can't go home again. So get used to it, Spot.

One
Two
Three
Four
Maybe the Canadian media has it all wrong. Ironically, I came across the 20% number while in Europe. Apparently someone up there thinks piracy isn't being properly managed by the Canadian government.
Sorry, I'll never reconcile scumbags that steal. I was raised to work for what I've got, and I'm pretty darn proud of what I've created over the years.
I don't compare Joe Schmoe who makes a copy of a CD and hands it off to his friends with what myself and others keep trying to point out. Joe is still wrong, everyone knows it's wrong, but it's like speeding; it happens. Multiply Joe times 10 million people doing it. That's a lot of lost money to someone, somewhere.
The guy that makes 100 copies of a DVD and sells it is unethical, but still not jailable, IMO. He's eventually going to get caught.
The guy that has a million bucks to put into replicating DVDs and selling millions of them anywhere...he hurts tens of thousands of people and should be jailed for a very long time, no different than a drug dealer, IMO.
Try peddling your BS to the working people in the industry that are out of work in the world of production, because the budgets are being slashed, due in some part, to piracy.
You lecturing me about copyright is akin to me trying to tell my mechanic how to fix my carbeurator. I'm an idiot when it comes to carbeurators. And probably always will be.
I learn as much - if not more - from being wrong and corrected than from being right. On this particular subject as relates to morals, I don't think I have much to learn. I do believe in respecting the intellectual property of others, including yours if you had any.

[edited to add] IP=tangible goods

Spot said: “The guy that has a million bucks to put into replicating DVDs and selling millions of them anywhere...he hurts tens of thousands of people and should be jailed for a very long time, no different than a drug dealer, IMO.”

Spot, I agree with you 100% on this. But I don’t think these guys really exist. I mean, where the hell are all these millions of pirate DVDs, of equal quality that Hollywood makes? I think this is Hollywood BS. I think the pirate copies are the crappo stuff that I mentioned. But Hollywood doesn’t want to tell you that. Mexicans are more than willing to accept the crap of pirate DVDs they buy for $2 (and can trade in the next week for a $1 refund) than pay $3 to rent a genuine DVD. You can't understand how much that dollar saving means to them. As I've said, these pirate copies are junk and I wouldn't watch one if you paid me. They are bought by people who couldn't dream of paying $30 for a real DVD. And thus they are nothing out of Hollywoods pocket.

I know that you do make stuff that you want protected and that deserves to be protected. So how many times has your stuff been ripped off by pirates? Compare that to how many times you have had to jump through hoops in the hope of maybe getting to put a copyrighted song in what you make. What do you want to put in your work? Some elevator music made with Acid, or junk music that no one wants to protect anyway? Or something real. Wouldn't that type of music make your work better? Wouldn't Hollywood and the artist have been better off if you could have gotten the use of the song in some rational way and paid a rational price? Music for sure makes life better. No one believes that more than i. No way am I going tyo say these people don’t deserve to be paid for what they do.

These are the arguments I have been trying to make.

PS: BTW, the pirate copies they sell in Mexico are NOT made in Mexico. I dunno, i guess they come from those factories in China, etc.

>>>where the hell are all these millions of pirate DVDs, of equal quality that Hollywood makes<<<<

No trouble buying them in Vietnam. But you can never be sure of the actual quality until you play them. Some are visually good but dubbed into Vietnamese without English subtitles, some have been shot in theatre (including heads), and some are full quality copies. I've friends who can afford to buy legit DVDs but like the idea of buying 3 for a $1 (or whatever) and put up with the occasional discard -- they don't watch poor quality. You can buy any software (fully functioning) including activation codes.

You can't understand how much that dollar saving means to them.
I don't think you have any clue about what I might understand about poverty.

. So how many times has your stuff been ripped off by pirates?
More than I care to count. Just last week when you went on your first diatribe, I found two pirated products bearing my name on Ebay. Wouldn't have looked had you not asked the question. You forgot to ask how many times I've had to defend against illegal/non-permissive use of my music....and that too, is several. And I've defended each one, because not defending could potentially be seen as permission.

Compare that to how many times you have had to jump through hoops in the hope of maybe getting to put a copyrighted song in what you make.
Your first question bears no relevance to the second question. If I want to ask for a cup of sugar from my neighbor and they're not home, I'm not gonna break down their door to steal the sugar. The process is the process, the cost is the cost, and that's all there is to it from where I stand. Yes, I really wish I could use some of the music from "Lost Landscapes" (which is airing on PBS right now). I worked on that show. Copyright and work for hire say I can't, unless I license it. It's likely going to be expensive to license, even though I wrote a good share of that material. I've also tried to license much better known works, and met with both successes and failures (due to cost) and that's life. I'd like to drive a Lamborghini too, but cost prevents me from owning one. I guess from my view, cost that prohibits me from owning material goods is no different than cost that prevents me from using someone else' property in my work. I'd *love* to use Spielberg and Cameron's work in our training DVDs, but it's not cost effective, so we do the best we can with what we have available.

Either way, it's nice to know you've found a point on which we can agree.

I've been casually following this thread for the past two weeks and thought I'd chime in with a couple of thoughts.

A romantic couple is walking slowly down the street when music is heard. The woman turns to her lover and says, "They're playing our song!"

Get that? OUR song.

I think what happens is that people are attracted to some particular song or image and they become attached to it. Eventually it becomes a part of them. The song gradually is woven into the culture and becomes a part of it. Should the original creator still be compensated at that point every time the song is played? Diane Keaton was known for making the phrase "Well, La De Dah!" commonplace back a few decades ago (in a Woody Allen film; I forget which one). Seinfeld popularized the terms "YadaYada" and "re-gifting". Should they, too, be reimbursed every time such words are used?

It seems to me that the artist obviously makes money on live performance and on nicely-packaged containers of his art (CDs), but it's less obvious to me that he should get money every time the song is performed or heard, especially as time passes and his work, too, gets woven into the popular culture. Perhaps it should be enough to know that he has added a nice sparkly and leave it at that.

We bought some tickets for the Rascal Flatts concert recently as a birthday gift to our 16-year-old daughter. They played here in Portland to a packed arena (20,000) and the tickets were $90-$300 each. Two days later, different packed arena, then on to the next, etc. I have no idea how much these guys make selling CDs, but I'd wager it's NOTHING compared to the live concert net. So they make their money performing, the same way people made their musical living back in the days of Shakespeare.

But what about starving artists? It seems to me that most, if not all, artists do their thing in order to satisfy some craving or urge to create. I like to think that some of my stuff is pretty well made, and I don't get jack for making it. I get a lot of thank-yous and smiles from people, though. It would be nice if I got rich off it, but I will still do it even if I don't. The Charles Bridge in Prague will always be full of starving artists showing remarkably good paintings.

Anyway, these things were on my mind. I would also hope that these interesting issues could be debated with fire and passion but without insult.

Re: Serena: 3/14/2007 9:33:47 PM

Well, I don’t know anything about Vietnam, but I don’t see how they can have better quality pirate stuff than Mexico. And what you can get in Mexico is junk. Where are these DVDs equal to Hollywood’s product? Spot (3/14/2007 11:10:19 AM) says that Blockbuster, etc. have closed in many countries because ”high-quality pirate goods” are available. High quality? That could mean anything, including the crappo Mexican stuff. It just means people are more willing to pay a lower price for junk copies than rent the real thing in Blockbuster. I’m in Mexico or Canada or the US. Where do I go to buy or rent one of these “high-quality pirate goods” that are the equal of the real thing? I think what Hollywood is moaning about are the junk copies. But no way are they going to say that. I have never seen a pirate DVD that is in any way comparable to the real thing. So I go to the video store or Wal-Mart and buy/rent a DVD, and who knows, it could be pirate? Blockbuster and/or Wal-Mart got taken? Do you think either of these companies would knowingly purchase pirate stuff? Or are so stupid that they can be tricked into buying same?

Re: Spot/DSE, 3/14/2007 10:12 PM

Spot, I sure can't argue with your experiences re pirating your work. I wish I had work that someone would want to pirate. You say you found a couple of copies of your work for sale on Ebay. Were they pirate works or genuine works that somebody was selling 2nd hand? No, maybe it's not right; but is it a big deal? [BTW, I do not think “diatribe” (“a bitter, abusive denunciation”) is a reasonable characterization of my first post in this thread.]

Yes, I understand you have to defend your copyright or it may be taken that you have abandoned the copyright. (I once fancied myself as a budding writer. Please don’t laugh.) I suggest that you don’t see this in perspective. Supposing we went back to the days of 35mm film and vinyl records: you had to film with a sound crew, or without sound and you dubbed in narration later. Back then I don’t see how there could have been any serious problem with pirates; but could you, or many of the other posters here, have gotten off the ground with such costs? I mean when you were just starting: film, 16mm camera, developing, editing, transitions done in a lab. Are you too young to recognize modern camcorders as a virtual miracle? I used to be a b&w photo nut, darkroom, chemicals, chemicals and more chemicals. Now there are digital cameras. I sit back at the computer and do far more than I ever could with the enlarger, and no breathing in chemicals. And when i want to quit, i just shut down the computer: no packing away chemicals in bottles and cleaning trays and washing prints. The same analogy applies to video, except in spades. But along with this digital revolution come all these copyright problems: You can't have it both ways. The digital revolution comes with its problems.

You say “The process is the process, the cost is the cost,” and in that paragraph you describe the very hoops you have to jump through that I condemned; even when you want to use music you yourself wrote. “It's likely going to be expensive to license, even though I wrote a good share of that material [the music from ‘Lost Landscapes’] *Sigh* I don’t get it. Why are we on opposite sides of the fence?

You said: “I've also tried to license much better known works, and met with both successes and failures (due to cost) and that's life.” No it's not life. It's the copyright laws and the entertainment industry's self-righteous greed and “artistes’” delusions of grandeur. As I've said *ad nauseum*: sell it or don’t sell it (yes, by “sell” I mean “licence”) . If you licence it then you're doing it for money: licence it to whomever pays your price. If you want to licence it but you want to pick and choose, maybe this guy, but not the other one, no, that's not right. So if this holier-than-thou guy's work is pirated…well, it doesn’t bother me.

I think most of the pirate stuff is bought by people who otherwise would never have any hope of being able to buy the genuine article. I think this propaganda about millions of DVDs being made that are indistinguishable from originals is baloney (although that may change as those damned engineers figure out ways to produce cheap and reliable 2-layer DVDs.) It's sure a different case with music. The happy days of selling CDs that cost 25c to make but sold for $16, oh dear, those days are gone. But the music guys seem to be adapting with those download schemes. So don’t video guys have to come to terms with the digital age too?

Re: riredale: 3/15/2007 1:11:26 AM.

Not much to say other than amen.