Comments

farss wrote on 11/23/2004, 5:25 AM
This story is more interesting:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6560688/
I think the issues at stake in that claim could have a very far reaching impact if they were to succeed, which I hope is highly unlikely.
Bob.
Jay Gladwell wrote on 11/23/2004, 5:42 AM
Bob, which "they" are you talking about? Google or Perfect 10? Looks to me like a simple case of copyright infringment. What do you see as the big issue here?

Jay
JohnnyRoy wrote on 11/23/2004, 6:14 AM
> Earlier in the week Congress approved a measure that would streamline the process by which royalty rates are determined.

This looks like a step in the right direction.

~jr
Jay Gladwell wrote on 11/23/2004, 6:26 AM
John, my question is why should the industry need to depend upon the government to explain to them how to determine and collect royalties? Why can't they do this themselves like other businesses do?

Jay
Spot|DSE wrote on 11/23/2004, 6:48 AM
Because they tried, more than once. And it was determined that big labels and print music companies would consistently negotiate in their favor. Stephen Foster was one of the musicians that finally pushed this. Mechanicals are mandated by Congress, always have been, and likely always will be. It's pretty hard to screw with mechanical royalties, they never expire, and can easily be determined, unlike sales of songs. So, when royalties on a song peter out, mechanicals are still there. Doesn't make sense, but that's what's called "Hollywood accounting."
This is only related to mechanicals, nothing else.