http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8159560.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8159560.stm

Seriously, mgh ...You're the SME on this subject, what makes the new approach legal? I don't see it. (SME = subject matter expert.)

Hello,

what makes the new approach legal?

Methink ... try to know where will go the money (in wich pockets)... and maybe this will explain why it's maybe legal .Regards.Gus.

The only problem I see with this is that the money will likely all go to the music and film industries. Other developers/artists won't get anything and their content will still be downloaded free of charge.

Seriously, mgh ...You're the SME on this subject, what makes the new approach legal? I don't see it. (SME = subject matter expert.)

I just brought the report to your attention - as they say the devil will be in the detail.

What makes it legal is that the service is (at least for Kazaa) no longer free. Of course, most of the money goes to the music industry, which is where is goes anyway. The industry then sends a small part of it to the artists. When a band signs with a label, the band is paid X amount of dollars up front. The label charges the band for recording and production costs. Studio time is very expensive. If a five piece band is paid $50.000 and burns up $30,000 (or more)producing the album, and realizing songwriters in the band get paid more than other members, not much is left over. You get roylties, and that's where fees go to. Let's say it takes 6 months to produce an album. Do the math, not much of a paycheck. Artist don't made much on tour because again, they are so expensive to produce.Bob

As you say, mgh, the devil is in the detail.. but more sites that offer (legal) DRM free music downloads is no bad thing at all! I wait with anticipation...

What makes it legal is that the service is (at least for Kazaa) no longer free. Of course, most of the money goes to the music industry, which is where is goes anyway. The industry then sends a small part of it to the artists. When a band signs with a label, the band is paid X amount of dollars up front. The label charges the band for recording and production costs. Studio time is very expensive. If a five piece band is paid $50.000 and burns up $30,000 (or more)producing the album, and realizing songwriters in the band get paid more than other members, not much is left over. You get roylties, and that's where fees go to. Let's say it takes 6 months to produce an album. Do the math, not much of a paycheck. Artist don't made much on tour because again, they are so expensive to produce.Bob

I should have said that I understand why the Kazaa model will be legal but I don't understand that of the former Pirate Bay. How does charging some but not all users sit with the music industry, Bob?

I should have said that I understand why the Kazaa model will be legal but I don't understand that of the former Pirate Bay. How does charging some but not all users sit with the music industry, Bob?

Mike,I think the gist of it is all pay a monthly subscription, and if you share more than you download, you see a reduced subscription, but if you download more than you share, you pay a greater monthly subscription. I think the "free of charge for most users" quote comes from the assumption - whether correct or not - that you'll roughly upload/download a 1:1 ratio - so it's "free" in the sense you don't pay anymore than the standard subscription charge. It's not entirely clear, I agree, but this is how I understand the strategy.

Mike,I think the gist of it is all pay a monthly subscription, and if you share more than you download, you see a reduced subscription, but if you download more than you share, you pay a greater monthly subscription. I think the "free of charge for most users" quote comes from the assumption - whether correct or not - that you'll roughly upload/download a 1:1 ratio - so it's "free" in the sense you don't pay anymore than the standard subscription charge. It's not entirely clear, I agree, but this is how I understand the strategy.

Though I don't follow this stuff much, I decided to read into it more after this post. I read somewhere that funds raised by advertisers at the pirate bay would help pay developers/artist for downloaded content. How can you possibly legitimize piracy/copyright infringement? Much less a place called "the pirate bay".

looks like TPB can't be called The Pirate Bay anymore...

Though I don't follow this stuff much, I decided to read into it more after this post. I read somewhere that funds raised by advertisers at the pirate bay would help pay developers/artist for downloaded content. How can you possibly legitimize piracy/copyright infringement? Much less a place called "the pirate bay".

In exactly the same way you did with Napster, and now Kazaa. Napster was synonymous with copyright infringement "back in the day", and now its a legitimate source of music downloads. And if its the advertisers who'll help pay the royalties, so be it; if the copyright owner is getting the money due to them, is it so much of an issue where and how that money comes from?

pirating isn't gonna stop...all this will do is push the current users (pirates) of TPB to another site...or somebody will start another site just like the TPB. It will be small at first, but probably grow to millions of users in about 2 years....then the cycle will continue...just imagine if this scenario took place in the real world. Sea Captain:"Ok you sea pirates, you can plunder my ship if you pay a fee."Pirates:"Umm..yeah right, i'm just gonna plunder you anyways when you're sleeping tonight." -feng

In exactly the same way you did with Napster, and now Kazaa. Napster was synonymous with copyright infringement "back in the day", and now its a legitimate source of music downloads. And if its the advertisers who'll help pay the royalties, so be it; if the copyright owner is getting the money due to them, is it so much of an issue where and how that money comes from?

Yeah, it is. It makes for good conversation :(

Yeah, it is. It makes for good conversation :(

Fair point :)