|
|
Posted by Signal on 10/18/40 11:43
"anthonyberet" emitted :
>The jurisdictions do not overlap - they are separate.
>In Russia, this site is either illegal, or legal, and the consensus
>seems to be that it is legal.
>In the USA, downloading from the site is either illegal, or legal, and
>the consensus seems to be that it is legal.
This needs to be tested through the courts before it's legal status
can be determined properly.
>It seems to me, that if the site is -by proxy- affiliated with the RIAA,
>CRIAA and BPI, and all the rest of the copywrong enforcers, then the
>cheapness is merely a consequence of global free trade.
>Global free trade seems to suit large companies when they source cheap
>products, expertise and labour themselves, so why cry foul when others
>do the same?
What is obvious to most is that approx $0.07c per track is so stupidly
cheap, something is amiss.
Assume for a moment that the Russians are paying the correctly
royalties (which they are not... but for sake of argument) : no
organisation responsible for collecting / distributing royalties would
accept their product being sold at a price that is unsustainable and
damages business. Royalties are paid as a percentage, so a realistic
minimum retail price has to be agreed for a license to be issued.
Artists typically receive a 12% retail based royalty rate - less after
deductions. Thus your typical US artist gets $1.00 per standard album
sale. The Russian site OTOH charges approx $1.00 for the album to
begin with, so if paid correctly the artist would take say $0.08c per
album. If the album sells *ONE MILLION* copies at this rate he would
realise about £50k, out of which he has to pay all the recording
costs, all the video production costs, all the managers fees etc etc.
--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|