Try to copy Sony's games and see how Sony (or Nintendo, EA, MS etc) behaves. I think you might get hemorrhoids...
- Status
Try to copy Sony's games and see how Sony (or Nintendo, EA, MS etc) behaves. I think you might get hemorrhoids...
I'm not sure if I remember correctly (was a long time ago), at the time they owned only 50% of BMG, and an external firm tried to sell them a "revolutionary way to copy-protect CD". The stupid management bought it hook line and sinker. These suits were technologically illiterate people learning about mass piracy, so it made perfect sense to them. The music industry still have issues today but it's nowhere near that level.
At the same time this was happening, the Playstation division was selling the PS3 which came with a nice CD ripper with CDDB reference for track names. To this day, this is probably the easiest and simplest way to rip CDs at home. It could rip the Sony-BMG discs too, which was hilarious.
But that would require everyone to have a Music Unlimited account to view the video? That would be way too aggressive.
Here in America (of all places), that isn't 100% true. Most DJs (club DJs), the well known ones carry a lot of weight in the music industry. As Shifty mentioned, it's up to the copyright holder on enforcing it, which for the most part they don't (here anyhow). Radio station DJs on their off time, get away with it also.
At least for videos viewed within PSN, it would be a secondary track that could be handled by Sony's own software, and could be stored in metadata other players could ignore if need be.
Alternately, something could be arranged for subscribers to PS+, or the pointer could be used to flag a session as requiring advertising or some other way of getting compensation.
I'm not sure it would be a good solution, just one that Sony could try since it is balancing several of its own competing interests.
Do you have some sources to back this up? I do not see why a copyright holder would give up revenue...
With the prevalence of payola and other schemes to pay for exposure, there are possibilities where the labels already get something that they would endanger by litigating their claim.
Worst-case, it's suing somebody for something they've (possibly illegally) paid them to do.
In other cases, it can lead to collateral damage where the infringer provides some other service to them or to an outlet the labels are in bed with.
Worst-case, it's suing somebody for something they've (possibly illegally) paid them to do.
In other cases, it can lead to collateral damage where the infringer provides some other service to them or to an outlet the labels are in bed with.
The venues/event owners are responsible for paying royalties on the music played by DJs at their establishment or event.
Well at least in the US, where publishing companies have employees whose main function is to visit establishments around town and seek out violators.
Go visit some of the clubs on the South Side of Chicago, Detroit, parts of Atlanta and LA... I'm not joking either. Most the DJs (well respected ones) aren't paying anything, let alone the club establishment. And on top of that, some well established artist like Rick Ross and Young Jeezy will pay DJs to spin their stuff constantly in clubs... sort of advertisement, and getting the crowds on remembering their stuff as a "banger", leading to sales and performance shows. Also, there is a level of respect between "urban city DJs" and these artist, because, when these artist were trying to come up, these venues were the first places on getting their name out, mix tapes out, and ultimately people recognizing their music.
Location, location, location man... what goes on the the north side of Chicago, isn't always true on the south side of Chicago.
I'm pretty sure they aren't visiting Detroit clubs between 8pm-2am. The torrent collection of MP3s that these DJs have would rebuild Napster x10 over.
Seriously guys, I'm not disagreeing with you on how things should work, but theses approaches/rules don't work in certain areas for a whole host of reasons... I'm just saying.
Doesn't matter what the DJ plays as the clubs are suppose to pay an annual licensing fee or fees depending on number of PROs (performing rights organizations) they chose to pay. The fees can be as small as $300 a year depending on the size of the club.
Do some get away with not paying fees? Sure, they do. But its not a nickel and dime revenue model. They are not charging by song. They simply want a flat fee thats determined by type of business, customer space, and business hours.
The only time publishing companies go after DJs is when they have a pretty large business of distributing mixtapes or maybe podcasts.
Nevertheless, going after DJs instead of the establishment in most cases is like suing the salesperson instead of the retailer. 99% of DJs aren't wealthy entrepreneurs with sizeable bank accounts.
Last edited by a moderator:
So back to what I said above, what if Sony paid music labels to allow the overlay of music on gaming videos? Anyone with a sub to the music service would get a license to broadcast their game video with any music. The labels get massive publicity and overall that could increase sales, song popularity is what sells (this is why payola worked so well for the music industry). Put a "buy this song" button on youtube, let the music label get advertisement from it.
Normally that would be ripe for abuses, but they can counter this with a strong TOS, and warn or ban the account.
The biggest problem here would be a backlash from the gamers, they'd immediately accuse Sony (and not the labels), of forcing gamers to pay a sub to their music service. This would be a giant clusterf^&k.
Edit:
There is an exemption for small business that allows the use of a radio or TV without the need to compensate content owners.
Maybe twitch users with small followings and limited revenue generation could get away with playing the radio in the background. However, they would probably trip the automated content protection usually employed by these type of services.
ASCAP charges $288 a year websites or apps if you have < 30K monthly users and/or generate <$2000 in monthly revenue.
http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.aspx#general
Aren't musicians, entertainers and DJ's responsible for obtaining permission for music they perform?
Some people mistakenly assume that musicians and entertainers must obtain licenses to perform copyrighted music or that businesses where music is performed can shift their responsibility to musicians or entertainers. The law says all who participate in, or are responsible for, performances of music are legally responsible. Since it is the business owner who obtains the ultimate benefit from the performance, it is the business owner who obtains the license. Music license fees are one of the many costs of doing business.
Yeah, Sony could probably do that. In all probability, the PROs would probably prefer just dealing with Sony versus 10,000s of individual users. Sony could just a offer a tiered music service, one basic and a costlier tier with streaming rights.
But it would probably be limited to those with small followings. Users with large following and generating a lot of revenue would probably need to deal with PROs directly because the content owners aren't going to want the guy with 1 million followers and a 6 figure salary paying the same rate as the guy with 200 followers.
I could see Sony or any one doing whats basically online radio with amateur/pro DJs, each with their own station. Its just a matter of creating the right profit and licensing model.
The question becomes what happens when game publishers start wanting a cut too, especially given that its their content thats the primary driver to the these type of services.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Cheap Beer and the Psychology of PlayStation Now Pricing
Gamasutra have an interesting article about the provisional pricing of PlayStation Now. It could be that Sony are trying to psyche us out with the 4 hour rental option.
Well played, Sony, well played
Gamasutra have an interesting article about the provisional pricing of PlayStation Now. It could be that Sony are trying to psyche us out with the 4 hour rental option.
Well played, Sony, well played
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
deathindustrial
Regular
Sometime this month my PS4 has stopped auto-uploading game saves. I can trigger it manually by delving into the system's application storage menu but outside of that it does not seem to be working. Auto-upload is definitely on.
Anyone else notice this behaviour?
Cheers
Anyone else notice this behaviour?
Cheers
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Not failing to upload but I think the behaviour has changed. I'm sure the PlayStation 4 used to upload saves overnight, but I noticed yesterday - while randomly checking Upload Notifications - that it uploaded my The Last of Us save on Sunday around the time I saved the game.
deathindustrial
Regular
Mine almost always used to upload around the time they were saved. When I checked today, Rogue Legacy hadn't updated since early August and Diablo III hadn't updated since the previous Friday (which I think was one I pushed manually while troubleshooting). Something has changed, probably with the last OS update or possibly Sony has disabled / broken something on the server side?
Cheers
Cheers
- Status