The IPKat says that this is a tough one. He’s broadly in favour of rewards that go (relatively) straight to the authors. The only justification he can see for reducing the royalty rate is if consumers get cheaper downloads as a result. Will this happen if the terms of the licence are varied he asks. What's clear though is that, considering the range of digital service providers and mobile phone operators involved, the outcome of the tribunal will have a profound effect on the online and mobile phone music industry in the UK.
BPI v MCPS
Reviewed by Anonymous
on
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Rating:
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html