- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Leading Open-Source, Open-Standard DRM Project OpenIPMP Announces New Version, Boasting Cross-Platform OMA, ISMAcryp, MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 Support
NEW YORK, July 17 /PRNewswire/ -- Open-source project OpenIPMP today announced the release of OpenIPMP v2, a major upgrade to the leading open- source and open-standards based DRM (Digital Rights Management) system originally released in 2002. The OpenIPMP project aims to provide the development community with interoperable DRM software that can be easily ported to any platform (including Windows, Mac, Linux and embedded platforms). Unlike proprietary DRM solutions, OpenIPMP's interoperable DRM design adheres to a variety of open standards, including OMA (Open Mobile Alliance) v2 DRM specifications, ISMA encryption / DRM signaling specifications for MPEG-4 streaming and local playback (ISMAcryp), and MPEG's IPMP specifications for MPEG-2 and MPEG-4. The project, which can be downloaded from SourceForge (http://sourceforge.net/projects/openipmp), includes a J2EE server for managing rights and issuing licenses, as well as client SDKs intended for integration with MPEG encoders and decoders (i.e. players). The new release not only expands the range of OpenIPMP's adherence to interoperable standards, but also includes a variety of structural and developmental improvements to the code. The integration interface is now much cleaner, with pluggable key management (both OpenIPMP v1 protocol and OMA), a full crypto system interface, and an upgraded client-server protocol that now uses web services (SOAP). It also now includes both VisualStudio v6 and v7 project files (for client SDKs), Eclipse project files (for server), as well as linux makefiles. Although OpenIPMP is designed to be integrated with any MPEG-4 or MPEG-2 based A/V management system, the open source release comes fully integrated with MPEG4IP. Sponsored by Cisco, MPEG4IP is the most popular open-source MPEG-4 encoding, decoding, and playback software suite (http://sourceforge.net/projects/mpeg4ip). Additionally, OpenIPMP plug-ins for Microsoft's Windows Media Player and Apple Quicktime player are commercially available from a variety of leading MPEG codec vendors. For more information about the OpenIPMP project and related professional services, please contact the OpenIPMP project team at info@mutablemedia.com. |
|
|
Comments (41)
21 earlier comments in the full thread.
TC, the digital age has brought about one of those disruptive technology thingy issues. At any rate, just as software development companies are having to learn to adjust to the FOSS business model, so the entertainment industry will need to adjust to a Libre entertainment business model. I highly recommend Lawrence Lessig's book, "Free Culture". Picture the entertainment industry as the "Causbys" of "Free Culture". Essentially, digitization is scaring their chickens.
TC: Ultimately, its a problem with the MAFIAA business model. Here's a nice report on El Reg from 2004: How the music biz can live forever, get even richer, and be loved
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/23/orlowski_interactive...
It sets out the problem quite well and shows that for around $5 per broadband connection per month, the MAFIAA would be guaranteed of bucketloads of steady, predictable and continuous income forever, and everyone could share as much music and movies as they'd like.
(I wish El Reg still published top notch stuff like this these days....)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/23/orlowski_interactive...
It sets out the problem quite well and shows that for around $5 per broadband connection per month, the MAFIAA would be guaranteed of bucketloads of steady, predictable and continuous income forever, and everyone could share as much music and movies as they'd like.
(I wish El Reg still published top notch stuff like this these days....)
tuxchick -
I think part of your answer comes from the constant need for DRM opponents to trot out the old "it's not about protecting artists, but feeding the greed of record/movie/publishing companies" canard."
That deflection tells you immediately that an underlying good thing is at stake. All this talk about artists being ripped of by record companies is a way of saying, "It's ok if I rip off artists. After all, the record companies are doing it, too."
The problem with that is the way it ignores some important truths. First and foremost, record companies have exploited artists because they could. They could because they controlled the means of production and distribution. The digital revolution has made it possible to do high-quality production work for a fraction of the old costs. Likewise, the internet makes distribution possible for a much lower price than it ever was before. Better still, the internet makes low-volume distribution and sale possible.
That should free armies of artists who are not in the million seller category to sell their work and, possibly, to make a living. It won't, however, so long as it's ok to rip off artists. Unfortunately, ripping off artists appears to be acceptable to most people.
I think part of your answer comes from the constant need for DRM opponents to trot out the old "it's not about protecting artists, but feeding the greed of record/movie/publishing companies" canard."
That deflection tells you immediately that an underlying good thing is at stake. All this talk about artists being ripped of by record companies is a way of saying, "It's ok if I rip off artists. After all, the record companies are doing it, too."
The problem with that is the way it ignores some important truths. First and foremost, record companies have exploited artists because they could. They could because they controlled the means of production and distribution. The digital revolution has made it possible to do high-quality production work for a fraction of the old costs. Likewise, the internet makes distribution possible for a much lower price than it ever was before. Better still, the internet makes low-volume distribution and sale possible.
That should free armies of artists who are not in the million seller category to sell their work and, possibly, to make a living. It won't, however, so long as it's ok to rip off artists. Unfortunately, ripping off artists appears to be acceptable to most people.
tuxchick2:
The problem is the concept. DRM puts perpetual, absolute control over data into the hands of whoever holds the key to the DRM.
DRM eliminates the need for such a puny, time-limited thing as copyright law. Visit Project Gutenberg for an example of what the public domain stands to lose.
DRM facilitates vanishing evidence. "Paper trails" are mostly email or other digital data trails, now. DRM allows these trails to simply disappear at the owner's whim.
Accepting DRM, that is, accepting the idea that anyone can perpetually and absolutely control all access to digital data, is to accept the idea that "intellectual property" is of a higher order of ownership than real estate or even life.
The problem is the concept. DRM puts perpetual, absolute control over data into the hands of whoever holds the key to the DRM.
DRM eliminates the need for such a puny, time-limited thing as copyright law. Visit Project Gutenberg for an example of what the public domain stands to lose.
DRM facilitates vanishing evidence. "Paper trails" are mostly email or other digital data trails, now. DRM allows these trails to simply disappear at the owner's whim.
Accepting DRM, that is, accepting the idea that anyone can perpetually and absolutely control all access to digital data, is to accept the idea that "intellectual property" is of a higher order of ownership than real estate or even life.
To the OP:
I am unaware of a case of a single artist who has DRM'd their work. The only people applying DRM technology to works of art are the people who are trying to make money off of the artists' work. The same people who drive up the production costs associated with disseminating the artists' work then add their percentage in on top of that inflated cost.
Addressing the music business, over the years people seem to have forgotten what purpose recorded music is supposed to serve. It's supposed to be a promotional tool. One designed to get the public to spend money on seeing the artist in concert. It's an ad. In the end, record companies are little more than advertising agencies only they've figured out a way to make the ad appear to be the product. In doing so, they've devised a scheme that 1) makes their customer (the artist) create the ad for them, 2) makes their customer (the artist) pay to have the ad created and 3) makes the customer's customer (the record buying public) pay to be allowed the privilege of being exposed to the ad.
Sorry but my heart does not bleed for the record companies.
Quoting:So then, why is it that an artist should not be permitted the same freedoms as an email writer or a online shopper to protect the information that is theirs?
I am unaware of a case of a single artist who has DRM'd their work. The only people applying DRM technology to works of art are the people who are trying to make money off of the artists' work. The same people who drive up the production costs associated with disseminating the artists' work then add their percentage in on top of that inflated cost.
Addressing the music business, over the years people seem to have forgotten what purpose recorded music is supposed to serve. It's supposed to be a promotional tool. One designed to get the public to spend money on seeing the artist in concert. It's an ad. In the end, record companies are little more than advertising agencies only they've figured out a way to make the ad appear to be the product. In doing so, they've devised a scheme that 1) makes their customer (the artist) create the ad for them, 2) makes their customer (the artist) pay to have the ad created and 3) makes the customer's customer (the record buying public) pay to be allowed the privilege of being exposed to the ad.
Sorry but my heart does not bleed for the record companies.
TC:
>Sorry but my heart does not bleed for the record companies.
See what I mean?
>Sorry but my heart does not bleed for the record companies.
See what I mean?
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Don't lump me in with the "it's ok to rip off artists" crowd. It's not OK to rip off artists. People who download music are not ripping off artists. Record companies are ripping off artists. People who download music are ripping off record companies. Again, my heart doesn't bleed for them.
Just so I don't get tossed back into that pile, I stopped partaking of new major label music a while back. Anything I aquire now is independent stuff. And yes, I pay for it.
Just so I don't get tossed back into that pile, I stopped partaking of new major label music a while back. Anything I aquire now is independent stuff. And yes, I pay for it.
SFN -
Sorry to do the lumping, but I consider the argument dishonest.
And...going with my original premise, which is not so much a nod to DRM technology as it is to the idea of a DRM that worked in a fair and equitable way...
It still frosts my cookies that the internet and digital technology have the potential to set artists free from the people who exploit them today. It also has the potential to shower us with high quality professionally done works that lie out of the pop tart, gangsta, country-crossover and "Hat act" categories.
The full potential will be realized if there is a reasonable way for artists to get paid without having to sell their souls to the record companies, presuming the labels are even interested in acts that sell in the hundreds or thousands instead of millions.
Every time somebody deflects the question of artist rights, they are, in effect, supporting the status quo and defending the predators.
Sorry to do the lumping, but I consider the argument dishonest.
And...going with my original premise, which is not so much a nod to DRM technology as it is to the idea of a DRM that worked in a fair and equitable way...
It still frosts my cookies that the internet and digital technology have the potential to set artists free from the people who exploit them today. It also has the potential to shower us with high quality professionally done works that lie out of the pop tart, gangsta, country-crossover and "Hat act" categories.
The full potential will be realized if there is a reasonable way for artists to get paid without having to sell their souls to the record companies, presuming the labels are even interested in acts that sell in the hundreds or thousands instead of millions.
Every time somebody deflects the question of artist rights, they are, in effect, supporting the status quo and defending the predators.
That's the thing; DRM isn't about artists' rights. It should be but it isn't. DRM was not created for the purpose of supporting artists and it is not used as a method of supporting artists.
You're right about the ability of new technology to set artists free. It already has for a few but it hasn't for most because most artists are not going down that path. They should but they're not.
As far as the reasonable way for artists to get paid, there are a few. CDBaby and Magnatune come to mind. CDBaby and the like allow the artists to just sell their wares. Magnatune is more of a formal label but one that doesn't gouge anybody.
The piece missing from this equation is radio stations that will play independent stuff. ACTUAL radio station are pretty much out. They're really just part of the record company scheme. Net radio is getting better about promoting indie stuff but it's going to be a while before that really takes off.
You're right about the ability of new technology to set artists free. It already has for a few but it hasn't for most because most artists are not going down that path. They should but they're not.
As far as the reasonable way for artists to get paid, there are a few. CDBaby and Magnatune come to mind. CDBaby and the like allow the artists to just sell their wares. Magnatune is more of a formal label but one that doesn't gouge anybody.
The piece missing from this equation is radio stations that will play independent stuff. ACTUAL radio station are pretty much out. They're really just part of the record company scheme. Net radio is getting better about promoting indie stuff but it's going to be a while before that really takes off.
With any luck the artists will forsake the recording companies and start their own distribution through the internet. They will actually be able to make money, and have control over their own music, rather than selling it to the recording companies for fractions of pennies on the dollar.
> Ok, but still the question remains- "Is it a problem with the tool, then, or the implementation?"
The tool. It cannot be made to do what the artist needs, which is provide a revenue stream from their work, without alienating the customers the artists needs to provide that revenue stream. There is not implementation way around this.
Allow me to blather on here for a bit. This isn't really thought out in detail.
There are three critical principles involved here, and the balance between them is the problem. One, a person should be paid for the service they provide (in this case, a story, song, picture, or movie). Two, once you pay for that product you own it and can do with it as you please. Three, and one that most people fail to mention, it's OK to share such product as long as you don't make money for yourself doing so. Point three has always been the historical norm and intuitively seems right to most people (at least as far as I can tell). If you're making money from sharing the product, then you're depriving the provider of their fair pay, but if you give it away you're not.
Very few people have a problem with number one and almost no one is willing to give up number two. Number three never used to be a problem, as sharing a book, album, or movie was possible but difficult, and making copies was even harder. If you could afford it, it was almost always easier to buy your own copy. With the advent of digital copies and the Internet, sharing has gotten so easy that you can now share with thousands or even millions of people rather than the tens or so that used to be possible, and it's often easier to download a copy than it is to find one to buy.
So, what we want is a way to reconcile one and three without removing two. As far as I can see, DRM can't be made to do that, as it's often impossible to distinguish between two and three. Once I've purchased the product, in theory I'm allowed as may copies as I need for my own personal (and possibly for my family's) use. For me. taking a song as an example, I need a minimun of one for home, one for work, one for the car, and one archival. That's four, what if I own two or three homes, or two or more portable players? The numbers can add up quickly. DRM can't distinguish between this and giving copies to 6 or 7 of my friends, can't allow for changes in technology which obsolete one format and require changing to another, doesn't allow for the loss or damage of media, doesn't allow for fair use modifications, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
As far as I can tell, what we need is either an agreed upon method for compensating the providers in spite of massive sharing, or a societal tool for limiting such sharing to it's proper role. Legal limitations on sharing won't really work, as the law is too blunt an instrument for such fine work, and people are always willing to break a law they think is wrong (remember that most people think sharing for free is right), especially if there's a low probability of getting caught.
As Sander notes, the Register is one of the few places which has publicized one possible compromise to the matter, though I think their price per connection is too high. When broadband goes for $15-40/month, a $5 tax seems excessive. Someting like $1.50-$2.00 seems more reasonable, and dialup users should probably be exempt.
The tool. It cannot be made to do what the artist needs, which is provide a revenue stream from their work, without alienating the customers the artists needs to provide that revenue stream. There is not implementation way around this.
Allow me to blather on here for a bit. This isn't really thought out in detail.
There are three critical principles involved here, and the balance between them is the problem. One, a person should be paid for the service they provide (in this case, a story, song, picture, or movie). Two, once you pay for that product you own it and can do with it as you please. Three, and one that most people fail to mention, it's OK to share such product as long as you don't make money for yourself doing so. Point three has always been the historical norm and intuitively seems right to most people (at least as far as I can tell). If you're making money from sharing the product, then you're depriving the provider of their fair pay, but if you give it away you're not.
Very few people have a problem with number one and almost no one is willing to give up number two. Number three never used to be a problem, as sharing a book, album, or movie was possible but difficult, and making copies was even harder. If you could afford it, it was almost always easier to buy your own copy. With the advent of digital copies and the Internet, sharing has gotten so easy that you can now share with thousands or even millions of people rather than the tens or so that used to be possible, and it's often easier to download a copy than it is to find one to buy.
So, what we want is a way to reconcile one and three without removing two. As far as I can see, DRM can't be made to do that, as it's often impossible to distinguish between two and three. Once I've purchased the product, in theory I'm allowed as may copies as I need for my own personal (and possibly for my family's) use. For me. taking a song as an example, I need a minimun of one for home, one for work, one for the car, and one archival. That's four, what if I own two or three homes, or two or more portable players? The numbers can add up quickly. DRM can't distinguish between this and giving copies to 6 or 7 of my friends, can't allow for changes in technology which obsolete one format and require changing to another, doesn't allow for the loss or damage of media, doesn't allow for fair use modifications, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
As far as I can tell, what we need is either an agreed upon method for compensating the providers in spite of massive sharing, or a societal tool for limiting such sharing to it's proper role. Legal limitations on sharing won't really work, as the law is too blunt an instrument for such fine work, and people are always willing to break a law they think is wrong (remember that most people think sharing for free is right), especially if there's a low probability of getting caught.
As Sander notes, the Register is one of the few places which has publicized one possible compromise to the matter, though I think their price per connection is too high. When broadband goes for $15-40/month, a $5 tax seems excessive. Someting like $1.50-$2.00 seems more reasonable, and dialup users should probably be exempt.
> CDBaby and Magnatune come to mind.
Emusic also sounds good, though I haven't checked them out myself, merely heard of them.
Emusic also sounds good, though I haven't checked them out myself, merely heard of them.
jdixon: >"Someting like $1.50-$2.00 seems more reasonable, and dialup users should probably be exempt."
The concept is arguably a low-evil compromise, but the proposed tax seems excessive and too broadly applied. It presumes everyone who has broadband routinely engages in copying commercially restricted, copyright-protected files. Why should the MAFIAA be guaranteed profit and existence? Why should they be guaranteed, by tax and government mandate, to remain the financial representative and arbiter of payment distributions for artists?
My own purchases of DVDs and CDs has all but dried up, from a high of between $2k and $3k per year, 'way back before I learned of the MAFIAA's dirty tricks. I don't download such things, either. (Even if I thought it was ok, it would be impractical; took me 3 days to get the latest OOo).
There are artists who are recognizing the benefits of dealing fairly with customers. I hope we don't give in to the propaganda and dirty tricks of the MAFIAA during this transition period. Let's not perpetuate the cartels and extend their power, under the guise of dealing fairly with artists.
The concept is arguably a low-evil compromise, but the proposed tax seems excessive and too broadly applied. It presumes everyone who has broadband routinely engages in copying commercially restricted, copyright-protected files. Why should the MAFIAA be guaranteed profit and existence? Why should they be guaranteed, by tax and government mandate, to remain the financial representative and arbiter of payment distributions for artists?
My own purchases of DVDs and CDs has all but dried up, from a high of between $2k and $3k per year, 'way back before I learned of the MAFIAA's dirty tricks. I don't download such things, either. (Even if I thought it was ok, it would be impractical; took me 3 days to get the latest OOo).
There are artists who are recognizing the benefits of dealing fairly with customers. I hope we don't give in to the propaganda and dirty tricks of the MAFIAA during this transition period. Let's not perpetuate the cartels and extend their power, under the guise of dealing fairly with artists.
> The concept is arguably a low-evil compromise, but the proposed tax seems excessive and too broadly applied. It presumes everyone who has broadband routinely engages in copying commercially restricted, copyright-protected files.
Yes, it does. I don't like it either, but it does at least seem viable.
Of course, the RIAA could offer such a deal themselves. Sign up for $3 per month with the RIAA and download all the music you want from the P2P networks without fear of being sued. Hmm, sounds a lot like paying protection money, doesn't it?
Yes, it does. I don't like it either, but it does at least seem viable.
Of course, the RIAA could offer such a deal themselves. Sign up for $3 per month with the RIAA and download all the music you want from the P2P networks without fear of being sued. Hmm, sounds a lot like paying protection money, doesn't it?
> I don't download such things, either.
I'm in the process of trying to convert my vinyl stuff into digitial format, and now that I have broadband I'm not adverse to downloading copies of stuff I've already paid for. The RIAA doesn't recognize this as legitimate, of course.
I'm in the process of trying to convert my vinyl stuff into digitial format, and now that I have broadband I'm not adverse to downloading copies of stuff I've already paid for. The RIAA doesn't recognize this as legitimate, of course.
jdixon:
My peak spending on CDs was when I was trying to get equivalents for all my vinyl. That was quite a few years ago and I never finished before reading news of the MAFIAA's attacks on Napster users.
(As an aside, I always considered the original Napster to be an unauthorized publisher, since they had ads, but those users who only downloaded seemed to me to be no different than people at a party listening to the same music. Of course, for downloads to take place, someone has to offer the file. That's the controversial part, IMO.)
I've converted quite a few of my old vinyl records to oggs, but it's a slow, time-consuming process. If not for the excellent work by the developers of gramofile, the process wouldn't be worth the trouble.
The problem with digital copies is that they can be exactly the same quality as the original, which removes the incentive to obtain the original from the artists' authorized publisher. An artist has the right to select a publisher. A publisher does not have the right to tamper with customers' property.
I think that most people would support a system where they pay for artist-approved quality. While the MAFIAA continues to ensure that what you buy in shrink-wrap is a lower value, due partly to the possibility of it damaging your equipment via root-kits and other DRM attacks, there is not much chance of stemming free downloading. The artificially maintained pricing is just another negative incentive.
My peak spending on CDs was when I was trying to get equivalents for all my vinyl. That was quite a few years ago and I never finished before reading news of the MAFIAA's attacks on Napster users.
(As an aside, I always considered the original Napster to be an unauthorized publisher, since they had ads, but those users who only downloaded seemed to me to be no different than people at a party listening to the same music. Of course, for downloads to take place, someone has to offer the file. That's the controversial part, IMO.)
I've converted quite a few of my old vinyl records to oggs, but it's a slow, time-consuming process. If not for the excellent work by the developers of gramofile, the process wouldn't be worth the trouble.
The problem with digital copies is that they can be exactly the same quality as the original, which removes the incentive to obtain the original from the artists' authorized publisher. An artist has the right to select a publisher. A publisher does not have the right to tamper with customers' property.
I think that most people would support a system where they pay for artist-approved quality. While the MAFIAA continues to ensure that what you buy in shrink-wrap is a lower value, due partly to the possibility of it damaging your equipment via root-kits and other DRM attacks, there is not much chance of stemming free downloading. The artificially maintained pricing is just another negative incentive.
The only real way to cut down on downloading and increase sales is, IMHO, the eMusic way. What is the eMusic way?
It's the way of mp3's. Due to them offering mp3's, no DRM is currently possible. You buy the file, you can do with whatever you want with it.
It's the way of high-quality, VBR mp3's. And, it is also the way of $0.25 a song.
So, it's high-quality, doesn't kill the user's freedoms (I know, I know. They should have .oggs available, too), and is cheap as chips.
This way, as long as the buyers know the artists get a fair share of the profits, you have the perfect solution.
Of course, there are people who would still download - the only incentive for them is to get stuff for free. Then there's those who don't agree with current CD pricing but are willing to pay for their music. Those would more than likely be converted.
The third type are people who download just because it's so convenient. If this eMusic-style service was convenient like that, they'd more than likely use it.
The ones who currently buy CDs would probably move over.
There's only one customer type left who wouldn't be content. The customer who wants the lyrics booklets and durable factory-printed discs. (And I think even those could be accommodated by the use of Canonical-style mass orders)
The key is making buying music cheap, and the terms of the deal fair. Then you just make it clear that your ability to get new stuff like that depends on the ability of the guys who make the stuff to make a living off it. The human tendencies of morality and greed should do the rest. (Greed as in wnating more music, not necessarily resenting paying for it)
It's the way of mp3's. Due to them offering mp3's, no DRM is currently possible. You buy the file, you can do with whatever you want with it.
It's the way of high-quality, VBR mp3's. And, it is also the way of $0.25 a song.
So, it's high-quality, doesn't kill the user's freedoms (I know, I know. They should have .oggs available, too), and is cheap as chips.
This way, as long as the buyers know the artists get a fair share of the profits, you have the perfect solution.
Of course, there are people who would still download - the only incentive for them is to get stuff for free. Then there's those who don't agree with current CD pricing but are willing to pay for their music. Those would more than likely be converted.
The third type are people who download just because it's so convenient. If this eMusic-style service was convenient like that, they'd more than likely use it.
The ones who currently buy CDs would probably move over.
There's only one customer type left who wouldn't be content. The customer who wants the lyrics booklets and durable factory-printed discs. (And I think even those could be accommodated by the use of Canonical-style mass orders)
The key is making buying music cheap, and the terms of the deal fair. Then you just make it clear that your ability to get new stuff like that depends on the ability of the guys who make the stuff to make a living off it. The human tendencies of morality and greed should do the rest. (Greed as in wnating more music, not necessarily resenting paying for it)
Teron:
Change that mp3 to ogg and I'll buy some. :o)
BTW, I'll bet I'm not the only one who remembers a quarter buying 6 plays on a jukebox.
Change that mp3 to ogg and I'll buy some. :o)
BTW, I'll bet I'm not the only one who remembers a quarter buying 6 plays on a jukebox.
> BTW, I'll bet I'm not the only one who remembers a quarter buying 6 plays on a jukebox.
You must be really old! :-D I think now it's 6 quarters for one play.
You must be really old! :-D I think now it's 6 quarters for one play.
Quoting:jdixon: >"Someting like $1.50-$2.00 seems more reasonable, and dialup users should probably be exempt."
The concept is arguably a low-evil compromise, but the proposed tax seems excessive and too broadly applied. It presumes everyone who has broadband routinely engages in copying commercially restricted, copyright-protected files. Why should the MAFIAA be guaranteed profit and existence? Why should they be guaranteed, by tax and government mandate, to remain the financial representative and arbiter of payment distributions for artists?
They won't. If the above scheme happens, tyhe MAFIAA will be nothing more than an organisation to divvy up the levy. Their power over artists will go down drastically. With a levy scheme there's no added valua from the MAFIAA because distribution happens outside their control. The only differentiating factor between bistribution companies will be how high the cut for the artists is. That's all. Guess where the artists will go :-)
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post