Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Schroedinger's streaming service just died

pluralistic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 117 posts

Re: Schroedinger's streaming service just died

#21

Post by antihero »

googlryas wrote: post #4

Is this just wordplay? When you click "Buy now", are you just buying a license? Is "ownership" just a byproduct of physical goods? If I say I own a record, the proof is basically in the pudding. But how do I prove I own an MP3 file? I'd probably need to do something like show a receipt for it. But then again, what if I have shown that receipt to 100 people I've sold "my" copy of the MP3 file to? With physical reality…

I own my files because you cannot take them from me. That is all that there is to it.

Re: Schroedinger's streaming service just died

#22

Post by function_seven »

Closi wrote: post #19
fabbari wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> where wave function collapse just means a contract that has different terms for a digital purchase instead of a physical purchase That's not what the article states. The author is saying that the same transaction - IE: my 'buying' a track on iTunes, for example - is considered a license transfer, between me and the record company, and a sale, between the record company and the artist. This superposition of license…

It's just a sale of a licence. If I'm a Domino's franchisee, and I pay Domino's a different commission for an order placed online vs a customer walking into the store, the pizza isn't in a state of quantum superposition - that's just making a simple concept overly complex by incorrectly throwing quantum words at it. The concept is just that different things have different prices in the master agreement. If I'm a movi…

Why are the labels paying the "sale" royalty to their artists if no such thing is occurring? Was the track sold or was it licensed?

Re: Schroedinger's streaming service just died

#23

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

Closi wrote: post #17
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How else would digital media / sale of MP3's work without licences? Is the author suggesting that everyone should legally be able to freely transfer/distribute their MP3's to anyone with no legal limit? What would be wrong with the same first sale doctrine that applies to physical instances of digital media (such as CDs) ? CD: You buy it, you are free to resell it to someone else; you are not free to make copies. D…

> Digital data only: You buy it, you can resell it someone else (0); you are not free give additional copies to anyone else (1) Sounds like you are buying a transferable licence? (If this isn't a licence, what would you call it? As presumably once you have 'sold' it, it can still reside on your laptop but you aren't allowed to play it).

It's not a license. It's a purchase of an item that becomes your own possession, and a law that covers what you can do as far as resale (also applies to books).

It's not a license because it cannot be revoked by whoever sold it to you.

Re: Schroedinger's streaming service just died

#24

Post by benreesman »

Closi wrote: post #19
fabbari wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> where wave function collapse just means a contract that has different terms for a digital purchase instead of a physical purchase That's not what the article states. The author is saying that the same transaction - IE: my 'buying' a track on iTunes, for example - is considered a license transfer, between me and the record company, and a sale, between the record company and the artist. This superposition of license…

It's just a sale of a licence. If I'm a Domino's franchisee, and I pay Domino's a different commission for an order placed online vs a customer walking into the store, the pizza isn't in a state of quantum superposition - that's just making a simple concept overly complex by incorrectly throwing quantum words at it. The concept is just that different things have different prices in the master agreement. If I'm a movi…

The quantum superposition thing is just a cheeky metaphor for a sketchy-sounding accounting practice, I wouldn’t read too much into the wave-function collapse analogy.

Re: Schroedinger's streaming service just died

#25

Post by clownbaby »

googlryas wrote: post #4

Is this just wordplay? When you click "Buy now", are you just buying a license? Is "ownership" just a byproduct of physical goods? If I say I own a record, the proof is basically in the pudding. But how do I prove I own an MP3 file? I'd probably need to do something like show a receipt for it. But then again, what if I have shown that receipt to 100 people I've sold "my" copy of the MP3 file to? With physical reality…

And then, along came the blockchain and NFTs... one receipt per purchase??

This obviously doesn't help the streaming services, but, this - or something similar would help solve the quantum entanglement of digital music.

Re: Schroedinger's streaming service just died

#26

Post by Closi »

function_seven wrote: post #22
Closi wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just a sale of a licence. If I'm a Domino's franchisee, and I pay Domino's a different commission for an order placed online vs a customer walking into the store, the pizza isn't in a state of quantum superposition - that's just making a simple concept overly complex by incorrectly throwing quantum words at it. The concept is just that different things have different prices in the master agreement. If I'm a movi…

Why are the labels paying the "sale" royalty to their artists if no such thing is occurring? Was the track sold or was it licensed?

They sold a license.

This is like saying "Was a movie ticket sold or was it admission?" - you can purchase admission, so it's a nonsense question.

The contracts will then define what a particular transaction means in a particular context, and what the royalty rate is. Without seeing the exact contracts and definitions of 'sale' and 'license', which are suspiciously absent in the article, then the whole premise of the article is IMO missing substance.

Re: Schroedinger's streaming service just died

#27

Post by sacrosancty »

pessimizer wrote: post #18
ghostly_s wrote: post #12

Except as noted in the linked BBC coverage, Four Tet's case was settled out of court (because he could not afford to fight it) and thus establishes no legal precedent for other artists to leverage.

Yeah, there's no chance that this golden goose could ever be killed in a modern democracy. If the companies would still be profitable paying 50% royalties, then the 38% difference between that and 12% royalties represents the amount the industry will be able to spend (without thinking about it for a moment) to bribe politicians, create fake public-interest organizations and think-tanks, and settle cases like this.

> to bribe politicians, create fake public-interest organizations and think-tanks

In other words to fool you, the voter. But if you've been fooled, how do you know these things? Are you acting on your knowledge and voting against those corrupt politicians and against those who agree with the propaganda? How does nobody else know this?

Re: Schroedinger's streaming service just died

#28

Post by EMIRELADERO »

Closi wrote: post #7

> The confiscation of your rights to your digital media depends on the fiction that you are licensing the music, not buying it. The fact that there's a giant "buy now" button on the interface notwithstanding, tech and entertainment companies maintain that you are engaged in a licensing deal, like an advertiser buying synch rights for a hamburger commercial. This post makes everything seem needlessly complicated - you…

> How else would digital media / sale of MP3's work without licences? Is the author suggesting that everyone should legally be able to freely transfer/distribute their MP3's to anyone with no legal limit?

How about a simple purchase of a copy, with its use being limited only by current copyright law? A.k.a, no copying, redistributing, derivative work-making, etc. (Absent fair use cases)

Re: Schroedinger's streaming service just died

#29

Post by Closi »

benreesman wrote: post #24
Closi wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just a sale of a licence. If I'm a Domino's franchisee, and I pay Domino's a different commission for an order placed online vs a customer walking into the store, the pizza isn't in a state of quantum superposition - that's just making a simple concept overly complex by incorrectly throwing quantum words at it. The concept is just that different things have different prices in the master agreement. If I'm a movi…

The quantum superposition thing is just a cheeky metaphor for a sketchy-sounding accounting practice, I wouldn’t read too much into the wave-function collapse analogy.

It's a metaphor which makes it sound more complex than it is.

All they are describing is that they have agreed to different royalty rates for different types of sale.

I have zero doubt that the contracts will have very clear definitions of what counts as a 'sale' and what counts as 'licensing', but this article just pretends that it is highly ambiguous in order to make a strange analogy to quantum mechanics.

Post reply on HN