3 ms·
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 o
by Closi 4y ago
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.
- krsrhe 4y ago
- ricardobeat 4y agoYou're trying to prove your point, but you haven't really understood what it is about. The transaction is treated differently from an accounting perspective, as a license and a sale at the same time (this is what the wave collapse joke is about), with the effect both of ripping off the artists and limiting buyer rights. They get the rights management from licensing on the user side (no "giving away old albums to a friend" possible), while giving artists the lower cut as if it was a physical album sale with high distribution costs. It has nothing to do with digital vs physical sales, you could play the same trick with a CD sale.