Being a retired DJ this hits home pretty hard. My main archive has ~25,000 tracks only a small percentage of which are on my performance laptop. Checking my laptop my Traktor collection I have 2,121 tracks on the laptop; this includes some stems of tracks for live remixes. Times range from a few seconds to a long of 21:58. I'd say about 1/3 of what is on the laptop is 5 min or less and about 1/4 is 8 minutes or longer.
If I were paying their proposed fee structure for my laptop based on what I used to get paid when I gigged out (vaguely adjusted for inflation), I'd be owing them a substantial amount of money every time I performed.
For those who have suggested streaming, neither of the big players in the DJ software world (Serato SSL or Traktor) support such a thing. There is a company with a streaming front end in closed beta, but it works by putting copies of the files on your laptop in a "secure" locker so I'm sure you'd still have to pay for those files. Track selection from such services can also be pretty problematic; there are numerous styles of electronic these days and DJ performances can vary greatly in musical content.
I'm "retired" (still DJ as a hobby with a web presence but no longer play out). These days my music is pretty obscure, so it's either free from Soundcloud/the artist, WAV's mostly from Juno Records, or vinyl that I rip. None of the artists I currently play would be registered with GEMA (or any other collection society).
When I played Raves in the 90's I bought 95% of my music but did get a few promos from the artists or labels here or there. If fees were paid to any collection societies it was done by the promoter without any input from me on what tracks I played.
When I played clubs in the 80's I was in a record pool. You payed a flat amount per month to get promos; how many you got depended on how important a DJ you were but it covered most of the top 40 music I needed for 1/4 to 1/2 of retail. If I didn't get something from the pool I was on my own to acquire it. The clubs I played in paid the BMI/ASCAP fees (which were flat fees based on venue size) again without any input from me on what tracks I played.
Before you get too carried away showering the love on Ubisoft, read the fine print on the "best gaming experience". It includes such things as a limited number of activations of the game and requiring you to log into their "service" UPlay (Ubi's GFWL). This will be on top of any service based DRM such as Steam. Left unanswered are details such as how (if at all) you "deactivate" an install of the game, etc.
I think this change was based purely on looking at how much it was costing them to keep their always-on DRM infrastructure going vs. the lack of a drop in perceived piracy rate. I wouldn't be surprised if drops in sales had little to do with the decision (in Ubiland that is just more people flying the jolly roger).
I'm cynical of anything Fox does any more. They made a big deal about "Terra Nova", only to cancel it after one season. I thought it was good...though they jumped the shark at the end. Every show on Fox I've ever been interested in watching they cancelled prematurely, with Futurama being the only one that lasted longer than a Season.
I've never watched much TV, but I've pretty much totally stopped (sit through a SVU & Burn Notice with the wife that's it) at this point for exactly this reason. Any show I find even vaguely interesting gets cancelled within a season or two; what's the point of getting invested in a show only to have the rug pulled out from under you? If the networks have no buy-in for their shows why should I?
Am I the only one that thinks paying $10 for an ebook is INSANE? Even at $8 for a paperback I sometimes think about it; my book buying has been cut down a lot since Borders closed and took their 30% off coupons with them.
That's not "selling the scarce", that's FARTS (forced artificial scarcity). You're just hoping everyone agrees that the emperor is wearing clothes, because the instant they don't the imagined scarcity is gone.
An example of the selling the scarce would be holding special screenings with the director and actors present; or for readers of techdirt perhaps a water dunking tank with MPAA lobbyists inside.
The most bothersome thing of this strategy is that is's a waste of money and resources. I've bought both Witcher games and I'm not giving CD Projekt money for them to hand it lawyers for lawsuits, I'm giving them money to make more games. I'd much rather they spend their money servicing ME THEIR CUSTOMER AND FAN by making Witcher 3 instead of chasing what they perceive to be free loaders.
Both of the Witcher games are very good RPG's if you are into that sort of thing (which I am). Well worth checking out. Witcher 2 has some pretty stringent graphics requirements though, and I'm not sure how well it scales down on low end PC's which may affect your enjoyment of the game.
He completely ignores the fact that this will destroy privacy, anonymity and also block most of new creators from getting a chance to start.
I don't think he's ignoring this at all. The internet has done a great job of destroying the gatekeeper role; by restricting content generation to a small "known" list of content generators you in effect put the gates and walls back up. Now a band CAN'T just give their music away for exposure; they once again have to go through one of the approved content generators and sell themselves into slavery to get any exposure at all.
I think this bill is more aimed at putting the walls and gates back up (and worse putting them back up and having them funded by taxpayers) than it is at piracy.
This is an interesting (intended?) consequence of this bill that nobody is talking about. How much of this is about combating "piracy" as claimed vs. regaining total control of the distribution chain?
Could not any service that provides distribution to small bands also be used to "facilitate infringement" and thus be illegal, leaving Big Content as the only way to get exposure and thus forcing musicians back into slavery.