That slide is just mental

A picture of a bowl of spaghetti would have made more sense than the slide. It wouldn’t need 3 hours of explanation either

The responsibility of figuring out a pre-existing system in order to profit from it rests with the entity who wishes to profit. Yes, rightsholder interaction in the music industry can seem complicated and can be frustrating for everyone involved. The same can be said of the pharmaceutical industry, textbook publishing, television writing and various other media where intellectual property is sold or licensed. Making self-serving diagrams like this is no excuse for any company or individual to refuse to respect the functioning system that is already in place. This is nothing but a slimy piece of PR, and does nothing to shift the moral responsibility of copyright infringers onto the music industry. It is NOT the responsibility of the music industry to make the system simpler to newcomers. No amount of complication of the system justifies stealing from it either. Enough of these half-heartedly disguised justifications for filesharing. You take it, you pay for it. Simple. If it’s not simple enough for you to figure out yourself, there are plenty of music publishing companies available who you can hire to do the thinking for you.

If a company or a guy (or girl) can figure this stuff out then they will make millions!

Why is his view so hard to stomach, GR138? IN fact, the industry *contributes* to legislation but it doesn’t *define* it – it surely didn’t define it in 1709, for example. File sharers or any new entrants to any business are welcome to propose regulatory changes on their way in – but to the lawmakers, not their competitors.

I used to repair mainframes to component level, so this diagram is a model of clarity
However, if you’re involved and know what you’re talking about it’s actually not that hard to follow.
The real sadness in all of this is how little money gets back to artists, songwriters and composers.

agreed that this is a lot of hype. i mean…”session musicians”? no download or streaming service needs to get involved on that level.

very self serving by Pure, as Chris pointed out a large amount of these connections are irrelevant to Pure’s licensing discussions, unless they are licensing directy from or to all the players in the diagram, if so, I think they need some better legal advice !

I agree with Simon (15), this is a bit self serving by Pure, most of it is irrelevant to what they are trying to achieve. I work in Royalties and Publishing and understand this diagram, it’s really not all that complicated if you break it down. This diagram has been around for years in various forms, I’m surprised everybody’s making such a fuss – It’s not as if this is the first time anyone has ever managed to unravel the overly complicated and archaic system that is British royalty licensing and payments. If it really took Mr Yassaie 3 hours to understand this diagram, he probably shouldn’t be closely involved with a project that relies so heavily on what this diagram represents.

This chart is not complete, it should include the cinema audience money flow to the popcorn stand and the artist managers car leasing relationship.

…and this is just the ‘Music Royalties’ diagram – the one for ‘Film Royalties’ would be about 3 times the size and complexity. Stealing music infringes about 3 copyright laws, stealing films infringes about 7. Maybe somebody’s still trying to fit that one together!

betting roulette bettingroulette.co.uk