Maybe just maybe people will learn to stop taking people's promises with blind faith

Now even roger sharpe can be put in with Gary, Jody, and others with a mission to say things without giving you everything.

Hopefully people's spin detecters get upgraded

Buying a copy of a something doesn't give you the right to reproduce it and distribute it for non-personal use.

Except someone else does the software... This isn't one guy, and the guy doing the software isn't the one doing licensing, production, etc. I think the BOP2.0 thing was much further behind then they lead on to for a long time.

Still deceptive.

The company was under all kinds of scrutiny after Phil-Gate... they bring on an industry vet... then repeatedly say 'its all good, nothing is fucked' - and then go on to say all their stuff is approved. Not "we will be making changes to make it work with our project", not "we will be changing the soundtrack", not anything but trying to make everyone believe everything is fine and calm down.

They were dishonest with what they were projecting by glossing over the realities.

This whole thing about playing through with the movie also completely ignores all the lines they fed us about licensing music in the Netherlands vs what we were accustomed to with the US. Even if that wasn't total BS, they would have figured this out with Roger Sharpe a long time ago. Yet... nothing is fucked here!

Transparency is not their strong suit. The state of the game is very disappointing vs what they've been telling everyone.

I think it's more they don't respect rules they don't agree with (aka us rules). They are very obedient in general, any very orderly... But they strongly believe in the greater good, etc. they are much more direct and can be blunt compared to US customs.

Basically they wouldn't be shy of calling something stupid . And resist falling in line with things that don't make sense to their ideals.

In that vein... Having more Dutch people supporting the game and owning it is a good thing they aren't big fans of drm/cp.

Given the bad news.. don't you think they would have fought back the 'lack of progress' news with disclosing that? You're really starting to sound like the guy who denies the earth is round.

In short.. the product wasn't done when it was supposed to be. Rather than just being approvals.. the reality is probably much more like this, than your theory. Now they'll have to go and find all this music to use, integrate it, and then get approvals again..

It's the same thing here. To play the tv or radio in a shop, etc you need to pay royalties. Like the story here, most don't know about it or just ignore it until you get caught. Your local bar doesn't just pay for directTV like you do at home....

Generally content owners want their licensees to be able to protect their content. The whole "just leave the door wide open..." is a easy technical choice, but not so easy from a licensing and support angle.

Part of the arrangement with the content owner is the owners generally want approval over how their material is presented and displayed... to make things 'open' would impede their ability to control that and can lead to the content being presented in ways they don't want. So typically they want such systems locked down.. not open.

You are crossing two different topics and mashing them together.

The listener of a radio station does not have a public performance license or license to reproduce the music. That's why a store/biz needs to have an arrangement to display/output to the public.

The pinball company DOES have a license to distribute, edit, and play the music. If the pin is in public or not has nothing to do with any of this.. the pinball company already has a license to play the music within the constraints. A person with a radio does not.

The reason why things might be different for DP is simply because of what kind of licensing arrangement they set out to strike from the beginning.

You don't typically go through the bulk royalty systems to get licensing for creative uses of music. Those entities are typically more for the cookie cutter deals for broadcast or performance royalties. For instance, a TV network playing an artist's song in their credits, a band playing cover music, or a DJ playing tracks. Not really the same as someone negotiating an agreement to rework or repurpose someone's work. That's where people like Roger Sharpe come into play to try to negotiate deals. Which is where all this gets murky how this could not be disclosed earlier given their engagement with Sharpe some time ago.

You are. The Blackhawks would be paying royalities to play the music.. but they would be using it within constraints defined by their arrangement. It's not like the listeners in the stadium then have the power to rearrange and repurpose the music on the fly. The music is being used and observed as it was intended and licensed.

When you start distributing the content... they still want to ensure the content is being used as it was licensed to be used. How far they go of course will vary based on the content and people involved.

its also a way for people to get a shot.. where conventional thinking/wisdom may not give them that opportunity. It is the 'self publishing' angle to startups.. where the www gave individuals exposure to the world, mp3 and social media gave music a direct to consumer path, etc.

Your logic basically says "if the establishment won't back you.. your idea deserves to die... unless you are personally wealthily". That's a pretty depressing mindset.