|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 183 responses total. |
krj
|
|
response 126 of 183:
| 
Jun 9 20:12 UTC 2000 |
The Lords of Music are coming out with big speeches on how Copyright Must
Be Defended or The Economy Will Collapse. Edgar Bronfman of Seagram's
was the first. (Did you know Seagram's owns the world's largest
music company? They own Universal Music Group.) Michael Eisner weighed
in with a similar speech; come to think of it, Eisner is only a bit player
in music, as Disney's Hollywood Music label has mostly been a business
boondoggle.
It occurred to me that one of the premises of the copyright system was
that "reproducing machines," in the most general sense, were expensive
things owned by businesses. Businesses were few enough, and sensitive
enough to economic deterrents such as legal judgements, that the
legal system -- mostly tort lawsuits -- could police the use of these
machines.
But now ordinary consumers have reproducing machines. This breaks the
copyright enforcement system through an overload of violations.
|
aaron
|
|
response 127 of 183:
|
Jun 14 15:10 UTC 2000 |
Disney knows that today's audio bootlegging will eventually become tomorrow's
video bootlegging.
|
krj
|
|
response 128 of 183:
|
Jun 14 16:13 UTC 2000 |
I've lost the reference to the speech by Michael Eisner of Disney, but he
wants Congress to mandate that computers and ISPs be made incapable of
making or transmitting illegal copies. Maybe we'll see people busted
for Illegal Possession of an Unrestricted Computer. (only 1/2 :) )
The record industry, in its suit against Napster, is asking for a
preliminary injunction to shut Napster down immediately. It's startling
that they are submitting the discredited Soundscan study to support their
claim that Napster damages sales at CD stores near colleges. This is the
study, remember, that shows that Napster damaged college-area store
sales a year before it was created. (You can find this story on most
music and tech web news sites.)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 129 of 183:
|
Jun 14 18:46 UTC 2000 |
Unless I am mistaken, their serious overreaching on this issue is likely
to bite them, hard. They've got the money on their side, but I don't think
they can really win this one.
|
polygon
|
|
response 130 of 183:
|
Jun 14 19:03 UTC 2000 |
I don't have any MP3s or even any sound files on my computer. I have never
been to Napster's web site.
I think of myself as being as much into music as anybody. But it has been
years since I have bought a new music CD for myself.
It's not that I'm impoverished, but the sticker shock is pretty intense.
A CD costs maybe a buck to create, maybe another dollar to package and
ship to retailers. I just plain can't swallow paying $12 or $14 or $20
for it.
These prices are so breathtakingly high not because of the value of the
CD, but because of the power of the incredibly concentrated music industry.
The last time formats were changed -- from LPs to CDs -- they benefited in
two ways: (1) CDs are much cheaper to make than LPs, and (2) their
monopoly power gave them the ability to price the CDs considerably higher
than LPs. And outside the U.S., for example in Europe, CD prices are
double what they are here.
The music cartel and its handful of chosen stars have grown incredibly fat
on the system they have created. They have been able to induce Congress
to write steadily more unreasonable and draconian copyright laws. And
they're not satisfied yet, witness Eisner's desire for computers which are
incapable of copying sound files.
I have no sympathy for the RIAA and the corrupt system it is trying to
defend.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 131 of 183:
|
Jun 14 21:28 UTC 2000 |
I think that puts you in the solid majority. The RIAA has very few
defenders outside of the music industry.
If Eisner is really calling for the law to mandate the restriction of
computers such that they cannot be used to copy audio and video content
then he's truly, deeply ignorant about computer technology. There's
simply no way you could produce a general purpose computing device that
couldn't somehow be made to do the sorts of things Eisner wishes computers
wouldn't do, and any steps taken to enforce such a scheme with technology
would be so intrusive that consumers wouldn't stand for them.
Of course the danger is that the mere fact that something isn't reasonable
or can't be enforced has never proven an effective bar to legislative
attempts to "fix" problems before, and a worrying number of our legislators
are shockingly clueless when it comes to technology issues.
|
krj
|
|
response 132 of 183:
|
Jun 14 22:32 UTC 2000 |
inside.com reports that the RIAA brief requesting an injunction against
Napster also includes damning email exchanges from among the Napster
founders indicating that the founders knew they were building a
company based on piracy; their business plan called for destroying
the record company profits and forcing them into a deal with Napster.
http://www.inside.com/story/Story_Cached/0,2770,5752,00.html
I have not seen this aspect of the story reported elsewhere.
---
Salon and other sites print a complete transcript of Courtney Love's
speech slamming the current music industry business model as
completely unfair to artists.
---
As for Michael Eisner: I thought that perhaps I had misrepresented
his views, but I found my source story:
"Walt Disney Co. chief executive Michael Eisner came to Washington
to lobby members of Congress for a new law that would require
Internet service providers and computer makers to create
technological barriers to block anyone from making an unauthorized
copy of copyrighted material."
Washington Post, June 13, "Record Firms Say Napster Hurt Sales"
|
krj
|
|
response 133 of 183:
|
Jun 14 23:26 UTC 2000 |
Another report of a musician ditching record companies and going it
alone: the Usenet folk music groups carry a mention that Andy Irvine
has issued his second self-released album. The name won't mean much
to anyone except Twila; Irvine was in the tremendously influential
band Sweeney's Men in 1968 and is generally credited with introducing
the Greek bouzouki into Irish folk music.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 134 of 183:
|
Jun 14 23:28 UTC 2000 |
http://www.dannybarnes.com
|
mcnally
|
|
response 135 of 183:
|
Jun 14 23:44 UTC 2000 |
(generally credited with introducing the Greek bouzouki into Irish folk?
good grief!)
The "content production" industries have been so successful in lobbying
lawmakers for more sever penalties for copyright infringement that it
seems possible that Eisner, et al., haven't considered that there's a
difference between lobbying for laws that impose greater restrictions
or more penalties on folks who don't have the money or organization to
lobby back (e.g. students, random computer users) and passing legislation
which imposes heavy burdens on ISPs and computer manufacturers, who
definitely *will* be interested in making sure that responsibility for
protecting Eisner's profits isn't a burden that gets placed on their
shoulders.
|
krj
|
|
response 136 of 183:
|
Jun 15 00:11 UTC 2000 |
(Are you opposed to the introduction of the Greek bouzouki into
Irish folk music?)
|
krj
|
|
response 137 of 183:
|
Jun 16 23:05 UTC 2000 |
Many news sites have been reporting that mp3.com is settling licensing
deals with various labels in the wake of their court loss to the RIAA.
inside.com attempts to analyze the financial situation, and they conclude
that after mp3.com settles with the songwriters and all the labels,
that there is no way for them to come up with a profitable business
model for the my.mp3.com streaming service, even if they charge
an annual subscription fee of $10 to their users.
..
|
sspan
|
|
response 138 of 183:
|
Jun 17 03:48 UTC 2000 |
Um... I don't get where the price of a CD is 'breathtakingly' high.. $12?
You can't afford $12?? I see 16 year old kids driving around in Lexus' and
BMW's with cellphones and pagers, $150 sneakers, designer clothes, and they
don't want to pay $12 for a CD... gimmme a break people.. geez, an LP was like
$8-$10 25 years ago.. figure in inflation and all and I don't see where CDs
are overpriced.. you pay over a buck nowdays for a bottle of sugerwater 'cause
it has the name Pepsi or Coke on it.. how much does that cost them to make?
|
jor
|
|
response 139 of 183:
|
Jun 17 14:22 UTC 2000 |
(great music business item . . thanks)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 140 of 183:
|
Jun 18 05:36 UTC 2000 |
re #138: $12? When was the last time you bought a CD?
|
sspan
|
|
response 141 of 183:
|
Jun 18 16:13 UTC 2000 |
re #140: a couple of weeks ago. I used the $12 figure because that was what
someone else mentioned. Okay, let's change it to what I normally pay for a
new release. $12.99? You can't pay $12.99 for a CD?
|
krj
|
|
response 142 of 183:
|
Jun 19 04:15 UTC 2000 |
Finally, a force which can undermine the march of MP3s!
It turns out the darn things are under patents, and the patent holder
is now starting to collect royalties from download sites, web radio
sites and software companies using the MP3 format. Holy GIF file,
Batman! :) A group of open-source types are working on a replacement
royalty-free version called Vorbis.
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-2091466.html
|
polygon
|
|
response 143 of 183:
|
Jun 19 21:00 UTC 2000 |
Re 138. I don't have a Lexus or BMW or anything approaching it, indeed, I
didn't have a car at all until I was married and benefited from pooling
incomes. My shoes cost a small fraction of $150 and have to last a long time;
I don't buy designer clothes and neither does my wife. A huge chunk of our
income goes to paying off student loans, and will for years. I'm glad you're
feeling wealthy, but I am not.
Yes, twelve bucks, or I guess sixteen bucks or twenty-five bucks, is a
breathtaking price to pay for a piece of plastic that costs probably $1.50 to
manufacture and distribute. (Out of the remaining money, what does the artist
get -- a few cents per CD? Funny thing!)
That's why I haven't bought any new CDs for myself in years. I used to buy CDs
occasionally at concerts (where typically the artist DOES get more than a
trivial share of the money), but I don't get out to many concerts any more.
I suppose you should be happy I'm not fooling around with Napster and MP3's
either. But you probably think I'm guilty of piracy for listening to the radio
but tuning out the commercials. Feh.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 144 of 183:
|
Jun 19 21:48 UTC 2000 |
5.7 cents/song for mechanical reproduction. probably another
5 cents or so to the songwritter.
|
polygon
|
|
response 145 of 183:
|
Jun 19 23:49 UTC 2000 |
Re 143. Oops, sorry about the terrible formatting.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 146 of 183:
|
Jun 20 00:49 UTC 2000 |
re #142: Nearly everything's under patent these days -- it's getting
to be prohibitively difficult to write a useful free software application
that's not encumbered.
I wonder, though, what makes the patent holders think they have the rights
to control the works produced using their invention. If their patents are
valid they probably have the right to control who makes software or hardware
that encodes or decodes MP3s, but how is a site infringing on their patent
merely by storing a stream of bytes conforming to the MP3 format?
|
sspan
|
|
response 147 of 183:
|
Jun 21 04:08 UTC 2000 |
Why would I think someone guilty of piracy for listening to the radio? Radio
stations generally comply with the copyright laws (unless you're listening
to a pirate station). And you should realize I'm speaking in general terms.
There are a lot of people out there that CAN afford CDs, but will still
download the songs for free instead of buying them. I'm also sure there area
lot of musicians that are glad to hear that people are doing them a big favor
in there struggles with the record companies by not buying any of their CDs.
I know if I was only getting a small return on each copy I'd want to sell as
few as possible
|
cyklone
|
|
response 148 of 183:
|
Jun 21 11:43 UTC 2000 |
That's an interesting aproach to economics.
|
polygon
|
|
response 149 of 183:
|
Jun 21 12:25 UTC 2000 |
Re 147. No, you don't get it, do you? I'm not doing anyone a big favor.
I'm simply not interested in CDs at the current much-too-high prices.
Think back to economics, if you ever studied it. This is a concept called
"elasticity of demand". If you raise the price too high, many people will
choose not to buy. If you lower the price, demand will increase.
A product for which the demand is inelastic will sell the same number of
units almost regardless of the price. The example often given is salt.
The price of table salt could triple without affecting the quantity sold
very much.
When demand for a product is elastic, then the number of units sold will
rise rapidly with declines in price. Quite likely, the total amount of
money spent on the product will increase because the higher sales volume
more than makes up for the lower number of units sold.
The demand for CDs is, I would argue, highly elastic. Certainly my own
personal demand for CDs is elastic. If CDs were in the range of $3 to $5,
I would probably be buying them frequently. With CDs in the $12 to $25
range, the quantity I purchase is simply zero. The fact that these high
prices are maintained by to monopolistic advantage is all the more reason
to refrain from taking part in this market.
At a concert, when I used to attend concerts, I would make an exception.
The fact that the artist got more of the money helped reconcile me to what
was still an extraordinarily high price. That consideration simply does
not apply to CDs in stores.
I'm sorry you have so much trouble with this simple concept.
|
sspan
|
|
response 150 of 183:
|
Jun 24 02:47 UTC 2000 |
And I'm sorry you are having so much trouble with the simple concept that I
am not speaking specifically about you. Yes, there are other people in the
world, ya know.
|
