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.

  

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.  

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.

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.
..

response 139 of 183:

Jun 17 14:22 UTC 2000

        (great music business item . . thanks)

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?

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.

response 145 of 183:

Jun 19 23:49 UTC 2000

Re 143.  Oops, sorry about the terrible formatting.

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

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.

response 151 of 183:

Jun 24 04:46 UTC 2000

Thing is, he's not alone.  There are a couple of CDs I'd really like to 
have, but I can't pay the price for them right now.  Were the price to drop
to $5, I'd get them.

response 153 of 183:

Jun 24 20:08 UTC 2000

yeah no doubt.

response 155 of 183:

Jul 21 19:51 UTC 2000

Feature story in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/07/biztech/articles/20tune.html
  "Unknown Musicians Finding Payoffs Through the Internet Jukebox"
 
This was a front-page feature in the National print edition writing 
up some of the musicians who have made a little money, or even a 
lot of money, from MP3 downloads.  "The Internet's emerging role 
as an equal opportunity jukebox is providing new ways to make
a modest income from a relatively small base of fans."
 
The earnings star appears to be "Ernesto Cortazar, a 60-year-old
Mexican composer for films who has mainly performed in piano bars
and who has earned more than $100,000 from his online efforts."