|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 183 responses total. |
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.
|
gelinas
|
|
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.
|
otaking
|
|
response 152 of 183:
|
Jun 24 16:37 UTC 2000 |
I'd buy a lot more CDs if they were $5 each. I've seen some new releases go
for $8-10 (Tracy Bonham, Tara MacLean). Why not price other new releases in
that range?
|
carla
|
|
response 153 of 183:
|
Jun 24 20:08 UTC 2000 |
yeah no doubt.
|
krj
|
|
response 154 of 183:
|
Jul 15 23:43 UTC 2000 |
http://www.inside.com/story/Story_Cached/0,2770,6643_0,00.html
"Hatch Warns Labels, Don't Make Me Come Over There And Spank You"
This was the most entertaining report on this week's hearings at
the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Detroit News ran an editorial
cartoon depicting a elderly Senator asking: "So how will Napster
affect the sale of 8-track tapes?" But in all the reports I've
seen, committee chairman Orrin Hatch showed a good grasp of
both the technical and social issues. Hatch brings an interesting
perspective to this conflict, since he is a songwriter in the
Christian music business. (I had not known that.)
Hatch criticized the music industry for trying to use copyright
as an absolute control over the use of their music. He pushed for
an expansive view of fair use to cover casual sharing of recordings.
When Hilary Rosen of the RIAA objected to Hatch's views on fair use,
Hatch pointedly remarked that Congress determined what copyright was.
Hatch threatened to push for a mechanical compulsory licensing system,
for online music, similar to that for songwriting, if the music
industry does no reach "fair and reasonable" licensing agreements
with the online companies.
Hatch also complained that the inclination of the 4 major companies
to only deal with online entities which they control tended to
freeze out independent music companies and could become an antitrust
issue.
Senator Dianne Feinstein of California took the music industry position
in criticizing the Napster representative.
|
krj
|
|
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."
|
krj
|
|
response 156 of 183:
|
Jul 27 06:44 UTC 2000 |
For the record: the story is published everywhere, you should have
no trouble finding it.
Judge Marilyn Patel granted the immediate injunction sought by
the RIAA against Napster. Napster is to shut down the operations
which enable file trading by midnight Friday, Pacific time.
|
krj
|
|
response 157 of 183:
|
Jul 28 07:27 UTC 2000 |
Two opposing pundit views on the aftermath of the Napster injunction:
The Washington Post says that the precedent of the Napster injunction
is a powerful tool which leaves the RIAA and copyright holders in
the driver's seat on the distribution of intellectual property on the
web. In particular, the Post author thinks even small-time operators
of Gnutella directories will be sued.
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56246-2000Jul27.html
Salon says that the RIAA has won the battle but lost the war.
Napster the company was an entity which the record labels could have
made deals with; Napster the phenomenon, as represented by the 20
million users eager to exchange free music, isn't going anywhere, and
now it will be much less controllable.
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2000/07/27/napster_shutdown/index.html
|
mcnally
|
|
response 158 of 183:
|
Jul 28 19:48 UTC 2000 |
It's hard to disagree with either of those two points, except to note
that the value of the Napster injunction "precedent" isn't set in stone -
it will change once the RIAA/Napster suit is decided..
|
mcnally
|
|
response 159 of 183:
|
Jul 29 03:29 UTC 2000 |
Most people will have heard this by now (at least if the news coverage
I encountered was typical) but the appeals court has issued an order
staying the Wednesday injunction which ordered Napster to shut down by
the end of the day.
To put it more plainly, it appears Napster will be allowed to operate
while the trial is conducted (unless the appeals court's ruling is itself
reversed.)
|
lumen
|
|
response 160 of 183:
|
Aug 3 09:38 UTC 2000 |
I heard an NPR interview on this.. I don't remember the name of the
interviewee, but the gist of the interview is that this technology
basically cannot be stopped-- users will go elsewhere if Napster is
shut down, or they won't care much. Either way, try as they might, the
RIAA can't keep a lid on all of this issue, and it would be better if
they worked it the way other media have been treated, i.e., how the
film industry turned to video to actually *increase* their profits, and
how cable companies have worked to make legitimate subscription a real
value. Basically, the RIAA just needs to get their paws into this and
turn it to their own ends.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 161 of 183:
|
Aug 3 17:24 UTC 2000 |
Interesting article at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/state/updates/lat_needle000801.htm
Apparently the music and video industires aren't the only ones terrified
about what unauthorized digital distribution is going to do to their
industry. The latest front in the raging intellectual property war is
(wait for it..): needlepoint
Apparently, overly frugal needlepoint fans are exchanging patterns with
one another [don't they know how dangerous it is to share needle(points)?]
The article reads almost, but not quite, like an Onion parody story on
the Napster issue [Onion Quotient, or OQ, of 85%] complete with quotes like:
"I'm promoting the designers," said Shawna Dooley, a 25-year-old
housewife from Alberta, Canada. "We're just sampling the
patterns. If you like one pattern, you're going to be more
likely to go out and buy a pattern by that artist next time..."
and
..paying $6 for an entire pattern book is outrageous, said Carole
Nutter, particularly if a person wants just one or two of the
dozen designs listed... "It's like the CD. There's one song you
want, but you still have to buy the whole thing," said Nutter,
54, who lives in Bellgrave, Mont., a town of 3,000. "Why can't
[the industry] let us pay for what we want, not what they want
to sell us?"
and
..designer Leavitt-Imblum has ordered her attorney to start
collecting evidence so she can sue those who exchange copies of
her patterns, people whom she describes as the "scourge of all
that is decent and right."
|
