response 25 of 183:

Apr 27 01:00 UTC 2000

(the author is 100% correct.)

response 27 of 183:

Apr 27 05:59 UTC 2000

The posative thing Napster is doing is giving the record industry a kick in
the butt over the high prices they charge for CD and making them think
seriously about new mediums of distribution and new ways to charge people for
music. My understanding is that the artist recieves 1 dollar on the sale of a
16.95 CD.  Napster is going to force the record industry to come up with online
music distribtion schemes which rip off the consumer less.  Hopefully  artists
will also start to do more direct distribution ala mp3.com by passing the
greedy record compsny middle men (and woman).

response 29 of 183:

Apr 27 15:17 UTC 2000

An average CD costs $12-$18.
An average hardcover book costs $20-$30.
An average softcover book costs $4-$9.
An average first-run movie costs $6-$9.
An average new release DVD/videotape costs $15-$30.

Could somebody PLEASE demonstrate to me how CDs are somehow "overpriced"? IT
seems that, when compared to other genres of materials in the entertainment
industry, they're reasonably priced.

As for artists getting hosed, 10% is a fairly standard royalty.

Let's look at inflation. When I first started buying LPs in 1981, they were
ca. $7-$9. That price has now roughly doubled. When I first started buying
hardcover books, again ca. 1981, they were $10-$15. That price has now roughly
doubled. I don't recall ANYONE in 1982 complaining that LPs were overpriced
(except in the concept that they degraded quickly, which is moot for the CD).

So quit yer whinin'. And quit stealing.

response 31 of 183:

Apr 27 17:04 UTC 2000

Because manufacture cost isn't the only figure that's used to calculate price.
Supply and demand, what the market will bear, what comparable items cost
(hence my list)... supply is higher than demand, so that's obvioulsy not a
factor, but the market is obviously bearing it, and comparable items are
certainly in the ballpark.

Few items in the entertainment and leisure industry are priced according to
manufacture cost: Concert t-shirts, beverage concessions, fast food, snack
food... all priced based on what the market will bear, and what comparable
objects cost. Books are fairly unique in that their manufacturing cost IS a
significant portion of their cover price, and it's got publishers concerned
(As they continue to price themselves higher out of the leisure industry).

Furthermore, if you UNDERprice, their are potential negative ramifications.
Think about your reaction to seeing a new $9 CD vs a new $14 CD, vs. a new
$5 CD... a scenario common in classical music. My standard immediate reaction
is that the $14 CD must be better than the $5 CD, even if it's the same
composer and the same orchestra. I usually buy the $5 CD anyway, but hey...
some of my favorite CDs I got out of the $1 cutout bins.

This concept of underpricing might be seen as collusion, but it's not... if
one music label has a standard price of $17 MSRP, then the other labels follow
suit not out of collusion but because if they price lower, they might induce
a perception that their product isn't as good. columbia, for instance, has
those "Best Buy" releases -- older CDs at 2/3 the price -- and the implication
is that, because this stuff isn't as new, it isn't as good.

So, I still maintain that I don't see CDs as overpriced. They're priced
fairly, for what they are, and what other items in the entertainment/leisure
industry cost. Just because the manufacturers have managed to find ways to
make production costs low, doesn't mean they should be punished, and NOTHING
justifies out-and-out theft, which is what copping MP3s of copywritten
material off the Web is. Theft.

response 33 of 183:

Apr 27 17:18 UTC 2000

No Paul theft is making a CD for dollar and pocketing at least 10 dollars
while the artist who makes the CD gets a buck.  There is a pretty interesting
article about this by Chuck D from Public Enemy somewhere on the web URL
later.

As I said before I think the ultimate solution is sites like mp3.com
wherere you can buy sonds direct from the artist or they will burn a cd
on demand for you and the artist gets all or nearly all the procedes.

Yes Napster probably is wrong but wrong in a way like making home audio
tapes or dubbing movies with a vcr, wrong in a way that became acceptable
to society.  I think the way home audio taping at least was dealt with
was with a tax on audio tapes with the $ passed on to the record 
industry.  It seems like some sort of online micro tax will have to
happen as Napster I think in practical terms won't be stopped even in they
lose in court they can use move to a country without copyright laws,
then there's gnutella...

response 35 of 183:

Apr 27 19:38 UTC 2000

Theft is taking something which doesn't belong to you.
If you stand on the street corner and tell passersby, "Hey, gimme $10," and
people give you $10, you're not committing theft.

Saying that Columbia or Elektra is committing "theft" when they charge $18
for an album implies that the album belongs to YOU, that you have the RIGHT
to own that album, and that Columbia or Elektra is denying you that right.
That's ridiculous. You have absolutely no right whatsoever to own prerecorded
music. None. The CD belongs to the record store until you purchase it. Then
it belongs to you. If you don't want to pay the price, then don't pay the
price. Somebody else will.

Independent labels exist. Wax Trax!, for instance, and On Her Majesty's Behalf
(or whatever it's called)...Whip-Smart. Oh yes, and Righteous Babe, Ani's
label. Do these labels go out of their way to make sure *their* CDs are less
than $18? Not generally. Ani's CDs are the same price as everyone else's. So
she's pocketing the money instead of the record execs. Good for her. You're
still giving it to her.

I also remember Garth Brooks' tirade against used record stores some years
ago... and that's different. I own a CD. I don't like the CD. I'm entitled
to sell my CD to somebody else, just like any other possession.

But accusing the record labels of THEFT? Because musicians (and oh yeah, some
gold-plated phatcat with a Beemer and swimsuit models is going to get a lot
of sympathy from ME about oh boohoohoo the recordcompany stole from him) were
held at gunpoint and forced to play music? Because you were held at gunpoint
and forced to buy a CD? I just don't buy it.

response 37 of 183:

Apr 28 16:18 UTC 2000

        What if I am download MP3s of songs I already have on a purchased
format?  It's just that someone else done the conversion for me.

response 39 of 183:

Apr 28 19:49 UTC 2000

Paul if you are so convinced this is a crime why don't you turn yourself
in for your tapes and "stolen shareware."  Your position is sort of like
saying shoplifting is wrong except for those strawberries I lifted last
week at the store. If you turn yourself in maybe Metllica or Dr, Dre will
give you a good citizen award. :-)

response 41 of 183:

Apr 29 02:30 UTC 2000

News item:  Today the RIAA won a summary judgement against mp3.com.
The RIAA suit alleged that the My.Mp3.Com service infringed its 
copyrights.   Penalties against mp3.com will be assessed later.

KRJ's analysis:   I have to wonder, what were they thinking?
The RIAA had been trying to paint mp3 files as an inherently criminal
format; mp3.com, up until now, ran a legally unassailable operation.
And then, someone at mp3.com had a great idea...
 
The idea behind my.mp3.com was to create a central online database of 
mp3 files.  You would prove that you were entitled to listen to 
a particular mp3 file by loading a CD containing that song into 
your computer's CD rom drive; this proved that you owned, or at least
possessed temporarily, a copy of the album, and mp3.com argued that 
this showed that you were entitled to listen to a mp3 of the album, and
that they were entitled to stream it to you.
 
my.mp3.com could be thought of as a virtual box of cassettes which 
mp3 would "carry around" for you.   Anywhere you were, you could 
stream down those Mp3 files which you had registered as "owning."
 
In the original model, I think that the consumer was supposed to upload
the MP3 files: I have read there are "storage locker" systems which 
work like this.  But my.mp3.com decided to skip that slow and pesky
upload process: they went out and bought thousands of CDs, and copied
them into the my.mp3.com database.

My take on this is that www.mp3.com decided that the consumer's right to 
make a copy of a CD which he or she owned could be transferred to  
mp3.com.   The judge's reasoning is not yet available to us, but it 
looks like he decided that mp3.com's assembly of an online database 
of copyrighted songs was a slam-dunk copyright violation.  Summary 
judgement means there was no dispute which the judge found worthy of 
trial.

Best coverage on today's decision is on www.cnet.com: the actual URL
is too long to type in, go there and grub around a bit.
www.mp3.com contains their press release, which argues that mp3.com
is actually much more responsible than those lawless Napster people.

In a LA Times interview with the RIAA's Hilary Rosen -- reachable through 
www.mp3.com's news section -- Rosen was asked about what would happen 
if the RIAA lost the Napster case, and the mp3.com case.
Reading between the lines, it sounded to me like Rosen thought the mp3.com
case was a slam dunk, but she was deeply worried about the Napster case.

The RIAA is asking for six billion-with-a-B dollars in damages:
$750 to $150,000 for each CD copied into the my.mp3.com database.
The Cnet article quotes copyright lawyers who think that the damages
will be nowhere near that high.

I'll write more about the Napster case later.

response 43 of 183:

May 2 17:16 UTC 2000

For a viewpoint somewhat opposed to that of Metallica, check out Chuck D's
latest Terrordome column:
http://publicenemy.com/terrordome/
(You might have to look in the archives for it.  It's the May 1, 2000 column).

Basically, Chuck D is very much in favor of online trading.  Here's a little
snippet:

"I'm in support of the sharing of music files. I believe that truly another
parallel music industry will be created alongside the one
that presently exists, and that's the bottom line
stake that traditionalists fear. Having been
connected to the genre of hiphop and rap music for
22 years, I've witnessed the lack of proper
service areas to fully support the majority of artists,
songwriters, producers and labels in getting the music to it's
fanbase. Although there's this talk about rap/hiphop growth and power, we
are still only talking about a sliver of selected
artists that participate on a major level."

(sorry about the formatting)

response 45 of 183:

May 2 23:07 UTC 2000

I don't think he's that worried about piracy, but you'd have to read the rest
to really get that gist.  He's saying that a whole new model of moneymaking
would have to develop.

response 47 of 183:

May 3 22:58 UTC 2000

I'm intrigued by the issues here, but i do not have a fully thought out
approach to them.

I'd like to see some modification to the copyright laws [for that matter all
intellectual property laws] so that creative ideas such as songs, plays,
stories, compositions and other things which are pure information without
tangible structure and which are not formed exclusively as plans for a
tangible object are treated very differently than such things as objets d'art,
architectural plans, inventions and their design specs and plans, etc.

The point would be that those things which are part of the *creative* lexicon
would be always associated with the names of their creators, but would not
be owned, sold or bought, while those things which can be manufactured en
masse, or distributed tangibly, and which are considered products (especially
products of technology) would benefit from the innovative drive of the
marketplace.

This would result in the focusing of economic efforts on the development of
real products, the value of which is dependent on their success in the
marketplace, while creative efforts could be fostered and developed for the
pure benefit of the stimulation of the creative impulse.

Naturally this would cause a decline in educational focus on the arts, but
I freely admit to its being a utopian ideal, under which circumstances the
educational system would not be so strongly driven by short-term economic
concerns.

Final point:  I repeat, this is *not* a fully thought out approach, so treat
it as such, and if you disagree (which you should feel free to do), I would
appreciate it if you remember that.

response 49 of 183:

May 4 02:05 UTC 2000

You presented hyperbolic numbers to give your argument the facade of
legitimacy, whereas my points above are presented purely wishful thinking.

I think I mostly agree with your viewpoints, and that is why I nitpick your
arguments.  ;)