|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 160 responses total. |
krj
|
|
response 7 of 160:
| 
Sep 27 21:48 UTC 2002 |
Website for the music industry's anti-downloading campaign:
http://www.musicunited.org
Quote: "Our goal isn't to lecture anyone."
----------
News reports are everywhere about Congressional hearings on the
Berman-Coble bill. This proposed law in the House of Representatives
would authorize the copyright industry to take direct, summary action
against computers which they believe are sharing copyrighted stuff.
Lawmakers seem concerned about giving this much power to corporations
without any due process for the targets. The story of an attempt to
force a UUnet user offline for the offense of posting a Harry Potter
book report turned up in a couple of stories.
Buried in the Wired discussion was this nice link from a source
I have not seen before, giving an overall summary:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,558966,00.asp
Declan McCullogh for Cnet is here:
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-959774.html
The proposed bill is here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.05211:
Text:
(a) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any State or Federal
statute or other law, and subject to the limitations set
forth in subsections (b) and (c), a copyright owner shall
not be liable in any criminal or civil action for disabling,
interfering with, blocking, diverting, or otherwise impairing
the unauthorized distribution, display, performance, or
reproduction of his or her copyrighted work on a publicly
accessible peer-to-peer file trading network, if such
impairment does not, without authorization, alter, delete,
or otherwise impair the integrity of any computer file or
data residing on the computer of a file trader.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 8 of 160:
|
Sep 27 22:47 UTC 2002 |
"Imagine if every radio station, in order to play a song on the radio,
had to negotiate individually with each song's composer, performer and
record label. That's a good analogy of the legal quagmire facing
the authorized download services such as PressPlay and Musicnet
as they attempt to build up their catalog."
What do you mean, "imagine"? That once was the case! That's the
problem that ASCAP and BMI were invented to solve. Which suggests that
the solution for the PressPlay and Musicnet problem is ... do I have to
say it?
|
krj
|
|
response 9 of 160:
|
Sep 28 00:49 UTC 2002 |
ASCAP and BMI only work because of the underlying Federal legislation
setting mechanical royalties. Congress so far shows no willingness
to force such a compromise on the factions of the music business;
meanwhile each faction is determined that its piece of the pie should
optimally increase, and at all costs must not decrease, in the new
digital music era.
|
pvn
|
|
response 10 of 160:
|
Sep 29 07:43 UTC 2002 |
There is currently no digitally reproduced equivelent for being in
the audience in the auditorium when Pavarotti sings _Nessum Dorma_
among other things.
Assuming he shows up in the first place at all and doesn't have
a cold.
(details)
I've never been able to do that as the only time I had tickets
was the last time organizer folk booked him before he was banned
in my small town on account of not showing up.
Who owns music? Did Custer when he did the last stupid thing
before he died along with the rest of his troops pay for the
rights to play 'Garryowen'? I think not.
And the last of the 657th time the _Stones_ played _Sympathy for
the Devil_ live in concert was when? Some have told me the first
time was at Altemont but I don't buy it. I had paid for tickets
but my mother wouldn't let me go with Glen Jensen who is in the film
of the events and that was too cruel.
The point being that the actual physical performance of an artist is
impossible to properly reproduce and that any second generation
or further reproductions are merely that. Thus any 'bootleg'
recordings are exactly that and even the exact duplication of
a legal recording is still nothing less than a simulation by
definition and practicality. (To be fair a CD impression from
a master is still nothing but an imitation.)
Therefore, if you attain the written score to _Handel's Messiah_
you must abide by any contractural relationship not to further
reproduce it. But if you merely record it and reproduce it
you should be free and clear. Given you cannot advertise 'as
performed by' so and so under probable trademark restrictions.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 11 of 160:
|
Sep 29 08:45 UTC 2002 |
Positing an infinite number of parallel universes, theoretically
there must be a number of them where beady serves on the Supreme
Court and his legal theories are respected. Think how bizarre
that would be..
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 12 of 160:
|
Sep 29 14:06 UTC 2002 |
Law School would have been a lot more fun.
|
krj
|
|
response 13 of 160:
|
Sep 29 17:33 UTC 2002 |
I haven't seen any TV ads from MusicUnited yet -- this is the music
industry group which is sponsoring musicians
trying to make people feel bad about downloading
music from the Internet. What I have seen, quite a few times, is a new
Intel ad showing young people making home-made CDs and passing them
around with their friends. Gee, that looks like fun.
I think I'll go buy an Intel computer. (*coff, coff*)
-----
EFF points to this item from eetimes.com, a trade journal for
electronic engineers, about Hollywood's "hysteria" over "the analog hole."
If I am reading things correctly, there are proposals for legal
restrictions to severely restrict the interoperability of
digital and analog TV equipment.
Also much talk about analog-domain watermarks, and about getting
legislative control over analog/digital converters.
http://www.eetimes.com/issue/fp/OEG20020920S0062
-----
You might recall Courtney Love's suit against her record label
Universal, which was supposed to blow apart the industry or something
like that. As is typical with such suits, it looks like the label is
going to pay millions rather than defend their business in court.
Billboard reports that the outline of a settlement is done: Love
gets released from her contract, and gets millions in advance payments
on future Nirvana royalties in her role as Kurt Cobain's heir.
http://www.billboard.com/billboard/daily/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id
=1720037
|
gelinas
|
|
response 14 of 160:
|
Sep 29 18:29 UTC 2002 |
The most recent PC Magazine to hit my mailbox has John Dvorak's column "A Buck
Forty or Die", on the appropriate price ($1.40) for a CD. The law may say
one thing, but what the people do will be quite another.
|
krj
|
|
response 15 of 160:
|
Sep 30 00:21 UTC 2002 |
Thanks for the reference, Joe! I found that Dvorak column online at:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,543415,00.asp
|
dbratman
|
|
response 16 of 160:
|
Sep 30 21:18 UTC 2002 |
I own too many free samplers, or $2 samplers, to fall for any nonsense
about production/distribution costs for CDs. Yes, they're loss
leaders. But not that much of a loss.
Dvorak is right on. "Why would you buy one for [more money]? Because
you had a moral obligation? ... Where is the morality in keeping the
price jacked up?"
|
remmers
|
|
response 17 of 160:
|
Sep 30 21:56 UTC 2002 |
Indeed. Nice column.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 18 of 160:
|
Sep 30 22:26 UTC 2002 |
Hmmm.. I didn't find it all that compelling. It sounds great for the
consumer side but doesnt offer much reason for the record companies to
switch (apart from "do as I say, or you are doomed! doomed!")
Essentially he seems to be arguing in favor of them giving themselves a
90% pay cut. It *may* be the case that the market will eventually force
this, though I'm highly skeptical when the market is tilted so dramatically
in their favor currently, but until that comes about what's supposed to
be the record companies' motivation to compromise?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 19 of 160:
|
Sep 30 22:49 UTC 2002 |
The fact that they really can't put ALL of us in jail? And nothing less will
stop the sharing of music?
Don't look at it as a "90% pay cut"; look at it as a 1000% raise: from $0.00
to $1.40.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 20 of 160:
|
Sep 30 23:37 UTC 2002 |
re #19:
> And nothing less will stop the sharing of music?
That's where I disagree with you..
..to a point, anyway. I believe your statement to be literally
true to the extent that (practically) nothing will ever stop trading
completely, but they don't have to stop it completely to make their
business model work again.. heck, it seems to be more or less working
even *now* -- people are still paying $15-$20 per CD and if the labels
didn't keep making bafflingly bad assumptions about the bankability of
aging pop stars they'd be making a profit even now. They mostly just
need to keep sharing from growing further. Over the last few years it
seems like they've done a surprisingly good job of keeping runaway
file-trading growth in check, even if they haven't been able to stop
it completely.
|
gull
|
|
response 21 of 160:
|
Oct 1 13:54 UTC 2002 |
Re #18: Something has to give, though. By the record companies' own
figures, demand has been dropping for years now. But the price has remained
constant. Are they the magical industry that's immune to basic market
economics?
|
polygon
|
|
response 22 of 160:
|
Oct 1 16:36 UTC 2002 |
I don't use Napster or download mp3s, but it has been years since I bought
a new music CD for myself (other than at a concert from the artist
directly). $18 still gives me severe sticker shock, and at that price,
I'm not in the market.
CDs don't have to go all the way down to $1.40 to attract me back.
Less than $5 would probably do it. I could easily spend quite a lot at
prices like that.
|
gull
|
|
response 23 of 160:
|
Oct 1 16:41 UTC 2002 |
$10 is about the break point for me. I'm much quicker to buy a CD that
costs under $10. One that costs $18 I really think hard about, and usually
don't buy.
|
slynne
|
|
response 24 of 160:
|
Oct 1 18:08 UTC 2002 |
$18 is too much for me too. If I didnt have my discount at Borders, I
wouldnt really buy cd's. Luckily, that $18 cd costs me $12 which makes
sense to me. If I had to pay $18, I might buy a cd now and then but I
would buy fewer and would be more motivated to buy used cd's.
|
aruba
|
|
response 25 of 160:
|
Oct 1 19:25 UTC 2002 |
I agree with gull - $10 is about the right price that I might take a chance
once in a while. More than that and I only want to buy something if it's a
sure thing, which not many things are.
|
gull
|
|
response 26 of 160:
|
Oct 1 20:28 UTC 2002 |
If I'm teetering about buying a disc I sometimes grab a few tracks from my
current favorite file sharing program and see if I like them. Generally if
I like two or three tracks from a disc I'll like the rest of it, and it's
worth buying.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 27 of 160:
|
Oct 1 23:14 UTC 2002 |
I don't usually buy discs at $18, well, okay, imports don't count. :-) But
I haven't bought an import in several months (possibly over a year).There are
bands that I buy automatically , as soon as I know they have an album out
(Oysterband, Dougie MacLean, Garnet Rogers, Mustard's Retreat, possibly
Steeleye Span and Fairport Convention..., Tannahill Weavers, BattleField Band,
Julie/Buddy Miller... and of course James Keelaghan) but that list is not
terribly long. Most of my new music these days is either given to me by
friends or sent to me for review purposes. I have a secondary list of people
whose music I will buy if I think it's cool, which is pretty long, but they
aren't auto-buys, and I don't buy them at full record-company prices. I will
shop around and try to find them at Best Buy or whatever. Not that my personal
list of musicians is really usually available there, but one can always
*look*. I find that the prices charged for CDs makes me much more wary of
buying anyone not on my autobuy or secondary list, simply because I don't like
getting a pig in a poke. (Similarly to my book-buying habits -- if it's not
paper back or an autobuy author, or look so really exceedingly fantastic that
I cant' resist it, I am not spending $30 on a hardcover.)
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 28 of 160:
|
Oct 2 04:51 UTC 2002 |
Used CDs are cool. And I don't care about not being hip 'n with it,
either. (Does that mean I'm getting old, or still that my tastes run a
little slow and eclectic?)
|
krj
|
|
response 29 of 160:
|
Oct 2 05:03 UTC 2002 |
Via Slashdot & USA Today: The five major record companies and three large
retailers have agreed to pay $67 million and distribute $75 million
worth of CDs to "public and non-profit groups" to settle the
price fixing suit brought by several states.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2002-09-30-cd-settlement_x.htm
This case involved the MAP policy (Minimum Advertised Price), which
was an attempt to prop up CD specialty retailers who are trying to hang
on against big box stores using CDs as loss leaders.
Quote:
> The companies have not practice the pricing agreement since 2000.
> At that time, they agreed in settling a complaint by the Federal
> Trade Commission that they would refrain from MAP pricing for
> seven years.
>
> Former FTC chairman Robert Pitofsky said at the time
> that consumers had been overcharged by $480 million since 1987
> and that CD prices would soon drop by as much as $5 a CD as a result.
((Huh? There was no such price drop.))
The companies admitted no wrongdoing in the settlement and in another
news story, sources indicated the companies were glad to make the case
go away for so little money. Supposedly that $67 million is going
to be returned to customers. Yeah, we all saved all our CD purchase
receipts from the last five years....
|
mcnally
|
|
response 30 of 160:
|
Oct 2 05:47 UTC 2002 |
I can't find it now, but at least one article I read on the settlement
reported that the $75 million worth of CDs supposed to be donated to
educational and non-profit groups would be if you calculated by full
retail price -- i.e. about $15/CD average. So really, if you figure
it'll maybe cost them a dollar per donated CD (probably less, because
I'm sure they'll find some way to charge it back as a promotional
expense to the artists whose discs they're giving away) that $75M
becomes a lot more like $5M, nearly halving the total cost of the
"$140 million dollar" settlement in real-world dollar terms..
|
mdw
|
|
response 31 of 160:
|
Oct 2 08:11 UTC 2002 |
I can't see any reason why CD's should cost more than paperback books.
The "raw" cost of the CD proper is probably pennies. It's certainly
less than $.20. It's obvious that mass produced CD's are essentially
"free" - how otherwise to explain the drove of CD's companies such as
AOL have delivered to every american household with a postal address.
Clearly a naked CD is cheap enough to be a cereal box giveaway. The
jewel case & artwork of a commercial CD may have cost more than the
actual CD. The royalty due to the artist under most current contracts
is clearly not much more. A few exceptional performers may actually get
rich, but they are just that--exceptions.
Most of the cost of a CD in a store should be the cost of distribution
and marketing. That is not unreasonable; we pay similar fees for food
in stores with no qualms, and welcome being able to get tomatoes grown
in California in winter without the necessity of a plane trip to
negotiate with a farmer for purchase and transportation of fruit on an
individual basis. The real question is what is actually a reasonable
fee for having a CD in a store? In the paperback market, when you buy a
paperback, you aren't actually purchasing just one book, but several --
the ones you didn't buy are the ones that get pulped (curtesy of the
"magazine" model having overtaken the book industry in the 70's), so in
essence you are buying at least $1-$2 worth of paper -- and they still
manage to make a profit at "only" $6.95.
Another completely independent way of coming up with roughly the same
figure is to look at the cost of "naked" software bought in Taiwan. In
this market, untrammelled by any real copyright restrictions, you can
purchase virtually any software title you please for only $5. You
aren't paying anything to microsoft, so the costs you pay are 100%
production and distribution. The major risk (ie, additional cost to you
the consumer) is that the police might stage a raid and seize some
product, but this is low because they usually telephone ahead and warn
the vendors. $5 is close enough to the going rate for paperback books
that I think this is pretty obviously the "right" price. If anything,
this is generous, perhaps the price should be lower.
So this $18 / CD is clearly a ripoff. I found it annoying that in this
recent agreement in which the record companies and distributers did not
admit they had been practicing price fixing, that the corrective actions
agreed to did not include lower prices. Apparently nobody representing
the real injured party, the american consumer, was properly represented
in court.
|
