response 93 of 160:

Nov 11 22:53 UTC 2002

Gotta give him credit for chutzpah.

response 95 of 160:

Nov 14 01:18 UTC 2002

What a great strategy.  That'll certainly increase CD sales.

Huh?

response 97 of 160:

Nov 16 06:53 UTC 2002

It seems that Roxio, the CD burner software maker, is going to buy
the assets of Napster for $5 million.  As I expected, this is 
substantially less than the $8 million offered by BMG; the bankruptcy
court was convinced to rule that the BMG offer was a sweetheart
deal which wasn't maximizing value for the creditors. 

(I argue that the record companies, which made this argument in their
role as holders of damage awards against Napster, didn't care that 
they were going to get less money in the bankruptcy: instead, 
the record companies were trying to screw the other creditors, 
mostly Napster's lawyers, as much as possible.  This seems to me to 
be a serious perversion of the bankruptcy laws; the rejection of
the BMG offer by the court was supposed to lead to *better* offers.)  

http://news.com.com/2100-1023-965960.html?tag=lh
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/23/28126.html

-----

Followup on resp:89, on the report of a study claiming a sharp decline
in the Internet CD ordering business.  The first reports claimed 
a 25% decline in sales for the first three quarters of 2002, relative
to the same period in 2001.  The NY Times had a story which was even
more alarmist: a 39% decline for the third quarter, relative to 
2001, and the base period in 2001 includes the weeks after the 
September 11 attacks, when US entertainment spending dried up 
for a few weeks.

But the bottom of the Times report was taken up with reports by Amazon, the 
dominant  online CD retailer, and from CD Universe (#5 in the field, I think)
saying that their sales were doing just fine.  This doesn't make sense:
if sales are down 25-39%, we should see online retailers folding; 
we shouldn't see reports of sales holding steady.

So I'm suspecting the study reporting such a sharp sales decline online
is bogus.

response 99 of 160:

Nov 17 04:18 UTC 2002

I dunno. I buy CDs online from small retailers more than not. But then I like
to buy odd and obscure stuff when I get music -- folk music, from other
countries, that's not available on Amazon. I haven't gotten that much bought
music this year -- and most of that has been at a brick-and-mortar store, or
from the artist directly, though. (OhMIGawd, I just figured it out. It's all
my fault! I'm the reason they think all the sales are declining! I haven't
been out there spending money on CDs so the slump is all my fault! I must go
hang my head in shame now.)

response 101 of 160:

Nov 18 15:33 UTC 2002

I rarely buy new CDs from "brick and mortar" stores, these days.  They
rarely seem to have what I want in stock, and if I have to special-order
I might as well cut out the middle man and go straight to Amazon or
CDNOW.  When I go to a record store these days, it's usually to buy used
CDs.

response 103 of 160:

Nov 18 20:20 UTC 2002

gulag

response 105 of 160:

Nov 18 21:13 UTC 2002

I don't buy lps, although I do own quite a few. I also don't buy cassettes
any more, although I do have several machines that can and do play them. I
have probably several hundred of each in the house, and then there are the
CDs. I don't think I actually *need* to get any more music, but I certainly
want to get more!

response 107 of 160:

Nov 22 19:44 UTC 2002

Cnet reports that RIAA is seeking contempt sanctions against the file
trading service Madster, the former Aimster, for failing to shut down
the trading of copyrighted files in compliance with a preliminary 
injunction.    The owner of Madster was claiming,
IIRC (it's not in this story) that the system was so decentralized
that it could not be shut off.  I don't know the details of its architecture;
somehow it is piggybacked on AOL Instant Messenger.

More file trading court dates coming up in the next two weeks.

http://news.com.com/2100-1023-966800.html?tag=lh

response 109 of 160:

Nov 24 13:04 UTC 2002

Having a hard time reading past the title?

response 111 of 160:

Dec 5 15:18 UTC 2002

Couldnt someone just walk into any old WalMart store for information on 
their sale prices? It isnt like they go out of their way to keep their 
prices a secret. 

response 113 of 160:

Dec 5 16:42 UTC 2002

  If this is the same case I heard an NPR piece on the other day, I got the
  impression that the merchants were angry because their upcoming promotions
  were being leaked and posted on the site in advance of their official
  announcements.  If that's the case, then no, the same information wouldn't
  be available to someone walking into any old WalMart store..

  It's still unclear to me that the merchants have any course of action
  against FatWallet.  Against their own employees who are leaking competitive
  information, sure, but not necessarily against the third party reporting
  that information.

response 115 of 160:

Dec 5 17:31 UTC 2002

  It might come under the category of "trade secret" (in fact, probably does)
  but the DMCA does not, as far as I know, protect trade secrets.

response 117 of 160:

Dec 5 22:05 UTC 2002

FatWallet is now countersuing under the DMCA.  (It inlcudes a clause
saying it can't be used for spurious/harassing claims)