Democrats say CD prices not the only effect of Parallel Importing
Democrats Web Administrator
Senator Natasha Stott Despoja
Australian Democrats
Consumer Affairs Spokesperson
31 March 1998
DEMOCRATS SAY CD PRICES NOT THE ONLY EFFECT OF PARALLEL IMPORTING
The Australian Democrats believe the much touted fall in CD prices has
not taken into account the potential impacts of parallel importing in
other sections of the artistic and music community, the Australian
Democrats' Consumer Affairs spokesperson, Senator Natasha Stott
Despoja, said today.
See the complete media release
http://www.democrats.org.au/democrats/media/1998/03/204nsd.html
_______________________________________
The Australian Democrats
http://www.democrats.org.au
Michael Warner
On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 23:21:56 GMT, webm...@nospam.democrats.org.au
(Democrats Web Administrator) wrote:
>DEMOCRATS SAY CD PRICES NOT THE ONLY EFFECT OF PARALLEL IMPORTING
>
>The Australian Democrats believe the much touted fall in CD prices has
>not taken into account the potential impacts of parallel importing in
>other sections of the artistic and music community, the Australian
>Democrats' Consumer Affairs spokesperson, Senator Natasha Stott
>Despoja, said today.
What the anti-CD-import lobby don't want you to know is that only a
small fraction of local acts receive any revenue from the
multinational companies whose monopoly is threatened by this move.
And even these royalties are small relative to the cuts that others in
the marketing chain get from each CD.
When a few high-profile bands stage a press conference and claim
to be representing "the industry", that's horseshit. They're only
representing themselves, and providing cheap PR for their mates
at the multinationals.
Phil Tripp
Anthony's analysis of the CD prices issue is spot on and few really do
understand, few in the industry too.
As to the cost of the sales tax, it is 22% officially, reducible to 18%
condiering the booklet as a tax-free printed item in a deal made with the
government in 1966. But that's 18-22% of wholesale price before the
retailer tacks on their profit margin of about 27-30%. So you actually
pay an extra amount which is the retailers profit margin on the tax.
CDs at wholesale are $16-20ish. Eliminiating the sales tax component
would mean that CDs would actually retail at $21-26 max if sales tax were
removed.
I said a while back that the government's campaign to fix the price
problem (which is primarily their sales tax) is like having a cold and
hoping to introduce cancer as the cure. Senator Alston has been proven to
have lied and lied and lied and been misinformed and spouted bullshit. At
least Labor sees the truth and the Democrats did a survey and did their
homework before announcing their policy. The Senate lacks two votes on
this issue and it is kinda up to both Bob Brown and Brian Harradine to
swing this either way. The government wants to do a deal to give
musicians more money to record demos, frankly a waste of band aid
proportions. Why record demos when there really is no reason for local
labels to sign artists.
Ahh, I'm sick of it. It wastes so much time in our industry as we fight
for our rights and try not to have this stupid government disembowel our
industry for the youth vote.
PHIL
--
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
_/ PHIL TRIPP IMMEDIA! SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA _/
_/ Email: tr...@immedia.com.au Home Page http://www.immedia.com.au _/
_/ Mail address: 20 Hordern Street Newtown NSW 2042 AUSTRALIA _/
_/ Phone (02) 9557 7766 FAX:(02) 9557 7788 Mobile (041) 226667 _/
_/ Creators of the Australasian Music Industry Directories and _/
_/ Australian Sports Industry Directory. Home of IMMEDIA! PR _/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
Gordon Newell
Anthony Horan wrote in message
<6fvj74$74j$1...@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net>...
>Senator Natasha Stott Despoja
>Australian Democrats
>Consumer Affairs Spokesperson
>
>DEMOCRATS SAY CD PRICES NOT THE ONLY EFFECT OF PARALLEL IMPORTING
>
[edit]
>Oh, and falling CD prices? I'm with ARIA on this one. The federal
government MUST >remove sales tax on compact discs, in line with other
artistic works.
>- Anthony Horan
Anthony, what is the sales tax rate on CD's? And the wholesale cost of your
average CD? I would guess the Sales Tax would < $2.00. Hardly a major
component of the cost.
Gordon.
Gordon Newell
Phil Tripp wrote in message ...
[edit]
>As to the cost of the sales tax, it is 22% officially, reducible to 18%
>condiering the booklet as a tax-free printed item in a deal made with the
>government in 1966. But that's 18-22% of wholesale price before the
>retailer tacks on their profit margin of about 27-30%. So you actually
>pay an extra amount which is the retailers profit margin on the tax.
>
[edit]
Well the retailers are doing the wrong thing. They should be adding their
markup to the wholesale price (ex tax) and then adding the sales tax
component. So based on 18% for a $16.00 CD it's only $2.88. Compared to the
prices I see out there of nearly $30.00, the retailers are making a wopping
profit.
Regards
Gordon.
marty
> I said a while back that the government's campaign to fix the price
> problem (which is primarily their sales tax) is like having a cold and
> hoping to introduce cancer as the cure. Senator Alston has been proven to
> have lied and lied and lied and been misinformed and spouted bullshit.
he even said himself that this action might not achieved the desired
aims of reducing CD prices...
> At
> least Labor sees the truth and the Democrats did a survey and did their
> homework before announcing their policy. The Senate lacks two votes on
> this issue and it is kinda up to both Bob Brown and Brian Harradine to
> swing this either way. The government wants to do a deal to give
> musicians more money to record demos, frankly a waste of band aid
> proportions. Why record demos when there really is no reason for local
> labels to sign artists.
no after the fact solutions ever seems to work anymore.... (see health
insurance, see nursing homes) they need to treat the cause of the problem
(luxury tax) rather than treat the symptom (high prices)....
> Ahh, I'm sick of it. It wastes so much time in our industry as we fight
> for our rights and try not to have this stupid government disembowel our
> industry for the youth vote.
don't lose heart phil... it is people like you who have a voice and are
listened too that provide the mouthpiece for the little people in this
country like myself...
re: people supporting multinational monopoly smashing...
this legislation is not about breaking monopolies... it is about cd
prices... the government tried to smash the monmopoly ten years ago and
failed but this is not attempt number two....
this legislation will also have little benefit for the consumer....
if you take the cost of the cd in the US (wholesale) then add on transport
costs... then importing tax.... then retailer markup.... you still end
up with something in the 25-30 dollar mark....
later
marty
"I think the whole planet is overrated." John Safran
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personal Site : http://knucklehead.home.ml.org
Radio Show : http://ausmusic.home.ml.org
Webmaster 2NUR FM : http://www.newcastle.edu.au/cwis/ra
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
marty
> Well the retailers are doing the wrong thing. They should be adding their
> markup to the wholesale price (ex tax) and then adding the sales tax
> component. So based on 18% for a $16.00 CD it's only $2.88. Compared to the
> prices I see out there of nearly $30.00, the retailers are making a wopping
> profit.
it doesn't matter really.... because they will look at the market value
of the markup and use a higher percentage on the wholesale (ex tax) price
so that it will be roughly equivalent in dollar value to the percentage
currently used on the wholesale (incld tax) price....
later
=:?
David Clayton
"Anthony Horan" <aho...@altavista.net> contributed the following:
>>DEMOCRATS SAY CD PRICES NOT THE ONLY EFFECT OF PARALLEL IMPORTING=20
>>
>>The Australian Democrats believe the much touted fall in CD prices has
>>not taken into account the potential impacts of parallel importing in
>>other sections of the artistic and music community, the Australian
>>Democrats' Consumer Affairs spokesperson, Senator Natasha Stott
....
>The problem with this legislation, as has been reported extensively, is =
>that it allows for large record store chains to import deleted stock of =
>Australian artists' CDs from the US, Europe or whereever, and then sell =
>them here at a bargain price with no royalties going to the artists that =
>deserve them.
......
What "a crock of Stimpy"!
So an Australian artist who releases product here will have their sales
devastated 12-18 months later when a U.S. company finally deletes the
release over there and "floods the market" here? *RUBBISH*.
As well, if an artist negotiates a lower return of royalties for
overseas release of their product, then does that mean that they are
ripping off the people who buy their product in Australia?
"Problems" my backside, the only "problem" is that the industry fat cats
of the overseas multi-nationals that dominate the industry here will
have some competition from their parent companies.
Regards, David.
---------------
David Clayton, e-mail: dcs...@acslink.aone.net.au
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
"I refuse to short-change the 20th century to only allow it 99 years, the 21st century begins with the year 2001, not 2000.", check this URL for details:
http://riemann.usno.navy.mil/AA/faq/docs/faq2.html
Robert Atkins
On Thu, 02 Apr 1998 05:25:03 GMT, Michael Warner <m...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 23:21:56 GMT, webm...@nospam.democrats.org.au
>(Democrats Web Administrator) wrote:
>
>
I was actually surprised to see in this weeks Drum Media an ad placed by
the "International Managers Forum" against parallel importation, signed
by such names as Glider, ollyanna, silverchair, Skunkhour, Aunt
Jennifer's Tigers, Spiderbait, Even, the Fireballs, Paul McKercher, Big
Heavy Stuff, Eva Trout, Primary, Tumbleweed and Kev Carmody -- and that's
only a few of the names I recognised from the first of three columns.
So what's going on? Have the record companies scared or coerced just
about every band in Australia into believing them, or did they all
independently come to the conclusion that parallel importation is a Bad
Thing?
I just want $20 CDs. I don't care how it happens. If CDs were $20, I'd buy
twice as many of them, most by Australian artists.
Cheers,
--
/**
* @author Robert Atkins, rat...@osix.com.au, www.osix.com.au/~ratkins
* "Robert must learn to sit still." - My kindergarten report
*/
Gordon Newell
Anthony Horan wrote in message
<6g4bdv$f42$1...@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net>...
[edit]
>The only way to reduce CD prices is for the Federal government to remove
the luxury >sales tax on CDs.
>With GST looming around the corner, though, that whole argument may turn
out to be >irrelevant in the long term...
What 'luxury' tax? From a previous message on this thread, I was told the
tax was the standard 22%. And it is not that large a component of the
overall price.
A better way would be for the government to actually get the tax that they
are entitled to. They attempted to get more money by increasing the sales
tax rate from 20% to 22%, it just made sales tax evasion more lucrative for
those that avoid it, harder for those that pay it, and prices more expensive
overall.
I say the sooner we have a GST, the better for everybody.
Regards
Gordon.
David Clayton
"Anthony Horan" <aho...@altavista.net> contributed the following:
>>>The problem with this legislation, as has been reported extensively, =
>is =3D
>>>that it allows for large record store chains to import deleted stock =
>of =3D
>>>Australian artists' CDs from the US, Europe or whereever, and then =
>sell =3D
>>>them here at a bargain price with no royalties going to the artists =
>that =3D
>>>deserve them.
>>......
>>What "a crock of Stimpy"!
>>
>>So an Australian artist who releases product here will have their sales
>>devastated 12-18 months later when a U.S. company finally deletes the
>>release over there and "floods the market" here? *RUBBISH*.
>
>It is certainly not a crock of, well, anything. But it won't be the US =
>companies that deliberately flood the Australian market. Oh no. It'll be =
>the chain retailers in Australia who see a chance to make some quick =
>bucks on cheap import stock. I won't mention names, but you know who =
>they are, and you know they wouldn't think twice about doing it.=20
>
Where are they going to get them from?
As I said, overseas releases of Australian Artists are generally made
months, if not years, after the release in this country. How is
importing leftovers then going to affect a stale release here?
>I have spent some time in the past working in record retail chain =
>stores. Believe me, whatever it is they care about, the last thing on =
>their list is the music.
>
Really?, and the record companies in this country are much different?,
not to most of the artists I listen to.
>>As well, if an artist negotiates a lower return of royalties for
>>overseas release of their product, then does that mean that they are
>>ripping off the people who buy their product in Australia?
>
>Absolutely not. And a lower royalty return for overseas sales is =
>virtually a standard part of any contract, unless you're powerful or =
>famous enough to be able to negotiate around it. New artists don't have =
>that kind of negotiating power. But this is a whole other issue.
>
>The lower royalty rate for overseas is supposed (!) to be due to the =
>costs of administering and collecting money in a foreign territory and =
>then transferring it here, minus taxes etc. I'm no accountant. But =
>remember, no matter what part of the world an artist's CD sells in, if =
>it's "remaindered" or deleted stock - or leftover promo copies - that =
>are being sold, the artist gets NO ROYALTY AT ALL. This is another =
>common part of contracts offered to artists by record companies.
>
So the "standard" contract that is in use now means that we have to keep
the status quo does it?.
If the environment changes then the artists should have enough nouse to
change that aspect as well.
>>"Problems" my backside, the only "problem" is that the industry fat =
>cats
>>of the overseas multi-nationals that dominate the industry here will
>>have some competition from their parent companies.
>
>Talked to a musician lately?
>
Which ones, the "established" mainstream acts who want to sell in the
overseas markets because they've got all they can out of this country or
an independent band who can't get a break because they don't fit the
mold that the multi nationals want?
>They don't *care* about competition from their parent companies. They =
>probably welcome it. I'm sure there are company bosses here in Australia =
>who'd like nothing more than not to have to sign those pesky Australian =
>artists, but rather sit back and watch the profits roll in from their =
>parent companies' artists, while the Australian end of the company just =
>yawns as they reprint overseas press and publicity material and fawn =
>over the artist as though they were the new Jesus when they deign to pop =
>over here for a $120-per-seat concert tour.
>
Most sales from these compainies in Australia are not from Australian
artists, it's from overseas product that their parent compaines have
instructed them to push in this market.
With few exceptions, the local artists which have product released here
"enjoy" that opportunity because the record company here can make money
out of this market, and any overseas sales are a bonus.
>As I said in my original post, it's not the record companies that need =
>protecting with this issue, far from it. It's the Australian artists, =
>the people that make the music, that need protecting.
>
>Just the other night, a well-known musician said to me, in response to =
>my telling them that I liked their new album and that I would be sure to =
>give it a review, "Ah, who cares? It's only bloody Australia. If I stay =
>here, I'll go broke."=20
>
Well that's with the current situation, I thought your arguments to keep
it were supposed to protect people like this "well-known musician".
......
Robert Atkins
On Fri, 3 Apr 1998 10:50:25 +1000, Gordon Newell <cha...@quantum.net.au> wrote:
>Phil Tripp wrote in message ...
>component. So based on 18% for a $16.00 CD it's only $2.88. Compared to the
>prices I see out there of nearly $30.00, the retailers are making a wopping
>profit.
IMHO this whole sales tax thing is more bullshit. "If you really wanted
CDs to be cheaper you'd remove the sales tax", says ARIA, et al. They
could remove the sales tax on computer hardware too, if they wanted us to
be the clever country.
In the wash up at the end of the day, even if parallel importation does
allow CDs to be sold cheaper, it'll only be Celeine Dion and Whacko
fucking Jacko, and greedy retailers will pocket the extra margin anyway.
The poor muso will still get fuck all royalties and the record companies
will use parallel importation as an excuse for not signing any more local
bands.
Meanwhile, the people who care about music will still work their arses
off to get CDs burnt and distributed, they'll do it over the net, and the
people who care about listening to music will get credit cards and
browsers that support SSL. It was about time for a revolution, anyway.
J Pettifer 3030552
In article <slrn6i9kt5....@arnie.osix.com.au>, Robert Atkins wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Apr 1998 05:25:03 GMT, Michael Warner <m...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 23:21:56 GMT, webm...@nospam.democrats.org.au
>>(Democrats Web Administrator) wrote:
>>
>>>DEMOCRATS SAY CD PRICES NOT THE ONLY EFFECT OF PARALLEL IMPORTING
>>
>>When a few high-profile bands stage a press conference and claim
>
>I was actually surprised to see in this weeks Drum Media an ad placed by
>the "International Managers Forum" against parallel importation, signed
>by such names as Glider, ollyanna, silverchair, Skunkhour, Aunt
>Jennifer's Tigers, Spiderbait, Even, the Fireballs, Paul McKercher, Big
>Heavy Stuff, Eva Trout, Primary, Tumbleweed and Kev Carmody -- and that's
>only a few of the names I recognised from the first of three columns.
>
>So what's going on? Have the record companies scared or coerced just
>about every band in Australia into believing them, or did they all
>independently come to the conclusion that parallel importation is a Bad
>Thing?
>
>I just want $20 CDs. I don't care how it happens. If CDs were $20, I'd buy
>twice as many of them, most by Australian artists.
>
Warhead
Deletions of Australian music flooding back into Australia is the price you
pay for bad management, we wouldn't want Australian deletions flooding back
anywhere. The fact is that if an artist is overhyped and they end up in the
dumping bin then that's just bad management of the artist by the record
company. Are we really saying that we should protect bad managers? What
about developing some skills? The fact is parallel imports is just that -
imports, it has little or nothing to do with Australian product. The reason
there is so much fuss being made is because the elite of the music industry
have finally been hit where it hurts - their precious imports! They don't
give a damn about the Australian artsists at all and are just using them as
shields to cover their incompetency and vested interests because all they
know how to do is manufacture Garth Brooks until we puke, they know nothing
about skill and talent and believe they can just buy everything.
Phil Tripp
In article <35289...@blue.hermes.net.au>, "Pinhead"
<war...@hermes.net.au> wrote:
> Deletions of Australian music flooding back into Australia is the price you
> pay for bad management, we wouldn't want Australian deletions flooding back
> anywhere.
Your reference to bad management is spurious at best.
> The fact is that if an artist is overhyped
It's not called overhyping. The record company has to produce a certain
amount of product and if it is returned for whatever reason, you can't say
it was overhyped. Certainly undersold, but who are you to lump all
Australia artist releases overseas into all being overhyped. Stupid at
best.
and they end up in the
> dumping bin then that's just bad management of the artist by the record
> company.
So I guess Brad that you have never made too many records on an artist and
have perfect judgement? When you are servicing a nation of 250 million
people and the hit ratio is 10%, what choice do you make--use the economy
of scale for production or just wait until you get an order to make one.
> Are we really saying that we should protect bad managers?
No Brad, what we're saying is why induce cancer as the cure for a cold?
Why gut the copyright laws for the sake of an economic experiment that has
never worked or been proven anywhere else?
What
> about developing some skills?
What about it? What skills? Who should do this? What should the program
be? You spout this like you are some learned educator who has the key to
enlightenment? Please expand on this?? You must have some ideas beyond
this one sentence. And by the way... who pays? Or do you expect this to
be some gift from somewhere?
The fact is parallel imports is just that -
> imports, it has little or nothing to do with Australian product.
True, but you don't kill a law that covers so many other things just to
ease imports.
The reason
> there is so much fuss being made is because the elite of the music industry
> have finally been hit where it hurts - their precious imports!
I wouldn't call myself elite nor the thousands of voices and hundreds of
submissions the government received in objection to this. Brad, there are
a LOT of people who think this campaign is smoke and mirrors. I'm sorry
that you seem to have put on your puppet strings for this and are spouting
the party line with little sense or reason behind it. It's sounds more
like someone who is bitter at being a failure and wants to blame and then
hurt the multinationals that you seem to believe cause all the problems in
the industry.
They don't
> give a damn about the Australian artsists at all and are just using them as
> shields to cover their incompetency and vested interests because all they
> know how to do is manufacture Garth Brooks until we puke,
Well, I'm not a Garth Brooks fan but should they be shot because he sells?
By the way, Garth is the talent who drives the record company and not the
other way around. If you take the time to actually look into what Brooks
has done to EMI and Capitol, you might get some inspiration from his
business nouse rather than just condemning his music because about 10
million people buy it regularly.
>they know nothing
> about skill and talent and believe they can just buy everything.
It is fitting that you end this diatribe with the sort of senseless
statement that shows your ignorance and desperation as well as your
vitriol. I suggest you rename your label Pinhead rather than Warhead. In
the case of the latter, it would be deemed 'assault with a dead weapon'.
Cheerfully
PHIL TRIPP
David Clayton
tr...@immedia.com.au (Phil Tripp) contributed the following:
>In article <35289...@blue.hermes.net.au>, "Pinhead"
><war...@hermes.net.au> wrote:
>
>> Deletions of Australian music flooding back into Australia is the price you
>> pay for bad management, we wouldn't want Australian deletions flooding back
>> anywhere.
>
>Your reference to bad management is spurious at best.
>
>> The fact is that if an artist is overhyped
>
>It's not called overhyping. The record company has to produce a certain
>amount of product and if it is returned for whatever reason, you can't say
>it was overhyped. Certainly undersold, but who are you to lump all
>Australia artist releases overseas into all being overhyped. Stupid at
>best.
>
Some possible scenario's in the near future:
US record company exec #1: "Hey, we've got 10,000 Tina Arena C.D.'s we
can't get rid of here, let's ship 'em back to Australia"
US record company exec #2: "You idiot, that was released in Australia a
year ago, who do you think's going to buy these things?. Keep up that
thinking and you'll get transferred down there and you may have to
actually work for a living".
------------
US record company exec #1: "Hey, we've got 1,000 Paul Kelly C.D.'s we
can't get rid of here, let's ship 'em back to Australia"
US record company exec #2: "You dork, that was released in Australia two
years ago, it won't be worth the freight costs. Pick up your ticket
tomorrow".
------------
Counter arguments welcome.
Paul McGarry
>Some possible scenario's in the near future:
>
>US record company exec #1: "Hey, we've got 10,000 Tina Arena C.D.'s we
>can't get rid of here, let's ship 'em back to Australia"
>
>US record company exec #2: "You idiot, that was released in Australia a
>year ago, who do you think's going to buy these things?. Keep up that
>thinking and you'll get transferred down there and you may have to
>actually work for a living".
>------------
>US record company exec #1: "Hey, we've got 1,000 Paul Kelly C.D.'s we
>can't get rid of here, let's ship 'em back to Australia"
>
>US record company exec #2: "You dork, that was released in Australia two
>years ago, it won't be worth the freight costs. Pick up your ticket
>tomorrow".
>------------
>Counter arguments welcome.
In general if you have an excess of product that needs dumping, you
tend to dump it as far as possible from your own market, so as not to
affect prices in your own market. Australia seems perfectly situated
for this.
Paul McGarry
http://homepages.tig.com.au/~mcgarry/paul/chunder.htm
http://www.nott.ac.uk/~ecylpmg/chunder.htm
The Great Chunder Page: Dedicated to the alcohol induced chunder
marty
> Some possible scenario's in the near future:
>
> US record company exec #1: "Hey, we've got 10,000 Tina Arena C.D.'s we
> can't get rid of here, let's ship 'em back to Australia"
>
> US record company exec #2: "You idiot, that was released in Australia a
> year ago, who do you think's going to buy these things?. Keep up that
> thinking and you'll get transferred down there and you may have to
> actually work for a living".
> ------------
> US record company exec #1: "Hey, we've got 1,000 Paul Kelly C.D.'s we
> can't get rid of here, let's ship 'em back to Australia"
>
> US record company exec #2: "You dork, that was released in Australia two
> years ago, it won't be worth the freight costs. Pick up your ticket
> tomorrow".
> ------------
>
> Counter arguments welcome.
Aus Record Company PR : "hey we've got this great new australian band and
their cd is coming out."
Record Shop Owner : "Sorry mate. Haven't got time to talk. Just got a
shipment of Mariah Carey/Celine Dion/Garth Brooks in from the USA and i
need to unpack it."
_________________
Rod Pinna
In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.980408...@alinga.newcastle.edu.au>, marty <c970...@alinga.newcastle.edu.au> wrote:
>Aus Record Company PR : "hey we've got this great new australian band and
>their cd is coming out."
>
>Record Shop Owner : "Sorry mate. Haven't got time to talk. Just got a
>shipment of Mariah Carey/Celine Dion/Garth Brooks in from the USA and i
>need to unpack it."
>
The problem with this arguement seems to me that it treats music
simply as another commodity. Might I suggest that for most people
a Carey/Dion/Brooks cd is not interchangable with, say, a
Jebidiah (sp? why the hell didn't they chose an easier name to
spell?) cd.
Music producers need product to sell. If they could get away with
selling only, for example, MOR ballady crap they would already be
doing it. As far as I can see, companies will only promote
Australian music is it will sell. I don't see how changing the
import laws will effect that.
Rod Pinna
(rpi...@XcivilX.uwa.edu.au Remove the X for email)
marty
i don't think i made myself quite clear with that one... :(
> The problem with this arguement seems to me that it treats music
> simply as another commodity. Might I suggest that for most people
> a Carey/Dion/Brooks cd is not interchangable with, say, a
> Jebidiah (sp? why the hell didn't they chose an easier name to
> spell?) cd.
but the point i was trying to make is that people are motivated by pricing
and if australian made cds are prohibitvely expensive (eg still $30) and
the importedstuff is cheap ($20-$25) then the imports will sell better and
become a priority for the shop owner.... it doesn't matter if someone
WANTS to buy jebediah if they CAN'T afford to....
> Music producers need product to sell. If they could get away with
> selling only, for example, MOR ballady crap they would already be
> doing it. As far as I can see, companies will only promote
> Australian music is it will sell. I don't see how changing the
> import laws will effect that.
it won't....
tax reform is the only solution to provide guarenteed reductions in cd
prices...
Rod Pinna
In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.980408...@alinga.newcastle.edu.au>, marty <c970...@alinga.newcastle.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> The problem with this arguement seems to me that it treats music
>> simply as another commodity. Might I suggest that for most people
>> a Carey/Dion/Brooks cd is not interchangable with, say, a
>> Jebidiah (sp? why the hell didn't they chose an easier name to
>> spell?) cd.
>
>but the point i was trying to make is that people are motivated by pricing
>and if australian made cds are prohibitvely expensive (eg still $30) and
>the importedstuff is cheap ($20-$25) then the imports will sell better and
>become a priority for the shop owner.... it doesn't matter if someone
>WANTS to buy jebediah if they CAN'T afford to....
>
CDs. $30 dollars is simply too expensive. On the other hand, if
crap music was $20, or even $10, I still wouldn't buy it.
If the local music market needs protection, then I don't see why
the current restrictions are appropriate. Why not the usual for
of tariff protection. At least that way there can be an explicit
subsidy to record companies to promote Australian music. At the
moment, it seems the arguement is that they use the extra profits
they are making due to import restrictions to promote Australian
music. Is there actually any evidence that they do promote
Australian music because of this subsidy?
marty
> I'm still not convinced. At the moment, I can't afford to buy new
> CDs. $30 dollars is simply too expensive. On the other hand, if
> crap music was $20, or even $10, I still wouldn't buy it.
again, not the point i was trying to make... would you be more inclined
to purchase something you want if it is cheaper...??
the stock answer is yes.... people would be more inclined to purchase
cd's they actually want if they are cheaper per unit...
> If the local music market needs protection, then I don't see why
> the current restrictions are appropriate. Why not the usual for
> of tariff protection. At least that way there can be an explicit
> subsidy to record companies to promote Australian music. At the
> moment, it seems the arguement is that they use the extra profits
> they are making due to import restrictions to promote Australian
> music. Is there actually any evidence that they do promote
> Australian music because of this subsidy?
i think tariffs are a backwards step in relation to allowing reasonable
trade of goods... eg. if something isn't available in aus at all then why
should someone be slugged for getting it from OS....
your right that there is no externally applied incentive for investment in
australian music...
but that is tangental to the central arguement of pricing.... only tax
reform will provide a concrete solution...
Rod Pinna
In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.980408...@alinga.newcastle.edu.au>, marty <c970...@alinga.newcastle.edu.au> wrote:
>i think tariffs are a backwards step in relation to allowing reasonable
>trade of goods... eg. if something isn't available in aus at all then why
>should someone be slugged for getting it from OS....
If the idea is to protect, that is subsidise, the production of
Australian music, then I think it is entirely reasonable that all
music produce brought into the country should ad to that subsidy.
If the protest against lifting the restrictions on parallel
imports ins't about "protecting Australian music" then what is it
about?
(BTW I see the idea of a subsidy being broader than just a direct
subsidy).
>
>your right that there is no externally applied incentive for investment in
>australian music...
No, the incentive is that the music industry needs product. If we
assume that music is an art form, then there can be only so much
worthwhile music produced in the world. Therefore, record
companies will need to go after it wherever it is.
>
>but that is tangental to the central arguement of pricing.... only tax
>reform will provide a concrete solution...
>
In what sense? Tax reform might, but I don;t see why it should be
the only way. If parallel imports are causing an increase in
price, then why shouldn't lifting this result in a lower price?
marty
> If the idea is to protect, that is subsidise, the production of
> Australian music, then I think it is entirely reasonable that all
> music produce brought into the country should ad to that subsidy.
> If the protest against lifting the restrictions on parallel
> imports ins't about "protecting Australian music" then what is it
> about?
the arguement is that it won't fix the problem of high cd prices (Alston
himself admitted it might backfire)
i don't agree with all the claims of ARIA etc... about what devastating
impact it will have on aus music... i am thinking more of related
industries that might be disadvantaged by a lack of cd production in
aus.....
but as phil tripp says "why induce cancer to cure a cold"
the aim is to lower cd prices.... tax reform specifically relates to
pricing... parallel importing has too many complications/side effects
> (BTW I see the idea of a subsidy being broader than just a direct
> subsidy).
interesting... would you mind elaborating??
> No, the incentive is that the music industry needs product. If we
> assume that music is an art form, then there can be only so much
> worthwhile music produced in the world. Therefore, record
> companies will need to go after it wherever it is.
that is thinking about it the wrong way.... music is not a finite
resource... people will continue to create music and bring new
personality to it....
> >but that is tangental to the central arguement of pricing.... only tax
> >reform will provide a concrete solution...
> >
> In what sense? Tax reform might, but I don;t see why it should be
> the only way. If parallel imports are causing an increase in
> price, then why shouldn't lifting this result in a lower price?
tax reform WILL provide a solution to high cd prices...
removing or revising the 22%(18%) sales tax would provide an instant and
noticeable reduction in cd prices....
there might be other possibilites... but there is too many
ifs/buts/maybes that the government should steer clear of them..
and that includes lifting import restrictions....
Rod Pinna
In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.980408...@alinga.newcastle.edu.au>, marty <c970...@alinga.newcastle.edu.au> wrote:
>the arguement is that it won't fix the problem of high cd prices (Alston
>himself admitted it might backfire)
Possibly true. Actually, going by the way record companies act,
probably likely :)
>
>i don't agree with all the claims of ARIA etc... about what devastating
>impact it will have on aus music... i am thinking more of related
>industries that might be disadvantaged by a lack of cd production in
>aus.....
Which is a fair enough point. Though I do wonder...if record
companies could produce CDs cheaper overall elsewhere, wouldn't
they be doing it now? What, for example, stops say EMI,
manufactoring and importing from Asia? How would removing
parallel imports suddenly make it more profitable for them to do
it?
>> (BTW I see the idea of a subsidy being broader than just a direct
>> subsidy).
>
>interesting... would you mind elaborating??
OK. I put that in in case somebody wanted to pop up and say that
parallel imports aren't a subsidy. The current system is not a
direct subsidy, but if it means that the record companies are
able to produce CDs here when otherwise they couldn't, then it
is, as far as I can see an effective subsidy. That is, if the
system means consumers are paying a higher price than they
otherwise would, they are subsidising the record companies.
>
>> No, the incentive is that the music industry needs product. If we
>> assume that music is an art form, then there can be only so much
>> worthwhile music produced in the world. Therefore, record
>> companies will need to go after it wherever it is.
>
>that is thinking about it the wrong way.... music is not a finite
>resource... people will continue to create music and bring new
>personality to it....
No, but at any given time there is only a finite amount of music
that can be produced, as there is a limited number of people who
have the artisitic talent to do it. That's why I don't really
see much substance in the ARIA claim that if parallel imports
come in, Australian performers will disappear. Record companies
will still need to develope "talent" and at any given time there
are only so many people able to fulfill that requirement.
Basically, if record companies didn't need to promote Australian
artists, I don't see why they would be doing now.
But I agree that there may well be other reasons for supporting
parallel imports.
[snip comment about tax reform]
>> In what sense? Tax reform might, but I don;t see why it should be
>> the only way. If parallel imports are causing an increase in
>> price, then why shouldn't lifting this result in a lower price?
>
>tax reform WILL provide a solution to high cd prices...
>removing or revising the 22%(18%) sales tax would provide an instant and
>noticeable reduction in cd prices....
Well, yeah, but that can be said for any product at all. That is
essentially are case for removing all taxation, which is fine if
you recognise that there would then need to be either an increase
in direct tax, or a reduction in services. Or else, you need to
make a case as to why music (or art in general) should not be
taxed while other goods should.
>
>there might be other possibilites... but there is too many
>ifs/buts/maybes that the government should steer clear of them..
>and that includes lifting import restrictions....
>
Well, as an example, on ABC FM the other day, the annoucer was
talking about a new CD that was available. He warned people to
shop around for it, as the price varied from $15 to $30. He said
this was a result of where the shop imported the CD from. Some
were importing from Germany, while others were importing from the
UK.
Now, in that case, wouldn't the artists involved still get the
same amount of money, regardless of where the store purchase the
CD from originally?
David Clayton
marty <c970...@alinga.newcastle.edu.au> contributed the following:
>> I'm still not convinced. At the moment, I can't afford to buy new
>> CDs. $30 dollars is simply too expensive. On the other hand, if
>> crap music was $20, or even $10, I still wouldn't buy it.
>
>again, not the point i was trying to make... would you be more inclined
>to purchase something you want if it is cheaper...??
>
>the stock answer is yes.... people would be more inclined to purchase
>cd's they actually want if they are cheaper per unit...
>
No it isn't, the shops currently are full of $12-$14-$16 old release
product, but people still shell out $30 for a new release.
If your argument held any water, there wouldn't be a new release sold at
all.
>> If the local music market needs protection, then I don't see why
>> the current restrictions are appropriate. Why not the usual for
>> of tariff protection. At least that way there can be an explicit
>> subsidy to record companies to promote Australian music. At the
>> moment, it seems the arguement is that they use the extra profits
>> they are making due to import restrictions to promote Australian
>> music. Is there actually any evidence that they do promote
>> Australian music because of this subsidy?
>
>i think tariffs are a backwards step in relation to allowing reasonable
>trade of goods... eg. if something isn't available in aus at all then why
>should someone be slugged for getting it from OS....
>
>your right that there is no externally applied incentive for investment in
>australian music...
>
>but that is tangental to the central arguement of pricing.... only tax
>reform will provide a concrete solution...
>
The ACCC came out years ago saying the restrictions should be lifted,
the Labor government of the time jibbed out, probably for the same
narrow vision populist reasons the Democrats seem to be using at the
moment.
A significant section of the music "industry", i.e. the ones without
their snouts deep in the current trough and without the lobbying clout
of the fat cats, want the changes. The ones that want to keep it are the
ones currently making the greatest amounts of money, and with all
monopolies you have to examine their arguments very, very carefully.
I believe that most of their arguments are absolute garbage, and I hope
that time proves this correct because just about all will benefit -
(except of course those in the industry who can't adapt to the new
environment).
The legislation has been passed, let's see what happens.
marty
> Which is a fair enough point. Though I do wonder...if record
> companies could produce CDs cheaper overall elsewhere, wouldn't
> they be doing it now? What, for example, stops say EMI,
> manufactoring and importing from Asia? How would removing
> parallel imports suddenly make it more profitable for them to do
> it?
:) i am not sure... anyone a trade law expert??
> OK. I put that in in case somebody wanted to pop up and say that
> parallel imports aren't a subsidy. The current system is not a
> direct subsidy, but if it means that the record companies are
> able to produce CDs here when otherwise they couldn't, then it
> is, as far as I can see an effective subsidy. That is, if the
> system means consumers are paying a higher price than they
> otherwise would, they are subsidising the record companies.
how true... by paying higher prices we encourage the survival of any
record company... not just the ones who earn it...
> No, but at any given time there is only a finite amount of music
> that can be produced, as there is a limited number of people who
> have the artisitic talent to do it. That's why I don't really
> see much substance in the ARIA claim that if parallel imports
> come in, Australian performers will disappear. Record companies
> will still need to develope "talent" and at any given time there
> are only so many people able to fulfill that requirement.
> Basically, if record companies didn't need to promote Australian
> artists, I don't see why they would be doing now.
but surely the pool of available talent at any given moment is greater
than all the record companies could (or would want) to get a hold of....
> Well, yeah, but that can be said for any product at all. That is
> essentially are case for removing all taxation, which is fine if
> you recognise that there would then need to be either an increase
> in direct tax, or a reduction in services. Or else, you need to
> make a case as to why music (or art in general) should not be
> taxed while other goods should.
but cds are taxed at a 'luxury' rate.... equivalent entertainment items
like books, videos are taxed at more regular rates (about 5-10%)
again i remember researching this last time this thread went through, but
my memory has failed me since... :)
> Now, in that case, wouldn't the artists involved still get the
> same amount of money, regardless of where the store purchase the
> CD from originally?
no, because they must negotiate for release in each market....
so unless they negotiate to the same contract (highly unlikely) then their
royalty take for each market will be different...
eg: an aus band wanting US release often has to take a slightly less cut
of the royalties in order to secure the record deal...
Rod Pinna
In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.980410...@alinga.newcastle.edu.au>, marty <c970...@alinga.newcastle.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> No, but at any given time there is only a finite amount of music
>> that can be produced, as there is a limited number of people who
>> have the artisitic talent to do it. That's why I don't really
>> see much substance in the ARIA claim that if parallel imports
>> come in, Australian performers will disappear. Record companies
>> will still need to develope "talent" and at any given time there
>> are only so many people able to fulfill that requirement.
>> Basically, if record companies didn't need to promote Australian
>> artists, I don't see why they would be doing now.
>
>but surely the pool of available talent at any given moment is greater
>than all the record companies could (or would want) to get a hold of....
I don't know about that. Sure, there are a lot of passably good
bands and performers, and even more people who want to be.
However, the number of people who, at any given time, can produce
music that is either saleable, or has artisitic merit (hopefully
the same thing...) would, I think, be fairly small.
>
>but cds are taxed at a 'luxury' rate.... equivalent entertainment items
>like books, videos are taxed at more regular rates (about 5-10%)
>
>again i remember researching this last time this thread went through, but
>my memory has failed me since... :)
OK. Missed the point you were making in this case. I would agree
that I can't see a reason for the difference, and that they
should be reduced to the same level.
>eg: an aus band wanting US release often has to take a slightly less cut
>of the royalties in order to secure the record deal...
But ins't that independent of where the CD is produced? Or do
parallel imports count as being sold in the place of manufactor.
If the later, then I can see that there might be some impact.
marty
> I don't know about that. Sure, there are a lot of passably good
> bands and performers, and even more people who want to be.
> However, the number of people who, at any given time, can produce
> music that is either saleable, or has artisitic merit (hopefully
> the same thing...) would, I think, be fairly small.
> But ins't that independent of where the CD is produced? Or do
> parallel imports count as being sold in the place of manufactor.
> If the later, then I can see that there might be some impact.
nup.... the royalties are calculated in the location of manufacture...
because your money goes to the shop owner who then pays the distributor
(in the US/OS for imports) who then pays the record company who then pay
the band (eventually) so the sale appears to have been made in the country
of the distributor...
ke...@mail.austasia.net
One of the favorite lies put out by the benevolent industry lobby ARIA is the
sales tax in Australia is some thing like $6.00 per CD. The sales tax is
actually 22% of the WHOLESALE price which equates to about $2 to $4 (more
llikely lower). The other bit of nonsense they like to perpetuate is that
they are protecting the artists interests. How many artists in Australia
actually own copyright in their recordings? Close to zero I'll bet.
It's about time the fascist big six multinational were put in their proper
place and the Australian consumer was given a fair shake. If the industry
must be subsidised, then let that subsidy be made explicit by the Government,
through the budget, so that it is up front and everyone knows what we are
paying to keep the local industry afloat. At the moment we have no way of
knowing.
And don't even mention the profit levels of the local recording industry
since we all know(or we should) what it is possible to do via transfer
pricing (creative accounting)
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading