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
Kent Duston
Democrats Web Administrator wrote in message
<3522cbb4....@news.uq.edu.au>...
>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.
Oh please! How about a little bit of intellectual rigor on the subject!
Here's a statement from the press release:
"This was a very complex and difficult decision because it was about
balancing the interests of our Australian artists against the need to
exploit that creativity for commercial purposes, including providing
Australians with cheap CDs," said Senator Stott Despoja.
"All Australians want cheaper CDs, but they also want to support existing
local artists."
I'm sorry? Since when do I want to support existing local artists? I don't
recall any referendum on the issue, and as far as I'm concerned my support
of anyone's artistic community begins and ends with the CD purchase.
It seems the Democrats have the view that higher CD prices amount to a
de-facto subsidy of the Australian music industry, courtesy of the consumer.
Sounds like a monumentally stupid idea to me. If you want to tax me to
support local musicians, at least do it in an open and honest manner --
don't hide a subsidy behind unnecessarily high retail prices.
Cheers .............. Kent
Billy Shields
Kent Duston <kduston@nospamthanks@solution6.com.au> wrote:
: Democrats Web Administrator wrote in message
: <3522cbb4....@news.uq.edu.au>...
:>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.
: Oh please! How about a little bit of intellectual rigor on the subject!
: Here's a statement from the press release:
: "This was a very complex and difficult decision because it was about
: balancing the interests of our Australian artists against the need to
: exploit that creativity for commercial purposes, including providing
: Australians with cheap CDs," said Senator Stott Despoja.
: "All Australians want cheaper CDs, but they also want to support existing
: local artists."
: I'm sorry? Since when do I want to support existing local artists? I don't
: recall any referendum on the issue, and as far as I'm concerned my support
: of anyone's artistic community begins and ends with the CD purchase.
Amen! If those artists aren't commercially viable through CD sales
then too bad. Personally I have my doubts about this line used by
the recorded music industry. As it is they have a monopoly and can
charge whatever they like. Sounds like they'd do anything to
protect that sweet deal.
What exactly is meant by "supporting local artists" anyway? They
get money from each CD sold. What more do they need? What more
(if anything) do they actually get?
: It seems the Democrats have the view that higher CD prices amount to a
: de-facto subsidy of the Australian music industry, courtesy of the consumer.
: Sounds like a monumentally stupid idea to me. If you want to tax me to
: support local musicians, at least do it in an open and honest manner --
: don't hide a subsidy behind unnecessarily high retail prices.
Agreed.
I used to look upon the Democrats as some sort of voice of reason
between the endless, insubstantial bickering between the ALP and
the Coalition. Now I'm starting to think they're of no substance
and all and just seem to support idiotic (but politically correct)
policies without any real thought whatsoever.
I guess my preferences will look different next election. :-)
Billy
Dave Garner
webm...@nospam.democrats.org.au (Democrats Web Administrator) writes:
>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.
Well, that's really STUNNING stuff there.
CDs are overpriced. In bulk they cost about $3.50 a unit to produce,
cover art printing included. The Artist (other than mega-names)
gets about $2-$3 a unit if they're lucky. That's $6.50 so far.
The rest is glommed by money hungry record companys, who for
the remaining $20+ dollars a unit send a few copies around
radio stations (if you're lucky), print a few posters (if you're
lucky), and freight a few boxes of them around the country.
This is why most savvy artists these days produce their OWN CDs,
sell them for $10-$15 a unit at gigs or mail order via web/magazine
advertising, and make 2 or 3 times the money per unit they'd get
from a "reputable record company".
Yes, someone is going to have to pay for record exec's Porsches,
but why should it be the artist?
It'd be quite happy to see CD prices stay as they are if even
One Third of the purchase price went to the people who wrote,
performed and promoted the music. So if you people are seriously
suggesting that a fall in the price of CDs would HAVE to come off
the artist's $2 a unit, you're remarkably ignorant or naive.
d.
--
--
Billy Shields
Dave Garner <dav...@attila.apana.org.au> wrote:
: webm...@nospam.democrats.org.au (Democrats Web Administrator) writes:
:>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.
: Well, that's really STUNNING stuff there.
: CDs are overpriced. In bulk they cost about $3.50 a unit to produce,
: cover art printing included. The Artist (other than mega-names)
: gets about $2-$3 a unit if they're lucky. That's $6.50 so far.
: The rest is glommed by money hungry record companys, who for
: the remaining $20+ dollars a unit send a few copies around
: radio stations (if you're lucky), print a few posters (if you're
: lucky), and freight a few boxes of them around the country.
A friend of mine knows someone who owns one of the bigger CD stores
in Perth. She was told (by the owner) that the production cost is
$3 and $3 goes to the artist. The rest goes to the stores and
the record companies (oh and the government of course). I guess
we know why mail order CD companies can sell new releases for $19.
One of the big electrical stores (Archie Martin Vox in City West)
sells new release CDs for $25-28. Most others sell them for $30+.
I am curious as to how the $24 beyond costs gets distributed
between the stores, government and retail outlets.
Oh and if the recorded music industry is "investing in local
artists" can someone explain to me why CDs cost $5 or more than
the equivalent cassette tape when in fact CDs are cheaper to
produce?
I'll tell you why: they're ripping us off.
The Democrats are morons.
: This is why most savvy artists these days produce their OWN CDs,
: sell them for $10-$15 a unit at gigs or mail order via web/magazine
: advertising, and make 2 or 3 times the money per unit they'd get
: from a "reputable record company".
: Yes, someone is going to have to pay for record exec's Porsches,
: but why should it be the artist?
: It'd be quite happy to see CD prices stay as they are if even
: One Third of the purchase price went to the people who wrote,
: performed and promoted the music. So if you people are seriously
: suggesting that a fall in the price of CDs would HAVE to come off
: the artist's $2 a unit, you're remarkably ignorant or naive.
I think even 10% of the final retail cost going to the artist is
entirely reasonable. I believe that books work in a similar
fashion (though if anyone out there knows how it works for authors
please enlighten me).
Alanis Morrisette's "Jagged Little Pill" sold roughly 30 million
copies worldwide last I heard (which was a year or two ago). That
would mean she'd get roughly $90 million. Thats not bad at all.
Even the less popular artists who might only sell 50,000 copies
are doing reasonably well.
Billy
Conrad Leviston
Kent Duston (kduston@nospamthanks@solution6.com.au) wrote:
:
:
guess you're hoping for somebody else to provide it.
: Here's a statement from the press release:
:
: "This was a very complex and difficult decision because it was about
: balancing the interests of our Australian artists against the need to
: exploit that creativity for commercial purposes, including providing
: Australians with cheap CDs," said Senator Stott Despoja.
:
: "All Australians want cheaper CDs, but they also want to support existing
: local artists."
:
: I'm sorry? Since when do I want to support existing local artists? I don't
: recall any referendum on the issue, and as far as I'm concerned my support
: of anyone's artistic community begins and ends with the CD purchase.
:
Because Australia is a smaller market, and Australian bands
appeal chiefly to Australian audiences overheads form a greater
percentage of the costs. The real cost of a CD is not just the $3.00 per
unit it costs to churn them out. It's also involved in the recording
process. Professional sound engineers, recording studios etc. don't come
cheap.
The above is probably more of an argument against what some other
people also replying to the original post have said, but I promise, I'm
getting to your point. I'm only going through what most people would
consider obvious because most people on this thread do not seem to know
it.
When Mushroom records, to pull a name out of a hat with only
Mushroom records' name inside, pays for their artist they have a break
even point on sales which we will say is 50,000 copies (I have no idea of
the real figure, but I know that a record has to sell about 10,000 copies
a year to be viable). They then pay for transport, a wholesaler gets a
cut, and the retailer usually puts 50% on what it costs them. Meanwhile,
record company for Oasis has already made their money and only come to
Australia to make more money. As things stand they have to pay for all
that wholesaler, retailer, transport stuff, but they don't have the huge
overheads. If they were able to directly import though they would have
the ability to sell their CD's here for much less than any Australian
Band.
Now to your point (I told you I was getting there). Australian
music is in effect being subsidised by the system such as it is. Imported
music is also being subsidised by their foreign earnings. Foreign groups
do not have to worry about overheads in Australia, they just have to
worry about the cost of pressing a CD and rake in the profit.
What this is about then is not providing Australian bands with a
subsidy because they are unable to compete in our market, but providing
them with a level playing field. A foreign group who sells 100,000 copies
in our market makes more money for their record company than Australian
band who sells the same amount.
: It seems the Democrats have the view that higher CD prices amount to a
: de-facto subsidy of the Australian music industry, courtesy of the consumer.
: Sounds like a monumentally stupid idea to me. If you want to tax me to
: support local musicians, at least do it in an open and honest manner --
: don't hide a subsidy behind unnecessarily high retail prices.
:
A lot of money gets sutck to peoples' hands along the way, but at
least they are Australian hands and the money tends to get cycled through
the Australian economy a bit more. This is partly about subsidising an
industry so that it can compete on a level playing field, but it's also
about jobs vs. cheaper CD's.
--
Conrad Leviston | 'Quotation is the refuge of the lame mind'- Confucius
http://yoyo.cc | 'It takes a thief to catch a thief, and for the same
.monash.edu.au | reason it takes a mongoose to catch a snake in the
/~mongoose/ | grass'- Herbert Frond
Neil Aitchison
Kent Duston <kduston@nospamthanks@solution6.com.au> wrote in article
<6fusfb$4dq$1...@news.mel.aone.net.au>...
>
> I'm sorry? Since when do I want to support existing local artists? I
don't
> recall any referendum on the issue, and as far as I'm concerned my
support
> of anyone's artistic community begins and ends with the CD purchase.
>
> de-facto subsidy of the Australian music industry, courtesy of the
consumer.
> Sounds like a monumentally stupid idea to me. If you want to tax me to
> support local musicians, at least do it in an open and honest manner --
> don't hide a subsidy behind unnecessarily high retail prices.
>
hmm....Kent, you obviously arn't a local musician.....I would be interested
to know weather you support the MAI negotiations?......do you like the idea
that Australians have no right to protect Australian interests?....What the
Democrats are wanting is for Australian musicians to be given a chance to
be successful on their home turf without being pushed out of the business
by the huge recording and music publishing businesses from overseas who are
able to under cut any musician here in Australia.
As far as your "open and honest manner" statement is concerned, it is only
you coming up with the idea that there is a subsidy of some sort. Despite
what you think, there is no subsidy....if you were prepared to understand
the issue without reading things into it that don't exist, you would
realise that the Democrats are being perfectly open and honest.
Neil A.
Neil Aitchison
Dave Garner <dav...@attila.apana.org.au> wrote in article
<davgar.8...@attila.apana.org.au>...
>
> It'd be quite happy to see CD prices stay as they are if even
> One Third of the purchase price went to the people who wrote,
> performed and promoted the music. So if you people are seriously
> suggesting that a fall in the price of CDs would HAVE to come off
> the artist's $2 a unit, you're remarkably ignorant or naive.
>
sold....unfortunately, if we all got what we wanted, everything would
probably cost 1000x the current prices. If Australian musicians aren't
getting enough out of CD sales at the current CD prices, they certainly
wouldn't get as much if the prices dropped. There is no ignorance or
naivity about the Australian Democrats.
andrew bartlett
Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au> wrote in article
<6futdc$var$2...@news.iinet.net.au>...
> Kent Duston <kduston@nospamthanks@solution6.com.au> wrote:
>
> : Democrats Web Administrator wrote in message
> : <3522cbb4....@news.uq.edu.au>...
> :>Australian Democrats
> :>Consumer Affairs Spokesperson
> :>
> :>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.
>
>
>
don't
> : recall any referendum on the issue, and as far as I'm concerned my
support
> : of anyone's artistic community begins and ends with the CD purchase.
>
> then too bad. Personally I have my doubts about this line used by
> the recorded music industry. As it is they have a monopoly and can
> charge whatever they like. Sounds like they'd do anything to
> protect that sweet deal.
Even if your "support of anyone's artistic community begins and ends with
the CD purchase", the drop in investment in local artists which will occur
with the government's legislation means you will have fewer local artists
to choose from - i.e. less choice for the consumer.
It would be a monopoly if there was only one record label. As it is, there
is more diversity in the music industry than in most other large scale
industries in Australia (although I'd like to see it even more diverse -
which is the opposite of what the government's legislation would produce).
> What exactly is meant by "supporting local artists" anyway? They
> get money from each CD sold. What more do they need? What more
> (if anything) do they actually get?
>
Under the government's legislation, many local artists would get less money
from each CD sold. The multinational record companies the government keeps
saying they are hurting will actually not lose a cent and will eventually
gain through a reduction in the number of independent and local Australian
labels.
Of course, this becomes even worse when you consider the increased
opportunities for piracy which will occur with the government's legislation
- pirated CDs provide no money at all to the artist and composer.
> : It seems the Democrats have the view that higher CD prices amount to a
> : de-facto subsidy of the Australian music industry, courtesy of the
consumer.
> : Sounds like a monumentally stupid idea to me. If you want to tax me to
> : support local musicians, at least do it in an open and honest manner --
> : don't hide a subsidy behind unnecessarily high retail prices.
> Agreed.
>
> I used to look upon the Democrats as some sort of voice of reason
> between the endless, insubstantial bickering between the ALP and
> the Coalition. Now I'm starting to think they're of no substance
> and all and just seem to support idiotic (but politically correct)
> policies without any real thought whatsoever.
>
Unfortunately, the government isn't going to provide any extra direct
support to the local industry, so relying on investment from record
companies and other private investors is what we're stuck with. I believe
there should be more than there is, but unfortunately, under the
government's legislation, this investment will almost inevitably reduce
even further.
I'd suggest you (and anyone who is actually interested in the topic as
opposed to political posturing) should take the time to read the Senate
Committee report on the issue, including Natasha Stott Despoja's minority
report, which is about 76 pages long. There's enough intellectual rigour,
substance and thought there even for the incisive minds of aus.politics.
The government's legisation may or may not deliver cheaper CDs - on the
evidence presented to the Senate Committee it is very debatable - but it
will certainly deliver less investment in Australian artists, more pirate
CDs, fewer and weaker independent and local labels (which means stronger
multinational companies), lower royalty earnings for Australian performers
and composers (both struggling new artists and mega successful ones) and
flow on job losses through most parts of the industry (with the possible
exception of the retailers, who will be selling more music made by foreign
artists).
Andrew Bartlett
andrew bartlett
Billy Shields
andrew bartlett <Senator....@democrats.org.au> wrote:
] Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au> wrote in article
Why should we support local artists who aren't capable of making a
living with CD sales, concerts, etc?
] It would be a monopoly if there was only one record label. As it is, there
] is more diversity in the music industry than in most other large scale
] industries in Australia (although I'd like to see it even more diverse -
] which is the opposite of what the government's legislation would produce).
Perhaps monopoly isn't the right word. However, local companies
can price for a particular artist what they like. Noone can
import the same CD, pay the 40% import duty and sell it (which,
even with freight costs would still be cheaper).
Personally I'm sick of these policies that protect local industries
at the expense of the consumer. Import protection merely results
in local industries lining their pockets with the proceeds.
I was in Washington DC last year. I needed a shirt. I went to
the Pentagon City mall (which is a great mall). There was a
Country Road store. I was somewhat surprised. I went in and
had a look. Found a shirt I liked. The price? $US40. At
the time the Aussie dollar was worth about $US0.78. With the
(American) sales tax lets assume that shirt cost $A55. How
much does it cost if you walk into the same store in Australia?
I had a look when I came back, out of curiosity. It was $A140.
The tag was marked "Made in Australia". Explain that. Tax
doesn't account for that much. Its nothing short of profiteering.
The same goes for the recorded music industry.
]> What exactly is meant by "supporting local artists" anyway? They
]> get money from each CD sold. What more do they need? What more
]> (if anything) do they actually get?
]>
] Under the government's legislation, many local artists would get less money
] from each CD sold. The multinational record companies the government keeps
] saying they are hurting will actually not lose a cent and will eventually
] gain through a reduction in the number of independent and local Australian
] labels.
I'm somewhat dubious about not letting market forces determine how
much a local artist gets from a CD. After all, if they have a
marketable product there are, as you pointed out, many labels
and they're free to shop around for a good deal.
If however thats still a problem then protect the artist's
revenue rather than keeping the price high (since the companies
and stores benefit out of that; not the artist).
] Of course, this becomes even worse when you consider the increased
] opportunities for piracy which will occur with the government's legislation
] - pirated CDs provide no money at all to the artist and composer.
Your contention is that allowing the importation of CDs will result
in pirated CDs being imported?
]> : It seems the Democrats have the view that higher CD prices amount to a
]> : de-facto subsidy of the Australian music industry, courtesy of the
] consumer.
]> : Sounds like a monumentally stupid idea to me. If you want to tax me to
]> : support local musicians, at least do it in an open and honest manner --
]> : don't hide a subsidy behind unnecessarily high retail prices.
]> Agreed.
]>
]> I used to look upon the Democrats as some sort of voice of reason
]> between the endless, insubstantial bickering between the ALP and
]> the Coalition. Now I'm starting to think they're of no substance
]> and all and just seem to support idiotic (but politically correct)
]> policies without any real thought whatsoever.
]>
] Unfortunately, the government isn't going to provide any extra direct
] support to the local industry, so relying on investment from record
] companies and other private investors is what we're stuck with. I believe
] there should be more than there is, but unfortunately, under the
] government's legislation, this investment will almost inevitably reduce
] even further.
The local industry can support itself. Its called "making a living".
]
] I'd suggest you (and anyone who is actually interested in the topic as
] opposed to political posturing) should take the time to read the Senate
] Committee report on the issue, including Natasha Stott Despoja's minority
] report, which is about 76 pages long. There's enough intellectual rigour,
] substance and thought there even for the incisive minds of aus.politics.
Is it online? If so (or if its otherwise easily obtainable) I'll
happily read the entirety of it.
] The government's legisation may or may not deliver cheaper CDs - on the
] evidence presented to the Senate Committee it is very debatable - but it
] will certainly deliver less investment in Australian artists, more pirate
] CDs, fewer and weaker independent and local labels (which means stronger
] multinational companies), lower royalty earnings for Australian performers
] and composers (both struggling new artists and mega successful ones) and
] flow on job losses through most parts of the industry (with the possible
] exception of the retailers, who will be selling more music made by foreign
] artists).
Less investment in Australian artists: don't care.
More pirate CDs: I'm not convinced. Can you back this up? I'd be
interested in hearing why it would facilitate access to pirate CDs.
Lower royalty earnings: not convinced.
Job losses: inevitable when unprofitable and highly subsidised
industries rejoin the real world.
You forgot "higher standard of living" since CDs would contribute
in part to the CPI and the value of the disposable income dollar.
Billy
Billy Shields
Conrad Leviston <mong...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
: Because Australia is a smaller market, and Australian bands
: appeal chiefly to Australian audiences overheads form a greater
: percentage of the costs. The real cost of a CD is not just the $3.00 per
: unit it costs to churn them out. It's also involved in the recording
: process. Professional sound engineers, recording studios etc. don't come
: cheap.
I think you'll find that all those things are factored into the
$3 approximation. The actual media costs of pressing CDs are
less than 10 cents in volume (plus mastering costs).
Plus I think you'll find that people buy music because they like
it. If I saw something I liked for $30 I'd still buy it if I
thought it was worth it even though the Oasis CD next to it was
only $20.
Billy
bjoh...@usa.net
In article <01bd5e1d$ff929160$5ad010cb@default>,
"Neil Aitchison" <m...@adelaide.on.net> wrote:
> hmm....Kent, you obviously arn't a local musician.....
> I would be interested
> to know weather you support the MAI negotiations?
I do not support the MAI negotiations, however I too am opposed to the current
situation with CD's in Australia.
> ......do you like the idea
> that Australians have no right to protect Australian interests?
I believe that the current CD rules do not genuinely protect Australian
interests.
> ....What the
> Democrats are wanting is for Australian musicians to be given a chance to
> be successful on their home turf without being pushed out of the business
> by the huge recording and music publishing businesses from overseas who are
> able to under cut any musician here in Australia.
The huge recording and publishing businesses run the record industry in
Australia. They are the ones that benefit, not Australian musicians.
>
> As far as your "open and honest manner" statement is concerned, it is only
> you coming up with the idea that there is a subsidy of some sort. Despite
> what you think, there is no subsidy....
That is the tragedy, Australians pay more than they otherwise would for CD's
and there is still no subsidy.
> if you were prepared to understand
> the issue without reading things into it that don't exist, you would
> realise that the Democrats are being perfectly open and honest.
>
> Neil A.
>
Brendan
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Billy Shields
bjoh...@usa.net wrote:
: In article <01bd5e1d$ff929160$5ad010cb@default>,
: "Neil Aitchison" <m...@adelaide.on.net> wrote:
:> hmm....Kent, you obviously arn't a local musician.....
:> I would be interested
:> to know weather you support the MAI negotiations?
: I do not support the MAI negotiations, however I too am opposed to the current
: situation with CD's in Australia.
Ditto.
:> ......do you like the idea
:> that Australians have no right to protect Australian interests?
: I believe that the current CD rules do not genuinely protect Australian
: interests.
Ditto.
:> ....What the
:> Democrats are wanting is for Australian musicians to be given a chance to
:> be successful on their home turf without being pushed out of the business
:> by the huge recording and music publishing businesses from overseas who are
:> able to under cut any musician here in Australia.
: The huge recording and publishing businesses run the record industry in
: Australia. They are the ones that benefit, not Australian musicians.
I don't think thats even relevant. Australians shouldn't have to
subsidise artists who otherwise aren't capable of making a living.
Billy
Neil Malley
>] Even if your "support of anyone's artistic community begins and ends with
>] the CD purchase", the drop in investment in local artists which will occur
>] with the government's legislation means you will have fewer local artists
>] to choose from - i.e. less choice for the consumer.
>
>Why should we support local artists who aren't capable of making a
>living with CD sales, concerts, etc?
Why should we support farmers who aren't capable of making a living?
Because we are a caring society and try to help groups in need when
they need help.
>
>] It would be a monopoly if there was only one record label. As it is, there
>] is more diversity in the music industry than in most other large scale
>] industries in Australia (although I'd like to see it even more diverse -
>] which is the opposite of what the government's legislation would produce).
>
>Perhaps monopoly isn't the right word. However, local companies
>can price for a particular artist what they like. Noone can
>import the same CD, pay the 40% import duty and sell it (which,
>even with freight costs would still be cheaper).
>
>Less investment in Australian artists: don't care.
>More pirate CDs: I'm not convinced. Can you back this up? I'd be
>interested in hearing why it would facilitate access to pirate CDs.
>Lower royalty earnings: not convinced.
>Job losses: inevitable when unprofitable and highly subsidised
>industries rejoin the real world.
Ahhh, a Liberal voter.
>
>You forgot "higher standard of living" since CDs would contribute
>in part to the CPI and the value of the disposable income dollar.
>
>Billy
>
Neil M
Conrad Leviston
Billy Shields (ran...@opera.iinet.net.au) wrote:
: Conrad Leviston <mong...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
: : Because Australia is a smaller market, and Australian bands
: : appeal chiefly to Australian audiences overheads form a greater
: : percentage of the costs. The real cost of a CD is not just the $3.00 per
: : unit it costs to churn them out. It's also involved in the recording
: : process. Professional sound engineers, recording studios etc. don't come
: : cheap.
:
: I think you'll find that all those things are factored into the
: $3 approximation. The actual media costs of pressing CDs are
: less than 10 cents in volume (plus mastering costs).
I think you'll find, then, that if the $3 approximation holds
for Australian artists, then it will be an awful lot less for overseas
bands. The rest of my argument holds with only minor modifications.
: Plus I think you'll find that people buy music because they like
: it. If I saw something I liked for $30 I'd still buy it if I
: thought it was worth it even though the Oasis CD next to it was
: only $20.
:
Yes, but I think you'll find that if $20 was the standard price
for international acts and $30 was the current price for Australian acts,
Australian artists will struggle. The perception that something costs 50%
more than the standard unit means that it has to be exceptional for
people to buy it.
Also if you only liked Hunters and collectors only slightly more
than you liked Oasis then the ten dollars would probably become a deciding
factor.
Conrad Leviston
Neil Malley (nurs...@hotmail.com) wrote:
:
: >] Even if your "support of anyone's artistic community begins and ends with
: >] the CD purchase", the drop in investment in local artists which will occur
: >] with the government's legislation means you will have fewer local artists
: >] to choose from - i.e. less choice for the consumer.
: >
: >Why should we support local artists who aren't capable of making a
: >living with CD sales, concerts, etc?
Because otherwise they wouldn't be playing on a level playing
field in this country.
: Why should we support farmers who aren't capable of making a living?
: Because we are a caring society and try to help groups in need when
: they need help.
No, we support farmers because they are in a valuable industry
which it makes financial sense to support, because:
a) They bring in export dollars
b) They supply a local market that would otherwise be filled by
overseas interests
c) Every now and then struggling farmers hit upon a cash crop
that brings in millions of export dollars (e.g. microfibre).
Of course all this holds for local musical artists too.
Dave Garner
"Neil Aitchison" <m...@adelaide.on.net> writes:
>I think everyone would like to get more money from things being
>sold....unfortunately, if we all got what we wanted, everything would
>probably cost 1000x the current prices. If Australian musicians aren't
>getting enough out of CD sales at the current CD prices, they certainly
>wouldn't get as much if the prices dropped. There is no ignorance or
>naivity about the Australian Democrats.
Nothing patronising about them either? NO naivity at ALL. SUPERbeings.
Saw Cheryl's defection comming, did we? 8-)
d.
--
--
jim mueller
Conrad Leviston wrote in message
<6g1v36$j1k$2...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>...
>Neil Malley (nurs...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>:
>: >] Even if your "support of anyone's artistic community begins and ends
with
>: >] the CD purchase", the drop in investment in local artists which will
occur
>: >] with the government's legislation means you will have fewer local
artists
>: >] to choose from - i.e. less choice for the consumer.
>: >
>: >Why should we support local artists who aren't capable of making a
>: >living with CD sales, concerts, etc?
>:
> Because otherwise they wouldn't be playing on a level playing
>field in this country.
>
I have a huge problem in levelling the playing field in general! In regards
to the music industry, the only levelling it would result would be the
lining of the pockets of those big fat drug taking entrepenuers in those
suits that run the recording industries! Not many benefits to the local
artists themselves.....
>: Why should we support farmers who aren't capable of making a living?
>: Because we are a caring society and try to help groups in need when
>: they need help.
>
> No, we support farmers because they are in a valuable industry
>which it makes financial sense to support, because:
> a) They bring in export dollars
> b) They supply a local market that would otherwise be filled by
>overseas interests
> c) Every now and then struggling farmers hit upon a cash crop
>that brings in millions of export dollars (e.g. microfibre).
>
> Of course all this holds for local musical artists too.
>
I don't think so..... The most successful Aussie bands have sacrificed their
originality on request of the record companies! They are usually told that
in order to make it big they are to adopt a carbon copied west-coast type
sound and adhere to these concepts! On the alternative side, however, bands
sound much like Pearl Jam and Oasis clones....... The Australian music
industry?????? I don't think so.......
Let's get the prices of CD's down in the country by not accommodating the
greed associated with Aria! The only playing field that I would want
levelled is the prices of CD's on the market as compared to the prices in
the states and the likes.... Theres no reason why CD's should be more
expensive than over there except for the greed in the local industries! If
the federal government want to attempt to address this issue, let them and
see what happens! It can't be worse than it is at present!
I could buy CD's recorded by Australian artists cheaper in the states than I
could here!!!! That's even after the currency translation!!!! Perhaps we all
should apply the concepts of internet CD ordering from the states and fuck
the greedy parasites in the local industry for good!
go ahead , make my day!
-Harry Callohan
Tim
On 2 Apr 1998 16:26:23 GMT, Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au>
wrote:
I don't want to argue the individual points through this thread, and I
am not interested in the politics of the whole thing - but rather, I
would like to know plainly and simply, why is it that in Australia we
pay $30 per CD (local issue) and more for imports, when in the USA I
can buy the same CD (by an Australian artist) for $US16 or less, in
Tokyo (supposedly the most expensive city on the planet) for 1700 yen,
in Singapore for $S20, and in Hong Kong for $HK18.
I'm all for supporting Australian artists, but there is no way I am
going to support the local industry at the current prices - I would
rather order via the internet at reasonable prices or save up for the
next time I go to Japan and buy all of my discs at that time.
Has the industry here ever considered that if they lowered the prices
the number of units sold may actually see them raking in greater
profits than they currently are doing?
regards, Tim...
Rob Silva
On 3 Apr 1998 06:08:20 GMT, mong...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Conrad
Leviston) wrote:
>Billy Shields (ran...@opera.iinet.net.au) wrote:
>: Conrad Leviston <mong...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>: : Because Australia is a smaller market, and Australian bands
>: : appeal chiefly to Australian audiences overheads form a greater
>: : percentage of the costs. The real cost of a CD is not just the $3.00 per
>: : unit it costs to churn them out. It's also involved in the recording
>: : process. Professional sound engineers, recording studios etc. don't come
>: : cheap.
>:
>: I think you'll find that all those things are factored into the
>: $3 approximation. The actual media costs of pressing CDs are
>: less than 10 cents in volume (plus mastering costs).
>:
> I think you'll find, then, that if the $3 approximation holds
>for Australian artists, then it will be an awful lot less for overseas
>bands. The rest of my argument holds with only minor modifications.
>
>: Plus I think you'll find that people buy music because they like
>: it. If I saw something I liked for $30 I'd still buy it if I
>: thought it was worth it even though the Oasis CD next to it was
>: only $20.
>:
> Yes, but I think you'll find that if $20 was the standard price
>for international acts and $30 was the current price for Australian acts,
>Australian artists will struggle. The perception that something costs 50%
>more than the standard unit means that it has to be exceptional for
>people to buy it.
If you go into a New York Virgin outlet or similar, you'll find that
CD's by Australian artists cost the same as everyone elses.
The issue is not Australian vs non-Australian - the issue is small
volume vs large volume. To give small artists a head start requires
cross-subsidy between small & large volume sales. This is what record
companies have always done. Allowing parallel imports simply reduces
the cross-subsidy opportunities.
If people really want to pay more for CD's, why not be prepared to pay
more for some artists and less for others rather than more for
everything?
Conrad Leviston
jim mueller (j...@hotmale.com) wrote:
:
: Conrad Leviston wrote in message
: > Because otherwise they wouldn't be playing on a level playing
: >field in this country.
: >
:
: I have a huge problem in levelling the playing field in general! In regards
: to the music industry, the only levelling it would result would be the
: lining of the pockets of those big fat drug taking entrepenuers in those
: suits that run the recording industries! Not many benefits to the local
: artists themselves.....
:
are signed is not much of a benefit to local artists.
:
: I don't think so..... The most successful Aussie bands have sacrificed their
: originality on request of the record companies! They are usually told that
: in order to make it big they are to adopt a carbon copied west-coast type
: sound and adhere to these concepts! On the alternative side, however, bands
: sound much like Pearl Jam and Oasis clones....... The Australian music
: industry?????? I don't think so.......
This is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. However, being
an opinion I will leave my argument as "I disagree" because anything else
will just lead to an "is not", "is too" argument.