Copyright - levy on blank CDs
Peter
One of the things considered in the government position paper on copyright,
is the issue of a levy on blank CDs to raise revenue for music
corporations. Apparently, they argue that this is to make up for
(supposedly) lost earnings due to pirated copies of music CDs.
Fortunately, the NZ govt proposed position is to not impose such a levy.
Although some countries have imposed such a levy, it is blatantly unfair.
For example, I use CDs to store digital photos that I have taken - why
should I pay a levy to some big corporation for this? Ditto for data
backups and GPL software.
A levy like this would be like a speeding levy on petrol, to make up for
lost earnings due to speeding drivers who aren't caught. This sort of levy
treats everyone as a criminal.
But I'm sure those big international music corporations would love to take a
few million more out of NZ each year, and will be lobbying govt to impose
the levy.
You can read more at
http://www.med.govt.nz/buslt/int_prop/digital/position/index.html
This probably affects most readers in nz.comp, so what do you think?
Peter
mcfly
They are proposing a levy on copyright infringements ?
For an unquantified amount of copyright content.
What bullshit !!
In the US, copying is "fair use" and the blank media levy was to
compensate for that usage only. And only levied on "Audio" disks, which
are the only ones that play in dedicated audio players. Its still a
complete policy failure. It doesn't stop counterfeiting or file sharing.
Blank media is not manufactured in NZ, so how is it proposed to collect
such a fee ? By customs duty ? The copyright royalty on a production CD is
about $7. So that would make a 10 pack of CDs $80 !!
However the record companies claim that their prices are high because of
piracy.
But I can't go out and buy a pirated disc on the streets of New Zealand,
like I can on the streets of many Asian cities.
So I take it that when there is a levy, then I will be able to buy copied
disks on the street, and make and distribute as many copies as I like,
since the levy in the disk price now means there is no loss.
Only fair, seeing the right to use the disk media for that purpose has now
been paid for.
Are they going to negotiate a change in copyright law with the record
companies to enable this right of copying which has now been purchased by
a fee with the disk ?
Or is this all just hot air ?
Steve
>
> One of the things considered in the government position paper on
> copyright, is the issue of a levy on blank CDs to raise revenue for music
> corporations. Apparently, they argue that this is to make up for
> (supposedly) lost earnings due to pirated copies of music CDs.
>
> Fortunately, the NZ govt proposed position is to not impose such a levy.
>
> Although some countries have imposed such a levy, it is blatantly unfair.
> For example, I use CDs to store digital photos that I have taken - why
> should I pay a levy to some big corporation for this? Ditto for data
> backups and GPL software.
Agreed. Most of my CD-Rs are back-ups of work data or, like you, digital
photos or VCDs of family videos.
Of the 250 CD-Rs I have here, maybe 3% would have backup copies of audio CDs
or video-tape movies (I bought) 'transcribed' to SVCDs so the jkids can
watch them on DVD player. Like Independence Day. I have the commerical
video tape......but made an SVCD of it to cut down on the wear and tear on
the tape......
cowboyz
"Steve" <st...@nospam.org.za> wrote in message
news:_MB1a.1472$324.2...@news02.tsnz.net...
I think they should just have an optional tax on blank cds. When you buy a
pack they should ask if you are going to make illegal copies of anything on
them (nicely as not to offend the righteous) and if you agree that, in fact,
you are going to be using the blank cds for illegal data then they charge an
additional $30 per cd for the music you would have brought. That might
work.
All complaints about "being acused of being a criminal" are just plain
stupid. With the ease of coping anything you want these days, companies
*have* to protect themselves. This is just the next step, and it will get
worse still. Consumers have brought it on themselves for not playing the
game properly in the first place.
BG
<st...@nospam.org.za> wrote:
> Of the 250 CD-Rs I have here, maybe 3% would have backup copies of audio
> CDs or video-tape movies (I bought) 'transcribed' to SVCDs so the jkids
> can watch them on DVD player. Like Independence Day. I have the
> commerical video tape......but made an SVCD of it to cut down on the
> wear and tear on the tape......
Besides, it is much better to convert audio to mp3's and store them
on non-CD media. Very few people would be so stupid as to make verbatim
copies of audio CD's except for backup purposes.
Steve
> All complaints about "being acused of being a criminal" are just plain
> stupid. With the ease of coping anything you want these days, companies
> *have* to protect themselves. This is just the next step, and it will get
> worse still. Consumers have brought it on themselves for not playing the
> game properly in the first place.
You're only telling half the story.
Consumers are entitled to - and do - protect themselves, too.
I'm not sure where you get this idea we exist to compensate people who can't
properly secure their products against theft.
Peter
wrote:
>
>One of the things considered in the government position paper on copyright,
>is the issue of a levy on blank CDs to raise revenue for music
>corporations. Apparently, they argue that this is to make up for
>(supposedly) lost earnings due to pirated copies of music CDs.
>
>Fortunately, the NZ govt proposed position is to not impose such a levy.
>
This is Departmental advice to the Government.
I would not be too surprised if the 'industry' really got the violins
out and 'sold' it to Marian Hobbs as they did with parallel importing
of movie DVD's.
Years ago Labour (per Jonathan Hunt) proposed a tax on telephones to
pay for running TV (in lieu of the TV licence). Not to mention
Margaret Shields (ex Labour Cabinet Minister and now Chair of
Wellington regional Council) proposing some years ago that telephone
users subsidise welfare by having telephone operators ring up the
elderly for a chat every day.
How silly can you get.
mcfly
"cowboyz" <cow...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:b26qdc$akv$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
Perhaps "they" should just have a tip jar on the counter.
Why is it the governments job to protect the US based recording industry ?
>
> All complaints about "being acused of being a criminal" are just plain
> stupid. With the ease of coping anything you want these days, companies
> *have* to protect themselves. This is just the next step, and it will get
> worse still. Consumers have brought it on themselves for not playing the
> game properly in the first place.
What rubbish
Copyright infringement is not a criminal matter, its a civil suit brought by
the copyright holder.
If the copyright holders can not be bothered to spend their exhorbitant
margins prosecuting counterfeiters and domestic copiers then it is not the
business of the government I pay taxes to, to administrate collect and
distribute some dodgy extra tax on blank media..
Any industry players that cannot make their own way in the marketplace
deserve to fail on their own lack of merit, and their place be taken by
businesses that can run the musical content industry. Not be propped up by
the government.
Next you will be suggesting a tax on blank paper to subsidise book
publishers.
>
>
>
Rimu Atkinson
>
the reason the record companies are losing revenue is because the music they
sell us is rubbish, aimed at being a back-ground noise for music videos :)
mcfly
"Rimu Atkinson" <ri...@paradise.net.nz.nospam.thanks> wrote in message
news:oZD1a.1521$324.2...@news02.tsnz.net...
And the reason that their revenues are down is because their new releases
are down by around 20%
Steve
Right!
I have 3 MP3 CDs for use while I'm painting the house. There are only 3 CDs
because they are each about 5 hours long.....and I only have just so many
songs I like among my CD collection.
No one sells 5 hour greates hits CDs with *just* the sings I like...so Imake
my own.
Illegal? Probably......
Wrong? Definitely not.
Steve
> Next you will be suggesting a tax on blank paper to subsidise book
> publishers.
Or a surcharge on phone calls in case anyone illegally transmits copyrighted
information over the phone.
cowboyz
> cowboyz wrote:
>
> > All complaints about "being acused of being a criminal" are just plain
> > stupid. With the ease of coping anything you want these days,
companies
> > *have* to protect themselves. This is just the next step, and it will
get
> > worse still. Consumers have brought it on themselves for not playing
the
> > game properly in the first place.
>
> You're only telling half the story.
Of course there are 2 sides to a story, probably more to be honest. I am
just presenting one.
>
> Consumers are entitled to - and do - protect themselves, too.
As they should.
>
> I'm not sure where you get this idea we exist to compensate people who
can't
> properly secure their products against theft.
>
Hold on a tic. Weren't you complaining about MS activation? Is this
simply not an attempt to stop people stealing their products?
I never said we exist to compensate people who can't properly secure their
products against theft. To start with. It is impossible to release music
on a cd, stay within consumer rights, on an arrangement that Joe Public will
be happy with AND make it copy-proof. Look at the stink that was made when
it was proposed some recording companies were going to start releasing their
cds in a format that could not be read by a PC-CDROM. Oh our rights being
infringed people cried. Oh I can't mp3 the album! Oh life is so
unfair........... and so on.
Isn't this just an honest attempt at securing their products against theft?
cowboyz
> > All complaints about "being acused of being a criminal" are just plain
> > stupid. With the ease of coping anything you want these days,
companies
> > *have* to protect themselves. This is just the next step, and it will
get
> > worse still. Consumers have brought it on themselves for not playing
the
> > game properly in the first place.
>
> What rubbish
> Copyright infringement is not a criminal matter, its a civil suit brought
by
> the copyright holder.
Yes I do realise this but look at all the complaints about people being
automatically acused of being a criminal because a company is trying to
protect their own.
> If the copyright holders can not be bothered to spend their exhorbitant
> margins prosecuting counterfeiters and domestic copiers then it is not the
> business of the government I pay taxes to, to administrate collect and
> distribute some dodgy extra tax on blank media.
exhorbitant? Hmmmmmmm
And I really shouldn't have used the word "tax" Head going faster than
hands. Re read post with "fee" instead of the word "tax"
> Any industry players that cannot make their own way in the marketplace
> deserve to fail on their own lack of merit, and their place be taken by
> businesses that can run the musical content industry. Not be propped up by
> the government.
Yes. It is not a matter for the government. It is a right of the recording
industry to do everything they legally, possibly can to prevent others
stealing their own.
> Next you will be suggesting a tax on blank paper to subsidise book
> publishers.
>
Not tax but maybe a fee in the same way. Have a little jar on the counter
and if you are using the paper for illegal matters then you could pop a
little extra in the jar to give to the publishers. I can see it
working.... really I can.... really..... really?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Peter
>
> Hold on a tic. Weren't you complaining about MS activation? Is this
> simply not an attempt to stop people stealing their products?
No. It was pretty obvious at the time that it wouldn't stop pirating of
WinXP, and it didn't. There are lots of reports of pirate copies available
in Asia. I don't think Microsoft was so dumb as to think activation would
stop illegal copying. So it's real purpose is something else, and there's
lots of speculation on that. Probably more to do with protecting MS's
cashflow or destroying competitors.
> I never said we exist to compensate people who can't properly secure their
> products against theft. To start with. It is impossible to release
> music on a cd, stay within consumer rights, on an arrangement that Joe
> Public will be happy with AND make it copy-proof.
That's probably correct - it is not possible to make something useable AND
copy-proof. But stealing money off law abiding people is not the answer,
either.
I'm surprised at the lack of prosecutions for illegal copying of music.
Either it doesn't happen like the corporates say it does, or it is so minor
that it is not worth bothering with.
Now, putting a levy on people who don't make illegal copies, that is worth
chasing as it will net them heaps of $$$$ for nothing.
Peter
Lennier
Fair comment.
IMHO, most stuff sold as popular "music" today is tuneless banging noise.
I think that music died around 1984 when sequencing started to become
common.
It took the human element out of the music. :o(
Lennier
Peter
>
> Yes I do realise this but look at all the complaints about people being
> automatically acused of being a criminal because a company is trying to
> protect their own.
No, the music corporations want the levy on everyone, including people who
are not infringing any copyright. That is what is unfair with such a levy.
> Yes. It is not a matter for the government. It is a right of the
> recording industry to do everything they legally, possibly can to prevent
> others stealing their own.
Maybe, but they'd be barking up the wrong tree. "Obscurity is a far greater
threat to authors and creative artists than piracy."
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/p2p/2002/12/11/piracy.html
Peter
cowboyz
"Peter" <nospa...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote in message
news:b27efs$1a85s6$1...@ID-132751.news.dfncis.de...
> this quote from cowboyz of Monday 10 Feb 2003 6:23 pm:
> >
> > Hold on a tic. Weren't you complaining about MS activation? Is this
> > simply not an attempt to stop people stealing their products?
>
> No. It was pretty obvious at the time that it wouldn't stop pirating of
> WinXP, and it didn't. There are lots of reports of pirate copies
available
> in Asia. I don't think Microsoft was so dumb as to think activation would
> stop illegal copying. So it's real purpose is something else, and there's
> lots of speculation on that. Probably more to do with protecting MS's
> cashflow or destroying competitors.
Just because your paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you?
look below.. You agree that it is impossible to release a cd that is
useable AND copy-proof. But of course, If it is MS there HAS to be another
reason.
> > I never said we exist to compensate people who can't properly secure
their
> > products against theft. To start with. It is impossible to release
> > music on a cd, stay within consumer rights, on an arrangement that Joe
> > Public will be happy with AND make it copy-proof.
>
> That's probably correct - it is not possible to make something useable AND
> copy-proof. But stealing money off law abiding people is not the answer,
> either.
>
> I'm surprised at the lack of prosecutions for illegal copying of music.
> Either it doesn't happen like the corporates say it does, or it is so
minor
> that it is not worth bothering with.
> Now, putting a levy on people who don't make illegal copies, that is worth
> chasing as it will net them heaps of $$$$ for nothing.
probably because it would be very expensive to go chasing every tom, dick
and harry that steals music. So it is just easier and cheaper for them to
put an extra levy on the cds that everyone buys.
The funny thing about this is that it turns out the be the ones who are
following the rules who are paying. That in turn prompts the "well I paid
$x more than I should have for this so I can do what I want with it. I
might just put it on a p2p program in mp3 format." and the world turns.
whoisthis
Peter <nospa...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
> Although some countries have imposed such a levy, it is blatantly unfair.
> For example, I use CDs to store digital photos that I have taken - why
> should I pay a levy to some big corporation for this? Ditto for data
> backups and GPL software.
My lawn mower has never been on the road, yet I am paying road user
charges.
>
> A levy like this would be like a speeding levy on petrol, to make up for
> lost earnings due to speeding drivers who aren't caught. This sort of levy
> treats everyone as a criminal.
No, but there is a levy for the JAFAs, and the levies for ACC are equal
for everyone, ie those who drive safely are paying just the same as
those who are dangerous.
mcfly
Theres a point of diminishing returns for them where making their content
inconvenient to use or unreliable in some devices will negate their
promotion and marketing of the product.
The higher the price, the more motivation there is to copy the content, or
not listen at all.
Some record companies are owned by consumer electronic companies that also
make combo CD and cassette recorders that are specifically designed for
taping CDs, they have made them for years. They also make mp3 players and CD
copiers. The CD copiers are designed specifically to use "audio" CDs which
cost more than data CDs because a levy has been paid to the RIAA to
compensate for the loss due to copying.
If you wish to pay a levy to the record companies, when you copy a CD, use
the "audio" CDs. Most places that sell blanks have them.
Its a simple solution, the record company gets the same compensation that
they get from the US consumers, a deal that they negotiated and were happy
with, and you can make a compilation.
However that copying is still a copyright infringement in NZ, but not in the
US.
Go figure !! It doesn't make sense to me !
whoisthis
wrote:
> Perhaps "they" should just have a tip jar on the counter.
> Why is it the governments job to protect the US based recording industry ?
Which begs the question.
Is there no NZ music market
OR
Is there nothing worth copying.
mcfly
"whoisthis" <w...@is.this> wrote in message
news:who-137097.1...@news.xtra.co.nz...
They are all subsidiaries of US and European based media conglomerates, even
the small labels distribute through the big guys.
As I said in another post, if you buy an "audio" blank, the recording
industry gets compensated at the rate that they agreed to with the
establishment of the US home recording act.
cowboyz
"whoisthis" <w...@is.this> wrote in message
> In article <b266s6$19107v$1...@ID-132751.news.dfncis.de>,
> Peter <nospa...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > Although some countries have imposed such a levy, it is blatantly
unfair.
> > For example, I use CDs to store digital photos that I have taken - why
> > should I pay a levy to some big corporation for this? Ditto for data
> > backups and GPL software.
>
> My lawn mower has never been on the road, yet I am paying road user
> charges.
>
Don't you mow the median strip? maybe you could take your lawnmower up the
road once a week and mow the parks as to get your money worth?
cowboyz
"whoisthis" <w...@is.this> wrote in message
Is it 2004 when they want 30% of music on radio stations to be NZ content?
That will prompt more cd listening, come more copying.
mcfly
You won't need to copy NZ CDs then, or buy them, just turn on the radio.
Problem solved :-)
Peter Murray
"mcfly" <x...@xx.xx> wrote in message
news:UxH1a.1588$324.2...@news02.tsnz.net...
If the recording industry is hoping to get compensation from governments,
why doesn't every CD users just register themselves with the government as a
member of the recording industry and ask for compensation.
All you need to do is burn a CD of random sounds you create, eg record
yourself singing in the shower but make sure you make up your own words, or
record yourself mowing the lawn but be careful not to copy the "Lawnmower
sounds" CD. Stick a fancy label on it with BRN&GETBRNT (unless that is
copyrighted) and copyright all over it. Find a friend who has done the same
and sell your CDs to each other to make sure you are in the recording
business. Complain to governments that you are not getting enough revenue,
stick your hand out and ask for your share of the levy.
--
Peter Murray
open i
http://www.blenheim.co.nz/open_i
cowboyz
>
> If the recording industry is hoping to get compensation from governments,
> why doesn't every CD users just register themselves with the government as
a
> member of the recording industry and ask for compensation.
>
> All you need to do is burn a CD of random sounds you create, eg record
> yourself singing in the shower but make sure you make up your own words,
or
> record yourself mowing the lawn but be careful not to copy the "Lawnmower
> sounds" CD. Stick a fancy label on it with BRN&GETBRNT (unless that is
> copyrighted) and copyright all over it. Find a friend who has done the
same
> and sell your CDs to each other to make sure you are in the recording
> business. Complain to governments that you are not getting enough revenue,
> stick your hand out and ask for your share of the levy.
>
> --
> Peter Murray
> open i
> http://www.blenheim.co.nz/open_i
>
>
That is the best plan I have heard all night. I took my sterio and
microphone into the shower to record my new album but it is not waterproof.
I wonder if the government wants to give me a new sterio?
Lennier
> If the recording industry is hoping to get compensation from governments,
> why doesn't every CD users just register themselves with the government as a
> member of the recording industry and ask for compensation.
Nice!
Lennier
Lennier
> My lawn mower has never been on the road, yet I am paying road user
> charges.
That's OK - you're also paying GST *on top of* the Petrol Tax!
Lennier
RecylerMan
better for music (better quality) I was walking down the row to the 25
spindals for $14.95 the punter baught the music cdr's for much moore. It
is Summer made a nice music complation set for the car from LPs tape
and CD's when I get tired of that complation set they will be proberly
bined
--
RecylerMan ICQ 22245595
Mail to :- l i n u x u s r AT i h u g DOT c o DOT n z
Nicholas Sherlock
news:b28ra1$pj$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
You aren't related to Kerry Moke of nz.general, are you? :)
Cheersm
Nicholas Sherlock
John
>On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 15:07:23 +1300, "mcfly" <x...@xx.xx> wrote:
>
>>Perhaps "they" should just have a tip jar on the counter.
>>Why is it the governments job to protect the US based recording industry ?
>
>Sony did a snoop job on one of the ptps a while back, Napster I think
>it was. It was just after Dave Dobbins new album came out, and Sony
>claimed that something like 2000 of his tracks were downloaded by
>NZers in a single evening. They probably boosted the numbers a bit,
>but it did show it's not just an overseas issue. Dobbin deserves his
>royalties IMO, he may not get much from each CD sold but at least he
>gets something.
>
>I think I'd echo the sentiments of most people in saying that we're
>happy to see the recording industry get a good serve, but we still
>want to see the artists get their dues and the mass downloading of
>MP3s is hurting them as well.
>
>If a (very small) levy on CDRs were to shut the recording companies up
>and ensure the local artists got their fair share then I wouldn't
>object to it. Not the best solution but then is there a complete
>solution?
>
>Cheers
>
>Gavin
>
>
If the Canadian example is anything to go by . The artist have gotten
nothing. It's all gone into a large tax soak pit.
Why subsidize the music industry because they are dinosaurs and charge
way over what the actual price of a CD is worth..
Bruce Simpson
wrote:
>Sony did a snoop job on one of the ptps a while back, Napster I think
>it was. It was just after Dave Dobbins new album came out, and Sony
>claimed that something like 2000 of his tracks were downloaded by
>NZers in a single evening. They probably boosted the numbers a bit,
>but it did show it's not just an overseas issue. Dobbin deserves his
>royalties IMO, he may not get much from each CD sold but at least he
>gets something.
>
>I think I'd echo the sentiments of most people in saying that we're
>happy to see the recording industry get a good serve, but we still
>want to see the artists get their dues and the mass downloading of
>MP3s is hurting them as well.
>
>If a (very small) levy on CDRs were to shut the recording companies up
>and ensure the local artists got their fair share then I wouldn't
>object to it. Not the best solution but then is there a complete
>solution?
It's no solution at all.
Why should good, law-abiding citizens be forced to subsidise the
illegal activities of music pirates?
I don't use P2P networks and my CD racks are loaded with genuine,
store-bought CDs along with many volumes of legitmate computer-data
backups on CDR.
To impose a levy on blank media is effectively assuming that I (and
millions of other Kiwis) are criminals. Any government that makes
that assumption doesn't deserve the right to be in power. The very
basis of a fair legal system is that people are presumed to be
innocent of a crime until they are proven otherwise.
Maybe they'll allow legitimate users of CDR media to claim back the
levy -- but that's just a huge amount of extra bureaucracy and
paper-work that will likely consume a huge amount of the taxes
collected anyway.
I think the recording industry might just find that if they were
successful in having such a tax introduced, the general population
might see it as a right to pirate -- I know I would. If I was forced
to pay a copying levy on my blank media as a way of compensating the
industry for unauthorised copying -- then I'd make sure I got my
money's worth -- wouldn't you?
--
you can contact me via http://aardvark.co.nz/contact/
mcfly
"Gavin Tunney" <g...@logics.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3e6d2dab...@news.xtra.co.nz...
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 15:07:23 +1300, "mcfly" <x...@xx.xx> wrote:
>
> >Perhaps "they" should just have a tip jar on the counter.
> >Why is it the governments job to protect the US based recording industry
?
>
> it was. It was just after Dave Dobbins new album came out, and Sony
> claimed that something like 2000 of his tracks were downloaded by
> NZers in a single evening. They probably boosted the numbers a bit,
> but it did show it's not just an overseas issue. Dobbin deserves his
> royalties IMO, he may not get much from each CD sold but at least he
> gets something.
>
> I think I'd echo the sentiments of most people in saying that we're
> happy to see the recording industry get a good serve, but we still
> want to see the artists get their dues and the mass downloading of
> MP3s is hurting them as well.
>
> If a (very small) levy on CDRs were to shut the recording companies up
> and ensure the local artists got their fair share then I wouldn't
> object to it. Not the best solution but then is there a complete
> solution?
There are some problems with the solution you advocate.
You assume that each of the tracks downloaded represents potential income.
The income to Dave Dobbyn's record company, in royalties would be around 7%
of the retail price of a CD so the income from an individual track would be
around .5% of the retail price of a CD, say 15 cents ? So there is a maximum
potential income of $210 which could be recovered from 2000 Dave Dobbyn fans
that might take exception to being called thieves. Massive. If 5 of those
people go to a live show. Dave Dobbyn has his money back. But people are
downloading tracks because they either want to sample tracks from the album,
or they don't want to buy the whole album. So the loss is only a fraction,
and the utility of the download is much less, you can't take it away from th
e computer, the quality is less, because p2p files are typically 128Kb/s or
less.
It doesn't look like a huge problem. It looks like excellent promotion. If I
was a record company, I would put the choicest tracks onto p2p networks
myself.
This has no connection or causality link to the sales of CDR media. Many
people use CDR media to record compilations of tracks from CDs they have
bought at full retail cost. Many people who download mp3s never burn them to
CD.
The recording industry already gets public funding via NZ on Air and
Creative NZ. The government promotes a NZ music quota and devotes
considerable resources to the music industry.
Less than 5% of the CDRs I buy would get used for audio. I would like the
levy on the rest of the 95% of my CDRs therefore to go into the promotion of
open source software in the public service.
I'm sure other CDR consumers can think of their own favourite non audio
charity recipients who are far more deserving than record companies.
BG
<g...@logics.co.nz> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 15:07:23 +1300, "mcfly" <x...@xx.xx> wrote:
>
>>Perhaps "they" should just have a tip jar on the counter. Why is it the
>>governments job to protect the US based recording industry ?
>
> Sony did a snoop job on one of the ptps a while back, Napster I think it
> was. It was just after Dave Dobbins new album came out, and Sony claimed
> that something like 2000 of his tracks were downloaded by NZers in a
> single evening. They probably boosted the numbers a bit, but it did show
> it's not just an overseas issue. Dobbin deserves his royalties IMO, he
> may not get much from each CD sold but at least he gets something.
Wouldn't it be simpler to increase the CD price? Or let Sony
reduce their huge margin and pay out more in royalties?
People might download mp3's but that doesn't mean their are copying
CDs neither does it mean that they are burnoing their mps'3 onto CD.
Doesn't Sony make mp3 players? Why not give artists a cut from
mp3 player sales, if they are really serious.
Peter
>
> Sony did a snoop job on one of the ptps a while back, Napster I think
> it was. It was just after Dave Dobbins new album came out, and Sony
> claimed that something like 2000 of his tracks were downloaded by
> NZers in a single evening.
Sounds like a good thing for Dave Dobbin.
I read an article by Janis Ian, who said sales of her CDs went up 300% after
some tracks were made available for free download from her web site.
(That's heaps more $$$ sales in shops.)
So on that basis, Dave Dobbin should be getting some more sales and
royalties, and good on him - I think that's great.
Peter
Mark Harris
>Doesn't Sony make mp3 players? Why not give artists a cut from
>mp3 player sales, if they are really serious.
There's a good article in Feb's Wired about the issues Sony is facing.
"The Civil War Inside Sony
Sony Music wants to entertain you. Sony Electronics wants to
equip you. The problem is that when it comes to digital media,
their interests are diametrically opposed..."
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.02/sony.html
(Can't remember if I first heard about it here, so sorry if I'm
repeating old news)
cheers
mark
--
"Someone's been mean to you! Tell me who it is, so I can punch him tastefully."
- Ralph Bakshi's Mighty Mouse
mcfly
"Mark Harris" <ne...@tracs.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3e48cc97...@news.paradise.net.nz...
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 18:24:27 +1100, "BG" <b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Doesn't Sony make mp3 players? Why not give artists a cut from
> >mp3 player sales, if they are really serious.
>
> There's a good article in Feb's Wired about the issues Sony is facing.
>
> "The Civil War Inside Sony
> Sony Music wants to entertain you. Sony Electronics wants to
> equip you. The problem is that when it comes to digital media,
> their interests are diametrically opposed..."
>
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.02/sony.html
>
> (Can't remember if I first heard about it here, so sorry if I'm
> repeating old news)
>
Its ironic that it was Sony's defence of their Betamax VCR in Sony vs
Universal Studios in 1984 which established the US fair use precedent that
allows time shifting and media shifting rights in the Home Recording Act.
Heres another intersting POV from a record industry executive that says the
RIAA approach is all wrong.
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/02/01/file_trading_manifesto/index.ht
ml?x
Heres the lies of a record industry spokesman exposed
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/07/arts/music/07POPL.html
Which elicited the comment
"Burning, ripping and sharing is not killing music," Ken Waagner, a
digital-media consultant in Chicago who was part of the recording academy's
board of governors for four years, wrote in a letter to Mr. Greene. "Greed,
stupidity and ignorance on the part of the policy wonks and further
alienating the listener is the real threat to the business, and ultimately
the artist's ability to be heard."
Matthew Poole
>On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 22:30:05 +1300, Peter <nospa...@yahoo.co.nz>
>wrote:
*SNIP*
>Don't know Peter, would have to ask Dave Dobbin there. I'm sure there
>is a link, and possibly you're right...but it could also work the
>other way in that extra sales are negated by those who would have
>bought the album but downloaded it instead.
>
Personally, I d/l tracks from a CD to find out if there're enough tracks
on the CD to make it worth purchasing.
I strongly object to getting what amounts to about $7 value from a $35
CD. If 20% of the music on a CD is worth listening to these days I
consider it to be unusual. Mostly there're two or three tracks worth
listening to, and the rest are crap.
And before someone brings up the newspaper analogy, there's a big
difference between a $1 chunk of dead wood that's only meant to last for
a day and a $35 plastic disc that's meant to last for years. The other
thing about newspapers is that you have a fair idea of how much interest
you'll have in the contents due to editorial slant and vague knowledge
of current events.
--
Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
"Veni, vidi, velcro...
I came, I saw, I stuck around"
My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet
mcfly
>
>
> Possibly Bruce, but to date the alternatives promoted by the industry
> and other sources have been less palatable IMO.
>
> The problem with the whole issue is there doesn't appear to be an easy
> & equitable solution that keeps all parties happy. This at least is an
> opportunity to recompense the artists for lost income, whether that is
> what would actually happen is a moot point.
Before you can claim that this is an acceptable and equitable method, you
should be able to quantify the lost income.
Can you do that ?
Before you make CDR consumers, manufacturers and retailers carry the cost
of the lost income to artists, for any reason, and I can't see how
downloads and filesharing relates directly to CDR usage in any way shape
or form, you need to be able to prove that they are
all responsible for the lost income, and that this loss of income is not
being compensated for by the free market in the same way as changing
conditions force adaption in other industries.
Cross subsidies which distort marketplaces are never sustainable.
An increase in cost of CDR media due to a levy will reduce the volume of CDRs sold at no
net gain to the consumer, the manufacturer or the retailer.
They are not responsible for the recording industries failures due to the
progress of enabling technology for the consumer.
The only answer is for the recorded content industry to adapt.
blazer
>An increase in cost of CDR media due to a levy will reduce the
>volume of CDRs sold at no net gain to the consumer, the
>manufacturer or the retailer.
And if they do get a CD levy through, all the pirates will do is
switch to hard drives. You can get a *lot* of MP3's on an old 20-gig
HD - and nowadays any halfway-decent desktop comes with 60 gigs or
more.
So what's next - a levy on hard drives?
>They are not responsible for the recording industries failures due to the
>progress of enabling technology for the consumer.
>The only answer is for the recorded content industry to adapt.
My money says they'll die before they adapt. They're almost there
already. It may take a few more years for the full consequences to
come due, but the media industry is almost past the point of no
return.
BG
<g...@logics.co.nz> wrote:
>>People might download mp3's but that doesn't mean their are copying CDs
>>neither does it mean that they are burnoing their mps'3 onto CD.
>>
>>
> No it doesnt, but unless someone can come up with a way to penalise just
> those who do pirate music then an all-encompassing levy is the usual way
> its done. Sure it's not fair in the true sense of the word, but the
> alternatives like copy protection seem a lot more unfair to me.
Maybe they can incorporate a levy in the price of MS Windows.
>
>>Doesn't Sony make mp3 players? Why not give artists a cut from mp3
>>player sales, if they are really serious.
>
> Not a bad idea. It is questionable whether a levy on CDRs is prompted by
> the 'right' motives, but if it could be controlled by parties outside
> the industry and if the proceeds did get to the right people then I
> don't have a problem with it. Just my view, I'm not promoting a levy or
> trying to defend it.
The industry needs to pull their collective heads out of the sand.
They apparently are witnessing a decline in CD sales, but have they
urged the hardware industry to adopt an mp3 standard for CDs (and CD
players) and started releasing music in mp3 format? No.
mcfly
> In article <3e5d582f...@news.xtra.co.nz>, "Gavin Tunney"
> <g...@logics.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>>People might download mp3's but that doesn't mean their are copying CDs
>>>neither does it mean that they are burnoing their mps'3 onto CD.
>>>
>>>
>> No it doesnt, but unless someone can come up with a way to penalise just
>> those who do pirate music then an all-encompassing levy is the usual way
>> its done. Sure it's not fair in the true sense of the word, but the
>> alternatives like copy protection seem a lot more unfair to me.
>
> Maybe they can incorporate a levy in the price of MS Windows.
There is, it gets paid to Thomson http://www.mp3licensing.com/ for the mp3
codec.
;)
>
>>
>>>Doesn't Sony make mp3 players? Why not give artists a cut from mp3
>>>player sales, if they are really serious.
>>
>> Not a bad idea. It is questionable whether a levy on CDRs is prompted by
>> the 'right' motives, but if it could be controlled by parties outside
>> the industry and if the proceeds did get to the right people then I
>> don't have a problem with it. Just my view, I'm not promoting a levy or
>> trying to defend it.
>
> The industry needs to pull their collective heads out of the sand.
>
> They apparently are witnessing a decline in CD sales, but have they
> urged the hardware industry to adopt an mp3 standard for CDs (and CD
> players) and started releasing music in mp3 format? No.
They don't have their collective heads in the sand, but some of their
lobbyists and commentators are running around without them, claiming that
the sky is falling.
There is currently still a good market for CDs, because they are not a
high cost item.
There is a good market for vodka at $40 per bottle despite being able to
buy a $500 still and make enough vodka for the rest of your life.
People buy packaged biscuits despite the low cost of the ingredients.
Its always been possible to tape records and CDs, and that was supposed to
be the doom of the industry, it didn't happen. Despite every $99 ghetto
blaster coming with a CD player and a cassette deck connected to each
other ready to go.
Personal use copying is no threat to the record industry.
Counterfeiting is well under control in this country too, with well
established retail distribution and extreme difficulty for counterfeiters
to market their wares.
p2p is far too slow and expensive as long as telecom charge as much as
they do for ADSL.
p2p will reach an equilibrium level that the record companies will
privately accept that they can live with, while publicly lamenting the
potential demise of their industry and the dishonesty of their fans.
that they have to live with
blazer
Another good article:
==================================================================
http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html
THE INTERNET DEBACLE - AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW
Originally written for Performing Songwriter Magazine, May 2002
* Shortly after this article was turned in, Michael Greene resigned
as president of NARAS.
Read Janis' follow up to this article: FALLOUT - a follow up to The
Internet Debacle
"The Internet, and downloading, are here to stay... Anyone who thinks
otherwise should prepare themselves to end up on the slagheap of
history." (Janis Ian during a live European radio interview, 9-1-98)
*Please see author's note at end!
When I research an article, I normally send 30 or so emails to friends
and acquaintances asking for opinions and anecdotes. I usually receive
10-20 in reply. But not so on this subject!
I sent 36 emails requesting opinions and facts on free music
downloading from the Net. I stated that I planned to adopt the
viewpoint of devil's advocate: free Internet downloads are good for
the music industry and its artists.
I've received, to date, over 300 replies, every single one from
someone legitimately "in the music business."
What's more interesting than the emails are the phone calls. I don't
know anyone at NARAS (home of the Grammy Awards), and I know Hilary
Rosen (head of rhe Recording Industry Association of America, or RIAA)
only vaguely. Yet within 24 hours of sending my original email, I'd
received two messages from Rosen and four from NARAS requesting that I
call to "discuss the article."
Huh. Didn't know I was that widely read.
Ms. Rosen, to be fair, stressed that she was only interested in
presenting RIAA's side of the issue, and was kind enough to send me a
fair amount of statistics and documentation, including a number of
focus group studies RIAA had run on the matter.
However, the problem with focus groups is the same problem
anthropologists have when studying peoples in the field - the moment
the anthropologist's presence is known, everything changes. Hundreds
of scientific studies have shown that any experimental group wants to
please the examiner. For focus groups, this is particularly true.
Coffee and donuts are the least of the pay-offs.
The NARAS people were a bit more pushy. They told me downloads were
"destroying sales", "ruining the music industry", and "costing you
money".
Costing me money? I don't pretend to be an expert on intellectual
property law, but I do know one thing. If a music industry executive
claims I should agree with their agenda because it will make me more
money, I put my hand on my wallet…and check it after they leave, just
to make sure nothing's missing.
Am I suspicious of all this hysteria? You bet. Do I think the issue
has been badly handled? Absolutely. Am I concerned about losing
friends, opportunities, my 10th Grammy nomination by publishing this
article? Yeah. I am. But sometimes things are just wrong, and when
they're that wrong, they have to be addressed.
The premise of all this ballyhoo is that the industry (and its
artists) are being harmed by free downloading.
Nonsense. Let's take it from my personal experience. My site
(www.janisian.com ) gets an average of 75,000 hits a year. Not bad for
someone whose last hit record was in 1975. When Napster was running
full-tilt, we received about 100 hits a month from people who'd
downloaded Society's Child or At Seventeen for free, then decided they
wanted more information. Of those 100 people (and these are only the
ones who let us know how they'd found the site), 15 bought CDs. Not
huge sales, right? No record company is interested in 180 extra sales
a year. But… that translates into $2700, which is a lot of money in my
book. And that doesn't include the ones who bought the CDs in stores,
or who came to my shows.
Or take author Mercedes Lackey, who occupies entire shelves in stores
and libraries. As she said herself: "For the past ten years, my three
"Arrows" books, which were published by DAW about 15 years ago, have
been generating a nice, steady royalty check per pay-period each. A
reasonable amount, for fifteen-year-old books. However... I just got
the first half of my DAW royalties...And suddenly, out of nowhere,
each Arrows book has paid me three times the normal amount!...And
because those books have never been out of print, and have always been
promoted along with the rest of the backlist, the only significant
change during that pay-period was something that happened over at
Baen, one of my other publishers. That was when I had my co-author
Eric Flint put the first of my Baen books on the Baen Free Library
site. Because I have significantly more books with DAW than with Baen,
the increases showed up at DAW first. There's an increase in all of
the books on that statement, actually, and what it looks like is what
I'd expect to happen if a steady line of people who'd never read my
stuff encountered it on the Free Library - a certain percentage of
them liked it, and started to work through my backlist, beginning with
the earliest books published. The really interesting thing is, of
course, that these aren't Baen books, they're DAW---another
publisher---so it's 'name loyalty' rather than 'brand loyalty.' I'll
tell you what, I'm sold. Free works."
I've found that to be true myself; every time we make a few songs
available on my website, sales of all the CDs go up. A lot.
And I don't know about you, but as an artist with an in-print record
catalogue that dates back to 1965, I'd be thrilled to see sales on my
old catalogue rise.
Now, RIAA and NARAS, as well as most of the entrenched music industry,
are arguing that free downloads hurt sales. (More than hurt - they're
saying it's destroying the industry.)
Alas, the music industry needs no outside help to destroy itself.
We're doing a very adequate job of that on our own, thank you.
Here are a few statements from the RIAA's website:
"Analysts report that just one of the many peer-to-peer systems in
operation is responsible for over 1.8 billion unauthorized downloads
per month". (Hilary B. Rosen letter to the Honorable Rick Boucher,
Congressman, February 28, 2002)
"Sales of blank CD-R discs have…grown nearly 2 ½ times in the last two
years…if just half the blank discs sold in 2001 were used to copy
music, the number of burned CDs worldwide is about the same as the
number of CDs sold at retail." (Hilary B. Rosen letter to the
Honorable Rick Boucher, Congressman, February 28, 2002)
"Music sales are already suffering from the impact…in the United
States, sales decreased by more than 10% in 2001."(Hilary B. Rosen
letter to the Honorable Rick Boucher, Congressman, February 28, 2002)
"In a recent survey of music consumers, 23%…said they are not buying
more music because they are downloading or copying their music for
free."(Hilary B. Rosen letter to the Honorable Rick Boucher,
Congressman, February 28, 2002)
Let's take these points one by one, but before that, let me remind
you of something: the music industry had exactly the same response to
the advent of reel-to-reel home tape recorders, cassettes, DATs,
minidiscs, VHS, BETA, music videos ("Why buy the record when you can
tape it?"), MTV, and a host of other technological advances designed
to make the consumer's life easier and better. I know because I was
there.
The only reason they didn't react that way publicly to the advent of
CDs was because they believed CD's were uncopyable. I was told this
personally by a former head of Sony marketing, when they asked me to
license Between the Lines in CD format at a reduced royalty rate.
("Because it's a brand new technology.")
Who's to say that any of those people would have bought the CD's if
the songs weren't available for free? I can't find a single study on
this, one where a reputable surveyor such as Gallup actually asks
people that question. I think no one's run one because everyone is
afraid of the truth - most of the downloads are people who want to try
an artist out, or who can't find the music in print.
And if a percentage of that 1.8 billion is because people are
downloading a current hit by Britney or In Sync, who's to say it
really hurt their sales? Soft statistics are easily manipulated. How
many of those people went out and bought an album that had been
over-played at radio for months, just because they downloaded a
portion of it?
Sales of blank CDs have grown? You bet. I bought a new Vaio in
December (ironically enough, made by Sony), and now back up all my
files onto CD. I go through 7-15 CD's a week that way, or about 500 a
year. Most new PC's come with XP, which makes backing up to CD
painless; how many people are doing what I'm doing? Additionally, when
I buy a new CD, I make a copy for my car, a copy for upstairs, and a
copy for my partner. That's three blank discs per CD. So I alone
account for around 750 blank CDs yearly.
I'm sure the sales decrease had nothing to do with the economy's
decrease, or a steady downward spiral in the music industry, or the
garbage being pushed by record companies. Aren't you? There were
32,000 new titles released in this country in 2001, and that's not
including re-issues, DIY's , or smaller labels that don't report to
SoundScan. Our "Unreleased" series, which we haven't bothered
SoundScanning, sold 6,000+ copies last year. A conservative estimate
would place the number of "newly available" CD's per year at 100,000.
That's an awful lot of releases for an industry that's being
destroyed. And to make matters worse, we hear music everywhere,
whether we want to or not; stores, amusement parks, highway rest
stops. The original concept of Muzak (to be played in elevators so
quietly that its soothing effect would be subliminal) has run amok.
Why buy records when you can learn the entire Top 40 just by going
shopping for groceries?
Which music consumers? College kids who can't afford to buy 10 new CDs
a month, but want to hear their favorite groups? When I bought my
nephews a new Backstreet Boys CD, I asked why they hadn't downloaded
it instead. They patiently explained to their senile aunt that the
download wouldn't give them the cool artwork, and more important, the
video they could see only on the CD.
Realistically, why do most people download music? To hear new music,
or records that have been deleted and are no longer available for
purchase. Not to avoid paying $5 at the local used CD store, or taping
it off the radio, but to hear music they can't find anywhere else.
Face it - most people can't afford to spend $15.99 to experiment.
That's why listening booths (which labels fought against, too) are
such a success.
You can't hear new music on radio these days; I live in Nashville,
"Music City USA", and we have exactly one station willing to play a
non-top-40 format. On a clear day, I can even tune it in. The
situation's not much better in Los Angeles or New York. College
stations are sometimes bolder, but their wattage is so low that most
of us can't get them.
One other major point: in the hysteria of the moment, everyone is
forgetting the main way an artist becomes successful - exposure.
Without exposure, no one comes to shows, no one buys CDs, no one
enables you to earn a living doing what you love. Again, from personal
experience: in 37 years as a recording artist, I've created 25+ albums
for major labels, and I've never once received a royalty check that
didn't show I owed them money. So I make the bulk of my living from
live touring, playing for 80-1500 people a night, doing my own show. I
spend hours each week doing press, writing articles, making sure my
website tour information is up to date. Why? Because all of that gives
me exposure to an audience that might not come otherwise. So when
someone writes and tells me they came to my show because they'd
downloaded a song and gotten curious, I am thrilled!
Who gets hurt by free downloads? Save a handful of super-successes
like Celine Dion, none of us. We only get helped.
But not to hear Congress tell it. Senator Fritz Hollings, chairman of
the Senate Commerce Committee studying this, said "When Congress sits
idly by in the face of these [file-sharing] activities, we essentially
sanction the Internet as a haven for thievery", then went on to charge
"over 10 million people" with stealing. [Steven Levy, Newsweek
3/11/02]. That's what we think of consumers - they're thieves, out to
get something for nothing.
Baloney. Most consumers have no problem paying for entertainment. One
has only to look at the success of Fictionwise.com and the few other
websites offering books and music at reasonable prices to understand
that. If the music industry had a shred of sense, they'd have
addressed this problem seven years ago, when people like Michael Camp
were trying to obtain legitimate licenses for music online. Instead,
the industry-wide attitude was "It'll go away". That's the same
attitude CBS Records had about rock 'n' roll when Mitch Miller was
head of A&R. (And you wondered why they passed on The Beatles and The
Rolling Stones.)
I don't blame the RIAA for Holling's attitude. They are, after all,
the Recording Industry Association of America, formed so the labels
would have a lobbying group in Washington. (In other words, they're
permitted to make contributions to politicians and their parties.) But
given that our industry's success is based on communication, the
industry response to the Internet has been abysmal. Statements like
the one above do nothing to help the cause.
Of course, communication has always been the artist's job, not the
executives. That's why it's so scary when people like current NARAS
president Michael Greene begin using shows like the Grammy Awards to
drive their point home.
Grammy viewership hit a six-year low in 2002. Personally, I found the
program so scintillating that it made me long for Rob Lowe dancing
with Snow White, which at least was so bad that it was entertaining.
Moves like the ridiculous Elton John-Eminem duet did little to make
people want to watch again the next year. And we're not going to go
into the Los Angeles Times' Pulitzer Prize-winning series on Greene
and NARAS, where they pointed out that MusiCares has spent less than
10% of its revenue on disbursing emergency funds for people in the
music industry (its primary purpose), or that Greene recorded his own
album, pitched it to record executives while discussing Grammy
business, then negotiated a $250,000 contract with Mercury Records for
it (later withdrawn after the public flap). Or that NARAS quietly paid
out at least $650,000 to settle a sexual harassment suit against him,
a portion of which the non-profit Academy paid. Or that he's paid two
million dollars a year, along with "perks" like his million-dollar
country club membership and Mercedes. (Though it does make one wonder
when he last entered a record store and bought something with his own
hard-earned money.)
Let's just note that in his speech he told the viewing audience that
NARAS and RIAA were, in large part, taking their stance to protect
artists. He hired three teenagers to spend a couple of days doing
nothing but downloading, and they managed to download "6,000 songs".
Come on. For free "front-row seats" at the Grammys and an appearance
on national TV, I'd download twice that amount! But…who's got time to
download that many songs? Does Greene really think people out there
are spending twelve hours a day downloading our music? If they are,
they must be starving to death, because they're not making a living or
going to school. How many of us can afford a T-1 line?
This sort of thing is indicative of the way statistics and
information are being tossed around. It's dreadful to think that
consumers are being asked to take responsibility for the industry's
problems, which have been around far longer than the Internet. It's
even worse to think that the consumer is being told they are charged
with protecting us, the artists, when our own industry squanders the
dollars we earn on waste and personal vendettas.
Greene went on to say that "Many of the nominees here tonight,
especially the new, less-established artists, are in immediate danger
of being marginalized out of our business." Right. Any "new" artist
who manages to make the Grammys has millions of dollars in record
company money behind them. The "real" new artists aren't people you're
going to see on national TV, or hear on most radio. They're people
you'll hear because someone gave you a disc, or they opened at a show
you attended, or were lucky enough to be featured on NPR or another
program still open to playing records that aren't already hits.
As to artists being "marginalized out of our business," the only
people being marginalized out are the employees of our Enron-minded
record companies, who are being fired in droves because the higher-ups
are incompetent.
And it's difficult to convince an educated audience that artists and
record labels are about to go down the drain because they, the
consumer, are downloading music. Particularly when they're paying
$50-$125 apiece for concert tickets, and $15.99 for a new CD they know
costs less than a couple of dollars to manufacture and distribute.
I suspect Greene thinks of downloaders as the equivalent of an
old-style television drug dealer, lurking next to playgrounds, wearing
big coats and whipping them open for wide-eyed children who then
purchase black market CD's at generous prices.
What's the new industry byword? Encryption. They're going to make
sure no one can copy CDs, even for themselves, or download them for
free. Brilliant, except that it flouts previous court decisions about
blank cassettes, blank videotapes, etc. And it pisses people off.
How many of you know that many car makers are now manufacturing all
their CD players to also play DVD's? or that part of the encryption
record companies are using doesn't allow your store-bought CD to be
played on a DVD player, because that's the same technology as your
computer? And if you've had trouble playing your own self-recorded
copy of O Brother Where Art Thou in the car, it's because of this
lunacy.
The industry's answer is to put on the label: "This audio CD is
protected against unauthorized copying. It is designed to play in
standard audio CD players and computers running Windows O/S; however,
playback problems may be experienced. If you experience such problems,
return this disc for a refund."
Now I ask you. After three or four experiences like that, shlepping
to the store to buy it, then shlepping back to return it (and you
still don't have your music), who's going to bother buying CD's?
The industry has been complaining for years about the stranglehold
the middle-man has on their dollars, yet they wish to do nothing to
offend those middle-men. (BMG has a strict policy for artists buying
their own CDs to sell at concerts - $11 per CD. They know very well
that most of us lose money if we have to pay that much; the point is
to keep the big record stores happy by ensuring sales go to them. What
actually happens is no sales to us or the stores.) NARAS and RIAA are
moaning about the little mom & pop stores being shoved out of
business; no one worked harder to shove them out than our own
industry, which greeted every new Tower or mega-music store with glee,
and offered steep discounts to Target and WalMart et al for stocking
CDs. The Internet has zero to do with store closings and lowered
sales.
And for those of us with major label contracts who want some of our
music available for free downloading… well, the record companies own
our masters, our outtakes, even our demos, and they won't allow it.
Furthermore, they own our voices for the duration of the contract, so
we can't even post a live track for downloading!
If you think about it, the music industry should be rejoicing at this
new technological advance! Here's a fool-proof way to deliver music to
millions who might otherwise never purchase a CD in a store. The
cross-marketing opportunities are unbelievable. It's instantaneous,
costs are minimal, shipping non-existant…a staggering vehicle for
higher earnings and lower costs. Instead, they're running around like
chickens with their heads cut off, bleeding on everyone and making no
sense. As an alternative to encrypting everything, and tying up money
for years (potentially decades) fighting consumer suits demanding
their first amendment rights be protected (which have always gone to
the consumer, as witness the availability of blank and unencrypted VHS
tapes and casettes), why not take a tip from book publishers and
writers?
Baen Free Library is one success story. SFWA is another. The SFWA site
is one of the best out there for hands-on advice to writers, featuring
in depth articles about everything from agent and publisher scams, to
a continuously updated series of reports on various intellectual
property issues. More important, many of the science fiction writers
it represents have been heavily involved in the Internet since its
inception. Each year, when the science fiction community votes for the
Hugo and Nebula Awards (their equivalent of the Grammys), most of the
works nominated are put on the site in their entirety, allowing voters
and non-voters the opportunity to peruse them. Free. If you are a
member or associate (at a nominal fee), you have access to even more
works. The site is also full of links to members' own web pages and
on-line stories, even when they aren't nominated for anything. Reading
this material, again for free, allows browsers to figure out which
writers they want to find more of - and buy their books. Wouldn't it
be nice if all the records nominated for awards each year were
available for free downloading, even if it were only the winners?
People who hadn't bought the albums might actually listen to the
singles, then go out and purchase the records.
I have no objection to Greene et al trying to protect the record
labels, who are the ones fomenting this hysteria. RIAA is funded by
them. NARAS is supported by them. However, I object violently to the
pretense that they are in any way doing this for our benefit. If they
really wanted to do something for the great majority of artists, who
eke out a living against all odds, they could tackle some of the real
issues facing us:
The normal industry contract is for seven albums, with no end date,
which would be considered at best indentured servitude (and at worst
slavery) in any other business. In fact, it would be illegal.
A label can shelve your project, then extend your contract by one more
album because what you turned in was "commercially or artistically
unacceptable". They alone determine that criteria.
Singer-songwriters have to accept the "Controlled Composition Clause"
(which dictates that they'll be paid only 75% of the rates set by
Congress in publishing royalties) for any major or subsidiary label
recording contract, or lose the contract. Simply put, the clause
demanded by the labels provides that a) if you write your own songs,
you will only be paid 3/4 of what Congress has told the record
companies they must pay you, and b) if you co-write, you will use your
"best efforts" to ensure that other songwriters accept the 75% rate as
well. If they refuse, you must agree to make up the difference out of
your share.
Congressionally set writer/publisher royalties have risen from their
1960's high (2 cents per side) to a munificent 8 cents.
Many of us began in the 50's and 60's; our records are still in
release, and we're still being paid royalty rates of 2% (if anything)
on them.
If we're not songwriters, and not hugely successful commercially (as
in platinum-plus), we don't make a dime off our recordings. Recording
industry accounting procedures are right up there with films.
Worse yet, when records go out-of-print, we don't get them back! We
can't even take them to another company. Careers have been
deliberately killed in this manner, with the record company refusing
to release product or allow the artist to take it somewhere else.
And because a record label "owns" your voice for the duration of the
contract, you can't go somewhere else and re-record those same songs
they turned down.
And because of the re-record provision, even after your contract is
over, you can't record those songs for someone else for years, and
sometimes decades.
Last but not least, America is the only country I am aware of that
pays no live performance royalties to songwriters. In Europe, Japan,
Australia, when you finish a show, you turn your set list in to the
promoter, who files it with the appropriate organization, and then
pays a small royalty per song to the writer. It costs the singer
nothing, the rates are based on venue size, and it ensures that
writers whose songs no longer get airplay, but are still performed
widely, can continue receiving the benefit from those songs.
Additionally, we should be speaking up, and Congress should be
listening. At this point they're only hearing from multi-platinum
acts. What about someone like Ani Difranco, one of the most trusted
voices in college entertainment today? What about those of us who live
most of our lives outside the big corporate system, and who might have
very different views on the subject?
There is zero evidence that material available for free online
downloading is financially harming anyone. In fact, most of the hard
evidence is to the contrary.
Greene and the RIAA are correct in one thing - these are times of
great change in our industry. But at a time when there are arguably
only four record labels left in America (Sony, AOL/Time/Warner,
Universal, BMG - and where is the RICO act when we need it?)… when
entire genres are glorifying the gangster mentality and losing their
biggest voices to violence…when executives change positions as often
as Zsa Zsa Gabor changed clothes, and "A&R" has become a euphemism for
"Absent & Redundant"… well, we have other things to worry about.
It's absurd for us, as artists, to sanction - or countenance - the
shutting down of something like this. It's sheer stupidity to rejoice
at the Napster decision. Short-sighted, and ignorant.
Free exposure is practically a thing of the past for entertainers.
Getting your record played at radio costs more money than most of us
dream of ever earning. Free downloading gives a chance to every
do-it-yourselfer out there. Every act that can't get signed to a
major, for whatever reason, can reach literally millions of new
listeners, enticing them to buy the CD and come to the concerts. Where
else can a new act, or one that doesn't have a label deal, get that
kind of exposure?
Please note that I am not advocating indiscriminate downloading
without the artist's permission. I am not saying copyrights are
meaningless. I am objecting to the RIAA spin that they are doing this
to protect "the artists", and make us more money. I am annoyed that so
many records I once owned are out of print, and the only place I could
find them was Napster. Most of all, I'd like to see an end to the
hysteria that causes a group like RIAA to spend over 45 million
dollars in 2001 lobbying "on our behalf", when every record company
out there is complaining that they have no money.
We'll turn into Microsoft if we're not careful, folks, insisting that
any household wanting an extra copy for the car, the kids, or the
portable CD player, has to go out and "license" multiple copies.
As artists, we have the ear of the masses. We have the trust of the
masses. By speaking out in our concerts and in the press, we can do a
great deal to damp this hysteria, and put the blame for the sad state
of our industry right back where it belongs - in the laps of record
companies, radio programmers, and our own apparent inability to
organize ourselves in order to better our own lives - and those of our
fans. If we don't take the reins, no one will.
Sources:
Baenbooks.com, BMG Records, Chicago Tribune, CNN.com, Congressional
Record, Eonline.com, Grammy.com, LATimes.com, Newsweek, Radiocrow.com,
RIAA.org, personal communications
* for more information on the Free Library, go to
www.baen.com/library .
Read Janis' follow up to this article: FALLOUT - a follow up to The
Internet Debacle
This article has been revised to ensure factual accuracy. Author's
note: You are welcome to post this article on any cooperating website,
or in any print magazine, although we request that you include a link
directed to
http://www.janisian.com
and writer's credit!
==================================================================
There's a follow-up article at:
http://www.janisian.com/article-fallout.html
It mostly discusses responses to the orginal article, and further
thoughts that came out of discussions.I won't quote it all but this
part was interesting:
==================================================================
Emails received: 1268 as of 07-30-02 (does not include message board
posts)
Number of times the article has been translated into other languages:
9. (French, German, Chinese, Japanese, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese,
Russian, Yugoslavian.)
Times AOL shut my account down for spamming, because I was trying to
answer 40-50 emails at a time quickly and efficiently: 2
Winner of the Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is award: Me. We began
putting up free downloads around a week after the article came out. We
will attempt to put up one free download a week for as long as we can
- and leave them all up.
Change in merchandise sales after article posting (previous sales
averaged over one year): Up 25%
Change in merchandise sales after beginning free downloads: Up 300%
Offers of server space to store downloads: 31
Offers to help me convert to Linux: 16
Offers to help convert our download files from MP3 to Ogg Vorbis: 9
Offers to publish a book expose of the music industry I should write:
5
Offers to publish a book expose of my life I should write: 3
Offers to ghost-write a book expose of my life I shouldn't write: 2
Offers of marriage: 1
Number of emails disagreeing with my position: 9
Number of people who reconsidered their disagreement after further
discussion: 5
==================================================================
Matthew Poole
>On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:50:49 +1300, "mcfly" <x...@xx.xx> wrote:
*SNIP*
>Personally I doubt it will make any difference, the price of them has
>been dropping steadily for years & a slight hiccup would likely go
>un-noticed. If a (small) levy was to be introduced I'd keep buying
>CDRs & get on with my life..
>
*SNIP*
A _small_ levy like the one in Canada, which works out to something like
$1 per blank CD-R?
IIRC, they wanted to put a $40 levy on DVD-/+R(W) media.
Matthew Poole
>On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 15:29:27 -0700, blazer <inv...@invalid.invalid>
>wrote:
*SNIP*
>Aye, we all know here that most MP3s never make it to a CDR. But a
>proposed levy on CDs is in response to the recording industry's claims
>that CD copying is what's killing their business. They've been very
>specific about that, and their argument is reasonable enough because
>copied CDs can be sold & that fits an objective definition of piracy..
>
Did you know that last year there were 25% fewer new CDs shipped, but
only a 10% drop in sales?
IOW, RIAA have succeeded in pulling the wool over your eyes too, since
that actually equates to increasing sales when viewed against units
shipped.
>
>So we accept a small levy on CDRs, and when they complain about MP3s
>on hard drives they won't get any sympathetic hearing from legislators
>because they already got what they said would fix the piracy problem.
>
*SNIP*
No, we don't accept any such thing.
Make RIAA _PROVE_ that sales of blank CDs are what's killing their
revenue streams. I mean real proof, that can be thoroughly gone through
by independant auditors (KPMG? Someone like that) who can then come
back and say "Yes, this proves conclusively that the sale of blank CDs
is causing serious (5% or more) loss of income for RIAA's parent
companies.
Last year, counterfeit CDs, as distinct from copied one, were a $4.3b
market. The "big five" of the music industry only had sales of $20b.
Next to that, "piracy" by file-sharing isn't even worth thinking about.
mcfly
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:50:49 +1300, "mcfly" <x...@xx.xx> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 20:10:10 +0000, Gavin Tunney wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Possibly Bruce, but to date the alternatives promoted by the industry
>>> and other sources have been less palatable IMO.
>>>
>>> The problem with the whole issue is there doesn't appear to be an easy
>>> & equitable solution that keeps all parties happy. This at least is an
>>> opportunity to recompense the artists for lost income, whether that is
>>> what would actually happen is a moot point.
>>
>>
>>Before you can claim that this is an acceptable and equitable method, you
>>should be able to quantify the lost income.
>>Can you do that ?
>
> I have no idea. I expect it wouldn't be too difficult to keep an
> approximate tally of what tracks get downloaded on peer-to-peer
> networks and subsequently enable one to place a rough figure on who
> gets what.
You have no idea, but you think it is simple.
Whose logs should be made available to be analysed by who at what cost ?
Now how much is the content worth ?
How does that relate to CDR sales ?
There is no connection between what is downloaded and what is
transferred to CD.
You seem to be confusing several different issues, and proposing a tax on
one as a solution to another.
p2p filesharing, nothing to do with CDRs
Piracy, which is large scale counterfeiting which happens mainly in Asian
countries. Needs market stalls and street sellers and retailers. Is
already actively policed in NZ
Copying for personal compilation use. By people who have already bought
the music
>
>>Before you make CDR consumers, manufacturers and retailers carry the cost
>>of the lost income to artists, for any reason, and I can't see how
>>downloads and filesharing relates directly to CDR usage in any way shape
>>or form, you need to be able to prove that they are
>>all responsible for the lost income, and that this loss of income is not
>>being compensated for by the free market in the same way as changing
>>conditions force adaption in other industries.
>
>>Cross subsidies which distort marketplaces are never sustainable.
>>An increase in cost of CDR media due to a levy will reduce the volume of CDRs sold at no
>>net gain to the consumer, the manufacturer or the retailer.
>
> Personally I doubt it will make any difference, the price of them has
> been dropping steadily for years & a slight hiccup would likely go
> un-noticed. If a (small) levy was to be introduced I'd keep buying
> CDRs & get on with my life..
Then the answer is in your own hands.
Buy audio blanks and you have made a contribution to the RIAA
Others have no such obligations
>
>>They are not responsible for the recording industries failures due to the
>>progress of enabling technology for the consumer.
>>The only answer is for the recorded content industry to adapt.
>>
>
> They are adapting, they're just not heading in a direction people
> like. Where do you think new laws like the DCMA have come from, who do
> you think is behind all the proposed changes to our Copyright Act?
>
> Gavin
The DMCA has nothing to do with p2p filesharing or retail product
counterfeiting or personal copying, which is in fact legal in the
jurisdiction where the DMCA applies.
The DMCA has been applied against the publishing of DVD decryption code,
and eBook decryption code.
Nothing at all to do with fair personal use of consumers paid for content.
The copyright act in NZ could not be made more restrictive than it already
is. Copyright is a civil right. Copyright violation suits are the
responsibilty of the copyright holder.
Putting a surcharge on CDR media to feed the record companies would be
like putting an ACC surcharge on window glass on the grounds that it
sometimes results in injury.
BG
wrote:
> p2p is far too slow and expensive as long as telecom charge as much as
> they do for ADSL.
That is only true for NZ where ADSL is below broadband speed.
Of course, higher speeds are theoretically available in NZ but
only if you are willing to pay $800+ per month.
NZ is the most backward country in the OECD (still hanging in there)
as far as broadband is concerned.
Liam Greenwood
> In article <3e519b2b...@news.xtra.co.nz>, g...@logics.co.nz wrote:
>>On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:50:49 +1300, "mcfly" <x...@xx.xx> wrote:
> *SNIP*
>>Personally I doubt it will make any difference, the price of them has
>>been dropping steadily for years & a slight hiccup would likely go
>>un-noticed. If a (small) levy was to be introduced I'd keep buying
>>CDRs & get on with my life..
>>
> *SNIP*
>
> A _small_ levy like the one in Canada, which works out to something like
> $1 per blank CD-R?
> IIRC, they wanted to put a $40 levy on DVD-/+R(W) media.
It can't be that, I just bought 100 CD-Rs in Ottawa for just under
$38Cdn including tax.
Cheers, Liam
mcfly
"BG" <b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e49d35f$1...@duster.adelaide.on.net...
Crap
How long does it take to buy 10 CDs ?
How long does it take to download 10 CDs of equivalent quality including
printed labels and covers ?
Bruce Simpson
wrote:
>Personally I doubt it will make any difference, the price of them has
>been dropping steadily for years & a slight hiccup would likely go
>un-noticed. If a (small) levy was to be introduced I'd keep buying
>CDRs & get on with my life..
But what about the precedent it sets and the assumption that all CDR
users are music pirates??
That's totally unreasonable.
What next -- add another 1 cent levy to CDRs in order to help support
the performing arts? A home for aged MPs? etc, etc.
Richard Hector
> What next -- add another 1 cent levy to CDRs in order to help support
> the performing arts? A home for aged MPs? etc, etc.
Don't forget to send some to Microsoft ... I must be costing them heaps
every time I burn a Debian CD :-)
Richard
Bruce Simpson
wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 18:24:27 +1100, "BG" <b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Doesn't Sony make mp3 players? Why not give artists a cut from
>>mp3 player sales, if they are really serious.
>
>There's a good article in Feb's Wired about the issues Sony is facing.
>
>"The Civil War Inside Sony
> Sony Music wants to entertain you. Sony Electronics wants to
> equip you. The problem is that when it comes to digital media,
> their interests are diametrically opposed..."
>
>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.02/sony.html
>
>(Can't remember if I first heard about it here, so sorry if I'm
>repeating old news)
I covered this issue long before Wired wised up to it.
Check out my column from last year titled "Oh The Hypocrisy"
http://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2002/0530.shtml
E. Scrooge
"Bruce Simpson" <checksi...@l.address> wrote in message
news:978B49A44B28EB2B.7A912D6D...@lp.airnews.net...
So what?
It all helps to get the word out to more people about it. One would think
that the common cause would be far more important than who did what first.
What comes first? A good cause that means well, or ones magnificently large
ego?
Next thing you know there'll be a nut from "Wired" posting in here - "Yes,
but we did a damn sight better job of it". LOL
E. Scrooge
Bruce Simpson
<e.scrooge@*ubdimen*ion.com (*s)> wrote:
>> Check out my column from last year titled "Oh The Hypocrisy"
>> http://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2002/0530.shtml
>
>So what?
>It all helps to get the word out to more people about it. One would think
>that the common cause would be far more important than who did what first.
>
>What comes first? A good cause that means well, or ones magnificently large
>ego?
>
>Next thing you know there'll be a nut from "Wired" posting in here - "Yes,
>but we did a damn sight better job of it". LOL
I was merely pointing out that more than one person has noticed this
silly state of affairs.
E. Scrooge
"Bruce Simpson" <checksi...@l.address> wrote in message
And the more that notice it, the better.
As everyone already knows, CDRs are used for a lot more other things than
just to put music onto. Having a copyright levy on them will just allow the
music industry to get some money for nothing. It's a reversal of the
buggers that do a lot of copies of CDs to distribute off. Though it's
obvious that not everyone is doing that. While on the other side of the
coin, the music industry plans to penalise everyone over their crazy scheme.
The people that buy music CDs on a regular basis, as well as some CDRs are
going to be hit the worse by the music industry, by getting hit twice - 1st
by paying too much for the music CDs, and then by having to pay extra for
any CDRs that they buy as well.
E. Scrooge
mcfly
"Bruce Simpson" <checksi...@l.address> wrote in message
But you didn't have access to anyone from Sony for comment, apart from their
local record division manager, who definitely doesn't count as a policy
maker, and doesn't appear to be able to differentiate between counterfeiter
piracy on a large scale and personal use compilations.
Any of these jerks that accuse their best customers of stealing, when they
make an mp3 compilation, does not deserve anything but contempt for their
incompetance.
Thanks for making the effort, but your "that was my idea" post sounds a bit
like Cosmo Kramer. ;)