tape tax

[hao!woods]

The problem with a "tape tax" is simply that there are a lot of other
uses for blank recording tape besides copying copyrighted material. Musicians
use it to record themselves, people actually even record things besides music
(God forbid!). It isn't really fair to ask everyone to pay for those who
use the tapes to copy records.
The best solution to sagging record sales is to make the price reasonable.
I stopped buying albums when the price passed $7 apiece. I think it's
outrageous. Concert tickets average around $15 these days as well. Maybe all
the superstars will have to switch from Rolls Royces to Cadillacs for a while
(breaks my heart :-) ). I realize that the non-superstar artists suffer more
than the superstars. I think what we are seeing here is more people want to
be musicians than the market will support, which accounts for the troubles
of the "non-mainstream" artists a lot more than taping records, and the
superstars are WAY overpaid. I love the Stones, but $20 to see Mick Jagger
prance around for maybe 90 minutes is a blatant rip-off. Those of you who have
sent me mail asking why I like the Dead so much, here's one reason. They usually
play for 3 1/2 to 4 hours. Most bands, however, don't even give you 2 hours for
your twenty bucks. Cut down on the number of artists and lower the price of
records. I'd much rather have the album with cover and associated artistry
than a blank cassette with my hadwriting on the outside any day, but my
principles take over when the price is up around $8.50 to $12 a record,
I'll buy a blank tape for $2.50 (or even $3 if they imposed a tape tax!) over
paying a ridiculous price for a record.

GREG
ucbvax!hplabs!hao!woods
menlo70!hao!woods
harpo!seismo!hao!woods
decvax!brl-bmd!hao!woods

[brunix!pss]

The record companies' desire to tax blank tapes is merely another
of their misdirected attempts to find a scapegoat for their declining sales.
The "side issues" that Greg Titus mentioned are the real problems.
I tape almost every record I buy. Tapes can be played in portable
units. Records can't. Furthermore, the records manufactured today can not
withstand repeated (i.e. more than one) playings without sustaining noticeable
damage. If tapes were to cost more, I would probably buy fewer records.
Occasionally I will tape a record that belongs to a friend, or
(horrors!) off the radio. Usually, if I enjoy the tape I will buy other
records by the same artist. I know other people act similarly; "home taping"
often encourages record-buying.
If the record companies need to find reasons for slumping sales, they
shouldn't have to look too hard. Compare the physical quality of records
released today, as compared with those released, say, in the sixties. Today's
recording process results in a much better sound, but it is wasted on the
garbage into which it is pressed. Bubbles, surface blemishes, and warps are
standard. If I were to return every record that wasn't near-perfect, I'd
deplete the stock of every record store in town.
As for what is cut into the grooves, well, it's hard to be objective,
but certain trends can be seen quite easily. Notice which artists get the
greatest amount of PR. The established million-sellers, of course. That's
because the record companies are generally unwilling to take chances on new
talent, unless they can prove themselves to be salable (a Catch-22). No
wonder most of today's fresh new music comes from Europe. (Naturally, imports
cost more). Meanwhile, the record companies wonder why fewer people buy the
latest high-priced (to pay the artist) album by some stale platinum group.

Sorry for using so many bytes. It's just that this has bothered me for
a long time, and I'd hate to see home taping lose its desireability. (Or
legality).

Paul Strauss, Brown Univ.
...!{decvax, vax135, yale-comix}!brunix!pss
pss.brown@udel-relay

[hou5e!mat]

Regarding GREG'S taping of albums ...

Do you think that taping is going to improve ANYTHING?

-- You end up with an inferior copy (yes, I know that for Rockthe recording
quality needs to be only a little better than pitiful. Too often it is just
that)
-- The Dead get no royalties. Do you thing that they deserve them?

-- The record companies have to charge more for the recordings that they
do sell,to cover fixed parts of royalties, the cost of making the recording,
cutting the master, and the plating steps to get to the stampers. Yes, I
know that in rock, with the compressed and limited dynamics you don't need
the finest vinyl ...
-- The record companies, who can be SOBs in the first place, get more
ammunition to take to Congress when asking for a tape tax

As to $7 recordings, or even $10 recordings ... I listen to classical, jazz,
etc. A state-of-the-art recording costs me from $12 to $18 PER DISC. I pay
it, since if I get 100 plays out of the disc, I have paid $0.18 per play.
With a reasonably good cartridge and the vinyl used by Teldec, Telefunken, et al
I could probably play tem 300 times.
Soon digital compact discs will be available. These will cost probably
$18 per, wit 40 min. to 65 min., with some improvement coming in the future.
I WILL pay it, since these last forever (we hope) and, with small exception,
the music that I listen to is of such value that it will not die with the
next group to come out. Can you say that? Perhaps if you expect to only want
20 ro 30 plays from a recording before you mark the music on it obsolete then
you have a different situation.
hou5e!mat
Mark Terribile

[nmtvax!greg]

There was a recent note by Carl Blesch in net.audio in which he seemed to
be against a tax on blank audio tape (the collected tax monies would presumably
be distributed among music companies and artists to reimburse them for losses
sustained when people copied a record or commercial tape instead of buying the
original). The tax actually seems only fair to me. These people (artists
and companies) are in the music business. That's how they make their living.
It's unreasonable to expect them to keep calm when there are, say, two million
copies of their work floating around, but they only got paid for one million
of those copies. Someone who copies an album instead of buying it is, in
effect, stealing something which was meant to be bought.
Although there are a number of side issues (which I'm sure I'll hear about
after this), certainly the artists deserve to get *something* when a copy is
made of their work, but nothing is paid (to them) for it.

greg