Slashdot Mirror
Do Media Companies Have Copyright Wrong?
Microsift asks: "I own the Beatles White Album on vinyl, but I don't have a record player. If I want to buy the CD new, I have to pay full price. This begs the question, when I buy an album, what am I buying. I don't own the music, I just own the right to listen to it, so why do I have to pay the same for the CD as someone who doesn't own the album? As media become obsolete (Records, videotapes, CDs?). Media companies receive a windfall from people double paying for access to the company's intellectual property. Of course, obsolete media is not the only issue, there are several movies that have been released in multiple versions (Director's Cuts and the like). Someone who bought the first version would have to pay for the original content twice to get access to the added content in the newer version (which is clearly wrong). Compare this to a software model. If you own a version of Microsoft Office, Microsoft will sell you a copy of the latest version for a reduced price. So who has it right us or them?"
Those two bands are the best two examples of the "Jam Band" business model; tour a lot, play a differen show every night, let people record and trade the music; lather, rinse, repeat. There's a whole industry of bands using this model and some are quite successful.
Yes, these bands also sell albums which are not freely distributable, but it is clear that album sales are not a very large portion of their income at all and they subsist almost entirely on live performances. As Public Enemy's Chuck D has said, you can't download the actual artists.
Some bands using the "Jam Band" model also have had radio hits and became _very_ successful, including Dave Matthews Band and Blues Traveler.
Burris
If you buy the record and want the "higher quality" version off CD, is it really the same IP / product? Or is it something different, different enough to be a new product you have to purchase separately? Personally, I don't know. I tend to think it is fair to acquire higher-quality version of what I lawfully bought, but I am biased by being a cheap bastard.
As for software upgrades, it's hard to argue that Win ME is really the same as, say, MS-DOS 3.3. Not so clear with Win98 and Win98 SE, but one could argue that what you really buy is whatever is differences. You're not paying twice for the duplicated parts; you're just getting shafted on the new stuff.
Would you argue that you shouldn't have to pay full price for a book that recaps its prequel? Did you cry foul at paying $18.95 for the Star Wars Special Edition tapes? Or are you just pissed because music and (some) software are too expensive? Well, sometimes capitalism sucks.
And just because you may have a legal right to a copy of something, doesn't mean the publishing company is obliged to provide it. Don't expect to make any progress demanding that Universal Studios release "just the director's commentary" for the Director's Cut version.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
I tried this on at the local record store. The woman in the store gave me a look like I'd just asked her to fellate me right there and then in the store. She wasn't the brightest.
In any case, I figure even if someone got it in their heads to go bouncing through the courts and make it happen, we'd suddenly learn that the 'license to listen' component of the record/tape/cd amounts to a grand total of twenty-five cents.
Those record company execs would be up there swearing on their grandmother's grave: "Yes Your Honour, that's correct, it costs us twenty-four dollars and twenty-five cents to make those rec'ds y'r Honna. We keep twenty-five cents as our profit, take twenty-five cents in copyright licensing fees, and the retailers sells them for twenty-five dollars, keeping twenty-five cents for himself. That's not a lot of profit when you've got mouths to feed at home y'r Honna..."
I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Yeah, and what about competitive upgrades? If I bough a new New Kids on the Block CD 5 years ago, shouldn't I get a discounted competitive upgrade to the new Backstreet Boys CD?
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
at first glance, i am inclined to agree with this letter, however it ignores a single major fact. if you own the beatles white album, you must have all those glossy 8x10s and the big lyric sheet. i think the cover is embossed.. the CD layout is different.
when i buy records,, i am interested in getting an equally creative lyric sheet or insert. i want innovative packing and presentation. when you look at records in this light, it complicates the issue. getting music on CD and LP is different because of that.. it's not simply a matter of the container's shape-- the container ITSELF is part of the product.
<3x, kevin
Right now I'm rebuilding a guitar that I got for the purpose of making a dedicated 'metal' guitar- which is to say, I have various instruments tailored to get very specific 'sounds'. Many of them, this one included, have scalloped fretboards to suit my playing style. The upshot of it is this: these are tools to help me practice a particular skill at quality levels substantially beyond J. Random Highschooler.
Given that, the question is, do I try to get paid by copy of performance, or do I try to get paid 'for hire', for the time I spend actually doing the work? Well, the former is more of a 'win the lottery' scenario: currently it's really not feasible to expect to get paid this way- musicians _lose_ money in the industry, typically would get paid better flipping burgers because, as I have, they spend their own money on tools, promotion etc in efforts to hit that jackpot.
Instead of being the 'artist' in the 'star system' sense, I can choose to be the tool- and my income wouldn't have to be a lottery gamble. It could be straightforward income for hours of work put in- simple, effective. The line blurs somewhat- ever heard the name Marc Ribot? He played guitar for Tom Waits on the album 'Rain Dogs' and put in a startling, imaginative solo on the song 'Clap Hands' that stole the show from even sidemen like Keith Richards, who also played on the album. I don't know if Ribot gets royalties on that solo- the point is, work like this from Marc Ribot built him a career and he's legitimately able to ask for good wages should he choose to do more session work.
There are more artists needing the help of skilled musicians, engineers and producers than there are artists who will hit big enough for the royalties to be worth anything. That's always been the case. It's slightly different now with the rampant sampling and repackaging of everything- I just visited a friend who was playing a 'new' CD- a big 'greatest hits' collection of remastered Beatles. The engineers did in fact do a terrific job on that one- the tunes sounded very much like the original vinyl heard on a _really_ good system- but it raises the question of how many times will people listen to the same music over and over again before they get bored of it. I think there's a limit- ragtime and big band music are not chart toppers in this day and age, there's a half-life for musical taste despite the efforts of marketers to not come up with new content.
When new music is required, there will be that option- to be poor and try to wrestle the RIAA for rockstar wealth (and probably lose), or to get paid and then allow the RIAA to lose sleep over mp3s and whatever else comes down the pike. For me it's dead obvious- it is just not worth it to try and turn music into a mass market, get-rich-quick scheme. It's the execs and marketers who will win at that game- and they already own the entire catalogue of the Beatles, they aren't interested in me, or even in the 'next Beatles' whatever that might be. Novelty isn't profitable and never has been- formula is everything.
For anyone who feels that they can and should go up against the big media companies and try to get _wealth_ off their artistry: Cool ;) you do that. In fact, I will happily help out with a guitar solo if you like and you can keep the solo once I'm done with it! All for just $75 an hour (if you're an indie) or $7,500 an hour (if you're Britney Spears or some other manufactured star from the major labels).
Up front ;)
Then I'll have your money and _you_ can worry about becoming and staying rich off of volatile, zero-cost-copying, uncontainable, imaginary intellectual property. Lotsa luck :)
The purpose of copyright law is not so that the music industry can charge the public "listening fees" for music. The purpose of copyright law is so that only the owner of the copyright has the right to create new copies of the content. This way, people will purchase only copies of the content authorized by the owners of the content, and the owners of the content are protected from revenue generated by others copying and selling their work.
You, as a free person, have the right to listen to and enjoy whatever content you damn well please. You simply don't have the right to resell or redistribute copies of content that belongs to someone else and is protected under copyright law.
This strange idea that buying a piece of media "grants" one the right to enjoy its content is a very dangerous one. It is not the intent of copyright law, and its implications could lead to the world that many consumer advocates fear: one in which the right to play media that they have rightfully purchased is replaced with a "pay to play" rental system in which our personal freedoms are greatly limited.
--
"How many six year olds does it take to design software?"
dinner: it's what's for beer
You don't NEED to go buy the CD. You could just get a new record player. You bought and paid for the right to listen to the music on any record player of your choice. Microsoft may give you a discount when upgrading from Office 97 to Office 2000, but if you own Office 97 and want to use Office 98 on your Mac, you need to pay full price.
Same goes for movies. You bought the regular version. No one is forcing your hand to buy the directors cut, that's a choice that you're making. You need responsibly weigh the merits of buying something you already own versus the benefits of seeing a couple editted out scenes or maybe some interviews. If you decide that $19.99 is cheap enough to justify the purchase, that's your decision.
I think software is the only industry that has an "upgrade" price as the defacto standard. Some car dealers will accept trade in's, while others won't. If you buy a refridgerator and a few years later the manufacturer updates the model with a differently shaped ice cube maker, you're not automatically entitled to that since you own the first version of the refridgerator.
Past that... Stick to your vinyl. Get a new record player and fight the disappearance of records... Plenty of bands still release on vinyl, and more probably would if they saw compelling reasons to do so...
The key point is that there is no easy way for the record company to verify that you own the Vinyl before they sell you the CD at a discount. It's also worth noting that, because record companies in particular are so inefficient, a big chunk of the cost of the CD is in manufacturing and distribution, so I don't know how much they really could cut the cost, anyhow.
In the specific case of Vinyl->CD (or VHS->DVD), there is a valid argument that you're buying something new; that the digital copy is significantly better than the analog. It is perfectly legal for you to make a CD from your Vinyl; you just don't want to because the quality would suck. Therefore, it is arguable that you don't own the CD version of The White Album
A better example is CD -> MP3. This is simply a media transfer. While the RIAA likes to imply that you do not have the right to do this, clearly, under copyright law, you do. The record companies would love to sell you all your music again, of course, and certainly, as a service, that might be something people would be interested in (although clearly not for the $3.50/song encrypted BS they're pusing, now).
I work for EMusic.com, and we've thought about this a lot, as you might imagine. Our opinion is that you have the right to transfer formats and make copies all day long, as long as you don't share them with someone else. When you purchase a song from us, you've got the right to put a copy on your computer, a copy on your Nomad, a copy on your computer at work, and a copy on your car. There's no way you can listen to all those at once, so it's no big deal. What you're not allowed to do is share it.
Similarly, if you own a CD with a song we offer on it, it's perfectly OK for you to rip the MP3 from the CD and not buy it from us. Or, if you'd like, we'll sell you the MP3. For some people (especially our subscribers), that may be easier than ripping their collections.
Anyway, don't let the [MP|RI]AA snow you about your rights. You do have substantial purchase rights over the music you buy. The music industry (unlike the software industry, which you hold up as a paragon of virtue) does not have EULAs, or license agreements. When you buy an album, you still are getting something you retain rights to. Ditto with a movie. I agree that it'd be cool if they'd offer, for example, a suplemental DVD to go with your VHS old copy, for less than the whole DVD copy of a movie. But clearly the market for that would be small.
Software is relatively simple to produce these days--even outdated stuff. Most folks don't keep it, though, because the stocks aren't in high demand.
It's not the same way with stuff in "old media"--to get something from vinyl to a digital format, it has to be recorded from analog, transferred to digital hardware, remastered to make sure it sounds close to the original, then transferred to the new format. That's why you used to see "DDD", "AAD", and "ADD" on the backs of CD's [and in some cases, you still do]. For the most part, new music is created and stored digitally, but that's not the case with your Buddy Holly LP's. =)
Which is better? Depends on the market. The market, to me, seems to dictate that the consumer is willing to bear the cost of the low-volume, high-cost production that converting A-->D runs. So it's nice free-market stuff.
Don't compare it to software the way the original poster does--new versions are upgrades, not ports. A port still costs money [or time-cost of money], though. This is a huge transferrence that requires one or more trained people to listen to.
--
-- Geof F. Morris