Slashdot Mirror
Antitrust Investigation Into Music Companies' Online Efforts
Thanks to Dan Gillmor for the head's up concerning the investigation by the DoJ into MusicNet and pressplay. These are the two big services being put together by Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music, EMI Group and BMG. This follows on from an investigation launched by the EU this past June. This is prelim work but we'll see what happens.
Look at this. Another large organization whose wealth is entirely based on copyright royalties is subject to an antitrust investigation.
It's long been argued that the amendments to copyright made in recent years are, in themselves, monopolizing. Copyright is, by definition, a limited monopoly. Expanding it makes it less limited.
Should we be surprised when the holders of these statutory monopolies abuse their powers? Of course not. Fair use is there in part to circumscribe monopoly power. When it's eroded, the monopoly is extended.
In other words: The correct attitude is not to applaud the efforts of the DoJ and EU antitrust divisions, but rather to stop passing legislation that makes these kinds of antitrust actions necessary. Let the market sort it out.
Government created copyright. It's not natural, the way that owning a fork is natural. It should be willing to step up and take responsibility for the artificial distortions of the market that copyright creates, and try to finesse it so that copyright distorts the market in a desirable way without making reference to rights-based talk. ("I have a right to control copiers of my works. I have a right to forbid Russians from reading this document." There is no difference between these two: they're just declaratory statements with no justification.)
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
from the article "Congress continues to prod the recording industry. As recently as Friday, a pair of legislators introduced bills that would rewrite music licensing and copyright laws to promote competition among online music-service distributors and make it easier to buy and sell digital songs."
Does anyone have any information on this bill? The DMCA was meant to make things easier as well, and somehow it had the opposite effect.
The combined might of these companies is even greater than that of the Redmond steamroller, and they're only in the preliminary stages. It's going to take years before this gets settled (even if it does go to court).
So let's not get our hopes up just yet.
Actually I think the current networks they're starting up don't even allow ths..
I thought the pricing was around 19.95 a month for 30 or so songs.
No burnt cd's, no copying, no portable play
Portable play is supposed to be added at a later date..
Oh yeah and I think they're time limited listens as well..
So I'd bet this is going to be a catastrophic failure.. Which they'll probably blame on file sharing or whatnot..
Seems to me that the region coding system which seems to be required on DVD players is there for nothing more than price fixing. So where's the investigation of the DVD Consortium?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
There are a few other outfits that should be included in this investigation, as discussed in this article (somewhat dated now) about how the MPAA was trying to screw lyricists out of royalties using the same argument that Napster used.
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Assistant: I'm sorry sir, but do you have your "burn in store" membership card, or do you remember your membership number? Cash Payer: Nope, sorry Assistant: In that case I have to sell you the whole CD for full price, is that alright, sir? Cash Payer: Nope. Bye. If it was substantially cheaper (zero per-sale 'distribution' costs for a start, and no inlay cards etc.), then I'd sign up and they can stick any other data describing the transaction that they like in the CD, as long as it doesn't interfere with my ability to get the music off the disc using any device of my chosing whenever I want. THL.
Keeping
Exactly. It annoys me no end that they charge more for CDs than for tapes, despite CDs costing less than tapes to produce. When consumer groups here (in the UK) complained about this, instead of reducing the price of CDs, they increased the price of tapes.
When are the record companies going to recognise that .MP3s and CDs are complementary, rather than being in direct competition? I have bought plenty of CDs after listening to MP3s - indeed, when I left university and my free fast internet access, I didn't buy any CDs for 6 months.
Sometimes I wish our copyright systems were purged, and we went back to plagiarism and copying, like England in Shakespeare's day (and Taiwan today).
-- Help Digitise the Public Domain at DP.
>Digital Music
I love the way more and more companies are dropping the Digital buzzword into _everything_ Since when has music been non-digital? CDs and DATs have been around for 20 years.
I think, as with DVD, the new 'digital' word means 'we can control what you do with it'. The entertainment industry knows that CDs and Videos cannot be copy-protected (Macrovision), but DVDs, and 'digital' music (i.e tethered downloads) can. The whole idea of these online music services is to lower the cost (it's cheaper to sell data over the internet than press CDs) and raise the price to as high as they can get away with.
The point is, no dumb idiot is going to _pay_ for an inferior-to-cd-quality song, that has alsorts of dumb copy restrictions on it and will only work on their proprietary format (MS: we want to wean people off mp3 and onto wma for superior digital rights management lol). And especially when they can get it free off Gnutella etc..
That is, of course except for the dumb people that they can persuade that their way is better by saying 'ohhh its digital' and sh*t like that, just like with DVD. Oh, and maybe as a bonus (oh whoppie doo) they'll but some extra crap on the files like real-time lyrics and bios. (sounds even more like DVD as we go along)
The entertainment industry's marketing people are clueless.
-tfga
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Also, some go to labels like Caroline (et al), which seem friendlier to more established acts.
One Can Never Own Enough Musical Instruments...
Absolutely. They plan has always been to back *both* candidates with as much money as you can possibly get away with (I'm sure the law will cut into you before you actually give enough money to hurt your profits), then it doesn't matter who wins the election.
:)
As evidenced by the recent "tie", its these corporate votes that really count, and they are always balanced.
Here are the facts: 1. They fix prices. 2. They screw their artists. 3. (Almost certainly) they cheat on taxes. (With their byzantine accounting system, it's hard to imagaine they wouldn't). 4. They're thugs, who are now very unpopular with young voters who Bush wants to win over, and with older voters who already like Bush. 5. They're Democrats who give Bush grief whenever they can. Why on earth wouldn't the Justice Department go after them?
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
1. The Bush administration has no problem with energy cartels fixing prices, as only one example. They are also against anti-trust laws.
2. Republicans screw artists every chance they get. They hate artists because artists generally ask inconvenient questions and make them look like the uptight squares they are. Ask the National Endowment for the Arts if you don't believe me.
3. Republicans hate taxes and use every loophole they can to avoid paying them while busily trying to create new ones for themselves and their friends.
4. Both major political parties are comprised of thugs.
5. Actually, captains of the entertainment industry are neo-liberals who support the same fascist corporate agenda as the Republicans, with the one caveat that they believe the best way to present fascism to the public is with a friendly smile instead of an explicit jackboot to the groin.
Proteus7