Slashdot Mirror
EU May Block Music Labels' Download Sites
csmiller writes: "The BBC is reporting that the EU is (according to The Sunday Times) considering blocking music-labels setting up their own download sites, as 'Some politicians fear that the two services, Pressplay and MusicNet, would be anti-competitive and unfairly dominate the market.'" I wonder when the idea of a Neighborhood Cache will catch on -- it looks like large-scale digital trading will always be subject to this kind of interference.
I think the RIAA should be banned from online distribution anyway. This should be handled like long distance and the phone company. Banned from online distrubution as long as thier "CD based monopoly" still exists. They need to be forced to give the littlde guy a break. Besides they have way more market share then whould be allowable in almost any other market. I say good for the EU for having balls!
Got hosting
If the labels' current effort is blocked by the EU, the labels will simply shift their plan so it becomes acceptable to the EU. This will likely include the creation of two or three other "independent" on-line distribution companies.
Three or four sights will be found to be acceptable to the EU.
Of course, these other companies won't really be all that independent - they'll either be so weak that they'll be out of business in a short period of time, or they will have such strong ties to the major companies that they'll be non-competetive.
Either way, the labels successfully killed Napster, and now they want to take over with a similarly illegal scheme. The EU might not like it, but it'll be hard to stop.
Hardly interference. The point here is that while now there are large numbers of record stores which make a good living selling CDs, Records et al from a large number of labels this would produce a few sites totally tied to a specific label. Most record shops have a few albums from indie or small labels and it is that range of selection that is in danger. The aim here is quite clear... dominate the digital market place, don't allow others to sell your albums digitally and so the equivalent of the high street store that has the breadth of records is never allowed to exist as they can't exist selling _only_ indie records.
Fairplay to the EU for this one I say. It isn't interfering its making sure that the big boys don't create a digital monopoly that squeezes the minor players out.
Hopefully this will be the start of a number of such actions including Hailstorm, Passport et al from the boys in Redmond. This is pro-consumer and anti-big-business.
Fairplay I say.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
> it looks like large-scale digital trading will always be subject to this kind of interference.
Oh yeah - if "large-scale digital trading" is synonymous with "having a bloody cartel"
There is a whole new world on the horizon - music over the net - where we have the possibility of a lot of new players, new ideas, exciting new possibilities - space for real innovation. Or we can have the same old traditional monoliths controlling it. Yippee.
"Interference"? Spare me...
Tales from behind the Lagom Curtain
They (MusicNet) could just run the servers in the US and accept credit cards. Granted the service might be slower, but I'm pretty happy with the services that aren't in Europe. (I live in Finland.)
Of course setting up a full local service using local currency with local banks with a help desk speaking my native language might have a better chance of being successful.
Good on the EU for this action. As history attests (Standard Oil, Bell, de Beers et c.) cartels and monopolies screw over their customers in the interest of continued profits. Not always tremendous profits, but a steady, large supply of money. What I can't work out is why any cartel whose monopoly depends on controlling the distribution channel can hope to retain control in the zero-cost-of-entry distribution network that is the Internet. Maybe it's like the de Beers diamond consortium: it's branding over substance (in de Beers' case: the whole 'diamonds are forever' spiel; in the RIAA's case: get your legal MP3s here, or we'll wipe your hard drive :)
"Einstein argued that [...] God is not capricious or arbitrary. No such faith comforts the software engineer." ~ Brooks
It's just like having to buy my Sony CDs from Camelot only and my Universal CDs from Sam Goody only. It doesn't make any sense. It's not what the customers want - they want to be able to subscribe to one service, among several choices, and pay to access mp3s from all companies, preferrably paying a flat fee, and certainly not paying CD prices, because after all, an mp3 isn't as good as a CD. They'd also like to be able to choose individual songs to buy, not have to buy 1 song they want and 10 dogs they don't. What gives the music industry the idea they can continue to ignore their market and their customers without hurting the bottom line? Maybe that's why CD sales are dropping.
This kind of phenomenon is not uncommon already - if you want to buy a rare book, then chances are amazon has it. If not, you google it and find that small site that stocks it.
All that will happen is that some enterprising guy will set up a meta-shop where you go and enter whatever criteria you like (name, genre etc), and it'll go off and search all the record stores out there. If it isn't on X label, it's on Y instead.
The net result is that if people WANT the broader range that isn't provided by the label-specific sites, then someone will come along and fill the void.
Don't panic, people, the internet is more powerful than that; it'll take more than a record label trying to be restrictive to halt the information flood.
If you can't see this, click here to enable sigs.
Although I can support the spirit of the act "stopping cartel/monopolisitic powers", I don't think you'd be able to win that fight by giving "the opposition" the tools to form a monopoly themselves... They -do- have that opportunity when we're restricted in used RIAA content. Doesn't look good as this could mean a trade war over music between two economic powers - USA and Europe, as I don't think that the RIAA will take it... Perhaps I should start listening to local bands then.
Bizar technology?
The big reason why the politicians are trying to block the major record labels from setting up their music download services is that the major players may be anti-competitive (that would never happen in the software industry!) and unfairly dominate the market. Before we decide to post reactionary "EU sucks" posts en masse, we have to consider that they may actually have a point.
One of the fundamental aspects of the major players' (ie. AOL Time Warner, Vivendi Universal, Bertelsmann, Sony etc) control over the music industry is that of control of distribution. The big labels have managed to buy up/price out everyone else in the market over time until they become the majority providers in the market. They have so much money behind them that it's hard for the indie players to compete if they don't have multi million-dollar advertising budgets and large amounts of capital to professionally record and produce hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of CDs, although prices for both are dropping. You want your CD to reach a large enough audience for it to go gold or platinum? Do it through us. Sure you can refuse to, but it's not like you can compete with us. One of the reasons the RIAA decided to shut Napster down was not for mass copyright infringement (the Audio Home Recording Act allowed people to copy CDs to tape for years), it was for the loss of control over the distribution of their product.
The Internet may, if we're not careful, merely provide the big labels with another avenue of control over their product. We may see a repeat of past history where a couple of key players (both of which seem to be merely extensions of the major recording labels) grow and grow until they become so big they can have the kind of control over the digital market that they have over the physical market right now. This means high prices, low quality of service and even less money going towards the artist. They can control access that small players have to the product (ie. the music) by charging high prices for access to their copyrighted product. This is similar to Telstra being able to price out competitors by charging high prices for access to its telecommunications network (although the Australian Competition and Consumers Commission (ACCC) is trying to put a stop to that, just like they did with DVDs). Although an American congressman is trying to introduce a law that gives all download services the same access to music regardless of whether they are affiliated with the record company that sells the songs, which (for once) actually makes a lot of sense since it removes at least one measure through which the major players can unfairly control the market. This complaint by the politicians of the EU may actually be a good thing for all of us who download digital music.
----------
When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is no longer our friend.
All majors either have major subsidiaries in Europe, or are European in the fisrst place.
The EU is quite powerfull in terms of monopolies (I think rightfully so). Ask companies like Volkswagen, Mercedes or Tetra Pack. They where all fined dozens of millions for abusing monopoly powers.
I don't think, that Mario Monti would consider this to be a funny prank if major companies just stick out their tongue on EU laws.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
It's good that the EU is fighting an oligopoly, but might this lead to music regions (segregation), as we already have with movies and video games? I hope that the internet can eliminate borders and let content flow everywhere, as it did with Napster.
These record companies do not throw money into black holes and the commission fears that if they come together, it could make them into a cartel and make it virtually impossible for a rival model to compete" --emphasis mine
Excuse me? What do you mean *could*?
How bloody stupid can one be...a rival model (Napster, et al) did try to compete... they got E3'd (embraced, extended and extinguished).
And, correct me if I am wrong, did a music company just try this? One of the same that was fighting napster?
As one poster so eloquently put it, Napsters popularity was spurred on not by the "desire to steal" but by the ham fisted approach to music and individual freedoms by the "music cartel".
I could not have said it better myself.
Heck, just look at the "uncopyable" cds that are coming out? Individual freedoms (tossing motion) going out the windows. HDTV...whoosh...bye-bye.
Oh, never mind the law says you have the right to do this, but the moment you excercise that right you are running afowl of the law? Excuse me?
Did I mis-read the first line of a famous document as "We the corporations, in order to form a more perfect monopoly..."
Moose.
Oh, and next election, if you want sweeping changes...put a single selection first on the ballot that reads "Vote *against* all incumbants".
If it is not there, just look, all incumbants are listed...heh.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
I am outraged by all these people attacking the recording industry. If it wasn't for them then how would any band succeed? I think the internet is going to do incredible damage to musicians and their ability to earn an honest living.
I have my own pop band and one day we're hoping to be really big. We've sent tapes to some of the big record companies, but so far we've been rejected. Apparently we're not commercial enough, but we'll keep trying.
But guess what - people have been copying and distributing our music on the internet! Some of our so called 'fans' came to one of our concerts and made a recording of some of the songs, then they emailed them to their friends and suddenly we found that thousands of people were distributing our music without our permission! Some 'fans' set up web sites without our permission, with photographs and with virtually all the songs we played at the concert downloadable. We have sent them emails to tell the to take them down, and if they don't then we'll be contacting our lawyers.
Some of these 'fans' had the cheek to email us and ask us when we were next going to play a concert. We've decided that from now on we are not going to publicise our concerts to prevent these types of parasites coming.
I think we're going to really big and popular one day, but of course that can only happen with the help of the big record companies, so lay off them!
when will you realize that promoting one or two so-called good songs on a CD while the rest is crap is false advertising?
Then not being able to return the goods after the deception if discovered is panamount to fraud AND theft?
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw.
"Some politicians fear that the two services, Pressplay and MusicNet, would be anti-competitive and unfairly dominate the market."
Please, I know the european (politician) way of thinking (I'm from holland) and the line should read:
"Some politicians fear that the two services, Pressplay and MusicNet, will pay too little taxes"
That's why we are having trouble buying stuff from america or outside the EU for that matter. But MP3's that you download... how can they stop that???
Well... at least that's what I think
Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity
The whole point is that copyright law no longer is working. The law was built with the idea of physical copies in mind. Currently there is a whole industry around distributing physical copies of music to clients. With fat internet pipes readily available, zero cost duplication of content is possible (exluding the price of using the connection of course).
/mp3 directory which is huge and it will be a long time before I rm -rf it.
The music industry is still charging as if there were a physical copy but that is no longer true.
Instead of argueing about what is theft and what is not I suggest a more pragmatic course of action. Pragmatism starts with realizing that:
- if it can be played it can be recorded and vice versa so recording enables other people recording again.
- if it is available digitally it can be distributed at no cost. With a peer to peer setup this basically means you don't even need an expensive server setup.
- if it can be done, it will be done whether you stamp your feet on the ground loudly or not.
This applies to movies and music. These are not things that are open to debate, these are facts of life. Once you realize that, you also realize that the cd producing industry as we know it today is doomed to die eventually. The factories that create the machines to create the cds are no longer necessary, the factories that create the cases for the cds are no longer necessary, the shops that sell the cds are no longer necessary, etc.
The things that are necessary are artists to create content and supporting staff and equipment to help them record the content and optionally marketing people to market the content. Most artists consider albums to be marketing material for their live shows. Generally they don't make a lot of money from these cds since most of the profits go to the record industry. Of the 20$ you pay for a cd, only a fraction of that actually ends up in the artist's wallet Really only the very big artists can make a living out of cd sales.
So how can you make money of content creation? We have already established that the distribution has no meaningful cost associated with it so realistically it is the content creation that should generate the revenue and not the distribution.
Suggestions:
- Live performances. People love live performances and are generally willing to pay for it.
- Commercial activities. If you're famous, you can help promote stuff for money. You could for instance get a sponsor. Many sports people for instance wear clothes from their sponsor and get paid for it.
- Video clips are broadcasted on tv channels who make money by receiving revenue from advertisements.
These are only a few examples. All of these activities actually benefit from free distribution of content. And more importantly, for many artists these are already the primary source of income.
Reality is that I have a
Jilles
But that industry says it will not put a stranglehold on the download sector, and is planning to work together with a new, legitimate Napster that will launch before the end of the year.
Is it me, or does this quote sound like a little kid saying: "No, mommy. I won't eat all the cookies. I'll share some with my little brother."
I mean, come on. How naive do they think people are? Everybody knows that given the chance, they'll monopolize the download sector and crush (through illegal use of the legal process) legitimate services.
I say kudos (the congratulation, not the candy) to the EU for putting a halt to MusicNet and Pressplay until it can be assured that the download sector is a competative one.
This quote brought to you by MoronCo. Industries, the leading source of stupidity on the internet,
-- If any of the above made sense, I assure it was purely by accident.
Irony is the use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning. Satire is a literary work (such as a Slashdot posting;-) in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.
Satire can sometimes be difficult to spot, especially for those of low intelligence. However, people who use irony often leave clues that they are not being serious.
If you read a posting on Slashdot that appears to contain extreme views, and statements that are obviously untrue, it could just be a troll. However, be careful! It might be satire! Then you'll look stupid if you respond to it seriously. If you're not sure or are confused, then it's better not to respond.
You can always find any music you want available online, even if in practice you have to get it as a (physical, delivered to you) CD instead of a binary download?
or
Specialized engines will appear that allow you to find the music you want in electronic format, be it in one of those Big Record Company web stores or in some independent record company/band web site/store?
If we take this last idea further, such sites could actually end up as The Music Portals for most people. After all, they could aggregate information about content (you can find anything from one site), reorganize that information (create all sorts of searches) and add value to it (such as independent reviews instead of the "independent" ones, pointers to (real deal, not company promoted) fan clubs, information about the artist).
Hey, to have a viable business model they could even act as a sales point for Independent Artists (instead of relying on advertising).
This is basically what MP3.com could've turned itself into if it hadn't sold itself out (correct me if i'm wrong)
On the other hand, i bet the Big Record Companies will buy laws (at least in the US) to forbid the embebing in web pages of pointers to their web stores ...
GE-Honeywell merger
This is a point i make often and this instance is no other,the Fact is that People Forget
that outside US (include Canada in the tag pls)these anti Common Man things wouldnt simply work.
Stop worrying and in a few years time just like the cryptography thingy these restrictions will go away when they are found harming US interests.
You ask me how??Well here's How:
Imagine a major European/Asian Label which:
1.Gives the artists it contracts Better % of revenue.
2.Provides its customers with no fancy works,just workd CD's etc.
3.Reduce its margins to realistic levels and make CD's cheap enough so that ppl dont mind buying one just for a few songs(i am assuming that some people will continue to pirate--But most wont)
isnt it possible that you US guys will order more and more of your CD's over the net from these guys?
Wanted : A Signature.
when will you realize that promoting one or two so-called good songs on a CD while the rest is crap is false advertising?
I think your problem is that you're listening to shitty artists. Miles Davis, for example, was prolific for decades without putting out a single crappy album*. Do your research, expand your horizons (listen to college radio!), find a higher caliber of artist, and don't be so shocked when you only like the 3.5 minute single commercial radio shoves down your throat.
~jeff
* 60's and 70's. The 80's and 90's were not kind to Miles, or music in general.
Then again, I define copyright theft as the current state of laws that unconstitutionaly rob the public domain. The Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act is a prime example of copyright theft. The DMCA is a theft of my rights to fair use and scientist's rights to do encryption research and reverse engineering. So I'm all for an end to all this thievery and swindling that's been going on lately.
Software requires an exact digital copy and duplication is somewhat more complex due to that. An encoded mp3 you can record by playing it and holding a microphone next to the speaker. Similarly you can record a movie. Admittedly the quality will suck but there are ways of improving on quality by using e.g. better equipment.
You can't do this with software. That doesn't mean pirating software is impossible. It is just a bit harder.
Jilles
I'm always suprised that while both copyrights and patents are on about equal footing as far as their (U.S.) Constitutional basis goes, the courts (AFAIK) regularly extend copyrights, but more rarely extend patents. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this. I also don't how the less-than-recent case-law is different concerning copyrights vs. patents.
Gosh, two stories in one day about Europe: Germany considering switching to Linux, and the EU proposing blocking music sites. What was that little voice I heard saying that the 21st century wouldn't be an "American century"?
Has less to do with radio itself and more to do with the big labels trying to strip-mine the populace for money. They're not fostering development of artists anymore and they're picking stuff that they know will sell a bunch of stuff real quick and make a profit now, not in a couple of year's time. More often than not, an artist that DOES develop into something ends up being in a position of power over the labels (i.e. They own a lot of the "properties" or they can get away with renting the rights to the music for a time.) so they try to avoid that.
All that matters to the labels (many of which are responsible for the me-tooism of the games industry as they're the ones doing the publishing now...) is making profits. The only way that they know how to do this nowadays (because it turns the biggest profit, short-term) is to go for that "sure thing" every time.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
It's not about right and wrong. What you find wrong (i.e. copying & distributing music presumably) is simply a technical reality, deal with it and get over it. Money is not protected by copyright but by additional laws which basically make it criminal to print your own money so that's a bogus argument on your side.
"And if you've no money coming in from record sales, then how are you going to buy equipment and studio time? Or even afford to eat? Naw, you just want to justify your greedy hording of MP3's"
Well I guess you could get out and get a job or something. Sorry, it's a tough world. All I'm saying is that it no longer makes sense to create and distribute physical copies of music since it can all be done using networks at virtually no cost. If your business model is selling plastic discs with music on them you obviously have a revenue problem. Basically all techniques for preventing illegal downloads of music (and movies) appear to be fundamentally flawed (see my previous post) so you can't replace your obsolete business model by simply asking money for the downloads (again sorry, there's no moral judgement here just a technical argument).
My earlier suggestions will certainly not replace all of the lost revenue. It just serves as an example of how you can still make money after the collapse of the recording industry. And after all, creativity does not require revenue at all. Some people just love to make good music because it pleases them. Basically aside from the past 75 years, throughout history there was no way to distribute copies of music. Still people like Mozart and Beethoven delivered some very fine music so it is not the end of the world.
Jilles
No, Not my problem, I have well over 500 CDs in my collection, many by complete unknowns. Thanks to Napster I was able to listen to the whole album BEFORE I decided to purchase the CD, and I DID purchase what I liked...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
That leaves open the possibility of producing a CD and leaving the logo off of it...there's nothing to stop a label from omitting the CD-DA logo. If they do include the logo on a CD that refuses to play properly, though, they deserve to have their asses sued into oblivion. Not only can you get them for false advertising (calling it an audio CD when it fails to meet specs), but if Philips were so inclined, it could go after them for trademark violation/breach of contract/whatever (there's an agreement you fill out and fax to Philips to get the password to unzip the CD logo collection...been there, done that).
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Is there any technical or financial reason why the CDR manufactures wouldn't overcome the protections?
Not technical or financial, but legal. The DMCA forbids selling devices which circumvent copy protection measures on works in the digital domain, which CDs clearly are.
CD industry in one form or another is here to stay
Does anyone know if it is possible for the mentally retarded people who post to Slashdot to get special accounts? We could call them "handicapped accounts", and put a special blue wheelchair icon next to each post. Also, in user options, we check "filter retarded posts", and not have to read shit like this.
Anyway, mimbleton, for the record: the CD industry is NOT here to stay. 20,000 years from now, not a single CD will exist. Try running these ideas past your mommy next time.
You use that word a lot.. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The definition of irony I gave was taken from a dictionary. Sarcasm is defined as a cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
You may be confused by that song by Alanis Morissette, in which she uses a slightly different meaning of ironic - something that happens that's the opposite of what you expect.
Look them up in a dictionary.
I think it is hilarious that this post has been moderated as insightful and informative. In the UK most people would recognise that this post is 'taking the piss'. It's meant to be funny and is mocking the stupidity of some slashdotters.
Obviously my English humour is too subtle for some people.