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
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.
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.
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!
It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw.
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
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.
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.