Slashdot Mirror
Record Industry Wants Royalties for Used CD Sales
cuberat writes "In a continuing effort to maintain their image as evil incarnate, record companies are considering charging used CD retailers a royalty for every CD they resell. The story is in today's San Diego Union-Tribune here. When are these guys going to get a clue?"
I was really wondering how long it was going to take before the RIAA kept up with their modus operendi to get their pound of flesh from EVERY possible location. Used CD's have been for sale for YEARS around here. I never thought that they would just let something as big and as out in the open as that just go.
This, just like everything else, probably won't turn out good for them. I forsee further alienation of their customers over this. Not that they seem to give a damn.
What a way to run a railroad...
Jason
He's totally creeping out the Great One, eh...
Didn't publishers try this with books and outrage all literate people? Do the record companies think they can do this just because their demographic only needs to be able to read well enough to figure out which album they're buying? I'm sorry, but once I buy the CD, I own it (although I don't technically own the data on it) and can do whatever I darn well please with it, and it's just too bad if the record company execs can't afford a third hottub and a fifth BMW.
"For success, it is essential you have Thunderball Fists." "I can have such a thing?" "That's right. Thunderball Fists."
First sale rights are in full effect here. Not even the nincompoops in Congress will fall for this.
I have been pwned because my
The supreme court likes taking the side of the consumer in cases involving the doctine of first sale
Which would acomplish exactly what the recording industry wants.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
If they can bill for royalties for reselling a used CD (thus billing royalties twice for that CD), then the royalties aren't strictly tied to the ownership of the physical CD.
That should mean I could either legally keep the mp3s I burned from that CD, since I've already paid for the royalties, OR, they should refund me the royalty fee when I relenquish possession of the CD.
"One proposed remedy being debated by record label executives is federal legislation requiring used-CD retailers to pay royalties on secondary sales of albums."
It's interesting how the federal government is seen as a convenient tool for furthering the music industry's profits. The article makes it appear that the moment a decision is made, the government will heel. No one bothers to point out how chilling this idea is.
It also means that people will avoid other new formats that as effectively copy protected, because they will go ahead and buy/sell used CDS, etc. As the RIAA will discover, the "sheep" the want to sheer continue to rebel.
The only solution will be to actually have an original musical product. Not that the RIAA will be able to do this.
Looks liker the death of an industry, because the things they think they have to do, will also kill off the industry.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
We might as well make it illegal to sell used cars. After all, poor Detroit goes to a lot of trouble to make those new cars, far more than the recording industry does when they just stamp out CD's and run funny acounting practices to cheat the artists.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
The focus on the used-CD market comes at a time when new-CD sales continue to stagnate in the United States. Total sales last year were about $13 billion, unchanged from 2000.
Sales have been hurt largely by a surge in piracy, which the National Federation of the Phonographic Industry estimates has cost the music business $4.2 billion in lost revenue last year.
Hunh? If sales remain the same from one year to the next, how have Sales have been hurt? Does the record industry actually think that everybody who pirates or shares music would actually buy a copy of everything that they listen to? I think they would - if a CD cost $2 instead of $16.99 and Musicians got a bigger cut of the dough!
Let's see...
A group imposes an arbitrary fee on a transaction that they don't have anything to do with...
I seem to remember something like that from high school history class...what was it...
A-ha! It's called a TAX!
"If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards."
as well as promoting piracy by allowing consumers to buy, record and sell back discs while retaining their own digitally pristine copies.
I've been in dire enough straits that I've had, on more than one occasion, to go through my collection and decide whether that rare Stereolab single was worth more than rent (arghh!). Any place I've ever been, $3 per full-length album was pretty damn good; most of the time it was $2.00 or $2.50. That's one damned expensive way of ripping MP3s and screwing Emimem over, even if you figure that the pirate (ahem) bought the damned thing used. And if there's even one scratch, forget it. And we all know how pristine our CDs stay, right?
On another note, I've recorded my own CD (acoustic guitar sadboy emo-folk), and I made 500 copies. I sold a few, have a lot more sitting around my apartment, and every now and then I'll come across a copy in a used CD store. I can't even begin to tell how thrilling it is to see this. I've come across so many wonderful and amazing albums in used CD stores that I either would never have been able to afford new, or else would never have thought to try, or else have never been able to find anywhere else. (If anyone can point me to a copy of Lotion's third album, let me know.)
My point is that if someone was to do this nasty pirate thing -- buy it, rip MP3s, then sell it back -- I think it would almost be like catch-and-release fishing: enjoy the fun, and make sure it's there for the next person too. And I'd still be thrilled to see a copy in a used CD store. I'm not proud. :-)
Carousel is a lie!
They should have the RIAA next to the definition of "petty" in the dictionary. This is the worst kind of penny-pinching mentality there is.
This is the same kind of mentality Microsoft has employed in the EULA's and their bullying of eBay to stop selling old copied of Windows.
The RIAA is trying to get blood out of a stone. Why in God's name would a profit-concious CD retailer go out of his way to line the RIAA's pockets for transactions on which they should have no right to get money on.
If I buy a CD, don't I theoretically own the right to listen the music until I should choose to sell it to somebody else? Why should they get a cut out of every transaction? That's like Ford charging me if I decide to get a cut out of me should I decide to sell my fomerly new car to a used car store. This starts down a really slippery slope. What if I decide to sell old furniture, an old computer, dishes, clothes, hell, what if I decide to donate my old clothes to the Salvation Army? Should the Gap get a cut of that too?
The RIAA should just stop being so damn greedy and understand that their business model is based largely on giving away music so that they won't make an optimal profit the way other businesses do. They shouldn't be trying to squeeze money out of places they have no right to.
This space left intentionally blank.
It's a valid point, but then double taxation is a pretty common and accepted thing. For example, I pay income tax on my money when I earn it, and then I pay sales tax on the same money when I spend it.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Come on! If I buy a used CD, it's because I want a copy on CD, and find it wasteful and extravagant to buy a brand-new copy when older copies are going spare. By the time a CD has hit the used bin, I could have downloaded it a thousand times from any of the various music-sharing sources. I hardly need to pay $7 to buy a CD, rip it, and sell it back for $3. That's $4 I never needed to spend.
The issue, as always, is about price fixing. Used CDs, like their digitally-shared cousins, compete with their still-shrinkwrapped brethren to drive down the price from the ever-encroaching $20 mark. The RIAA is not an "industry trade group" - it's a trust by any reasonable interpretation of the Sherman Act. Record executives deciding anything together - especially legislative agendas and lobbying efforts - should be illegal!
Right...
The large scale recording industry as we now know it started in the late 19th to early 20th centuries.
In times when per-capits musical skills were far higher than now, published sheet music was all the rage. The publishers would hire a singer and pianist to appear at every music store to promote the latest offerings. At that time, the product being sold was just the composition - lyrics, melody, arrangement, chords etc.
Later, as mass-production of recordings became viable, this industry changed accordingly, recruiting the best exploitable artists. At that time, many sheet music printers and performing singers/musicians found themselves out of work, as new technology replaced old.
As for mass-communicating the offerings, remember that Buggles song - 'Video Killed the Radio Star' - need I say more? The technology of filmclip production and the rise of colour TV saw a decline in radio's popularity. Ditto for cinemas, as video distribution has partly taken over the movie market.
But society has proved itself capable of making meaningful adaptations to new advances in technology. I suggest that the whole system of private intellectual property ownership was great at the time, but has been made redundant by the explosion of this new technology for cheap efficient distribution.
I now suggest that the recording/publishing industry, as we've known it for a century, is now obsolete - and look forward to seeing the wonderful cultural adaptations that will come in its wake.
The struggle by the recording industry to keep its obsolete business model in place makes about as much sense as ferry operators trying to charge a royalty for everyone skipping the ferry and using the new bridge.
My suggestion to the recording industry would be to start winding up operations, and investing heavily in internet infrastructure, especially broadband. You'll get your goddam money, guys, but you're going to have to adapt!
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
The article says "A spokesman for the Recording Industry Association of America, which represents the major record labels, said it is especially concerned that many used CDs are being bought by people who "rip" the music using widely available CD-burner devices, then sell the used CDs back to the secondhand stores where they were originally purchased"
Don't these turkeys understand that copy protection makes that situation worse?
Instead of buying a CD for $12 (giving the recording company its full entitlement), copying it, and then selling it back for $6, the smart cookies will now buy a copy-protected CD, rip it using whatever technique works on that particular system -- then take it back and demand a refund because it doesn't play properly on their equipment.
Instead of earning the full royalty on the CD sale the recording industry loses every penny!
And with such shortsightedness being demonstrated on an almost daily basis they wonder why they're losing money??
I think the problem here is that you can't make a copy (well, at least I can't do it) of your car's design and quickly produce another car prior to selling the original. I could probably scan and reproduce a book, though it would be a bit involved.
On the other hand, isn't this "used tax" potentially a violation of fair use?
NULL
no, but the government does get more taxes on all 3. that is something that has always urked me.
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
I thought this was one of the more interesting paragraphs in the article:
Allen said the industry's target audience has changed in recent years from college students trying to build inexpensive record collections to mostly male music fans between the ages of 18 and 34 looking for out-of-print and hard-to-find copies.
You'd think in this day and age, it would be easy enough to keep in print (even with just a small stock) every CD ever made. But it doesn't seem to be working out that way, huh?
The situation is just as bad with books. You'd think some print-to-order system would be a great service for rare and less popular books. Of course, they would be more expensive than the mass-produced versions. But I'd rather spend a few more bucks, and be able to order a copy easily, than hunt through various used-book stores.
We have all this information technology, but we're not putting it to its best use.
Collecting royalties on used CD sales is insane. First of all, I don't think they have the right to. Once I own something, I should be able to do what I want with it (like, when I own a gun, I should be able to shoot people with it...err...) But come on, I can play my CD, give it away, drop it in the trash can, or sell it, can I? All those things don't generate extra copies and hence don't harm anybody (though playing could potentially harm the neighbors' ears).
Secondly, it's simply not feasable. Do they really think they can control everybody who sells their CDs? Of course, there are central places for used CD sales, like music stores, second hand markets, websites, etc. that could be located and ``taxed''. So maybe this is just a plot to push second-hand retailers out of business by impairing their ability to compete with person to person sales?
---
I have seen the future and it is just like the present, only longer.
-- Kehlog Albran, "The Profit"
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
anyone can do that you can write a bill yourself and send it to your congressman to be presented. welcome to the republic. what you thought those laws just sprung out of thin air on the floor of the house to get voted on?
Ok, so in other words, if I _OWN_ something (a CD), I have to PAY someone else for the right to sell it?
M$ thinks so.
-Sean
And Eric Flint disagrees with him. But unlike Ellison, he presented proof.
Same "sharing helps revenues" arguments, with numbers to prove it.
Don't they get royalties the first time these are sold? Next, auto makers will begin complaing about used car sales.
I know this simplifying things a bit, but they try to use these simplistic arguments all the time...
Either IP *is* property, or it *isn't*.
The RIAA and MPAA go to great lengths to equate IP with physical property. Like any other normal kind of property, if they sell it to me, then I now own it and should be able to sell it freely to who ever I choose. On the other hand, they are saying the IP is *not* like physical property - that they never actually sold me the CD and they can dicate use and profit from any resale. (As an aside, in this second scenario, if someone steals a CD, but doesn't listen to it, is it only theft of the actual plastic and packaging, but not of the IP?)
They shouldn't get to have it both ways...
Yes, IP *is* a different animal from actual "property". And if they want to attach a limited use agreement/contract to each CD then that should be within their rights, no matter how stupid that is -- but only if it's made very clear at the original time of purchase that I'm just borrowing the content and the CD is just a delivery device.
Go ahead, put a EULA into each of your CD's, but you have absolutely no right to try grandfathering any of the ones I've already bought. That would be theft - straight forward property theft in the old fashioned sense. And don't expect me to ever "rent" out one of your new fangled CD's unless (and only maybe) you considerably reduce the cost.
My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
My problem with the industry is that they want it both ways (or 3 ways if they can figure out how to get that). They want royalties on recordable media (with the assumption that they are owed royalties on everything, and that you'll never make CD's of your own garage band or other material they don't have claim on), then claim you have no right to make a copy of a CD you buy and copy protect originals to prevent even fair use. Sony makes MP3 players (and even advertises for users to download music from the web!) but then fight MP3s on the web and again trys to prevent you from making MP3s from the CD's you legitimately buy. Now the attack on resold CD - with the stated assumption that if a CD is sold used the original buyer must have made a copy. I grew up with the belief in presumption of innocence; but the recording industry wants a policy of since you might have done something wrong they are entitled to to go after not just you but anyone you deal with. After all, they are not accusing the second hand CD store of duplicating the CD's, just implying that they are owed a royalty because a copy of the CD might have been made before the store got it!
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
-------- This space intentionally left blank --------
<Customer> I'd like to return this album, because it does not play in my computer.
<Clerk> How old is your computer?
<Customer> I bought it here back in 2001.
<Clerk, pointing at fine print on receipt> Sir, our store policy holds that you may not return any media items on the grounds of incompatibility, as we only endorse devices released after 2003. May I interest you in one of our new Integrated Media Stations? There's a 25% discount if you trade in any pre-2003 general-purpose PC.
<Customer> Er.. no thanks, I'm happy with what I have. So there's no way that I can return this?
<Clerk> No, but you can also have your old system overhauled by our technicians for a nominal fee. This includes labor, the cost of the new BIOS/DRM controller, and an upgrade to Microsoft .NET Workstation 2004...
I'm curious how he can prove Ellison's books aren't being pirated, since simple observation proves that they are being pirated.
Same "sharing helps revenues" arguments, with numbers to prove it
Oh, he's not proving that the books aren't being pirated, but rather that its good for Ellison financially. In that case, so what? The "It's for your own good" argument stops working for most of us as soon as we are old enough to move away from Mommy and Daddy.