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?"
The record companues were in NO WAY involved in the transaction, they got theirs on the first sale, why should they get more money ?? Do used book sales generate for authors ? Does Ford get money when I sell my car as used ??
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Ok, so in other words, if I _OWN_ something (a CD), I have to PAY someone else for the right to sell it?
IANAL, but it sounds like pretty shaky legal grounds to me.
"If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards."
One proposed remedy being debated by record label executives is federal legislation requiring used-CD retailers to pay royalties on secondary sales of albums.
Interesting choice of phrasing. The executives aren't debating whether or not they should lobby for the legislation, or support the legislation - they're debating the legislation itself. No criticism of Frank Green (author of Union-Tribune piece) is intended; unfortunately, I think he is being totally accurate.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
I thought the right of 'first sale' had already been well hammered out in americas courts? Once I buy something physical, it's MINE, and I have the right to resell it however I want.
Sounds to me like RIAA is trying to duplicate the software industry and relabel the 'purchase' of an album as a license.
Didn't the book publishing industry already try this?
Used CDs are exchanged/sold between friends, co-workers, fellow students, etc. Sure, a used store makes it easy to find things, but a large portion of the exchange of used CDs goes on unseen.
If something along these lines were implemented to increase used CD sales, I would propose a sort of P2P network of people to exchange used CDs with the same sort of selection. Similar to an eBay system, the network would simply deal with used CDs. All that needs to be done is connect someone who wants a particular CD with someone who wouldn't mind selling the particular CD, and bam, the used CD store is eliminated from the equation, and the RIAA can't get in the way.
I'm pulling this out of my butt (er... long term memory) so I may be getting part of this wrong, but I remember seeing a history of the publishing industry where they tried to do this very thing. I believe it was around the turn of the last century. Book publishers were trying to make books "licensed", thus keep them from being re-sold (or I assume checked out from a library) without the publisher's consent. I can't remember why it failed (could have been taken to court, or could have been a public relations nightmare), but it did.
Another poster has links to court cases upholding the doctorine of first sale. I'd expect the music industry to achieve the same amount of success as book publishers a hundred years ago.
The article makes this ridiculous statement without offering any kind of proof. We may know this is a lie, but the typical reader of the article may not know.
The article also quotes a record store owner whining about how they can't compete with the used CD stores on price with new CD's costing as much as $18 and used CD's having the same sound quality as new ones.
No shit. We've been saying CD's have been priced too high all along. Message to recored industry, "When the competition beats you on price and matches you on quality, the obvious solution is to lower your prices. This is true in all industries." BTW, I was referring to to digital quality, not music quality. I can hardly stand most of the shit they try to pass off as music these days (am I getting old?).
-- Will program for bandwidth
They did. It's the Bobbs-Merrill v. Strauss case. I forget the exact cite. It flopped because 1) there's a general rule that you cannot have binding contractual terms after agreement, 2) just because you have a copyright is no exception to this. And of course, there's the untried but interesting theory that at least for ordinary consumer transactions, it would be contrary to copyright policy EVEN if it were permissible elsewhere.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Question:
... you know the one ...
Why are DVD less epensive than CDs? Movies cost more to make than music. DVDs cost more to make than CDs. So why are movies almost always sold for less than soundtracks for movies?
... starts with a "G", ends in "REED"
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
The RIAA/MPAA's argument isn't based on the physical media. On the contrary, they've gone out of their way to make sure that folks know they don't give a damn about that polycarbonate disc you've got there, they're talking about what's encoded on it.
According to their argument, they're not selling you the song or movie. They're quite right. You do not OWN the song or the movie. THEY own it. They own the rights to it, and the rights to distribute it. What they have sold you is a LICENSE to LISTEN/VIEW it, nothing more, nothing less. Note that this is THEIR argument, not mine.
In many ways it is very similar to software licenses. If I OWN a copy of Photoshop, I don't OWN Photoshop. I have purchased the right to use the software from Adobe. I have the right to use it however I see fit, but I cannot legally copy it and give it to someone else. This is how it SHOULD BE. If I copy something with the intent of depriving the rights holder of a legitimate sale then I am stealing. No matter how folks may equivocate about The Man keeping all the buck and the artist getting pennies, it is still STEALING, and it is not right. There are many, many legal precedents showing this to be the case.
Now the RIAA is trying to modify that agreement to extend beyond the first sale. What they're trying to say is "I know we sold you this license to listen/view our works, and heretofore that has meant you can transfer that license however you see fit [Note: see how it's like software?], but now we're going to say you can't transfer the license without paying us a royalty." Legally, they can do this if they want, but not retroactively. Much like a shrinkwrap EULA, they can put damn near anything they want into it, and as long as it's disclosed they can get away with it.
The potential downside for them is alienation of a huge consumer base by such draconian measures, but that sure as hell hasn't stopped them thus far. They appear to have learned nothing from the introduction of the cassette tape and the VCR, both of which caused sales to skyrocket instead of causing piracy to skyrocket. But old ideas have a way of getting steamrollered, and if the Big Media Boys don't wake up they're going to find themselves hammered into oblivion by consumers who are just damn tired enough of their shennanigans that they WILL go an pirate some stuff.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
I put this CD on consignment (or sell outright) at my local used record store.
Someone comes in and purchases my CD. (thank you!)The RIAA wants a royalty on this sale.
I am not employed, retained, on in any way affillated with the RIAA.
Why are they paid for the blank CD-R? The secondary sale? They cannot recoup money from me! I owe them nothing. They are stealing from ME.
As I have said time and time again, the RIAA, the MPAA, The Big 5, the Industry, whatever you want to call them, they are after control over creation and distribution of content.
If the abillity of individuals to create and distribute independent content is stifled, the 1st amendment is GONE.
Remember this saying? Freedom of the press belongs to those that own one.
Don't let what has already happened to Radio, TV, and Newspapers happen to music too.
"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. "
This is like Greenhouse gas, we all know its out there we just disagree on how much. $4.2 Billion? Not 6? or 3.1 or 2.8 or... Please this is an unmeasurable number.
With most papers owned or tied directly to the RIAA or MPAA we can expect more "advertising" and less objective news like this. Now Grandma will be out there saying how we need to do somthing about the kids today, stealing from the record companies.
My prediction...look for EULAs on CDs, DVDs and e-books.
The article says the "royalty" would be around 6 percent. On a $15.99 cd, that would be about 96 cents. This is more than it costs to manufacture the cd and case in the first place. If I'm not mistaken, that's even more than the cost of manufacturing the cd and jewel case, AND the royalties (hypothetically) paid to some of the _artists_.
This.