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 can just imagine the future of CD sales. They probably will have a ELLA (End Listener License Agreement).
By breaking this seal you agree to the terms of this license............... We the RIAA have the right at anytime to enter your place of residence to do an audit, and make sure all of your music is properly licensed.
I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
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...
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 ?
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
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."
There was some stupid movie I saw on HBO once called kidco, kidcon. Anyways
The story is about some kid that starts a fertilizer business collecting the poop from the different farms around town. Big fertilizer business takes the kids to court and tries to get them shut down on all sorts of technicalities.
They come to the issue of sales tax on the poop. The kid calls up the local alfalfa farmer and asks him if he pays taxes on the hay, to which he replies yes. The kid then makes the argument, "If the hay was taxed on the way into the horse, then taxing it when it comes out is double taxation!"
Manuer, Used CD's, its all the same really, isn't it double taxation when royaltee's are collected twice on a 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.
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'm glad to see such actions like this, they are so ridculous as to be doomed to failure (hopefully) and they clearly show what a bunch of money grubbing bastards recording companies are.
This kind of thing has been legally established for over a hundred years, when used books are sold.
They should get some of Brittany Spears assets!
Even if they are used.
-Dubya
The supreme court likes taking the side of the consumer in cases involving the doctine of first sale
Isn't there an established precident? Reselling records has been going on for sometime. Kinda like the "recording shows on your VCR" argument with the TIVO?Oh.. wait.. nevermind. Now I get it.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
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.
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?
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.
In fact, Country Music superstart Garth "Baldie" Brooks has been bitching about his lost revenue to used CD sales for years.
He even tried to strong arm reatailers that sold used CDs by not letting them have any orders for new CDs
--
Ask the Ya-Hoot Oracle Anything!
"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"
This means I would get money every time someone re-sells the CD, right? I mean, I have as much legal right to do so.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Apparently, Mr. Green doesn't know the difference between a hypothesis and established facts. A professional journalist ought to know the difference and clearly indicate it in his writing. (His "according to the music industry" qualification only applies to the subsequent dollar amount.)
I'd propose an alternative hypothesis to the music industry's self-serving pronouncements, so uncritically cited as fact by Mr. Green: there is a limit to how interested people are in getting new music, and they can get the standard commercial stuff through more-and-more radio stations, on air, on cable, and on line.
By way of example, I know I have largely stopped buying CDs. I have all the stuff I really care about in legally purchased CDs (a few hundred), and for the rest, I mostly listen to the radio. Why would I want to pay $15-$20 for music CDs? If the prices came down to $3-$5 per CD, maybe I'd find it more convenient than the radio again. Until then, no thanks.
because there's no good music being released anymore.
I know that a few years ago when I lived in austin tx, a major label (warner, I believe) threatened to stop selling their music to a very large indie record store (chain of one) if they continued to sell used music. Management looked at their used sales profits vs their profits from the sales of the new CDs from this label... and gave them the finger, and started buying anything they need from that label from a distro house instead of direct (5% difference in price).
Less than a year later, the new regional sales rep came to their buyers trying to convince them to host in-stores and buy direct again.
Seems to me that someone in management accidentally sent their wishlist to the PR dept.
::.. check out some Cell Phone Reviews
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.
Any reproduction of a copyrighted-work will constitute grounds for civil suits with fines and lawyer fees and so on...
Why should it stop with pre-owned CD's? Aren't the lyrics copyrighted? Isn't the score for the music itself copyrighted?
What's to prevent their taking us to court for merely humming a copyrighted work?
The new big brother Mssrs. Ashcroft and Ridge are creating would excel at tuning in to our barely-audible humming of copyrighted works. With the right kind of software you'd get busted every time.
Indeed, with the advent of immersive virtual reality, where our every thought is analyzed for use as input, the mere recollection of more than three adjacent musical notes in a copyrighted work would spell disaster! It would constitute an unauthorized digital-reproduction of the artist's (read recording label's) property and immediately flagged as such.
And why should that stop with music? Literature, software, porn... it's hard to see how we would be able to get through a moment let alone a day without unlawfully summoning somebody else's intellectual property.
Copyright has to die.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
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 $16.99 and Musicians got a bigger cut of the dough!
Used CDs are exchanged/sold between friends, co-workers, fellow students, etc. Sure, a used store makes it easy to find things, but a large portion of the exchange of used CDs goes on unseen.
If something along these lines were implemented to increase used CD sales, I would propose a sort of P2P network of people to exchange used CDs with the same sort of selection. Similar to an eBay system, the network would simply deal with used CDs. All that needs to be done is connect someone who wants a particular CD with someone who wouldn't mind selling the particular CD, and bam, the used CD store is eliminated from the equation, and the RIAA can't get in the way.
"In an attempt to combat the growing problem of children listening to used CDs the record industry today recommended a 'Used CD Tax'. An additional 50% tax should be applied to the sale of all used CDs. Similar actions have been taken for alchohol and tabacoo, but this is the first such action that confronts this growing problem." A.P.
"Kids these days are beginning to buy used CDs at a younger and younger age. This is depriving me.....I mean.....the artists of their well deserved income," said Harry Buttes, V.P. of Money Grubbing at Great Tune$ Record$.
Let me get this straight: If I buy a Sony CD and take it home, then put it in my Sony CD duplicator in my Hi-Fi system and make a copy (without the track I despise) on special audio CDR media that Sony gets an extra royality payment for, they also deserve yet another royality if I sell someone else the original album? Yea, that seems fair.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Just one more thing that I must add to my original post on this matter. It is high time that corporations STOP running to the federal government for new legislation every time something happens in the market that lowers their profits. And it is high time that the federal government pass a law banning laws to protect the profits of corporations (with the exception of the original copyright, trademark and patent laws, which provide quite enough protection anyway). There is no such thing as a right to profit. When a corporation's profits decline, they should figure out ways to compete through better products, higher efficiency, simply better marketing. Setting costs, for example, is a part of marketing, and I believe the music industry in particular should lower the prices of new CDs. If a new CD cost only five bucks more than a used one, many people would say, "Oh, it's only five bucks more, I'll just get the new one." Instead, new CDs are priced outrageously, and when people don't buy, the music industry runs crying to the federal government.
If something isn't done to stop this trend, we'll soon find ourselves paying taxes to corporations for the use of every product we own and have paid for.
If they are that worried about digital copying... and bear with me here, maybe they should just stop releasing material on media that can be digitally copied!
Seriously... I'm not trying to be a troll with this suggestion, it's just that I'm so sick to death of their attitude that I really think everyone would probably be better off going back to analog media. Those who aren't going to be such pain-in-the-buttocks about it can keep on using the digital media. The bottom line is that these media companies just aren't genuinely ready to truly embrace the technology, so why bother trying to use it? Someone once said trying to make a bit that is not copyable is like trying to make water that is not wet. Until they learn that lesson, I know I'd be a lot happier if they just took their bat and ball and went home.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
Are you sure? Wasn't that instituted for motor vehicles before it was for guns?
Today, the RIAA was granted patent number 8,675,309 for their ingenious work. The patent covers "sounds or one or more frequencies arranged to form a series of simple and compound sounds, sometimes called 'notes.'"
The patent goes on to claim inventions such as "rhythm" and "scales." It even suggests a name for these strings of notes, "music."
The RIAA wants to assure the public that it plans to license the "music" under RAND (reasonable and non-discrimanatory) conditions.
is that it really does help to expose the greed of the music industry. And this is useful in defending against them in other efforts they have to constrain
the consumer.
I really do believe they are shooting themselves in the foot in their assumption of associating the consumer to being theives.
And didn't MS get themselves busted in an act of harming themselves in order to constrain others?
"Marshal: All Rise. The Federal Court for the Western District is now in session. The Honorable Wilfred M. Impatient presiding."
"Court Reporter: Docket number 31337, RIAA vs. Guys Trying to Make a Living, Inc."
"Judge: Alright, let's hear it."
"Defense Attorney: First sale doctrine."
"Judge: Case dismissed (gavel). When's lunch again?"
"Marshal: All Rise..."
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
If I win the lottery, I'm going to open a library with every CD that I can think of in it. It's free, all I ask is that you return it in a day or two. That should be enough time to 'listen' to any CD. Or am I describing any college campus?
On second thought, if I win the lottery, I'm going to join the Republican party, hire guards to keep the likes of you away, and get some lawyers. And you should be aware that my lawyers will be on your ass in a flash. I don't know what for, but they'll be on you.
Mint condition. Only 10 kilograms of sloppy wet cowshit per CD. This week only!
J.
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...
"We could always start boycotting used CDs"
Yea, that'll work about as well as the other boycotts suggested on slashdot. Just ask Taco how that MPAA boycott is going.
That anybody selling CDs at a garage sale has to pay royalties? This is actually a good thing, because the Labels are just digging themselves deeper and deeper with not only public opinion, but their credibility within the legal system as well... With any luck, they'll think of something even more assnine than this and they'll get smacked down hard.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
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??
It seems that the RIAA are trying to tell us that we're not *buying* the music, only renting or leasing it.
;-)
Under this proposed new system, when you sell your lease, the new tenant has to pay a fee to the RIAA for the privelege.
Okay, if that's the way they want it, perhaps it's time we stood up for our tenant's rights.
When a CD stops working (like the plumbing or the heating in your rented apartment) then it must be the job of the RIAA (landlord) to put it right -- at no cost to you!
If the RIAA wants to collect what amounts to a security deposit from the new tenant when a CD is resold, then they are surely obliged to refund the component of your initial purchase that represented that same security deposit.
If we could establish a precedent that the music was being leased and that there were analogies with other lease contracts then we'd open up a whole new front on which to teach these profiteering fools a lesson or two
You'd be surprised what Congress would and has fallen for. You've gotta love this sentence from the article:
How far gone is our government when record label executives are debating whether or not to have federal legislation enacted?!
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.
Selling your CD could get you money to partially pay for a new one, though...
Sorry... That's just my initial reaction to this story.
http://www.kubuntu.org/
You do not need a license to own a car, just to use it on public roads. There are many things that are required to be registered and tracked that you don't need a license to own. For example, property or houses, or the aforementioned cars. Registration and tracking on personally owned items, especially large value items such as houses or cars, is nothing new, and certainly did NOT start with guns.
The skilled trades unions that build houses will be petitioning the government for a royalty on each home that is sold in the used market.
"Our craftsmen put their heart and soul into creating these homes, it's only fair that each person that enjoys the product of that labor pays their fair share" said an industry spokesperson.
Sheesh.
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.
It's time to merge the needs of the content industry with that of the containment industry - that is, of the RIAA members with the government. Towards that end, henceforth all playback equipment will record each time a content item is accessed, and a charge therefore will be presented on the accessor's next monthly federal return, to be split between the feds and the consumer-feeders. Then statistical correlations will be made between specific content ingestion and later anti-social acts, discounts given if those acts are of minimal actual impact but further the goals of the containment crew by creating the appearance of vast, looming criminal potential, and then apprehensions practiced first against those not credited with discounts (since government credibility is furthered among consumers by leaving live evil out there somewhere), followed by occassional samples from the propaganda-enhancing group drawn by lottery, so that "Progress is being made."
Studies show that most people listen to a new recording 12 times before putting it away. It's only fair that the recording they listen to 1200 times end up costing them 100 times as much, or else musicians will not have been rewarded in true proportion to their contribution to the consumer's consumptive life.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
A nice round number.
Insert Soylent Green joke here.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Don't they get royalties the first time these are sold? Next, auto makers will begin complaing about used car sales.
It's the law, and there's no ambiguity at all when it comes to physical distribution media like a CD. They're wrong, they lose, and someone should sue the MF's to get the court to order them to quit trying to intimidate anyone who wants to sell used CD's.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
OK, so they would like to get their royalties 1.5 times. Good for them, but besides the fact that we all think its wrong (I'm not disagreeing), there are other fundemental problems that it seems they haven't thought out yet.
If I got to a CD resale store and sell them my CD (for them to re-sell), how in the world would the RIAA know about it? Would all CD-carrying stores be required to be audited, and all of their sales tracked and recorded? That is the only way (that I see) the RIAA would be able to keep track of resold CD's.
I'm not sure about you, but if I owned a store, I wouldn't want to keep track of all my sales for auditing purposes, especially if the RIAA wants it that way. Could it be that anywhere selling CD's would become like a pawn shop is, and be subject to monitoring by the police? Then entrapment could become a problem.
Maybe I'm stretching it too far, but I don't think so. If you do, please let me know. Just my two cents.
People here on /. don't want good music.
They wan't good mass produced music.
You want to be led like sheep only you've realized the current sheperd wants to fuck you all.
There's plenty of good music out there, independent labels, clubs, "the net", old CD-s,
hell you can even pick up an instrument and play whatever you like.
But of course these methods require work, and it's harder to find communities to fit in where others share the same music tastes.
Choices, choices...
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!
The income tax alone should suck enough to make you not want to live there. A long long time ago...
I worked in Portland OR and lived in Vancouver WA and I still had to pay income tax. WTF? Why? I used (round trip) 15 miles of tarmac per day, 5 times a week. My income tax came out to about 7K$ per year. That means I spent less on gas going to work than I did paying the tax driving to work.
That is some seriously fucked up stuff.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
I don't need a license to own a gun, either. I own several, and have no license.
Your bridge vs. ferry analogy is a great one, I'll have to remember that one.
I've said it before: The RIAA and MPAA are sitting on a GOLD MINE of works that they could make even MORE billions off of if they'd just LET GO of their ridiculous ties to the past and take a step into the future.
How much would any of you pay per month for the ability to download any song or movie ever made and watch it at your convenience with NO strings attached? I don't know about many of you, but I'd pay anywhere from $9.95 to $29.95 for such a service, especially if the downloadable stuff was of high quality. A few million people paying that every month would keep Sony Music and the rest in deep cash for a long time to come, especially since they could absolutely junk any and all manufacturing and distribution fees. After all, we all know that the artist only gets a few pennies for each CD sold. The rest goes to distribution, manufacturing, etc. etc. Rip that out and profits can be maintained, while at the same time giving customers WHAT THEY WANT.
The overwhelming popularity of Napster was NOT totally due to it being free. I would've PAID for such a service had one actually been available. I wanted the convenience of getting EXACTLY the song I wanted with no extraneous fluff. Who actually WANTS all the songs on a common CD these days? Even "Greatest Hits" CD's invariably include a few duds. Why pay for songs you don't want to listen to? And singles are a horrendous idea, being that they're only marginally cheaper than full albums but only contain one song. Better to get the album with at least two songs you like than to purchase two singles.
The music industry must adapt to the new distribution models available to them. This means letting go of their obsession with control, control, control over everything. The very LACK of control is a GOOD THING when it comes to the new distribution model. All they have to do is make it somewhat affordable AND extremely convenient and people WILL use it. Of course, some piracy will always exist, but if you make it easy to stay legal, folks will do that just because it's easier than stealing.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
quote: "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."
,the music industry says so, and the sales figures prove it.By the way cd sales in 1999 were 12.8 billion, and in 1998 cd sales were 11.4 billion.
You know that's a really interesting piece of information considering that Napster was released to the public in 1999.So cd sales have not been effected at all by music "piracy"
Ah, but you forget that the article also says that they estimate the total impact of piracy to be "$4.2 billion in lost revenue last year".
So obviously, although sales have been flat since at least 1998, the industry expected to have the most bang-up year of all time if it wasn't for Napster and its ilk.
Of course this phenomenal growth would have been due to last year's strong economy, aggressive pricing, the industry's keen committment to customer satifaction, and the best crop of new releases in music history...or something like that.
My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
<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...
Valenti said the same thing about DVD media. Something along the lines of DVD media devaluing movies.
Open digital media with a long lifetime *will* get used over and over again. Older analog media required new purchases for the best experience. Today you can find a scratched CD in the dumpster, clean it and get that new CD experience, sans liner notes and such.
Tough spot for them right now. The big bucks only happen with high distribution. The higher the distribution the quicker the value drops.
Too bad those pesky CD's don't just decay.
Really its their own fault.
They have saturated their market with increasingly bland albums. Killed radio at the same time. Nice...
The trading of production values for profit has made many buyers reluctant to buy new. Why bother if 2 out of 15 tracks are trash? This more than any other reason is why lots of people are looking used CD over a little more closely.
They know we all want to purchase music online in unfettered formats, yet they killed their one chance to get that done. (Napster.)
One common thread to all their actions seems to be preserving that annuity model. Each hit needs to be the gift that keeps on giving.
As they continue to saturate their back catalog, look for them to become more desperate as their overall sales continue to fall.
I am not sorry at all. Our goverment should not be either.
Blogging because I can...
eBay would be an excellent target for this proposed measure. The RIAA would simply force them to add a fee to each CD transaction which would cover the "royalties". This is because, like Napster, eBay has a central organization which can be legally targeted.
Now, the obvious remedy to this is a decentralized P2P system, where there is no single entity to attack. However, eBay provides certain CRITICAL services without which buying online would be much less appealing. When somebody you bought from over a P2P network rips you off, what are you going to do? Leave negative feedback? Get their account banned? Who will ban them? People are willing to buy things from complete strangers on eBay because the central corporation provides a measure of control, reliability and trust to the buyer and seller. Without that, you send your $ and take your chances.
Freedom: "I won't!"
When the price of used CDs suddenly go up $2 or so and the sales clerk tells the customer "the money's going to the record industry, they bought themselves a law... if you don't like it, call your Congressperson..." the public will get the idea very, very suddenly.
While Joe Sixpack wouldn't recognize "first sale" doctrine... he knows that once one sells something to somebody, that if that person resells it, he has no right to a profit from the item. He's going to start asking loudly and nastily just why the record industry gets to play by a different set of rules.
You think piracy is big-time NOW? When nobody has any further respect for record industry copyright, I predict that ripped CDs will become far more popular than ones purchased in stores.
This is going to piss off a lot of musicians as well. If one doesn't like music, one doesn't try to do it for a living. Once the musician finds out that the record industry is collecting royalties for the second and subsequent resales of a CD that is being passed along to him as a customre and that he will never see a single cent of profit from this, he's going to go ballistic... and many will suddenly realize that with CD-on-demand (try Ampcast ), they don't need the record industry for international distribution.
As for political impact... watch the Democratic Party stampede in all directions away from Hollywood as the GOP finds they've been handed a new campaign issue... they've been pissed off for years about the fact that the entertainment industry never considered the GOP worth buying.
I think the record industry is shooting itself in the head with this law. If anyone knows anybody at MPAA, tell them about this wonderful new idea and to make sure movies are included as well.
Tech Public Policy stuff
GM has decided to demand for $1000 from the sale of every used car.
Calvin Klien wants 10 bucks ever time someone buys used jeans at a Goodwill.
A representative from the IRS commented on the record: "Just who the fuck do these guys at the RIAA think they are? US?
First, as an AC posted below, this post was lifted in its entirety from kuro5hin.
Second, Jefferson had nothing to do with writing the US Constitution.
That's been around for quit awhile. ASCAP and BMI.
If you think about how much $1 USD gets taxed in its lifetime, it's mind-boggling. The Man takes 1/3 of my income, then he takes 5.5% more when I take the rest of that income and blow it at newegg.com, who then uses it to pay their employees, etc.
It's a vicious cycle, and since the Music Industry is struggling so much (Eminem's disc gets pushed up due to mp3 pirating, then leads the sales charts 3 weeks in a row), they've got to get every dollar possible. The cost of yachts and country clubs doesn't stay the same, you see.
Once I buy something, I should be able to do whatever I want with it assuming I'm not breaking any laws. If by some strange occurance do CD's get more royalties extracted during a reselling, then I'd change my used CD store to a "take the discs you want for free, but you must donate $5/disc to the guy playing his guitar in the corner" model. There, I'm no longer selling CD's. It's like the baseball model where you can trade a guy for "a player to be named later", or the infamous "past considerations" deal used in the NFL up until 2 years ago.
"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."
Lets assume you've never been to slashdot and don't know IP from TCP/IP.
Okay, pick up a music CD in the music store (easier, find the closest one to you).
Read all the fine print. ALL the fine print.
Tell me where they've made it clear that its not my property. Guess what...you can't.
There is no EULA on any of the music CD's I have. A reasonable person would say they own that CD and can do with it as they please (within the limits of the law, obviously).
Now, the LAW doesn't say anything about not owning the CD and the music on it; that's a creation of the record companies. But they haven't made that clear.
THEREFORE, as far as I know, I own the rights to do with this CD as I please, including selling it to anyone I want without any special encumberances by the copyright holder.
Seriously, where have they made it clear?
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
... to make me download music w/o paying for it.
Either I let them play games with fairness and my personal rights, or I break the law and fight the evil power.
Can you believe that a year ago, I wouldn't download Napster because I didn't wanna be unfair to the music industry?
"Derp de derp."
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.
I'll keep this short:
Other posters have said this but I haven't much in the way of solutions to this problem. What problem?
Let's say duplication costs $1, new CDs (new releases) $20, used CDs (new releases) $13 and I get $6 for selling it.
Math says I spent $21 to make a copy and I got $6 selling it used = I'm out $15 instead of $20. What I did was totally illegal but just *so* easy. Or, I buy a used CD instead of new - I'm now out only $14-$6=$8 per CD.
If I remember my economics, this makes me feel a little richer. If I saved $100 though, I do NOT spend the whole thing on new CDs - I spend it on pizza, beer and way too much at the Torontozilla party. Even if we ignore this effect and pretend we put all our savings into more CDs, we are getting MANY more CDs for the same amount of cash.
So, I don't spend more money - but I'm getting more stuff. Who lost it? The members of the RIAA.
They have a legit problem here. Their product is insanely easy to copy - even my mom can do it. Adding the fact that people are buying less CDs just to replace their tapes... imagine where their sales estimates are in 5 years.
The RIAA is trying to solve a problem - let's assume they are going the wrong way. Their product is easy to copy and there is a large market for used product. A tax won't work. What will?
Ignore the inflated "piracy loss". Use your brain and solve the problem yourself - kudos to anyone who comes up with a fair solution... but in the absense of a fair one, the RIAA will take any solution.
National Federation of the Phonographic Industry
I misread this as Pornographic Industry. It made me wonder: Someone who didn't know anything about the internet might reasonably assume, at first glance, that it was created as a place for free porn. I wouldn't be suprised if there's more piracy in the porn industry than any other one. Yet I don't hear Larry Flynt whining about lost revenue. Does anyone have any figures on this? It would seem like this is an actual real-life example that proves that piracy doesn't hurt sales. But then, is it even about loss of sales? Did the RIAA have to prove damages in the Napster case? I doubt it, since there really weren't any.
c-hack.com |
California collects sales tax on any used item sold in a retail outlet (garage sales and non-retail person-to-person sales are exempt if the total is below a certain amount, something like $500). So we get double-taxed routinely. While it may well be unconstitutional, it's still state law. :(
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
If the recording industry expects to be able to argue that they "need" these royalties to make up for the people ripping the CD and then selling the original copy, then their collection of the fees eliminates them from pursuing possessors of the CD's contents but not the original CD.
I personally could care less if the record industry loses some of the fat that they gained complacently churning out over-priced low-quality merchandise. I certainly don't want any government enforced welfare for a multi-billion dollar industry. If they dont want people copying their files then they need to provide adequate copy-protection that doesn't prevent fair-use. If they can't do that it is not my or our government's problem. Trying to stick their hands in the pockets of students and small shop owners is one mroe example of why government should only be invoked to protect the consumer's intrests the coprporations must develop a viable strategy and product line or pass away so that the next innovator can show them how.
"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.
Not just that, but they're getting it from money on which you've already paid INCOME TAX.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
The Xerox copier I have at work is on the LAN. I rip off the binding and put the pages in the ADF, and the copier will put the scanned pages into the directory of my choosing, as either tiff or pdf files.
Now, if only I could get a good compression utility and a pdf reader for my Palm, I'd be all set to pira^H^H^H^Hread MY books anywhere.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Keep in mind that if the record companies do anything that lowers the perceived value of their product (new and used) then less product will move. If it is a truly bad idea to demand royalties on used CDs, then the free market should respond negatively to it. One example: John Doe walks into a used record store looking for xyz album. This album is from a company that demands royalties on their used albums, and the used record store, working off of tight enough margins as it is, has sanely decided to not simply swallow the cost but pass the cost on to the customer. So John finds that this particular used album is now simply more expensive than he would like to pay for it - so he doesn't buy it. This also works if the store HAS decided to absorb the cost: they will simply have a tendency to not bother carrying as many albums from that company. The only thing that really worries me about the various publishing companies and their desire to cling to antiquated business models would be if they stole from me against my will. An example would be if they convinced the powers that be that their slumping sales have nothing to do with their inability to react to market pressures, but rather because of "pirates". You see this logic crop up quite a bit in the claims that "piracy costs xyz industry 2.5 billion dollars annually" - like complex market forces can be summed up in a single accusatory sentence. If they manage to sell that lie, the next step would be to seek government subsidies to crop up their failing businesses. Look no further than Canada's recent tax plans for a recent example. To summarize: The publishers can be as unresponsive as they like to the market and live in whatever fantasy world they like as long as they don't start robbing me at gunpoint.
As has already been written, this post is a troll, ripped off from Kuro5hin, and made doubly so by the added allusion to, "bearded Linux hippies [living] in their parents' basement."
Although it did make an interesting point -- if the Government provides legal protection, you should forfeit technological protection -- I found the original Kuro5hin article very disturbing because turned Jefferson's writings on their head by surrounding them with misleading introductory material. As presented by the poster, Jefferson appears to be saying, "Information and ideas propogate freely, so we need copyrights to fence them in and encourage authorship."
This is false. Jefferson opposed copyrights, because they were a form of monopoly. Whether granted by monarchs or by parliaments, the evils of monopolies were well-known even back then (read up on the East India Company some time). The above quote was part of Jefferson's argument against enactment of copyright. That monopolies were evil was already agreed, but Jefferson was making the additional point, "Ideas and information disseminate themselves whether you want them to or not; it is the Way of Things. Copyright operates in direct opposition to the laws of nature."
In the end, Jefferson conceded to adding copyright to the Constitution, but not in the form he wanted. He saw it as a social compromise, and feared the abuses that they might one day bring.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
That's nice.
Sales in 1999 : 12.8 billion
..
Marketing Director snorts high quality coke purchased with RIAA expense account
Marketing Director in his intoxicated state figured there will be 29.6 billion in 2000
But only 15 billion in 2000
Therefore piracy caused 14.6 billion dollars revenue loss.
Thats how they get their piracy figures
dvNuLL
to qouth the greates poet of the 20th century...
she can bite my shiny metal ass.
No way no how, and tactics like this push me farther and farther closer to just gladly copying cd's and mp3's for peopel who ask me to.. Right now I refuse based on the fact it is stealing.. but if they keep up this crap, I'll jump in the fray and help destroy every single one of them. (economically wise.)
How the hell are they supposed to keep honest customers honest when they try and piss us off at every turn?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
But, the original poster wasn't arguing that they will only buy used CDs. The poster said they were telling people to buy it used cause the profits go to the music store. If people go out and buy it new, that's something beyond what the original poster stated.
In other words, your statement makes no sense in context of the original post.
Here's what their argument is:
Now wait just a minute, because until we reach step 3, everything is both legal and moral. The violation is that Joe is supposed to destroy all of the copies that he (quite legally) made. OK, argue on that point, but why assume his guilt at step 1? If anything, the tax should be on Joe selling the CD in step 3. And even that tax assumes guilt with no evidence other than supposition.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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.
First of all, you never buy new CDs -- too expensive and as you point out you can't get your money back. Only buy used CDs, which halves your initial investment. The real scam part comes where most used CD places near where I live will allow you a 4-5 day return period where you can bring the used CD back for a store credit. If you're careful and the store is big (ie, large staff), you can buy, copy and return a fair number of CDs on a pretty regular basis.
It's certainly not free -- once you give them your money it's theirs, its a question of whether its a 2 or 3-for-1 bargain or not. I'm pretty sure this isn't what the RIAA is worried about, but its a nice little option for expanding your collection.
I buy a shrink-wrapped CD. Label gets their $, label rips artist off of their $.
A couple of years pass and I get tired of the genre, the artist, whatever. I trade a couple of CDs to a used CD shop for another used CD I want. The record company and artist aren't out any money - the CD was already sold at retail. They got their $.
I have tons of .mp3s, all carefully ripped from my CD collection. Most of the music I listen to is found in used CD shops or on cheesy compilation CDs you see advertised on late-night TV 'cause it originated on another format. Very occassionally do I ever buy a new CD, then usually as a gift for a friend. Why?
Well, because I have about all the music I ever want to hear, legally owned on CD and ripped to my exacting mp3 standards. I listen at home, in the car, and at work; and I'm not paying extra.
I already paid about $5,000 for my music collection, plus all the music that I have on tape or LP that I bought on CD specifically for ripping to mp3. And my collection is wimpy by the standards of audiophiles. That's over a CD-and-a half a month for fifteen years bought at retail. And the music industry doesn't think that's enough?
Well, they can suck my bearded cojones. Punish me for being legal? Fine, screw you guys, I'll keep my money.
Record Industry (Score:99, Greedy)
I'm a 2000 man.
Once the product has been sold, they can't exercise any control over its further sale according to the first sale doctrine.
for a while i laid off of file sharing. i'm going to start back up. we need to dump their tea into the harbor.
(not so funny)
You forget the prefex '$'. Commonly seen in assemblers for Motorola and MOS technologies. I always preferred this because it takes less space and is more readable than '0x'.
#(6502) CODE TO COUNT FROM 160 to 175 STORE
# RESULT IN MEMORY LOCATION 208
C000 LDX $A0
C002 INX
C003 CPX $AF
C005 BNE $FE
C008 STX $DO
C00A RTS
Since you seem to be way obsessed with this, I thought you would enjoy the trivia.
The branch might be a byte or two off. It has been a *long* time.
Go away (really) and don't come back.
Blogging because I can...
As far as present law goes, you are right. Almost a century ago some book publisher tried to put a sort of EULA on the flyleaf, forbidding resales among other things - and that's when the First Sale doctrine was enunciated. They sold it, you bought it, they cannot tell you what to do with it.
But in the article, the record executives were discussing (going to Congress to get) a law to ban used sales. There probably is no constitutional ban on such a law - it's a ridiculous overreaching of the interstate commerce clause, but so are tens of thousands of other laws and regulations that the courts have upheld. The real question is, whether they'd have the nerve to do it, and whether they could buy enough idiots in Congress to get it through.
I almost hope they do. It might finally wake up the American public that (1) their "representatives" aren't representing anyone but the campaign contributors anymore, and (2) the media companies are bloodsucking monsters, whose power must be restricted - by kicking out the incumbents and getting new people in Congress who are aware that the Constitution doesn't give anyone intellectual property rights - it just gives Congress the power to grant as much IP rights as seems like a good idea, and right now chopping way, way back on copyright and patent rights seems like a good idea...
This would be a perfectly valid complaint if it wasn't posted to a forum that regularly argues that a) music swapping should be legal, and b) copyright shouldn't exist. The beauty of such a forum is that people can advance their mutually contradictory arguments, and yet everyone can still agree.
-a
How to rationalize theft.
Can't see how muderous thugs in the South China Sea comandeering ships and their cargoes would hurt music sales.
Dunstan - still fighting for the correct usage of words
The last scintilla of doubt just rode out of town
I suppose they could do limited runs of, say, 1,000 of a given book or CD title. Then you stick them in a warehouse and do another run whenever you begin to run out. You'd have to charge a higher price than items that are more popular but it's technically doable, and there's probably a market. Problem is, all those stored books and CDs are inventory you have to pay taxes on.
Baring tax reform, the best solution would be electronic distribution, which eliminates physical inventory. Except that publisher don't care for that -- they want to maintain their control of their "intellectual property" On that point I can't say I'm sympathetic. IP was invented to encourage creation, not hoarding.