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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
"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"
You're right, I'm sure our represenatives in congress will realise how crazy this is and demand plenty of bribes before they pass it.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
because there's no good music being released anymore.
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!
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.
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.
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!
"Not that they seem to give a damn."
You mean the customers, right? I don't think the average consumer would notice, or care. They'd just chalk any price increase up to inflation.
It seems to me that concepts like fair use and owning something you pay for are beyond the ability of much (most?) of the US population to comprehend. All the music industry needs to do is have some nice lawyer type in a button up shirt and tie get on late-night or Sunday Morning and explain how only a criminal would ever want take money away from Britney, and suddenly the masses all go "ohh, those music pirates are bad." Failing that, getting a few newspaper articles is just as good since there are a lot of people who are smart enough to read, but not smart enough to read between the lines when they read a "news" paper.
Did you see how used CD sales was linked to online piracy of music? Link used CDs to a Known Evil (TM) like online piracy, and the public opinion front is already won. Anyone who complains about it can be branded a criminal who just wants to download free music so that Britney will starve, someone else who profits off of other people downloading free music, or some nuthead that Just Doesn't Get It (and probably uses Linux too, which is un-American and vaguely communist - and we know how THEY turned out).
Sigh.
null sig
"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.
Can I ride on the slippery slope after you're done with it?
and right after they pass it, a Federal court will set an NFL record for longest field goal with it.
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 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.
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!
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.
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.
Ah, but there IS fine print on the CD, my friend. It's a COPYRIGHT SYMBOL! Yessiree, mister, that means you're subject to copyright laws when you purchase the product. A quick trip to any legal library or lawyer's office will point out that you are INCORRECT here. Sorry, it was a good try, but you're wrong.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
"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.