Slashdot Mirror
Music Industry Pays $67M Fine For Price Fixing
Krelnik writes "Reuters is reporting that the music industry is paying a $67.4 Million settlement to end a lawsuit where they were accused of artificially inflating CD prices at retail. Yeah, P2P is causing their problems. Sure, sure it is. Here's the story at Reuters UK."
Ok, so it costs like $15 for a CD, even though there is so many different artists out there. Give me a break RIAA, I buy your CDs, least you could do is offer me some sort of a deal.
they've been fixing prices for how long? and it took till now for a suit like this to win.. let's hope it's not the last.
MABASPLOOM!
I've been hearing about this issue for years, literally! One wonders, however, about the timing of this decision. The music industry is not seen in the best of light right now, and I wonder if they belive this will improve sales. Or maybe I am just paranoid.
I know that seems like an awful lot of money, but does it even approach the amount the industry gained through its unfair practices?
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Do I get any part of that amount?
I'm sure the RIAA will be quite upset at losing that less than 1% of their annual income. Poor sods. But I think if judgements continue like this, and that moronic bill for "P2P warfare" is dropped, a real dent might be made in the RIAA's empire of art commodification.
s200.org - visit it (me), love it (me).
Is it just me, or does this seem like a reallllly low amount of money for a settlement in a judgement this serious? Not to complain about the victory, but shouldn't this have much greater consequences than what ultimately boils down to a weekly paycheck for these CEO's?
"Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
Let's write a law to make it legal to hack* RIAA lawyers when we suspect them of "pirating" our money.
* hack meaning to chop into little pieces
Isn't this the amount they spend on promoting N*suck during the superbowl? They will just regain the cost of the fine when I pay the $21.99 for the new Brittany cd anyways!
Open Source is a term that deals with software, and has nothing to do with the arts. Yes, you can run a similar principal to an extent, but it's really not the same thing.
SIG: HUP
That seems like peanuts compared to how much they're ripping off the artists and us, the consumers who buy their crap.
They are just paying their way and donating CDs to certain organizations just to say drop the suit... that's it.
I wonder when the RIAA and music industry as a whole will realize that P2P isn't hurting their sales at all... I personally bought a CD recently BECAUSE of file sharing. It was hard to decide on doing, but music enjoyment won out. I am just glad that it they are finally on the otherside of the case.
Erutangis ym si siht.
The five largest music companies and three of the USA's largest music retailers agreed Monday to pay $67.4 million and distribute $75.7 million in CDs to public and non-profit groups to settle...
75 million in CDs? So what's that buy nowadays, 20, 30 CDs?
Finally, someone figured out that:
1) Cost to profuce cd's is probably less than $1/CD including case and linear notes, excluding production costs.
2)The cost of CD's, with everyone making substantial profit could be $3.50
3)The only way for the prices to be so artificially high was for price fixing.
I know I would buy more music if it came at a reasonable price.
Maybe someone in the software industry will realize that: more people will buy this if we only charge $20 for it!
Help I'm a rock.
I would expect their next move would be to work a bit faster with MS, and get DRM pushed out there. While looking through Windows Update, I noticed Windows MediaPlayer v7.1 has DRM - and you can't uncheck the box for it. If you want Media Player 7.1+, you have no choice but to install the DRM portion along with it, or not install the player at all. Perhaps MP v7.1 is non-reversable - once you install it, you can't downgrade. I dont know if that is the case, but I'm not particularly in the mood to be a guinea pig, at the moment.
Someone you trust is one of us.
When the RIAA asks for anything else from the goverment to protect it's IP, the goverment will say "uh yeah, go away please..."
One can always wish...
I live in a giant bucket.
"This is a landmark settlement to address years of illegal price-fixing," Spitzer said in a statement. "Our agreement will provide consumers with substantial refunds
No it won't! The suit was filed two years ago. $67.4M divided over all the CDs distributed by the labels ends up being fewer than pennies per consumer. At best, I'd expect little more than a $5 coupon off my next overpriced music purchase. The settlement also doesn't do anything to address future infringement.
and result in the distribution of a wide variety of recordings for use in our schools and communities."
Not under today's Fair Use laws...
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
Let's see, consumers were overcharged $480M and the fine was $67M?
Well now we know what step two is:
Step one, rip off consumers.
Step two, settle out of court.
Step three, $413M profit!
so where do I pick up my compensation check for getting screwed over for all these years?
GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
They are distributing the payoff (whoops, I meant settlement) to the local libraries here in Oklahoma
Not a bad use in my opinion but maybe they should make the libraries buy 2nd hand cd's and allow people to check them out. That might get the RIAA's attention. Payback can be such a bitch.
So is this $75.7 million worth of CD donations based on the price before or after the gouging?
In seriousness, it says in the article "consumers had been overcharged by $480 million since 1997." I don't know what the other details are, but it seems that the penalty is just a slap on the wrist since it barely adds to $200 million. Isn't that half of what they gouged? They still made off with a ton of cash. Where's the hurt?
(\(\
(^.^)
(")")
*beware the cute-bunny virus
Yeah right. When hell... hey wait a minute - massive climatic change? Maybe there is hope...
NO this seems like an awefully small amount of money. Does 67M approach the amount they profitted off of the price fixing? It should be at least that amount, plus a punative amount.
$67M is a Joke. A single company could foot that.
They do that at my local lib. Except that it is not second hand CD's (yup, brand spanking new) and you get them for two weeks with unlimited refunds. I know a guy who went to the library, checked out the max (15 @ a time, I think) took them home, ripped them, then burned to mp3 cd. So what should they do now, sue the libraries?
.noitacidem deen uoy siht daer nac uoy fI
...where?
The music industry has been ripping us off (no news there) to the tune of $5 per CD.
The have to pay up $67 mil + $75 mil to non-profit, etc.
Who the hell gets that $67 mil? I want my cut!
~50 CD's over the last few years....where is my $250?
The five record labels -- Vivendi Universal's Universal Music Group, Sony Music, Bertelsmann AG's BMG Music Group, AOL Time Warner Inc.'s Warner Music Group and EMI Group PLC -- and the three retailers, Musicland Stores Corp., Trans World Entertainment Corp. and Tower Records, agreed to stop using MAP policies as part of the settlement.
bull.
Brad Maione, Spitzer's spokesman, said the companies would not admit any wrongdoing.
bullshit^2 and abdication/autoabsolution in the same sentence. There is no way this "settlement" can be viewed as anything less than an utter failure. Mariah Carey's contract was purchased for more than one third of this settlement IN CASH, not in the distribution of recordings for our schools and communities, just to get her to stop singing. Give me more bull.
This is a landmark settlement to address years of illegal price-fixing, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said in a statement.
This is not a landmark. It ain't even a bookmark. Read the article and boggle at the audacity.
This lawsuit looks like it was brought before P2P and before Napster was big. If CDs were priced fairly to begin with I wonder whether file sharing would be AS big. No doubt file sharing would be big but its growth might have been slower and easier to contain. IMHO the RIAA dug (and is digging) its own grave.
sig
You could only check it out for 1 day and 1 time per year. That way you'd be forced to either buy a copy or rip it. That would royally screw the record companies, which in my opinion isn't that bad anyway.
In a world where children go hungry, addicts are jailed instead of helped, grandparents cannot get perscription drugs because I needed a tax cut, the RIAA gets no sympathy from me (but I'm just a "liberal democrat" so what would I know).
So now the local indy shops that can't match the $8 a CD that the big chains can sell for will go under. They're already more expensive, but it just got pointless for them to even try.
It'll be like bookstores all over again.
This would at first blush seem perfectly reasonable, until one notices that one United States dollar buys about $1.58 Canadian. That's right--CD's are typically about 50% more costly as soon as you go from Windsor to Detroit.
Granted, I've noted a similar pricing trend with some other goods--groceries come to mind. But for non-perishables, the price disjoint is quite stunning.
Is it price fixing? Or plain old-fashioned gouging? All I know is that for a ten-cent piece of plastic, that's quite a markup. Charge what the market will bear, and hope nobody notices that the neighbours are getting a 30+% discount. Does anybody know if there are any retailers taking advantage of this price difference? Buy Canadian, sell American, pocket the difference. (Whatever you do, don't write a post containing the phrase "3. Profit!!!")
~Idarubicin
This article does not mention piracy or file-sharing.
Reuters should be commended for not confusing the issues.
________________
All my sig are fjdklafjkldafjkldafdaklf
No the local indy shops will continue to do what they do best sell GOOD and hard to find music, focus on what the customer wants, and build lasting relationships for steady sales. Wal-mart might rake in more at 8 bucks but they'll get no loyalty from their customers. And no love from the real music fans.
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
The music industry is shooting itself right now. This isn't at all helping. P2p wouldn't hurt it at all if the industry would get busy and start producing better quality music. The RIAA is notorious for exaggerating their figures that they show to the general public. While the sales of records are up, they will show you the sales are down.
Plus, what's the point of paying $16 for 10 songs that of which only 2 are good.
Are you telling me that you don't see the connection between government and laughing at people? - Interviewer
This is common, the lawyers sue and settle for way less than they should because they are payed a percentage. I think tort reform should include only paying lawyers only out of punitive damages unless the class votes for the settlement.
This should have been a 2 billion dollar cash settlement. 480M*3(cartel)+500M(punitive). Though I'm more partial to the corparate death penalty, we need some serious tort reform to increase settlements if we want to keep the current system working.
This is like those car safety lawsuits where you get a coupon for buying another crappy car from the same company. Yeah Right!
"player 4 hit player 1 with 0 stroms"
so, next January, we'll be treated to a news release from the RIAA, proclaiming that P2P and file-sharing services have cost them, *gasp*, $67 million in 2002!
mmm... yeah... You see, we're putting the cover sheets on all TPS reports now before they go out...
In settling the lawsuit, Universal BMG and Warner said they simply wanted to avoid court costs and defended the practice.
"We believe our policies were pro-competitive and geared toward keeping more retailers, large and small, in business," Universal said in a statement.
They should have had to drop all P2P lawsuits.
This is a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black! The only difference is that the pot has paid off a few Congressmen, so they get whatever they want, be it illegal or not.
Just watch...Congress will pass a law legalizing this MAP pricing.
If I commmit a crime and it nets me billions of dollars, and I get caught and sentenced to pay a fine that amounts to a tiny percentage of what I've made as a result of my illegal endeavors, how exactly does that serve as a deterrent to future crime?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
The lawsuit that the recording companies settled is only not the whole story. The Attorneys General of a bunch of states sued them in civil court because they violated anti-trust law (allegedly). The Attorneys General, or the Federal Government could also have filed criminal charges against the record companies but they chose to file a civil lawsuit, presumably because it is much easier to win. In criminal proceedings, the defendant has to be proven guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' To prevail in civil court, the standard is 'more likely than not.' It is the difference between being 51% sure they are guilty and being 99% sure.
While the record companies refused to admit fault with words, they did it with dollars. You don't settle a lawsuit for that much money unless you are pretty sure that you will be found liable at trial. If they were really settling for the 'nuisance value' of the lawsuits, the amount would have been much lower. Think of this settlement as plea bargaining for guilty corporations--"We won't fight the the punishment as long as we don't have to say 'we're guilty' out loud."
The other shoe, or boot, that is waiting to fall is private class action litigation. If someone robs you, the government can prosecute or sue them. But as a victim, you also have a right to sue. (Alas, you don't have a right to start a criminal prosecution--under US law--but you can, like the family of O.J.'s wife, sue in civil court.)
There was at least one private class action lawsuit filed against these record companies for price fixing in 1996. The last I saw (1997), it was still kicking around the courts. In dollar terms, private class action suits can easily exceed the damages they'll pay to settle the government's case.
The other damage the industry faces is that this settlement, while not technically an admission of guilt, is tantamount to it in the court of public opinion. The industry has been shown to be bigger pirates than Napster--they've been ripping off ALL of their customers.
Rather than continue to purchase the engineered junk that the RIAA labels are releasing, start supporting indie labels (many of whom have been royally screwed by the major labels). Try United Musicians or QDivision home of Jen TryninJen Trynin
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
I can find some odd stuff at the local stores - and those are just the employees ;) good people.
But I think what helps them is the used CD's. They may pay me $2-4 for a CD and resell it for $8. Hopefully that'll help support them for also promoting local and non mainstream stuff.
One might argue this rips off the musician - sorry they won't get their $0.50, but hell...most of the stuff I'm shopping for you can't find on the shelves anymore anyway.
There are a few obscure, non-mainstream bands I like - and I try to buy the CD's right from their website if possible, hoping it'll generate max revenue.
Same as above with used books, except it's hard to buy the book straight from the author.
They will deserve their fate, which they have earned by continuing to treat their customers and talent with contempt.
A few degrees skew of the current topic, but M$ and Adobe, for two that I know of, also prohibit dealers from advertising their wares below certain prices. Is this practice only prohibited if you can prove that they're conspiring to fix prices?
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
If the price goes too high, then sales decrease. This is kind of a self-regulating process that doesn't require a referee or lawyers or judges.
In a competitive market, if you put your price to high, you loose almost all your customers to the competition, which has the lowest possible price. For example, if Dell set their prices just a bit higher, they would loose a lot of their business to Gateway and others.
The allegation here is that the market is not competitive, and that the music industry jointly sets a high ('artifical') price. They had used an advertising scheme to prevent stores from selling below a certain price.
If this is true, then there is a need for lawyers and judges. What I don't understand is why no new records companies emerged, selling CDs at lower prices. They could have made a killing.
Tor
This doesn't make much of fine, when you can consider the real incremental cost of the media.
-Dave
Nah, they'll find some way to put them under "Piracy Losses"...
Let's see... they give them to libraries...
Record Exec: "We donated all those CDs to Libraries. And those Evil Content Pirates(tm) just copied them! We lost $1Billion in sales because of that!"
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Seems like the record company profit is based on the wholesale price they charge the stores. Shouldn't higher retail prices result in LESS record company profits, as fewer units are sold at a higher price? Or was the price fixing really an attempt to squeeze out the independents by not allowing them to compete with the RIAA by selling their music for less? How does retail price fixing maximize RIAA profit?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
The labels are estimating the value of the sevent million CDs at retail -- $75.5 million -- not at their true cost, more like $10 million. Further, they're counting these as free goods. Free goods usually are CDs given away to journalists for review and such. This means that artists won't see one cent in royalties from the seven million CDs.
In a slightly related note, we've seen here in Australia the 5 disc LOTR boxed set listed for $X amount of US dollars online (can't remember the US amount). This translated to roughly $AUD90.
The exact same boxed collection, with the exact same feature set, sells online from Australian retailers at over $AUD160.
Yes, DVD regioning is only used to protect privacy and not to fix prices. In the same way, creationism is an exact and accurate account of how the world came to be.
Janie took my gun...
Pass a replacement copyright law where the artist can establish a set of payment procedures for how much a certain action will cost and let anybody produce the artist's CDs. For example you could have something like this in a more machine readable copyright data sheet.
o ugh</track>3 Rate>i rPlayRate>i on>T rackCurrency>USD</TrackCurrency> ;
<album>
<band>Gravity Kills</band>
<name>Manipulated</name>
<track>En
<CDRate>20</CDRate>
<MP3Rate>40</MP
<SDMIRate>25</SDMIRate>
<AirPlayRate>0</A
<FreeDistribution>NONE</FreeDistribut
<MinimumTrackCost>1.00</MinimumTrackCost>
<
</album>
It's 5.5 million CDs (if it's still on Google News you can find articles that use the # of CDs instead of the dollar amount).
If you do the math, that's nearly $14 per CD.
They took a page right out of Microsoft's playbook for that one.
They probably just told one of their factories to stamp 5.5 million copies of Your Favorite Polkas and drop-ship them to some schools with lots of brown-skinned kids. Actually they probably have 5.5 million CDs rotting in a warehouse someplace, and this is an easy way to get rid of them and clean up the balance sheet.
Office of the Attorney General Paul G. Summers
NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Sept. 30, 2002 Sharon Curtis-Flair #13 (615) 741-5860
TENNESSEE ATTORNEY GENERAL WINS ANTITRUST SETTLEMENT IN LAWSUIT ALLEGING PRICING CONSPIRACY ON MUSIC CDS
Tennessee Attorney General Paul G. Summers announced today that five of the largest U.S. distributors of pre-recorded music CDs and three large retailers agreed to pay millions of dollars in cash and free CDs as part of an agreement on price-fixing allegations.
The companies will pay $67,375,000 in cash, provide $75,500,000 worth of music CDs, and not engage in sales practices that allegedly led to artificially high retail prices for music CDs and reduced retail competition as part of the agreement. Tennessee's share is an estimated $993,948 in cash and $1,507,852 in CDs.
'The lawsuit and settlement demonstrate our commitment to halting corporate misconduct,' Attorney General Summers said. 'Such illegal activity causes our citizens to pay higher prices and distorts our free market economy.'
Tennessee, along with 41 other states and three territories filed an antitrust lawsuit in federal court in August, 2000. The lawsuit alleged the five music distributors (including their affiliated labels) and three large music retailers entered into illegal conspiracies to raise the price of pre-recorded music to consumers. The defendants in the lawsuit are music distributors Bertelsmann Music Group, Inc., EMI Music Distribution, Warner-Elektra-Atlantic Corporation, Sony Music Entertainment, Inc., Universal Music Group and national retail chains Transworld Entertainment Corporation, Tower Records, and Musicland Stores Corporation. The defendants deny these allegations.
Today's agreement calls for the defendants to change sales practices to ensure strong price competition among retailers. The companies will pay $67,375,000 in consumer compensation, charitable purposes, or some combination of both. Notice of how to file a claim will be provided to the public at a later date. Finally, the defendants will provide approximately 7,000,000 music CDs (valued at $75,500,000) for distribution by the state attorneys general to not-for-profit corporations, charitable groups and governmental entities such as schools and libraries for the benefit of all consumers in each state.
When they say they're going to distribute 75.7 million dollars *worth* of CDs, are they talking about the number of CDs they could stamp out for that amount of money, or the number of CD's that they'd sell for that amount of money?
The former would probably be about 400 million (at ~20 cents per CD), while the latter is closer to 5 million (at $15 per CD). Mind you, i'm not sure how much packaging costs, but I do know that the actual cost of stamping CDs approaches 10 cents apiece after you'd paid for all your equipment.
Columbia house will offer you a dead :)
All kidding aside though, it really isn't a suprise at all. Have you ever seen a CD cheaper than the same thing on a tape? It costs them under a penny to produce a CD in under a second while it costs bundles to mass produce tapes. If tapes and cds were the same price, i wouldn't say anything. If tapes were 50 cents more than a cd, i wouldn't say anything, but when you charge more for something that costs less to produce just because of its superior quality some will say its 'whatever the market will bear', while others call it price fixing.
P2P is awesome, nothing will be done to stop it. What is File and Print Sharring or running an FTP server if not P2P? P2P will hopefully take enough money away from the record industry that we will be able to go from
a: choosing an $18 CD from the 200 or so artists that have been played on the radio/mtv in the past year
to
b: choosing a $5 CD from 5,000 artists who make equally good music but don't lip sync too well N'Suck or have a face good enough to paste on top of porn star bodies and post all over the internet Britney or can play awesome live shows but don't have hollywood making million dollar videos for their lame music Lincoln Park.
Hopefully we will get more variety and less MTV / Hollywood bullshit in our music.
I'm just waiting for a similar lawsuit to follow for Hollywood charging ridiculous prices for DVDs just because they contain footage that wasn't good enough to make it in the actual film....Tell ya what, how about I pay $20 for the DVD without any extra crap, and if i feel the urge to hear it in Pakastani or want to watch some deleted scenes, i'll come back and buy the other half for another 10 bux.
I'm just rambling, its late...But as far as the music industry goes,its right up there in the list of things that have power which shouldn't...Microsft/MTV/AOL/Bush goodnight bedtime
After all, those with legal copies of CDs released over the last 10 years or so, should be entitled to a cut of that money, correct? After all, they WERE the ones who were ripped off to begin with... So how does one with about 50+ CDs get their cut? I could reallllllly use the money...
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
Yeah, P2P is causing their problems. Sure, sure it is.
Must I continually point out that it DOESN'T MATTER if P2P loses revenue for the record companies - P2P file sharing is still (in most instances) WRONG.
I'm so sick of hearing people whine and moan about how P2P should be considered legal because the record companies don't lose money because of it (typically followed by an argument that illustrates that the industry has sold more music since filesharing that before).
I'll say it again: IT DOES NOT MATTER.
Philosophically, this is called an "appeal to a complex argument," and it's considered a logical fallacy.
Let me give a more blatent example:
Suppose you own a really nice bicycle, but you only ride it from 5-6pm. Now suppose someone from down the street comes and "borrows" your bicycle from 7:30-8:00pm, and returns it in pristine condition...you can't tell it's been used. Their borrowing of the bicycle without your permission is still WRONG. The bicycle is your property, and they used it without your permission. You could even take it a step further and say that it would still have been wrong if they left a $5 bill on the seat, because they still used it without your permission.
We, a crowd of people of whom many make their living generating intellectual property, should understand that.
Music is simply property. If you use it without the owner's permission, it's wrong.
Are they cutting off their own noses by disallowing P2P sharing? I think they are in alot of cases. But it's their noses to be cut off.
Considering that buying CDs is (usually) entertainment and not a necessary part of life, why is price fixing on them illegal? If people don't want the CDs, they can just go without, or look at local music.
slashdot!=valid HTML
Can anyone spot the similarity between M$ proposing their crapware as part of a settlement and this mob offering $75 million worth of CD's?
Would such CD's count as sales for the next Brainless Spears or N'Stink they are trying to push to the top?
Tax implications? Like being able to write the entire fine off as a legitimate business expense?
I don't know how the IRS is going to treat this expense, but the WSJ had an article in the past month or so on how businesses essentially can ignore fines for bad behavior, because it can be treated as a cost of doing business, and as such, it can be FULLY DEDUCTED on their tax returns.
Talk about corporate welfare! We fine em, then forgive em!
If they reduce prices, it's likely that sales will increase. (still ~$18 at a record store & ~$12 at the electronic/appliance chains (Best Buy, Circuit City, ...)).
Now if they wait until the the p2p-bills are pushed through, they're open to say the anti-p2p bills increased sales.
According to this, there is also $75M in CDs to be given away to non-profits.
Oh yea, Iomega did this as well
So many people seem to doubt that P2P piracy is actually causing record companies to lose money. Well, consider for a minute how much this whole campaign of fighting it costs them. There's no money to be made in suing Napster and other such companies that don't have any money to begin with. So why do you think they are doing it, unless for the reason they say it is - to stop P2P piracy because it's causing them to lose shitloads of money?
I know 99% of all mp3's I'm ever in contact with are illegal and I know that maybe 90% of my friends (which include plenty non-geeks) have stopped buying CD's completely due to mp3's. With faster Internet connections, better P2P software, better mp3 hardware (think iPod), surely the situation isn't going to get any better than it is now.
Perhaps, just perhaps, the record companies actually ARE losing money? I mean, perhaps they deserve to, but I can't see how anyone can seriously argue that record companies aren't losing a lot of income due to P2P piracy!
So when they're committing "evil" acts against the consumer, we treat them as a single evil entity, and hate them as such. When they start doing "good", we break it down so as to dilute the issue?
Way to make clear the obvious bias within the Slashdot community. Face it, classifying the RIAA as a single entity comes with the intent of promoting them less as a fair oligopoly than some nefarious modular monopoly. We're so quick to drop the title when it's less convenient to a given perspective.
As for the matter of overcharging (not in regard to the parent post, so much as those above), define "overcharge". No made-up (ie assumed) statistics or assumed libertarian audience. We've already heard it time and time again. If you're going to quote the FCC, quote with context.
The defining "overcharging" is as cut-and-dry as defining "poverty". Are they overcharging when they charge an unreasonable sum relative to production costs? When they soak the artists to maximize their own profit? But isn't overcharging best demonstrated by consumer trends? I doubt people're buying fewer albums due to high costs than as a result of industry music simply sucking.... and that's a bit non-sequituous in the greater overcharging issue.
Sorry to reply to my own post, but I have made a serious error in my calculations - I forgot to include the artists' royalties that they'll have to pay. So, instead of $1,114,000.00 cost to the record industry, make that $1,114,003.65. My apologies for the oversight.
Sigs are bad for your health.
Let's see, average price $15, average cost 50 cents. Those CDs will set the companies back a whopping $3 million, which is probably less than their lawyers' cocaine bill.
Like hell it didn't help wholesale prices. If retail prices were to drop significantly, does anybody think wholesale prices would stay the same? Hel-lo???
Shoot the lawyer twice.
get real, man... 67 million dollars? EACH board member probabbly makes about that much in a year. and even if they did inquire: a dozen VPs and senior VPs and maybe even layed-off VPs will start to fight for credit: "Hey we lost 67mil but by doing it we gained almost half a BILLION"...
if you fine them a billion dollars or so; then maybe something will take effect... but heh... knowing this government (the type that fines the tabacco companies, and then uses the money to subsidize tobacco growers (no kidding)), it probabbly won't even be that effective.
My life in the land of the rising sun.
Let's extend that. Is your expression, 'music is simply property' property? I'm not sure I ever heard anyone say exactly that before. Should you get a title to that saying, should you get to charge anyone else for the rights to say it?
If you write off the public domain like that, it leads to absurdity pretty quickly. I think the counter-view, 'music is nobody's property', would be less damaging in the long term...
This is SO meaningless. Fun to watch though :) make 'em squirm, force 'em to slime more visibly. Hey, every little bit helps :)
That kinda makes $67 million a fortune or what? Why didn't they fine them at least $500 million? If the fine is lower than the overcharging, seriously, why should they care?
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
Sure it is wrong but the correct analogy would be:
Suppose you own a really nice bicycle, but you only ride it from 5-6pm. Now suppose someone from down the street comes with his nano copier and "copies" your bicycle and returns it in pristine condition...you can't tell it's been copied. Their copying of the bicycle without your permission is still WRONG.
May it is, but since copying bycycle only costs, say 20 bucks, why would bicyclemakers still demand $800 for them?
Sorry, CD's are still way too exspensive. Use emusic or something. The only CD's I have bought for the past 4 years are 3 from a independent band called Devics. (Try them). So much for the Spears and Timberlakes of the music world!
J.
So technically speaking, the voluntarily settled for a sum of 67 mil. Which means it's not a fine because the settlement is not enforced, but a voluntary deal.
The reason they most likely did this is that the damage of being convicted for violating anti-trust laws would be much greater to them. Seen in this light the sums seems low indeed.
So I wouldn't call the settlement a "victory", the industry escaped from being held responsible for their actions once again. Too bad. Having a court rule that they are indeed guilty of price-fixing, now that would be some truly good news.
Idempotent operation: Like MS software, wether you run it once or often, that doesn't make it any better.
When they say that "The companies also agreed to distribute $75.7 million worth of CDs to public entities and nonprofit organizations in all 50 states.
Is that 75.5 Million at the "artificially inflated" price or the price they should have been. Also, who gets to decide which CD's they send? They should have been made to $75.7 million worth of BLANK cd's..
-- -- Warning. Do not stare directly at the sun.
...we also paid for them to shut down Napster.
That's just the way the system works. Better get used to it.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
> Previously, the companies said that MAP was needed to protect independent music retailers from rising competition from discount chains such as Wal-Mart, Circuit City and Best Buy. They had slashed CD prices, below cost in some cases, in the hope that once consumers were in their stores they would buy other, more expensive products.
CDs below cost? I have yet to see Best Buy selling music CDs for less than $0.74.
Of COURSE Jobs isn't going to play along, it's in his best interest not to. Hopefully Apple will help lobby against any DRM legislation.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
OK, so the RIAA owes me. They can subtract all the music I have "pirated" from the bill. I bet they still owe me money.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
"We believe our policies were pro-competitive ..."
obviuosly they are reffering to a new meaning of the word competitive....of which I am not aware of one with the total opposite meaning....ummm now I see why they though Napster was bad when it was actually GOOD , right gang?
Shin: a device for finding furniture in the dark.
So they say pricefixing went on from 95 - '00, and is now over.
But average CD prices in 2001 were higher than they were in 2000 (from $14.02 per CD to $14.63, according to the RIAA's *own numbers*). Surely if the pricefixing was that extensive, and ended in 2000, then the average CD price in 2001 would have fallen?
Anyone? Anyone?
Bueller?
There should be a grossly exaggerated word for what the industry is doing to match the industry's use of "Piracy" for unauthorized copying.
For complete parity, it needn't match the nature of the act very closely, so long as it smears them with and emotion packed label.
"Loan sharking"?
"Drug trafficking"?
"Extortion"?
"Prostitution"?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
They conspired to raise the prices, and now the consumer is used to those prices so they can keep them there. Incremental increases afther that will be normal and they'll keep making a profit off of their price fixing for years to come.
This judgement is a tiny slap on the wrist, and they will most likely still be making a profit after you subtract the judgement from the money they made and will make with their price fixing.
We need criminal penalties against CEOs when their companies do something illegal. Right now they only have to worry that their stock options will slip a penny or two, but they'll stop doing this when faced with jail time.
I'm sure they mean the cost that Wal-Mart pays.
Has anyone in the RIAA taken ECON 101? This is one of the reasons that businesses have sales.
We know that's not $75M/RIAA cost for CDs to equal about 80 million CDs. That's going to be $75M/$14 for 5.3 million CDs.
There is about 1 hour of work completed each day. Although private industry is not much better.
If you pathetic republicans want the government out of your pocket then I guess we should eliminate:
1) National Security
2) Social Security / Medicare / Medicaid
3) The highway system / road projects
4) OSHA / EPA / and all other regulatory boards
5) Get rid of the Treasury hell who needs a common currency, just let the states do it. Oh wait that might cost something, guess it's back to bartering.
This list could go on forever. Things you take for granted now as necessities were all federally funded projects. And in case you were not aware any project done by the government for the advancement of the people, is a social program and something that wouldn't exist without callous individuals that really provide no benefit to the masses. I'm interested to see if you think you receive no benefits from social programs.
Sad really, guess your parents forgot to teach you compassion and caring for others. You're probably just a religious hypocrite that "gives" to the church for the BIGGEST CROSS IN TOWN. Pathetic platform, pathetic people.
I still say P2P is an easy way to get your money back on all the media and burner levies, especially if you burn lots of CDs for backup and system imaging. You paid for it, so you might as well get the product.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that you can't dictate price once you've sold an original copy. This was a case of a book reseller selling a book at a lower price than the original publisher wanted.
But then there's the Metallica method where they put right on the cover something like "Don't pay more than $x for this album or you're getting ripped off!" (which one was that?)
Einstuerzende Neubauten provide true value to the customer above and beyond what P2P can give, and all prices are reasonable.
I'll swear it's retail price, which is damn near nothing in actual expenses. Even in jewel case and all it's damn cheap.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Take a look at AOL-TW deal, and how many tens of Billions they had to write off due to the loss of the goodwill in the merger.
It sounds like a lot of money to us mere mortals, but in the board room, you are talking Billions each quarter, so that gets lost in the noise (cough, cost of doing business).
Major label CEO(in early 2000): Ok, if we want settle this case in two years for say, $80M, how much do we need to raise prices now?
Accountant: About $0.25 per album, taking into account interest. That will cover $80M fine plus court and lawyer fees.
CEO: Good, good! Ok, if we jack up the prices $1.00, can I buy the new mansion?
Accountant: Yes, the mansion and the new 300ft yacht.
CEO to VP: Raise the wholesale prices $1, let the other CEO's know we're going to settle in two years.
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
Shoot yourself???
Help find a cure for cancer!
Eventually, if everyone pitches in, you can "check out" whatever music you want to explore. If you like it, then buy it at the store and support the Artist. If you don't, rip it (in case you change your mind and decide you like it ;)
EMI/Virgin records has announced it will earn a US$67million tax credit this year by donating 5.5 million unsold Mariah Carey CDs to charity groups. The CDs will be delivered in CD players glued shut, with no pause/stop buttons and extra long life batteries to ensure they can play continuously for the next 6 months.
An unidentified spokesman for one of the affected charities was quoted as saying "Oh, God! the humanity! Why us? What did we ever do to deserve this?"
There was no comment from the EPA about rumors of an investigation into hazardous waste dumping by EMI/Virgin.
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
Shoot Osama and Saddam. Point the gun at the lawyer and say that if he doesn't get you out of any potential difficulties related to the other two shootings that he will be next.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The world's five largest music companies and the three largest music retailers will pay $143.1 million to settle a CD price-fixing case launched by New York and Florida two years ago, New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said on Monday.
In August 2000, most U.S. states joined in a lawsuit alleging that an industry practice called "minimum advertised pricing" (MAP) artificially inflated the price of CDs between 1995 and 2000, violating federal and state antitrust laws.
Under MAP, the labels subsidized advertising for retailers that agreed not to sell CDs below a certain price.
The five record labels -- Vivendi Universal's Universal Music Group, Sony Corp ( news - web sites).'s Sony Music, Bertelsmann AG ( news - web sites)'s BMG Music Group, Warner Music Group, a division of AOL Time Warner Inc. and EMI Group Plc ( news - web sites) -- and the three retailers, Musicland Stores Corp., Trans World Entertainment Corp. and Tower Records, agreed to stop using MAP policies as part of the settlement.
The companies, which did not admit any wrongdoing, will pay $67.4 million in cash to compensate consumers who overpaid for CDs between 1995 and 2000. The companies also agreed to distribute $75.7 million worth of CDs to public entities and nonprofit organizations throughout the country.
"This is a landmark settlement to address years of illegal price fixing," Spitzer said in a statement. "Our agreement will provide consumers with substantial refunds and result in the distribution of a wide variety of recordings for use in our schools and communities."
The head of the department that pays gets angry, goes to the head of the department that cuased the problewm. The they movy 70million into the head of the dept. that paid. Probably give the guy some large bonmus so he has no incentive to say something when it happens again.
It's good business sense. spend 67 million to get 400million dollars.
If I said to you, I'll give you 400 dollars of the course of 5 years, but you have to give me 67 dollars at the end of 5 years, wouldn't you do it?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I think the situation the poster was referring to was when Micro$oft offered to donate X million dollars of software as part of the settlement with the DOJ. Since they were donating this software to the educational system they were in effect offering to print up a pile of CDs cheap, and claim that they were making a donation equal to the street price of the software they donated, rather than the material cost to them (which is probably on the order of about $3/cd not $200 for Word say), AND they were give it to educational organizations and further their inroads into students computing habits.
Its like a marketing department's dream to be able to promote their products and claim they are doing a good thing by supporting education.
It's also disgusting and I don't think the DOJ went for it - but I am way out of touch on these issues.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
So you're locked in a room with Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and a lawyer. You have a gun, but only two bullets. What do you do?
Simple, bludgeon them all to death with the gun. You wouldn't want to waste perfectly good bullets. Those should be saved for good old Jack "The Boston Stangler of our Rights" Valenti!
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
No national security. Lol, you want none. I guess the boy scouts can protect us (as long as none of those evil doer gays join).
What do you have against gays? Or are you implying that I (because I dislike big government liberals and therefore must be a religious-right republican) hate homosexuals? Sorry pal, that dog won't hunt. I've lived in Los Angeles my whole life, so sexual preference is pretty much a non-issue for me. It ain't Muskogee here-- we let gays walk around free and even HAVE JOBS.
As for national security, our nation ends at the borders. Or it should, anyway.
If you don't want to help on a national level, why would you want to help on a local level?
because on a local level one can help directly. Government involves waste. The larger the bureaucracy, the more money gets siphoned off before it can get to the actual people who need it. I would rather get together with my neighbors and bring a carload of groceries to a neighbor who's out of work than send $400 to the feds who'll send him a check for $200 after they've taken their "cut". The neighbor eats either way, but the former costs less and now all of us neighbors know we can call on one another if we're in a bind. Do you think a federal program really cares? Should some cog in a giant machine based in D.C. be deciding whether or not my neighbor deserves a little help based on a three-inch book of regulations? Or do you think something local might work better?
Nothing NEEDS do to be done on the national level (your contention is true). However, only 6 states contribute over 75% to the GDP. Every other state would be like Mexico. Do you really want that? Good luck driving through Kansas and having your car break down.
GDP has no direct relation to standard of living. And what sort of federal program is it that maintains the viability of auto repair shops? Food stamps? No, that's actually a Dept of Agriculture program to artificially inflate food prices which, if they weren't propped up, would become more affordable. Again, things would be simpler WITHOUT.
Fed's out of banking. Lol, I guess you want your local load shark to be able to charge you credit card rates for your mortgage.
This isalready not entirely a federal issue. Ever notice how all the big credit card companies are in Maryland? ever wonder why?
Ever hear of Fannie Mae? How about Sallie Mae? No federal student loans?
I contend that government interference is largely to blame for the fact that one even NEEDS a loan to buy property or get an education. Here in Los Angeles there is a large community of Korean immigrants who own their own businesses and they didn't borrow from a bank to start up. The Korean community has a tradition of investing in each other (a co-op, of sorts) and not trying to fleece the borrower. If it works for them, it could work for any group of people. Which is more efficient: forty people pitching in a little cash at a low interest rate to help a neighbor start a business, or a huge corporate behemoth like Bank of America which gets guaranteed loans from the feds at low rates and then loans it to south american countries (which then default) and has to pass the cost on to you (5%+prime rate) when you want to buy a freakin' shack in the ghetto for $250K?The feds encourage wastefull mega-banking like this with all their inane programs. Do you think a huge multinational bank could really ever happen if it wasn't for the feds agreeing to loan it huge chunks of money at prime rate to play with?
If you truly believe everything could be better on the local level you've just got your head in the sand. The only reason the USA out performs most other countries in the world is 99% of issues are standardized at the national level so everyone conforms to the same law. This prevents every state from signing treaties with one another and having to pass various laws that are essentially the same.
I do concede that we ned a federal government in cases of interstate matters. My real concern, however, is those things the feds do that would be better if devolved to the local level. My EPA example was a bit of a stretch and was only meant as an example of how large government breeds indifference to individuals.
If you truly believe everything could be better on the local level you've just got your head in the sand. The only reason the USA out performs most other countries in the world is 99% of issues are standardized at the national level so everyone conforms to the same law. This prevents every state from signing treaties with one another and having to pass various laws that are essentially the same.
I'm a strict constitutional constructionalist. I'm not saying we should fracture into fifty or moire independent fiefdoms; I simply believe that we should actually abide by the 10th amendment , which basically says "if it ain't specifically written in the constitution, the feds ain't allowed to do it". Half the crap the feds foist on us is put out under a sham definition of "interstate commerce" and the other half is coercively forced on state legislatures by threatening to withhold money gained via vicious taxation. You talk about the threat of usury if the feds weren't there? Tell me, is it worse to pay %20 on a loan (which I doubt would happen anyway-- see my co-op argument) or to have over 50% of your money disappear in taxes? One could argue that we get some back, but I contend that most of it goes down the rathole of government itself.
Could you imagine trying to have a business that sells in every state where each law is different? I guess you don't have the ability to foresee the negatives.
Hello, we already have that. Ever hear disclaimers like "not valid in wisconsin" or "cannot be shipped to New York or New Jersey"? I daresay law wouldn't be so widely disparate as to throw interstate commerce into disarray, because states have a vested interest in unfettered commerce.How long do you think, say, a "10% out of state purchase surtax" would last once people realized that meant mailorder purchasing is out of the question? Not long, man.
When you say the government doesn't care, remember you elected (if you can call it that) George W. who would rather kill peoples kids for war than look for a diplomatic solution first. So in that regard you are correct. However, the government is only made up of American people, and these are the ones you want governing on a local level? If they don't care on a national level why the hell would it be different locally? Have you ever been to a local council meeting? It's worse than the senate & house of reps.
I never said government would be fun if it were more local, only that it would work better. Does your cogressperson care about your concerns? Not likely. State assemblymember? A little more likely, but not much. Town council? more likely than the other two, plus you can show up and address them all in person if you wish.
If coercion is the worst way to do things then everyone in the Military should be able to vote for themselves if they want to be on the frontline in Iraq.
Idiot. Coercion is forcing someone to do something without their consent. The military is all volunteer, so consent is clearly given. I know. I was on the front line in Iraq the FIRST time we went (101st ABN) and also a year earlier in Panama (7th LID) so I suggest you choose your armchair-liberal examples from things you know about, rather than things you smugly assume to be true.
People are selfish and you're a perfect example. You talk about how you would prefer it to be at the local level, yet I doubt you'd give a dime.
Apparently you didn't read my previous post, or worse, think I'm lying to make a point. Like I said, I give both time and money when I can.
In reality I should love GWBush since I'll probably save an extra 10-15 thousand this year. Realistically I would have rather paid those taxes and seen them go to stopping the financial bleeding from our local economy
You saved $10K-$15K in taxes? How much do you make? You must be one of those guilt-ridden liberal professionals who can't seem to reconcile their own greed with their ivy-league dorm-room politics. So what're you going to do with this saved tax money?
Trickle down doesn't work because when I save 15k in taxes it simply sits in my money market until the market recovers somewhat
Oh, I see. You're squirreling away this tax windfall for your own benefit and then you have the gall to complain that it's not going to help the needy because the government didn't take it from you? Fucking hypocrite. I make $22K a year which, here in Los Angeles, isn't shit. I don't have a money market account. I can't afford to register my car. Yet I daresay I give away a greater percentage of my income than you do. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and donate that $15K to a scholarship fund? Or a freakin' food bank? You sit there whining about how the government doesn't do enough while you sit on your money market account and then claim to somehow have a heart? Give me a break. You can take your degree in finance and minor in economics and shove 'em. You're a typical armchair progressive who likes to pontificate about how people need to give more and then only gives enough to stave off the guilt.
Get stuffed, fool.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
First off in financial planning they teach you to legally avoid all possible taxes. Otherwise you're just throwing your money away. You're damn right I use every loophole available. If you'd like to hear my solution to taxation here it goes:
First instead of progressive or flat taxation I would propose a consumption based system only. This would be in the form of a sales tax. The way it would be beneficial to all is first, it gives those who want to save a greater incentive to do so because the less they consume, the less they pay in taxes. Second, you don't tax necessities to a certain point. For example you still tax gasoline in full because if you are concerned with savings you buy a fuel efficient car (like a Neon, instead of an Expedition), however you exempt up to a minimum amount (based on region due to weather fluctuations) on needed things like electricity, gas/propane, etc. Third, you collect all taxes at the national level only and distribute them locally and evenly based on population. This helps break up the segregation of our society (oh yeah, republicans were against desegregation so I guess this doesn't matter to you) and it would fund areas that don't have an economic incentive to improve their areas. And everything would be a taxable exchange, services, goods, etc.
Quit simple actually but like you said, I'd rather be "liberal with everyone else's paycheck". lol, btw I got a finance degree so I would have an idea what to do with money when I got it. As a software engineer I make a shitload of money, and I have 3 jobs. I work my ass off, and yet still don't have the hate in my heart that comes from the doctorine of "Fuck'em if they can't find a job" attitute. My guess is your a white male in your 20's to 30's who has little education and is pissed off at anything that is "different" from life as you know it.
The problem is there is no empathy in our society. In all likelihood you have no idea what differing sects of society go through to succeed. Regardless of what Rush Limbaugh says if you're not white you've got a significantly more difficult time ahead of you (btw I am white but have a diverse collection of friends who dispite sometimes differing views, we have intelligent conversations on our beliefs).
No one wants to pay for social programs until they are in need, then like every other person when their time finally comes they want to know "where's my check from the govt?". My guess is you leach somehow off the govt (by your posting). You either work for the govt, get some benefit from it (and are not still there), or are simply a liberal hater. In the end your sad pissed off life will net you exactly what you want, 3% more on your paycheck and 10 times that amount lost in derived benefit from public goods (you may want to research public economics, it changed my opinion greatly).
I feel sorry for you.
I'm happy you fought a war for oil. Be proud, too bad you didn't finish the job because shocking development here we are again.
I was only a sergeant. Sergeants don't decide where wars are fought and when they end. There is no politics on the front line in the military. Only war and survival. Go argue the whys and wherefors of the conflict with the Ivy League policy numbskulls at the DoD and the State Department. I was just a grunt.
I guess you're just pissed off you are poor and the great Republican lie isn't working out for you.
Great Republican lie? Try the Great Mainstream Political Lie. Neither party can claim the moral high ground here, in my opinion.
Maybe instead of killing Iraqi's you could have tried for an education.
You come off as the kind of dickhead who, 30 years ago, would have spit on returning drafted VietNam vets and called them "babykiller". I didn't choose to go to war, I simply honored my commitment when we went. I had nothing against the Iraqi soldiers and they had nothing against me, I'm sure. War isn't a philosophical debate at the level I saw it. It was just war: kill or be killed. Boring, terrifying, tedious war. I wouldn't wish it upon anyone, even sneering neo-hippies who think soldiers like going into combat. (p.s. We don't)
I have worked on base here (AWACs) and have TS clearance.
This is supposed to impress me? I was a 98C(01LF8) Signal Intelligence Analyst (Tactical/Linguist) and I had a TS clearence. 80% of the people who are in or work with the military have TS clearance. All it means is that you passed a background check. BFD. You were allowed on board an Air Force E-3 Sentry and I was a low-level operative in Military Intelligence. I guarantee that neither of us saw any secrets of any consequence.
The only military people with a brain make a lot more money than I do and when they retire actually make money. You were obviously not one of these people. When you finally make SSgt at age 45 I wouldn't consider that a success.
Nope, I'm not one of those people. I did my 4 years and decided not to re-up because I didn't agree with the political positions of our leadership. I'm currently underemployed because my Army job has no civilian counterpart and I'm slowly working on educating myself for something else. Difficult to find time/money with a wife and kid, but not impossible. I'm not unhappy either. Happiness isn't about money. You know, with all your talk about money , you're the one who sounds like a Republican.
Are you sure you don't hate gays? I mean come on I thought that was beat into your head in the military.
There you go again, mistaking the positions of political bozos in the DoD for the positions of those in the ranks. All that crap about gays in the military? It was just a pissing match between a grandstanding liberal clown of a president and a bunch of "chairborne" general officers in the DoD who were throwbacks from the 50's. There are, and always have been, gays in the military. Everyone in the military knows it. I served with several of them and no, I never once worried that one of them might be "lookin' at me". Why? Because the military is built on self discipline. Harassment of any sort, be it hetero- or homosexual, is viewed as unprofessional and undisciplined behavior and is therefore quite rare. One's sexuality is essentially a non-issue among the ranks. The only people who care about it are political grandstanders and social activists. Contrary to what you may think, the military is not entirely filled with hee-hawing backwoods georgia cracker boys flying the confederate flag and beating up queers for laughs. Most service members are polite, reserved and remarkably non-judgemental. I'm not saying there aren't a few jerks, but I reckon there's a lot less than you'd find in a similar sampling of the civilian population.
If you want to live only by the constitution go form your own country because in case you didn't notice your president seems to ignore it altogether.
You seem to be stuck in a strange black-and-white, either-or universe where, if someone is not a liberal Democrat like you, they must be a Conservative Republican. I'm neither. He's not "my" president. When he chooses to ignore the constitution it only serves to illustrate how the current implementation of our constitutional system is corrupt and needs fixing. I don't need to form my own country.
So I guess that's your rebuttal to my arguments? Call me "babykiller" and sneer at me for failing to pick a Military Occupational Specialty with a lucrative civilian application when I enlisted at 18? Nothing to say about your mutual fund? Nothing to counter my arguments in support of the premise that smaller government works better? Just ad hominem attacks? Impressive.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.