Record Industry Wants Royalties for Used CD Sales 492
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?"
ELLA (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re:ELLA (Score:5, Interesting)
Another poster has links to court cases upholding the doctorine of first sale. I'd expect the music industry to achieve the same amount of success as book publishers a hundred years ago.
Re:ELLA (Score:4, Interesting)
'Bout Time (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:'Bout Time (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Just say NO (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a name for it... (Score:2, Insightful)
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!
Re:There's a name for it... (Score:2)
Well, if they can charge a tax, then I expect to see Hilary Rosen out there doing costruction work on I-787. My tax dollars at work, right?
Re:Just say NO (Score:3, Informative)
Shhh! Don't give them any ideas! Before you know it, publishers might start going after libraries. Oh, too late [slashdot.org]...
Re:Just say NO (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, isn't this "used tax" potentially a violation of fair use?
Re:Just say NO (Score:3, Interesting)
These ridiculous proposed laws floated by the RIAA/MPAA crowd are a great example of how absurd the entire copyright/patent/trademark system has become. IMHO, it's almost time to scrap the whole thing.
Re:Just say NO (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Just say NO (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just say NO (Score:2)
No...but the book industry hasn't been hit by rampant piracy. You can bet if/when it does publisher's will be jumping on the same bandwagon. Besides, the e-book publishing game is toying with the same type of watermarking and copy right protection schemes that the music industry has been trying.
Does Ford get money when I sell my car as used ??
No...but your car depreciates in value...rapidly.
On the other hand, you pay tax when you resell your land, something else that doesn't depreciate in value (usually) - (ok, not the greatest example since the land isn't technically isn't yours -- but just as good as the previous examples).
As one of the shoppers the writer interviews points out: "It's cheap to buy used discs. . . . They sound just the same as new ones," said Estrella.
Anyways, I don't really agree with this, but I just thought someone should do a take from the other side of things.
Re:Just say NO (Score:3, Insightful)
Same "sharing helps revenues" arguments, with numbers to prove it.
Re:Just say NO (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm curious how he can prove Ellison's books aren't being pirated, since simple observation proves that they are being pirated.
Same "sharing helps revenues" arguments, with numbers to prove it
Oh, he's not proving that the books aren't being pirated, but rather that its good for Ellison financially. In that case, so what? The "It's for your own good" argument stops working for most of us as soon as we are old enough to move away from Mommy and Daddy.
Books? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Books? (Score:2, Funny)
Yes
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?
Yes
Won't happen (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Won't happen (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Won't happen (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Won't happen (Score:2)
Oh, right, I forgot that the courts can be depended on to be wise and fair.
Telltale statement (Score:2)
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?!
Is this legal? (Score:4, Interesting)
IANAL, but it sounds like pretty shaky legal grounds to me.
Re:Is this legal? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Is this legal? (Score:2)
Remember, no one's life, liberty or property are safe as long as Congress is in session.
Re:Is this legal? (Score:3, Insightful)
M$ thinks so.
-Sean
Re:Is this legal? (Score:3, Insightful)
This reminds me of a really stupid movie (Score:5, Funny)
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?
Re:This reminds me of a really stupid movie (Score:5, Funny)
I guess you're talking about pop music, right?
Re:This reminds me of a really stupid movie (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a valid point, but then double taxation is a pretty common and accepted thing. For example, I pay income tax on my money when I earn it, and then I pay sales tax on the same money when I spend it.
Re:This reminds me of a really stupid movie (Score:2, Informative)
Sales tax is actually collected against the act of saleing an item which, in turn, results in income to the seller. The tax is levied against the seller, not the purchaser. It is the seller's responsibility to pay the tax, not yours.
However, it is socially acceptable in the U.S. to add the tax on to the price of an item at the time of sale. If you compare this to European countries that have VAT (Value Added Tax), the tax is already figured into the price of the item.
Regardless, the vendor has the option of whether to pass cost of the tax to you (a proper business decision as it's to be included in the cost of item to the vendor) as either being included in the price of the item or in addition to the price.
Either way, it's the same. And it is not double-taxation.
Did anyone else shiver when they read this? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Did anyone else shiver when they read this? (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't believe that things are moving in this direction? Just think of what happens when every corporation starts running to the federal government for legislation every time their profits fall a little.
Re:Did anyone else shiver when they read this? (Score:2)
It has happened frequently when a country is occupied by an enemy army. It is almost always accompanied by various other unsavory actions. The prison or slave population tends to go up, and their labor is used to depress the wages/bargaining ability of the "non-slave" population. Hunts are initiated against rebels (if they don't already exist, you can usually create them). Etc.
Now look around you.
Re:Did anyone else shiver when they read this? (Score:2)
So stupid (Score:2)
This kind of thing has been legally established for over a hundred years, when used books are sold.
But what about Brittany? (Score:2, Funny)
Even if they are used.
-Dubya
Never happen. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Never happen. (Score:2)
The supreme court likes taking the side of the consumer in cases involving the doctine of first sale.
IANAL, but my understanding is that the doctrine of First Sale is derived from federal law and case law, not from the Constitution. Since Congress makes the law, they can change it in any way they like (within Constitutional limits), and the supreme court wouldn't have anything to say about it.
I'd love to be wrong about this...
Re:Never happen. (Score:2)
Well, of course, the Court could rule that the change extends Congress' reach beyond what the Copyright Clause (and other clauses) give it. But it'd be a stretch...
Re:Never happen. (Score:2)
People try to say the same thing about fair use, but you've got to be careful in taking that too far. For one thing, case law is often based on Constitutional concepts. For another, federal law sometimes codifies what has been developed in case law. The fact that a code has been developed may invalidate or alter the old case law or it may not. If the case law stems from Constitutional interpretation, the statute may simply clarify the principles and provide a single convenient place to find them.
I'm not sure where the first sale doctrine fits in, but I believe that attempts to impose royalties on CDs that have already been sold to date without express limitations on their resale (IOW -- pretty much all music CDs ) would at least implicate rights to private property and the right to contract.
Wait a second. (Score:2)
better not fly.. (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Double billing? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Double billing? (Score:3, Informative)
Government for Sale (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Re:Government for Sale (Score:5, Insightful)
The journalist makes another presumptuous statement that bears considering in more detail:
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.
Okay, the second half of the sentence is fine (it's bullshit, but it's really their estimate.) Now, the first half of the sentence, which I've emboldened, clearly takes it as a given that piracy is the primary cause for the meager 11 billion sales figure. That's lousy journalism - printing something as fact which, frankly, most respected members of the relevant profession (economics, not music promotion) don't agree with is shoddy. In this case, he's also being a tool for the Man.
Re:Government for Sale (Score:2)
"When Alanis Morissette's new album was released, we had a lot of customers in our stores looking for her (catalog album) 'Jagged Little Pill,' " said Matt Allen, the company's vice president.
Re:Government for Sale (Score:2)
The quoted text refers to used CD sales, which last time I checked, do not infringe on _any_ copyright or constitute so-called 'piracy'.
Death of the Business (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Hey, cool! (Score:2)
journalism going down the drain (Score:2)
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.
Could be a sign of desperation... (Score:3, Informative)
used sales versus new (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
... then only outlaws will resell (Score:4, Insightful)
Two-times the charge? (Score:5, Informative)
Kind of reminds me of the fights restaurants have had over the years with ASCAP and BMI. If an eating establishment was to say for example, play a radio station in their establishment, the ASCAP/BMI gestapo tried to hit them up for royalties. The restaurants countered saying that royalties have already been paid, but again, the music industry bullied them. It got to the point where it was easier and cheaper to pay them their fees then to battle them in court since they have an army of lawyers at their disposal.
Saddest part is the restaurants were right - a radio station pays fees based on the Abitron ratings. This includes people listening to the station ANYWHERE, so in a sense, the music industry was double-dipping.
--Jon
Carried out to its logical conclusion... (Score:2, Flamebait)
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.
Re:Carried out to its logical conclusion... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Carried out to its logical conclusion... (Score:2)
Re:Carried out to its logical conclusion... (Score:2)
Sales Remain the Same == Stagnating?? (Score:4, Insightful)
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 $16.99 and Musicians got a bigger cut of the dough!
Won't stop used CD sales. (Score:3, Interesting)
Used CDs are exchanged/sold between friends, co-workers, fellow students, etc. Sure, a used store makes it easy to find things, but a large portion of the exchange of used CDs goes on unseen.
If something along these lines were implemented to increase used CD sales, I would propose a sort of P2P network of people to exchange used CDs with the same sort of selection. Similar to an eBay system, the network would simply deal with used CDs. All that needs to be done is connect someone who wants a particular CD with someone who wouldn't mind selling the particular CD, and bam, the used CD store is eliminated from the equation, and the RIAA can't get in the way.
Keep used CDs out of the hands of our kids! (Score:2, Funny)
"Kids these days are beginning to buy used CDs at a younger and younger age. This is depriving me.....I mean.....the artists of their well deserved income," said Harry Buttes, V.P. of Money Grubbing at Great Tune$ Record$.
how many special payments do they want? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:how many special payments do they want? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just one more thing. (Score:2)
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.
Really... if they are THAT worried about it... (Score:2)
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.
Have they ever sold any used CDs? (Score:5, Insightful)
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. :-)
This is ludicrous! (Score:2, Insightful)
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 JUST IN (Score:2, Funny)
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.
The great thing about this..... (Score:2)
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?
Sorry (Score:5, Funny)
"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..."
Statistics and Lies (Score:4, Interesting)
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?).
Library (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Who wants to buy my Britney CDs? (Score:2)
J.
Re:Who wants to buy my Britney CDs? (Score:2)
Buying used CDs for ripping purposes? (Score:3, Insightful)
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!
Re:Buying used CDs for ripping purposes? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why are DVD less epensive than CDs? Movies cost more to make than music. DVDs cost more to make than CDs. So why are movies almost always sold for less than soundtracks for movies?
... starts with a "G", ends in "REED"
Ferry Operators trying to block the bridge (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
So they're saying... (Score:2)
RIAA Shoots own foot again (pass the bullets) (Score:4, Insightful)
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??
Claim Tenants' rights! (Score:2)
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
Hard-to-find music (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Assholes! (Score:2)
Can't have it both ways... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Can't have it both ways... (Score:3, Interesting)
According to their argument, they're not selling you the song or movie. They're quite right. You do not OWN the song or the movie. THEY own it. They own the rights to it, and the rights to distribute it. What they have sold you is a LICENSE to LISTEN/VIEW it, nothing more, nothing less. Note that this is THEIR argument, not mine.
In many ways it is very similar to software licenses. If I OWN a copy of Photoshop, I don't OWN Photoshop. I have purchased the right to use the software from Adobe. I have the right to use it however I see fit, but I cannot legally copy it and give it to someone else. This is how it SHOULD BE. If I copy something with the intent of depriving the rights holder of a legitimate sale then I am stealing. No matter how folks may equivocate about The Man keeping all the buck and the artist getting pennies, it is still STEALING, and it is not right. There are many, many legal precedents showing this to be the case.
Now the RIAA is trying to modify that agreement to extend beyond the first sale. What they're trying to say is "I know we sold you this license to listen/view our works, and heretofore that has meant you can transfer that license however you see fit [Note: see how it's like software?], but now we're going to say you can't transfer the license without paying us a royalty." Legally, they can do this if they want, but not retroactively. Much like a shrinkwrap EULA, they can put damn near anything they want into it, and as long as it's disclosed they can get away with it.
The potential downside for them is alienation of a huge consumer base by such draconian measures, but that sure as hell hasn't stopped them thus far. They appear to have learned nothing from the introduction of the cassette tape and the VCR, both of which caused sales to skyrocket instead of causing piracy to skyrocket. But old ideas have a way of getting steamrollered, and if the Big Media Boys don't wake up they're going to find themselves hammered into oblivion by consumers who are just damn tired enough of their shennanigans that they WILL go an pirate some stuff.
Re:I think you're wrong (Score:3, Informative)
The largest irony? What If? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Reporter needs to understand opinion vs. Fact (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Six percent royalty? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Suggestion (Score:4, Insightful)
Which would acomplish exactly what the recording industry wants.
Re:Suggestion (Score:2)
Yea, that'll work about as well as the other boycotts suggested on slashdot. Just ask Taco how that MPAA boycott is going.
Re:took them long enough (Score:2, Informative)
In fact, Country Music superstart Garth "Baldie" Brooks [geocities.com] 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 [planetgarth.com]
Re:In other news.... (Score:2)
Re:RIAA Wants More $ (Score:2)
Maybe, instead, your friend should give money directly to RIAA and then come over to your place to listen to the CD. Once. And you can't skip any tracks.
Re:RIAA Wants More $ (Score:2)
So they're going to do what, give it away?
Re:Guns (Score:2)
Re:So much. . . . (Score:2)
Plagiarism and Bad Writing (Score:5, Informative)
Second, Jefferson had nothing to do with writing the US Constitution.