Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Media Music News Your Rights Online

British Record Companies Win £41m In Damages 271

Posted by kdawson from the segmenting-the-world dept.
Benjamin Fox writes "The BBC is reporting that online retailer CD-Wow has been ordered to pay £41m to the British Phonographic Industry. The London High Court ruled that Hong Kong-based CD-Wow, which imports cheap (but genuine) CDs from Hong Kong and elsewhere into the U.K., is '"in substantial breach" of a 2004 agreement to stop importing CDs.' This is a serious blow to proponents of an open, no-barrier music market."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

British Record Companies Win £41m In Damages More

British Record Companies Win £41m In Damages

Comments Filter:

  • Cry me a river. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Tuesday May 29, 2007 @04:00PM (#19314207) Homepage Journal

    Record companies win 41m damages

    Which they will, naturally, turn over to the artists...

    FTA: "It is vital that all retailers compete on a level playing field," said director general Kim Bayley. "Illegal imports threaten that level playing field and threaten British jobs."

    Cry me a river, think of your jobs as being "outsourced" to Hong Kong. Your brick & mortar record stores are going the way of the haberdashery and cooper workshop. Be creative and come up with a new business model or go extinct.

    Being in business for X years doesn't give you a mystical right to be in business for X+1.

    • Not to mention those dirt cheap CDs appear to be around $11.00 still :(

      How much do CD cost nowdays?

      If $10 profit can't pay everyone down the chain we need a shorter chain...

      Maybe all bands should put their music on video so we can get it in the bargain DVD bin instead :/

      Thank god i have all the music i will ever need to listen to already on Cd/record/cass/8-track. I have paid retail for 1 CD in many years and that was off ebay for a 10-year-old out of print one. OK, plus a DVD of the month thingie for The M

    • Re:Cry me a river. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by joe_adk ( 589355 ) on Tuesday May 29, 2007 @05:57PM (#19315611) Homepage
      It always bugs me when things like this happen. Businesses can outsource their labor and production, but we can't outsource our merchants.
      • Prices for *everything* in the UK are outrageously higher than in continental Europe, USA and even Mexico. But I guess the main reason for that is because the government let corporations do these kind of things. It is so stupid that they do it *even* against their own companies. For another example see the Tesco vs Levi [managingchange.com] where Tesco (a Wal*Mart like supermarket) was importing Levi's jeans cheaper than the price they got from Levi's... guess what happened? Levi's sued and they where forced to buy directly fro
    • The modern American definition of haberdashery is a store that sells men's clothing. Last time I checked, we're not running out of them.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by shark72 ( 702619 )

      "Be creative and come up with a new business model or go extinct."

      It's interesting that you mention that. "The record companies need to find a new business model" is a pretty common statement on Slashdot.

      Here in the US, the record companies are trying just that. Perhaps seeing a future where they won't be able to make money selling individual copies of music, they are being creative and trying to get money from the radio stations (both terrestrial and online) for the playing music. It hasn't gone over

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by d3struct0r ( 888909 )
        Maybe the record companies trying to find a new business model isn't working because they simply aren't needed anymore. The artists can distribute their music to a huge audience using the internet, the artists can then make all their money off live performances (which is pretty much what happens now). That puts record stores, out of business, and record companies, at least making vastly less money (I assume publicity, people to organise shows, etc, would still be needed, at least for a while). Put simply

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by The Ultimate Fartkno ( 756456 )

          The artists can distribute their music to a huge audience using the internet, the artists can then make all their money off live performances (which is pretty much what happens now). That puts record stores, out of business, and record companies, at least making vastly less money

          Okay, let's flash forward to the future and see how that works out.


          Awesome Rock Band: Damn, I'm tired of keeping this server running and processing all these credit card orders for our music. Can't we get Steve to take over? He's a

          • Re:Cry me a river. (Score:5, Insightful)

            by turbidostato ( 878842 ) on Tuesday May 29, 2007 @08:17PM (#19316753)
            "Okay, let's flash forward to the future and see how that works out."

            It's awesome how anybody wants to "flash forward" to a future that neither knows nor can make their arguments strong with when they can look at a past that can be known for sure.

            I don't know how the future will look like, but I know there have been dozens of undisputable bussiness that just were flooded away by the waves of time and technology and noone misses them now (carriage builders; horse traders; water or ice street sellers; wandering surgeons and dentists; pedlars... I could go all day long), so I don't see how it could be any different with any current profession or bussiness model that today seems to be strongly stablished.

            "My long-winded point being that record companies, however corrupt they may be, are a necessary evil of the world."

            They are needed no more than people selling ice on the streets, and in fact much less. Till the beginning of the XX century you had that kind of music... you know, about forty minutes per piece instead of three, up to one hundred musicians on the scenario instead of a quartet, almost no singing superstars, but chores on the dozens when one of those pieces required them... They got some names, like Vivaldi, Mozart, Wagner... That industry was simply killed once the phonographic industry "saw the light" -they were able to get vast ammounts of money with what was no more than promotional media when firstly introduced, making use of professionals that needed much lower expertise levels and that were mostly marketing-driven instead of proficiency-based, so they were easily "created" out of a marketing lab. Well, they managed to have almost obscene benefits for almost a century out of it, but their time has passed and we will miss all those new rock star bands that won't be no more than our current symphonic composers that are no more.

            Even in the worst case scenario where all current music standards just disappear, do you really miss the Bachs, Behetovens or Mozarts that have not been in the twenty century because the bussiness model pushed by RIAA asociates worked against them? I don't think so: when you want that kind of music you just go with Bach, Behetoven or Mozart canned or live perfomances and that's all. Then, if there're no more Led Zeppelin, The Beatles or Britney Spears, because technology or market trends go everywhere else, so what? You still will be able to listen to them if you really want it, for free, out of the Net just saying -maybe, oh, how great old days that passed away, just like when you find yourself playing with an air sword after watching -again, Excalibur.

            Just remember that on a free market, really no bussiness is essential or non-reemplazable.
      • By your way of thinking, bank robbery or raiding Fort Knox would be an acceptable business plan, I take it.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by grub ( 11606 )
        Labels are doing well by the latest craze: online stores. iTunes is booming, eMusic is doing well, other online store sound like things are working out. It's a good thing.

        A big downside to online sales is the glaring fact that many of the employees (and I mean "non-artists") in the industry becomes irrelevant. From CD factory employees to all levels of distribution from stockboy to the brick & mortar stores.

  • One thing I didn't see in the article (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Richard McBeef ( 1092673 ) on Tuesday May 29, 2007 @04:02PM (#19314219)
    The part about someone putting a gun to the head of CD-Wow and forcing them to sign that agreement.

  • B.S. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ushering05401 ( 1086795 ) on Tuesday May 29, 2007 @04:03PM (#19314231) Journal
    From TFA:

    "The vibrancy of British music depends on a fair return on the investments that allow British talent to shine.

    "This decision is an important step in ensuring that British music has a bright future."

    So my question is... Why are the cd's being sold at such low prices in places like Hong Kong, where this company is buying them for resale in England. How are the artists getting a fair return selling their albums for such low prices in Hong Kong?

    Regards.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 )
      I think it's a case of letting the market that can pay for it pay for it, but still getting something rather than nothing out of the other markets. The average wages in HK is much lower, they aren't going to pay the same prices.

      • Same argument as... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ushering05401 ( 1086795 ) on Tuesday May 29, 2007 @04:42PM (#19314787) Journal
        the one against drug re-importation. The drug companies have to make their R&D money back from someone, so people in wealthy nations cannot have the product at the same prices as everyone else.

        Doesn't change the fact that while living in this wealthier nation many the people I know cannot afford proper health care or buy the medications at all.

        I'm not trying to be bitchy with you. I am just frustrated with the realities of globalization.

        Regards.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          I always hated the bogus "We need higher drug prices or you wouldn't have these drugs in the first place!". If I can't afford those expensive drugs then they are as good as if they had never existed anyway.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Rich0 ( 548339 )
            I always hated the bogus "We need higher drug prices or you wouldn't have these drugs in the first place!". If I can't afford those expensive drugs then they are as good as if they had never existed anyway.

            Not true at all - the drugs that are expensive today are cheap 10 years later. If they never existed at all then nobody would ever benefit from them.

            The drugs that are affordable today all used to be very expensive at some time - and yet they're still very useful to the poor and rich alike.

            In the same wa

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Gospodin ( 547743 )

          The drug companies have to make their R&D money back from someone, so people in wealthy nations cannot have the product at the same prices as everyone else.

          Actually, there are lots of similarities between the music biz and the drug biz - maybe why these are both such hot-button issues in the age of easy IP transfers. In both industries, it costs a lot to develop a new product, and next to nothing to produce copies of it. In both industries, the argument for IP controls is that they are needed to keep

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Dun Malg ( 230075 )

            It's a tricky issue for a libertarian-leaning capitalist like myself. ... On the other, property rights should be respected.

            The first thing that'll help you with this argument is the realization that "Intellectual Property" is not property. Copyright is an artificial construct of government, whereby certain entities are granted a limited time monopoly on the copying of their creative works. This monopoly is actually a restriction on the rights of everyone else. Now, this monopoly can be sold as property, but that's hardly relevent. "Respecting their property" has nothing to do with "respecting copyright". The work itself is irr

          • "...while the argument against is that there would be high levels anyway and all high prices are doing is propping up bloated corporate profit margins."

            Which begs the question, are the profit margins in those industries bloated? The profit margins for some industries like restraunts and grocery stores are quite slim, while the profit margin on designer sunglasses is rather hefty. Is it really necessary to innnovation to attach ridiculous wealth to IP? Would there be no good music if recording artists lead
          • "On the other, property rights should be respected"

            Can I "unsmell" your fart once out of you? Once you shoot it out is not your fart anymore. Once you make something *public* is yours no more than your farts (you still created them, but they are not yours).

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by geobeck ( 924637 )

          Also the same as college textbooks. A textbook that costs $160 here in Canada costs $20 in India (one specific example). If you can find the right online clearing house, you can order the Indian one, pay the shipping, and save $120. Different industry, same ripoff. The publishers price their textbooks to be as much as they can possibly squeeze out of the buyers. If they can afford to sell many thousands of these books at the Indian price, the pricing obviously has nothing to do with the cost of publish

          • "If they can afford to sell many thousands of these books at the Indian price, the pricing obviously has nothing to do with the cost of publishing the book."

            I'm in no way defending textbook publishers, but perhaps they can afford to sell $20 books in India because North Americans pay $130 for the same book. As an English major, all of my "textbooks" could usually be either found a) in the public domain, or b) heavily discounted at Amazon.com, so I never concerned myself with the economics of textbook pub

      • I think it's a case of letting the market that can pay for it pay for it, but still getting something rather than nothing out of the other markets. The average wages in HK is much lower, they aren't going to pay the same prices.

        In other words, price fixing.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jimicus ( 737525 )
      The vibrancy of British music depends on a fair return on the investments that allow British talent to shine.

      That sentence in and of itself says all you need to know.

      The only artist in the UK I can think of who's represented by an RIAA record company and writes her own songs is Lily Bloody Irritating Allen.

      Just to put it into context - American Idol appeared first on UK screens under the name "Pop Idol" long before American Idol was conceived. Not only do we manufacture crap music, we make television shows

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by daeg ( 828071 )
      Because in Asia, South America, Africa, Russia, etc, record companies are happy to get any profit at all, even if it is a tiny fraction what they make in other countries. Some profit is better than no profit if the music were 100% pirated.

      They still make a profit, and the artists can still make a killing doing concerts in those countries.
    • My guess would be because, due to wage/currency/other differences between the two locations, the average cost of a CD would be lower in order for it to sell at all. This is not really all that unusual. Even as a Canadian, when I went to a "Denny's" (no Denny's jokes, please) in the US, the prices on the menu were the same. However, the difference in the dollar meant that the meal cost me 25% more.

      Similarly, 1GBP= 1.98119 USD = 15.4949 HKD. If I were to go to Hong Kong and buy a CD, it might still cost me 15

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AK Marc ( 707885 )
        My guess would be because, due to wage/currency/other differences between the two locations, the average cost of a CD would be lower in order for it to sell at all.

        But that wasn't the argument the record companies made. They licensed the CDs for sale in Hong Kong at 1GBP or so. If that deal screws the artists, then they shouldn't have signed it. If that deal made artists money, then the prices are ok for the UK as well. The record companies are crying that the legally sold CDs in Hong Kong are set ill
      • "My guess would be because, due to wage/currency/other differences between the two locations, the average cost of a CD would be lower in order for it to sell at all. "

        Economics 101: you don't sell the cheapest you can; you sell as expensive as you can go with.
    • Shhhh! Pointing out artificially imposed regional pricing schemes sind verboten!

      In all seriousness though, this is one of the major points that most companies definitely dont want getting to the forefront of consumer conciousness. Basing ones prices on "what the market will bear" is an age old practice tied entirely to the old supply and demand concept. Companies for years have been adjusting their prices based on region, not only in the media content industry.

      The funny thing here is the more infrastructure

    • So my question is... Why are the cd's being sold at such low prices in places like Hong Kong

      They sell them for peanuts in Hong Kong and China in order to compete with the thriving bootleg market there.
    • For the same reason software companies have to lower their prices in other parts of the world. Because those people can not afford to subsidize our relatively high standard of living by paying our relatively high prices.

      Perhaps there should be people yelling for "fair trade software/music" like there are for fair trade coffee? Except in this case it would be the third world countries which would have to pay a minimum price for our goods.
    • "The vibrancy of British music depends on a fair return on the investments that allow British talent to shine.
      [...] This decision is an important step in ensuring that British music has a bright future."

      Humm... are really William Croft, Orlando Gibbons or Henry Purcell in such real need of the British phonographic industry for their "fair return of investments"? Wait, maybe they were not thinking about them as examples of the "bright English music talents" but more about Robbie Williams?

      Well, I'd say a mus
  • If this Internet company is based in Hong Kong, how does British law apply exactly?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jfengel ( 409917 )
      They may be based in Hong Kong, but they're importing stuff into the UK. Since it doesn't mention another company, I assume that they have a presence in the UK themselves.

      As I understand international law (and IANAL) that usually means a separate company incorporated in the UK under UK laws, owned by the Hong Kong company. So the British law applies to the UK company, and the Hong Kong-based owners of that company have to comply, if they want to keep doing business in the UK.

      They could hide in Hong Kong t

  • Other side of the coin (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Does this mean that IBM, HP, GE and others owe billions to American engineers when they imported cheap (but genuine) foreign workers into the country?
    • Does this mean that IBM, HP, GE and others owe billions to American engineers when they imported cheap (but genuine) foreign workers into the country?

      Yes, indeed it does, and it's not just the engineers. Don't expect them to pay up any time soon, though, and I think you meant "... imported cheap (but genuinely foreign) workers ..."

  • they call it rip-off England for a reason (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hxnwix ( 652290 ) on Tuesday May 29, 2007 @04:07PM (#19314291) Journal
    And it would be extremely dangerous if an Englishman and a Chinaman could pay the same amount for the same product.

    What would be next? Where would it end? What if petrol prices also reached parity? It just wouldn't be proper!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by JordanL ( 886154 )
      Worse yet, what if currencies reached parity?

      China still maintains... errr... unconventional control of the value of its currency. It tells you how much it is worth, and if you want any Yuan, that's what you'll agree it's worth.

      A Chinaman and an Englishman could never pay the same price, because even if they did the Chinese price would be undervalued due to the over valuation of the Chinese government of its own currency.

      The Chinese "global" economy is held together with glue and playdoh, under the

  • Breaking a 2004 Agreement = Blow to Open Market? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by andrewd18 ( 989408 ) on Tuesday May 29, 2007 @04:07PM (#19314303)
    How does breaking an agreement the company made in 2004 to stop importing CDs drive a "serious blow" to an open, no-barrier music market? The company agreed to stop importing CDs in the first place; they should either renegotiate the agreement or abide by it.

    • page views (Score:3, Interesting)

      by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) *
      "A Hong Kong CD Reseller has been found to be in breach of contract, by violating an agreement it made with British record companies in 2004. It agreed to certain restraints on its trade practices in exchange for financial consideration but did not abide by the terms of its contract. In football news, the Manchester..."

      Doesn't really sell into Your Rights Online, does it?

    • Easy.

      I would guess the agreement came about under pressure of copyrights.

      Copyrights are monopoly rights. No Open or Free Market in those goods.

      all the best,

      drew
  • Teh Brits affecting the accounts of a Hong Kong based business eh... What Would Hong Kong Phoeey Do [wikipedia.org]?
  • This is just the "free market" at work. Sounds like the Brits are just starting to get a taste of what us American's have been going through. Cheaper wins. Since when has business been about "fair play". Whoever get's the most, cheapest, wins.

    True it will hurt the local market, but that's the price you pay for a free market. Not agreeing with it, but it's the reality of the new world.

  • It should be a clear warning sign (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nymz ( 905908 ) on Tuesday May 29, 2007 @04:10PM (#19314357) Journal
    It should be a clear warning sign when it's cheaper to manufacture a CD, and ship it half-way around the world, than it is to manufacture it right where you live.

    One place has too much red-tape and taxes, or one place has too few standards and protections, but in this case I think it's both.
    • It should be a clear warning sign when it's cheaper to manufacture a CD, and ship it half-way around the world, than it is to manufacture it right where you live.

      One place has too much red-tape and taxes, or one place has too few standards and protections, but in this case I think it's both.

      This post shows such an astounding lack of any knoweledge it earns a reply.

      1) First I would like to point out that the high cost of manufacturing in the UK compared to China is nothing to do with red tape. It has alot mo

      • This post shows such an astounding lack of any knoweledge it earns a reply.

        Come on now, no need to flame & fight. It looks like you mostly repeated what I said but used words specific to your culture. Pound, pence, labour, & knoweledge. :-)

        It's ok for us to disagree on what each of us considers too much red-tape. But I'm going to challenge you to do better than make statements like "the pound is so strong" when it appears you're parroting a sound-bite instead of examining and accepting the und

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by geobeck ( 924637 )

        Are CDs produced by British music companies actually manufactured in the UK? Or are the masters sent to a facility in another country with lower overhead costs, then re-imported? There are quite a few countries that would be appropriate... China, maybe?

    • While you're probably right, I would've thought a larger factor to be the lower average wage in Hong Kong.

      • While you're probably right, I would've thought a larger factor to be the lower average wage in Hong Kong.

        Sure, it might be a larger factor, but that would only be important if you define a hypothetical base, which there may be. But the clear deciding factor is the total span between the two, the disparity between the two, that causes uncontrolable and sometimes undesirable methods of equalizing.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by J0nne ( 924579 )
      Manufacturing cd's costs next to nothing here too, the record companies just ask more because they can. It's cheaper in Hong Kong because the people there wouldn't be able to afford any otherwise.

      • Manufacturing cd's costs next to nothing here too, the record companies just ask more because they can.

        Yep, supply and demand can be odd sometimes. The other day at a store, I saw a movie (on DVD) for $17.98 and on the same aisle was the music soundtrack (on CD) for 18.99. How does the musical audio for the movie cost more than the entire movie?!

  • some more info from TFA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Cowpat ( 788193 ) on Tuesday May 29, 2007 @04:14PM (#19314407) Journal
    their annual UK TURNOVER in 2005 was only £21.7m. This judgement effectively means that the high court wants them to hand over at least 5 years UK profits. It would be a damn-sight cheaper for CD-Wow to just pull out of the British market. Also, it's clear that the BPI's plan here was to get such unreasonably large damages that CD-Wow has to hike its prices right up around the world to cover the cost of paying them, thus destroying their business of selling CDs cheap. UK customers already pay a £2 surcharge at CD-Wow to cover the cost of sourcing CD's in the EU, now the high court has deigned to make consumers the world over pay a surcharge to give pure profit to a few already wealthy corporations. So, either the company goes under, or they stop trading in the UK, or they massively hike the prices. Either way it's bad for many UK consumers. Well done the high court, always looking out for the majority of people in society!

    Hopefully the EU will strike this effective tariff-imposing down - people may lambast them, but the EU seems to be the only thing protecting us from the jokers in Westminster who make laws to benefit corporate interests over those of consumers.

  • Small Victory (Score:5, Funny)

    by Smight ( 1099639 ) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {bsdnirgluos}> on Tuesday May 29, 2007 @04:19PM (#19314483)
    Does the phonograph industry really think they have a chance against the CD industry?

  • "The vibrancy of British music depends on a fair return on the investments that allow British talent to shine."

    That's the funniest line in the whole article.

    Does that mean without money, talent won't shine? If you're doing the shining, can the money be in sterling, euros, or dollars? Can you get some shine with the yen?

    I guess it doesn't matter anyway. Now that the record companies can get a fair return, the talent will shine brighter than ever. I can see the shine from here.
  • What is preventing CD-wow from creating a new corporation, selling its assets to the new corporation, and then withdrawing the original corporation from the UK market? Wouldn't that be a way of getting around the payment since the new corp would not be a signatory to the original agreement, and CD-wow could not be forced to pay if they are no longer doing business in the country?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Hal The Computer ( 674045 )
      Someone doesn't understand how the law works.

      I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice and this is based on Canadian law, but UK law is similar.

      If the new corporation is controlled by the same people, the transaction is considered to be non-arm's-length. If the assets aren't sold at fair market value and the old corporation goes bankrupt (as a result of a legal judgement), the transaction could be set aside and the assets would go to the old corporations creditors. Courts don't like bankrupt people or comp

  • So (Score:2)

    by nizo ( 81281 ) *
    Can they pay the fine with imported CDs, marked up to the cost of comperable local CD prices?

  • Ah, globalisation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by payndz ( 589033 ) on Tuesday May 29, 2007 @04:48PM (#19314873)
    This is the perfect definition of 'globalisation'. If you're a producer of a product, you get to take advantage of the lowest possible production costs wherever they may be found in the world in order to maximise your profits.

    If you're a consumer of that same product, then you're fucked and have to pay whatever the producer decrees is the market price in your country. Even if that price is many multiples of the exact same product in another country (cf: Adobe software prices in the UK compared to the US, to name but one example).

    I'm still waiting to hear an even vaguely plausible reason why record companies charge vastly more for a music CD, a piece of plastic and metal on which the largest production expenses - the actual recording and artists' advances - have already been paid, in the UK than to buy that same CD from Hong Kong including shipping halfway around the world other than sheer, unashamed, blatant, greedy price-gouging of British consumers. And I'll be waiting a long time, because there isn't one.

    • Re:Ah, globalisation (Score:5, Interesting)

      by capnez ( 873351 ) on Tuesday May 29, 2007 @05:28PM (#19315301) Homepage Journal

      I'm still waiting to hear an even vaguely plausible reason why record companies charge vastly more for a music CD [...] in the UK than to buy that same CD from Hong Kong including shipping halfway around the world [...]. And I'll be waiting a long time, because there isn't one.
      You are right - if consumers were able to participate in the global market on the same level as multinational corporations, this would be no problem. Today, the corporations get to conduct cheap business abroad, but consumers are still hampered by tariffs, taxes, etc. The soluction is not to restrict the corporations, but to further liberate private citizens across the globe (who should be just as free to do whatever they want).
      Your cynical definiton of globalization is skewed. Globalization should mean more and global freedom for everybody. For many companies and ordinary citizens, this is already a reality (in the European Union, for example). What we need to do now is to make globalization the reality for everybody. For example, this would mean that a UK citizen can buy CDs in Hong Kong or anywhere else (usually where they get them for the cheapest price).

      However, in this special case we are dealing with, the company apparently broke an "agreement" (i.e., a contract) - although TFA is not very clear what exactly happend (speaking of "breaking [a] 2004 court undertaking [...]", whatever that is), and if they did that, they are lawfully punished for it.

      Anyway, the course must not be more restrictions - it must be more openness and liberty for companies and citizens alike.
  • This way they can maintain several "level playing fields" instead of one leveled playing field. At the moment, several level playing fields are what they are attempting to maintain. Now, I know what you're thinking... price fixing right? Controlling the prices in several markets. I'm pretty sure the wisdom of the courts have already accounted for that and went on to disregard it.

    Now with video DVDs, there's a thing called "region coding" that will permit only appropriate players to play DVDs of the appr
  • There you have it... free trade UK style: reduce trade barriers for big businesses, but don't reduce barriers in a way that might actually lower prices for the general public.

  • The Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MrSteveSD ( 801820 ) on Tuesday May 29, 2007 @04:55PM (#19314947)
    I'm really sick and tired of the hypocrisy. When we lose our jobs to cheaper workers overseas, big business tells us that it's unfortunate but it's the harsh realities of the international business etc. Yet when that same market threatens them, the government steps in to protect them.

  • If I was British (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Tuesday May 29, 2007 @04:56PM (#19314951)
    If I was British I'd be calling for a replacement of the government over this. Whose interests are the government protecting with a decision like this? Clearly not the people themselves, who are one of the most overcharged (look at the cost of a PS3, for example) populace on this planet.

    • Re:If I was British (Score:4, Insightful)

      by pcardno ( 450934 ) on Tuesday May 29, 2007 @05:22PM (#19315253) Homepage
      The government didn't make the decision, the courts did. Yes, the government appoint judges but the decision was not made directly by them...

      We have many reasons for wanting a different government - this one isn't even close to the top 10.
    • Yes, they should clearly opt for the conservatives (aka Tories) over labour for this. That would make a *huge* difference. Not. Besides that, there are many important things for a government to consider. Just opting out of one party because of a single issue like this is madness. This is a drawback of a democracy (and of most other governmental structures I suppose), you cannot really vote for single issues.

  • Price fixing (Score:2, Insightful)

    by hack slash ( 1064002 )
    Shouldn't the British Phonographic Industry be investigated for price fixing? As has been mentioned, the CDs are legally produced and the artists have already been paid their share, leaving the only reason the BPI are pissed off is that they didn't make a larger cut of the sale.

  • Let's make things fair (Score:4, Interesting)

    by antic ( 29198 ) on Tuesday May 29, 2007 @05:48PM (#19315543)
    I'm sure this is flawed thinking, but oh well:

    If you want protection from parallel imports/greymarket sales, then you should be forced to develop your products from scratch in the country in which you're expecting protection.

    e.g., if you benefit from cheaper production in China, the customers should be able to expect cheaper sales via China/HK. If you want to kill off parallel imports in CountryX, then research, design and handle production for your product entirely in Country.

  • grey importing legal in Australia (Score:5, Interesting)

    by atmurray ( 983797 ) on Tuesday May 29, 2007 @06:05PM (#19315671)
    Interestingly, in Australia the court system has found on several occasions to date that "grey importing" (unofficial importing) is legal and in fact (as sony found out: http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/06/ 1211211 [slashdot.org]) circumvention of devices which prevent grey importing (e.g mod chips which get around region encoding) is also legal. It's interesting/scary how countries seem to go in virtually completely different directions on some of these issues (and in this case it is the UK and Australia which have inherited the same legal system).

  • Unwritten (?) Record Company Golden Rule (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Tuesday May 29, 2007 @06:21PM (#19315807) Journal
    Once the customer base start failing you, make use of your lawyer base.

  • Journalism (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Richard W.M. Jones ( 591125 ) <rich@anne[ ].org ['xia' in gap]> on Tuesday May 29, 2007 @06:21PM (#19315809) Homepage

    What's been particularly interesting/scary is the complete lack of "mainstream" journalism on this subject. I watched a section on BBC Newsnight which totally failed to address any of the issues that even the most unkarma Slashdot troll would have raised. The mouthpiece from the BPI was given free-reign.

    This is very disappointing because it means we are not getting our message through to the mainstream.

    Rich

  • > The London High Court ruled that Hong Kong-based CD-Wow

    This prompts the question, what we're they high on when they made the ruling? Maybe they'll ban multi-region DVD players for an encore. Those silly wigs must be overheating their brains.

  • This is sick. I don't understand why these companies think that market segmentation helps their business or why courts and governments agree with them on it. I simply can't fathom what went through their minds to develop region coding for DVDs and legally enforce this kind of separation.

  • Here in Australia, its legal (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jonwil ( 467024 ) on Tuesday May 29, 2007 @09:03PM (#19317091)
    Here in Australia, they removed all parallel import restrictions on CDs and record stores didn't go out of business. Stores like JB Hi Fi, Sanity and others are still doing a roaring trade.

    If the same thing happened in the UK and all the UK record stores were on the same level playing field (and could import stuff from Hong Kong just like CD-WOW does), this wouldn't be an issue.
     

  • Who's the importer in the story? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Keith_Beef ( 166050 ) on Tuesday May 29, 2007 @10:56PM (#19317777)

    Not CD Wow.

    CD WOW! is owned and operated by Music Trading Online (HK) Limited (a Hong Kong company).

    Items over the UK HM Customs & Excise VAT Personal Import allowances Orders containing items over the UK Customs & Excise VAT personal import allowance are sent via Hong Kong Post, our postal agent. Hong Kong Post arranges the payment of VAT and or any other taxes and duties which may apply to UK H M Customs and Excise on your behalf FROM THE AMOUNT YOU HAVE ALREADY PAID. You will not be asked to pay any additional sums upon delivery / collection.

    If I live in the UK and order something from overseas, I am officially the importer.

    I have to pay the relevant import duties and taxes when the goods arrive. In this case, as you will notice from the text quoted from CD Wow's site, the duties are paid on my behalf by the shipping agent, out of the payment made to CD Wow. But in essence, it is still me, as the importer, who is paying the duties albeit through an agent.

    The company selling the stuff to me is the exporter.

    Beef.

  • Its a great tradition in Britain (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Budenny ( 888916 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2007 @03:22AM (#19318939)
    Way back when, British Leyland aka Rover was a Great UK Car Company. This is before it finally exhausted subsidies and went bust. In those days, to keep it in business, the Government permitted a cartel which fixed prices at levels where BL could more or less break even. This was at levels about 40% higher than in Europe. Everyone in Britain paid far more than the world price for cars, just as they do now for CDs. To benefit BL, just as now to benefit the record companies.

    So guess what? BL then exported their cars to Germany, and sold them below cost. Doubtless in pursuit of the Queen's Awards for Export. Enterprising people with a crazed desire to buy cars guaranteed to rust and break down then tried to import them back into the UK.... After all, if you were going to buy a pile of junk, why pay list for it? That's not quite how they thought of it.

    The more it goes around, the more it comes around.

  • So help me understand this... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Builder ( 103701 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2007 @05:53AM (#19319567)
    $GlobalCorp that was paying me a good wage can outsource my job to India, Serbia, South Africa, etc.
    Check.

    I then have to get another job, possibly in another field.
    Check.

    Most jobs being created in the US and UK economies are service industry jobs where I have few applicable qualifications so I will most likely take a serious pay cut.
    Check.

    Because I now have a lot less disposable income, if I want to maintain my previous quality of life I need to look to other sources for products. I can't afford HMV or Virgin prices of GBP15 for a new CD anymore. Imports from overseas may be one solution to this. After all, it's exactly what $GlobalCorp did in step 1 - saved money by sourcing their product (my labour in this case) from a cheaper market.

    Nope - can't do that.

    AFAIK this is explicitly against the WTO agreements on price differentiation in different markets and the prevention of people from taking advantage of this. This is why the BPI have to use shady trademark laws (see Levi vs Tesco for more on this).

    Time to make this shit personal and stop being sheeple!

Slashdot Top Deals

news: gotcha

Close