RIAA impending lawsuits (1 Viewer)

[John_Berger]

your statements regarding the RIAA's rights and your own rights are a clear contradiction.

Where, damn it?! Where did I ever, EVER say that the RIAA does not have the right to do what they're doing? Go back through this entire thread and tell me one place where I said that the RIAA has no right to do what they're doing.

I've said that I don't like what they're doing.

I've said that I don't like how they've completely ignored the Internet as a potential distribution medium.

I've said that I don't like what I consider to be their heavy-handed tactics.

I've said that I don't like that they trying to force us to pay the same prices for CDs that we've been paying for over 20 years.

I've said that I don't like that they're doing all of this in the name of artists when I firmly believe that artists will NEVER see a penny of any payoffs.

But I have never said that the RIAA does not have the right to do what they're doing! The fact that they're obliged by contract to protect copyright and the fact that they're allowed to do so under law means that they DO have the right. That does NOT mean that I can't dislike their approaches. So, don't give me this "contradiction" bullshit.

GOD! It's no wonder that my blood pressure is borderline high. I forgot how evil I am because I'm pro-artist and anti-RIAA.

 

[Lew Crippen]

John, I agree, you have been consistent in your posts, even though at times unrealistic (IMO, of course). The money collected going (or not going, as the case may be) to the artists, for example. I do think that your attitude towards your property has the appearance of being different than your feelings about the RIAA actions (but I accept that you see a difference).

The only way the artists are going to see any money is when the penalties bring in more that the cost of the actions. And in order for that to happen, they will have to get some big judgments—which is not going to happen collecting a few thousand at a time.

If we take the case of the 12-year old girl’s mom as representative, the RIAA will take in less than two-thirds of a million dollars for their efforts for this first set of lawsuits. Does anyone seriously think that their costs are not higher than this?

Which means no money for the artists.

Now if all offenders were prosecuted to the full extent of the law and some big-time judgments were passed down, you might see some real money. But so far this has not been seen. And if we did see that kind of money, the outrage would be very much greater than it is today.

I can’t remember now, but in all of these 19 pages (my browser), has anyone pointed out that the cost of CDs has gone down over the last 20 years in terms of real dollars? Of course many production aspects cost less today than previously, but many other factors relating to price have gone up (such as floor space, distribution costs, etc.).

 

[MarkHastings]

It's the only one in the list above that can have the dreaded "copyright infringement" label attached to it. Oo-oo-ooh. Watch us quake in fear when those two words are uttered!

Everything else aside, You mock the use of the term yet you use the term yourself (on your site). How can this not be considered anything else but contradictory?

You sound like a cop who pulls over speeders, yet is appauled when he is pulled over for speeding.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

There is some kind of "first purchase" clause (or someting to that effect) that allows the legal transferrence of books, music, etc. You're right, though. If a song or CD is out of print, the fans have no alternative. Personally, I think that if a label no longer wants to make songs available for commercial purchase, those songs should go into the public domain.

It is called the First Sale Doctrine, and its basis is that the copyright holder gets paid the first time a tangible item is sold. It is also based on the assumption that the number of items in distribution is finite, as in there were 1000 copies made, and there will always only be 1000 copies in circulation.

Technology and rampant piracy has changed that. People now routinely make copies of a CD before selling, which is a clear violation of the law.

As for making work public domain, you are failing to understand a fundamental facet of business, which is asset management. This also falls under your criticism of the RIAA not addressing internet distribution according to your wishes. Just because a company withholds a product from the market does not mean they have no intention of selling it at a later date. Just look at Disney as a prime example. They routinely do limited time releases as part of their marketing strategy, and one which seems to be successful for them. Music, like fashion, is not always in vogue. It may not make sense to have an artist's product available all the time. In fact, by making it scarce, it adds value when a new release is made (scarcity is the basis for valuing any commodity in the marketplace).

Unlawful disribution dilutes the value of the assets. Who is to say that the member companies of the RIAA aren't pursuing internet distribution (they are, just not at the speed you would like)? The courts have already ruled that P2P jeopardizes the rights holder's ability to market their product on the web, and because of the ability to distribute files and hack copy protection, this situation is causing even further delays in deploying web based distribution.

 

[Rachael B]

I'm pro-choice!

 

[Angelo.M]

...has anyone pointed out that the cost of CDs has gone down over the last 20 years in terms of real dollars?

I suspected this but wasn't certain if it were so.

The cost of many consumer goods (entertainment and otherwise) in real dollars has decreased in the last 20 years. Televisions, personal computers, consumer electronics, etc are all cheaper now, in relative terms, than in the last couple of decades. A much smaller number of consumer goods (milk, gasoline) and big-ticket items (homes, cars) have seen price inflation.

 

[Dan Stone]

The first CD's I purchased were in 1984 and they cost about $25.00 apiece after tax for single disc releases. Double disc releases were around $45.00 IIRC.

 

[Anthony Hom]

quote:
[The] pathetic decline in the quality of mainstream music [is a factor in the decline of music sales].


I don't buy it. I might buy the argument that with the proliferation of product (thanks, in part, to new artists making their material directly available on the 'Net) and with the multiplication of genres and sub-genres that didn't exist a decade or two ago, that the ratio of signal to noise might be lower, but there seems to be as much good music available now as there ever was. Although radio is no longer particularly viable as a way to expose oneself to the newest, latest and greatest (with exceptions; thank you WFUV), the 'Net compensates, at least in part.



I think you contradicted yourself in rebutting the top statement. Mainstream music is popular among all genres, while the 90's devlopment of sub-genres shows there is little mainstream anymore. Few artists are making music that appeals to everyone, just their genres.

 

[Brian Perry]

In many (but not all) cases, you could also say that albums are longer than they used to be. I see many single CD releases that are 70 minutes or longer. Of course, depending on the band, a lot of that could be considered filler.

 

[ThomasC]

Yet another example of ridiculously high prices:

When I went to Wal-Mart this past Monday, I saw the Lion King DVD going for $14.71, and the Lion King Special Edition Soundtrack CD was going for $14.99.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Yet another example of ridiculously high prices:

You have that backwards, the Lion King DVD is priced ridiculously low. It's called a loss leader.

 

[ThomasC]

You want to play hardball, eh? Fine. According to Amazon, list price for the Swing Kids DVD is $9.99, while list for the soundtrack is $18.98, Amazon is selling it for $14.99.

 

[MarkHastings]

More perspective: On Amazon, The Lion King SE DVD is $19.43, while the Lion King SE VHS is $20.99



p.s. Of course, the list price for the DVD is $5 more than the list price of the VHS.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

According to Amazon, list price for the Swing Kids DVD is $9.99, while list for the soundtrack is $18.98, Amazon is selling it for $14.99.

That one's easy, the soundtrack is better than the movie, so it's worth more!

 

[Glenn Overholt]

It's so much fun bringing dead(head) threads back up!

I saw this the other ninght on 60 Minutes II, and it shows that the RIAA has got to make some changes.

This group has allowed, and encouraged, taping of their shows - for free, and they have made a bundle. How come it works for this group and not for the others?

Every live performance is really live. They don't have the recording playing through the speakers, like some other groups do when they are on stage. Ok, you can't get their CD's for free, but it would be close to that if you went to a performance and made your own recording. What's wrong with this picture?

Link - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in582848.shtml

GLenn