[GeneD]

I'm of three minds here:

The recording industry now views free trade as piracy. Wonderful.

Most of the European public-domain albums in question stink.

Michael, you're a great jazz producer, but could it be all that marvelous remastering of Bix from metal parts will go for nought when you insist on charging $30 a disc while others charge $3 for essentially the same music? Just wondering.

One other thing: Isn't Marcal a brand of, uh, bathroom tissue?

[agitator]

What a bunch of drooling, greedy maggots. 50 years isn't enough? 95 years won't be enough either. Perpetuity won't be long enough when there's something that somebody can control and sell. , you parasites.

[proxy_user]

Remasterers have to cover their costs. Finding rare 78s in good condition, getting expensive turntables, styluses, cartridges, and preamps to play them on, and all the digital-domain storage and software costs money. Then there is the high skill level of master remasterers like Ward Marston and Mark Obert-Thorn, which comes from years of study and experience.

All this to produce CDs that often sell less than 1000 copies.

Surely they should be allowed to copyright their remasterings.

[1Old Pro]

If musicians want to make money they can always play concerts.

[sam_paine]

"Piratical?" Is that really a word?

[SamAdams76]

It took them 50 years to start realizing this?

[Eala]

Already reeling from a stagnant economy and the illegal but widespread downloading of copyrighted music from the Internet

No. Their problem is that their products are overpriced. I can afford to buy lots of music CDs, but the past three years I've bought only one (and that was to replace a thoroughly worn-out favorite LP).

Ironically, this works against them in another way. As my music collection is now pretty static, I listen less. And that reduces the desire to go out and buy more CDs -- much less even to stop by the music section of the local bookstore(s) to see what's new.

[JmyBryan]

95 year copyright is loopy

[Stefan Stackhouse]

I simply cannot understand why copyright protection should extend so much longer than patent protection. It is all "intellectual property" -- why make any distinction as to type? My gut level feeling is that patents are too short and copyrights are too long. Something along the lines of 20-25 years for both seems to me to strike a better balance.

[Psycho_Bunny]

Already reeling from a stagnant economy and the illegal but widespread downloading of copyrighted music from the Internet...

Funny how I was reading in the WSJ today that the Movie Industry had an 11% increase in ticket sales last year.

How is that possible with all the illegal and widespread DVD copying and downloading on the internet?  Oh...the movie industry didn't produce a steady stream of horse droppings the whole year.

Maybe the music industry should contact the movie industry on how not to suck like whores.

[nickcarraway]

ping

[Caipirabob]

The inevitable truth of the situation regardless of the law is that if legitamate providers do not meet the demand of the market in price or quality, the gap will be filled by the black market. In the end the consumer will get the goods. This is not condemnation nor condonation, merely a fact.

Probably be more ideal for the recording industry to alter their position. Otherwise, as so aptly stated by another Freeper of the industry: "Nice buggy whip!"

[razorback-bert]

Callas for $3.99 and I will buy again.

Way back when you had to hand crank your CD player, I paid $35 for Callas, but no more.

I won't even pay $15 for Brassed Off which I would like to own.

[quebecois]

If the recording industry is squawking now, just wait another 10 years when the music from the 60's goes public. How much did Michael Jackson pay for all of the Beatle's music? The clock is ticking on that freak's investment.