Music Exec: ISPs Must Pay Up for Music-Swapping

Reuters ^ | January 18, 2003 | Bernhard Warner

[zarf]

We don't assume people are going to screw insurance companies, but we all pay for that too.

[ShadowAce]

songwriters who make their livings should be compensated PER SONG.

Does that mean that softare programmers should be compensated PER PROGRAM, rather than salary?

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you--I just thought that was a rather broad statement.

[zarf]

It depends on the agreement the songwriter / creator /programmer has with it's publisher or software company.

If it's not per song/or copy then there is usually a licensing arrangement. If the creator is compensated by the firm then the company should recoup through sales or use.

In any case it's not free nor should it be.

[TransOxus]

Musicians really make their money from touring, not record sales. They have to probably sell a couple of million nowadays before they can start seeing some real money. Most of the money goes to the labels who in the past did go out and use it to sign new talent. Not anymore as corporations have taken over with their marketing formulas and DJs cannot play new music they like under corporate new world order. In earlier times, musicians used records or singles to basically advertise themselves on the radio by airplay, so that fans would come to see them touring. And then came the concept of albums with themes and supergroups. Until the 70s, many musicians did not have much of a cut or had signed away rights for peanuts as they were not aware of the income generated over time especially bands with multiple hits. The public will buy CDs if the music is good and prices reasonable. Unfortunately under the current climate, musical creativity is stifled, radio and TV is a poor source of new music, and the prices are outrageous with still very little going to musicians.

[tdadams]

Musicians really make their money from touring, not record sales. They have to probably sell a couple of million nowadays before they can start seeing some real money.

And you think the musician is the only one who makes his living from the sale of music?

[steve-b]

All night brainstorming sessions yielding results.

This sounds more like the result of an all-night bongstorming session.

[steve-b]

It gets to the point where these RIAA people are so arrogant, and so offensive, that even though the illegal copying is wrong, one hopes it puts these loathsome wretches out of business.

To trot out an analogy I like to use: Most normal folks will sympathize with a businessman who has a shoplifting problem, provide any information they might happen to have about it source, and certainly not engage in shoplifting themselves. However, if the businessman introduces obnoxious security measures (subjecting customers to body-cavity searches, sending goons to sneak into houses to search for stolen goods), most people will say "to hell with you" and even turn their symapthies toward the shoplifters.

That's what's happening to the RIAA's members, and they've brought it on themselves.

[steve-b]

garage technology is improving so much that the uncle has the technology to compete with the biggest studios

And that, boys and girls, is what's really behind the recording industry's push to mandate "copy protection".

Anything that can be heard can be copied with only one generation of analog-to-digital degradation and then digitally re-copied without further signal loss ad infinitum. Thus, the only way "copy protection" can work is by requiring that all playback devices look for some "signature" added to the recording to prove that it came from an "authorized" source. Naturally, the keys/equipment for adding this signature would be available only on industry terms (which would be favorable to the "in" crowd that gets by on silicone and mousse, and punitive to the competing "out" crowd).

[steve-b]

The record companies are putting out what people are buying.

The fact that they are in a "tailspin" is evidence that people are not, in fact, buying what the record companies are selling.

Yeah, they blame "piracy", just as Clinton blamed "the vast right-wing conspiracy".

[k2blader]

Bump for later read.

[bvw]

If I want a new Mercedes, I should be free to just go on the lot and take it?

The analogy is this: You want a new Mercedes. You borrow a friend's Mercedes for a few days, run it through your transformigorator, out pops an exact duplicate, and you return your friend's car, just as you borrowed it.

[Centurion2000]

The music industry is in a tailspin with global sales of CDs expected to fall six percent in 2003, its fourth consecutive annual decline. A major culprit, industry watchers say, is online piracy.

Lower your prices and this goes away ......

[steve-b]

There are a lot of seriously untalented people making their own CDs. Some of them are painful to listen to.

Yes, but they make up for it by being easy on the eyes.

[TopDog2]

Most people aren't downloading the entire CD. They only want the one or maybe two songs on the CD that are good. If I had the option to buy just the songs I wanted I would do that in a heartbeat.

If they charged between a quarter and a half-dollar per song and did away with the limitations they've placed on their authorized sites, they'd rake it in hand over fist.

[hchutch]

Agreed...

[tdadams]

You borrow a friend's Mercedes for a few days, run it through your transformigorator, out pops an exact duplicate, and you return your friend's car, just as you borrowed it.

And Daimler-Chrysler, and all the employees and suppliers down the line, are deprived of due income that would otherwise come to them if you had properly bought your Mercedes instead of poaching a free copy.

[tdadams]

The fact that they are in a "tailspin" is evidence that people are not, in fact, buying what the record companies are selling.

Why buy what you can get for free? That's not going to have an impact on sales? That's delusional.

If people don't want what the record companies are producing then why are all their songs populating the file-swapping systems? That seems to be a pretty good indication that people do want their product, they just want it for free.

[bvw]

True. And if transformigorators existed the whole car business would be different, wouldn't it?

Still, nothing was stolen, and Mercedes is a beggar begging me NOT to copy it. Out of charity, I might -- if I can get this here transformigorator working. Look's like it has some built-in protection that keeps me from operating it. Well, that's what I get for trusting those Raelians.

[TheEngineer]

To trot out an analogy I like to use: Most normal folks will sympathize with a businessman who has a shoplifting problem, provide any information they might happen to have about it source, and certainly not engage in shoplifting themselves.

So you were an anti-music-pirating activist before the RIAA got involved?

[Black Bart]

We should all be thankful that the notion of intellectual property did not exist when a prehistoric man (or woman) discovered fire. Imagine the royalties that patent would generate today!

The whole notion of "intellectual property" is a flimsy house of cards that will become indefensible eventually. It does not exist in a natural world.