Posted on 12/17/2002 11:59:18 AM PST by freepatriot32
Edited on 06/29/2004 7:09:34 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON -- An antipiracy campaign by the recording industry is threatening lawsuits to try to force stores to pull pirated music from their shelves.
The Recording Industry Association of America said Monday it is demanding a halt to illegal music sales at gas stations, convenience stores, groceries and some small music stores that the group has identified as offering illegal copies of music recordings.
(Excerpt) Read more at wired.com ...
Old Time Radio is public domain and swaped on tape. Shade tree musicians who play at home on weekends tape (and even distribute) their own music.
Indie labels also never see a cut of that money.
The RIAA is about collecting money for the beast. If you want your share, you need to go to them with your own lawyers...
I honestly don't know what you're talking about. The AHRA acknowledged that some forms of home taping were infringing (you can't be seriously arguing that none are?) and assessed the tax to attempt to redress that infringement.
Indie labels do see a cut of that money, because it is collected by an independent body and not the RIAA.
What exactly does this have to do with anything? Once you've bought a CD, you have the right, by law, to sell it to whomever you want. At least a royalty was collected on the first sale. Lots of people are grabbing music files on P2P networks just to avoid even the first sale, directly depriving the artist of the possibility of realizing that royalty.
You'd think that on a conversative board like this one, more people would grasp concepts like supply and demand, prices and markets.
If the price was too high, absolutely no one would be paying it...just like you said.
This is a common misconception, one that's often forwarded by those who don't have a basic understanding of copyright. (The other standard version of this flawed analogy uses the neighborhood video rental store as its example.)
The library is not a piracy outlet. The library owns licensed copies of media. When you borrow a compact disc from the library, you are borrowing a single, authorized copy of the songs on it. It doesn't matter if the library lends it to 100,000 people -- there remains just that single licensed copy, lawfully acquired.
When you download a song on Kazaa, you are creating a new copy that you have not been licensed to own. When 100,000 people download the song, then 100,000 unlicensed copies now exist.
If you want to analogize the public library and Kazaa, here's how you have to do it: Pretend that the library buys a CD, then burns 100,000 copies of it and hands those out. This doesn't happen, of course, because it is illegal. But it happens every day on Kazaa.
I have no idea. What would be the relevance anyway?
Huh? Why did you bother to say "true" in your previous post if you still don't get it?
The issue is not the number of people who borrow a book or CD; it's about the number of copies of a book or CD. (And it's not about "compensation" in the first place. You're getting thrown off by that.)
The issue is copyright -- the right to copy. That right remains in the hands of the copyright holder. As I spelled out in my previous example, the library is not infringing copyright by loaning a CD. It would be infringing copyright only if it copied that CD.
Surely this is not that difficult to understand.
I have no idea. What would be the relevance anyway?
What is the relevance of paying Microsoft a license fee to run Software package "X" on 50 computers?
More users...more money up front.
You'd think that on a conversative board like this one, more people would grasp concepts like supply and demand, prices and markets.
If the price was too high, absolutely no one would be paying it...just like you said.
Do you live in a universe where supply and demand, prices and markets follow quantum rules?
To tell you the truth, I'm not sure what you're getting at with your question, so let me ask one of my own:
Do you disagree with the proposition that if the price of CDs were really "too high," sales would plummet at a much higher rate than they have been?
It's also evident that elasticity comes into play in the market for CDs: They (and other entertainment products) are relatively inelastic since consumption has never been observed to increase with a corresponding price decrease.
It's also evident that elasticity comes into play in the market for CDs: They (and other entertainment products) are relatively inelastic since consumption has never been observed to increase with a corresponding price decrease.
But the market has changed. The capacity for storing and managing songs has greatly increased, as well as the speed at which those songs can be obtained. It would make sense that people would be interested in buying more songs in such an environment. The music industry's business model is still based on the Victrola.
The contention, however, was over whether CDs were overpriced...and it's clear that they're not, because there's still a vibrant (though perhaps waning) market for them.
You cannot say that Ferraris are overpriced, for instance, even though relatively few people buy them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.