According to the U.S. Dept. of Justice, one of the key things to watch for when trying to recognize collusion among competitors is:

"• large price changes involving more than one seller of very similar products of different brands, particularly if the price changes are of an equal amount and occur at about the same time;"

Back on Dec. 26, fat and happy from Christmas, we scoured the Amazon.com price list and discovered that the prevailing list price (not the retail) was $18.98, with most older but still popular releases at $18.08

Go and look at Amazon's "Best Sellers" today. All the $18.98 titles have dropped to $18.08.

Not a few, not some of them -- ALL of them.

Yahoo still has $18.98 list prices on the same titles. Either Amazon is buying its records from somewhere else (sure, like who?) or maybe Yahoo just hasn't updated its database yet.

But according to the RIAA stats, this pattern happens every year. Same music, but the list price floats down through spring and back up through Christmas -- on the same titles.

All the labels do it simultaneously, but there's no collusion going on between them. Just a big damn coincidence.

But their biggest problem comes if the courts end up tossing all of the ISP subpoenas.

6. Enforcement of invalid intellectual property rights

The Agencies may challenge the enforcement of invalid intellectual property rights as antitrust violations. Enforcement or attempted enforcement of a patent obtained by fraud on the Patent and Trademark Office or the Copyright Office may violate section 2 of the Sherman Act, if all the elements otherwise necessary to establish a section 2 charge are proved, or section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (1965) (patents); American Cyanamid Co., 72 F.T.C. 623, 684-85 (1967), aff'd sub. nom. Charles Pfizer & Co., 401 F.2d 574 (6th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 920 (1969) (patents); Michael Anthony Jewelers, Inc. v. Peacock Jewelry, Inc., 795 F. Supp. 639, 647 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (copyrights). Inequitable conduct before the Patent and Trademark Office will not be the basis of a section 2 claim unless the conduct also involves knowing and willful fraud and the other elements of a section 2 claim are present. Argus Chemical Corp. v. Fibre Glass-Evercoat, Inc., 812 F.2d 1381, 1384-85 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Actual or attempted enforcement of patents obtained by inequitable conduct that falls short of fraud under some circumstances may violate section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, American Cyanamid Co., supra. Objectively baseless litigation to enforce invalid intellectual property rights may also constitute an element of a violation of the Sherman Act. See Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 113 S. Ct. 1920, 1928 (1993) (copyrights); Handgards, Inc. v. Ethicon, Inc., 743 F.2d 1282, 1289 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1190 (1985) (patents); Handgards, Inc. v. Ethicon, Inc., 601 F.2d 986, 992-96 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1025 (1980) (patents); CVD, Inc. v. Raytheon Co., 769 F.2d 842 (1st Cir. 1985) (trade secrets), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1016 (1986).

And we won't even start on false testimony to federal agencies, the very thing that Martha Stewart is currently being nailed to the wall over.

And she only lied once.

If prices were broken at some point...
the RIAA sure fixed 'em

If prices were broken at some point...
the RIAA sure fixed 'em

When will the day come when someone will actually do something about them? I mean, isn't there so much we can do right now that can totally destroy them?

What needs to be done is for someone to make a list of everything we can get them for, and back it up with some evidence (preferably really solid). Then the proper actions can be taken...

If one thing doesn't work, then we'll have more and more and more to go with...

I'm sure the DOJ has seen this. if not they're the most inempt lawenforcement agency in existance along side of the toonerville cops.
The question would be why aren't they doing their job. And I know it's not because of national security, after all the FBI has put aside homeland security long enough to design a snazzy new anti pirating label for their good friends in Hollywood. George is right about Martha but I bet Martha doesn't give millions of dollars to key congressmen on both sides of the aisle or lobby to have laws enacted that would prevent people from copying her household tips

You can get ur 5 bucks from the record companies if you really want to.

hmm... most of the Top Sellers at amazon.com are $13.49; AND, usually, we consumers never pay LIST prices

ilikethissite -- I agree.

But ironically, for every year the RIAA has reported retail information, the average retail price has been significantly HIGHER than the suggested list price.

The 18.98 list records were mostly priced at $14.49 retail on Dec. 26.

Well, I guess I will be getting another 13 bucks + change sometime in the not near enough future to buy me yet another boycott-riaa t-shirt.

...oh, wait. I won't be eligible this time because I haven't been a customer.

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music!

maybe it's just supply and demand during the season..... take farm-raised salmon... usually it's priced at $5/lb (sometimes $4/lb during sales) during salmon season; however, now, it's priced at $7/lb. So, my point???? CDs are priced based on S & D, depending on whether it's July4th weekend, Christmas, or no-holidays.

hey, independentm.... will the Independent Labels give me $13?

That would be a reasonable assumption about fluctuating prices, but identical to the penny? They all landed on $18.08.

Not 17.99, not even $18.05 or $18.09.

Seems like an arbitrary number for everyone to attach to at the same moment in time.

"will the Independent Labels give me $13?"

We didn't cheat you by artificially maintaining a fixed minimum price through cooperative advertising between 1995 and 2002.

For crying out loud, we need a PLAN to follow if we're ever going to accomplish anything!

People who keep rejecting my news submissions regarding this need, why are you doing it?

Why shouldn't the RIAA labels continue to fix prices? After all, their price collusion has resulted in a $22.5 BILLION windfall. They only had to pay $147 million in penalties for committing this crime. It's obvious when you see things like what is being pointed out here, that price fixing is the NORM.

While were at it, how about the video game industry. Why are all the consoles priced the same at EACH and every store you would buy one? Has the DOJ even bothered to try and figure out whY? NO.

compmore is so right in calling the DOJ "the most inempt lawenforcement agency in existance ". Their rapid acceptance of the CD price settlement is just ONE of many inept decisions (or lack of any action) this department makes. Their lack of any action against the RIAA for monopolistic actions is more than enough proof of ineptness.

"People who keep rejecting my news submissions regarding this need, why are you doing it?"

What ARE you talking about?

uhm, consoles are priced the same because of competition.

Sony or MS lowers their price to get more people to buy their console, then the other decides they can't have that, and lowers it to the same price, so as to make the maximum amount of money off of it, but not ward off customers.

The thing with consoles though is that their price keeps going DOWN.

Most companies expect to lose a bit of money on their video game consoles ... and make their money creating and licensing the software that runs them. o.o

Whats sad is even the independants are screwing the consumers. Take a look at http://www.cdbaby.com/

I got all excited that they had Rebekah Del Rio on CD, but they want twenty freaking bucks!!! for the CD. All I want is "Llorando" and "Fragilidad". No way I'm shelling out half a week's pay for that.

Wake me when they're fixing the prices at $5.

"What ARE you talking about?"

Sorry about that, I'm getting a little frustrated. I've been periodically trying to submit articles that basically explain that we need to do more than just boycott, because we don't have enough people for a boycott to really do any good...yet.

We need to organize and start doing some things that attract attention

Whats sad is even the independants are screwing the consumers.

I AGREE. THE ENTIRE MUSIC INDUSTRY (both RIAA labels and independents) CHARGE WAY-TOOO MUCH MONEY FOR MUSIC CD's. DeeVeeMusic CD costs $16.99; UltraRecords $18.99-$13.99 (these are non-riaa)

I'M WAITING FOR THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY TO LOWER PRICES BEFORE I PURCHASE A CD. UNTIL THEN, I'VE BOYCOTTTED ALL CD PURCHASES, whether riaa or nonriaa.

Sadly, I must admit that my CD settlement check will go to a CD. But don't be shocked. It's a Buddy Holly CD. I'm working towards getting all the CDs and records.

the independents charge what they do because the rest of the industry charges thoes prices, and if they charge less they make less, so it's pure business stratigy.

I have called on independent artists to not charge RIAA prices for their product for a long time. Their really is no need anymore to charge $15 and $20 bucks to put out an album. (If the manufacturing cost is so high that you gotta charge that much to make anything off it, change the manufacturer!)

Electric Gypsy is releasing a 5 song EP of originals called "The Long Time Ago" available at homemademusic.com hopefully sometime this month... even if it had 15 songs or so on it we would not change the price to the less than $5 it will be available for and if it were a full length CD with the more expensive color printing and all, we promise $10 is the top price you would ever see on an official Electric Gypsy release.

And, hell, we gave away for free all our copies of our album "Under The Covers"
because it would have cost too much to license all the songs since it was an album of covers. To us, it is more important to get the music made than it is to make any money off of it. Sure, we
want a FAIR cut of any $$$ generated by our music, but ripping off your customer is not how you do it folks. Even using full glass mastering (not a burnable CDr, but the "real thing") an indie band should be able to get 500-1000 units for less than $5 per. Charging more than $10 is price gouging in my eyes.

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music!

"And, hell, we gave away for free all our copies of our album "Under The Covers"
because it would have cost too much to license all the songs since it was an album of covers."

You don't have to pay if you don't sell it?

I certainly don't think so... at least, we BETTER NOT be forced to pay licensing on a CD we give fans for free!

that would REALLY get me pissed

Shmoo

I've heard of people having to. But then again, I know lots who do it and aren't contacted about it. The way licensing goes as far as free CDs is this:

Pay a license fee each month to BMI or ASCAP or whoever for each CD given away. As for people downloading your music, I don't know how that goes. Maybe they work out some kind of fee.

I'm not sure about this, though. But I know I don't like that.

The Harry Fox Agency is who, on behalf of the label, collects mechanical royalties from sale/distribution of albums and CDs. ASCAP/BMI collect the performance royalties on behalf of the publisher/songwriter if a track from "Under The Covers" were to be played on the radio or when we play the tunes live at a club gig. ASCAP/BMI have nothing to do with the sale or gift of the CD itself.

Watch for there to be an entity created in the near future to collect "online" distribution royalties. This could be a good thing if we can keep the RIAA and the industry from influencing the laws on how this new lisencing thing gets implemented. Until the RIAA is dead I will be very apprehensive about puting such a thing into place.

I've been wondering about playing covers live. You DO have to pay royalties? I haven't gotten my band together yet, but when I do it will be nice to know. How does that work? Do you keep track of what you played and how many times and then pay whatever amount per song at the end of the month?

"I've been wondering about playing covers live. You DO have to pay royalties"

No, the bar owner has to pay annual fees to ASCAP and BMI. No one keeps track of anything. Play whatever you want.

"Even using full glass mastering (not a burnable CDr, but the "real thing") an indie band should be able to get 500-1000 units for less than $5 per."

Diskmakers ==> $1.89 each, with jewel case, on-disc printing, insert.

Forgot bar code and shrink wrap.

Thanks, George. I would have had no problem paying royalties while keeping track. But that fact about the club doing it helps for when I open one. This also helps with my theme nights. Important anniversaries require me to pay tribute.

In most (if not all) states and localities, the ASCAP/BMI license is "built into" the general license the club has to get from the municipallity to even operate as a business. Believe it, these performing rights societies WILL collect money for music performances. What SUCKS about ASCAP/BMI is that the money only gets divided among the most "popular" songwriters and publishers. You could play your own music exclusively, but you would never see your share of the ASCAP/BMI fees unless you are a "legitimate" (hate that term) songwriter/publisher. I am not sure what the "popularity" thresh-hold is, but I am sure that if you have not recieved at least a gold or platinum record, your song will never see a dime of this money.

I fear the compusary licensing on the internet thing that I predict is soon to be
will end up being similar. We have all got to fight to get small "unknown" indies a cut of this digital royalties. The RIAA will be sure to try to keep us from a piece of the pie.

The R.I.A.A. does not have the right to prosecute downloading. It's not in any of their member's contracts

and therefore they must renegotiate this right with the original author.

I have done a lot of writing on ASCAP and the music industry. I write because thus far they've stolen

more than $100,000.00 from me, Terry James. I am an ASCAP member. I wrote two songs, paid for

their entire production, and they were placed in the movie "Home Alone" without my consent.

"Be With You" and "You're Old Enough."

You don't find them in the credits because they were stolen and Hollywood doesn't advertise their acts of

theft or Copyright Infringement. Fox Films, John Hughes, Chris Columbus and others know this is true,

and unfortunately for them they fully documented it.

ASCAP is currently out of control. The Writer Members have no say nor any voice at ASCAP. They are

intentionally kept from corresponding with each other. All for the benefit of the publishers.

The details of this constitute a book and perhaps a volume of books. ASCAP actions rise to the level of

Racketeering under the R.I.C.O. law, and various other laws pertaining to Copyright Infringement,

Embezzlement, Money Laundering, and Mail Fraud. The F.B.I. will find a larger pool of criminals at

ASCAP than they ever found at Enron, using the same "Big Six" crooked accounting firms and the same

fraudulent "Creative Accounting" to fatten their bottom line.

Bergman and the other rich and famous board members know about this fraud and actively engage in

keeping it from the authorities.

Betrayal is the worst form of treason. And ASCAP betrays its Writer Members every day.

I'm about to file lawsuit against them an open an investigation that will make Enron look like a charitable

institution. In federal court, for Criminal Copyright Infringement by the rich and famous, not downloaders,

who ASCAP's RIAA board and members seem too overzealous in deflecting their own illegal activities to children.

I want to say this to downloaders: No record company, nor ASCAP, nor BMI, nor any other music

industry participant has a license for the reproduction of music on the Internet. It's very simple: because

each clause of a contract must specifically state which right under Copyright Law the Author is granting,

without a specific clause stating usage on the Internet, there is no contract for this right.

Which means, ASCAP and the RIAA do not have standing on Internet singlecast, broadcast, or multicast

of musical works; this covers downloading.

Their whole copyright infringement case log regarding the Internet thereby becomes null and void. They

must have the permission of the original Author, not just the copyright holder who is most often a label

with a specific contract, to participate in Copyright actions regarding relevant musical works.

I never gave them that right.

No Writer Member ever gave them that right.

And all rights not stipulated in contract remain with the Original Author, who also has the right to revoke

any license at his sole discretion.

The defense to downloading is that those suing don't have the right to enforce a non-existent contractual

clause to begin with.

And "perpetual" clauses and "any new technology or form of reproduction" are non-sequitar in that a right

cannot exist if the medium does not exist. These are merely the attempts of the publishers to steal rights

which they don't even know exist.

Because they have not bargained fairly for such rights, they do not exist.

Every contract ever written with songwriters therefore can and must be renegotiated.



One of the editors of a website, Levine, said that copyright law was written to protect publishers and

authors.

Copyright Law was, in fact, written to punish publishers who steal from the Authors. There are two words

in the U.S. Constitution in Article I Section 8 Clause 8, "Authors" and "Inventors" and no where is the

word "publisher" found.

Publishers were originally printers of manuscripts. They were equitable in that they split the profits with

the Authors 50/50.

When radio, movies, and records came along, all of that changed. None of these paid royalties, or

anything, to the Authors. Thus, Copyright Law was codified, again, to protect the Authors, and discipline

the publishers.

ASCAP was originally founded to collect from Hollywood and New York the royalties they refused to pay.

ASCAP later went crooked giving the publishers control of ASCAP.

Publishers are the record companies which are the labels which are the movie companies.

Which is Hollywood and New York.

Every time the Authors tried to get paid, it was Hollywood and New York that stopped them, not the

consumers. The M.P.A.A. [now the M.P.A because the former was broken up as a monopoly which still

what the M.P.A. is], R.I.A.A., Harry Fox, N.M.P.A., ASCAP and BMI are one and the same group of

Hollywood and New York board of directors. And that is exactly how they control the industry, just like the

five familes of the mafia.

As an Author and an artist, I side with Janis Ian and the people who want to download music. It benefits

the Author and artist in 500% increase in sales. But Hollywood and New York don't want this because

then they couldn't control who could make hit records and CD's.

And Hollywood goes back to Beverly Hills, while New York goes back to places like New Rochelle,

Rochester, and Westchester. Producers and Directors totally unwilling to pay for music. Instead, they

give away $100,000,000.00 to actors like Keanu Reeves, while Robert Redford just looks the other way

as Hollywood turns Sundance into the new Warner Bros. backlot. Sorry Bob, but you've completely

dropped the ball. You don't see just independant films at the new moviestar haven, do you?

The above refers to synch rights. Years ago, you got paid for every copy of a movie sold. Today, you

don't. And that's because the directors, producers, and stars now get your musical synch rights, not you,

the Author.

So, we're back to where we were before the Continental Congress wrote the U.S. Constitution and even

Senator Leahy is either too stupid or too blind or too paid off by ASCAP to change it.

The publishers, i.e., Hollywood and New York film industry, just blatantly use music stolen from Authors

and because they own and control all of the agencies like ASCAP and BMI, nothing can stop it but

another Senate Hearing on Hollywood and Beverly Hills corruption in the music industry. Elmer

Bernstein, an ASCAP Board Member, stole "Ghostbusters" from Huey Lewis, and then stole more

music in the second "Ghostbusters". Lewis' real name is Moore and if you look for that name, you'll find

the case. Bernstein bought his way out of jail twice on this.

So don't ever say that Copyright Law was written to protect publishers, it wasn't. It was written to

discipline publishers.



Just try to find anything on ASCAP or BMI as being indicted for copyright infringement. You can't even

find a negative about ASCAP, which says an aweful lot about their clout in the corporate owned search

engines.

But you will find that they were held as monopolies from 1941 until 2002 under the Consent Decree,

brought by the FTC.

Worse, ASCAP and BMI, along with the others, are racketeers [RICO], moneylaunders, embezzlers, and

the biggest organized crime syndicate involved in Copyright Infringement in history. The make Vito

Corleone look like the Pope!