Australian music industry considers deal with CD burning company
Credit Yahoo News
By EMMA TINKLER, Associated Press Writer

SYDNEY, Australia - In a move that counteracts the hard stance in the United States, Australian music industry officials are gauging a plan to endorse compact disc-copying vending machines.

The proposal is an example of the measures major record companies may have to swallow as technological advances in music distribution are made, or risk being accused of anticompetitive behavior, a legal expert involved in the industry said Wednesday.

An Australian maker of compact disc burners asked the Australian Record Industry Association, or ARIA, and the Australian Mechanical Copyright Owners Society to let the machines be operated in public places in return for a small royalty fee for every compact disc copied.

Greg Moore, chief executive of Adelaide-based Little Ripper CD Burner Pty. Ltd., said the coin-operated machines were intended for use by people who want to make backup copies of their own CDs in case of damage or loss of the original.
Under Australian copyright law, that is illegal.

The burners could be located in convenience stores across the country, and would charge about 5 Australian dollars, or dlrs 2.85, to copy a disc, Moore said. A small percentage of that fee would go toward royalties.

Exact details of how the royalties would be distributed haven't been divulged.
Some CD copying machines have already been installed in convenience stores around Australia by independent operators. They work under the same legal obligations as photocopiers —— the onus is on users, and not the machines' owners, to uphold copyright laws.

Moore said the Australian Mechanical Copyright Owners Society, or AMCOS, which represents some 30,000 songwriters and music publishers, was "very receptive" to his proposal.

"We're negotiating a deal. It's not finalized, but it's progressing nicely," Moore told The Associated Press.

AMCOS transmission licensing director Richard Mallett confirmed that the society was in talks with Little Ripper, "but precise details of any licensing agreements have not been discussed."

Michael Speck, of ARIA's anti-piracy investigations unit, also confirmed the record industry lobby group was looking at the proposal.

"An approach has been made and it will be considered," he said. "However, I can see some significant difficulties in anyone in the process adequately, fairly or justly compensating the copyright owners."

Speck said there were legitimate uses for the devices, but "the risk of a burner being used for illegitimate purposes increases dramatically when it's put on a street corner."

Owen Trembath, a former music lawyer turned industry consultant, said the proposal gave the record industry little room to maneuver.

He said if record companies agree to the deal, but inflate the price of licensing fees charged to the vending machine owners to protect their own product, they may be at risk of being accused of anticompetitive business practices.

If they don't agree to the proposal, the vending machines could ultimately flourish, and record companies and song writers won't see any sort of payment, he said.

This is exactly the sorta thing we should be doin' in the US.

Sadly, music isn't the only area in which the US is insightless when compared to other civilized nations.

Namely, in the U.S., there's this entrenched attitude among elitists of all stripes, along the lines of the following:
- "We know what's best for the public"
- "The public cannot be trusted" (either with anything, or to make the "right" decisions)

You're absolutely right. ..and it's really no surprise that they get their way since 5% of the people control 95% of the wealth. Follow the money. In countries where free enterprise isn't so rampantly unbridled, the elitists are not afforded such manipulative control. That's my opinion anyway.

hy first article post is approved my milla - now i need a raise

lol

This sounds like a great oppurtunity for music vending. Come on, even the RIAA should be considering this.

Hail Mp3!!!

I would be more agreeable if the other 95% weren't so enamored of the television and spectacle. If there was a communal effort to improve oneself (as in one's mind and such, not gyms), that 5% would balloon. So long as the masses agree to tune into Must-See TV and all the other assorted distractions (the internet too?) then those 5-percenters will have sway.

Or hey, maybe the enlightened lawmakers in the other countries are as addicted to things as their populace and don't lord it over them!

Yes, but I also think that the 5%, for the most part, do whatever's necessary to keep the other 95% out. They like what they have, and undoubtedly don't take kindly to spreading the wealth. After all, there's only so much to go around ya know.

napster should try that move, offer to give royalties and implement (crappy non working useless) filters, and if the riaa doesn't accept charge em with anti-competitive buisness practices

That's a very good point smelv1n, and that's all some of these P2Ps and webcasters would have needed to do to stay in business. Not one of them provided a service without getting something in return. All of the P2Ps and webcasters may be free of charge to listen to, but they are making money off of the advertisers on their site. Even though they might not have made a lot of money from the advertisers, if they would have simply PAID a royalty fee they would still be in business and would be a win-win-win situation. I DESPISE the RIAA as much as the next person, but all these companies needed to do was throw a few cents at the RIAA to shut them up.

This is such an incredibly ingenious way of actually doing something to make a difference and still make some sort of profit. Instead we get copy protected discs that probably cost millions to develop and was defeated with a cheapo magic marker. So in effect the compact discs will be raised in price again to recoup losses to magic markers .

Raise? Raise? I'd settle for paid.....

Hmm.....http://news.dmusic.com/article/4974

Adam, lemme try to get this straight. What you're suggesting is that if the playground bully decides that the only way he'll refrain from kickin' our ass is for us to give him our milk money, that we should gladly fork it over. After all, that's all we'd hafta do to remain healthy.

I prefer to fight the bully. ..even if it means takin' a few bloodied beatings.

milla: we've taken more than our share of bloody beatings, Napster and webcasting being two of them. Hitlary Rosen and fiends are hell-bent on extorting our money and any shred of control of music from the rest of us, and I ain't forking over any more of my money to them for the right to say "thank you sir, may I have another?"

I concur with Milla. I don't think we should (meaning the entire p2p community) be considering "paying off the mob" here in order to avoid some confrontations. This is about the RIAA getting far too much of our money, after all. Giving them MORE seems to be abject surrender.

I think the dollars-war goes well, considering the millions they have to pour into copy-protection technology, and the millions they pour into litigation, and the infinite-headed hydra of the p2p community. They are making martyrs of Napsters and Audiogalaxies and only firming up our resolve (I speak personally as well with that).

Our strength comes in our numbers and our determination. We must continue to defy them in our millions and win even more over to the cause. Take your grandma out and teach her to rip Bing Crosby singles!!

I concur with this as I have had an ongoing boycott of major releases of all new major releases..I only buy new discs if they are indie releases or self releases by unsigned artists.

what about the video game industry?

do they get a cut of the cd copying?

i'd be more likely to copy my friends new 60 dollar pc game then copy a 20 dollar cd...

why haven't i heard anything about video game piracy? just music and movie piracy?

is it cause they just raise their prices so high that it makes up for the amount of piracy?

That's partly it, smelv. On top of that, videogame "stars" like Chris Sawyer command a great deal less money for themselves than do musical and movie stars. It's only natural that the industries with more money go after piracy with more zest.


Hehe, interesting you say that, Svensta. I've been workin' with Bing Crosby singles all week.

I agree with everything you said, but I have less of a problem giving the money to the bully than I do relinquishing more of my personal control to him. I think the RIAA wants control above and beyond everything else. They want to control the artist, the music, and the music listener. ..and in the pursuit of that control seemingly turns a blind eye to any viable business models that may arise if that model calls for _any_ reliquishment of said control. They've proven this time and time again, and we repeatedly point out that the music industry could go from a $4 billion a year industry to a $10 billion a year industry if they'd simply lose the attitude.

I'm even more concerned for the artists, who continually give up more and more control over their work in order to be signed by a major label for the mere tenth-of-a-percent chance that they'll succeed after the signing.

I do not want to pay to make a backup of my cd's or a mix, so if its a to attempt to replace home cd burning forget it. But if it's only there to replace having to buy a new CD with only one or two songs that I like well this is great and it would be in full CD quality not MP3. I would accept this but it will not stop my boycott till the RIAA cut out all this copy protection crap.

cool I wish there was something liek that here... that would be cool..

ALL I'm saying is that these P2Ps and broadcasters aren't providing these services out of the goodness of their heart, or because they want all music to be heard. They are operating for the same reasons as everyone else---and that reason is to make money.

oh bullshit Adam...how brainless can you get? Okay, they pay today, and tomorrow, the ante goes up, because SOMEONE ( and I'm not a genius here) will figure out that if "webcam[A]" will pay XXX dollars to keep their business.. they'll probably pay 2XX .. and so on down the line. It has to stop somewhere.. but why even START ?
The webcasters didn't get anything back for what they did.. not the way the _cartel_ is saying they did. It's not like they got paid per song.. they got paid per hit.. third party.. NOTHING to do with the music.
Why should they pay money they make from third party stuff, advertisers and such that they sought out and worked a deal with,(which again, has NOTHING to do with the music) to "gain" the _right_ to play what they were giving away anyhow??
I believe the phrase is "ripping off Peter to pay Paul". It doesn't work.

Exzzactly. ..and, as you point out, give him the milk money and tomorrow he wants your lunch money, too. Before ya know it, you're payin' him for the privilege of doin' his homework. ...on an empty stomach.

btw, I originally missed captainclorox referrin' to the cow as "Hitlary." Very good, cc.

P2Ps and webcasters DO MAKE MONEY!!! That cannot be denied. I'm not even talking about giving the RIAA money anymore. I'm simply stating that the P2Ps and webcasters ARE making money because if they weren't they wouldn't be in business. And many of them have been put out of business because of the RIAA and that's a shame.

my article has done very well on comments.