Username: Password: lost p/w?
home | help | search | register
The File-Sharing Debates
Posted by AdvancedAndrew in on December 6, 2003 at 1:33 PM



The New York Times
By DAVID POGUE

This columnist has some interesting quotes from contacts in this article. He also makes some good comparisons. If you've seen this before, great. Here it is for those who haven't read it.

:-:~ PhantomGhost ~:-:

Last week in this space, I wondered why the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) and movie studios get so worked up about online file swapping, when public libraries distribute their works freely without a penny of compensation.

As usual, some of this column’s readers responded thoughtfully and with authority; I thought I’d share three of those reactions with you this week.

The most enlightening piece of e-mail came straight from the source: the Video Software Dealers Association, the trade association for the home video industry. Public affairs executive Sean Bersell neatly nipped my queries in the bud:

“You said, ‘Why do the publishers and movie studios let the library get away with it? For that matter, why don't they object to the Blockbusters of the world, who let people rent movies by the millions?’

“The answer is, ‘Because they don’t have a choice.’

Copyright law requires copyright holders to give up their ability to control distribution of those works once they have put them into the stream of commerce. This principle, commonly referred to as the ‘first sale doctrine,’ is codified in Section 109 of the Copyright Act. The first sale doctrine gives libraries and video retailers the right to rent and sell prerecorded videos and video games without the authorization of the copyright holder.”

Mr. Bersell pointed out, too, that in fact, members of his organization did indeed raise “fierce objections,” as the vsda.org Web site puts it, to the rental of videos.

He went on: “Second, you said, ‘Whether we steal these movies or rent them, the Hollywood studios don't see another penny after the initial sale.’ That used to be true, but in the late 1990s, most major studios entered into revenue-sharing arrangements with major video rental chains.

Under these agreements, the studios and the rental stores split the rental revenue. Initially, revenue sharing was used only on VHS, but it is now being extended to DVD. I should note that revenue sharing has been controversial in the industry.”

Meanwhile, another reader noted that, “Our real problem isn't here. It's in Asia. My brother just came back from China with maybe 20 copies of ‘X-Men 2,’ ‘Matrix Reloaded’ and ‘Terminator 3.’

These aren’t crummy DiVX copies-- they are gorgeous DVD-R, with nice motion menus, fake covers, ISBN numbers, the whole thing. You'd swear that they were the real thing. So, why are we going after our domestic kids in colleges and high schools...when our real pirates are in China?”

Finally, this intriguing note arrived from a guy who’s both a software engineer and a musician in two bands: “It’s my belief that music CDs will soon be given away free. The CD will become promotional material to advertise a band’s live shows and merchandise for sale. Space inside the CD cover could even be sold for advertising.

“This will have several results: First, bands will reduce the cost of producing a CD by making use of the incredible capabilities of your average digital recording system to avoid the ridiculous hourly prices that professional recording studios charge.

(Next week my band is doing this very thing.) Self-production will become the norm.

“Second, CDs will become shorter, more focused and released more frequently. (‘See us on tour next month at these locations! Hear these four songs performed live!’)

Third, bands will perform live far more often and venues for live music will see a resurgence in popularity.”

From your mouth to the RIAA’s ear, buddy.

End article: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/09/technology/circuits/09POGUE-EMAIL.html?ex=1071378000&en=20cd940bb9873e77&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE



User Comments

Advancedcompmore
Date: December 6, 2003 @ 4:32 PM
Copyright law requires copyright holders to give up their ability to control distribution of those works once they have put them into the stream of commerce.

Why can't this apply to online swapping?
AdvancedPhantomGhost
Date: December 6, 2003 @ 4:59 PM
Finally, this intriguing note arrived from a guy who’s both a software engineer and a musician in two bands: “It’s my belief that music CDs will soon be given away free. The CD will become promotional material to advertise a band’s live shows and merchandise for sale. Space inside the CD cover could even be sold for advertising.

“This will have several results: First, bands will reduce the cost of producing a CD by making use of the incredible capabilities of your average digital recording system to avoid the ridiculous hourly prices that professional recording studios charge.

(Next week my band is doing this very thing.) Self-production will become the norm.

“Second, CDs will become shorter, more focused and released more frequently. (‘See us on tour next month at these locations! Hear these four songs performed live!’)

Third, bands will perform live far more often and venues for live music will see a resurgence in popularity.”

The RIAA is quickly becoming a failed business model, and the above paragraphs are evidence of that.

:-:~ Phantom
Intermediate0Hz
Date: December 6, 2003 @ 6:09 PM
Yep as Phantom says above I agree. My gut feeling is that it is not quite yet, only when broadband reaches the majority of the music loving masses will we finally see the reality. Even then some of the people will choose there coffee on ethical grounds whilst others will not give a hoot. Its all about education and there is clearly a long road ahead,
DMemberJLBRMECHANIC
Date: December 6, 2003 @ 6:37 PM
I wanna say that first of all you guys need to realize the most of the record companiy executives are sociopaths. They are people who use the talent, extort it, then rob them blind. Someone on here said that we should force the RIAA into compulsive licencing and that would make the DMCA obsolete.
DMemberArchangel1701
Date: December 6, 2003 @ 9:06 PM
This is good news. Just waiting a bit longer and when the RIAA is sued back for violation of our rights ,it'lll be clear to them we are not going to take it. Unfortuneatly the ones that lose moeny to them before that will never get it back after the RIAA joins the dinosaurs.
AdvancedPhantomGhost
Date: December 6, 2003 @ 9:11 PM
Copyright law requires copyright holders to give up their ability to control distribution of those works once they have put them into the stream of commerce.

Why can't this apply to online swapping?

I wish it could, compmore. The DMCA stands in our way. Down with that law!

:-:~ Phantom
DMemberNCdude
Date: December 6, 2003 @ 9:50 PM
To Ohz and PhantomGhost,

The reason is very simple. Blockbaster and such need to buy as many copies as they would like to rent and pay for each one of them. When you share you "rent" to more people than you have copies (i.e. 1). And you didn't pay for even that copy. So renting (even for free like a library) will requier buying a number of copies. Blockbaster, for example, cannot make duplications of the videos he bout just to have more copies to rent. Want to have more copies to rent? you'll have to buy more copies. This is why it is not applicable for p2p sharing.

NCdude
DMemberdave109100
Date: December 7, 2003 @ 3:57 AM
netflix for cds? hmmmm
DMembermisterglove
Date: December 7, 2003 @ 1:08 PM
NCdude: yes, it is true that Blockbuster cannot rent out more copies of a video than they have. But they do not have to buy a copy for every rental that takes place: if a Blockbuster bought five LOTR tapes, and rented them all out on a typical weekend, they would be returned and available for another renting. Even if the rentings number into the hundreds, they will have only needed to buy 5 copies because those copies can be rented multiple times.

So the question being posed is this: after a person buys a CD with a particular song on it, why can't they rent it out all they want, as long as they do not allow more than one person to "rent" the song at a time? Perhaps because when you share music, you don't "return" the rental; you download it, keep it, and when the next rental happens, it's like Blockbuster made a copy of their copy and gave it to you to keep.
Otherindependentm...
Date: December 8, 2003 @ 10:23 AM
apples and oranges.

CD's (albums) will not go away completly for a long time, but the business model of selling pre-recorded music is changing... and thankfully so.
Until the advent of the affordable CD recorders and the distribution of music on the net, the RIAA and friends had
a monopoly on music. Those days are ending. (Free at last! Free at last! Free at last!)

Music artists WILL more and more be self producing. This is excellent news.
Diversity in music will flourish. The human condition will improve. CD's and albums WILL continue to be sold (in whatever physical form exists) People will buy music from bands they really like for much cheaper and they will have such a vast range of artists to choose from. Sure, there will be less multi-million selling albums from a very limited selection... but overall, there will be even MORE albums sold from a huge selection of artists selling in smaller volumes... and the artists will be making MORE money from smaller numbers of sales and the consumer will be paying less for it...

This is called "free-trade"

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music!

(BTW, I think fair market value for a CD is about 2 times the REASONABLE cost of producing and distributing the CD...
in other words, about $5-10 per CD in today's marketplace. ...This assumes a level playing field of course, something we are stiving for.)
JazzJazzmary2U
Date: December 8, 2003 @ 11:12 PM
.. Nodding agreed, Schmoo.
You must be logged in to post replies to news articles.
Log in or register with the form at the top of the page.

 

 

 

search

news tree



 

 
© DMusic LLC - Employment | TOS | Subscribe