Text 14629, 116 rader
Skriven 2006-12-10 12:20:28 av mike (1:379/45)
  Kommentar till text 14596 av Bob.Ackley (1:2905/3)
Ärende: Re: HP, AMD and MS try for an iMac killer aka Crossfire
===============================================================
From: mike <mike@barkto.com>

On 9 Dec 2006 12:03:12 GMT,
"Bob.Ackley".<Bob.Ackley@p0.f3.n2905.z1.Fidonet.org> wrote:

>Replying to a message of Glenn Meadows to Bob.Ackley:
>
> >> The music industry has been terrified of people recording music since
> >> reel-to-reel tape recorders became cheap enough for ordinary mortals
> >> to buy one.  Only the technology has changed over the years.  Since
> >> the actual cost of producing a vinyl LP or an audio CD is less than $1
> >> each (not counting royalty fees) it seems to me that the way for the
> >> industry to reduce unauthorized duplication of the material would be
> >> to sell them for $5 or less.
>
> GM> I guess you don't take into account the cost to CREATE the material
> GM> that's on the physical disk.  I guess that's produced for free then.
>
>Actually I did.  Payment to the performer(s) - and other corporate overhead -
>spread over a million or so copies is an insignificant portion of the purchase
>price, IOW $1< - this assumes, of course, that the performers are paid a flat
>salary rather than per-copy royalties.

http://gear.ign.com/articles/749/749883p1.html

===
RIAA Petitions Judges to Lower Artist Royalties

Aggressively litigious group has claimed to protect musicians in the past. Now
believes musicians deserve less for "innovative" music distribution.

December 7, 2006 - The RIAA rose to public prominence around the year 2000 when
the growth of internet file sharing and music piracy was blamed for rapidly
declining album sales at the time. The RIAA's subsequent highly publicized and
aggressive litigious action against those the group identified as distributors
of copyrighted music, which has famously included grandmothers, single mothers
in economic hardship, and children, won the organization little sympathy from
the general public. While protecting copyrights is a fully legitimate concern,
many believe the piracy that blossomed in first blush of the Napster and KaZaa
was primarily due to the fact that there were no viable legal means to acquire
music in mp3 format via the internet. That changed when Apple launched the
iTunes Music Store, the subsequent massive success of which would seem to
illustrate consumers' willingness to pay for music files on the internet if
they are conveniently available.

In publicly defending its strong arm tactics and stated desire to scare
consumers into absolute compliance, the RIAA has long cited the negative
repercussions of piracy and lost revenue upon the recording artists that pour
their talent into making the music that people like to hear. It's a sympathetic
defense, yet in the past week the RIAA has made it quite clear whose profits
the group is truly out to defend, and it's certainly not the artists who
actually make the music.

On December 1 The Hollywood Reporter revealed that the RIAA is currently
petitioning the panel of federal government Copyright Royalty Judges to lower
the rates paid to publishers and songwriters for use of lyrics and melodies in
applications like cell phone ring tones and other digital recordings. The last
time the American government set the rate was in 1981, but since that time, the
RIAA argues in its petition, a lot has changed.

"While record companies and music publishers were able to agree on royalty
rates during that 25-year period, the assumptions on which those decisions were
based have changed beyond recognition," the RIAA brief reads.

There's no doubt about that, but it's obnoxious to see the RIAA finally
acknowledge that fact only when it serves to aid their cause rather than that
of consumers who rejected CD-based distribution years before the music industry
got onboard the digital distribution train. According to The Hollywood
Reporter, the RIAA maintains that in the modern period when piracy began
devastating the record industry (Highly debatable. Sales went down, but a
direct relationship to piracy is not proven.
-ed.) profits to publishers from sales of ringtones and other
"innovative services" grew dramatically. Record industry executives believe
this to be cause to advocate reducing the royalties paid to the artists who
wrote the original music.

As quoted by The Hollywood Reporter,"Mechanical royalties currently are out of
whack with historical and international rates," RIAA executive VP and General
Counsel Steven Marks said. "We hope the judges will restore the proper balance
by reducing the rate and moving to a more flexible percentage rate structure so
that record companies can continue to create the sound recordings that drive
revenues for music publishers."

http://gearmedia.ign.com/gear/image/article/749/749883/285bgWhite_1165541766.jp
g


The language of this statement reveals a great deal about who the RIAA is
looking out for, and it's not artists. Couched in terms of apparent necessity,
the RIAA's is insisting that the real musicians be paid less so that the record
companies can continue to "drive revenues." If piracy really is devastating the
recording industry and cell phone ringtones are one of the remaining highly
profitable distributed mediums, should the RIAA really be trying to ensure that
musicians be paid less for them while they're already hurting from lost revenue
on album sales? At best the RIAA is kicking artists when they're down via this
action, and at worst has fully revealed that despite repeated claims that
artists need to be protected from piracy, the organization is very much the
tool of the major labels and publishers who have famously never really cared
about the artists in the first place.

Tactics like this raise serious concerns for the future of interoperable DRMs
and any trend towards more rapid acceptance of new technology and the demands
it imposes upon the music distribution industry. If the RIAA is nothing but a
litigious arm of the stodgy business men in the music industry who can't see
past a perceived necessity of protecting established revenue streams rather
than pursuing innovation and listening consumers' demands, it seems doubtful
that the litany of complications currently facing consumers who demand
flexibility in managing their legally acquired digital content will be resolved
anytime soon.
===


  /m

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)