DVD Jon vs Apple

On 8 Apr 2005, at 15:18 :54, Christopher Smith wrote:
> Jochen Wolters wrote:
>> Copyright is there to help promote creation, not to stifle the
>> Public Domain, which is how it is being used now.
>>
>> Seen from a slightly different perspective, the existence of
>> copyright
>> at least does not prevent anyone from being creative.

Sure it does.

Case 1:
     I have a really neat idea for a story about Huck Finn as an
adult living in Montana. Know what? I can write that.

Case 2:
     I have a really neat idea for a story about Rhett Butler's life
before Scarlet. Can't write that.

> Had Jules Verne's works been protected like Disney's, it would have
> likely prevented the production of and at least made it more less
> likely
> we'd have seen Disney's 20,000 leagues made while Kirk Douglas was
> still
> young enough to play the lead. We'd also be stuck with Disney's horrid
> variant of Around the World in 80 Days, not knowing how wonderfully
> the
> story could be told when you put David Niven in the lead role. I don't
> think it's that hard to argue that we've been culturally enriched
> by at
> least the "good" Jules Vern movies, and they've in turn increased the
> value of the original works.

When you look at the Disney Catalog, how much of it is original
work? I can't think of a single animated Disney movie with a
original story other than the Pixar ones. I mean, all the classics
where based on books or stories, and most of the others (The Great
Mouse Detective) at least stole heavily from previous works.

> However, there is one key question that, IMHO, has not been
> answered properly yet: if DVD Jon and the users of PyMusique
> are so resolutely opposed to any kind of DRM, why don't they
> take the most obvious way out: avoid the iTMS and take their
> business elsewhere?

Maybe they do that as well but I think you know why, they'd like to buy
music from the artists they already know and love. Records labels
function as arbiters of taste and marketers, not only shining a light on
artists and saying "this is good" but over time shaping what people
think of as good music. People trying to avoid DRM are not immune to
this.

What incentive does someone using PyMusique have to stop? They're getting
what they paid for, Apple is getting paid and if they're violating the ToS,
well, they have a pretty good rationalization that it's in Apple's best
interest as Apple has them as a customer whereas if they adhered to the ToS,
they wouldn't. And what's the worst that could happen? Apple might cancel
their iTMS account, that's it, and unlike those who keep the DRM in their
files, PyMusique users don't have to worry about losing access to the tracks
they bought. Maybe you and Matt think PyMusique are deceiving themselves
about whether or not they're stealing but I don't think we're going to be
seeing any prosecutions.

Why do you care what other people do? My guess is you fear they're going
to ruin it for "the rest of us" who don't care about the DRM. If labels
lose confidence in today's DRM, maybe they'll switch to a new DRM that
is also more onerous for the customer (or simply requires purchasing new
soft/hardware) possibly one that exists only for Windows. Or maybe you
fear will totally give up and will stop *all* online sales. I don't
think the latter will happen and while the former is more plausible,
most flaws are shared by all DRM so switching to another is just a
stopgap.

Anti-DRMers have fears too:
 one day there won't be a DRM-free option like CDs
 our Fair Use rights will be rendered moot by DRM that prevents us from
exercising those rights
 consumer hardware will only play DRM'd files because there's not enough
of a market to justify supporting DRMless formats (Mac users are
familiar with this position)
 DRMless file formats will be equated with illegal behavior just as P2P
protocols have been and the files will be blocked, filtered & denied by
ISPs (who just so happen to also be major media conglomerates)
 big labels will control who can be heard by having the keys to the DRM,
another barrier between artists and their potential audience akin to the
current barriers of radio playlists and Wal-Mart's purchasing power &
policies.
 the opportunity to preserve our culture digitally will be lost as the
deterioration of physical media is replaced by broken (as in "no longer
functioning") DRM'd media

Anti-DRMers are not simply acting selfishly, if DRM becomes the norm it will
be worse for average people than for people who have the skill and, more
importantly, the determination to get around it.

Record labels and other media companies got caught flat-footed by
Napster and online media distribution without permission achieved some
level of normalcy. That's not a good thing but neither is most of their
response. Not that I think there are only two possibilities to choose
from but I think the future where DRM "wins" is worse for virtually
everybody (including artists) than the one where illegal P2P sharing
"wins."

> There are still ample alternatives to
> buying music from iTMS: apart from the "classical" CD, there
> are some online music stores who sell un-DRM'ed MP3 files, or
> you could visit sites that offer free-of-charge music from
> amateur musicians or lesser-known bands.

I think, as with sports, people are more interested in professionals who
play at the national & international level.

> Sure, the official response is that PyMusique allows
> accessing iTMS from a Linux box. But -- as David Pogue has
> rightfully asked in the article you quote -- why, then, is
> there a Windows version of PyMusique? Unless removing the DRM
> from the purchased tracks is part of the appeal. Which would
> take us back to the aspect of "stealing," after all...

For some small group of individuals, avoiding (not removing) the DRM is
not part of the appeal, it's all about the Linux support. For the rest,
I don't think DVD Jon & Co. are being as coy as you make them out to be.
Consider that he (they) have already produced jhymn which removes the DRM
after the fact. DRM can be removed for interoperability reasons, to play
tracks once purchased on devices (not just computers) without an iTunes
client.

"Stealing," there's that word again.
I buy a track from iTMS using PyMusique instead of iTunes (Apple can't
tell the difference), thus saving a copy of the downloaded file before
the DRM is applied to it. Am I a thief?

I buy a track from iTMS with iTunes and remove the DRM from the file
after the fact, using jhymn and the key provided by my iPod. Am I a
thief?

I buy a track from iTMS with iTunes and use software from Rogue Amoeba
to convert it to a .wav file that sounds exactly the same. Am I a thief?

I buy a track from iTMS with iTunes, burn it to an audio CD then convert
the track to a .wav file that sounds exactly the same. Am I a thief?

When is the answer "yes," when is it "no" and why? Do you think a
prosecutor would agree with you and would they press criminal charges?
If not, does it make sense to continue using words like "steal?"

> From: Travis Butler [mailto:tbutlerbirch.net]
> On 4/8/05 at 2:18 PM, xxman.org (Christopher Smith) wrote:
>
> > Jochen Wolters wrote:

> > Had Jules Verne's works been protected like Disney's, it would have
> > likely prevented the production of and at least made it more less
> > likely we'd have seen Disney's 20,000 leagues made while Kirk Douglas
> > was still young enough to play the lead. We'd also be stuck with
> > Disney's horrid variant of Around the World in 80 Days, not knowing
> > how wonderfully the story could be told when you put David Niven in
> > the lead role. I don't think it's that hard to argue that we've been
> > culturally enriched by at least the "good" Jules Vern movies, and
> > they've in turn increased the value of the original works.
>
> This is just silly.
>
> 1. If a Disney film is from a public domain source, there's nothing
> stopping anyone else from going back to the exact same public domain
> source and doing their own version.

I think the point of Jochen's examples is that they way copyright
legislation is going, *nothing* will enter the public domain again. The
media conglomerates like Disney will have their congress critters extend the
period again and again so nothing created after 1920-something will
automatically enter the public domain. One can also not rule out the
possibility that works that are currently in the public domain will removed
from the public domain, it has been done before.

> 2. They could always do exactly what Disney did do with 101 Dalmations,
> and presumably did with Peter Pan - *licence the original story*. (The
> original 101 Dalmations movie came out 5 years after the book's
> publication; well within even the most limited definition of copyright.
> Peter Pan came out in 1953, probably within most copyright periods of
> the 1911 novel.)

Actually, Disney might not have licensed Peter Pan. Copyright terms prior to
1976 were 28 years after publication with an option to extend them another
28. If Peter Pan's copyright was extended (around 1939), then presumably
Disney licensed it, if not, a license was not necessary.

http://arl.cni.org/info/frn/copy/timeline.html

This again raises the problem of "orphan works," where a copyright holder
cannot be found so permission cannot be granted. As copyright terms become
longer and longer, this problem only gets worse.

On 11 Apr 2005, at 08:54 :26, Travis Butler wrote:
> Peter Pan came out in 1953, probably within most copyright periods of
> the 1911 novel.

Peter Pan has the unique distinction of being permanently
copyrighted. Its copyright will *never* expire.

<http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_21.htm#mdiv301>

Google Kreme wrote:
> On 11 Apr 2005, at 08:54 :26, Travis Butler wrote:
>> Peter Pan came out in 1953, probably within most copyright periods of
>> the 1911 novel.
>
> Peter Pan has the unique distinction of being permanently copyrighted.
> Its copyright will *never* expire.
>
> <http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_21.htm#mdiv301>

Curiously though, Disney has claimed that it is in the public domain,
and hasn't paid for royalties on any of the new work they've done. The
rules for Peter Pan are kind of odd anyway, as although the hospital has
copyright, they aren't allowed to refuse to license it to someone who
asks. Very bizarre.

Like I said before, the history of the Peter Pan copyright is very complex.

--Chris

On 4/11/2005 2:36 PM, "Google Kreme" wrote:
>> Peter Pan came out in 1953, probably within most copyright periods of
>> the 1911 novel.
>
> Peter Pan has the unique distinction of being permanently
> copyrighted. Its copyright will *never* expire.
>
> <http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_21.htm#mdiv301>

This is only the case in the UK; copyrights in other countries have either
expired or are about to. (The EU copyright expires in 2007, and the U.S.
rights expire in 2023.)

Interestingly, because the children's hospital that was left the copyright
by J.M. Barrie gets a significant portion of its income from royalties, and
those royalties will stop flowing from outside the UK once the copyright
expires, the hospital recently concluded a search for an author to write the
"official" sequel, hoping the sequel will provide the same sort of long-term
income:

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/3582220.stm>
<http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/books/03/13/peter.pan.sequel.reut/>


(Ironically, Disney -- which benefits significantly from the Copyright
Extension Act discussed here -- claimed last year that the copyright on
Peter Pan had expired and thus refused to provide the hospital with any
royalties from a Peter Pan-based book published by a Disney subsidiary.)

<http://edition.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/books/10/13/peter.pan/>

Er, the very thing you linked to had the phrase "...notwithstanding that copyright in the work expired on 31st December 1987."

"Peter Pan" from what I know is a strange one. The copyright has expired BUT in UK law, Great Ormond Street Hospital (sick kids) has a right to royalties on any performance etc. of the play/book etc in perpetuity and, I think, Barrie stated this in his will.

RB

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 12.4.2005, space aliens observed tbutler saying:
>1. If a Disney film is from a public domain source, there's nothing
>stopping anyone else from going back to the exact same public domain
>source and doing their own version.

First of all, that's not the point. The point is that Disney was able to
create these works because these works went into public domain. Ever
since Steamboat Willie, *nothing* has gone out of copyright. Some things
actually went out of copyright, only to go back into copyright
afterwards. Also, how copyright law is applied has changed, making
previously legal art (like the Beastie Boys' awesome album "Paul's
Boutique" or DJ Danger Mouse's "The Grey Album") suddenly illegal.
<http://p076.ezboard.com/fpoliticalpalacefrm34.showMessage?topicID=979.
topic>
<http://nothing.omweb.org/modules/wakka/AnnotationOfTheBeastieBoys>

Secondy, oh yes, there most certainly *is* something stopping people
from going back to the same public domain sources. Once Disney remakes a
story, they *will* go after others who try to do the same. For example,
Disney seems to think that they now own the characters from the Grimm
stories (sleeping beauty, cinderella). Just try making a movie out of
them.

Anyway, the main point is this: Copyright used to work. Disney took
tales which the Grimm brothers wrote and turned them into amazing
movies. It doesn't work anymore. The way it looks, you will never be
able to take a story that came out of Disney and turn it into something
new.

Lucas

- --
"Nothing splendid was ever created in cold blood. Heat is required to forge anything. Every great accomplishment is the story of a flaming heart."
  -- Arnold H. Glasgow

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP SDK 3.2.2

iQA/AwUBQlvEsbXYdom/dB2cEQJIJACgsH6NJm1+zQtLDO+vSMtxjNJz4rsAoLJ1
fSc1MlHnqiLEM9BS86DtsxNM
=gf0/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

>Disney hasn't produced anything creative about Mickey Mouse in a couple
>of decades

I would have said this some years ago, but actually the Mouse has
been seeing new life as new cartoons in the old adventurous style
have been made for "The House of Mouse" series on the Disney channel
and new adventure stories are appearing in comics published by
Gemstone, drawing from international sources, where Mickey Mouse is
much more popular than in the U.S. And check out the wildly bizarre
"Runaway Brain" from 1995.

That said, the Disney argument that they need grotesquely long
copyright periods to protect their corporate logo is bogus: Mickey's
a trademark, and trademarks don't expire like copyrights.

Somebody mentioned that Mickey was based on an earlier character. He
certainly Felix the Cat DNA, but not so much as to constitute
copyright infringement.
--
Paul Brians
Professor of English
Director of Undergraduate Studies
Department of English
Washington State University
Pullman, WA 99164-2050
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/

In article <3c5ae9b4.40webx.va7qaftEanA>,
 "Jochen Wolters" <jochenpolytropia.com> wrote:

> Seen from a slightly different perspective, the existence of copyright at
> least does not prevent anyone from being creative. So, although I do agree
> with the general criticism about the duration of copyright protection being
> too long, I cannot really see how the fact that, say, the Disney estate still
> own the copyrights to Donald Duck, etc. should have a massive impact on the
> public domain per se.

This Wired News article highlights one way copyright prevents people
from being creative. It's really not the existence of copyright but the
absurdly long duration that causes the problem.

<http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,67139,00.html>

When I was beginning to work on my dissertation, my advisor suggested
not putting too much effort into it since in all likelihood, other than
my committee and a handful of other people, no one else would ever read
it. For my dissertation, the long copyright term has no practical
effect, and this is probably true for the vast majority of what's
created. But there are a few creations, like Mickey Mouse, that capture
the public eye or raise a stir within a creative community. These works,
the ones most likely to inspire others, are exactly the ones that need
to be released to the public domain after a reasonable length of time.

> As seen from yet another POV: if all those folks who complain so bitterly
> about the unfairness of copyright law whilst maintain an "honest" library of
> works as "decentral back-up copies" would each compose at least one song,
> write at least one interesting article, shoot at least one interesting pic,
> etc., and publish it under a Creative Commons license, we would not have to
> worry about a lack of cultural diversity caused by Big Media's presumable
> abuse of copyright law.

There's a reason we have people called artists, inventors, songwriters,
etc. They presumably have a talent for what they do. Most people,
however, aren't particularly creative. Some could, if forced to and with
a lot of effort, come up with something mildly interesting, but most of
what you'd get would be average and uninteresting.

>> the existence of copyright at least does not prevent anyone from
>> being creative.
>
> That's definitely not true. Copyright is regularly used to prevent
> derivative works.

I agree that some major media companies go way to far in enforcing
their demands, especially if those derivative works -- like some of
those websites that Mattel is attacking -- pose little threat to those
companies' income.

However, generally speaking, if you create a _derivative_ work, you
benefit in (at least) two ways: 1 - you don't have to start with a
blank canvas, but already have a framework that you can use for
building your own work on, and 2 - you can probably sell more copies of
your work if it has elements that your audience already knows and
values. Consequently, if you create a derivative work, the author of
the work you build on should get his fair share of the artistic
credits, as well as the monetary income your derivative work creates.
Don't want to share? Just create something original. ;)

Jochen.

> Why do you care what other people do?

Two reasons:

First, I believe that -- rip-off deals between record companies and
musicians notwithstanding -- artists deserve to get paid for their
creative work. In recent years, though, it has become commonplace to
just copy CDs between friends if you like a certain album. And the
worst aspect is that people don't even consider this wrong. What's
worse, I've heard so many interesting rationalizations just why it will
not hurt "overpaid" artists, that they should be content with what they
make from concert tours, how the "media mafia" deserves no better, etc.
etc. that I wonder just how much creative potential is hidden in all
these folks... :/

The second reason is _exactly_ what you describe:

> My guess is you fear they're going to ruin it for "the rest of us" who
> don't care about the DRM. If labels lose confidence in today's DRM,
> maybe they'll switch to a new DRM that is also more onerous for the
> customer (or simply requires purchasing new soft/hardware) possibly
> one that exists only for Windows.

All I want is to be able to listen to the music I buy whenever and
wherever I want. So, even though I would prefer iTMS songs to have no
DRM at all, and still prefer non-protected CDs over iTMS purchases, I
could live with the restrictions that are built into Apple's FairPlay
system.

But as long as the media big whigs think that DRM can solve their
problems, even though it is obvious that not a single technical copy
protection scheme really prevents unauthorized copying of digital
media, I do see the risk that the restrictions and the _checking_ of
those restrictions will become ever more limiting. Showing off just how
easy it is to circumvent DRM-based copying restrictions will not do
much to put the scared Big Media guys at ease...


> Anti-DRMers have fears too:

All the points you list are perfectly valid. But what good does
breaking existing DRM do to help avoid those risks you list? Media
companies care about one thing: their corporate bottom line. If you
don't like DRM, buy non-DRM'ed music. If Big Media realize that they
can't make money with products that we, the customers, don't want --
including DRM-protected music etc. -- , they should get the hint.


> I think, as with sports, people are more interested in professionals
> who play at the national & international level.

At least for popular culture, that's usually a sure sign of "quantity
over quality," but that's a topic all of its own, I guess. ;D


> "Stealing," there's that word again.
>
> When is the answer [to the question of whether I'm a thief] "yes,"
> when is it "no" and why?
> If not, does it make sense to continue using words like "steal?"

I wouldn't consider any of the examples you give "stealing."

It's passing on copies of copyrighted works for free that I'd consider
stealing. As long as even high school students make some bucks on the
side by selling burnt CDs to their friends at school, though, I do find
the word "stealing" very appropriate -- regardless of whether the
source for the copies was an online store or a "traditional" medium
like a CD or tape.


Jochen.

[OK, it's time to wind this thread down. -Adam]


On Monday, April 11, 2005, at 10:54 AM, Lucas K. Mathis wrote:

> On 9.4.2005, space aliens observed Jochen Wolters saying:
>> Seen from a slightly different perspective, the existence of
>> copyright at least does not prevent anyone from being creative.
>
> That's definitely not true. Copyright is regularly used to prevent
> derivative works. For example, the novel "The Wind Done Gone" which
> told
> the story of "Gone with the Wind" from the perspective of a slave was
> first halted by a court since the story's characters and elements were
> taken from "Gone with the Wind". That decision was eventually
> overturned.

"Frankly my dear..."

The decision was overturned because "The Wind Done Gone" is a parody of
"Gone With The Wind" and is therefore a transformative, not a
derivative work. Parodies are protected under the first amendment and
fall under fair use.

http://www.publaw.com/parody.html

Marilyn

 
>It's passing on copies of copyrighted works for free that I'd consider
>stealing. As long as even high school students make some bucks on the
>side by selling burnt CDs to their friends at school, though, I do find
>the word "stealing" very appropriate -- regardless of whether the
>source for the copies was an online store or a "traditional" medium
>like a CD or tape.

Let me first say that I love CDs and LPs, and I spend well more than my pocketbook is happy about on 'em, as well as an occasional tune from iTunes. I don't download music for free (except when it's legitimately offered for free, of course). But, I do admit I have been known to burn an occasional mix CD for a friend when I have an inspiration for some sort of thematic collection of music.

I understand the arguments on both sides of the issue. But, until recently, "stealing" was fairly easy to define...it was taking a physical something for free that otherwise would have been sold to someone else (or to the thief perhaps), and being a physical object, it is actually removed from the marketplace so there is an actual loss.

In the case of music piracy, whether it's moral or immoral, there's nothing actually taken from the marketplace, because the copy that's pirated is still available for someone else to purchase. I'd wager that 90% of all pirated music would never be purchased if the listener had to pay for it. And if my old cassette taping experiences are any guide, being turned on to music by friends burning CDs will in many cases expose a new person to an artist or style of music they'd never have considered purchasing before, thus leading to more, not less, sales. When I got my first cassette deck in the mid '80s, I had practically stopped buying LPs because popular music just didn't have the appeal it once had. Then friends started giving me tapes of their albums, and I discovered reggae music, and New Wave music, and indie artists I'd never heard of before, and I began buying music like crazy again. I'd never have heard that music were it not for those free tapes, much less gone out and bought albums. I can't believe that's not still the case for a whole lot of folks.

So, I dunno...I'm not convinced they're losing a whole lot of money by exposing a whole lot of new listeners to good music.

Besides, what will happen in the unlikely event that people stop buying music? Artists will stop recording music. Then there will be no music to pirate. And a whole new system of distributing music will be developed. Doesn't sound too disastrous to me.

[Remember, we're winding this thread down... -Adam]


Hi,

Excellent points!

I may have missed it in the discussions on DRM but the old Sony Betamax
ruling makes many arguments iffy at best.

The Betamax ruling said we could copy anything from broadcast or media
for personal use. Sony was playing both sides--selling commercial Beta
tapes and records to cature TV off the air or cable.

I doubt that Sony was planning to be a major media producer at the time
but it is a bit late to complain.

I have had premium cable or satellite service for years--not to mention
over the air radio and TV-- which I also can record for personal use
per the Betamax precedent ruling.

As I recall, there was a legal challenge to business traveller
individuals making DVD copies to take on trips to avoid worrying about
losing or damaging originals. the right to do so was upheld.

To me, the real issue is selling pirated music or video. This is
illegal period and should be eliminated.

As an aside, the royalties paid to artists and record companies for
purchased iTunes can be as little as a few cents for older or less
popular music. To me, the ability to buy iTunes songs for 99 cents is a
bargain. My wife and I have hundreds of albums that we purchased to
hear one or two songs which we transfrred to tape--and now CDs.

T. Thompson

On Wednesday, April 20, 2005, at 10:42 AM, Steve Johgart wrote:

>> It's passing on copies of copyrighted works for free that I'd consider
>> stealing. As long as even high school students make some bucks on the
>> side by selling burnt CDs to their friends at school, though, I do
>> find
>> the word "stealing" very appropriate -- regardless of whether the
>> source for the copies was an online store or a "traditional" medium
>> like a CD or tape.
>
> In the case of music piracy, whether it's moral or immoral, there's
> nothing actually taken from the marketplace, because the copy that's
> pirated is still available for someone else to purchase. I'd wager
> that 90% of all pirated music would never be purchased if the listener
> had to pay for it.
> And if my old cassette taping experiences are any guide, being turned
> on to music by friends burning CDs will in many cases expose a new
> person to an artist or style of music they'd never have considered
> purchasing before, thus leading to more, not less, sales. When I got
> my first cassette deck in the mid '80s, I had practically stopped
> buying LPs because popular music just didn't have the appeal it once
> had. Then friends started giving me tapes of their albums, and I
> discovered reggae music, and New Wave music, and indie artists I'd
> never heard of before, and I began buying music like crazy again. I'd
> never have heard that music were it not for those free tapes, much
> less gone out and bought albums. I can't believe that's not still the
> case for a whole lot of folks.

Watching Spike Lee's "Sucker Free City" last night reminded me of the
black market music industry that thrived for many years. When I went to
college in here in NYC many more years ago than I care to admit,
campuses were overrun with kids selling bootleg tapes of albums. There
were usually at least folding picnic table set up outside every
building, and they generally did a brisk business in a market of kids
that loved music and couldn't afford the retail prices for many albums.
There was a definite trade off in quality, but the alternative of no
music made it worthwhile for many kids.

Everyone would have preferred to buy their music in the highest quality
sonic format, and did so when they really loved an album and they could
afford it. But the bootlegs offered an opportunity to expand a music
collection at a reasonable price. Kids generally justified this as
being rather like the necessity of buying consumer goods on the black
market in countries in which governments strictly regulated commerce,
like the Soviet Union at the time.

Then as now, copyright protection enabled the record companies to
charge high prices. When the price of cassette recorders dropped, it
became clear that the music industry was charging premiums well above
the cost of production and distribution. And bands like the Grateful
Dead realized that bootlegs of their live performances were boosting
their ticket and album sales, and creating new generations of fans.

When CD-R burners dropped in price, the bootleg music industry just
about disappeared. File sharing dealt a swift and final blow.

> So, I dunno...I'm not convinced they're losing a whole lot of money by
> exposing a whole lot of new listeners to good music.

I agree with this, and I also think they're losing money by not
marketing downloaded music more effectively or pricing it even better.
The rapid and overwhelming success of the iTunes store and the iPod are
examples of how people love reasonably priced music and devices that
enable music to be enjoyed in new ways.

Why should an album that's sold online cost just about as much as a
"hard copy" CD? The record companies are using the copyright laws to
protect what is no longer a good business model. It's hurting artists
too, who could promote their music in new, more effective ways and sell
and distribute more efficiently.

>
> Besides, what will happen in the unlikely event that people stop
> buying music? Artists will stop recording music. Then there will be no
> music to pirate. And a whole new system of distributing music will be
> developed. Doesn't sound too disastrous to me.

I think that if music companies offered artists more alternatives to
promote themselves, more venues and ways to sell at price points that
the market will bear, the artists would probably prefer it. Artists
should be compensated fairly, and they shouldn't have to be locked in
to the crummy deals that so many musicians have been vociferously
protesting. Consumers deserve better choices at better prices.

Marilyn

[Obligatory thread closing soon warning.... -Adam]

On Apr 21, 2005, at 1:25 PM, Marilyn Matty wrote:

> Then as now, copyright protection enabled the record companies to
> charge high prices. When the price of cassette recorders dropped, it
> became clear that the music industry was charging premiums well above
> the cost of production and distribution. And bands like the Grateful
> Dead realized that bootlegs of their live performances were boosting
> their ticket and album sales, and creating new generations of fans.

ATO Records, which was founded by Dave Matthews, explicitly allows
taping at their artist's performances:

> ATO Records permits audiotaping at our artists' performance,
> however this decision is ultimately reserved by each artist and
> their managment.
>
> All recordings must be used for personal use or trading only.
> Selling or commercializing any recording is illegal and will
> jeopardize taping privileges for everyone.

Taping live shows was a big factor in building Dave Matthews Band's
fan base and has enhanced their popularity rather than hurting them.

[Obligatory thread closing soon warning.... -Adam]

At 10:25 AM -0700 4/21/05, Marilyn Matty wrote:
>When CD-R burners dropped in price, the bootleg music industry just
>about disappeared. File sharing dealt a swift and final blow.

Concert bootlegs were readily available in some record stores (yes, I
still call them record stores) in the mid/late '90s, if you knew
where to look. Like most areas of illegality, bootlegs remain
available, but harder to find in their physical form. (There was a
large sting in the late '90s, involving most of the larger bootleg
importers in the US - and I think there was a crackdown on retailers
as well.) Burners made it easy for bootleggers to 'boot' other
bootleggers, but that didn't last very long.

When broadband became common, it really changed. Now the heavy
trading activity is online, via either usenet or BitTorrent. The
formats have changed too, shifting as the balance between data
bandwidth and music fidelity changes. MP3 has mostly given way to
FLAC and SHN. It's amusing to see the shift to higher fidelity
formats, given that we're usually talking about crappy audience
tapes... but then you come across a true soundboard recording in
FLAC, and oh my lord it's gorgeous.

... or so I've heard. ;)

>Why should an album that's sold online cost just about as much as a
>"hard copy" CD?

And that's why I haven't purchased a single bit from iTMS. I see no
reason to pay roughly the same for less quality and no physical
artifact. I'd happily pay $12.99 for 128bit AAC *and* a CD, or heck,
$14.99 for Apple Lossless *and* a CD. But $9.99 and no backup and
"oh yeah, that happens, please buy again"... I ain't doing that.

--
Andrew Laurence
atlaurenuci.edu

[Obligatory thread closing soon warning.... -Adam]

On Thursday, April 21, 2005, at 02:00 PM, Mike Cohen wrote:
> Taping live shows was a big factor in building Dave Matthews Band's
> fan base and has enhanced their popularity rather than hurting them.

The same thing with Phish; like the Dead, the actively encourage taping
and sharing live performances. Unfortunately, the labels won't allow
all but the most popular bands, who are in more of a position to make
contractual demands, to do this.

But for performers like Ashley Simpson, Brittney Spears, etc. tapers
would just end up with the same tracks that are being lipsynched to
over and over again.

Marilyn

[Obligatory thread closing soon warning.... -Adam]

On Apr 21, 2005, at 4:23 PM, Marilyn Matty wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2005, at 02:00 PM, Mike Cohen wrote:
>>
>> Taping live shows was a big factor in building Dave Matthews
>> Band's fan base and has enhanced their popularity rather than
>> hurting them.
>
> The same thing with Phish; like the Dead, the actively encourage
> taping and sharing live performances. Unfortunately, the labels
> won't allow all but the most popular bands, who are in more of a
> position to make contractual demands, to do this.
>
> But for performers like Ashley Simpson, Brittney Spears, etc.
> tapers would just end up with the same tracks that are being
> lipsynched to over and over again.

That's what's killing the record industry. When their target audience
gets a little older they lose interest, so the record company has to
come up with the next prefab star with limited talent. Performers
like Ashley Simpson & Britney Spears put nothing personal in their
music. It's all carefully written, produced, and choreographed by
their image makers. Their live shows add nothing to their music and
every show is exactly alike, except for a few semi-spontaneous moments.

Artists like DMB, on the other hand, play to the audience and their
live shows add a whole new dimension to their music as they interact
with the audience and change the songs at each show. People will buy
their live albums even if they own the studio albums because the
songs are different. Many of those bands never play a song the same
way twice.