Re: (idm) Re: mp3 copyright issues in the UK - newstory

From Kent Williams
Sent Thu, May 28th 1998, 16:17

On Thu, 28 May 1998, Greg Earle wrote:

> David Hodgson transcribes another "The Sky Is Falling" article from the U=
K:
> > A new CD costs =A314.49.  Or, you could download it for free on the Int=
ernet
> > ROCK STARS and record companies lined up to complain yesterday that fan=
s
> > downloading free music from the Internet is costing them millions and c=
ould
> > kill off the British music industry.
>=20

Every time the record companies begin whining about some new duplication
technology eating into their sales, they sweep under the rug the fact
that they are in fact making more money than ever.  Keep this in mind:
The market for CD's, adjusted for the population size, is larger now than
the market for vinyl records ever was.  Gosh, isn't it amazing how home
taping has killed the market?

The whole thing is a stupid argument anyway.  Having an MP3 of a track
is less convenient for listening than having a CD.  It doesn't sound as
good.  It's like having a cassette copy of an album that requires a $1000
player that's too heavy to put in your backpack.  Now you can buy
a MP3 walkman for $400, but it will basically hold only an album's worth
of material at any one time.

MP3's sound good enough to listen to over then net, but they are not
CD quality, no matter what anyone says.  I'm not an audio purist, and
I can tell the difference.

I think artists should be paid royalties on their work.  I think that
record companies should be able to realize a return on their substantial
investment. But they make the specious claim that every MP3 downloaded
is a sale lost, which is total bullshit.  Same goes for companies who
whine about Warez on the internet.

It's a fundamental concept of business that you can compete with cheap
or free products if you can add value.  For most people the convenience,
quality, and packaging of commercial CD's add value over mp3's on a website
in Slovakia.

Don't get me started on the record companies anyway. By and large, they
don't pay artists their royalties due, by jiggering their accounting, until
they're sued.  They also like to hand out advances against royalties so tha=
t=20
bands end up owing THEM money in the end.  You give someone $200K to record=
=20
an album and promote it on tour, then you cook the books so it looks like=
=20
the band never made enough money to cover the advance.

Now I'm not accussing Warp, or Rephlex, or Astralwerks of this -- they coul=
d
very well be exceptions to this.  But I know for a fact this is standard
operating procedure for the major labels. It's a story I've heard time and
time again.

So consider THAT when they start crying poor about MP3s.