The Logic Off Topic list

>
>
>Joeri also said:
>
>>I'm convinced it's possible to get down illegal downloading to 10% or
>>so, just like real world pirating.
>>
>10% is still a lot!!
>
10% is the percentage piracy in the real world in Western countries.

>Copyright is a fluid concept. It has not always existed. It was invented 
>for two main reasons: (1) was to protect consumers; (2) to overturn censorship.
>
and  3) to stimulate creativity (both in music, as well as pharma and 
other sectors)

>The basis of most copyright law (at least, in the West) was set out in 1710 
>with the Statute of Anne which was passed by the British Parliament. The 
>Statue of Anne broke the monopoly on publishing held by the "Worshipful 
>Company of Stationers' and Newspaper Makers".
>http://www.stationers.org/
>This was basically an organization of booksellers. Importantly, it was 
>pretty much owned and controller by the British Crown. Thus the Stationers 
>were protected from outside competition -- much like the company or 
>collective record companies are today.
>
In that time, that was the only way. If your "guild" wasn't protected by 
the crown, then it was either illegal or not trustworthy, or open for 
attacks.

>In the 300 or so years since the Statute was passed the concept of 
>copyright has been amended and extended and has also had to face the 
>problem of changing technology. Which is pretty much the case today.
>
I think the real basis of today's copyright legislation lays in the Bern 
Convention.

>Seems to me that the 'problem' with mp3 is not protecting the rights of 
>authors, but rather the claim of record companies that they and they alone 
>can adequately protect the rights of music creators. This seems to me to be 
>an extremely dubious claim to say the least, because there are other 
>methods of distributing music.
>
I don't agree. As a matter of fact, I'm currently writing my thesis on 
"Future Growth Strategies in the Music Business", and I'm writing that 
from a "majors" perspective.
The way music is ditributed etc, automatically leads to the creation of 
record companies. And once you have record companies, some will 
automatically become majors while other will remain indies. The reason 
for that is because you need a platform with a solid financial basis. 
The success rate of commercial music is 1/10. Therefore, for every 10 
million USD you invest, only 1 million will give you a return. The 
reason why people don't like the record companies, is because the return 
on that interesting million is huge, but what they mostly don't want to 
hear about, is how 9 million got "lost".

I believe that the platforms the record companies are setting up now, is 
a very good incentive and the only way forward for the industry.
There are many problems and many challenges to be faced, but in the end, 
they have no choice. Also, I believe that the AOL Time Warner approach 
might be the best for the very long term: they don't sell music, no, 
they sell an entertainment package. They want to sell an entertainment 
package opn a monthly basis for 169USD in the long run. Whether that 
amount of money is realistic, I don't know (yet), but I think the 
approach is right. Music is only one of the many possible ways to spend 
your entertainment budget, so if you can compensate losses on one side, 
with extra income on another, then you've got a stable platform of which 
everyone benefits. In that aspect, even though EMI has started a lot of 
internet incentives (they were the first major to do anything at all), I 
believe EMI will get in trouble: they are a "stand-alone" company that's 
not integrated in a media holding. There are solutions for that, and 
those solutions have to be carried out in 3 years from now, not now... 
but in the long run, they have to be carried out.

Another, more subjective reason why people dislike the majors, is 
because they have had bad experiences. In 90% of the cases though, those 
experiences were with A&R managers or product managers and were not 
related to finance or business development.

>IMO, some time very soon the concept of 'hard copy' in music (CD's, etc) 
>will have to give way to the concept of 'flow' as a viable way to collect 
>revenues from music.
>
Hard copy will always exist. People want to go shopping. That will never 
change. The percentages will differ, but the "real world shopping 
experience" is definitely not gone.

>So ... all that needs to happen, I think, is for this concept of a "flow" 
>of music to be extended out into other areas -- and ones that are likely to 
>cover the mp3 "problem".
>
And exactly here are the main problems:
* you don't have big entities anymore that pay fixed sums, instead you 
have the individual consumer
* even though a lot of people are doing research, no-one really has a 
clue when people will buy what amount of music on the internet

>I could also enroll with a specialist Internet Music Provisioner which 
>basically again gives me the right to download any songs I like.
>Providers and Provisioners would then negotiate contracts with whatever 
>artists, or else artists rights organizations, that they felt that they 
>could sell. For example, if I make jazz music, then I could enroll with 
>Jazz Creators Anonymous ... which would then, possibly, provide music for 
>any Music Provisioners that approached it. A fee is settled ... of which I 
>get a proportion. Each Provisioner and/or Creators Group would then 
>recompense those artists whose music had been downloaded, most likely as a 
>proportion of the fees collected.
>
Such models already exist. That will be the online "indies" of tomorrow. 
And although they migh work well, there is need for majors online as well.

>No way to put the genie back in the bottle. I also think that it would be a 
>lot more constructive for the music industry to come up with proposals that 
>demonstrate some kind of benefit for the consumer instead of being narrowly 
>focussed on its own self-interests, particularly when it's clear that the 
>public is not very sympathetic on this issue.
>
If people have to choose between getting something for free, or paying 
for it, it's obvious what they'll choose.
We have to make people understand why music can't be free and we have to 
come up with models that make "music" an enjoyable product that's worth 
paying for.

> Personally, I do not see the 
>benefit to the consumer of the present squabble over mp3 files and e.g. the 
>attempt to create copy proof CD's. Record companies are -- rightly -- 
>creating merry hell because an illegal COPY has been made. So ... remove 
>the copying issue. So ... let people pay for the right to hear the music of 
>their choice in the manner of their choice. It ain't all on CD. Point is 
>... people can only come by music if someone PROVIDES it to them. 
>Therefore, charge the providers. Charge them a yearly or monthly or 
>whatever 'flow' fee.
>
No offense, but this concept is too simple. A visit to a to any school 
will show e.g. that 1 in 10 or 1 in 20 buys the music and the others 
copy it. So, one of the students is the provider. Now who are you going 
to charge? The record store for selling that record? That one person who 
bought it? How are you going to charge them? How much are you going to 
charge them? At this point, piratery is hurting the music business. 
Setting up a legal system is not going to have affect for the simple 
reason that it's the end user who's copying. We have to prevent them 
from pirating music. There are ways to do that. Making it more difficult 
to copy is one way to do it, building a future platform is another way,...

>In essence, and to partly answer Dennis Gunn's and Yoonchi's questions, I 
>think this will eventually have to be done by artists. I think that only 
>artists can fight record companies, get their contracts re-interpreted 
>under law, and then set up new means of distribution for music that still 
>respect their rights as composers and recognize their creative endeavours. 
>
Why should they "fight" record companies?
Let's make a simple, not entirely correct, comparison: let's say I make 
milk. I'm a farmer who has a lot of cows and I deliver one hectoliter 
milk a year.
Why would I fight anyone in the chain who helps getting my milk to the 
consumer?

I am 100% free to deliver my milk to the public myself. I can set up my 
own little store. I can set up my own organisation with colleagues to 
deliver milk to the public or to the stores ourselves (doh, we've become 
a milk label already) etc.

The european commission has investigated the music industry 3 times 
already. We all know how tough Mario Monti & co are. 3 Times, the music 
industry's policy was approved of by the EC. People really have a wrong 
image of majors imo.

>These are ARTISTS' rights that the record companies think they have. They 
>only become record company rights when record companies sign up artists. 
>Artists can give consumers what they want
>
Sure!
-> you can go to an indie if you don't like the majors (you have lots of 
variations in indies: is Zomba still an indie? Is EMI still a major?)
-> you can go to an alternative provider
-> you can distribute etc yourself

The alternatives are there! There's a reason why 85 percent or so (I 
should look it up) of all sales is done by the majors. But the 
alternatives are there already. No-one stops anyone from using the 
alternatives. There's a reason why they're not selling 90% of the music.

> -- which is basically a much more 
>free and ready access to music then they are currently getting from record 
>companies.
>
Why do you think this? Please explain.

> Note that -- IMO, anyway -- it's record companies who are 
>claiming to best represent artists' interests. 
>

>Question: is it possible for 
>there to be music without record companies. In my view, yes.
>
Of course, see above.

> Question: is 
>it possible for there to be music without creators and players? In my view, 
>no.
>
Obviously. :-)

> Therefore, record companies are wrong if they pretend that they are 
>somehow 'important' or 'vital'.
>
They are, because of the way the business works. As I said: 1 in 10 
artists succeed commercially in some way or the other. someone has to 
carry that risk and someone has to provide the financial means to carry 
the costs of giving music a chance.

>Frankly, I don't see record companies moving on this matter in a  way that 
>is in the long-term beneficial to CONSUMERS because, frankly, what 
>consumers seem to want is anathema to what record companies want. Consumers 
>seem to want wider access to music -- and without having to buy CD's or 
>music is any other solid form to get it. But that is the way that record 
>companies survive.
>
That's how record companies survive NOW. But that's exactly what they're 
doing now: they're creating platforms to build towards the future.
Why is it, do you think, that record companies invest billions of 
dollars to build and promote PressPlay, MusicNet & co?
And hey, nothing prevents any independent artists from stepping to those 
distributors. Yes, record companies will get their share there as well, 
but then, they were the ones to set up a big platform for everyone. Do 
you mind that WalMart makes money becayse they have created the 
infrastructure where you can find everything together? I don't. You can 
as well go to a local farmer for your milk and butter and potatoes, you 
can get your meat from someone else as well etc... does the consumer 
benefit from WalMart? That's everyone's own judgement. I'm personaly 
happy distribution chains like Walmart exist, but I still have all 
alternatives if I want to use the other ways. Does my local farmer sell 
90% of all milk in a region, no... and there's a reason for it.

>So ... give consumers what they want. Give them CD-less music.
>
That's not what they want. That's one of the ways they want music. They 
als want the real world shopping experience. They want it all. :-))

> Let them 
>download music wherever and whenever they want onto whatever hardware 
>player they like.
>
Sure. From a legal platform!!! Not from Napster or not from Audiogalaxy. 
I think you agree with me that it hurts to see your own music being 
downloaded thousands of times there without you getting any compensation 
for it.

> But ... they have to download somehow and somewhere. And 
>... to get their hands on that, they have to come to artists.
>
OK, so you agree with my above statement, I assume.

> Let them pay 
>
Agreed!

And this is exactly why I think Warner will have more chances of 
surviving in the long run than EMI: Warner's music sales will be 
included in AOL Time Warner's "entertainment fee" they ask from 
consumers. EMI has to offer music as a standalone product.... and I'm 
afraid they'll lose a lot of their market share.

>Anyway ... those are my thoughts on the matter as they at present stand. 
>
Very interesting! I love this discussion as I'm currently doing a lot of 
research on these matters for my thesis.

Bye,
Joeri

-- 
Joeri Vankeirsbilck
joeri@...

Belway Productions      -     http://www.belway.com
List-admin   Logic-users/SoundD*ver-users/Logic-TDM