The Logic Off Topic list

Kool Musick wrote:
> >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)

That's what the preamble to the Statute of Anne did in fact say. On the 
strictly legal side, however, it was not a motivating factor because you 
cannot legislate to stimulate creativity! You can, however, legislate to 
punish people who are not acting in "everyone's" interests. Of course, how 
"everyone" is defined is another matter altogether!!!

>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.
True.

>I think the real basis of today's copyright legislation lays in the Bern
>Convention.
I think we're saying the same thing here. The Berne Convention is/was built 
on 'common practice' and what everyone was doing and could reasonably be 
asked to do in an international arena ... but the concept of copyright on 
which it rests really came into existence with the Statute of Anne. That's 
the historical foundation of the concept, although it's true that the 
copyright practices of today, which form the basis of international actions 
in particular, are grounded in the Berne Convention. I did not say so 
clearly enough, but I was speaking on that particular occasion to the 
historical genesis of copyright ideas and not to the underlying legal 
practice and where the teeth come from.

> >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.
Several statements in my para so I'm not quite certain what you're not 
agreeing with.


>  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.
Make this a more general statement. Given that "rights", copyright, is 
vested in its creator, the technological methods available in respect of 
distribution will determine the nature of the distribution agencies. I 
don't agree that the way music is distributed automatically leads to the 
creation of record companies although I do agree that it automatically 
leads to the creation of some entity or other. We have record companies 
because of the way music has been distributed in the past. Things change. 
We no longer have guilds. Could be that we no longer need record companies.

>And once you have record companies, some will
>automatically become majors while other will remain indies.
Some will be big and successful, some will be small and successful etc etc 
etc. An economic fact in any field of endeavour and therefore not specific 
to record companies.

>The reason
>for that is because you need a platform with a solid financial basis.
>The success rate of commercial music is 1/10.
This is absolutely no proof that it's the only way to do business.

>Therefore, for every 10
>million USD you invest, only 1 million will give you a return.
Once again, this is no proof that it's the only, or the best, way to do 
business.

>The
>reason why people don't like the record companies,
I do not think that much of the way in which record companies conduct their 
BUSINESS.

>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 am well aware of the 9 million or so that get "lost". One of my prized 
possessions is a distribution statement I got from PRS (one of my first 
ones) from Belgium for 64 British pence presumably because some drunk DJ in 
Belgium had got nothing better to do than play one of my songs.

>I believe that the platforms the record companies are setting up now, is
>a very good incentive
I'll believe it when I see it

>and the only way forward for the industry.
Why "only"? Sometimes a completely new business model is needed. Not the 
kind of thing that's introduced by those who are going to suffer from it!!

Music publishers did not like it one bit when records came along, and they 
tried to control the emerging industry with ever more dubious schemes until 
eventually record companies -- with their new model -- basically became 
independent. Record companies found that a very good way to shut music 
publishers up was to buy them.

>There are many problems and many challenges to be faced,
Yes. Painful, sometimes.

>Also, I believe that the AOL Time Warner approach
>might be the best for the very long term:
What? Ted Turner and Mr. Stever AOL telling what movies I should watch, 
what books I should buy, and what music I should listen to while doing?

>they don't sell music, no,
>they sell an entertainment package.
And this is a good thing?

>They want to sell an entertainment
>package opn a monthly basis for 169USD in the long run.
There's no denying the convenience of it, and unfortunately it'll probably 
happen. That doesn't mean I have to accept it lightly and it also doesn't 
mean I shouldn't fight it while I can. I do NOT like this idea.

>Whether that
>amount of money is realistic, I don't know (yet), but I think the
>approach is right.
I don't think it's right. Sorry. I do not like so much power over the human 
condition and the human mind being placed in so few hands. The same people 
who make the news are the same people who are concerned with entertainment 
and the same people who are trying to sell you wallpaper. We live in times, 
now, where when a journalist goes to 'report' an a war, he or she is very 
likely to do so wearing, maybe as a stunt, a combat jacket and uniform 
belonging to the country of the people who are paying him or her. When 
Geraldo Rivera arrived in Jalalabad it was ostensibly as a reporter. He 
arrived with a gun. He said it was his intention to seek out and to 
personally kill Osama bin Laden. Rivera works for Fox News. Which is owned 
by Rupert Murdoch. Who is also busy positioning himself to sell me an 
'entertainment package'. And ... oh yes ... it was you who quoted Time 
Warner, did you not? Who are in bed with AOL? And just WHO do you think 
owns Time? With an "entertainment package" that is beamed at half the 
world? Why ... Rupert Murdoch. He got the message quicker than anyone about 
this wonderful new technology and the opportunities it created. Computers, 
linking up with satellites, linking up with wireless and television -- and 
getting musicians and journalists and authors and artists all to peddle the 
one vision that makes ...... well .... you fill in the rest.

I have to accept the REALITY of it. But that does not mean that I either 
have to enjoy it or concede the inevitability of it. I will do neither of 
these things.

>Music is only one of the many possible ways to spend
>your entertainment budget,
Yes.

>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.
Who is this 'everyone' exactly, apart from Rupert Murdoch, Bill Gates, and 
people of that ilk?

>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.
Yes. It's a pity about EMI. But let's be realistic. What is advantageous 
about, say, a label like A&M being swallowed up and then shut down? The one 
hit wonders ... they benefit. The old timers like The Stones and U2 ... 
they benefit. Those who were in the middle of a career, who had had 4 or 5 
reasonable albums ... what became of them?

>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.
Don't see how you separate these. A&R managers make decisions because they 
have to produce revenue for the company. So if you don't sell, they get rid 
of you. That leads to bad experiences for those who are got rid of. But 
it's also not what I am interested in. The issue is whether or not this is 
a good MODEL for a business, particularly in view of the changing 
technological nature of the product that is offered and its accompanying 
opportunities for democratization. When the Statute of Anne was passed, 
suddenly it wasn't just newspapers owned by the Crown or the government 
that could be published. Anyone who could afford a press could do it. And 
... anyone who owns a CD burner can make an album. The problem is not in 
the creation. It's in the distribution.

> >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.
I didn't say it would be abolished totally.

>People want to go shopping. That will never
>change.
I agree with this.

>  The percentages will differ,
That's what I said. And if the percentages differ then the money differs. 
And if the money differs, then those whose primary means of making money is 
the dissemination of hard copies will also suffer, and will have to change 
their modus operandi.

That's what I said..


> >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

I did not say this. What I said was that there would be a different way of 
providing music -- something like Music Provisioners but whose means of 
gaining money was not vested in their rights to be the only ones permitted 
to create CD's. Your Time Warner model is quite fine enough. I pay a Music 
Provisioner so much a year for the right to access music. That is what I said.

>* 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
Please Joeri ... the Internet is only ONE possible means of disseminating 
music. My public library has a ton of records and CDs that I can borrow if 
I want. How the library comes by that collection is no real concern of 
mine. Just as I can go there and borrow a book, one day I will be able to 
go there with my mp3 player, attach myself to their computer or whatever, 
and then download an album. One day I will be able to go to the 7/11 or to 
Walmart and not buy an album so much as possible hand in a media smart card 
and get another one, and maybe give them instructions what I would like 
them to put on it for me by the time I get back from the laundromat. Or I 
could even possible switch on my digital radio at a certain hour because my 
favourite digital radio station always plays the latest hip hop records at 
that time and I can download what I want through my cell phone just by 
dialling in to the right frequency.

The essential point being ... the reason that record companies exist and 
occupy the position that they do is that they are regarded, and regard 
themselves, as the sole entities through which music should be made 
available to the consumer. Record companies, however, are based on the fact 
that they make hard copy CD material copies. The day is fast coming when 
people will say "so what?" I want this for myself and I'm quite happy to 
have it on my mp3 player and backed up on my two computers ... and if ever 
it crashes I can get another copy because I am subscribed to a good 
Provider and can get it again there.

There is no NECESSITY any more, for a Mechanical Copy of the kind we are 
used to.

> >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.
Please, Joeri, I never ONCE said anything about people getting music for 
nothing. When I switch on the radio and listen, I think I am listening to 
music for nothing but I am not. The radio station pays good money for the 
rights to broadcast music. When I stand in a lift I again think I am 
getting that music for nothing. I am not. The shop is paying good money for 
the right to put muzak in its lifts.

This is a question of who pays so that the consumer gets a benefit. Now ... 
if a gym or a university or a hotel can get a better  class of consumer 
those consumers into thinking that they are getting something for nothing, 
more fool those consumers because the hotel is PAYING for the right to have 
that music available ... a price that consumers eventually pay by the 
membership subscription. Another way that consumers pay is by having to sit 
through advertising. In England, the BBC has (or used to be so) no 
advertising. However, in order to enjoy the privilege of advertising free 
radio and television, every owner of a TV set has to pay a licence fee.

I have never said that music should not be paid for. Not once. So please 
don't put words in my mouth on this matter. Music must be paid for. It's 
just a matter of how, and how this can most benefit the consumers whilst at 
the same time enabling musicians to make a decent living. The consumer will 
pay in the end although sometimes (such as having to sit through endless 
adverts on the radio) they don't appreciate that they are paying.


>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.
This is my position. However, record companies have done a VERY poor job so 
far of explaining what services they are offering and getting people to 
understand how and why music should not be free. Part of a very bad 
business model in my view. The public has a much clearer idea why 
publishing houses exist and what they get up than is the case with record 
companies, to be honest.

 > > 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.
The concept of making people pay for the right to buy a CD is also too 
simple. Yet ... that's the one we're all currently working to. What's the 
problem here?

>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 ... you work out the percentages. A classic case in British law was the 
programme "Music While You Work". The BBC presented the truly ridiculous 
argument that they were doing the members of the PRS a big favour by 
broadcasting this programme. It was played in virtually every British 
factory and work place because so many tuned in. The BBC said how they were 
doing musicians a favour in popularizing this music and that if anything 
the composers should be paying the BBC and not the other way around. The 
BBC lost. Radio stations must pay to play. They pay more in popular hours 
and for popular programmes, and those whose music is earned at that time 
get a bigger 'point percentage' in the yearly distribution. There is an 
accepted scale for working out how much each unit of listening time is 
worth depending on time of day etc. Radio stations use a similar scale to 
charge advertisers. If you want to reach a good demographic at a 'good 
time' you pay a lot more to get air time.

>So, one of the students is the provider.
Not necessarily.

>  Now who are you going
>to charge?
Everybody you can.

>The record store for selling that record?
Yes. A record store is just another provider ... another way that music is 
accessed. Radio stations are perfectly well capable of estimating how many 
people are in their audience, and radio stations close down if they don't 
attract enough listeners. Just so ... one can estimate how many copies are 
made from the average CD and then just have done with it. That's what a 
record shop is charged for stocking up on CDs.

>  That one person who
>bought it?
Yes.

>How are you going to charge them?
They bought a record in a shop. Or else they stole it in which case they go 
to jail.

>How much are you going to
>charge them?
What the market will bear.

>At this point, piratery is hurting the music business.
And ... at this point piracy is rampant because the record companies will 
not allow any other methods of coming by music. That kid in the school yard 
offering to rip lots of CDs for virtually nothing is a lot less attractive 
if the newsagents or Walmart has a convenient mp3 jukebox just outside it 
that I can use. Let Walmart pay for the privilege. They can then make an 
economic decision. If they put an mp3 jukebox outside their premises, lots 
of young people will come there. Maybe ... those young people will then 
enter the store and buy something else. They'll need batteries, after all, 
for those players. They'll need memory cards. They'll need new sneakers to 
look cool. They might want to buy posters. Let Walmart work out for 
themselves if they should charge to allow people to download music, or if 
they should do for nothing. Doesn't matter as long as Walmart has paid for 
the right to have music on those mp3 servers. And we charge them what the 
market will bear bearing  in mind the target audience.

>Setting up a legal system is not going to have affect for the simple
>reason that it's the end user who's copying.
Copying. Your whole idea is based on the fact that there's only one legal 
method for coming by a song and that's by having it on a CD, with the right 
to produce and market that CD being vested in the record company. Music 
goes out on radio. It goes out on TV. It goes out in movie theatres. And 
now it's going to go out on mp3 channels as well. CD's are just another 
music stream with no more importance attached to them than any other 
stream. As with all streams, authors and musicians will charge whatever the 
market will be, and those who want to provide music to consumers will pay. 
If they want to charge their customers, fine. If not, also fine ... but as 
providers they are jolly well going to charge ME the person who wrote it.

>We have to prevent them
>from pirating music.
No we don't. We have to make it easy for people to get hold of music and in 
such a manner that illegal methods are unattractive enough to make it not 
worth people's while. This means ... making it easy for people to get hold 
of music. It's called 'piracy' when it inconveniences record companies. 
Record companies are greatly inconveniences by mp3s. Consumers are not. 
Tough luck on record companies. Time to find another way of disseminating 
music but in such a way that musicians can feed their wives and children 
and leave behind the possibility that their grandchildren can go to university.

>There are ways to do that. Making it more difficult
>to copy is one way to do it,
... sorry ... but ... making it easier to get hold of is also another way!! 
I did not say making it free. I said making mp3 files and other forms of 
digital music easier to get hold of. A different conception is needed.

>... building a future platform is another way,...
If you mean making Rupert Murdoch richer and giving Geraldo Rivera more 
money to stomp around the planet with a gun and threatening everyone he 
doesn't like then I disagree. (Nor am I saying that I approve of Osama bin 
Laden so please don't anybody write and even dare to SUGGEST that that is 
what I have implied).


>Why should [artists] they "fight" record companies?
Because record companies are not acting in the best interests either of 
artists or of consumers as far as the dissemination of digital music is 
concerned.

>Let's make a simple, not entirely correct, comparison: let's say I make
>milk.
You do not make mile. Cows do.

>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?
rather depends on how they recompense you, doesn't it? Just like the BBC 
tried to refuse to pay composers for transmitting songs on the radio.

>I am 100% free to deliver my milk to the public myself.
Yes. But it's not a good idea. You're probably better off farming ... as 
long as you can get paid for doing so.

>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.
So??!!!

>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.
Errrr!!! So??!!!! I dare say if Rupert Murdoch was investigated, as also 
Bill Gates, in the end they would be allowed to stay in operation.

>  People really have a wrong
>image of majors imo.
Whose fault is that? Record companies have CHOSEN not to spend money on 
educating the public about what they do. The Malagasy musician Hanitra 
voluntarily spent some of her own money on music education to try to help 
people from her home village.
http://www.froots.demon.co.uk/valihahigh.html
http://www.froots.demon.co.uk/valihahigh_yr1.html
Notice that it was not her record company who did this, and so far they 
have not contributed a penny.

In Northern California, around the San Francisco / San Jose area, the 
Packard foundation made millions available in a 5-year grant because 
Packard (Hewlett-Packard) loved music and left money in his foundation for 
this purpose. All the schools in the designated counties were able to buy 
and hire instruments, hire teachers and so forth. The music industry, 
record companies, did not do this.

If record companies feel that they have a bad image then they can always 
institute an effective long-term strategy to counter that image.

> >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!
Not really. These are not really alternatives. All these are based on the 
current business model which has as its foundation the idea that the only 
real outlet for music is through the CD medium, which in its turn defines 
the concept of an exploitable right. It is the very idea of exploitable 
rights that surely needs examining.

That, at least, is a big part of the point I am trying to make.

>There's a reason why 85 percent or so (I
>should look it up) of all sales is done by the majors.
And ... there's a very good reason why the Chinese, Roman, Hittite and 
British Empires got so big. They killed everybody.

>  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.
Lack of competition comes to mind, to be honest. Constantly buying up 
anyone and anything upcoming and then dumping them when they don't "sell 
enough" comes to mind as another explanation!!


> > -- 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.
See above. You get signed. If you don't sell enough by your second album, 
you get dumped. Hard to build a solid career on this basis. Good luck to 
you Dido. Hope you're still there when your fifth album comes around.


> >Question: is it possible for
> >there to be music without record companies. In my view, yes.
> >
>Of course, see above.
Glad we agree. Not that I think our disagreements are that serious, by the 
way!! I'm just way more cynical, that's all, I think!!!

> > Question: is
> >it possible for there to be music without creators and players? In my view,
> >no.
> >
>Obviously. :-)
Where's that beer I promised you!!!


> > Therefore, record companies are wrong if they pretend that they are
> >somehow 'important' or 'vital'.
> >
>They are, because of the way the business works.
Excuse me ... but conceptually important is not the same as actually 
important. These days, we have mp3 files and the like. In my view, this 
means that record companies are no longer as conceptually important as they 
used to be. I do not deny their de facto economic importance in the present 
market, but the technology has really changed even in the last 5 years. 
Inevitably the industry will change slowly ... especially given that the 
LEGAL foundation of the current business gives to record companies a very 
central position. That position will have to be changed, and the legal 
foundation of record companies in so far as access to music is concerned 
also has to change. This requires either a legal challenge, or else an 
acceptance by the record companies that they need to find new ways of doing 
business. Personally, I think the former is the best way. The Statute of 
Anne, 300 years ago, really changed a few things!!

Also ... record companies are powerful enough to have LOBBYISTS. Therefore, 
whenever copyright legislation is about to be enacted, they lobby and 
campaign -- effectively -- to have the law amended in their favour. Judges 
are a bit harder to 'buy', but they try that too. Usually by hiring the 
best counsel available and so wearing down the opposition.

>As I said: 1 in 10
>artists succeed commercially in some way or the other.
Then maybe it's about time to do something about the way in which record 
companies conduct their business.

>someone has to
>carry that risk
How about those who don't make it!!

>and someone has to provide the financial means to carry
>the costs of giving music a chance.
True. All part of establishing a new business model. After all, it doesn't 
cost much to produce an mp3 file. I give it to a suitable Provisioner. I 
don't make many sales. End of discussion. Alternatively ... I make enough 
sales with my third-grade Provisioner for a second-grade one to say to me 
... we have a bigger set of distribution outlets. I say think you very much 
and negotiate with them. If things go well, one day I might be approached 
by Joeri Worldwide which is where the really big bucks are.


> >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.
What future? A future that is built on the model which declares that once 
you've signed a contract with a record company then you have signed away 
all your rights, even those in technologies that had not been invented at 
the time the contract was written. Sorry, but I think digital rights 
require a complete re-negotiation of things, and preferably between people 
who treat each other as equals.

>Why is it, do you think, that record companies invest billions of
>dollars to build and promote PressPlay, MusicNet & co?
Because they want to hang on to what they've got for as long as they can 
... and because if Rupert Murdoch and others of that ilk can make more 
money and rule over more people that's what they will do.

>And hey, nothing prevents any independent artists from stepping to those
>distributors.
You tried to get out a contract recently?

>Yes, record companies will get their share there as well,
>but then, they were the ones to set up a big platform for everyone.
Excuse me, but I think that's where we differ. I think the essential point 
here is that John Lennon and a few others wrote some really great songs. 
Let's go back to base camp for a while.

>Do
>you mind that WalMart makes money becayse they have created the
>infrastructure where you can find everything together? I don't.
Well ... I object strenuously when they try to charge me too much. If I 
have to, I'll take it up with my Member of Parliament and get a law passed 
about what monopolies can and cannot do.

I dare say one day in the not too distant future Rupert Murdoch will also 
run foul of this.


> >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.
To be honest, Joeri, I thought that's what I said. What I also said was 
that record companies will have to accept that they will occupy a steadily 
diminishing presence in the music dissemination business.

>  They
>als want the real world shopping experience.
I have never said otherwise.

>  They want it all. :-))
And since they are consumers ... that's exactly what they are entitled to 
... FOR A FEE.

> > Let them
> >download music wherever and whenever they want onto whatever hardware
> >player they like.
> >
>Sure. From a legal platform!!!
When did I EVER say otherwise?

>Not from Napster or not from Audiogalaxy.
Now ... what RECORD COMPANIES objected to was that RECORD COMPANIES were 
not receiving any money from Napster for the use of their product. As an 
artist, as long as I get paid, I don't care who pays me. Let Napster 
negotiate with me directly. The problem is that, at present, record 
companies are undeniably responsible for producing 100% (pretty much) of 
the music on Napster.

Please notice that the Statute of Anne did something very clever. It split 
things into two. Everything ever published up until 1710 was placed in the 
public domain. Anything released thereafter was subject to the new 
copyright provisions.  Can't do anything about all the stuff released up 
until 2002. The access of Napster to that does need to be negotiated. But 
... all the stuff released AFTER 2002 ... why should record companies be 
allowed all of that as well? That's the bit I don't get. Why can't Napster 
and other such organizations start negotiating with authors and authors' 
rights organizations about new and viable methods for the distribution of 
music? And once it's been settled what to do with NEW music, it will 
probably be settled what to do with the old.

>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.
Yes. I have NEVER denied that this is wrong, bad, and should be stopped. 
It's the compensation bit, though, and not the records bit I'm concerned with.


>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.
We shall sell. Personally, I think they'll BOTH have to rethink their 
positions because a new legal definition of music and the dissemination of 
music is required.


>Very interesting! I love this discussion as I'm currently doing a lot of
>research on these matters for my thesis.

I'm not! And, to be honest, I can't afford to write much more like this. I 
just happened to have a day off and I really have to get on with some of 
the other things I have to do.

Please don't take it averse if I don't reply much any more!!

Kool Musick
Keep Musick Kool


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com