Recording Industry Testing Out New Theory: It Deserves More Money Because It Lets You Transfer Music
from the the-audacity-of-greed dept
William Patry has a long, but fascinating, discussion on the latest trick being used by the recording industry to try to squeeze more money out of you: telling governments that because it's now willing to let people transfer the music they legally purchased between devices, it deserves extra money for it. To back this up, it's claiming that there's obviously value in being able to transfer music around, otherwise why would people want that ability. The audacity of such a statement from the industry shouldn't be understated. After all, this is the same industry that has, for years, ignored pleas from fans all over the world to get rid of DRM because it would make digital files increase in value. And, now, that the industry has finally been forced to recognize this, it seems to be claiming that all of the value belongs to the industry itself, and it's the government's job to hand over that "value."The reasoning for this seems to go back to the psychological explanation for why the recording industry keeps getting itself into trouble (and it's similar to the story we had recently about bloggers worrying about a new aggregator). They assume that all of the "value" needs to be captured by them, and not anyone else. In economics, this is effectively an industry telling the government that it needs to be compensated for all of the positive externalities it created -- even if it's better off at an absolute level. Basically, the industry is so overvaluing its own content, that it assumes that any additional value that people get out of music, even if it's through no effort of the recording industry itself, should be entirely converted to more revenue for the industry. As an analogy, it's like your automobile maker demanding an ongoing cut of your salary, since without the automobile, you wouldn't be able to drive to work. Unfortunately, though, unless you're a copyright wonk, you might not even notice that the recording industry is trying to do this. Instead, it presents its case in a logical fashion, focusing on how much "value" it's suddenly creating by "allowing" people to transfer the music they already legally purchased to the device of their choosing.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, externalities, recording industry, taxes, value, william patry
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The industry created the problem because they tried to ignore what the consumer wanted. The consumers got it anyway, so now the industry's trying to make silly claims to get back some of the money they lost.
The solution is the same as always - give the customer what they want and the consumer will buy it. Just because they're finally meeting one demand (no DRM), it doesn't mean they're doing it all right and doesn't mean they're meeting all the consumer demands. Sitting back and going "wah! people are stealing" instead of meeting demand is what got them into this position in the first place.
As for the claims in the article:
"To back this up, it's claiming that there's obviously value in being able to transfer music around, otherwise why would people want that ability."
Yes, that's right. There's a definite value. I consider that value when I purchase music. I didn't buy DRM music because it didn't offer this value. I consider this ability to be already included in the price when I buy MP3s, just as I consider the resale rights of CDs to be included when I buy CDs.
Taking these rights away from me or trying to charge me extra for them will just result in lower sales as the product becomes less valuable. I really wish it wasn't so hard for people to understand this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what?
I think Mike is saying that the recording industry is trying to charge additional fees for music that you bought but want to transfer to say your iPod or other music playing device, not stealing music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unless they changed their minds, Apple dropped the price of their DRM-free tracks to $0.99 late last year to match Amazon's offering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My 'Value Recognition Strategy'
I want to sue the record company for the value of a suitable CD player.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My 'Value Recognition Strategy'
The value of the CD is that the record company is providing you with the ABILITY to play the music in a CD player. The cost is: the price of the CD.
The record company is then trying to argue that because you can now do MORE with the CD (as in copy it somewhere else), you should send them more money over the original price of the CD.
So, to go with the car analogy again: you buy a car for a certain price, then realize you can use the car for more than you originally intended so you should give the car manufacturer more money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:Nick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
to Luke and DanC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid music industry trying to get someone else to earn their revenue for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stupid RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is in the UK folks
The other interesting bit in the article is that most of the UK music industry "losses" are not due to piracy but due to the "unbundling" of CDs into individual digital tracks. In other words, they count the fact that you don't have to buy a full albums worth of dreck to buy the one good song off iTunes that you wanted as a net loss. Bought one song for $1, didn't buy the other nine for $9, therefore it's a loss of $8. Mindbogglingly "creative" accounting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is in the UK folks
Unfortunately, there's no reliable indicator what what would have happened if the internet wasn't available - e.g. would the people buying the $1 song instead of the $10 album have bought the full album if the single download wasn't available? the assumption on the industry's part always seems to be "yes", I'm not so sure.
Either way, it's typical that instead of looking at exactly why the other tracks on the album aren't selling so well (quality probably being a big factor), they instead revert to legal action for "losses".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stop paying for music
Hmm. I wonder if that would work for taxes too...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nature of the Beast
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not yours anymore
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not yours anymore
Actually, this isn't true anymore. Many companies are now stating if a consumer alters its products in any way, the consumer is liable.
Take a look at the recent changes Microsoft did to XBox360 modders. If the patch catches anything out of the ordinary, Microsoft effectively shuts the box down.
Sony is also doing this with the PSP and PlayStation 3.
In the software world (and we've all seen articles here), if a consumer changes code, there's trouble on the horizon because of it.
There's no such thing as true ownership when it comes to "intellectual" property. Companies suing companies and consumers to protect this "property" is a clear sign ownership is long dead.
Even the used CD you own isn't yours despite any claim to the contrary. Sure, you can sell it or loan it out, but actually taking a copy of the source, converting it, and distributing it to other devices is where the industry wants you, the consumer, to pay for it.
I tend to agree it's a bad decision by the industry, but they're going to get their way. Just as they have with DRM, initial pricing, and distribution.
And the sheople will go along with it because they have no alternative.
In order for the system to change, steps must be taken:
1) Recording artists must realize the stupidity of their managers to go along with any practice that makes it difficult for consumers to obtain their music. Any managing unit supporting RIAA should be abandoned by the artist.
2) Consumers must stop buying music until the industry gives in. Sure, it's nice to have a song to listen to when you want to, but as long as the money continues to flow, the industry won't change.
3) Consumers must educate themselves to understand the difference between a manager and an artist and how revenues are split between them. Then, and only then, will consumers understand why bands tend to favor managers who can get them radio play. $0.25 of $1.00 (guestimate here, folks) beats $0.00 any time.
As long as people think $24.99 is a cheap price for a distributed product that costs $2.92 to make, the less change will happen.
Enjoy your music, folks. Expect to pay more for it next year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My example from Finland:
Teosto/NCB AND Gramex ask dj's/radio stations and such to pay a "mechanization fee" when using their own records in other formats.
Yes, two separate organizations.
http://www.teosto.fi/en/index_en.html
http://www.gramex.fi/
For example, when they're moving albums from compact discs into their hard disk-based systems.
They are also trying to get all hard disks under taxation, no matter what their use is.
Blank media has already been taxed for ages, including cd/dvd's, flash ram inside mp3/media players, discs used in PVR's and such. And of course the fee is raised every year.
Example prices for a DJ:
Gramex:
# of tracks, fee in euros per year
1-300, 200 €
301-500, 220 €
501-700, 240 €
over 700, 1.28euros EACH!
Plus tax, 22%
Teosto:
4% from ticket prices.
+ other fees that apply the restaurant etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just because the are saying this does not make it true. The have no legal right to do this. In your example with Microsoft, this is more of a "code is law" thing that Lessig talks about in Code and Code 2.0. But just like the record companies saying that a promo CD is their property simply by printing this on the insert does not make it true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People who badmouth and rape people in the music industry are stupid and dishonest.
By the way, I support file sharing, and freely downloading music, and the "infinite goods = zero marginal cost = zero price" truth. I think its because I support the truth. Honesty, people. Honesty. Even if you feel the industry hasn't been honest with you - it doesn't matter. Be honest, people. You are fucking up the industry. Embrace it or shut up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Either be honest, or shut up - You are stealing.
By the way, I support file sharing, and freely downloading music, and the "infinite goods = zero marginal cost = zero price" truth. I think its because I support the truth. Honesty, people. Honesty. Even if you feel the industry hasn't been honest with you - it doesn't matter. Be honest, people. You are fucking up the industry. Embrace it or shut up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]