"Iain M Churches" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote


The MI works to the following set of rules:

Rule 1 - We will shaft you (CD prices in the UK etc.)

Have you considered that in some areas of the world (the former
Eastern bloc, and the FarEast) that pirate/counterfeit recordings
account for 95% of sales?


Only two things make 'counterfeiting' viable in my book - overpricing and/or
rareity...



Thinks what an effect that must have on prices of the genuine
article.


None whatsoever - the 'rigidity' of CD prices (pitched at whatever the
clowns in different countries will pay - UK being the highest AFAIK) is
greater than the rock of Gibraltar....



Rule 2 - You will not shaft us....

Piracy/counterfeiting is just that.


Yes...

(I didn't say their rules were never inviolated... ;-)

Iain, I've been down this road too many times now - AFAIC the whole 'piracy'
thing is fuelled by a greedy MI who can't/won't wake up to the fact that
life's changed since the advent of the WWW.

Fat, over the counter, take it or leave it pricing doesn't work for anybody
any more - if, for example, the MI pitched downloads at a reasonable price
(not identical for 'virtual' and 'real' CDs as they seem to be wanting) and
preached an educative 'pay us or we die' message instead of all the blood,
snot and tears they are putting into 'anti-piracy' I'm sure 95% of the pop
would pay up and go, rather than faff about trying to get it for nowt and
look silly/desperate to their peers...??

Old, fat, bling-encrusted, greedy hands round the throat of an industry who
can't/won't let go of the cash cows it has got used to having around....

(How many chimps can a fading pop millionaire nutcase use anyway...???)

"Keith G" wrote in message
. ..

"Iain M Churches" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote


The MI works to the following set of rules:

Rule 1 - We will shaft you (CD prices in the UK etc.)

Have you considered that in some areas of the world (the former
Eastern bloc, and the FarEast) that pirate/counterfeit recordings
account for 95% of sales?


Only two things make 'counterfeiting' viable in my book - overpricing
and/or rareity...

But even these circumstances do not make it permissible.
One can produce counterfeit CDs and colour copy the inlay
cards for a few pence each. This is an incredibly attractive
proposition for some, especially when they do not have to
make any outlay whatsoever regarding the cost of the original
recording.

People do this to fool the public, and make money with little or
no investment. Very few people can differentiate between a
genuine and counterfeit CD.

Interestingly enough, one of the most serious breaches of law is
the using of a company trade-mark without permission. I have
seen classical CDs for sale in Moscow, on the Decka label.

A common phenomena now is that one child in a school class buys
a CD, and makes 40 copies for his/her classmates!! You don't have
to have a degree in applied maths to see there is something wrong
the-)

Thinks what an effect that must have on prices of the genuine
article.


None whatsoever - the 'rigidity' of CD prices (pitched at whatever the
clowns in different countries will pay - UK being the highest AFAIK) is
greater than the rock of Gibraltar....

I think it would have a considerable effect. Currently the record
industry is spending huge amounts of money trying to fight piracy,
and also produce anti-piracy encryption systems.
The consumer pays the bill.


Rule 2 - You will not shaft us....

Piracy/counterfeiting is just that.


Yes...

(I didn't say their rules were never inviolated... ;-)

Iain, I've been down this road too many times now - AFAIC the whole
'piracy' thing is fuelled by a greedy MI who can't/won't wake up to the
fact that life's changed since the advent of the WWW.

Sorry, but whichever way to care to look at it, piracy/counterfeiting , be
it of a book,a painting or a recording, is theft.


Iain

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain M Churches
wrote:

"Keith G" wrote in message
...


There you go - you done it again! 'Sample' MP3s now removed from my
Show N Tell page!

I don't think anyone is going to clap you in irons and send you off to
spend the rest of your days in the hulks in Romney marshes because you
posted an .mp3 :-)

Take a look at UKRAV and the post entitled "Vinyl Rips" or whatever it
was called about six from the top. The site to which it referred
disappeared in a wisp of smoke within 24hrs.

There is a distinction to be made between "giving away" copies of your
*own* work, and "giving away" the work of others.

But even worse is to sell the work of others. Hence the phrase "for
financial gain" . This applied is the case of the UKRAV poster who
was offering "vinyl rips" for sale.

If the work is yours, you are quite entitled to decide to allow people
access for free - just as you are entitled to ask them to pay if they
want
a copy. But if the work is not yours, then you are not entitled to decide
on their behalf that they wish to work for nothing.

Even if the work is yours, usually the number of complementary
copies available to you is normally stipulated in the contract.



I think if the record industry wants you, or any of us for that matter
to advertise their wares, they will ask us:-)

I do find some of the behaviour of the record industry annoying. In
particular, their tendency to keep 'in the vaults' works which some of us
would *wish* to pay for and have a copy. [1] Thus I welcome the 'spur'
that
recordings eventually become re-copyable after a suitable time. Although
the musicians/composers may still be entitiled to payment, so this isn't
'public domain' in that sense.

[1] In my case, particularly annoying that EMI kept many Barbirolli
recordings 'out of print' for decades.

Yes, that is difficult to understand. It is not as if the demand was not
there. Such recordings have steady sales over a large number of years,
so one would think it would be to the advantage of the record company
to get them released a.s.a.p I wonder if there was some other reason.

Cordially,

Iain

In article , Iain M Churches
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...


There is a distinction to be made between "giving away" copies of your
*own* work, and "giving away" the work of others.

But even worse is to sell the work of others.

I would agree, although in either case, the creators of the work will have
been disadvantaged, and that would be the main concern for me. (Speaking as
an occasional author.)

If the work is yours, you are quite entitled to decide to allow people
access for free - just as you are entitled to ask them to pay if they
want a copy. But if the work is not yours, then you are not entitled
to decide on their behalf that they wish to work for nothing.

Even if the work is yours, usually the number of complementary copies
available to you is normally stipulated in the contract.

This would depend on any contract or agreements you had entered into
regarding the work. By saying the "work is yours" I was meaning the
copyrights remained with the creator. When I sign a book or article
copyright agreement I now longer have all the rights.



[1] In my case, particularly annoying that EMI kept many Barbirolli
recordings 'out of print' for decades.

Yes, that is difficult to understand. It is not as if the demand was
not there. Such recordings have steady sales over a large number of
years, so one would think it would be to the advantage of the record
company to get them released a.s.a.p I wonder if there was some other
reason.

In this case, there are reasons to think that there were. Various people
found over some years that there were a few individuals inside EMI who were
specifically reluctant to re-release Barbirolli recordings. Various reasons
have been suggested for this, but those involved were unwilling to say.
Society members who had relevant contacts were reluctant at that time to
publically criticise EMI for fear this would aggrivate the situation...
:-/

It may have grown out of the way Barbirolli and the Halle were sometimes
seen as 'second rank' with Boult and London Orchestras being 'first rank'
in terms of what works they were sheduled to perform and release, etc. This
may have developed into EMI re-issuing and promoting Boult (and other)
recordings and avoiding Barbirolli re-issues as being unwanted 'internal
competition' in terms of sales and promotion effort.

Whatever the reasons, the effect was clear if you were to note the dates
and frequencies of re-issues during, say, the first decade of CD
production, and compare 'competing' versions of various works recorded by
EMI.

In the end, there was a steady growth in interest in Barbirolli and the
Halle as a result of the Society re-issuing CDs with the help of Mike
Dutton and others. (I hope my website helped a bit with this, but can't be
sure.) The proven demand probably eventually helped encourage EMI to do
their own-label re-issues in due course. Pleased to say that a large amount
of the back catalogue has been available - in some cases in really
excellent versions that are clearer to enjoy than the old LPs!

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

The basis of all the payments is copyright. When the printing press was
introduced to Europe, I guess the possibility occurred of a printer taking a
successful books, and printing copies without paying anything to the author.

As the author may have gone to considerable expense to create the book - eg
paying an illustrator - which he expected to get back through sales, then
there was and is an argument that he should have some control over the
creation of copies.

The same applies now in music; those top-selling CDs are created by artists
who incur massive costs in studio time (maybe $50,000), promotional viodeo
(another $50,000), engineers' fees, equipment hire fees etc to create the
CD. They recover those costs through a royalty on sales. If the record
companies could make copies of any artists' work, they'd all make copies of
successful CDs without paying the artists, and so the artists' income would
fall, and so the record companies would not advance them loans, and so the
artists couldn't afford the studio fees and so on, and so you wouldn't get
CDs produced that had high initial expenses.

Have you read "The problem with music" by Steve Albini?

http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic.html

He gives figures showing how a band which makes a CD selling 250,000 copies
ends up owing the record company $14,000, while the record company makes
$710,000 profit. The band members themselves get paid $4000 each - and they
got new guitars, drumkits, etc.

"The band members have each earned about 1/3 as much as they would working
at a 7-11, but they got to ride in a tour bus for a month. "

Tim

"Iain M Churches" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
. ..

"Iain M Churches" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote


The MI works to the following set of rules:

Rule 1 - We will shaft you (CD prices in the UK etc.)

Have you considered that in some areas of the world (the former
Eastern bloc, and the FarEast) that pirate/counterfeit recordings
account for 95% of sales?


Only two things make 'counterfeiting' viable in my book - overpricing
and/or rareity...

But even these circumstances do not make it permissible.


Not the point. Overpricing and rareity *cause* the counterfeiting be it
music, watches, clothing or Vermeers...


One can produce counterfeit CDs and colour copy the inlay
cards for a few pence each. This is an incredibly attractive
proposition for some, especially when they do not have to
make any outlay whatsoever regarding the cost of the original
recording.


Yes. (Hardly 'news' though....)



People do this to fool the public, and make money with little or
no investment.


Yes, I'm sure some do - to flog at car boots and round the pubs....

(Never been to a car boot in my life, haven't been inside a pub for 5 years
or more - not true, I'm told, we had a meal in one about 3 years ago...)


Very few people can differentiate between a
genuine and counterfeit CD.


I disagree but irrelevant anyway...



Interestingly enough, one of the most serious breaches of law is
the using of a company trade-mark without permission. I have
seen classical CDs for sale in Moscow, on the Decka label.


Sure. The earliest case of this sort of thing I remember was 'Parner' pens a
number of decades ago...


A common phenomena now is that one child in a school class buys
a CD, and makes 40 copies for his/her classmates!! You don't have
to have a degree in applied maths to see there is something wrong
the-)


Iain, these unsubstantiated statements mean nothing to me. Express them as
opinion or belief by all means, but don't push them to me as 'factual'....



Thinks what an effect that must have on prices of the genuine
article.


None whatsoever - the 'rigidity' of CD prices (pitched at whatever the
clowns in different countries will pay - UK being the highest AFAIK) is
greater than the rock of Gibraltar....

I think it would have a considerable effect. Currently the record
industry is spending huge amounts of money trying to fight piracy,
and also produce anti-piracy encryption systems.
The consumer pays the bill.


What, if piracy ended tomorrow you think the price of CDs would come down?

If you look, I think you'll see the lessons have been learned with DVD
Video - the initially high prices (£30 a copy) have tumbled to about a third
of that for non-current stuff and even current blockbusters are half what
they were only a year or two ago. The 'movie' side has smelled the coffee
and knows it customer base generally has computer access and can shop
globally.

The point I make with CDs is that they have stayed the same price for
decades and, I believe, some have progressively increased..??

Ironic that some of the means to copy this stuff is manufactured/marketed by
firms with a vested interest in producing the 'software'!! (Sony)




Rule 2 - You will not shaft us....

Piracy/counterfeiting is just that.


Yes...

(I didn't say their rules were never inviolated... ;-)

Iain, I've been down this road too many times now - AFAIC the whole
'piracy' thing is fuelled by a greedy MI who can't/won't wake up to the
fact that life's changed since the advent of the WWW.

Sorry, but whichever way to care to look at it, piracy/counterfeiting , be
it of a book,a painting or a recording, is theft.


Never said it wasn't. But, in my book, so is overpricing (ie 16 quid for a
CD in the UK, 11 on the continent and 7 in the States for the same item) -
although more commonly called a 'rip-off'.

I have no sympathy with the MI - they *caused* their own problems with their
own greed. (Even worse is when these organisations have the brass arse to
manipulate legislation and enforce pricing controls on their outlets to
support their unending greed...)

I have a number of plain but perfectly fine classical CDs ('Autograph'
label) which cost 1.99 retail - I bought them by the handful. Funny thing
is - orchestras normally have more mouths to feed than pop groups, don't
they...??

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:26:46 +0300, Iain M Churches wrote:

snip

Doesn't a "percentage on sales" amount to the same thing as being paid
over and over again? The more they sell, the more the artist gets paid,
even though they only did the work once.

Good point. But would you think it right if a band were paid a flat
fee, say EUR 500 for a record that achieved platinum sales?

I understand this is how Naxos pays it artists.

/Martin

"Martin Schöön" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:26:46 +0300, Iain M Churches wrote:

snip

Doesn't a "percentage on sales" amount to the same thing as being paid
over and over again? The more they sell, the more the artist gets paid,
even though they only did the work once.

Good point. But would you think it right if a band were paid a flat
fee, say EUR 500 for a record that achieved platinum sales?

I understand this is how Naxos pays it artists.

/Martin


I am told by classical musicians who have worked for cheap labels
that they do not pay a rehearsal fee, and that the session fee is
a bare minimum. Hence cheap labels attract lesser known
conductors and orchestras. If their performances meet the
required standard of the listener, then these recordings are
good value for money.

Iain

In article , Keith G wrote:
"Furthermore, Naxos continues to record as economically today as it did when
the label first started. Overheads and staff costs are kept to the absolute
minimum when compared with the major record companies. No money is wasted on
unnecessary expenses such as large delegations of hangers-on at recording
sessions and expensive artist promotions."

At 4.99 a pop (for artists and works hard to find on the majors) guess what
label I have most of (not that I'm a big CD buyer)....??

I have quite a lot of their CDs too, not particularly for ideological reasons
but simply because many of the performances are very good, often as good as
anything you'll hear on one of the big name expensive labels. However, it is
gratifying to know that the performers are being properly rewarded fro their
efforts.

Rod.

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
om...
In article , Keith G wrote:
"Furthermore, Naxos continues to record as economically today as it did
when
the label first started. Overheads and staff costs are kept to the
absolute
minimum when compared with the major record companies. No money is wasted
on
unnecessary expenses such as large delegations of hangers-on at recording
sessions and expensive artist promotions."

At 4.99 a pop (for artists and works hard to find on the majors) guess
what
label I have most of (not that I'm a big CD buyer)....??

I have quite a lot of their CDs too, not particularly for ideological
reasons
but simply because many of the performances are very good, often as good
as
anything you'll hear on one of the big name expensive labels. However, it
is
gratifying to know that the performers are being properly rewarded fro
their
efforts.

Rod.

As far as classical recordings are concerned, it is of no consequence to the
orchestral players who pays the bill. They get paid the same session rate.
But conductors usually regard cheap labels as a means of gaining experience
and a stepping stone to a better label.

Iain