"Keith G" wrote in message
. ..

"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...

In addition, one can easily tell a cheap counterfeit watch, or item of
clothing. Counterfeit CD's are clones of the original produced at next to
no cost.


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....

It's much much bigger than that.

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

I disagree but irrelevant anyway...

It's relevant because if they knew they were paying money for
a couunterfeit product they might not buy it. Very few people
can differentiate between a pirate CD and the genuine article.

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'....

Nothing unsubstantiated here. Read the BPI annual report.


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

Hopefully, who knows.

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

True.


In the case of CD's there are cheap and expensive labels.
The revenue of some companies in some areas would increase
20 fold if piracy were to be brought under control.


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'.

No-one is forced to buy a product


Iain

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
om...

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.

No. It means you don't get the £100 million payment for your work all at
once, but have to wait for it.

Tim

"Iain M Churches" wrote in message
...

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

What I find odd is the way the BBC seems to be promoting Itunes and other
similarly-priced download services, without mentioning the cheaper legal
services. When Itunes started up, the BBC reported it as the first
legally-available music download service for people in the UK; but I'd been
using emusic.com for years.

Emusic.com charges 10 dollars a month, for which you can download 40 tracks,
so it's a fraction of the price of Itunes etc.

Tim
..




;

Jim Lesurf wrote:
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.


Surely 'the work is done'? Leaving aside legalese, you're not making a
decision on the author's behalf - it's your decision to plagiarise,
attribute and/or profit. Whichever (unless the plagiarism is undetected)
you take the author to a wider audience.


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!


I suspect the LPs capture more of the essence :-) And I think your
anecdote nicely captures the nonsense copyright.

Iain M Churches wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message
. ..



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


I disagree but irrelevant anyway...


It's relevant because if they knew they were paying money for
a couunterfeit product they might not buy it. Very few people
can differentiate between a pirate CD and the genuine article.


I'm not sure about that. Depends how it's sold.

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'....


Nothing unsubstantiated here. Read the BPI annual report.


QED :-)


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


Hopefully, who knows.

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


True.


In the case of CD's there are cheap and expensive labels.
The revenue of some companies in some areas would increase
20 fold if piracy were to be brought under control.


And it might reduce 20 fold in the case of others. Your point?


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'.


No-one is forced to buy a product


Ah, the moral closure of markets. Please!


Iain

Rob wrote:

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.

Surely 'the work is done'? Leaving aside legalese, you're not making a
decision on the author's behalf - it's your decision to plagiarise,
attribute and/or profit. Whichever (unless the plagiarism is
undetected) you take the author to a wider audience.

Doesn't this make an assumption about how the artist expects to get paid?
The work may be done, but that doesn't mean that the doer of the work has
been paid, or paid in full.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:


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.


Surely 'the work is done'? Leaving aside legalese, you're not making a
decision on the author's behalf - it's your decision to plagiarise,
attribute and/or profit. Whichever (unless the plagiarism is undetected)
you take the author to a wider audience.


Sorry. It isn't clear to me what you are talking about as I can't decide
who terms like "your" in your statement refer to.

An author may or may not enter into an agreement with someone else w.r.t.
some of the copyrights of some/all of their work(s). If they do, then they
will be bound by that provided the other party also does so. If they do
not, then they can decide for themself how the work may be used by others.

If someone plagurises, then that is wrong. It is both immoral and illegal.
The UK law gives authors the right to assert that they are the author of
their work. It is illegal to pass off the work of others as your own
without getting specific permission.

[snip]


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!


I suspect the LPs capture more of the essence :-) And I think your
anecdote nicely captures the nonsense copyright.

I would put it differently. :-)

I would say that I would prefer the copyright laws to be such that if
someone has 'bought' the right to control/make copies then that right
depends on them actually showing they *are* willing to do so.

In fact, the copyright agreements I have with my old publisher (IoP)
include an equivalent statement. In effect, if they allowed one of books
to go out of print for a period, and declined to reprint, I can take back
the copyright and make other arrangements if I so desire. It would be nice
if a similar arrangement was common or required for musical recordings.
However the point here is that the copyrights involved would then revert to
the authors (composers and musicians) it would *not* simply become a 'help
yourself' for anyone who wanted to make a free copy and pay the authors
nothing.

*Unless* the persons owning the copyrights decided to permit this...

FWIW I have made about as much of my 'work' available on the web (free
access) as I have had published in books. I am also currently negotiating
to get the content of my books on the web for free access. However I expect
anyone who uses the work to do so in accord with some conditions. (Spelt
out on one of the 'Scots Guide' pages.) This is to avoid plagurism or
others simply making money out of other people who could access the work
for nothing.

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

"Iain M Churches" wrote


OK, I'll do the snipping - 6 indents is a bit more than I can take...!!


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

In addition, one can easily tell a cheap counterfeit watch, or item of
clothing.


You think so?


Counterfeit CD's are clones of the original produced at next to
no cost.


The 'pirate stuff' I've seen (only a couple of Chinese DVDs) is/was a damn
sight more obviously fake than the only 'replica' watch I've seen - which
was an exact copy of a gold Rolex I had at the time. From a few feet you
coudn't tell them apart.




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....

It's much much bigger than that.


So where are they sold then?



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

I disagree but irrelevant anyway...

It's relevant because if they knew they were paying money for
a couunterfeit product they might not buy it. Very few people
can differentiate between a pirate CD and the genuine article.


I don't agree. Where is this confusion taking place - in a brightly lit
music shop or in some dark car park behind a pub somewhere....???



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'....

Nothing unsubstantiated here. Read the BPI annual report.


Are you kidding?



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

Hopefully, who knows.



If the price of CDs came down, do you think they would sell more of them?



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

True.


In the case of CD's there are cheap and expensive labels.
The revenue of some companies in some areas would increase
20 fold if piracy were to be brought under control.



48% of all statistics are made up on the spot.....




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'.

No-one is forced to buy a product


'Take it or leave it'...???

"Tim Martin" wrote in message
...

"Iain M Churches" wrote in message
...

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

What I find odd is the way the BBC seems to be promoting Itunes and other
similarly-priced download services, without mentioning the cheaper legal
services. When Itunes started up, the BBC reported it as the first
legally-available music download service for people in the UK; but I'd
been
using emusic.com for years.

Emusic.com charges 10 dollars a month, for which you can download 40
tracks,
so it's a fraction of the price of Itunes etc.



Expect the BBC to become a lot more 'revenue aware' in the coming decade -
they need to pay for all these reporters and film crews that have to travel
all over the place so that they can stand outside some Magistrates Court
just to tell you some utter nonentity got fined for ****ing on his
neighbour's lawn....

"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,


Yes. Or even because the *exist* - many of the works published by Naxos are
simply not available else where and their are a lot more bands in the world
other than the LSO and BPO.....


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.


You want to buy music as an act of charity, go to a charity shop and buy it.
(They are obviously paying royalties on their sales..), otherwise try to
keep it real. A record/CD or whatever is a *product* that is sold for
profit. Those involved in 'big label/big money music' are in it for massive
financial gain, including the musicians who prefer to exploit a talent than
shovel **** for a living....

(If the MI will let them, that is.....)

Anyone seen 'Be Cool'....??