LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  July 2006

ARSCLIST July 2006

Subject:

Re: Mercury co-founder Irving Green passes

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 9 Jul 2006 10:49:06 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (68 lines)

I betcha before my kind of system gets implemented, Bob Ohlsson's vision of a wide variety of 
availability via digital downloads will happen. I think, when a copyright owner understands WHAT 
they have (a big problem with the current crop of mega-glomerates, but it may be mitigated with time 
if the consolidation wave has truly settled), they generally WANT to sell it. My fear is that the 
current iTunes/MP4 format will be deemed "good enough" and become an unstoppable standard -- the 
same fear the people who felt CD's were "inferior" had. However, I think most mildly discriminating 
ears will agree the iTunes format, and more so MP3, IS inferior, at least for anything recorded in 
high fidelity. Totally agree with Bob about the CD business model -- manufactured, packaged, 
retailed discs are the walking dead.

There's an interesting day coming, a transition moment. That will be the year where more portable 
digital playback systems are sold than CD players. I'm talking about combo of portable, home and car 
units. That will be like the year that more CD's than cassettes and LPs combined were sold. When 
something like that happens, there's officially been a format change.

I guess I'd predict that, short term, anything except the most mainstream of material will soon be 
digital-only, and probably in a lesser format that 44.1/16-bit CD audio. Long-term, perhaps a better 
digital format will become available if not standard, and a wider variety of reissue material is 
likely to be available. I get the impression that all but the most myopic of copyright holders feel 
that the iTuunes model, for the most part, works. And all but the most ardent "free information" 
users feel the restrictions on duplication and access are doable for them. I think the pricing will 
come down for the lower-resolution format and the day might come when CD quality (or better) costs 
$1 per song, which would then be a fair price in my estimation. Right now it's a ripoff because you 
pay almost the same as Amazon prices for a packaged CD in order to get use-restricted, 
inferior-sounding, no packaging/liner notes.

-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "phillip holmes" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mercury co-founder Irving Green passes


>I don't think that perpetual copyright is a bad thing if something were implemented like you 
>suggest.  Otherwise, I'm afraid that we could see works disappear completely.  Kind of like a 
>"tragedy of the commons" where everyone uses a natural resource but neglect the upkeep.  It's the 
>denial of access that's definitely wrong.  The artists didn't produce their product for some 
>moronic imbecile to hide it in a bunker.  I doubt that a system like you suggest will happen with 
>the current group of business friendlies in charge of things.  Their model is short sighted. 
>They're shooting themselves in their feet.  If there was some agreement that allowed an upfront 
>royalty payment, who'd lose?  If there was a model that allowed for a reissue after the work had 
>been out of print, or orphaned, and royalties were paid to either the copyright owners or some 
>vague clearing house that could hold the money in escrow for claimants, who'd get wronged?  The 
>answer is obvious.  Everyone would benefit.  Even the largest of outfits don't have the manpower 
>and resources to go through their vast back catalog and figure out which recordings SHOULD be 
>reissued.  With a tiny outfit coming in, footing the production costs, issuing something that is 
>out of print, and generating a new market, it'd be like the big outfit hiring a subcontractor to do 
>work for them.  A new market for them.  A new revenue stream too.  But I'm not holding my breath 
>that lawmakers would force something like this.
> Phillip
>
>> Now, what I would like to see is a more reasonable copyright system. One idea I've had is, 
>> perhaps 35-40 years exclusive copyright on something with perhaps up to 15 years renewal if it 
>> remains in print throughout the whole period. If, during the copyright period, something is out 
>> of print 5 years or more, another party may pay a royalty and have access to a reasonable 
>> facsimile of the master for reissue. I'd even support up-front reissue-rights payment with a 
>> smaller royalty paid on each item sold, which would protect copyright owners from fly-by-nights 
>> and people with big ideas but small wallets and little common sense. Under this system, it would 
>> be in the copyright owner's interest to provide a good quality version to the 3rd party so as to 
>> maintain the value of their product even if they themselves don't have it in print for one reason 
>> or another. Under this system, no matter what, after that 15 year extension -- max -- the content 
>> goes into PD. Big copyright owners will say that doesn't give them enough time to amortize risks, 
>> but I say they take few risks these days anyway. This would apply to music, books, movies and 
>> other copyright items (including software and games). Now I'll duck as the tomatos fly!
>>
>> -- Tom Fine 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager