[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] Mercury co-founder Irving Green passes
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" <insuranceman@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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