Conference mr1pst::music

    Are used CD's a big item in places that also sell new?  I see it mostly
    in used record shops, etc.

    I see used CD's mostly in indie record stores that also sell lots of
    new stuff - not alot of chains caarry them, though . . .
    
    
    						Jim
    

What are they worried about?  90% of used CDs being sold should never have
been made in the first place.  It's not like you're going to find the
latest releases by the 100s at a used cd store.

It is fun to find a "classic" in a used cd store, but most of the stuff in
there is going to be there a while.  

Tim

    Re: .1
    
    At least one store I know of (City Hall Music, Marlboro, MA) intermixes
    used CDs with new ones in the same bin.  It's pretty obvious when I see
    a BMG Music Service copy of some album for $7.98 versus a longboxed
    copy for $14.98.  They even shrinkwrap the used ones!
    
    It's mostly "mom and pop" or indie stores doing it, the chains can't
    really be bothered.  So they are out to squeeze these small places
    which are selling the used stuff just to remain competitive.
    
    						Brian

    Brian,
    
    they sell the used ones mixed in with the new ones??  are they at least
    labelled as "used"?? 
    
    					Curious,   Jim
    

    Brian,

    Any companies mentioned by name? Sounds like a price fixing and/or
    restraint of trade situation to me. The FTC should breath fire down
    their necks on this. I think they're on very shaky footing here. They
    make me ill.

    --Ron

First off, the big chains ARE in the used CD business, it's not just the 
mom-and-pop stores. Strawberries (the biggest chain in New England) has
a used CD store in Harvard Square. Tower Records out in CA buys and sells 
used CDs. Musicland is also experimenting with used CDs in some stores.

The major labels have been complaining about this for some time now - already,
several of the labels (forget which ones, PGD and CEMA maybe?) have said that
they will not pay for advertising which also mentions that the store sells
used CDs. This is really hurting some of the smaller stores that rely on
record company money for advertising.

Part of this problem is that Sony Records refuses to allow retailers to send
back opened product (ie. defective or returned CDs). Their reasoning was that
since actual CD defects only run at about .1%, they just gave everyone a credit
of 1% on all purchases to absorb that loss and said "no more returns of any
kind". So now there is lots of opened Sony product (from customer returns, 
supposed defects, opened for in-store play, damaged in shipping, etc.) that 
you either sell used, or just throw away. Guess what the chains are doing?? 8^)

alan

    
    Manufacturers of CD's first claimed the technology was expensive and
    the sale price was paying to recoop the initial cost of manufacture.
    Of course they didn't say they would reduce their prices afterward.
    It's the artists who will suffer if the prices remain as high as they 
    are.
    
    There are few (if any) franchise or chain retail stores in my area
    that carry used stock.  It's the smaller stores that are making a buck
    and Gaawd Bless'em.  I *rarely* buy a disc at full retail and would opt
    for used if it were available.
    
    Tim 

    I don't know of anyone in my area (Leominster) that sell used CD's
    but if there was I would go and check it out.  I rarely buy CD at
    full price.  I always wait until something I want comes on sale.
    Or, I buy through my record club since I can buy 1 CD and get one
    at half price, and with shipping it usually comes out to be about
    $11.99 which is still better than $15.99.  
    
    I thought that the record companies where stop making the long
    boxes (environmental reasons) and come out with something more
    compact.  Wouldn't that make the price cheaper - not that the
    store would lower their prices or anything.  
    
    Mo
    

    
    If you are interested in acquiring used CD's, try any pawn shop.
    Not only are the CD's cheaper than most "USED" bins, but you are 
    much more likely to find more current CD's that listening to
    as opposed to the rare "oldie" you might find in the "USED" bin.
    
    PS- Pawn shops are also the best place to pick up used video game 
        cartridges relatively cheap.
    
    
    /Billy_K

Why the hell do the record companies care about used CD's?  They already made
their royalties from the initial sale of the CD, and that's all their
marketeers put into their spreadsheets when they come up with projected profit
numbers for each release.  They're not entitled to royalties for subsequent
private sales of CD's amongst music buyers and music stores.

Capitalism really upsets me sometimes.

adam

    i think the record companies assume you would buy
    a 'new' copy of the CD (money in their pocket) 
    if the 'used' copy were not available.
    
    what next, royalties for taping a CD :-)

> what next, royalties for taping a CD :-)

Leave out the smiley face- that's exactly what was proposed for DAT tapes. (I
lost the thread on the eventual outcome, for various reasons.) The idea was that
a surcharge on the sale of every DAT tape would be distributed among performing
artists and record/CD/cassette publishers as compensation for anticipated
pirating of their material via DAT.

Though the outcry among hobbyist recording folk (such as are found in COMMUSIC)
was great, the public at large seemed quite apathetic, and when I last heard
anything about this proposal it seemed destined to become law.

Like I said, not funny...

Bob

    Re: .13
    
    Surprise, it *is* law.  It was passed just before the end of the last
    Congressional session, by a *hand vote* so your congressman's votes are
    not registered.  Sweet.  
    
    This is the deal:
    
    1. Surcharge on all digital recording devices up to a specified ceiling.
    
    2. Surcharge on all blank digital recording media.
    
    The money gets distributed using some formula based on who sells the
    most albums, and the split is (get this) 60% to the record company, 40%
    to the artists.
    
    							Brian

    re: .11 Adam Siegel
    
> Why the hell do the record companies care about used CD's?  
    
    A lot of people (myself included) look for used copies, and then
    if they can't get it used, they buy new.  Point being, they get no
    money from sales of used CD's and to make matters "worse" each sale 
    of a "used" CD is a potential lost sale of a new CD that they do
    get money for.
    
    > They're not entitled to royalties for subsequent private sales of CD's
    > amongst music buyers and music stores.

    Oh, I dunno.
    
    There certainly seems to be plenty of people in here who think that
    artists should get money for subsequent sales of concert tickets
    and cite the fact that they don't as an "immoral" property of
    scalping.
    
    	db

    a dumb analogy.
    
    i sell my 87 honda civic.
    i have to share the money with honda cuz they sold me
    the new one.  i think NOT!

    The record companies charge me for what they "know" I'll use the tape
    for.
    
    Since I've already paid the agreed upon royalty, am I no longer a
    pirate if I make tapes for friends? After all, the record companies
    aren't losing any money due to my copying...
    
    Edd

    
    >  a dumb analogy.
    > i sell my 87 honda civic.
    
    royalties are diff than plain $ paid for something like a car.
    
    Royalty payments may have provisions for resale and type of resale or
    transfer of technology or duplication.
    
    when you sell the Honda, you are selling the actual thing. When you
    sell a CD, aren't you selling the right to own a copy of a copyrighted
    thing. It doesn't necessarily mean you now have the right to reproduce
    it and/or resell it. Isn't CD/music sales more in line with software
    sales, and not car sales ??
    
    Bob
    

    This nonsense was proposed for VCRs and VCR tape as well but it failed
    then.  It is not capitalism when someone petitions the government and
    succeeds in getting wealth transferred to them by decree.   
    
    Mark my words, one day soon you will pay a hefty royalty on musical
    instruments because while you are playing them, you are not listening
    to recorded music (so they are losing revenue), or you may be playing
    some artist's material without paying them.
    
    Logic is irrelevant when the government is in your pocket.
    \Gary

    re: .18 Paluses  "Roaylty vs Sale"
    
    Bob is on the right track.
    
    What entitles them to a royalty is the "copyright" that they hold
    on the recording.   The car manufacturer does not hold a copyright
    right on the car.
    
    "Copyright" means pretty much as it sounds: the right to copy.
    

    I absolutely agree that the tape tax is unfair and an abuse of
    government.
    
    However, I do have sympathy for the money that is lost to piracy and
    from my own observation, I suspect the the dollar losses are fairly
    significant.   And I do believe they have every right to try and
    FAIRLY get that money.  But the tape tax is "two wrongs".
    
    We've been thru this before in MUSIC.  After this note, we'll probably
    get a thousand notes saying things like:
    
    	o "I never pirate tapes"
    	o or "I make a copy off a friend and if I like it I buy it, and if I
    	  don't I re-record over the copy."
    	o or (my personal favorite) "I wouldn't have bought it anyway
          so they aren't losing any money"
    
    that imply that no one at Digital ever pirates tapes.  But all I can
    say is that almost everyone I know whose taping practices I'm familiar
    with has lots of pirated tapes.   

Does this same surcharge apply to tapes intended for use with computer
data??  And if so, how did they rationalize that?

-Doug, eyeing a possible loophole

    I don't see the need for a loophole.
    
    By virtue of buying the tape, you are paying the royalties due the
    artists whose work you are about to copy. The record companies lobbied
    for this.
    
    The record companies should give you a break. You're acting as an
    independant distribution channel. You're dessiminating their product, 
    paying the royalties, and all at no cost to them.
    
    Edd

    Well, I suppose I've done my fair share of home recording over the
    years (haven't we all?) and my record/tape/CD collection, which is pretty 
    large by now, contains a *lot* of secondhand stuff (especially the CDs).
    
    I try to justify this policy by buying at least one full price album 
    by each artist whose music I've taped (or bought secondhand).
    Alternatively, I try to get to see the artist live (paying good money, of 
    course). Sure, the record companies wouldn't send me Christmas cards if
    they knew, but at least I sleep soundly at night ;-)
    
    I dunno, is there any consumer good that's quite as overpriced as the
    CD (in Europe anyway)? I can't believe anyone on a normal salary can
    afford to buy everything they like *full price*. In any case, I'd be
    hard pushed to even *find* much of the stuff I've bought over the
    years, outside of dingy little secondhand shops!
    
    One question for the retail experts here: what's the split on records
    that find their way into the bargain bins? Who loses out most, the record
    company or the artist? Or does everyone get a lower cut?
    
    Cheers,
    
    Dom
    the stuff I

    re: .21  Dave Blickstein
    
    Yes, there are people out there who violate both law and contract in
    their unauthorized duplication of recorded music.
    
    THOSE people should be dealt with.  
    
    What inevitably happens is that the entire "community" pays for the
    sins of the few, sometimes in the way of restrictions (SCMS), or other
    times in actual dollars that we pay over and above the 'fair market
    value' of recorded media, devices,  blank media, or even live
    performance.  This is justice?  This is equity?
    
    Gun control is another example of the same thing --- don't get me
    started! ;7) --- but with deadlier consequences.
    
    This kind of pre-emptive justice is a lot MORE wrong than a million
    pirate studios.
    \Gary

    The way bargain bins works is this:
    
    Record companies used to accept sealed albums back from stores as
    credit (used to be 100%, now I think returns are limited to a
    percentage of the order totals).  Anyway, if an album was a dog and
    the company made too many copies, they "cut them out".  Often this
    means the album is being deleted from the catalog, but in some cases,
    it means there is just a temporary overstock.
    
    Anyway, the cutouts are marked, usually with a punch or cut in the 
    jacket to mark it as a return.  The company then sells these as
    *scrap*.  *No royalties are paid* since these were never "sold"!!!  But
    of course, some jobber buys the scrap, sticks $3.99 stickers on 'em and
    sells them to stores.  So you buy the album, and the artist gets *zero*
    for that copy.
    
    I have no problem with buying cutouts, but I do wince sometimes when I
    consider that some artists who I really love are represented in my
    collection mostly by cutouts.
    
    Other copies that have no royalties paid:
    
    1. Promo copies sent to radio stations, newspaper, magazines and
    stores.  Many of these end up in used record stores.
    
    2. "Free" copies from record club offers.  Also, royalty rates for
    record club copies may be lower than that for store copies (why the
    Beatles have *never* been offered through clubs).
    
    3. "Damage"!!!  As part of a contract, the company may specify that
    some percentage of total copies shipped are earmarked as "damaged
    goods", whether they get sold or not.  The idea is that *some* copies
    will get damaged in shipment and the company will have to replace
    these at their expense.  Of course, this percentage is usually higher
    than the actual number of damaged copies!  
    
    The general idea is that record companies have their butts covered and
    always get *their* money back, but the artist ends up in the hole if the
    album stiffs.  Capitalism in action.  Anybody ever hear the Frank Zappa
    concert routine where he gets an audience member up on stage, asks him
    if he'd like a record contract, and if the answer is "yes" has a pair
    of dominatrixes whip the guy?  
    
    
    							Brian

>    What inevitably happens is that the entire "community" pays for the
>    sins of the few, 
    
    I think the implication of what I said was that I don't believe
    that tape piracy is "the sins of the few".
    
    Y'know, it seems like I'm always the iconoclast in here in that I
    always advocate a different way to "fight".  I guess I'm about to do
    it again:
    
    I think the way to fight the tape tax is to create a test case of
    some kind.  Someone should start a NON-PROFIT business copying records
    for people onto tape.  The catch is that they should retain proof that for
    every tape they produce the tape tax has been paid.
    
    The goal is to get the record companies to bring a copyright violation
    lawsuit against this person.  The defense should be that the tape tax
    in effect GRANTS them the license to copy.
    
    The point being is that we should turn the tables on the record
    companies by turning the tape tax into an absolute license to pirate
    tapes and to get people doing it so that it cuts down on record
    sales (which of course, has the undesirable side-effect of hurting
    artists so...).
    
    I'm sure that they would lose more money to lost sales than they would
    gain from the tape tax.

RE: Edd

>The record companies charge me for what they "know" I'll use the tape
>for.

I would resent this tax. Nobody but 'me' would know what I would be using
the tape(s) for. I just bought two dat tapes to get a mixdown of a song
*my* band wrote and recorded.  There's no record company involved here,
and the tape is not reproduced material. (Edd, this is not a shot at you
but your comment sparked this thought).

So these fackin' bigshots get royalties off MY STUFF and they paid
none of my recording expenses?!?!  I'm paying extra to make my own
music?!?! 

Droid

"Been Caught Stealing, once..."  NOT!  ;^)

    > I would resent this tax. 
    
    So should everyone.
    
    The record companies (and the lawmakers in bed with them) don't care
    what you use the tape for, you must pay for the sins of others.
    
    Everytime you mix a new master, you put money in Madonna's pocket.
    
    Edd 

-1 Ack!! Of all people you mention Madonna! THE most non-deserving
   person for anyone's cash  ;^)


   

    The artistic merits of Madonna aside, thank your legislators...
    
    Edd

    Though I'm not defending the tape tax, it will actually SAVE me LOTS
    OF money.
    
    As I mentioned in another note, I believe one HAS to regard this tape
    tax as an OUTRIGHT LICENSE TO MAKE PIRATE COPIES.
    
    Once in effect, there is no longer any moral or legal compulsion to buy
    the original record because I will have paid the royalties via the
    tape tax.   
    
    I can fit $30 worth of recording onto a $3 cassette tape (how many CD's
    fit onto a DAT tape and how much does such a tape cost?).   The tape
    tax has given me a 90% discount!!!!!
    
    I also wonder if this means that MUSIC can now legally offer a "tape
    swapping" note.
    
    Another thing: it can be thought to increase my power as a consumer.
    
    I look at it this way.  The Madonna album I tape instead of buy is
    not only lost money from the CD sale, but she also loses a "share"
    in the revenues from the tape tax.
    
    The Steve Morse (my favorite struggling artist) CD I buy is not only a
    royalty paid direct to him, but also INCREASES his share in the tape
    tax revenue.
    
    So the effect of the tape tax is that my decision to tape a recording
    doubly screws the artist, and my decision to BUY the recording is
    a double bonus for the artist.

    re: db
    
    I've been touting that interpretation for some time.
    
    In spite of that, it's only the wishful thinker in me that actually
    believes it. I'd wager pirate tapes will be deemed illegal for {insert
    some other reason}.
    
    Remember, you have to pay a tax on all the marijuana plants you grow,
    but doing so don't make it legal...
    
    ...love to see the test case happen though.
    
    Edd (who paid $17 for "Kamakiriad" Tuesday and doesn't wonder why
         bootlegging happens at that price...)

>    I'd wager pirate tapes will be deemed illegal for {insert
>    some other reason}.
    
    That why I said we need a "test case".  I want to "test" my idea
    on how to either get the law struck down or to have pirating tapes
    be "deemed" legal.  And the argument I would use is...
    
    Well, let me explain by answering the next question.
    
>    Remember, you have to pay a tax on all the marijuana plants you grow,
>    but doing so don't make it legal...
    
    The analogy is not valid IMO.  The tax on tape is directly intended
    to collect royalties.  In fact, it's almost not even a "tax" per se
    but (what should be) a "private fee" that is collected by the
    government.  
    
    If they were to sue the "pirater" for nonpayment of royalties, the
    legal argument I would make is that the charge is preposterous because
    the royalties HAVE been paid.
    
    And if I lost the case, I would argue that the amount due is the
    royalty they get for a CD *** LESS THE TAPE TAX ***.   Even that would
    be a smaller victory.

    > analogy not valid...
    
    It wasn't supposed to mesh 100%. My point was that you conformation
    with the law doesn't make you legal in all cases. 
    
    "Your honor! I paid the pot tax!"
    
    		"Growing pot is illegal. Bailiff..."
    
    "Your honor, I paid the royalties!"
    
    		"Copyright infringement is illegal. Bailiff..."
    
    The law is based on faulty logic. That makes it difficult to apply
    logic in defense...
    
    Edd

>    "Your honor! I paid the pot tax!"
>    
>    		"Growing pot is illegal. Bailiff..."
>    
>    "Your honor, I paid the royalties!"
>    
>    		"Copyright infringement is illegal. Bailiff..."
    
    If I can prove I paid the pot tax, I have NOT proved that I did NOT
    grow pot (which is illegal).
    
    If I can prove I paid the royalties, I HAVE proved that I did not
    infringe on the copyright.
    
    My point is that the "pot tax" argument is a totally preposterous
    argument and that the "tape tax" argument is clearly defensible
    (i.e. you have even agreed with that interpretation - the only
    issue is whether a court would).
    
    Have a nice long weekend.   But don't let me catch you near a tape
    recorder. ;-)
    
    	db

    > I paid the royalties... I did not infringe upon the copyright.
    
    {Insert standard "I'm no lawyer" speech...}
    
    I see two areas that can be run afoul of; the payment of royalties is
    one. Copyright ise other. Even though you've paid the royalties via
    the tape purchase, I contend you still have no authority to distribute
    the tapes past the provisions of fair use. 
    
    I suspect you'd be guilty of copyright infringement, but innocent of
    failing to pay royalties. (In the pot analogy, you'd be guilty of
    cultivation, but not of tax evasion.)
    
    There is another case I'm reminded of. In MA it's illegal to do your
    own plumbing.  A homeowner wanted to become a test case and invited
    the authorities to watch him install a faucet. He was cited, but they
    soon dropped the "no license" charge and cited him for code violations.
    Which stuck.
    
    Clun owners pay "royalties" to ASCAP/BMI fo rthe use of music in their
    establishments. Do you think they have carte blanche to distribute the
    music?
    
    The law is poor, we agree. But I suspect better legal minds than you or
    I saw this loophole a long time ago and are confident of their ability
    to stop what they believe is an illegal activity.
    
    Have a safe holiday!
    
    Edd

    
    Seems like making tape recording illegal goes against human nature.
    The simple fact is that we have progressed to being able to produce a 
    cheap copy of an LP/CD/other tape.  People will use the medium.
    
    You can outlaw the deed, but the only way is to make it "work" is to
    make it illegal to construct tapes (or tape decks).  So we'd have this 
    technology that we'll just legislate away.  It's sort of absurd.
    
    I think the tape tax is about the only way to deal with it.  It
    personally hurts me since I only copy my own primary media for use
    in my car/walkman.  If I want some music, I always buy the LP/CD.
    For me, it's a longevity issue - tapes get cruddy after time.  Still,
    I know most people are gonna make copies of friends' stuff.  But I can
    live with the tax/royalty fee/whatever, and the making of it legal.
    
    It is surely better than all this "write-once" crap their trying
    to produce that's nothing more than bunch of technology designed to
    circumvent human nature (and for which some entrepeneur will invent
    a black market override box :^))
    
    - Sean

    OK Edd,  I see your point.  It's a definite flaw in the example.
    
    I'll bet I can come up with a better test case.
    
    Perhaps a "tape swapping club" whose purpose is explicitly to
    facilitate piracy - it probably has to be non-profit?
    
    That is, the club itself doesn't do the piracy, but it connects people
    and the CD's they want to tape and have a priviso in the membership
    agreement that "you must pay the tape tax" or something like that.

    Of course, a simple case is to have someone wave a sworn statement in
    the record companies face admitting to having taped, oh say, a thousand
    or so recordings but also saying that the tape tax was paid.

    I was in my local full service record store Saturday and they had a
    stack of letters/surveys to send to some cat at WEA to protest the
    strong-arm tactics (actually it implied that WEA had not decided what
    to do yet, as if some labels already had).
    
    BTW, this store will not sell the demo-marked CDs (they have players
    available) but does sell used CDs.
    
    This whole thing stinks.
      
    The db/Edd discussion was thought-provoking to me... because I agree
    that it is pre-emptive justice.  They have already decided that they
    are sure that I will abuse the tape I am buying, so they are extracting
    money from me EXPRESSLY FOR THAT PURPOSE, no?  So if I abuse the tape,
    I have paid the fine in advance, and if I do not, then I am paying for
    the sins of others (whether the 'few' or the 'many' is moot).
    
    Once again, this is not capitalism.  This is government interference
    with capitalism, and abuse of authority.  There IS a difference.
    \Gary

    Putting 2 and 2 together, I can only draw the conclusion that a
    shopowner selling secondhand CDs stands to make notably more than a
    retailer (little or no taxes to be paid, zero payments to the artist,
    record company, etc.).
    
    Harking back to an earlier note about royalty payments on NEW CDs (or
    albums), can anyone explain exactly what happens in the case of:
    
    1) A deceased artist for whom royalty liabilities have expired (say,
       Robert Johnson)
    2) A deceased artist for whom royalties have NOT expired (say, Jimi
       Hendrix)
    3) A now defunct group (say, the Doors). 
    
    What I'm getting at is this: who am I helping by purchasing the Robert
    Johnson boxed set new, rather than secondhand?
    
    Frankly, I feel differently about putting cash into the pockets of CBS
    and Warner Bros. on the one hand, and Stiff and Rough Trade on the
    other.
    
    Dom

    DAT royalties probably miss the mark.  I have absolutely no facts on
    hand, but I've gotten the impression over the years that the real
    piracy problem is tape factories in Asia pumping out large volumes
    and sneaking it into various markets.  Not home taping.
    
    Such pirates would bypass any DAT royalties.  Now lets get real cynical 
    and suggest that they are connected to record company scum in shadowy
    ways...
    
    
    
    re: .42
    
    >> 3) A now defunct group (say, the Doors). 
    
    rest assured that Someone owns the rights to the Door's songs - and I
    would guess that for a song with 4 composers (were any of their songs
    so credited?), each of the 4 shares could be different - Manzarek may
    have kept his rights, Morrison's heir(s) may have kept his, Krieger
    might have sold his to Michael Jackson...
    
    \chuck

    Dave,
    
    Back in the 70s when bootleg eight tracks were big business, the
    bootleggers tried to avoid prosectution by paying mechanical royalties,
    claiming this met the legal requirements.  This, however, didn't pass
    muster.
    
    What's most amazing to me (or anyone who ever saw bootleg eight tracks)
    is that people got away with selling them for so long.  They were
    obviously bootlegs, with the cheap typewritten labels.  So law
    enformcement cracked down on bootleg tapes.  The real result was that
    bootleggers than became *counterfeiters*, making *exact replicas* of
    hit albums.  I've seen quite a few of these, even own a couple.
    
    							Brian

    > I have absolutely no facts on hand, but I've gotten the impression
    > over the years that the real piracy problem is tape factories in Asia
    > pumping out large volumes and sneaking it into various markets.  Not
    > home taping.
    
    I don't have any facts either, I'm not sure if the facts we're
    interested in are even available/known.
    
    However, I would say that I find your conjecture about home taping vs
    piracy to be highly counter-intuitive.
    
    The blank tape market is incredibly large. Not only can you get blank
    tape at record stores and audio stores, but you can get them at
    supermarkets, drugs stores, candy stores, hardware stores, etc.
    
    Of course, a lot of the tapes that are sold are NOT used in copyright
    violations.  But if even as little as a 10th (and from my own
    observation I think that's very conservative) are used for piracy,
    it's hard to imagine that "pirate tape factories in Asia" can be
    seriously compared to that.
    
    Besides, the issue isn't where they lose the most, the issue is whether
    or not they lose a "significant" amount of money to which they are
    legally entitled.  Can anyone seriously deny that the record industry
    loses massive amounts to home taping piracy?
    
    So what I'm saying is let's not attack one particular ill-concieved
    solution by denying the problem.  We can even argue whether it should
    be characterized as a problem, but in my opinion it is undeniable that
    record companies are losing major amounts of money to which they are
    legally entitled.

    > Can anyone seriously deny that the record industry
    > loses massive amounts to home taping piracy?
    
    I've no more facts/numbers than the rest of you, but my personal 
    experience says "No, they aren't losing massive amounts of money..."
    
    Twenty years of collecting music on my part just doesn't bear it out.
    My collection consists of lots of unavailable stuff, plus lots of
    classics. Rare is the time someone asks me for a copy of something, and
    then the VAST majority of those requests is for out of print stuff one
    could arguably say the record companies don't care about anyhow. ("Hey,
    I'd buy it if it was for sale...")
    
    Nobody asks for copies of today's hot new release.
    
    Until there's a pirate on every street corner it's just so much easier 
    to buy thru (hopefully!) legit retailers.
    
    Edd

    Edd,
    
    Two comments:
    
    1) Last time "we" (not you and I, but "MUSIC") had this discussion
       a handful of people responded with essentially the same argument
       as you: "I don't do it" and derive from that other people don't
       do it either.
    
       I really don't know how to respond to that other than I don't
       think the existance of a counter-example here and there disproves
       a general statement with so many examples.  Can you tell me Edd
       that you don't know many people who have violated artists
       copyrights?
    
    1) I suppose that our difference here may boil down to relative terms.
    
       Implied in your note is that you've done it, but it's "rare".   And
       by the way, copying "out of print" records is STILL a copyright
       violation.  My criteria of "losing money they are legally entitled
       to" applies to that.
    
       And the MAIN point is that if everyone did it, even to the
       ostensibly limited extent that you have, we're still talking about
       a massive amount of money.
    
    I mean if everyone shoplifted a record even just once in their 
    lifetime would you say that it wouldn't be a massive problem?
    
    I claim that as a general statement (i.e. there will be exceptions)
    that since nearly everyone tapes a copyrighted recording now and then
    it adds up to pretty big bucks.
    
    	db
    
    p.s. Edd, when you were in a band, did you always buy legit copies of the
    	 tunes you had to learn and/or borrow the original CD or record?
    
    	 That is, are you prepared to tell me that you never taped the tunes
    	 you had to learn? 

    The most common situation I've seen is where a person has a tape a
    "friend" made for them, that has the name of the artist (maybe) on it,
    recorded on a 39 cent Woolworth's tape.  The poor guy loves the music,
    has no idea what it is, the tape is falling apart and sounds awful and
    he wants to know where he can get a new copy. 
    
    This to my mind is not competition to the record industry.
    
    							Brian

    >     This to my mind is not competition to the record industry.
    
    If the "new copy" is a legitimate copy, then it's not competition.
    Otherwise it clearly is.
    
    And the issue (btw) isn't "competition".   A guy who simply would not
    buy the album even if he couldn't tape it for free isn't "competing"
    with the record industry but it's nonetheless illegal, a violation
    of the copyright and in some sense "theft".
    
    Imagine if people were stealing VAX/VMS and they claimed "we wouldn't
    have bought it even if we couldn't steal it so you're not losing any
    money.  Do you think the companies position should be to say "Well, OK
    then"????
    
    	db

    
  >  1) Last time "we" (not you and I, but "MUSIC") had this discussion
  >     a handful of people responded with essentially the same argument
  >     as you: "I don't do it" and derive from that other people don't
  >     do it either.
   
	I agree, yet as I do a mental scan of all the people I know I
	keep coming up with the same conclusion I reach when I use only
	myself as the sole datapoint. Gotta bear in mind my demographics...

	Ironically, the record companies used much the same logic whilst
	lobbying. "We know some people are doing this".
 
  >     I really don't know how to respond to that other than I don't
  >     think the existance of a counter-example here and there disproves
  >     a general statement with so many examples.  Can you tell me Edd
  >     that you don't know many people who have violated artists
  >     copyrights?
   
	Purely logically speaking, a "general statement" is disproven by
	one example to the contrary. But that's neither here nor there,
	a rathole not germane to this conversation.

	Do I know people who've violated the artists' copyrights? Yes.
	Do I know MANY people who've done it? Well, I honestly can't think
	of anyone who hasn't. But I have to wonder where you're going to
	take this.
 
  >    1) I suppose that our difference here may boil down to relative terms.
   
	Agreed. I have a hard time equating the loss as massive given the 
	relative dollar amounts involved.
 
  >       Implied in your note is that you've done it, but it's "rare".

	I'm at home. A quick scan of 400 tapes revealed 4 albums (.5%) which
	I'm sure I no longer own the original. *1* I'm sure I never owned at 
	all, but would buy it in a heartbeat if it was available.

  >    And by the way, copying "out of print" records is STILL a copyright
  >    violation.  My criteria of "losing money they are legally entitled
  >    to" applies to that.
   
	If someone wants to make a profit from me, shouldn't they offer me
	a good or service? Your criteria is correct, and I would gladly 
	abide by it if it were possible. To be pragmatic, the "system" is
	set up in such a labyrinth fashion as to make doing so impossible.
	This in no way invalidates your point, yet even the most morally
	adherent fan would surely throw their arms up in frustration were
	they to try and be "legal".

	Hopefully, new technology will lessen this. When I *can* buy a new
	copy of "The Stamp Album" via digital download to WORM I'll be glad
	to.
 
  >       And the MAIN point is that if everyone did it, even to the
  >     ostensibly limited extent that you have, we're still talking about
  >     a massive amount of money.
    
	Nyet!!! The MAIN point is not "if everyone did it". The main point
	is that everyone is treated as if they did.

  >    I mean if everyone shoplifted a record even just once in their 
  >    lifetime would you say that it wouldn't be a massive problem?
    
	Reduction ad absurdium. Of course, if everyone did it the dollar
	amount would be huge in Edd-dollars. But would you feel better if
	you were "taxed" at birth for the violations you will commit sometime
	in your life? Or should it be retro at your death?
    
   >     Edd, when you were in a band, did you always buy legit copies of the
   >	 tunes you had to learn and/or borrow the original CD or record?
   >   	 That is, are you prepared to tell me that you never taped the tunes
   >	 you had to learn? 

	You know the answer already, but for the benifit of the other readers,
	yes, my band often shared copies of a song we were to learn. Most tunes
	didn't require a tape at all ("Hey, learn 'Walkin' On Sunshine" in A").
	Others I owned. MANY I went out and bought, often with
	the sheet music. I also had ONE tape where I'd make a copy. In every
	case, that song got erased (or more accurately substituted) after I'd
	learned it. ("The Flame" was fun to play, but not something I'd ever
	listen to.) I no longer have any of the copies.

	So yes, I've pirated tapes. But why does my 68 year old mother have to 
	pay the price when she tapes her grandkids' first words?

	Pirating can be a problem, but draconian measures like taxing every
	blank tape is the WRONG solution. Obviously I'm not living in a glass
	house, but why should I pay Donald Fagen twice?

	Edd

>	I agree, yet as I do a mental scan of all the people I know I
>	keep coming up with the same conclusion I reach when I use only
>	myself as the sole datapoint. Gotta bear in mind my demographics...
    
    Yes, probably middle class people who are far less prone to piracy
    than the majority of the record-buying public (i.e. the lower class).
    
>	Agreed. I have a hard time equating the loss as massive given the 
>	relative dollar amounts involved.
    
  >>       And the MAIN point is that if everyone did it, even to the
  >>     ostensibly limited extent that you have, we're still talking about
  >>     a massive amount of money.
    
>	Nyet!!! The MAIN point is not "if everyone did it". The main point
>	is that everyone is treated as if they did.
    
    Several notes I made a deliberate effort to define the point I was
    addressing - which was to NOT deny that there is a problem in that
    they are losing large sums of money to piracy.
    
    Thus that "everyone does it" is clearly a "main point" with respect to
    what I was addressing.
    
    > But would you feel better if you were "taxed" at birth for the
    > violations you will commit sometime in your life? Or should it be retro
    > at your death?
    
    Edd, we agree that the tape tax is wrong!  But c'mon... if you can't
    even think of anyone who hasn't pirated a tape,  I don't see how you
    can deny the impact of piracy.
    
    I also wonder if you really accept the justifications you (and others)
    use such as (paraphasing):
    
    	1) "I went out and bought other MANY other tapes", 
    
    	2) "I erased them after I was done" 
    
    which were two that Edd invoked.  AMONG the others are:
    
    	3) "I wouldn't have bought it anyway even if I couldn't pirate 
    	    it", 
    
    	4) "Madonna doesn't need the money".
    
    I don't know what you work on, but put yourself in my place: I work on
    software (compilers) that Digital sells.   Would you accept the
    following excuses from someone who pirated YOUR product and say "Oh
    well,  in that case it's ok":
    
    	1) I bought lots of OTHER Digital products
    
    	2) I deleted the compiler from the system after I finished my
           program
    
    	3) I wouldn't have bought the compiler even if I couldn't pirate it
    
    	4) Digital doesn't need the money
    
    My main point is that let's play games by attempting to deny that the
    tape pirating that we do (and yes, I do it) is wrong.
    
    There are more compelling arguments against the tape tax, many of which
    you've already stated (and I agree completely with).
    
    	db

    Dave, what is the impact of piracy on the record industry?
    
    I've tried to avoid asking this question, because it's unlikely an
    answer can be provided, but words like "huge" and "massive" are
    meaningless without context. We must know what percentage of the
    industry is lost to pirates. (and to be fair, we must also factor in
    what incidental income is derived as a result of piracy.)
    
    But that only addresses the financial aspect, and I suspect you're
    also arguing the moral aspect.
    
    How would I feel if I were being pirated? Poor, but if I've got my act
    together I also know it's a cost of doing business. Sad, but true.
    
    I get the impression you've asked me to justify it. Sorry, I can't
    anymore than I can justify driving by a drive-in and watching the
    screen without paying or reading the front page of a newspaper while
    I'm standing in line at the grocery, and it appears you summarily 
    reject any attempts at doing so anyhow.
    
    Edd

    
    
     re .52
      
       How would you go about estimating what % of pirating is going on ?
    
     comparing this to reading the front page of a newspaper or watching 
    a drive-in screen as you ride by is absurd. Neither case has you 
    copying a copyrighted property. The drive-in/ newspaper scenerio is
    more like listening to a song on the radio. You have not made a copy,
    (unless you are taping) you are listening/watching someone else's 
    coprighted copy. Reading a manual/textbook in the bookstore does not
    violate the copyright on it (even if you don't buy it) photocopying pages
    from it probably would though.
    
     The other issue is long range. Maybe only (pick a number) 1% is
    pirated. But as technology increases and pirated and bootlegs become as
    good (or better) quality as legal copies, what will the percentage be
    then ? How will we protect copyrights and royalties ? How would you
    propose to make sure that the artists and record companies get what is
    legally theirs ?
    
    
     Bob                                                        

    > How would you propose they...get what is theirs?
    
    Copy protect it, and accept low sales as a result of it. The only way
    to be 100% assured of getting everything you're entitled to is not to
    release anything.
    
    Edd

    re:  .52 Edd
    
>    Dave, what is the impact of piracy on the record industry?

    The impact is that they lose money that they are legally entitled to.
    
    
    >   We must know what percentage of the industry is lost to pirates.
    
    The recording industry did publish that number.  I don't remember
    what it was.  Naturally the anti-tapers said "it's much less than
    that".  I remembering thinking that the number was low if anything
    based on my observation.
    
>    How would I feel if I were being pirated? Poor, but if I've got my act
>    together I also know it's a cost of doing business. Sad, but true.
    
    That's like a cop telling a shopowner to just figure the cost of
    shoplifting into the cost of doing business.  As pragmatic advice,
    it's probably good, as an excuse for not attempting to do something to
    stop the shoplifting it doesn't wash.
    
>    I get the impression you've asked me to justify it. 
    
    Au contraire, I've asked you to STOP trying to justify it.
    
    -----------------------
    
    One of the reasons why I am so interested in this topic is that it's
    importance is far more pervasive than just record piracy.
    
    In early days of history all items of "property" were physical: a piece
    of land, a horse, a plow, a car, a computer.
    
    We have progressed to the point know where "intellectual property"
    (which is precisely what copyrights and patents are designed to
    protect) is an already significant and ever-increasing portion of
    the general pool of "value" that we generate.
    
    Theft of intellectual property (and remember this includes not just
    recordings but all art, invention, etc.) is going to be an increasingly
    interest and vital topic.

    re: .54
    
    > THis ain't Utopia
    
    Well, that being the case stop bitching about unfair tape taxes.
    

    Artists indeed have the legal and moral right to protect intellectual
    property, we all agree on that. (I think!)
    
    It is very simple to keep your rights unviolated, simply don't
    distribute the product. Effective, yes? But hardly conducive to making
    any profit on your work.
    
    At the other end of the spectrum, an artist can simply give the work
    away with "Distribute Widely" all over it. Again, not very profitable.
    
    From a consumer's point, one can religiously adhere to the letter and
    spirit by either tracking down the owner and sending them their due, or
    not purchasing any works that may be unlicensed. 
    
    ...or they could simply throw all values to the wind and pirate to
    their heart's content. The result would concievably be LESS art to 
    pirate.
    
    Again, the consumers' interest isn't served.
    
    A balance must be stricken. While it is wrong for me to pirate art, it
    is equally wrong to assume I'm guilty. 
    
    If the artist wants to distribute the work, they must realize that the
    more demand they create the more the work is likely to be pirated.
    There are already laws to address the issue; let those laws be put to
    use by those who feel wronged. What? It's too expensive? Put your money
    where your mouth is. (Not you, Dave!) The artist holds at least 1/2 of
    the responsibility for the protection of intellectual property. Whether
    they do it before or after the fact is up to them.
    
    We don't need more laws. The ones we have seem to cover the issues
    quite nicely.
    
    Edd
    
    P.S. I'm off to DECUS and prolly won't be able to continue this
    string...

    We've gotten a long way from the original subject, which was record
    companies strong-arming retailers out of the used CD business.
    This is not a copyright issue.
    
    Why should the record companies have any legal interest in a person
    getting rid of a record they dislike or no longer want?  The record
    companies have already sold their product - no one is duplicating the
    intellectual property.  The consumer is simply trying to recoup a loss
    by re-selling used merchandise.  It is not being mis-represented as 
    new merchandise (with the exception of the occasional corrupt merchant
    who is subject to consumer fraud laws anyway).
    
    I buy a lot of used CDs.  I also buy alot of new CDs.  I'd probably be
    a lot more inclined to buy a lot more new CDs if the record companies
    didn't make a habit of gouging the consumer.  You reap what you sow.
    
    I used to buy a lot more music when I was buying vinyl.  I can no
    longer afford to experiment with music by new artists nearly as much 
    (which used to both help the artists and the record companies) because
    of the doubled price of music on CD.
    
    So it goes.
    
    - Dave

>    There are already laws to address the issue; let those laws be put to
>    use by those who feel wronged. 
    
    I'm sorry, but I don't buy these kind of arguments when the law itself
    is largely unenforceable (and in this case, largely ignored and
    violated). 
    
    I think it's reasonable to expect help from the government to preserve
    the rights to intellectual property.  I just happen to disagree with
    this particular effort (the tape tax).
    
    Now understand, I don't (at the moment) have any good ideas on how to
    address the problem; my point is that my reaction is not "don't expect
    the government to help" but rather "come up with a law that doesn't
    substitute one unfairness with another".
    
    It might not be a "law" per se, but some method of enforcement.  
    
    I'll be honest with you and tell you that my opinion is that any
    attempt to keep people from freely taping copyrighted material is
    likely to meet with essentially the same degree of objection.
    
    Frankly, I think people just want to have the cake they've always had
    and eat it too. FWIW, I also think that's the underlying theme of the
    "scalping" issue too.  I think people think they're entitled to it.
    
    Signed,
    
    	db - Iconoclast  ;-)\
    
    p.s. BTW, not that I want to get into a debate on the morality of this
         but in re-reading a past note of yours, I noticed that you have
         mentioned owning 400 tapes which are almost certainly ALL
         "technically" copyright violations, albeit "justified" copyright
    	 violations.  ;-)

>    Why should the record companies have any legal interest in a person
>    getting rid of a record they dislike or no longer want?  
    
    The question seems irrelevant.
    
    Indeed they have no "legal" way of preventing people from doing that.
    
    But the record companies are not pursuing this thru "legal" avenues. 
    
    That is, they aren't suing anybody who buys or sell used records.  And
    what they are doing isn't much different from what a thousand other
    companies do (i.e. "you sell something that competes with our product 
    and we won't sell our product to you").  There's a whole chapters in
    a book on marketing I read about wars between Coke and Pepsi doing
    that.
    
    	db

    For starters I'd like to agree with .58.
    
    If the record company "gives away" free copies of demos to radio
    stations, etc. how can they bitch about what the radio station does
    with it afterwards ? Aren't they introducing a non-competitive skew
    into the market by "giving" copies to the priveleged few & "selling"
    them to the rest ?
    
    If you buy a CD for retail price, & then sell it to someone else for
    half of what you paid (This must be a Madonna CD.), then whose ox was
    gored ? I think selling used stuff predates all this "intellectual
    property" mumbo-jumbo by a few centuries. This is welfare for lawyers.
    The next thing you're gonna say is that a Madonna video is intellectual
    property. 
    
    Now as far as record companies & others being deprived of money that
    they're *entitled* to: this soudns like a variation on the theme of
    "imputed" tax. You know where they want to tax you for that in-law
    apartment that you "could have" collected rent for ! Isn't it about
    time to say let's pay "could have's" with all the taxes they "could
    have" collected, were there any actual transaction. Another fertile
    haven for greedy lawyers & accountants if I ever saw one.  
    
    When was the last time you paid (or saw offered) *less* than retail for a
    scalped ticket ? I don't think there is a parallel. 
    
    If "piracy" is so widespread, it implies to me that someone in the
    system is looking to reap profits without contributing any further
    "value added" to the product.
    
    Everyone knows that CD's are overpriced, but there's no bleeding heart
    constituancy (lobby) to do anything about it, so we all just wink & pay
    it. Everyone knows that tapes get used as substitutes for additional
    purchases, but I have yet to see a CD store discourage my purchase of
    them by the crateload (even though I use the vast majority of them
    "legally". In fact were it "dangerous" to make up "party tapes" or
    "stuff to learn" tapes, I'd still learn the songs, it would just take a
    little longer for the rest of the band to learn them, maybe.) 
    

>    If the record company "gives away" free copies of demos to radio
>    stations, etc. how can they bitch about what the radio station does
>    with it afterwards ? Aren't they introducing a non-competitive skew
>    into the market by "giving" copies to the priveleged few & "selling"
>    them to the rest ?
    
    Oh, while I agree that stores should be free to sell used records,
    I definitely disagree in the case of selling radio station promotional
    copies.
    
    Let's just continue the analogy with DEC software and see if your feelings
    are consistent:
    
    	Suppose we give a free copy/license of our compiler to a company on the
    	agreement that they are going to promote it.
    
    	Is it OK with you if they give that copy/license away?
    
>    Now as far as record companies & others being deprived of money that
>    they're *entitled* to: this soudns like a variation on the theme of
>    "imputed" tax. You know where they want to tax you for that in-law
>    apartment that you "could have" collected rent for ! Isn't it about
>    time to say let's pay "could have's" with all the taxes they "could
>    have" collected, were there any actual transaction.
    
    Continuing the analogy, DEC isn't *entitled* to the money they
    "could've" earned if the person hadn't stole the software.
    
    You agree with that?
    
    Nothing is "imputed" about the royalty: at the point that a copyrighted
    work is "copied" the royalty is earned/owed but, in the case of piracy,
    not collected.  That's the law.
    
    In your example, the rent is not earned merely by the presence of the
    apartment.
    
    There's a clearcut difference between the two items in your analogy.
    
>    When was the last time you paid (or saw offered) *less* than retail for a
>    scalped ticket ? I don't think there is a parallel. 
    
    Last year.
    
    In this very notesfile someone recommended the technique of waiting
    until after the show starts and then buying from scalpers just trying
    to recover as much as they can.  You must not have read that.
    
>    If "piracy" is so widespread, it implies to me that someone in the
>    system is looking to reap profits without contributing any further
>    "value added" to the product.
    
    I don't understand this at all.
    
>     but I have yet to see a CD store discourage my purchase of
>     them by the crateload 
    
    And what does this prove other than that the STORE is happy to 
    make money from you either way - even though the artist does not.
    

    >  If the record company "gives away" free copies of demos to radio
    > stations, etc. how can they bitch about what the radio station does
    > with it afterwards ?   Aren't they introducing a non-competitive skew
    > into the market by "giving" copies to the priveleged few & "selling"
    >them to the rest ?
     
    NO NO NO
    
     This is perfectly legal. It happens with software too. You may grant 
    someone a development license (so that they can write applications to
    run on your software when it's released) That doesn't mean that they
    can sell that license that they got for free (or for a very small price)
    to someone else. Intelectual property is not like real property !!!!
    Usually there are uses and ownership attached to it. You do not buy
    a copy of software to do with what you wish, You purchase the rights to
    a single copy of the software.
    
     With music it is similar. The free copies that are sent to radio
    stations, etc are demo copies. They are not for sale or resale.
    No royalties are attached to them, they do not count toward record
    sales. To sell them is a violation of the agreement for their use.
    Again this is very similar to software. If you try to sell a demo copy
    of something like windows NT to somebody, you are breaking the law
    and violating copyright agreements. Just because you have the CD in 
    your possesion, you do not have the legal right to sell it, copy it,
    or other wise use for any uses other than what was agreed upon by you
    taking possession of it ! 
    
    
     Bob
                             

    re: .63
    
    Yes.
    
    And I think one thing that people HAVE to start to understand is you
    are working in a company that has got the same basic interests as
    record companies in the area of protecting intellectual property.
    
    Notice that no one has answered the questions I recast from "records"
    to "Digital software".   Does that indicate that the rules are
    different when it's YOUR interests instead the big evil record
    companies?
    
    	db
    

    Re: .62, .63
    
    Hey no problem with those radio demo copies, the record companies count
    those as freebies and don't give artists any royalties on those anyway
    8^) They even charge the cost of manufacturing and distributing them as
    "promotional expenses" against artist royalties.  
    
    In other words, the *artist* pays to have those given away, not the
    record company.  So, thank goodness, only the artist gets screwed when
    people sell promos!
    
    						Walter Yankemoff

    Wow, so that means that not only does the artist not get a royalty,
    but the ARTIST actually is CHARGED for your copy!!!
    
    Ugh...

    RE: db
    
    Are you referring to a copy of the software or the software itself?
    (i.e. are there no additional units floating around?)
    
    A better analogy might be Digital's documentation on CD.  I believe it
    is perfectly legitimate for companies to sell their outdated CDs to 
    other companies instead of grinding the CDs to dust.  It might even be
    in Digital's best long-term interest as well, since it just might
    promote better and more widespread awareness of our products.  
    (Just like buying a used CD to check something out that you have never 
    heard may may lead to purchase of additional new material by the artist.)
    
    Do you have any problems with this analogy?
    
    - Dave

    I'm starting to have a problem with *all* analogies. 
    
    Software licenses are expressly granted to the original purchaser, much
    like "lifetime" guarantees. (Don't get me started.) I think that though
    it makes sense to disallow unlimited copying of a purchased recording,
    it makes no sense to limit its (the original) resale. The line is
    clearly crossed when you make copies & sell them. Part of the "problem"
    stems from the level of available technology. Prior to a few years ago,
    it was prohibitively expensive to make copies that sounded as good as
    the original. Digital technology in general & DAT in particular put an
    end to that. The "laws" (& this includes enforcement) of course are largely
    obsolete when it comes to this stuff. What's needed is a completely new
    approach ("a paradigm for the '90's") to the whole process of
    recording, distributing, & consuming music.
    
    I also think db's gratuitous remark about no one responding to questions 
    within a day or less was no more than a pompous cheap shot. Dave, you
    seem to have an intelligent perspective about this & many other issues,
    but I don't think that such remarks (...no answers yet...) are
    consistent or justifiable. I'd also be willing to bet that not everyone
    reading this has read every other note in this conference.
    
    RE: "value added" "... I don't understand this."
    This is actually a fairly simple economic principle that's been in
    operation for ages. Every "black market" exists because there is some
    artificial barrier to free trade between buyer & seller. The industry
    in question has enjoyed a long period of "formula" or "cookie cutter"
    profits, & ther're now attempting to use the government as an
    artificial barrier to forestall the inevitable rather than find new
    ways to make the changes in technology & markets work for them. Didn't
    the auto industry go through this a few years back ? 
    At some point, the whole idea of "distribution" of recorded music may
    become obsolete. Then artists would be in control of their own
    popularity & destiny, instead of having to play all sorts of games
    unrelated to their product. Madonna is perhaps one of the most
    outstanding examples of effective (un)packaging & marketing,
    unfortunately it has little to do with music. The industry will
    (over)produce whatever is easiest to sell right now, & that means that
    if an "artist" is willing to do everything (s)he can to generate a
    sellable product, that artist will have access to enormous resources
    for development & production that would not be available to one only
    interested in "quality". We should be aware as well of the tremendous
    power such industries weild in political arenas. Laws that were meant
    to protect legitimate competition in the marketplace are now being (ab)used
    to create & maintain monopolies. 
    
    Paul
      
    
    
      

>>    A better analogy might be Digital's documentation on CD.  I believe it
>>    is perfectly legitimate for companies to sell their outdated CDs to
>>    other companies instead of grinding the CDs to dust.  It might even be
>>    in Digital's best long-term interest as well, since it just might
>>    promote better and more widespread awareness of our products.
>>    (Just like buying a used CD to check something out that you have never
>>    heard may may lead to purchase of additional new material by the artist.)


     This doesn't seem to violate any laws. Nobody here has said an end user
can't resell their legitimate copy. Just like if you bought "Foobar's Greatest
Hits" from Lechemere for $9.99, listened to it, didn't like it, and sold it
to your uncle Elmo (A big Foobar fan) for $5.00 . The royalty was paid when
you bought it. 

      The argument here, is when record stores sell 'used' copies that were
not intended for resale (demos, 'damaged' , etc) , hence no royalty was ever 
paid on that copy, and they are not legitimate copies for sale.


 Bob

    re: .67 Wiegleb
    
    > Do you have any problems with this analogy?
    
    Since the question was directed at me...  yes.  Bob P. stated the problem
    with this analogy quite well:
    
    > The argument here, is when record stores sell 'used' copies that were
    > not intended for resale (demos, 'damaged' , etc) , hence no royalty was
    > ever  paid on that copy, and they are not legitimate copies for sale.

    	db

    re: .68 Godin
    
>    I also think db's gratuitous remark about no one responding to questions 
>    within a day or less was no more than a pompous cheap shot. Dave, you
>    seem to have an intelligent perspective about this & many other issues,
>    but I don't think that such remarks (...no answers yet...) are
>    consistent or justifiable. 
    
    I appreciate the candor of your answer but I disagree.
    
    I try as hard as possible to address other people's points.  Sometimes
    I disagree and say why, sometimes I just acknowledge that it's a good
    	       -----------
    point but I always strive to give an answer that demonstrates that
    I have considered their point and they haven't wasted their time
    giving it and that I'm not prone to ignoring points that conflict
    with my position.
    
    All I ask for is the same.
    
    If this comes across to you as "pompous" then so be it.
    
    	Pompous db
    
    p.s. And I most certainly do not expect answers "within a day or less".
    
    	 I made that comment "within a day" of asking those questions
    	 because people HAD replied to note containing the DEC software
         analogy without addressing it and I presumed (as most people
         would I think) that the point was not going to be addressed
         as if in some future reply to the same note.

    RE: .71 etc. 
    	That's certainly a good policy. The basis of my disagreement was
    that it seemed as if you were using the phenomenon of lack of timely
    response as substantiation of the premise. (i.e. No one's disprooved me
    in the last 24 hours, so I must be right.)
    
    	I don't thimk the present laws regarding intellectual property,
    patents, copyrights (or "right to die") etc. are all that useful when
    the technology is advancing more rapidly than the legislature's ability
    to catch up with it.
    
    	There are several things about which there should be little
    disagreement:
    	1. If you create a piece of intellectual property that has
    significant market value, then you should be compensated accordingly.
    	2. If you desire to consume such products, it seems reasonable that
    you should not be able to do so for free, especially if there were
    significant costs incurred in making them available.
    	3. If you make a livelyhood out of connecting this supply to this
    demand, you should be compensated fairly as well, but only as a
    middleman performing a rather generic distribution service.
    	4. If you make a livelyhood out of profits gleaned from the
    distribution industry's failure to control its own waste fraud & abuse,
    then you may be in a temporary occupation, but you're probably not
    introducing any drastic shift in the big picture of who's prifiting,
    who's working, & who's spending.
    	5. If you are using your status as a distributor as a front for
    pocketing royalties, then you've broken a trust.
    
    I'd have to ask regardless of "strongarm tactics", or radio station
    demo cutouts: What's the best way to make sure producers of
    intellectual property are fairly compensated ? It seems that a lot of
    the heat arises when someone allows personal greed to take over. Is it 
    fair compensation for superstars like Michael Jackson, & U2 to receive
    such huge sums *prior to* producing the recordings ?
    
    I know, that's another topic.
    
    Paul
    
    
    
     

    re: .72 Godin
    
>    	That's certainly a good policy. The basis of my disagreement was
>    that it seemed as if you were using the phenomenon of lack of timely
>    response as substantiation of the premise.
    
    Absolutely not.
    
    The responses to my note were "timely", but side-stepped/ignored the point.
    
    Thus, it wasn't an issue of "not responding in time" but rather
    "responding without comment".  OK?
    
    > What's the best way to make sure producers of intellectual property 
    > are fairly compensated ?
    
    I think the best way is to change people's thinking and sensitivity to
    issues regarding intellectual property.  
    
    That is why I think the Digital software analogy is so relevant.  It
    puts the issue in a context that people can relate to.

    Ah, the really good issues just don't go away.  I've been away from
    this for a while, but reading this whole string in one sitting, I'm
    struck by two things that nobody's remarked on:
    
    	1) the "tape tax" is most assuredly not a license to copy.  It is
    	   an attempt to recover lost revenues.  A such, the level of the
    	   surcharge was set to recover current estimated losses. 
    	   Interpreting the surcharge as a license to copy freely will
    	   simply drive up the lost revenue, with the result that the
    	   surcharge will simply be increased to compensate.  You may argue
    	   that it's an inappropriate or unfair form of redress, but don't
    	   misrepresent it's intent and meaning.
    
    	2) prohibiting the sale of used recordings is another form of
    	   possibly inappropriate or unfair redress.  The fact is, there's
    	   an undeniable opportunity for serial copying of such recordings;
    	   I buy it, copy it, sell it.  The next owner copies it, sells it.
    	   Etc.  "But that's not why I sold it" everyone shouts.  So what?
    	   That's not why I bought blank tape, either.  Dave's point about
    	   intellectual property is right on.  When you buy a recording,
    	   what you're really buying is a license to experience the
    	   material on it.  The physical transfer of the recording medium
    	   almost incidental; its' the "bits" that matter.  You don't "own"
    	   those bits.  You own the right to use them in certain ways.
    	   Fair use copying is one of them.  Selling them may not be.
    
    There's an interesting, albeit not directly relevant, analogous problem
    in the art world, where an artist's royalties on the first sale of a
    work may ultimately prove to be an insignificant fraction of the work's
    eventual value after successive sales.  Artists are fighting for the
    right to a royalty on *every* successive sale of a work.  Do you deny
    the artist's right to profit from the increasing valuation of his/her
    work?  Then what's the difference if the value of the work goes up or
    down on successive sales, or the seller makes a profit or not?  This
    has nothing to do with the number of copies in circulation; the issue's
    just as relevant for multicopy editions as for singletons.  Is there some
    maximum number of copies where the artist forfeits his/her rights?
    
    len.
      

    re: .74 Len Fehskens
    
>    	1) the "tape tax" is most assuredly not a license to copy.  
    
    Actually, having thought some more about this, I guess I have to agree.
    
    It's not only a weak argument, but it's a dangerous idea to claim that
    the tax is a payment of the license.
    
    Paying for crime via taxes does not grant you license to commit crime.
    
    >When you buy a recording, what you're really buying is a license to
    >experience the material on it...
    
    One question we have not asked is "what limits are there on
    'transferring' the license?"
    
    Or really, is the license currently transferable and, if so, what kind
    of limits COULD the record companies impose regarding trasnferring
    the license that they happen not to now.
    
    Could they legally modify the license to prohibit resale?
    
    > Do you deny the artist's right to profit from the increasing valuation
    > of his/her work?  
    
    Actually I do - at least as some sort of absolute entitlement. To me,
    it's analogous (oh geez, another analogy) to Fender claiming a right to
    the "appreciation" in the value of the Stratocasters they made in 1957.
    
    In fact, it sounds like a very dangerous concept.
    
    My opinion is that the government should neither guarantee that right,
    nor prohibit it.  I believe artists should be able to define licenses
    that either retain that right or assign it to the buyer.
    

    "Transfer of liscense" was my main gripe with the DEC/Madonna
    "analogy". Many software packages are/were "site" licensed, or
    installed for use by a specific purchaser (the "end user"). I doubt
    very much that you'd get much support (even in congress) for a similar 
    restriction on music recordings. "I just bought this new CD, but you'll
    have to sign a contract with A&M & fax it to them (with a liscense fee)
    before I can let you listen to it !" Or maybe, "This new CD sounds
    great in my living room, too bad I can't afford the license fee to play
    it in my car also !"
    The "royalties on appreciated art" gaff is no more than a ploy by
    living (well off or not) artists & heirs to extract revenue through a
    process of laying guilt at the doorstep af the "unappreciative" masses
    who failed to recognize a living genius.
    If Fender had made cheap junky guitars back in the '50's & '60's those
    instruments would be "worth" about the same as a Teisco, Zim-Gar or
    maybe Kent is now...curiosity value only. Fact is those vintage Fender amps
     & guitars were not only a few decades ahead of thier time, but they were 
    also high quality (not necessarily cost effective) instruments *back
    then*. At that time Fender produced a quality product & charged
    accordingly. The (not so) recent vintage fever can hardly be attributed
    to some magic formula (read "intellectual property") incorporated into
    the design of the original instrument. I'm not convinced that Bill
    Gates' MS-DOS royalties counts as "hard earned". Were it not for the
    standardization of PC operating systems, that money would have been
    spread around over a plethora of (better & worse) alternatives. The
    "value added" that Bill Gates brought to the PC software business was his
    ability to put together a deal with IBM so as to create a "de facto
    standard" & use IBM's power (early on) to enforce it. Even that's good
    work if you can get it! The closest a musician can get to that kind of 
    market corner is if his live performances are of greater interest than 
    recordings. That used to be a lot easier than it is now. Painters can
    always claim that copies aren't the same as the original, but recording
    artists have all those "bits" to worry about.
    Paul    

    re: .70 <Bad analogy>
    
>   > Do you have any problems with this analogy?
>    
>    Since the question was directed at me...  yes.  Bob P. stated the problem
>    with this analogy quite well:
>    
>    > The argument here, is when record stores sell 'used' copies that were
>    > not intended for resale (demos, 'damaged' , etc) , hence no royalty was
>    > ever  paid on that copy, and they are not legitimate copies for sale.
>
>    	db
    
    Please re-read .0.  What the record companies are trying to stop record
    stores from doing is selling used CDs. Period.  These are CDs that a
    consumer has legitimately purchased and have re-sold to the record
    stores as a used CD.  The record store essentially acts as broker.
    
    There are many such stores in the Bay Area (and in the Boston area)
    that deal in both new releases and used recordings.  No one is being
    deprived of anything, and nothing is being mis-represented by the
    seller.
    
    Sales of "demo" copies, bootlegs, pirates, used-repackaged-as-new, etc.
    are all questionable practices, but are not germaine to the original
    topic raised in .0.
    
    The record companies are simply trying to strong-arm the retailers to
    prevent them from being brokers of used recordings.
    
    - Dave

    re: .59 and 400 copyright violations.
    
    Sorry, Dave, you misread or misinterpreted. I've got about 800 albums
    on tape, almost 100% legal under fair use provisions.
    
    Edd

    re: .76 Godin
    
>    "Transfer of liscense" was my main gripe with the DEC/Madonna
>    "analogy". Many software packages are/were "site" licensed, or
>    installed for use by a specific purchaser (the "end user"). I doubt
>    very much that you'd get much support (even in congress) for a similar 
>    restriction on music recordings. 
    
    I think your mistaken in believing that any support from Congress is
    needed.  I think you've presumed here that one can restricted transfers
    for software but not recordings.
    
    The interesting question is "are there any restrictions on the transfer
    of license specified in sound recording licenses?"
    
    > "I just bought this new CD, but you'll have to sign a contract with A&M
    > & fax it to them (with a liscense fee) before I can let you listen to
    > it !" Or maybe, "This new CD sounds great in my living room, too bad I
    > can't afford the license fee to play it in my car also !"
    
    Most PC software that I've bought does NOT require me to send anything
    in.  The floppies comme in an envelope that says "by opening this
    means you agree to the following license".  Look on your CD's and you
    will  also find a copyright notice and terms of license.

    re: .77 Wiegleb
    
>    Please re-read .0.  
    
    Please re-read .67 (which you wrote) - I was responding directly to your
    question.
    
    I gave an analogy and asked you some questions.  You responded not by
    answering the questions but by giving "a better analogy" and directly
    asking if I had any objections to it.  I was answering that question.
    
    Have you just decided that you'd rather not pursue the "radio station
    demo" tangent?
    
    	db

re: .80 and previous
    
>I gave an analogy and asked you some questions.  You responded not by
>answering the questions but by giving "a better analogy" and directly
>asking if I had any objections to it.  I was answering that question.
    
    Er...isn't this fast becoming a discussion on the Art of Debating?
    
    Not to mention the Art of Ratholing.

    RE: .79 et al.
    I was of course referring to the software that has explicit site &/or
    user license agreements, obviously. I just figured since you've been
    working on DEC software for a while now that you'd seen it in your
    travels.
    
    My reference to "congress" (for approval of some kind of restriction)
    was a euphamism for "No one in their right mind would support this."
    
    Any printing on a pagkage label that can't be read without a microscope
    is either unimportant or intentionally obscured.
    
    I don't mind rat holes, but why don't we just open a topic on
    pseudo-legaleese meandering.
    
    I believe that purchasers of recorded music DO have certain rights to
    copy for their own usage (see .81). I believe that resale of a CD or
    record or tape for whatever price is perfectly legal as long as the
    thing was obtained legally. No you can't make a tape, listen to it once
    & then sell it. I think that if large record industry distributors
    apply the kind of pressure described in .0, that it it evidence that
    they have nothing to offer in the value added product area & are
    experiencing the pinch of a changing industry acting on a static
    obstacle. 
    
    The next little question is how can we (consumers) prevent a few large
    monopolistic corporations from utilizing devious labelling,
    congressional lobbies, legaleese mumbo-jumbo & coercive distribution
    practices to inflate the already inflated prices they get for the
    actual product ?
    
    There are an awful lot of "unheard of" bands that sound just as good to
    me as an awful lot of those big name major distribution guys. One "hit"
    doesn't mean that everything you do is now gold.
    
    Paul   
    
  

    re: .82 Godin
    
>    I was of course referring to the software that has explicit site &/or
>    user license agreements, 
    
    And I was referring to software that has explicit agreements like "For
    Promotional Purpose Only - Not for resale" printed in large letters
    on it.
    
    The free copies to radio stations you talked about in .61 have that.

    I've seen stickers saying stuff like "Promotional copy, not for sale."
    on records & CD's. What are the implications of that restriction ? Does
    it apply only to the initial recepient (I know, it seems that this has
    already been answered.) or is is limited only to a certain period of
    time or distribution area ? If it means "NO ONE CAN EVER LEGALLY
    EXCHANGE THIS THING FOR MONEY", then there's a lot of "illegal"
    activity going on ... maybe. Is there really a law covering this
    activity, or is it just a sticker campaign ? I've never seen this kind
    of notice on a fully functional pagkage of software.
    
    I thought the hole punched in "cut outs" meant that they could then
    *legally* do whatever they wanted with them. It's the only rational 
    explanation I could ever come up with for punching them in the first place.
                                               
    Paul
    
    Paul

    > What are the implications of that restriction?
    
    I think the meaning is clear: Not For Resale.   Period.
    
    If you're implying the non-mention of all those things you mentioned
    such as "only initial receipient?" and "only to a certain period of
    time or distribution area?" are loopholes or ambiguities, then I think
    that kind of argument speaks for itself.
    
    And I could come up with similar things for software licenses anyway: 
    My Windows 3.1 license does explicitly state those things either.
    
    > I've never seen this kind of notice on a fully functional pagkage 
    > of software.
    
    I have one right here in my office!
    
    From the final Windows NT CD, which is "fully functional" and distributed
    pretty much for free to application developers:
    
    	"...for the sole purpose of designing, developing and testing
    	 your software product(s)"

    There is always some fine print on those promo stamps, lemme read one
    tonight and see what it sez.
    
    BTW, in the early 80s the majors developed a marking system so they
    could track *indiividual copies* of promos. That way they knew exactly
    which copy went to whom, so if they sent a buyer into a used record
    store to buy up promos they could figure out who had unloaded them. 
    
    This was part of general cost-cutting that was going on at the time,
    such as not allowing 100% returns from stores.  The idea was if some
    recipients of promos turned out to be regularly dumping their copies,
    the label could shut them off.  I don't know how agressive they were
    with this policy.
    
    						Brin

    If .85 is correct (in substance) then radio stations should start
    hiring people who can read.
    
    ... or would that be "discrimination" ?
    
    Based on the quantities of this stuff I've seen, I just don't believe
    that it's "illegal". Someone somewhere must have settled the rights to
    that material, or are the store owners visually impaired also ??
    
    I'd *love* to get fully functional software "for product development
    only" directly from the vendor as a sample. Who do I call ?
    Ghostbusters ??? 
    
    Paul

    RE: .80  (db)
    
>              -< Is it that you want out of the "demo" tangent? >-
>
>    re: .77 Wiegleb
>    
>>    Please re-read .0.  
>>    
>    Please re-read .67 (which you wrote) - I was responding directly to your
>    question.                                                           
>    
>    I gave an analogy and asked you some questions.  You responded not by
>    answering the questions but by giving "a better analogy" and directly
>    asking if I had any objections to it.  I was answering that question.
>                                            
>    Have you just decided that you'd rather not pursue the "radio station
>    demo" tangent?
>    
>    	db
    
    Well, I give up.
    
    The "better analogy" I was trying to draw was with regard to the original 
    topic raised in .0 (i.e. record companies trying to stop retailers from 
    selling used records).  My title in .67 ("Software more analogous to the 
    'taping' issue") was trying to state that companies reselling software
    they purchased was more analogous to the rathole 'taping' issue than it
    was to the original topic about retailers selling used CDs.  I proposed 
    that someone selling their purchased CD of Digital layered-product
    documentation was a better analogy to the original topic. 
    
    Unfortunately the whole string has gotten buried in the "taping" rathole.
    I've been trying to ignore the taping rathole and bring the topic back
    to the original subject, since the taping issue has gotten beaten to
    death in this conference since time immemorial.  Obviously my efforts
    aren't working.  I thought the original topic was a bit more interesting,
    but it has been entirely drowned out at this point.
    
    I'll let my replies (.58, .67, .77 and this one) stand on the original
    topic, and leave it at that.
    
    Have fun,
    
    - Dave

    
    Guys, guys, guys !
    
    In the scalping topic, I have suggested that we should go back to
    censorship and taping discussions and you have re-activated both.
    
    You don't have to do everything I tell you.
    
    ;-)
    
    Lale

    re: .87 Paul Godin
    
>    Based on the quantities of this stuff I've seen, I just don't believe
>    that it's "illegal". Someone somewhere must have settled the rights to
>    that material, or are the store owners visually impaired also ??
    
    No and nothing has been "settled".  Store owners and recipients of
    demos just know that record companies aren't bringing lawsuits about
    this so they don't bother about it. 
    
    Look, long after video rental stores were a fairly established part
    of our culture, video tape copyright notices still explicitly
    prohibited using tapes for any commercial purpose. 
    
    Don't believe me?  Next time your in the video store, have a look.
    
    And the fact that you see people doing something regularly doesn't
    mean that it's legal.  I see people speeding, I see people cheating
    on their taxes, and... more than anything else, I see people violating
    copyrights by making tapes - surely that must be legal?  We all admit
    to having done it?
    
    	db

    re: .88 Wiegleb
    
    Well Dave, I guess I owe you an apology.
    
    I hadn't realized that you were addressing the "strongarm" issue in
    your analogy, not the "demo resale" issue.   I guess when I saw "better
    analogy" I thought you meant "more applicable to the 'demo resale'
    issue" which is what my analogy was clearly addressing.  While .88
    makes it clear, I think the title of .67 is ambiguous with regard to
    this.
    
    Part of the problem is that when I'm actively responding to several
    people at once, it's easy for me to lose sight of the particular focus
    that one person is trying to provide.
    
    Anyway, in looking back I see that you weren't really participating
    in the "demo resale" tract.  I thought you were.
    
    Sorry about the misunderstanding.  I'm trying.
    
    	db

    RE: D.B. .85 & .89
    "... if you're implying ... then that argument speaks for itself..."
    "... if you don't believe me then ..."
    This kind of language really degrades the process.
    What if I *wasn't* implying any such thing ?
    What if I *do* "believe" you ?
    It might make sense to ask what I meant or implied *before* you
    arbitrarily assign intent & then cast all sorts of negatives towards
    anyone who thinks *that*
    Do you *really* want to go down the "video tape analogy" rat hole ?
    Or how about the "55 MPH analogy" rathole ? This one's a gem.
    Increasingly I find that I'm explaning microscopic semantic nuances to
    an unreceptive listener rather than persuing any worthwhile thought
    provoking discussion.
    
    Not that I *mind*, it just seems that we need another conference for
    that.
    
    Paul

    Please don't ascribe "unreceptiveness" to what could be nothing more
    than misunderstanding.  Would an "unreceptive listener" write something
    like .91?
    
    I'm trying, but it seemed clear that you were implying what I stated.
    
    And I also apologize for the "the argument speaks for itself".  You're
    right, I should've asked what you were implying.
    
    I'm asking now.
    
    Another thing for you to consider:
    
>    Based on the quantities of this stuff I've seen, I just don't believe
>    that it's "illegal". Someone somewhere must have settled the rights to
>    that material, or are the store owners visually impaired also ??
    
    If someone somewhere had settled the rights to that material such that
    they could resell it, why would they go to the bother and expense of
    printing  "Not for resale" on it?
    
    	db

    Man you guys are a riot. Who will get the last word in?
    If any one cares. Perhaps you guys ought to take this to
    mail, or give a call, pick up the phone and dial. 8-)))
    
    Jim C.
    
     

    Welp, it's partly cultural. There was a time when packaged software
    came with so many explicit restrictions that one would have to assume
    that anything that was illegal was stated on the label. 
    
    Anyway, I've been puzzled for a long time by those labels on "cut outs"
    because the only place I'd ever encountered that label was in a store
    that was selling them ! They just eventually became so commonplace that
    I assumed that the label was something like the legendary "Do not
    remove under penalty of law." tags on pillows. These labels are there
    for essentially everyone *but* the end user. Given the prevalence of
    these in used record stores (that are in plain view of the police) I
    just figured that whatever "royalties" etc. might be due had long since
    been paid & that the material was available at whatever price anyone
    wanted to risk charging/paying.
    
    I think there are probably lots of bands out there that get contracts
    with small labels that do *not* have eternal restrictions on the
    disposition of the recorded media, particulauly *after* they have
    received a stint of airplay, distribution or whatever. There may in
    fact be limits of some kind on the degree to which the "not for sale"
    label applies. It looks to me as if the same people who put the label
    there are the ones who turn around & sell them. There was a time when I
    thought that the "demo" copies were missing some things (a final mix,
    some songs from an album, or whatever) & that's why the producers
    didn't want that material sold as an example of their finished product.
    
    The last person I spoke with who had experience with the record company
    moguls didn't mention thet the band had to pay for demo copies, or even
    recording time (to a limit) or video production, but he related a
    horror story about not actually getting paid when the money *did* come
    in that required the band to file lawsuits against their label just to
    get what they had already agreed was theirs all along ! This seems a
    bit of a ramble, but it's just another case where the artist doesn't
    lose anything whether the "demos" get sold or not because they *didn't*
    pay for them & the record company screws the artist anyway.
    
    There's little to suggest that the "demo" labels are some kind of
    permanent prohibition. I think they apply to direct sales from the
    radio station to someone else. If the radio station "throws them away"
    & a "casual passerby" finds them in the trash, then he can sell them as
    long as he's not using franchised distribution channels to do so.
    
    As far as "franchised" distributors selling used CD's (that they bought
    as used CD's) why not ?
    
    BTW, what's your phone # anyway ?
    
    Paul
     

    re: .-1 Godin
    
>    I think they apply to direct sales from the
>    radio station to someone else. If the radio station "throws them away"
>    & a "casual passerby" finds them in the trash, then he can sell them as
>    long as he's not using franchised distribution channels to do so.
    
    I'm not sure what limitations I'm subject to when I find copyrighted
    material "in the trash".
    
    However, I took original statement you made seemed as implying that
    record companies should be able to sell it:
    
>    If the record company "gives away" free copies of demos to radio
>    stations, etc. how can they bitch about what the radio station does
>    with it afterwards ?
    
    Don't know if that's what you meant to imply but my position is
    that it is reasonable for the record company to prohibit resale.
    
    	db

    Do radio stations "sign something" so they can get all these
    "freebies" ?
    If they're not under contract to the recording/distribution companies,
    I doubt that they can be held liable for disposition of unsolicited
    materials.
    Basically, if the record companies "care", this is really tough to
    control after the radio stations are done with them, unless they take
    them back themselves.
    I don't think we need a new law to "crack down" on resellers.
    
    Paul
    

    Re: .97
    
    Record companies *do* sometimes ask radio stations to sign agreements.  
    
    I recall MCA refusing to send out copies of Steely Dan's "Gaucho"
    unless radio stations agreed to *not* play the album end to end (as
    many stations would do with a hot new release).  This raised hackles at
    the time, because "Gaucho" not coincidentally was $1 more list than
    other LPs at the time, and people got the idea that MCA was trying to
    gouge consumers (gee, they hadn't even gotten around to inventing CDs
    yet!).  The station manager for the station I was DJing at back then
    even posted MCA's letter for all the staff to read, he was so incensed.
    
    In general, though, promos to radio stations are for the *record
    company's* benefit, since airplay stimulates sales, eh?  
    
    						Brian

    Well, I think the record companies "care" by virtue of the fact that
    they print "Not for Resale" on demos.  They just aren't prosecuting
    violators.
    
>    Do radio stations "sign something" so they can get all these "freebies" ?
    
    Well a "signature" isn't really necessary.  A signature just makes
    things easier to prove in court.
    
    Note that you don't have to sign anything for PC software licenses.
    
    Their own mechanism to make things easier to prove is to distribute
    software in envelopes that say "opening this envelope constitutes
    an agreement to abide by these terms".
    
    The record companies could easily do that for demos as well. 
    
    Interestingly enough the Windows NT CD has EXACTLY such a label on
    the shrink-wrapping.

    GAHK !
    "Opening this seal ..." is (somewhat) fine for a guaranteed product,
    but I personally would like to know how something is going to work
    *before* I "agree automatically" to anything. 
    
    If radio stations break their agreements, that should not affect the
    store owner. Label or not, he doesn't know where the CD's came from.
    
    I still believe that the technology has simply outpaced the ability of
    the legal system to keep everything controlled in the interests of
    monopolies as easily as before. The good news is things can only get
    worse (better). While lawyers debate who meant what & whose license
    covers what, technology will move ahead again (DAT & MD) & those
    baffoons will have to dig through yet another quagmire.
    
    We *really* need a better way of approaching the whole game. The
    biggest barrier to that is established special interests who aren't
    content to be "grandfathered" into any new system.
    
    Paul
    
    

    re: .100
    
    > Label or not, he doesn't know where the CD's came from.
    
    Y'know, earlier in this note I think I stated a tacit agreement with
    you on this point.
    
    But I've thought some more about this.
    
    I mean, if someone throws a Van Halen tape out of their car which I
    find lying on the street, I'm still not allowed to duplicate it and
    sell it.  Right?  Just because I didn't "agree-to/sign/whatever" a
    license doesn't allow me to violate the copyright.  Agreed?
    
    It seems like there are three scenarios:
    
    	o Resale of license - It was sold to him and given that it says 
    	  "Not for Resale" on it, he is knowingly participating in a 
    	  copyright violation
    
    	o Transfer of license - the license was transferred/given to him and
    	  thus he must honor the terms of the license.  Obviously
    	  when you transfer a license, you are not allowed to redefine
    	  its terms.
    
    	o No license ever obtained - neither of the above in which case
    	  he never even HAD a license.  And even though he "doesn't know
    	  where the CD came from" it still is identified as copyrighted
    	  material and says "not for resale".
    
    The last case is the one that applies to your remark.
    
    It seems to me that we're claiming that someone who never even obtained
    a copy without legal license is not obligated to the terms of any
    licenses.  If that were the case,  it would render the copyright (and 
    patent) mechanism useless.
    
    Bottom line is that in all three cases there seems to be a reasonable
    for liability.

Y'know, a long time ago this note concerned the allegation that record
companies were adopting coercive tactics to prevent stores from selling used
CDs. It's since diverged into a discussion of intellectual property rights, one
of many which probably ought to get brought together under a single, more
appropriate title.

Whaddya think, moderators?

Bob

    Just this morning on PBS I heard a report about what's going on. It
    seems that 4 BIG distributors (Sony, & Warner were 2 of them) went
    after a HUGE retail chain operation (250+ stores) out in California by
    refusing to pay national advertising subsidies for anyone selling used
    CD's. The court case is expected to come down to the issue of price fixing
    which is selling the same stuff to different people for different
    prices. Meanwhile, independent retailers who make a living from
    recycling these things may get "chilled out" in the process. They gave
    some decent arguments in favor of permitting used discount sales, not
    the least of which was that it actually *benefits* the artists. To me
    this is intuitively obvious, but if you think only in terms of
    "control" of "rights" etc., it's oblique.
    Paul

    
    re. -1 just a nit.
    
    	price fixing is collusion between companies to SET a price.
    	price discrimination is selling the same product to different
    				people/groups at a lower price.
    
    		;*)
    			fred deady
    
    	

    The term they actually used was "discrimination". I suppose you'd have
    to be a lawyer to to know the "legal" difference. 
    
    The basic point here is that it seems that the issue will likely be
    decided by a judge's interpretation of whether it's "discrimination" (or
    price fixing) or not rather than whether anyone owns any (implied)
    license or "rights". It seems a little like the Feds' use of the RICO
    statutes to go after mobsters.
    
    Paul
     
    
    

    > They gave some decent arguments in favor of permitting used discount
    > sales, not the least of which was that it actually *benefits* the
    > artists.
    
    I can see that selling used CD's can have benefits to an artist in
    that he can expand his audience to include people that wouldn't
    pay full price for a new CD.
    
    However, I think this benefit is far outweighed by the fact that used
    CD's are basically a competing product with an insurmountable price
    advantage over the artist's product.
    
    Nice of them to argue on the artist's behalf, but I'm not sure the
    artists are on the side that is arguing on their behalf.  Artists
    would rather you buy new CD's.

    I figured something in there would wake you up. 
    
    Actually, the guy arguing in favor of allowing sales of used CD's was
    pretty lame, but he brought up some interesting ideas. That's one that
    I actually remembered. Another was that, right or wrong, the
    *perception* of consumers is that CD prices are *waaaaayy* tooo high !
    This is not irrational either considering all the whining that
    manufacturers did early on to justify the higher prices for CD's over
    vinyl (new machinery needed to produce them, different form factor for
    shipping, blah, blah. blah)
    
    Paul
    

From: clarinews@clarinet.com (UPI)
Subject: Wherehouse sues music business giants in used-CD dispute
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 93 17:33:20 PDT

	LOS ANGELES (UPI) -- Wherehouse Entertainment Inc., which incurred the
wrath of the record industry by selling used compact disks, hit back
Monday with an unfair trade practice suit against four of the largest
music distribution companies.
	The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, accused
Capitol-EMI, Sony Corp., MCA Inc. and Warner of illegal trade practices
because of their recently enacted policies to withhold co-op advertising
support from retailers who sell used CDs.
	The Wherehouse, a 339-store chain based in Torrance, Calif., said the
new policy unfairly discriminates against it and other retailers who
sell used CDs.
	The suit also alleged that the music distributors' policies are an
attempt to restrict the availability of used CDs in order to maintain
the high prices consumers currently pay for new CDs.
	Sales of new CDs climbed 22 percent last year to $5.3 billion and
analysts estimate that used CDs make up less than 1 percent of the
market.
	The four companies, which represent about 75 percent of the industry,
have admitted that while it is legal to sell used CDs, sales of the
items reduce the sale of new CDs and deprive the artist of royalty
payments.
	Country star Garth Brooks recently entered the fight when he
announced he would no longer allow sale of his CDs to stores selling
used disks.
	The dispute may have been started two years ago when the Wherehouse
began a ``staisfaction-guaranteeed'' policy allowing any consumer to
return any CD for any reason. As a result, Sony eliminated most credit
on all opened returns on all CDs purchased, so Wherehouse began marking
down opened CDs and putting on sale.
	``The public has the right to sell their compact discs, and we have
the right to buy them,'' said Scott Young, chief executive officer of
Wherehouse Entertainment. ``The music distributors violate our rights
and those of our customers by penalizing us for entering the used CD
business.''
	``Our decision to enter the used CD business is our way of giving the
public what they want,'' Young said. ``We believe offering lower-priced,
used compact discs helps stimulate additional sales of all CDs -- both
new and used.''

>	``The public has the right to sell their compact discs, and we have
>the right to buy them,'' said Scott Young, chief executive officer of
>Wherehouse Entertainment. ``The music distributors violate our rights
>and those of our customers by penalizing us for entering the used CD
>business.''
    
    Alright, thought I'd drop one iconoclastic bomb before heading outta
    here for vacation.
    
    While I think what the record companies are doing really sucks, I find
    this reasoning/lawsuit to be bull-puckey.   The music distributors are
    NOT infringing on their right to deal in used CDs, and while it is true
    that they are penalizing them for it, they are well within their
    rights to do so.
    
    It's like saying "I have the right to hate black people, jews and
    hispanics and if you refuse to hire me because of that you are
    violating my right."  
    
    To me it's no different than Timex withdrawing their watches from
    department stores that sell competing watches for less money.
    
    Now, this MAY fall under the various laws pertaining to "unfair
    business practices", but "violating right to sell used CDs" - that's
    just the latest in the ever more ridiculous 90's "my rights" nonsense.
    
    BTW, this week's Newsweek also has an article on this.
    
    	db

    Re .109
    
    Rathole alert...
    
    Dave,
    
    They aren't preventing the stores from buying new CDs to sell, they
    *are* dropping ad support that they offer to other stores (you don't
    think that the stores pay full freight on the record ads you see in the
    Phoenix, do you?).  *That* is what they are deeming unfair.  It doesn't
    sound illegal to me, though.
    
    							Brian

    
    
    Hopefully, millionaire Garth Brooks' position  will not be 
    taken by other performers.  
    
    I am sure he really needs the extra 23cents per unit..
    
    chUck

    What the record distributors are doing might be considered to be
    colluding to fix prices and a violation of the Fair Trade and Anti-trust
    laws by targeting businesses that provide competetive practices to put
    them at a specific disadvantage in the marketplace simply in order to
    keep the price of their product buoyed up.

    These giants compete against each other for consumer dollars everyday
    with no problem at all. What they are trying to do is prevent an outside
    player from changing any of the rules. That's not how the free market is
    supposed to work and that's why we have anti-trust laws.

    The outcome could be that the distributors won't be forced to provide ad
    money to the offending retailers but that they can't provide ad money to
    others on such an arbitrary basis.

    I still think that there'd be no market for the used product if the new
    product weren't so overpriced to begin with. 
    
    I agree that this "rights" business is a heap of '90's hokum, but it's
    tough to empathize with Garth & the Fat Four when the used market is
    still only 1% of the total.
    
    Like I mentioned previously, this will end up being decided for all the
    wrong reasons & the reaction to the decision will be another disruption
    in the system that's already screwed up enough. 
    
    Paul

>     What the record distributors are doing might be considered to be
>     colluding to fix prices and a violation of the Fair Trade and Anti-trust
>     laws by targeting businesses that provide competetive practices to put
>     them at a specific disadvantage in the marketplace simply in order to
>     keep the price of their product buoyed up.


	I emphatically agree.

	And I hope this isn't settled by compensating the record companies 
with a percentage of each used CD sale.

	I would love to see a judgement that guaranteed the artists
a small royalty on used CD sales NOT paid through their recording 
companies but directly to the artists and/or through their publishing 
companies.  Direct payment would assure that the artist gets the 
royalty and that it wouldn't be subverted by the record company in 
the customary ways.

	I would NOT like to see any judgement that compensates the record 
company in *any* way for used CD sales.  They should only profit on the
original sale.  Once they sell a CD, they don't own it anymore.  After all,
do I have to send Ford Motor Company a cut when I sell my Taurus?  Does a
used car dealer?  Does a used book dealer?

	Seeing that the artist is compensated each time their work is 
passed on to another person seems fair, perhaps at a percentage of the sale 
price so that as the CD declines/appreciates in value, so does the royalty.



/ml

>	I would love to see a judgement that guaranteed the artists
>a small royalty on used CD sales NOT paid through their recording 
>companies but directly to the artists and/or through their publishing 
>companies.  Direct payment would assure that the artist gets the 
>royalty and that it wouldn't be subverted by the record company in 
>the customary ways.
    
    The bookeeping needed for this would make used CDs prohibitively
    expensive.    
    
>	Seeing that the artist is compensated each time their work is 
>passed on to another person seems fair, perhaps at a percentage of the sale 
>price so that as the CD declines/appreciates in value, so does the royalty.
    
    This would be even messier to implement.  Who could keep track of how
    many times a CD had been resold?
    
    Recording royalties are based on a contract between the *record*
    company and the artist, not between the *buyer* and the artist.  There
    is no law stating *you* have to compensate *anybody* for buying their
    album. The amount the artist gets compensated depends on how good a
    lawyer they had when negotiating the royalty rates.  In fact, if you
    got free CDs from joining a record club or have ever bought a cutout
    CD, the artist received no royalty from that anyway! 
    
    The record companies are crying about the poor artists only as a
    smokescreen.  Look at how the money from the digital tape tax gets
    split (40% to the artist, 60% to the record company) and compare that
    to the rhetoric that the record companies spouted in support of the
    tax.
    
    The fairest thing to the artist would be to bypass the record comapny
    100%.  Some artists have experimented with direct marketing and they
    make a lot more money that way.  Frank Zappa's first pressing of "Shut
    Up And Play Your Guitar", which was sold only by direct mail, broke
    even in about two months.  Since Zappa was both artist and record
    company, he essentially got to see *all* of the profits.  The trick to
    Zappa's success was that he was already known, so that by placing some
    ads in music magazines he probably reached about 80% of the potential
    audience for that album.  The Grateful Dead have also been successful
    with private label issues and marketing by mail.
    
    
    						Brian

    Gimme a break. I can't believe that so many folks are taking this move
    as having *any* ethical basis whatsoever. Tell me, what does an author
    get each time his or her book is sold "used" after the original
    purchase?
    
    The artist is compensated per unit "hardcopy" of his, her, or their
    work, always has been. What makes CDs so different, all of a sudden,
    from books, sculptures, paintings, articles of clothing, and every
    other result of creative endeavor in the known world?
    
    This is sheerly and solely about M-O-N-E-Y and G-R-E-E-D, IMHO. None of
    the above has any bearing, of course, on what the final outcome of this
    fiasco will be. Please, though, if anyone wants to argue that
    "repeating royalties" make sense, extend your argument to *all*
    artistic creations, not just CDs.
    
    (Oh, yeah- flame off.)
    
    Bob

    I agree with the last 2 replies that it doesn't seem to me that there is
    any basis for anyone to be entitled to any money for the resale of a CD
    except the seller. 

    Whoa, wait'll Dave Blickstein reads this. You guys are in BIG trouble!
    
    Edd

    It sounds like the record companies are trying to get this ruling to
    fall under the "home taping" umbrella.
    
    chUck

    Not sure what reaction Edd expected - hope I dissapointed him (I like
    dissappointing peoples pre-conceived notions about me) ;-)
    
    I agree that there should NOT be any royalty on the "transfer" of
    the license (i.e. the sale of the CD).
    
    However (to dissapointed Bobh Ashforth), I don't see anything
    "unethical" about withholding advertising money to stores that sell
    used CDs.   Why should I pay for an ad that brings people into a store
    where they sell an identical product that I get no money for MUCH
    cheaper (i.e. a used copy).
    
    	db

>    I agree with the last 2 replies that it doesn't seem to me that there is
>    any basis for anyone to be entitled to any money for the resale of a CD
>    except the seller. 
    
    Hmmm... Digital (at one point) charged you for transferring licenses.
    
    	db

    
    I, for one, don't see a lot of advertising for older releases and you
    seldom find new releases in the used CD bin.  
    
    -Ed
    

    > I, for one, don't see a lot of advertising for older releases and you
    > seldom find new releases in the used CD bin.
    
    My experience differs from yours.
    
    I'd bet I could easily find you three flyers from my Sunday paper with
    pictures of older CDs on sale.
    
    And Rockit Records in Nashua has a "New Release" section in their
    used CD bins.

    It seems Garth Brooks has officially announced he will not allow his
    CDs to be sent to stores that sell used CDs.
    
    Heard this on the radio this a.m. but since I channel surf I don't know
    which station - I do know they don't like GB since they followed the
    news story with the DJ yelling something like 'thats great!' now all
    stores shouls sell used cds for that reason....something like that
    
    Joyce

Re .120:

I'm not disappointed, db- I never expect *anything,* and thus am never
disappointed. (I'll admit to getting bored sometimes, tho'...)

WRT witholding ad money, if I understand the way the record biz works, the ad
money stores get from record companies is as much a part of their price
structure as the equivalent is for car dealerships. That is, any stores which
*don't* get such subsidies are at such a competitive disadvantage that they
are effectively outta business.

Unless I'm mistaken about the above mechanism, withholding ad money for stores
which sell used CDs amounts to restraint of trade. This would be more obvious
if the reason for the practice were, say, employing anyone who was not
Republican. The point is, it impinges on the store's ability to choose their
method of doing business.

I'd agree, though, that the above argument would not apply to stores which sell
*only* used CDs. A good argument could be made that such outlets are outside
the sales "system" which ad subsidies are meant to foster. This would be (is?)
a more interesting call; I think I'd come down on the side of the record
companies in this case.

(If anyone wants to clarify the details on ad subsidies and/or whether the
stores impacted *do* sell only used CD's, I'd appreciate it. I haven't tracked
either of these factoids that closely.)

Bob

    > That is, any stores which *don't* get such subsidies are at such a
    > competitive disadvantage that they are effectively outta business.
    
    Bob, I find this highly counter-intuitive and thus hard to believe.

    I also have no real interest into going into what is and isn't
    "restraint of trade" beyond saying that I know that practices like this
    are common place.  For example, the two major soft drink companies will
    not sell to you unless you agree to devote a certain percentage of
    shelf space to their products.  
    
    That's so far beyond the CD thing: it's like instead of withholding
    ad money, they withhold the product itself.
    
    > The point is, it impinges on the store's ability to choose their method
    > of doing business.
    
    To require the record company to give money to such stores impinges
    on the record company's ability to choose their method of doing
    business.
    
    Does it seem so unreasonable and unethical that they would want
    give incentives (such as ad money) to stores that do NOT sell what
    amounts identical competing products at much cheaper prices?
    
    	db

re: .126

>    Does it seem so unreasonable and unethical that they would want
>    give incentives (such as ad money) to stores that do NOT sell what
>    amounts identical competing products at much cheaper prices?
    
On the other hand, this could be viewed as selling the product cheaper
to the vendors that "behave".  Personally, I think this is highly
questionable, although there's a fuzzy line between that and giving
better prices to vendors who buy in larger quantity.  At least in the
latter case, though, there's an impartial, unbiased reason for setting
the price.

-Hal

Re db:

Waal, sounds like the considerations which seem to me to be the heart of the
issue are irrelevant side concerns from your perspective. 'Tain't the first
time, and somehow I'm sure 'twon't be the last.

(And I'm *definitely* not surprised...)

Bob

    What considerations do consider to be at the heart of the issue that
    I consider "irrelevant" Bob?

>On the other hand, this could be viewed as selling the product cheaper
>to the vendors that "behave".  
    
    Basically ANY requirement of a manufacturer on a vendor "could be
    viewed" that way.
    
    I'm certain there around 10's of thousands of such examples.
    
    A famous watch manufacturer used to only sell to stores that didn't
    discount from the list price.
    
    Both major cola companies have INCREDIBLE requirements on vendors
    regarding shelf space, presentation, etc.
    
    So, Hal, unless you think ALL such instances are somehow bad, the
    question becomes what determines whether such requirements are
    immoral or improper?
    
    I.E. unless you think all such requirements are wrong, what makes
    THIS one wrong?

re: .130

>    A famous watch manufacturer used to only sell to stores that didn't
>    discount from the list price.
>    
>    Both major cola companies have INCREDIBLE requirements on vendors
>    regarding shelf space, presentation, etc.
>    
>    So, Hal, unless you think ALL such instances are somehow bad, the
>    question becomes what determines whether such requirements are
>    immoral or improper?
    
Well, I *do* consider things like that to be bad.  Just 'cause the
neighborhood bully can make other kids do his bidding doesn't make it
right.

-Hal

    > Might doesn't make right
    
    Government regulation rarely does either.
    
    	db

From: clarinews@clarinet.com (UPI)
Subject: Record company to resume joint ads with used CD sellers
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 93 19:37:37 PDT

	LOS ANGELES (UPI) -- One of the nation's largest record distributors
announced Thursday it will resume cooperative advertising with retailers
selling used compact discs.
	CEMA Distribution, the wholesaler for EMI Music, had halted the
practice of sharing advertising costs with Wherehouse Entertainment and
other retailers after the stores began selling used CDs.
	The sales of used CDs, which generally sound as good as new CD's, cut
into wholesalers' and record company profits as well as artists'
royalties.
	Wherehouse filed a federal lawsuit accusing CEMA and three other
companies -- Sony Music, Warner Elektra Atlantic Corp. and UNI
Distribution Corp. -- of violating antitrust laws by refusing to fund co-
op advertising.
	The decision Thursday brought an end to Wherehouse's suit against
CEMA. Wherehouse said the other three record companies remain as
defendants in its complaint.
	CEMA President Russ Bach said CEMA remains concerned about the 
``unchecked growth of the used CD market,'' but the company is aware
there are ``deeply held views on both sides of this issue.''

From: clarinews@clarinet.com (UPI)
Subject: Warner/Elektra/Atlantic backs down in dispute over used CDs
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 93 17:52:30 PDT

	LOS ANGELES (UPI) -- Record distribution giant Warner/Elektra/Atlantic
Corp. said Monday it will resume cooperative advertising with retailers
selling used compact discs.
	WEA, a unit of Time Warner Inc., became the second major distributor
to reverse its position on halting the practice of sharing ad costs with
Wherehouse Entertainment and other retailers after the stores began
selling used CDs.
	CEMA Distribution, the wholesaler for EMI Music, announced on Aug. 26
that it had resumed cooperative ads with retailers selling used CDs,
which generally sound as good as new CDs but sell for about half the
price.
	Distributors have claimed that selling used CDs cuts their profits
and the royalties due to the artists.
	Wherehouse filed a federal suit in Los Angeles earlier this summer
accusing WEA, CEMA, Sony Music Corp. and UNI Distribution Corp. of
violating antitrust laws by refusing to fund cooperative ads.
	Wherehouse, a 339-store chain based in Torrance, Calif., said it
plans to drop CEMA was dropped from the suit and said that it hopes to
begin discussions soon with WEA about a similar move.
	``Everyone wins with WEA's decision,'' a Wherehouse spokesman said. 
``We get to keep selling used CDs and promote WEA artists in time for
the holiday shopping season.''
	WEA said the controversy and litigation generated by the policy had
been detrimental to the ``cooperative spirit'' between the company and
its dealers.
	WEA said that while it was resuming ad support to retail outlets that
sell used CDs, it will monitor how this money is spent to verify that
none of it is used for advertising that promotes used CDs.
	``WEA remains deeply concerned that the sale of WEA-distributed-label
used CDs is detrimental to WEA, to its customers, to artists and
ultimately to the consumer,'' it said in a statement. ``WEA is also
confident that the policy it is now withdrawing is lawful.''

> ...it said in a statement. ``WEA is also
> confident that the policy it is now withdrawing is lawful.''

    Rrrright.

    Garth Brooks was just in the news today (again) moaning about used CDs.
    He's still sticking to his argument that the creators should be
    compensated for every resale.  I was thinking of buying his new CD, but
    maybe I'll wait a few months for a used copy  8^)  8^)  8^)  8^)
    
    							Brian

    Someone oughta ask Garth how he'd feel about paying equipment
    manufacturers for every used piece of gear he's ever bought.
    
    I see no difference between what he's asking for and PROPER
    transference of the ownership/license of CDs.
    
    The only difference is when you TAPE a CD, and sell it while continuing
    to hold the tape copy.   There is no analogue of that for equipment,
    but that IS illegal.

    
    Garth... what a looser.  Any time I've ever seen him in an interview,
    he's talking about how he's in it for the fans, not for the money.
    
    Yea Garth... we belive you... NOT!
    
    To this day, Garth Brooks remains the only concert that I've fallen
    completely asleep at...
    
    And Dave, excellent point about used equipment.  I don't know too many
    musicians who have enough bucks to get started by buying new gear.
    
    Later...
    Steve
    
    

    I'm not on Garth's side, but I don't think that used equipment is
    comparable to used CDs - the concept is that the recording has a
    copyright associated with it.  Equipment generally does not (well,
    there's copyrights on chips, and if one mfr copies another's design,
    there could be a lawsuit).
    
    But used books make an excellent comparison.
    
    And (I think) copyrights were intended to protect art/literature.
    Until this century, any "entertainment industry" was small.  Now that
    its huge, some might argue that the copyright concepts are antiquated.
    But, alas - the line between art and product is not clear, and the
    protection is needed by many, and abused by a few.
    
    \chuck