


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html
Average teenager's iPod has 800 illegal music tracks
ReplyDeleteStory from The Times.
It hints at price discrimination; ie, the yoofs are paying for the music what they can afford; viz, nothing. Further, it doesn't mention anything about exclusive possession: when a yoof downloads a tune it doesn't prevent anyone else from making a copy of the tune and paying for it (ie is it really theft?).
Someone posted a note on the IPKat blog about the lack of economic analysis with respect to IP. Whole heartedly agree with him/her. Yoofs downloading and not paying for the tunes has the same effect as playing music on the radio. It increases awareness of a particular tune that otherwise would be lost to oblivion. The yoofs are doing the music biz a big favour. (I suspect that the music biz knows this but that's for another post).
Except, of course, that the music companies get paid when their music is paid on the radio. The article would appear to be a good reason for ipods to be adapted to only play copy protected tracks (but of couse the EU Commission considers this anti-competetive).
ReplyDelete"Except, of course, that the music companies get paid when their music is [played] on the radio."
ReplyDeleteExcept, the real transfer is in the other direction, see payola.
(Oh, do keep up 007).
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteAnd digital copy-protection is technically a myth. It doesn't stop copying, the net result is just that companies can no legally offer competiting, compatible products.
It is unclear exactly how music artists will make their money in the future. What is however clear, to me, is that there isn't the money anymore to support a large, middle-man sector. (That there was in the past seems, to me, to have been an anomoly, of the 70s to 90s - the height of the physical, analogue recording publishing industry).
After 10 years of the DMCA in the USA, it is also clear to some that attempting to preserve the analogue publishing business model through legislatively mandated technological measures also is doomed to failure. The technologists said from the beginning that copy-protection wouldn't work - management at some large media companies are starting to agree (see various moves in last year to sell DRM-free music on Apple and Amazon online stores).
If you accept this interpretation of events, it should be clear that it would be a *bad* idea to introduce further legislation mandating copy-protection. Perhaps what's needed is enough time to allow the industry to figure out a viable, new business model...
Hi Paul
ReplyDelete"And digital copy-protection is technically a myth. It doesn't stop copying, the net result is just that companies can no legally offer competiting, compatible products.
It is unclear exactly how music artists will make their money in the future"
It is clear to me that it isn't IP laws that protect what passes for IP: but economics. As the cost of production collapses, as well as the means of production; pharmaceuticals will be in the same position as the music industry.