Posted by PTravel on 12/08/06 19:13

"Christopher Campbell" <christophercampbell@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C19EF59F001D1AB8F0407500@news.wavecable.com...
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 18:12:03 -0800, PTravel wrote
> (in article <4tpbjoF155mcaU1@mid.individual.net>):
>
>
>>
>> My personal opinion is that the music publishers are trying to frame
>> _new_
>> law that protects an obsolete business model. It's not the law that's
>> bad,
>> but the distribution mechanism selected by the record companies. One of
>> my
>> clients is a very well-known computer game developer. They devised a
>> business model that was essentially piracy proof -- they benefited even
>> when
>> their games were knocked-off. Not surprisingly, they were (and are) very
>> successful, and a number of other game developers have emulated them.
>
> I think the law is very well settled and has been for decades. There is no
> "new" law here.

Not so -- there's lots of new law, namely the DMCA, which is bad law and was
enacted at the behest of content providers.

>
> Neither do I think the labels are trying to protect an obsolete business
> model. Universal is the largest of these companies, one of the most
> aggressive about protecting their copyrights, but also one of the most
> innovative. All of their music will be available for free download on
> their
> own site, for example -- all the revenues come from advertising on the
> site.

If they do this (have they done this?), that is an example of changing their
business model to reflect changes in technology.

> I do not think, though, that Universal will succeed in persuading Apple to
> give them a royalty on every iPod sold, despite their success in winning
> such
> a contract with Microsoft's Zune.

That's not changing a business model -- that's trying to use law to protect
an archaic business model, along the lines of requiring that buggy whip be
provided with the purchase of every new automobile.

> Zune needed Universal's support to get a
> toehold in the marketplace.

Well, not a legal point, but Zune needs to be a superior product to gain a
toehold in the marketplace. It certainly doesn't offer anything that would
tempt me to abandon my iPod.

> After all, latest sales figures placed Zune 54th
> place in sales --- ranking below turntables! The iPod, OTOH, has enormous
> market share.

And there's a reason for that. Apple didn't pass laws requiring that
everyone with a computer buy an iPod, nor did it require that anyone who
wants to download music from iTunes buy an iPod (something that Microsoft
did with its operating systems, which allowed it to gain near-monopoly
status in the market). Apple made an appealing product with features that
consumers wanted. That's why I bought one -- it did what I wanted, and did
it well.

> If Universal does not want to become completely irrelevant (and
> the label companies are in serious danger of becoming exactly that), then
> they are going to have to do things Apple's way, not the other way around.

That's exactly my point.

> Even the Beatles have finally seen the light. Who knows, maybe even Garth
> Brooks will eventually come around. :-) If Universal wants a piece of
> every
> iPod, they will be fighting against a very strong trend. But Spiralfrog is
> a
> good first step. It will be interesting to see if Apple can continue to
> charge 99� per tune if Spiralfrog is giving music away for free.
>

[Back to original message]