[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dvd-discuss] Hacking requires search warrant -- ruling

Actually, what I believe the case is, is that the RIAA negotiates
licensing terms for their artists which are then applied to all
copyright holders.  The fact that the RIAA's interests and those of
independent artists are at odds *does* constitute a gross conflict of
interest.  One can imagine  (it's easy if you try) that the licensing
regime could be structure such that large firms with the ability to
spend $M on marketing would want to set the royalties as high as
possible to prevent small independent web radio from playing anything
that won't have Britney level mass market appeal.

I cannot see how the RIAA (through SoundEx) can be allowed to set terms
that apply to it's competitors.  It's as if Microsoft could set a
minimum royalty for software at $99 (the cost of a XP Home upgrade). 
Sure Redhat would make more money per copy based on that logic ... both
copies that would see at that price.  To be fair, if LinuxUnited could
set the maximum royalty for software at $19.95, the effects on MS
business model would be just as tragic.   This of course assumes price
elasticity information "not in evidence."

Richard Hartman wrote:
> Well, aside from that ... how can the RIAA negotiate
> the best deal for the government while at the same
> time negotiating the best deal for the artists they
> represent?  Cain't be done!
> --
> -Richard M. Hartman
> hartman@onetouch.com
> 186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Glendon M. Gross [mailto:gross@xinetd.com]
> > Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 9:31 AM
> > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Hacking requires search warrant -- ruling
> >
> >
> > It seems that way to me.  It would seem to me that it would
> > constitute
> > preferential treatment for RIAA members, leaving non-RIAA
> > members out in
> > the cold.    This seems to me that it would be counter to the best
> > interests of impartial justice, but unfortunately all too
> > typical of the
> > way special interests are represented in U.S. government lately.
> >
> > Richard Hartman wrote:
> > > Since the RIAA already represents some of the
> > > artists, isn't giving them the negotiations
> > > responsibility for the government a direct
> > > conflict of interest?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >