
Why Do The Labels Continue To Insist That 'Your Money Is No Good Here?' - ttt_
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120319/08404018158/why-do-labels-continue-to-insist-that-your-money-is-no-good-here.shtml
======
cstross
Publishers do not manufacture content; they buy licenses to reproduce content
created by artists (authors, musicians, whatever) and sell copies of it to
retail customers.

These licenses are often encumbered with legal restrictions because the
creators (via their agents) can _get more money_ by subdividing the rights.

This isn't specific to music. I can speak from personal experience about
novels.

A common form of encumbrance is territorial rights; for example, when I sell
the rights to publish my novels to my publishers, I only sell them the right
to publish in a specific language, and in specified territories.

I can't get more money from a publisher by offering them world English
language rights rather than, by splitting US/Canadian and UK/rest of world
rights and selling them to different local publishers. (In fact, if I sell
world rights to a US publisher, they won't sell the ebooks around the world --
they'll merely re-sell UK rights to a British publisher, who will maintain the
territorial split. Because there are still no truly global publishers, despite
individual members of the Big Six trying to operate on a global scale.) So I
split the rights and sell them separately.

As noted by, well, just about everyone, this makes little or no sense in the
internet age. Unfortunately trying to get book contracts re-drafted so that
e-book rights are global and non-exclusive is, shall we say, an exercise in
pain (we're talking about getting publishing house lawyers involved: do I need
to say any more?). So that's why it persists in ebooks, and it's pretty much
the same story with other forms of content.

That's why this goes on. It'll probably continue for a few more years before
truly global distributors show up and the existing system collapses under its
own weight.

~~~
sounds
Pedantic quote from the article:

"Tell me (and Barassi) why this sort of thing happens. If your answer includes
words like 'licensing,' 'rights' or any other explanation of the convoluted
system that the labels themselves set up to prevent people from purchasing
their music, your answer, while 'technically correct,' is completely wrong."

In other words, who cares?

The artists (as a general body) do not care even the slightest if I live in a
foreign country.

The customers don't care what country the artist was in when they created
their work.

That leaves the middlemen - who are increasingly irrelevant precisely because
they are providing no value to either side.

~~~
cstross
Trust me, the instant I think "the middlemen" add no value to either side,
I'll drop them like a hot potato.

The trouble is, they _do_ add value, from my perspective. But they also add
headaches. There is a cost/benefit trade-off here, for artists to evaluate.
(Which is why I felt the need to respond to this idiotic article, my gut
reaction to which was actually along the lines of "oh no, not this tired old
shit again". For values of "tired old shit" that equate to Techcrunch, not
BRAT, who at least knows what he's talking about, unlike the TC journalist
who's using him to make a point while disingenuously refusing to engage with
the real nature of the problem.)

~~~
ArtB
Sorry, but what value do publishers provide for _digital_ products? I mean for
paperback copies I can understand the value (they will have printers closer to
their market for reduced costs, better local promotion etc), but for ebook
versions what do they provide you?

~~~
jasonlotito
It's listed in a comment right above yours, but was posted after your comment.
Here are his reasons: [http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-
static/2010/04/common-m...](http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-
static/2010/04/common-misconceptions-about-pu-1.html)

~~~
ArtB
Haven't read them all but just skimmed, but I still don't see why he can't
just sell his DRMed PDFs of books he writes through some third-party.

------
guylhem
This is the single best article I've read here. It is just spot on.

A small example: approximately 10 years ago, when I lived in mainland france I
purchased all my DVDs by dvdexpress.com because it just removed all these
problems. Then they went express.com and added restrictions, and thus lost my
business.

I am the customer. I want an item. I will pay for it. If you don't let me buy
it, I will find a mean to get it anyway. You will just lose the opportunity to
make good money on the transaction, and infuriate me for the time lost in
doing your work - finding a way to get me the stuff I want.

Some people believe artificial restrictions from the last centuries still
matter.

In this day and age, they don't. They are just problems to be solved or worked
around by innovatives companies.

Any company that does this get the money. Itunes did a lot of things wrong,
and has many of these issues left, but at the moment it provides the most
gracious experience for the customer.

The company that will manage to find a way to circumvent all these blocks to
satisfy the customer on other IP items (Ex: music, books, newspaper) will get
the best advantage there can in the market: customer satisfaction.

At the moment my money is on google music's cheap mp3, but even more the
kindle ebooks- because you can change the country settings in just a mouse
click.

The company has the right scale to try and sign some worldwide agreement, or
try to strongarm companies or governments that may stand in the way. I wish
them the best of luck to satisfy us - the customers.

------
noarchy
As someone living in Canada, I can VPN my way through the IP barriers. So that
isn't an issue for me. But when it comes to paying, they sometimes still don't
want my money if they see a Canadian address. There is definitely something
wrong with a business model that must function this way.

~~~
DngrZnExpswy
The VPN system, while it works, is a barrier for most people and should not be
considered anything more than skating with a broken ankle, because while you
may win the Stanley Cup, you still have a broken ankle. It is only a solution
for the elite and desperate and a symptom of the fact that the game is too
rough, and may require the rules to be changed. (that analogy proved to be far
more useful than I had hoped)

------
iamben
This article is going to be written over and over until someone finally takes
the step and creates a way for people to download something conveniently (easy
to find/quick to download/no DRM), cheaply and legally.

~~~
jwr
This article has already been written many times. I wrote it once back in
2009: [http://jan.rychter.com/enblog/2009/9/17/why-i-will-steal-
mus...](http://jan.rychter.com/enblog/2009/9/17/why-i-will-steal-music.html)

Things have moved forward since then, but very slowly.

~~~
iamben
Yeah, Spotify was a huge leap forward, although it's not perfect by any means.
TV and film is as dreadful as it ever was.

~~~
slyall
If I go to www.spotify.com it redirects to <http://www.spotify.com/int/> and
the following message comes up:

" Spotify is currently not available in New Zealand. Enter your email address
to be first in line when we launch! "

Which isn't exactly solving the problem...

------
frasertimo
And at the same time on HN there's a link to Aziz Ansari's new standup special
which I can buy for $5, despite the fact that I live in 'lil old New Zealand.

Tim Cushing is right; I don't want to hear your ramblings about licensing or
rights. The fact is, Aziz and Louis CK can do it; why can't the music labels?

------
starfox
This reminds me of when Fred Wilson pirated the Knicks game because nobody let
him pay for it: <http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2012/01/screwcable.html>

------
DngrZnExpswy
It speaks to me viscerally.

I often find myself seething with anger that although I have paid what I
consider unfairly high prices,

(e.g. $77/month for satellite and some specialty channels Idon't watch but
cannot escape, in order to watch Game of Thrones and the occasional filler
program, and finding myself pirating the show anyway for ease of watching, and
extra costs for producing amateur plays whose professional authors are long
dead and whose rights are owned by an entity with no discernible purpose other
than making more money)

and and with the knowledge the money isn't supporting who I want it to support
(i.e. the artist/creator), and having access restricted to free ad supported
content because of where I live, which is as this article points out; insane.

I feel as though we are still in the birth or staging period of the ideas that
were conceived with Napster and the like. There __is __profit for all to be
made in digital media and the phrase 'digital media' represents a far broader
swathe of culture than people outside this type of community seem to realize.

The profit lies in the value the product adds to the culture and intellect or
distraction of the consumers and nowhere else. If someone is valued by society
for their contributions then, like the artists of old, they will find
themselves supported by the population in one way or another.

Every other way to squeeze profit out of what is essentially non-human
entertainment (i.e. once digitized the content can be recreated without
another human adding any value to the work) is just a way ensuring that the
less talented will continue to make less meaningful art at the expense of the
whole society.

What Napster, and by extension the whole internet, did was generate a source
and medium through which the mass individual could self determine quality and
be exposed to more genres and therefore the ideas of musicians than what was
ever before possible. It's major flaw, legality notwithstanding, was that it
limited itself to music. The same approach clearly applies to all form of
media that can be reproduced.

Clearly the repercussions of this way of thinking would destroy industries and
create a new paradigm that the would will take some getting used to, if what I
described were practically applied. Ultimately, I believe it will be resolved
in a massive anti-trust case against the ever larger music
labels/studios/cable giants/ISP's worldwide that will limit their monopolies
and finally reflect the global nature of their industries.

We are seeing the dawn of a global culture. One that will survive and change
so long as the human race does. To place a monetary value on access to that
culture is not sustainable and will not last. IMHO lol

------
noonespecial
It starts to feel a bit like digital "skin color" and "we don't serve your
kind here". History may not be kind to the status quo.

------
earbitscom
I think what people in some of these countries don't realize is that there is
not a big enough financial incentive to do the legal work required to bring
certain artists to those regions. The amount if would cost to get those
agreements done, setup distribution, collect, pay royalties on a tiny amount
of sales is just not worth it.

I know, I know...everybody will say that the labels shouldn't complain when
they fail to bring music to a market and those people pirate the music. At the
end of the day, you're not entitled to everything everyone else has. To think
so is just juvenile.

~~~
tomp
> At the end of the day, you're not entitled to everything everyone else has.

It has nothing to do with entitlement. Copyright is not a god-given right. It
is a social contract; the consumer respects the copyright so that the artist
gets more money, in return the consumer gets more art.

Currently, this social contract is out of balance. I think the right approach
would be for some smaller countries, such as Slovenia, which get routinely
neglected by copyright moguls, to pass laws saying that copyright is only
valid if the work in question is offered domestically under equal terms as
elsewhere worldwide. That would solve the problem real quick, one way or the
other.

~~~
qdog
It's not a social contract, it's a government granted monopoly.

Currently the 'industry' operates much like a cartel. I would posit that
granting monopolies rarely benefits the most people, despite the good
intentions.

~~~
rwmj
It's both: the public grants a monopoly and expects a social contract in
return for this.

Note: the public CAN withdraw the monopoly at any time.

~~~
geoffschmidt
Once it's been given? Unclear. Google "regulatory taking." When you downzone
property you have to be worried about lawsuits. It seems like you could make a
similar argument around copyright.

