[Nightfly]

Quote:
The European Commission is currently not drawing any binding rules to regulate the online music market, despite repeated calls by the European Parliament.

At a meeting with MEPs in the legal affairs committee last month (14 November), the commission said: "The submissions analysed so far show that most stakeholders do not see the need for a framework directive, and prefer market-based solutions to regulatory intervention."

For More Info:

EUobserver.com

[solaris]

Originally Posted by Nightfly

Quote:
The European Commission is currently not drawing any binding rules to regulate the online music market, despite repeated calls by the European Parliament.

At a meeting with MEPs in the legal affairs committee last month (14 November), the commission said: "The submissions analysed so far show that most stakeholders do not see the need for a framework directive, and prefer market-based solutions to regulatory intervention."

For More Info:

EUobserver.com

Upon first read I'm not sure I quite understood the essence of this article

Does this mean that the big music companies once again have lobbied that someone in for instance Germany STILL can't buy music from a British online music store and vice versa?

Apart from DRM - this is exactly the reason that I in the beginning of 2004 (in total desperation) frenetically began to trawl the Internet to find someone, somewhere (that was at least grey zone legal) that would sell UK and US top 40 hits, while they were actually STILL top 40 hits.

But I did notice this though:

Song-writers' and composers' rights are currently controlled by CRMs which grant national distribution licences for record labels and online shops and collect royalties of a few cents per download.

Even if the Russian/Ukrainian online music stores are a little cheaper, when they sell MP3-tracks, I think that the artists would probably get a little more per track from ROMS and FAIR (if these bodies were allowed to pass all that money along by the MAFIAA).

[Nightfly]

As I understand it ..
It takes away government regulations and their pricing
restrictions,
and allows artists to develop their own prices and compete in the open market.

and I agree..why doesn't CRMs take the ROMs and FAIR moneys
offered them, and help support their members and truly invite
open trade and global good will.

[archon.thelawgiver]

Hi Nightfly,

If organisations such as the IFPI and their US counterpart recognised remittances held by ROMS etc, they would then be accepting a lower payment. It would mean:

1. A tremendous loss of face for the organisation in relation to
many of their members (like Metallica)
2. In international law a lower pricing model even though prices
vary markedly between countries
3. The aforementioned organisations would completely lose control over
different national pricing schemes
5. An undermining of these aforementioned legal positions in terms of
national litigation models and lastly,
6. That IFPI, the RIAA, the Australian ARIA and all members of the IFPI (and
the "P" stands for phonographic…a word that had a lot of meaning in the
early part of the last century) are cartels, they do not believe in free
trade and fiercely defend their turf in a losing battle.

I hate to say this but we are in a interregnum stage. What I mean is that as technology advances and laws follow there will be casualties.

In sum nothing has changed since I quit the industry in disgust in 1993, except for the fact that I joined the ranks of the guerillas. And that's why I chose the non de plume Archon.thelawgiver. Archon gave the west the first set of codified laws for a (then) modern world. And that's what we need; a set of modern laws dealing with copyright.

[Nightfly]

Hey Archon,

Yes I know that these people will never change because their
downfall will be their own greed and unwillingness to change.

I believe they would rather have nothing than to say
"maybe we are going about this the wrong way"

Meanwhile we wait patiently for their self caused demise.