The studios still don't quite get it.

[Blue Audio Visual]

Is the price you quote ex-VAT? If each DVD-R attracts a levy of 3.25 SEK, that's 162.5 SEK ex VAT for the spindle of 50, meaning that they're selling the DVD-Rs for less than 1 SEK (about 15c) each??? Seems crazy...

[mattias]

no, it's inclusive, which i guess proves my point. it's easy to order discs from germany so the swedish retailers simply have to lower their margins.

/matt

[Blue Audio Visual]

So.... The inc. VAT levy is 4.0625 SEK per DVD, on a spindle of 50 that's 203.125 SEK - Less than the sales price of 200 SEK, and ignoring the issue of the cost price of the DVDs from the wholesaler. As a guestimate they must be losing something like 40-50 SEK each time they sell a 50-pack for 200 SEK.

Swedish media retailers must be a nobler and more altruistic breed than others in this dog-eat-dog world. Or there is more to this than meets the eye...

[mattias]

i've no idea. either they've found a way to get around the fee, or they break the law, or it's all a lie. :-) i only know what i see. btw i said "around" 200, i never buy 50, i buy 25 at 119 sek, which means a 10 sek profit per spindle.

/matt

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

i buy 25 at 119 sek, which means a 10 sek profit per spindle.

After you deducted the wholesale price?

I´d say they found a way around the law, should be easy enough. Shops in general never reports any kind of empty-DVD-fees anywhere. Only the swedish wholesale companies have to report how many DVDs and CDs and so on they sell each year.

Or that this specific shop sells the DVDs at a loss.

[mattias]

After you deducted the wholesale price?

no, to share between the manufacturer, the importer and the retailer. :-) i think they sell them at no profit in order to sell more of something else. i work in a video store and we do that all the time. you'd be amazed what a difference there is between the different movies we sell for 99 sek. some cost 14 wholesale and some 92. same with candy, where we actually sell some kinds at a 50% loss because if we didn't have it customers would go elsewhere.

/matt

[Jim Carlile]

...The 'Audio' CDRs are typically labelled "For Consumer", and there are plenty of stand-alone HiFi separate CD recorders out there which can only use these. If you put a normal Data CDR into them they won't work.

That's true of recorders, but I was referring to players and as most people use PC's to burn discs it doesn't matter what they use.

Audio CD-R's are a rip-off. They were designed for the component duplicators that you hook to your stereo system. If you burn with a PC, you don't need an audio blank disc, and the result should play on any machine so long as you've burned it as an 'audio' disc.

But there's also this record industry propaganda going around that it's 'illegal' to copy your own records or port them over to Ipods, etc. and that's not true-- at least in the U.S., yet......

[Will2]

But there's also this record industry propaganda going around that it's 'illegal' to copy your own records or port them over to Ipods, etc. and that's not true-- at least in the U.S., yet......

Actually it's kind of a legal grey area... technically labels have the exclusive right to make any copies other than one backup, but the labels won't sue you for it because they might just lose in front of jury thereby making it law through precedent.

Labels & studios are slowly coming to realize that just because the law is on their side doesn't mean that they can enforce all their rights now that the culture has changed so dramatically.

Fox's idea to include a iTunes version of their movies on each DVD is a great step in the right direction.

[MovieStuff]

But there's also this record industry propaganda going around that it's 'illegal' to copy your own records or port them over to Ipods, etc. and that's not true-- at least in the U.S., yet......

Actually it's kind of a legal grey area... technically labels have the exclusive right to make any copies other than one backup,....

That is correct. Ownership of something is not the same thing as owning the right to duplicate, even for personal use. High school yearbook photos are a good example as are children's portraits done at Sears or Kmart, etc. Labs often have customers that bring such photos in for duplication because the customer thinks they have the right to make copies, since they paid the photographer for their services. But, unless the copyright was transferred as part of the transaction for services, then the photographer has the exclusive right for duplication and the lab could get busted for violating that right. Clearly, these copies are for personal use but the law is still the same. One of the few exceptions is migration due to obsolete formats and lack of equipment. If you have, say, a S8mm home movie of a film that still has a copyright but you can't view it because super 8 projectors are no longer made, then you do have the right to migrate it to a DVD or some other contemporary viewing medium. But only once and subsequent copies of that DVD are not legal.

...but the labels won't sue you for it because they might just lose in front of jury thereby making it law through precedent.

This is exactly right. I have tried to make this distinction before when people here talk about legal rights. Everything in law is based on precedents and just because someone gets away with something outside of court doesn't mean that it is legally okay to do it. Companies often ignore transgressions because they know that to challenge it means there is a possibility they might "officially" lose and that sets an industry precedent that costs more than just looking the other way for a handful of transgressors.

Roger

[Will2]

Ok, a little clarification. I was wrong (sort of), my appologies to Jim.

I just emailed an Intelectual Property lawyer I know from my University of Miami School of Music days and here was his response:

I think an argument can also be made that there is an implied license to copy a cd for personal use. Copyrights can only be transfered in writing but I think a license can be granted by implication and without being in writing.

This issue has been argued back and forth for many years, with consumers groups arguing that this was a fair use (see sections 2.8 and 2.9), and the recording industry arguing that it was not. The issue was finally settled by Congress when the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) (P.L. 102-563, 106 Stat. 4237, codified at 17 U.S.C. 1001 - 1010) was passed in October 1992. This Act added ten sections to Title 17, one of which provided an alternative to the fair use analysis for musical recordings.

The new section states:

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement
of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or
distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital
audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an
analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a
consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical
recordings or analog musical recordings.

17 U.S.C. 1008.

As the legislative history to this statute noted, "In short, the reported
legislation would clearly establish that consumers cannot be sued for
making analog or digital audio copies for private noncommercial use."

Although a moot point, just because they can't sue doesn't mean it's techinically a granted license as it never says "purchasing a digital or analog recording automatically grants the user a license for making non-commercial copies."

What's not clear to me in the legal mumbo-jumbo is what happens when you haven't purchased the original recording... perhaps that's in another section since labels are suing people in the States for downloading mp3's of music they have never purchased (and winning!).

[Jim Carlile]

See, what happened a few years earlier is that the Betamax time-shifting decision threw the industry for a loop. They were fit to be tied, and they have never accepted it.

In consequence, Congress later enshrined this decison and a few others and codified it in law, just like they did with a couple of other 'fair use' decisions in copyright legislation. A later Supreme Court ruling validated the idea of space-shifting, just like Betamax validated time-shifting a few years earlier. You can only space-shift that which you already own.

The licensing argument is interesting, but not necessary at this time to protect your right to copy your own material that you have already purchased, what with this space-shifting ruling (which could be overturned by Congress.)

What it all boils down to is that manufacturers cannot require consumers to purchase duplicate copies of materials that they have already bought, just because the medium has changed. Consumers are allowed to play their own records and in any fashion they wish. And they can digitally time-shift broadcasts, too, as well as space-shift them. (Just what the record companies don't want you to know about as broadcasts are going digital....)

Unfortunately, other countries have passed legislation that does the exact opposite-- like the U.K. this month. There are still constant attempts in the U.S. to water down the Betamax decision in the digital era, but they have not been passed--- yet.....

So, copy with impunity, and port with pleasure (for yourself)....but keep digital stuff off of any kind of open file system like a network That's where they can get you.

[Nigel]

Duplication is different than fair-use under ownership.

The US Supreme Court has said that there is a degree of duplication allowed under fair-use. Hence their decision on mix tapes.

It is legal to tape/record and create mix Tape/CD/Data file. Just as it is legal for me to give you a book I bought for you to read. Or, for used bookstore to exist for that matter.

One thing that hinges on these choices that the studios are pushing for is something that people often overlook.

Libraries.

If the Studios/Publishers/Distributors get their way then it would be illegal for a library to lend books or anything for that matter.

A mix tape that is freely given isn't selling any sort of right. It is simply the lending of material to someone. That someone has every right to use it fairly.

It is the Sony argument. Sony argued for videotapes in front of the court saying that it wasn't anything but a personal copy covered by fair-use. Now, 25 years later they want that whole attitude changed so that one has to pay multiple times for material one already owns.

The buying of a CD is the owning of that material to be used fairly and justly.

It is mind boggling that studios that once advocated for the recording of material under the law are now trying to restrict exactly what they stood for.

And to back a particular format because of it's protections shows how short sighted these suits are...Protections will be cracked faster than a 6 year old opens a present on Christmas morning.

If we look at "The Long Tale"--I really hate that phrase. It is pretty easy to see that what is going on is pissing in the wind.

I'm all for the free market to step in. And it is great to see how it undercuts the power brokers at every turn. For every new spin on DRM there is a hack/crack released within hours.

Information/Stories/Ideas want to be free and the market has bourne that time and time again. It is a testament to human nature and the spirit of the market.

Good Luck

[Nigel]

Oh...

I do think that the Apple HD rentals are over priced with stupid terms that I am sure were put there by the studios. Of which Disney/Jobs is one.

Good Luck

[Jim Carlile]

Here's where American law stands on the issue right now:

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/01/ar ... zed-or-not

The problem for the RIAA is that space and time shifting have been ruled fair use by the Supreme Court. If they sue now, they'll lose. If they wait for a more friendly, right-wing court, they might win, and get all the precedents tossed.

That's what they-- and most American businesses-- are waiting for. Then let the fun begin. That's why this upcoming election is very important, and why the American corporate media is manipulating the voters the way they are right now.