I've been making this EXACT argument for years! If the music industry wants to "license" the content instead of "selling" me a product, then it works both ways!

wow, you put my thoughts into words. 100% agreed.

Pow!

Absolutely, couldn't agree more.. this will get worse if we the people let them get away with it.. down with corporatism.. anyone reading my comment owes me £1, what do you mean you didn't read my licensing agreement on my website!

@Glinner ditto and doubled = double pow!

R!

Beautifully put...

Undeniably the recording industry can't have it both ways, but which way would you prefer? To purchase the product or to purchase a personal license?

Blimey, I'd never thought of this. The argument seems unassailable.

@matmorrisroe: That's it... you nailed it! It's on their terms or nothing. It'll always be a battle but creativity and culture will always rise above any attempts by corporations to stifle it.

By that reasoning, the DVLA should pay for repairs when you crash your car. You should take better care of your CDs. videojon.wordpress.com

This makes total sense to me

I tried this with Microsoft, and to my surprise it worked.
I scratched up my office dvd, and pointed out that they sold me a license, not a product.

They actually agreed with me and sent me another dvd. It took a lot of arguing and escalation, but that was to be expected.

Customer support these days is all about weeding out the weak willed.

That's not what I said actually? I was asking which way you would prefer. The punter also wants it both ways

Best argument I've ever heard on the subject. I don't mind which, provided they pick one. cake != eatit

A personal license would be non-transferable remember, all those second-hand records would be illegal. Whereas the owning the product means that you would have to purchase a new version to use on your music player as well as a CD

Music CDs are obsolete. The new model seems to be that you buy the bits and bytes that make up the music (iTunes for example), and I believe that you can only use the songs with one device. It's a license. Also, I'm not sure whether iTunes will let you re-download your music if your hard drive goes belly up. Also, it gets confusing once you rip a CD -- do you as the consumer have a right to do that? As with every business, my guess is, record labels try to squeeze all the cash they can out of consumers. After all, the function of every business is to make money.

What I'd like to see would be more labelless bands, and bands that refuse to pay the "trolls under the bridge," gatekeepers like record labels and Ticketmaster. Artists would see a larger portion of their profits, and with more people having access to a broader range of music, the music itself might get better.

@mattmorrisroe Sorry, missed answering. That's a good question... if I purchase the product, it's a one time deal (no different from buying a pair of pants or a car) so if I scratch it or lose, too bad. If I want to replace it, I have to go out and buy it again.

If I buy the license, what am I buying? Access? Can I have access to the music regardless of format? Say I wanted the digital tracks of music I bought on CD five years ago, does the license grant me access to them without charge?

Or how about this... what if the music I bought (on license) five years ago has been remastered and re-released. Does the license grant me access to that without charge? It would seem obvious to me that the record industry treats music as a product because they want us to buy the remastered, limited edition, repackaged stuff even though there is little or minimal additional value to what we have already purchased. Throwing out the concept that as music consumers we are bound by a music license is only used to support the fact we are buying a product. Very clever and disingenuous... can't have it both ways.

Ultimately, without knowing what the so-called license says, as a consumer I don't know what my rights are. I think we all understand exactly what buying a product entails.

So, now that you've called me on it... what's your point of view? Moving away from a knee-jerk, emotional response (which is very common when talking about the music industry) I'm not expecting you (or anyone) for that matter to unequivocally pick a position because lets face it, we don't have all the facts and can't discuss and debate the pros and cons of each.

Note: The comment I posted above is something I spotted in the Sydeny Morning Herald and should not be attributed to me. I have shared to generate discussion.

Oh I I hope I don't seem emotional. My view is that we should stick to a personal license (which would cost x amount) and then delivery via whatever method (to cost x). More transparency is always good. That said, the consumer needs a change of attitude too. You're not paying for that piece of plastic, you're paying for all the effort that went into making it, all the people that helped produce it and also all the people that made sure you got to hear it and know who the artist is. Maybe the music consumer and the record industry really do deserve each other?

BTW. I'm loving this discussion.

@matmorrisroe Loving this discussion too!

No, wasn't suggesting you were being emotional... just a general comment that most discussions are very polarizing (us vs. them). I hope we can move away from that (or at least try) so consumers and the record industry can respect each other instead of being adversarial. Music fans really do respect and want to support artists but have a problem with the faceless, corporations throwing their weight around and disrespecting both consumers and artists. I want more of my money going to the creators who put themselves out there at great sacrifice for me to enjoy the works they produce.

That said, I think we are moving toward a personal license scheme anyway just because of technology and digital culture. So my view lines up with yours... it's not about plastic and shrink wrap anymore.

Really this whole discussion is about ownership vs. access. I would love to have access to music anytime, anywhere with caching to my iPod so I can listen offline (like Spotify) and would be willing to pay a fair amount for it and agree to a license for access. Yes, a whole other set of issues/questions arise but will there be a perfect system? And will you please everyone?

The software business is a perfect example of one that has used licensing with much success. Yes there is piracy (and always will be) but we have all been made to understand that software costs money and time to develop and don't grumble about paying for it.

It seems like the music industry somewhere down the line shot themselves in the foot and just couldn't get the same message out to consumers.

Will the industry ever get it right?

The record industry shot itself in the foot by thinking it sold bits of plastic rather than that they were master rights owners. So they resisted selling digitally because it meant they couldn't sell £10 bits of plastic until someone came and did it for them who were actually interested in selling their bits of plastic that had big margins (Apple). Once the cat got out of the bag, and they weren't setting the agenda they were screwed, and they were stuck in a model where airplay generated sales, and couldn't see a way out of it.

As an aside, I always felt a better way of changing attitudes to piracy would have been to have a campaign that showed all the people that went into getting that music to the punter. It may be guilt-tripping people, but it has to be better than suing grannies. After all, we all know people in records that aren't working in music anymore.

Anyway, my belief is that the new model is that there isn't a model. Different artists, didn't punters, different behaviour, Each punter and artist having their own different type of interaction.

Re: Changing attitudes.

My wife worked at a not-for-profit arts organization that helped artists (mainly musicians) get booked into schools (elementary, high school, colleges etc).

The mandate was two-fold: 1) promote music and the arts and help artists earn a living and 2) educate young people about what is involved in creating art and getting them involved as these were interactive sessions.

So to your point about changing attitudes towards music and piracy... this is one way to connect artists with young people before attitudes set in. It's not so much guilt tripping but building a better appreciation of arts and culture.

Rather beautiful.

I agree!

This is what i have been trying to say for a long time ,but could never have put it so to the point.Excellent

If I convert my analogue LP's, of which I have brought many over the years, to a digital format in order to play them on my mp3 player is this analogue to digital conversion breaking the terms of my licence?? do I have a licence, is my vinyl LP a licence ?

What if I download the songs that I have already paid for from someone else to save me the bother of converting the vinyl to digital is that theft?

God they've made it confusing, or has the industry just confused itself?

I think you have the right to make a backup of a CD. It isn't record co's job to protect you against a broken CD.

At least over here buying music from the russian mp3 shops (e.g. list here http://populair.eu/music/) is still legal. Which means that it is faster for me to download an album from there for $1 (legally) than actually rip the cd that I have laying in the cd wall behind me :) So ... I have now an amazing set of mp3s AND the cds ...

You -said- it

@GrahamTilley: Yep, confusing! There are so many questions and specific scenarios that would need to be addressed, if even possible, in order to make any license workable and understandable. Otherwise, each time you buy a CD or buy digital tracks, you'll have a 100 page license agreement to review and sign! Imagine that... (I'm being factitious, of course).

Most of us are not lawyers and we will never get our heads around the language used in license agreements or contracts. We can only hope and trust that what we ultimately end up with is fair to artists and consumers.

Steam, at least in my view is very good because you pay for a license for a game once. It keeps that purchase recorded in your account and you can freely go and download the game as many times as you want. I guess the only problem here is that it is restricted to that account.

Who couldn't agree with this argument? Record companies served their purpose in the times before the internet and massive digital data exchange. Now it is time for them to completely overhaul their business model or die. Nothing lives forever.

i have only two words for this. THANK YOU!

There's nothing wrong with an implied license, if it were imposed by statute. (This is why/how radio stations can broadcast music.) But the industry can't have it both ways. I've been saying this same thing for some time now. Nice to see it getting some much-needed attention.

Well spoken.

Licenses are, at their base level, contracts which grant someone limited use of something. And there is such a thing as a "contract of adhesion" or "adhesion contract". Such a contract is one where the accepting party is getting in to a take-it-or-leave-it situation where one party usually has no bargaining power against some boilerplate language. Probably the most common of these is when you park your car in parking lots: by parking your car, you accept that the garage isn't responsible for any damage (this will say this on your parking receipt).

SAME THING HERE. You said, "At no stage was I asked to sign a licensing agreement." You're assuming that you'd need to sign such an agreement to make it valid. Not so. Opening the packaging might be enough (this is pretty standard on software).

You said, "my licence for personal use should allow me to reacquire ''my'' content." WHY? If that's not what the license is for, why would you be able to claim it? The license could very well have a clause which limits your use to the lifetime of your physical disc. That's the thing about licenses: like any other contract, they have clauses and limitations.

I'm not saying this is right for a record label to do. BUT, it's not like the record label would be operating outside of some established contract law.

BTW: IMHO the letter by John Prior that you referenced makes perfect sense (although his terminology is off) and it has nothing to do with you scratching your discs.

He said: When you buy a CD you own the physical product, but you are only licensing the music and cover art for personal use with conditions protected by law. You cannot copy, alter, upload or broadcast the music without paying an additional fee

This is in-line with copyright law (though, I wouldn't exactly call what you receive when you buy a CD a "license"). In the US (and similarly in most countries), a copyright holder gets a bundle of rights. Those are the right: to produce copies or reproductions of the work and to sell those copies, to create derivative works, to perform or display the work publicly, to sell or assign these rights to others, and to transmit or display by radio or video.

What John Prior was saying is that when you buy a CD you are only ALLOWED to do certain things, most of it relegated to personal use. He's a bit restrictive (he doesn't touch upon fair use), and he shouldn't use the term "license" because one would be allowed personal use without a license.

But back to you scratching your disc. I wrote the above-post on the assumption that you've encountered a situation where you bought a CD and there WAS a license formed. As noted in my previous post, the terms of the license would have to be laid out. Otherwise you wouldn't have a license. Has this happened to you? Have you ACTUALLY run across someone saying: ''you are bound by the licensing agreement that you did not sign and that we cannot produce for inspection.'' I thought this was a recent development that I just haven't seen yet.

Suffice to say: when you buy a CD, you aren't buying a license (unless the CD specifically says you are). When the music industry says "you bought a product," that's absolutely true and it's no different than any other physical product: when you break it, you buy another.

NOTE: the rules are different when purchasing mp3s. In that case, you ARE buying a license because of the nature of mp3s. You would need a license to transfer/copy to your computer/copy to other computers or devices. That's because if you didn't get the license, you'd be in violation of copyright (the ability to copy and distribute is solely for the copyright holder). Those issues don't come up with physical mediums.

OK, one more thing. I saw that the post was from a circulated letter to a paper in Australia. I assume you posted it because it rang true, though.

You're buying both the access to copyrighted material AND a physical storage medium.

Here's an analogy: If you buy a soda and poke a hole in the bottle, you can't ask for a refill because you handled your container carelessly.

Also, copyright laws exist to prevent unauthorized distribution. I don't know anyone that doesn't make copies of everything they buy (for backup purposes). I mean, it's not like they're going to know you did it, right?

Now, DRM is a whole other can of worms...

It seems logical to me that if you are paying for a license agreement to use the intellectual property, rather than the individual physical medium by which it's distributed to you, then you're entitled to a free replacement of that licensed material if your physical product becomes faulty. At most you can morally be obliged only to repay the cost of a new disc, which is a tiny percentage of the overall RRP. And how much does it cost iTunes or whoever to send you replacement bit of digital info down the wires to your mp3 machine? It seems clear to me that the tacit agreement, if you are paying for the message and not the medium, is that you have bought the rights to consume that intellectual property however you wish. If this assumption is incorrect, then we are in a very unclear situation on both the consumer's and the industry's sides.

I think the way to go is for musicians to accept that CDs and downloads are infinitely and easily reproduceable and treat them as marketing tools for concerts and merchandise. Live music is where the money will be from now on.

@Jim Lawrence

The problem with the original post is that it assumes that you get a license when you buy a CD. In general, you don't. The post is based entirely on a false premise.