Re: record shows

At 08:20 AM 6/12/96 -0400, you wrote:

>Without pontificating (too much) ... 

     Oh, come now -- I always welcome at least
a fair amount of spewing ... 

>... 1) the latest "crackdown" is a result of 
>Clinton's trade treatys with the Europeans ... 2)
>The "right" to enforce the laws comes as a direct 
>result of the "rights" that are negotiated by the 
>artist and the record company. ie Who owns what 
>and who is entitled to how much ...

     And none of those really addresses the point
that *I* thought was in the original post. However
inelegantly phrased as "corporate greed" or
whatever, the issue is how much control a publisher
should be able to exercise over what essentially is
a separate aftermarket for liver performances. I
agree that lobbying efforts have swung the pendulum
toward control versus free exchange: the question
is whether and to what extent it's a "good" thing.

>In terms of "greed", it's too simplistic to say, 
>"gee the artist only gets 15% and the record company 
>gets..."

     And I didn't condemn any particular percentage
of sales as immoral "greed" on the part of anyone.
My point is that where an artist's earnings are
dwarfed by those of the distribution channel, it is
appropriate to examine the channel to decide (1) why
and (2) whether the public interest is best served
through that system.

>Let's go back to the good ol' American way ... 
>EVERYONE is entitled to a profit. Less than that is 
>socialism. More than less than that is communism.

     Hmmmmmmm -- I don't recall "entitle[ment] to a
profit" being carved in stone or written in anything
else called "the American Way," although I think the
John Birch Society has something called "The American
Spectator." I *do* recall something in the Constitution
about protection of intellectual property being 
enforceable in the public interest, though. Which is
why patents & copyrights are subject to the antitrust
laws ... and why "the American way" is, if anything,
simply an opportunity to compete in *hopes* of making
a profit ...

     I also have been in enough recent flame wars over
contemporary descriptions of "socialism" and "communism"
to be wary of those slogans. At least in the classic
sense, neither system necessarily precluded the notion
of profit -- the questions were ownership of the means of
production and distribution of surplus *beyond* the rate
of return needed to maintain the particular producer.
Looking beyond slogans:

>Both parties (artist & record company) negotiate for 
>what's best for each party and get what they can from each
>other.

     Certainly correct in a competitive market, and
probably correct in a market where independent production
and promotion are viable alternatives to oligopolistic
publishers. John's recent tour and the aborted U.F.O. tour 
suggest that such efforts are possible; I cannot speculate
on the ease of use. But again, it isn't really *relevant*
to the point under discussion: exactly what rights should
be within the exclusive control of the artist and whomever
he, she or it chooses to negotiate? 

>Should the artist get more? Perhaps? But is the artist 
>willing to "become a similar corporation" that will 
>manufacture, distribute, market and manage the product 
>once the master tapes are done? Do you have any idea what
>these things cost?

     Fang's tenor suggests that self-production is not a 
viable alternative for most artists, which undercuts the
notion of arms-length bargaining. But again, the point
is not whether an artist or his/her/its publisher has 
some right to recover some return on some investment. The
question is exclusive control over a distinct market and
the presence of competing products.

     And, AAMoF, I *do* know that commercial-quality CD's
can be produced with about $10,000-15,000 in hardware.
At least that's the cost in the midwest. Cassettes are
less. The big-ticket variables are "marketing and managing"
the product down the road, as Fang describes.

>And, if there wasn't a profit to be made on the same, why
>would a record company be in business? 

     Big difference between "a profit" and "monopoly
profit through exclusion of low-cost competitors." Support
for the former principle does not require a guarantee of 
the latter in practice.

>As for the "crackdown" of bootlegs. I probably like it 
>less than most of you ... I do believe that they have the
>right to "control" their product per the agreement that 
>they signed.

     *I* didn't sign their agreement. I *do* pay for the
experience of a concert performance when I buy a ticket.
And the right to a performance certainly doesn't carry
any necessary right to control how it is distributed 
later ...

>We really can't say, "The public has the right..." since 
>we didn't create, perform or spend money manufacturing/
>marketing ourselves. 

     Of course we can. As I mentioned earlier, the 
artist and publisher have valuable "rights" only because
the law says they do. And those laws specifically are
created for the "public" benefit. Unless some "public"
benefit results from restricting non-commercial 
distribution of concert recordings, why should the law
prevent it?

>If ... the record companies (and artists) were smart 
>... instead of spending money enforcing laws, they should 
>... join them. Just think what would happen if a company 
>like MCA put out their OWN Who "bootleg" series. ... Both 
>artist and record company can profit and everyone gets a 
>fair chance to buy it...

     I can (and do) agree with everything in the last
paragraph -- but we unfortunately have to live in the real
world where MCA (for example) apparently prefers to restrict 
supply and raise prices on Who recordings instead of seeking 
and meeting new forms of competition. I have yet to see why 
that's a policy we should support.
Bad defeats Good then self-destructs