Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Music Media Your Rights Online

EU May Block Music Labels' Download Sites 148

csmiller writes: "The BBC is reporting that the EU is (according to The Sunday Times) considering blocking music-labels setting up their own download sites, as 'Some politicians fear that the two services, Pressplay and MusicNet, would be anti-competitive and unfairly dominate the market.'" I wonder when the idea of a Neighborhood Cache will catch on -- it looks like large-scale digital trading will always be subject to this kind of interference.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU May Block Music Labels' Download Sites

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Good (Score:0, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16, 2001 @08:23AM (#2435521)
    I say good for the EU for having balls!

    Half of the EU parliament are female. Try to avoid being sexist by modifying your statement to say "I say good for the EU for having balls and vaginas!"

  • by call -151 ( 230520 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2001 @09:20AM (#2435685) Homepage
    According to this NY times article [nytimes.com] an investigation into the possible anti-competive practices of the big music companies on their internet distribution plans for Pressplay and Musicnet is being launched by the antitrust division of the US Dept. of Justice (this link [nytimes.com] is has same story, no NYT registration required, I think.) No surprise that an investigation is being launched; the news is that subpoenas have been sent out.

  • by statusbar ( 314703 ) <jeffk@statusbar.com> on Tuesday October 16, 2001 @09:25AM (#2435702) Homepage Journal
    Is this a joke? I hope so.

    If it isn't, PLEASE research recording contracts. Very very few popular bands make money from record companies. Read how it really works at http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/

    --jeff
  • by warpeightbot ( 19472 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2001 @10:24AM (#2435935) Homepage
    Most record shops have a few albums from indie or small labels and it is that range of selection that is in danger. The aim here is quite clear... dominate the digital market place, don't allow others to sell your albums digitally and so the equivalent of the high street store that has the breadth of records is never allowed to exist as they can't exist selling _only_ indie records.
    Not true.

    Most music stores have a jobber that comes in and fills the racks with RIAA-produced schlock. Then there are the little mom-and-pop establishments that carry indie media... and usually trade in used RIAA produce as well. These will survive quite handily...

    Furthermore, the indie bands usually have their own websites, where a selection of their stuff is available for download and where they often list the stores that carry their physical media... which, amazingly enough, indie fans generally run out and buy when they find something they like. And as has been said elsewhere in the thread, if you can't find something in your favorite indie store, google it, and find out where it is. That is, if your band's website isn't selling them on their website alreddie...

    Indie music is not in any danger; matter of fact, more and more bands are figuring out that it does NOT help to get into the racket, and staying out of it. The trufans know where to go to get their fix, and are providing more than enough financial support for the bands to make ends meet...

    While I think it's good that RIAA is getting its comeuppance, and think all such monopolies should, the indies are doing just fine, thank you very much.

  • I agree with this, although I wouldn't say the record companies should be completely excluded from distribution online, they just shouldn't have a monopoly either, or have laws designed to promote monopoly (compyright extension, some of the anti-piracy bills, etc). Compulsory licensing, as the MOCA proposes, would be nice. (What's happening with MOCA anyway?) Copyright reform, to disallow corporations from holding indefinately copyrights to music that really should be held by their artists, federal limits on contract law (indentured servitude?), and maybe anti-trust action would be nice too. IMO, the Big Five have not only almost completely sown up the market from the consumers end of the market with 90-95% dominance, they've also sown up the market from the "labor" (artists) end too, by standardizing their Draconian contract terms and maybe other practices they'd rather us not know about.

    I'm always suprised that while both copyrights and patents are on about equal footing as far as their (U.S.) Constitutional basis goes, the courts (AFAIK) regularly extend copyrights, but more rarely extend patents. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this. I also don't how the less-than-recent case-law is different concerning copyrights vs. patents.

    Gosh, two stories in one day about Europe: Germany considering switching to Linux, and the EU proposing blocking music sites. What was that little voice I heard saying that the 21st century wouldn't be an "American century"?

  • Re:Hot water ? (Score:2, Informative)

    by JonnyCalcutta ( 524825 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2001 @12:38PM (#2436601)
    I think you'll find that only one of the majors is actually American. BMG and EMI are European, Vivendi Universal is European (although Universal was American at one point, I guess), Sony is Japanese and you're left with AOL Time Warner as the only American owned record company (majors that is).
    There's irony in there somewhere.

Nothing happens.

Working...