From: ucap22w@ucl.ac.uk (Martin S T Watts)
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical
Subject: Re: EMI price increase
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:44:06 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium


velde2@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Velde Francois) writes:

[I wrote: ]
>>>>And are DG and Philips (and Decca) not just different aspects of a three-sided
>>>>Polygram coin? If so, are they really likely ever to enter into any cut-throat
>>>>marketing campaigns?
>>>>
>>>So my example was poorly chosen.
>>
>>So it was, but I suspect that there may be other people who remain ignorant of
>>the association, an association which may account in part for the unusual
>>uniformity of pricing of CDs. 

>As I said, they are not uniform across the Atlantic: explain that under your
>monopoly hypothesis.

I wouldn't think it should be too difficult. Could you provide some examples
of the extent of this non-uniformity?

>>Such people might well consider that present CD
>>costs have been arrived at through fair competition. Considering though that
>>DG, Philips and Decca are enormous companies in their own right, I would think
>>that Polygram holds rather more than the balance of power in the CD market,
>>in Europe at least.

>We need hard numbers on this. Anyone?

I've no hard figures, I'm afraid, but a cursory inspection of something like
the Penguin Guide seems to indicate that the overwhelming majority of the most
popular classical releases are produced by one of the above three.

>>But you're basically saying, let them eat cake. As long as you're in a position
>>to enjoy the CD market as it stands and able to rationalise having to make
>>a substantially larger outlay than is necessary, the ethics of the CD
>>industry and the concerns of the less well-off are immaterial. I don't agree.

>My point is this: as long as the CD industry plays by acknowledged rules
>of competition, that's fine. 

I thought we'd established that there is no true competition.

>If CDs are more expensive than the cost of
>producing them, the differential goes as a rent to artists who have a 
>monopoly on their own talents. 

Sorry? So those poor people at the manufacturers don't get anything?

>If you are unhappy with that kind of 
>monopoly, nationalize artists and force them to perform for free.
>If the CD industry does not play by the competitive rules, than there
>is a problem; but I argued above why I do not see evidence for that.

Did you? All you seem to have done is deny what it almost a tautological
statement, that the big firms dominate the CD industry, in the face of 
almost overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

>For all their immorality, those companies brought us the CD, not for the
>love of humanity, but to make money. Don't you think we're better off for it?

Firstly, the people who actually "brought us the CD" are likely to be 
different from those who market it, and probably acted from rather different
motives. I think it's reasonably clear that my criticisms are directed against
the marketers of CDs, not their inventors. Secondly, simply because a company
produces goods which are appreciated by the consumer, doesn't mean it no 
longer has any other responsibilties towards him. Your attitude seems rather
similar to that of British Rail employees who, when you complain about the
hopeless inefficiency of their train services, respond as if you should be
grateful that they're providing a service at all.

>The ethics of the CD industry are relevant insofar as they abide the laws
>governing competition; beyond that, their ethics are as irrelevant as your 
>ethics or my ethics.

Are your ethics irrelevant? Are my ethics irrelevant to you (where I might be
any of the rest of the world's inhabitants)? There's plenty of scope for
greedy behaviour within the law.

>As for the less well-off, as I said, it would be great if everybody could 
>afford everything.  I agree with that. I disagree with the notion that 
>they will be better off if:

>>> If you are 
>>>unhappy with this state of affairs, and you think that the right to cheap
>>>CDs is a fundamental human right, then nationalize the record industry and
>>>subsidize it with everyone's taxes.
>>
>>OK, I'll do that!

>I have a guess on the outcome of that policy...  When the State has a 
>monopoly on art, the results are often desastrous.

I was being ironic, or trying to be.

>>The major companies record all the big names, and people are prepared
>>to pay the extra at present. The ball is pretty much in the consumer's court.
>>

>My point exactly. Why do you want to deprive these big names" of their 
>earnings to have cheaper CDs? Why is that more fair?

I'd sooner deprive the big names of some of their disproportionately large
earnings than deprive a substantial proportion of the population from being
able to afford to listen to them. Again, simply because these stars provide
a service which we appreciate, doesn't mean we needn't concern ourselves with
whether the amount that they, and their record producers, earn from it is fair.
Of course, we can all argue, solipsistically, that the behaviour of others
is unimportant unless it impinges inconveniently on us, the individuals. I
don't think though that the record industry would be in danger of imminent
collapse or the careers of the stars be in jeopardy if we collectively applied
a little pressure on CD manufacturers.

Martin Watts.