CD-Wow loses court case

[Agent]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6700639.stm

[Kezzer]

"loses"

[Agent]

ARGHH, I'm forever moaning about that, and now I've done it myself!

[IBM]

I read this...interesting, although good to see that they're probably going to appeal and want a review of the entire copyright law concept.

[jimbouk]

Tis a sad day. Surely the same amount of money goes to the artists themselves whether you pay £15 for an album in HMV or £6 for it on cd-wow. Should this thread just turn into another "Rip-off Britain" thread? It's a shame they were sourced from China, maybe they could move to Eastern Europe then the EU would fine anyone who tried to stop them selling fairly priced CDs.

[Vroomparrot]

Some guy from the BPI was just on CH4 news trying to defend their stance. I used my psychic powers on Jon Snow to try and get him to slap the git. Didn't work darn it

[Saracen]

CD-Wow deserved to lose. They previously agreed to a court undertaking to stop doing this, and then ignored the hell out of it. They deserve to lose on that basis alone, IMHO.

Then, they tried to pretend that the illegal imports were 'the result of human error", and when that didn't wash, they then try to pretend that it's about the "big dogs" picking on them and that they're some kind of consumer champion. Cobblers. They're exploiting everybody by breaking laws and gaining unfair commercial advantage by doing so.

And besides, which is it? If the imports were human error (as they claimed to the court), they can hardly have been championing consumers because it was, after all, all an "error". Can't have it both ways, guys.

[Saracen]

Originally Posted by jimbouk

Surely the same amount of money goes to the artists themselves whether you pay £15 for an album in HMV or £6 for it on cd-wow.

Not necessarily.

I can't comment on the particular deals or artists involved, but I CAN comment from personal experience.

As a writer, I hold copyright to my own work, and I sell it in different markets at different rates. By "sell", I'm referring to a licence for specific rights, and that means that a given company can do certain things in specified ways. For instance, I may sell the rights to first British print publication to one company for a specific sum, but the rights to US print publication for a different (and significantly larger) sum, and to a different company.

If the first company then export the work to the US, they prevent me from marketing my own work, in the way I chose in the US. If that British company had wanted worldwide print rights, I may well have agreed to that .... but at a different price, because I'd have to forego any income from marketing it elsewhere myself. If they wanted reprint rights, that again would change the calculation. If they wanted electronic rights, then again, it changes the figure charged.

The same principle applies to the music and film industries, and the structure of payments to artists can be both hugely complex, and very, VERY varied. For instance, the deal an artist can negotiate will depend on their market power. If they can up sticks and walk (to another record company or studio), and if they have the market desirability to be actively recruited, they can come close to writing their own contract terms. If they're an unknown quantity, the record company (or studio) are likely to offer a 'take-it-or-leave-it' type of deal.

Few people outside of the band, their agent, the record company and their respective lawyers will kn9ow what the basis of any payments are. Some may have sold all rights for a fixed sum, sum may be getting a small sum per unit sold, or a mix of both. And that deal may vary territory by territory.