Oz ARIA under investigation
p2pnet.net News Special:- An investigation into the Australian segment of the Big Music cartel’s operation could have major repercussions internationally.
A leading Australian national newspaper, the Australian Financial Review (AFR), recently published a report saying an investigation by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) had been launched into the Australian recording industry.
The report, by the AFR’s John Davidson, says the ACCC has been asking former employees of the Big Music cartel’s ARIA (Australian Recording Industry Association) to take part in a “wide ranging investigation” stemming from the ARIA’s refusal to allow Sharman Networks partner Altnet to sell music online.
Altnet has been trying to sell its TrueNames DRM product to the entertainment industry cartels, with a marked lack of success. It’s also been attempting to “mug” companies into licensing it, as US entertainment lawyer Jay Flemma recently put it.
Along with Sharman Networks and others, it’s been a respondent in the recent Kazaa court case, which has gone to final submissions, although the court has yet to rule.
According to the AFR report, the story was leaked to Davidson by “a source in the record industry” and when Davidson questioned the ARIA it, “confirmed … that the ACCC was conducting an investigation …”
Who are these organisations, and what does all of this mean?
ARIA ‘competes with itself’
ARIA is another misnomered RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) clone which, like the RIAA, is dominated and controlled by the members of the Big Four music label cartel.
Although ARIA is short for Australian Recording Industry Association, none of the cartel members – Sony BMG (Japan, Germany), Universal Music Group (France, Warner (US) and EMI (UK) – have a significant base in Australia.
Among its other activities, the ARIA “provides in certain cases, a reproduction licensing function on behalf of its members for various copyright users.”
In effect, the ARIA competes with itself to license companies for the reproduction of sound recordings. It frequently deals with license requests for companies attempting to implement new business models, or business models reliant on new technology.
According to the AFR article, Altnet approached a number of the recording companies suing it, looking for licenses to sell music through its file swapping system.
Its applications were refused and the denials have become of a “general inquiry” into industry online licensing practices.
According to its web site, the ACCC, “promotes competition and fair trade in the market place to benefit consumers, business and the community. It also regulates national infrastructure services. Its primary responsibility is to ensure that individuals and businesses comply with the Commonwealth competition, fair trading and consumer protection laws.”
The ACCC primary aim is to “pursue hard-core collusive activities such as price fixing, market sharing, primary boycotts … resale price maintenance and misuse of market power, especially when the conduct is blatant and enforcement action will have a deterrent effect.”
It isn’t surprising that the ARIA is apparently adamantly refusing to have anything to do with Altnet. But that’s hardly the point.
Given that ARIA = RIAA = CRIA = JRIA (and etc), and the issues complained of are worldwide in nature, we’ll be following this story with great interest as it unfolds.
(Thanks, Peter)
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
<------Hacker: Someone who, after installing a new program, goes immediately to [Tools][Options]------>
===================
See:-
sell music online – Altnet gets into p2p sharing, p2pnet, March 1, 2005
licensing – Altnet trying to ‘mug’ companies, p2pnet, January 10, 2005
April 18th, 2005 at 4:01 pm
The rise of P2P and part of the popularity of it is a direct responce to the attempts to shut down all competition by the music majors through their pets. There is a direct corrolation between the ceasing to sell singles in favor of the customer purchasing only albums and the rise of P2P. No P2P as configured today has ever been able to get a license from the majors even though most have tried.
Napster, one of the very first P2P’s on line was sued out of existance because of having centralized servers. During the time of Napster’s heyday, music sales were doing very well. After Napster was gone offline, music sales fell through the floor. There have been many direct links made in studies indicating that it is very possible that the P2P was nothing more than a giant free advertising for the majors and in closing it they closed many customers pocketbooks.
These agencies around the world that are the watchdogs for the major music cartel have been nothing but thugs in the eyes of the consumers. Prehaps the dreams of the majors that these organizations would become the lightning rods to hold themselves above the fray and isolate ill will from them is being seen through and the majors themselves are recieving that ill will from the customer.
At every point these sort of organizations have been admant to eliminate competion, influance lawmakers towards their postion, and just been a general pain in the butt in legal terms. No wonder no one likes them, no wonder the majors are complaining of business woes. No where else is a customer treated in such fashion and the business thinks it is their due to do so. A business forgets the customer is king at their own peril.
April 18th, 2005 at 9:39 pm
That was a highly engaging read. I think that this site should definitely do an article about it.
You naif.
April 18th, 2005 at 9:40 pm
That was a highly engaging read. I think that this site should definitely do an article about it.
You naif.
April 18th, 2005 at 9:45 pm
I live in Australia, and as a fair-trader I really appreciate this.
Your work helps me directly in my technically illegal efforts to enjoy music. I would be most pleased to help bring down my local cartel, ARIA.
Peace.