Author Topic: CD of TPiR music? (Read 3806 times)

robsearson · « **on:** October 10, 2006, 10:00:53 PM »

http://www.staffannouncer.com/audioarchives.htm

Scroll down a little and look for a Price is Right music CD, being sold for 5 bucks. I'm imagining a bunch of crappy sound clips copied off the TV with an old cassette recorder. I wonder if he's actually sold any of these things.
I reckon a motivated attorney could create some headaches for this guy... probably not worth the trouble though.

tpirfan28 · « **Reply #1 on:** October 10, 2006, 10:03:55 PM »

There's no way the entire music library will fit on one CD. I'm sorry, we have a fraud. If it wasn't already really obvious....

Jimmy Owen · « **Reply #2 on:** October 11, 2006, 07:43:54 AM »

It has been said time and time again that a legitimate CD would not sell due to limited interest. How could anyone argue for monetary damages for something that has no monetary value?

cmjb13 · « **Reply #3 on:** October 11, 2006, 08:39:03 AM »

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'134114\' date=\'Oct 11 2006, 07:43 AM\']
It has been said time and time again that a legitimate CD would not sell due to limited interest.
[/quote]
I had suggested to Stan Blits some time ago to put together a CD and sell it in the CBS store to see how well it does. One would figure if it would do well anywhere, that would be a good place to start. Of course, all the music would not fit on one CD (don't know how many DVD's if they wanted to go that route). The reason it wasn't feasible was the amount of resources to do the project (labor, effort, etc..) made it cost prohibitive.

Then again, I thought it was a no brainer for the CBS shop to sell "Price" or "Price is Right" license plates. When I suggested it, I was told it was a great idea, but nothing ever came of it. Come to think of it, I can just see some goofball buying one and replacing their regular license plate with it.

Quote

How could anyone argue for monetary damages for something that has no monetary value?

I'm no lawyer, but they need not sue for monetary damages. They can just slap a cease & desist to stop future sales claiming copyrighted material.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #4 on:** October 11, 2006, 09:45:41 AM »

[quote name=\'robsearson\' post=\'134090\' date=\'Oct 10 2006, 10:00 PM\']I'm imagining a bunch of crappy sound clips copied off the TV with an old cassette recorder. I wonder if he's actually sold any of these things.[/quote]
Seems to me that just about anybody could cobble together a decent, representative collection of high-quality TPIR sound clips just by poking around the internet -- which is precisely how he says he got some of the other sound collections he's selling. Sure it's wrong, and I certainly doubt he's going to have anything that the serious collectors don't already have themselves, but don't automatically assume it's going to be lousy quality cassette recordings.

I'll give him this, for what appears to be a personal effort, it's a helluva website.

[quote name=\'cmjb13\' post=\'134115\' date=\'Oct 11 2006, 08:39 AM\']The reason it wasn't feasible was the amount of resources to do the project (labor, effort, etc..) made it cost prohibitive.[/quote]
That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The music's already gathered in one place, and the rights issues are easy to figure out. How hard could it be to pick a few tracks that people will recognize and throw them on a CD?

clemon79 · « **Reply #5 on:** October 11, 2006, 10:06:48 AM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'134118\' date=\'Oct 11 2006, 06:45 AM\']
That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The music's already gathered in one place, and the rights issues are easy to figure out. How hard could it be to pick a few tracks that people will recognize and throw them on a CD?
[/quote]
I'm gonna guess that by "cost-prohibitive" they meant "cost > 0".

cmjb13 · « **Reply #6 on:** October 11, 2006, 10:20:41 AM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'134118\' date=\'Oct 11 2006, 09:45 AM\'][quote name=\'cmjb13\' post=\'134115\' date=\'Oct 11 2006, 08:39 AM\']The reason it wasn't feasible was the amount of resources to do the project (labor, effort, etc..) made it cost prohibitive.[/quote]
That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The music's already gathered in one place, and the rights issues are easy to figure out. How hard could it be to pick a few tracks that people will recognize and throw them on a CD?
[/quote]
No arguments here. That's what I was told.

chris319 · « **Reply #7 on:** October 11, 2006, 03:16:18 PM »

There are laws against profiting from intellectual property you don't own. AFAIK the law does not exempt goofballs on the Internet.

Jimmy Owen · « **Reply #8 on:** October 11, 2006, 05:27:47 PM »

[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'134159\' date=\'Oct 11 2006, 03:16 PM\']
There are laws against profiting from intellectual property you don't own. AFAIK the law does not exempt goofballs on the Internet.
[/quote]

The guys from YouTube seem to have made out okay doing just that.

Robair · « **Reply #9 on:** October 11, 2006, 06:32:37 PM »

For some reason that URL sounds very familiar to me, and not in a good way. You wonder what kind of person would try this, and then one person comes crashingly to mind -- and unless I am badly mistaken, this might be his website. I have heard this name affiliated with staffannouncer.com in the past, and if it is this guy, I can pretty much tell you I am not surprised.

If you do buy the CD, make sure you take some Dramamine to offset the charming wow of the '76 cuts.

chris319 · « **Reply #10 on:** October 11, 2006, 06:33:56 PM »

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'134178\' date=\'Oct 11 2006, 02:27 PM\']
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'134159\' date=\'Oct 11 2006, 03:16 PM\']
There are laws against profiting from intellectual property you don't own. AFAIK the law does not exempt goofballs on the Internet.
[/quote]

The guys from YouTube seem to have made out okay doing just that.
[/quote]
YouTube does not charge to watch videos, nor are they selling copies of videos.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #11 on:** October 11, 2006, 08:13:08 PM »

[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'134186\' date=\'Oct 11 2006, 06:33 PM\']
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'134178\' date=\'Oct 11 2006, 02:27 PM\']
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'134159\' date=\'Oct 11 2006, 03:16 PM\']
There are laws against profiting from intellectual property you don't own. AFAIK the law does not exempt goofballs on the Internet.
[/quote]

The guys from YouTube seem to have made out okay doing just that.
[/quote]
YouTube does not charge to watch videos, nor are they selling copies of videos.
[/quote]
They are, nevertheless, profiting handsomely.

clemon79 · « **Reply #12 on:** October 11, 2006, 09:35:26 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'134195\' date=\'Oct 11 2006, 05:13 PM\']
They are, nevertheless, profiting handsomely.
[/quote]
Well, now, anyhow. Before Google swept in, they were hemmoraging something on the order of $800,000 a month, and that was just the bandwidth bill.

So I'll be interested in seeing how Google plans to turn it into a profitable venture.

chris319 · « **Reply #13 on:** October 11, 2006, 10:26:21 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'134202\' date=\'Oct 11 2006, 06:35 PM\']
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'134195\' date=\'Oct 11 2006, 05:13 PM\']
They are, nevertheless, profiting handsomely.
[/quote]
Well, now, anyhow. Before Google swept in, they were hemmoraging something on the order of $800,000 a month, and that was just the bandwidth bill.

So I'll be interested in seeing how Google plans to turn it into a profitable venture.
[/quote]
Google didn't buy a profitable business, they bought out a competitor (I can remember when this country had anti-trust laws).