View Full Version : CD prices officially dropped. It's about time.
http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,60293,00.html
The world's largest recording company said Wednesday it would slash wholesale CD prices in a bid to revive lagging music sales, which have dropped 31 percent industrywide in the last three years.
Universal Music Group said it would cut the suggested sale price on a majority of its CDs by $6 to $12.98. The company hopes retailers will follow its lead and drop their CD prices to around $10 or less. The price changes would go into effect by Oct. 1.
.....
UMG's current wholesale price for a CD album is $12.02, with a manufacturer suggested retail price of $18.98. Under the new pricing structure, the wholesale price would be $9.09.
.....
Josh Bernoff, an analyst with Forrester Research, said the decision to cut prices underscores how badly the industry has been hurting.
"That is very significant," he said. "That's basically saying 'we give up.'"
.....
The RIAA blames the sales slump largely on illegal music swapping over peer-to-peer networks and is aggressively targeting people who share music online.
But industry critics say the record companies have, for more than a decade, ignored the effects of soaring CD prices on sales. They also contend the artistic quality of music has deteriorated.
I think that's the most important part of this whole thing. Artificially high pricing and crappy music. Used to be I could purchase a CD and listen to the whole album. Today you're lucky if you get a couple of good tracks.
Anyway, it's about time the music industry did this. Thank goodness for the net. I have no clue how they could justify selling CDs for $18-22 when you can purchase a DVD for the same price. And I'd consider a DVD, with it's behind the scenes applications, a far far better value than a CD.
I wonder if they factor in the fact that millions of people now have vast DVD collections rather than CD collections as one of the reasons for the precipitous decline in CD sales. Also the fact that many people are spending their money on video games for consoles as the market has expanded tremendously in the past 5-10 years.
The problem is there is no new tech in that sector.
They need to push for dvd music . Throw in the videos for all the tracks and push for the lcd screen dvd recievers in cars. There needs to be something new .
But yea i don't buy cds cause i only want to listen to 1 or 2 songs on the cd. This year i bought the new metallica cd , chicago cd , linkin park cd and afi . Afi i got for 7$ , metallica for 10$ and linkin park for 10$. That is how it should be priced. Heck mabye even less. Getting a cd for 5 bucks less than a dvd is a bit of a rip.
If they really 'gave up' they would be reissuing all those old albums in mp3 format now...
Joe DeFuria
05-Sep-2003, 19:25
I think that's the most important part of this whole thing. Artificially high pricing and crappy music.
There's nothing artificial about it. It's called supply and demand. If people are willing to pay it, it's not artificial.
The fact that people are at this point not willing to pay it, is what's prompting the lower prices. Supply and demand.
Used to be I could purchase a CD and listen to the whole album. Today you're lucky if you get a couple of good tracks.
Then don't buy it, and if enough people agree, they will have to lower the price.
I have no clue how they could justify selling CDs for $18-22 when you can purchase a DVD for the same price.
The price is by definition justified when enough people are willing to buy it at that price. Doesn't matter if they're making 1% or 1000% profit margins.
The problem is that CD sales has been declining for a while now, without any reaction from record companies other than going harder with lawyers hunting piracing. The demand has gone down, but prices have rather gone up. You could call it bad way of doing business, both for themselves and for consumers, higher prices with lower return. Lowering the prices and I'm sure they will make more money than with current prices. The music industry has also been very slow at adopting new technology. Only very recently has any real online music distributors appeared that sell downloads of individual tracks, a product that anyone would argue that there has been a lot of demand for, yet there's been zero supply.
I'd love to see more direct competition in the music sector. If I want music of artist X, then I have to buy the CD from company Y that artist X happends to have contract with. I would like to see more power handed over to the artist, and artists selling their work to distributors who can then compete about selling the same or similar product of the same artist.
Joe DeFuria
05-Sep-2003, 21:03
The problem is that CD sales has been declining for a while now, without any reaction from record companies other than going harder with lawyers hunting piracing.
Which there's nothing wrong with.
The demand has gone down, but prices have rather gone up.
Also nothing wrong with, if they are happy with the profits and volume.
The music industry has also been very slow at adopting new technology.
Lots of businesses are slow to change their models. It requires lots of risk and large investments. Can't blame companies for resisting change. You can stop buying their products which makes the risks for not[ changing, heavier than changing.
Only very recently has any real online music distributors appeared that sell downloads of individual tracks, a product that anyone would argue that there has been a lot of demand for, yet there's been zero supply.
Sure...so why haven't you personally instituted this, and offered it to musicians? (Answer: it takes an investment and is a risk).
I'd love to see more direct competition in the music sector.
There's plenty of competition. How many different artists are out there?
If I want music of artist X, then I have to buy the CD from company Y that artist X happends to have contract with.
No, not "just happens" to have a contract with him. Company Y has a contract with Artist X because the artist X doesn't want to have to deal with the costs and risks and leg work of actually marketing and distributing their own music.
I would like to see more power handed over to the artist,
Not all artists want to deal with that power. That power comes with a cost, and having musical expertise has little to do with business expertise or technical knowledge required to market and distribute your product.
....and artists selling their work to distributors who can then compete about selling the same or similar product of the same artist.
Not too dissimilar from artists selling themselves (contracts) to publishers who all compete for that artist. Or do you think there won't be "exclusive artists / distributor" deals in the electronic distribution market?
I'm not saying they have anything morally wrong, or anything of that sort. Just that demand and supply, like in many other area, aren't quite as perfect as it sounds in theory. Demand changes, and the industry is very slow at adopting. Meanwhile there's consumers with a demand for a product, but are left in void. It's not like nobody has suggested selling music online for the last number of years. The industry just have been unwilling to change to meet the demand, and rather demanded that the consumers change to fit their needs. A large part of the consumer base don't want CD's, they want mp3 files. Since noone offers this product, piracy comes as a direct effect of this. Instead of seeing that their product didn't match the market, they were trying to squeeze the market into their business model by using stuff like copy-protection on CD, which is outright stupid since it only punishes the innocent, he who actually bought the CD, rather than the guy who downloaded a piracy copy from the net. Had there been more competition in the business, then most likely someone would have tried to be first with the idea, but as it is today all companies gets together the same umbrella through organisations like RIAA. You could call it a cartel to some extent. Would each distributor be completely independent I don't think we would have this situation.
As for my other point, I think you misunderstood what I said. I fully understand that artists need to have contracts with a distributor. When I said artist X happened to have a contract with company Y, then I meant that as instead of having contract with say company Z, rather than not having a contract at all. But I would like to see a situation where artist X can have a contract with not only company Y, but also Z, W, Q, H and T. These can then distribute the music, assemble CD's or providing them online, MD, DVD or whatever media they prefer. Since the same or similar products would be available from many companies then there would be real competition in the industry. Today there's only the choice between choosing artist X vs. artist Y, but you have no real choise of which distributor to buy from. The buyer spends his money on music from his favourite artist X, and lowering the price of artist Y doesn't make a difference unless he also likes artist Y. The competition gets semi-impotent in the current system.
Itβs interesting how the retailer is taking more of the brunt than the record companies.
Joe, I usually would find myself in accordance with your free market principles. In the case of record companies though, they seem to operate in collusion with one another. With their control of distribution and influence on what music gets played on the radio it is hard (not impossible) to break into the music scene as an outsider.
CDs still suck.
I used to have over 400, then sold them all when the MP3 wave hit. Now I have a handful, and those were just too scratched up to sell.
Last CD I actually bought was Einsturzende Neubauten's 'Silence is Sexy' a few years ago, and that's just cause the packaging was cool :P
I don't have a problem with cds. Its just that its not new. its not the it thing . I don't think mp3s will be the it thing. It has a certian stigma now. They need to take advantage of a new media. Thats why i was thinking dvds Would be great. Sell the dvds with the music videos on it . IT will work really well. But i doubt they'd want to do it. They'd need to make videos for every song and in turn all the songs have to be good. Last see cd i bought like that was metallica black album and i was like 8 or 9 years old for that one .
I think that's the most important part of this whole thing. Artificially high pricing and crappy music.
There's nothing artificial about it. It's called supply and demand. If people are willing to pay it, it's not artificial.
The fact that people are at this point not willing to pay it, is what's prompting the lower prices. Supply and demand.
Used to be I could purchase a CD and listen to the whole album. Today you're lucky if you get a couple of good tracks.
Then don't buy it, and if enough people agree, they will have to lower the price.
I have no clue how they could justify selling CDs for $18-22 when you can purchase a DVD for the same price.
The price is by definition justified when enough people are willing to buy it at that price. Doesn't matter if they're making 1% or 1000% profit margins.
Considering that the prices were created due to a monopoly, that is most certainly artificial. There is basically no other way to have your music published on a wide scale unless you go through the "big 5" RIAA companies, who also happen to set the prices for the media and the music.
It would be true supply and demand if there weren't a monopoly in the music industry. But this is not the case. Market forces simply don't apply in that scenario.
However, as we can see with the internet and napster/fast track clients/gnutella/et al, that has created a de facto monopoly buster, which has allowed market forces to return, thus UMG lowering their prices.
Joe DeFuria
06-Sep-2003, 01:18
Considering that the prices were created due to a monopoly, that is most certainly artificial. There is basically no other way to have your music published on a wide scale unless you go through the "big 5" RIAA companies, who also happen to set the prices for the media and the music.
Hogwash.
There's nothing prventing anyone from distributing their own music. All it takes is an investment. Significant investment? Yup. Huge risk? Yup.
It would be true supply and demand if there weren't a monopoly in the music industry. But this is not the case. Market forces simply don't apply in that scenario.
Bah...more music conspiracy theories...
However, as we can see with the internet and napster/fast track clients/gnutella/et al, that has created a de facto monopoly buster, which has allowed market forces to return, thus UMG lowering their prices.
You mean there were OTHER investments in distribution? Correct. Like I said...someone make investments, and take the risk, and you can have music distributed.
And what you're missing is that there is a huge difference between licensing music rights and having to press your own CDs and Cassettes and distribute those CDs and Cassettes as opposed to licensing music rights and being able to distribute over the internet. The risk is *severely* diminished as witnessed by iTunes, Pressplay, Buymusic, et al.
This isn't a normal market place, and anyone who isn't blind can see that the RIAA present a monopoly. This isn't music conspiracy theories at all, but pure fact. In fact, the courts even ruled that the RIAA form a de facto monopoly and ordered them to pay damages. You do remember this settlement no? Why do you ignore this and parrot "oh it's just conspiracy theories!" It's already been proven that the RIAA used it's monopoly power to gouge consumers for years.
The internet and internet related distribution changed everything. For music, it effectively broke up the distribution monopoly that the RIAA maintained over the entire music industry.
Joe DeFuria
06-Sep-2003, 01:42
And what you're missing is that there is a huge difference between licensing music rights and having to press your own CDs and Cassettes and distribute those CDs and Cassettes as opposed to licensing music rights and being able to distribute over the internet. The risk is *severely* diminished.
Right, and so are the services. Putting your own MP3 on the internet doesn't get it Radio time, doesn't get any marketing or anything.
This isn't a normal market place, and anyone who isn't blind can see that the RIAA present a monopoly.
Anyone who isn't blind can see that traditional music publishers do more than "just" distribute media.
This isn't music conspiracy theories at all, but pure fact.
Please.
In fact, the courts even ruled that the RIAA form a de facto monopoly and ordered them to pay damages. You do remember this settlement no?
I have a sneaking suspicion that "defacto monopoly" isn't anywhere in the ruling. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
The internet and internet related distribution changed everything.
Yes, it changes a lot...just as it changes lots of businesses.
For music, it effectively broke up the distribution monopoly that the RIAA maintained over the entire music industry.
If it could break it up, then it wasn't a monopoly, was it?
And what you're missing is that there is a huge difference between licensing music rights and having to press your own CDs and Cassettes and distribute those CDs and Cassettes as opposed to licensing music rights and being able to distribute over the internet. The risk is *severely* diminished.
Right, and so are the services. Putting your own MP3 on the internet doesn't get it Radio time, doesn't get any marketing or anything.
Who's talking about radio time and marketing? I've stated distribution, which is what this article is speaking on, i.e. the high cost of CDs.
This isn't a normal market place, and anyone who isn't blind can see that the RIAA present a monopoly.
Anyone who isn't blind can see that traditional music publishers do more than "just" distribute media.
Again, that's not the point of the article, nor is it the subject of what I stated earlier. If you want to discuss marketing and radio time and all the other things that go into getting an act "out there," then we can do that. But this discussion is about distribution only.
In fact, the courts even ruled that the RIAA form a de facto monopoly and ordered them to pay damages. You do remember this settlement no?
I have a sneaking suspicion that "defacto monopoly" isn't anywhere in the ruling. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
I've looked for the ruling on google but there seems to be no mention of it. The only ruling I've found, strangely enough, was the napster ruling in which it was ruled that while napster was illegal, the RIAA maintained a monopoly in distribution. It was said that that monopoly could be argued as illegal, which is where the settlement against the RIAA for collusory price gouging of consumers arose.
For music, it effectively broke up the distribution monopoly that the RIAA maintained over the entire music industry.
If it could break it up, then it wasn't a monopoly, was it?
The courts would disagree with you. :wink:
Joe DeFuria
06-Sep-2003, 02:31
Who's talking about radio time and marketing? I've stated distribution, which is what this article is speaking on, i.e. the high cost of CDs.
You can just state "distribution" all you want. That doesn't change the fact that "traditional" music publishers do much more than just distribute.
Again, that's not the point of the article, nor is it the subject of what I stated earlier. If you want to discuss marketing and radio time and all the other things that go into getting an act "out there," then we can do that. But this discussion is about distribution only.
Says you?
I've looked for the ruling on google but there seems to be no mention of it.
Why am I not surprised.
It was said that that monopoly could be argued as illegal, which is where the settlement against the RIAA for collusory price gouging of consumers arose.
Of course it can be "argued" to be illegal. You can argue anything.
You can just state "distribution" all you want. That doesn't change the fact that "traditional" music publishers do much more than just distribute.
Why do you keep bringing this point up? No one is arguing this.
Again, that's not the point of the article, nor is it the subject of what I stated earlier. If you want to discuss marketing and radio time and all the other things that go into getting an act "out there," then we can do that. But this discussion is about distribution only.
Says you?
If you want to discuss it with me in particular, then yes. I'm talking about distribution. I'm not talking about what other functions the RIAA companies serve. Neither is the article.
I've looked for the ruling on google but there seems to be no mention of it.
Why am I not surprised.
Ye of little faith. :roll:
http://news.com.com/2100-1023_3-244195.html?tag=mainstry
A coalition of 28 states filed suit against the major record labels today, alleging that they and several U.S. retailers have illegally conspired to prop up the prices of compact discs.
.....
The suit, which is filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, follows an investigation by the Federal Trade Commission into a similar accusation of CD price fixing. That issue was settled in May when the record labels agreed to drop their controversial pricing agreements with retailers. The record labels did not admit wrongdoing.
.....
The FTC has estimated that the potential harm to consumers as a result of the pricing agreements could reach $480 million. The states have not yet set a price tag on their suit, however.
From August 2000. Now I'm looking for the actual ruling which was released either late 2002 or early 2003. I haven't been able to find it yet however. Google is a bitch sometimes.
It was said that that monopoly could be argued as illegal, which is where the settlement against the RIAA for collusory price gouging of consumers arose.
Of course it can be "argued" to be illegal. You can argue anything.
:roll: enough with the semantics. It was successfully argued and penalties were implemented against the RIAA.
As soon as I find the ruling, I'll post it.
Joe DeFuria
06-Sep-2003, 03:23
Why do you keep bringing this point up? No one is arguing this.
I see there's just no point in discussing things with you.
If you want to discuss it with me in particular, then yes. I'm talking about distribution. I'm not talking about what other functions the RIAA companies serve. Neither is the article.
Then you and the article are looking at one issue in a vacuum that is not reality. Good for both of you.
Ye of little faith. :roll:
Still waiting...
A coalition of 28 states filed suit against the major record labels today, alleging that they and several U.S. retailers have illegally conspired to prop up the prices of compact discs.
.....
The suit, which is filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, follows an investigation by the Federal Trade Commission into a similar accusation of CD price fixing. That issue was settled in May...
GOSH! A settlement. Eureka! What a find you have there. :roll:
Keep searching....
:roll: enough with the semantics. It was successfully argued and penalties were implemented against the RIAA.
Still waiting to see what the penalities were, the corrective action required, and the basis for the ruling.
As soon as I find the ruling, I'll post it.
OK.
Joe DeFuria
06-Sep-2003, 03:26
Oh, and BY THE WAY, your "article" says the following:
But industry critics say the record companies have, for more than a decade, ignored the effects of soaring CD prices on sales. They also contend the artistic quality of music has deteriorated.
"This is something that the industry has failed to address ... You could make downloading music go away tomorrow and the industry would still face challenges," said Sean Baenen, managing director of Odyssey, a consumer marketing research firm in San Francisco. "All the data suggests that quality and price are major factors to the equation."
That, Natoma, is the result of market forces.
Why do you keep bringing this point up? No one is arguing this.
I see there's just no point in discussing things with you.
Maybe if you made a point to discuss we could do so? :?
A coalition of 28 states filed suit against the major record labels today, alleging that they and several U.S. retailers have illegally conspired to prop up the prices of compact discs.
.....
The suit, which is filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, follows an investigation by the Federal Trade Commission into a similar accusation of CD price fixing. That issue was settled in May...
GOSH! A settlement. Eureka! What a find you have there. :roll:
Keep searching....
Uhm, that was a related case that was settled. Not the one brought by the states. They're separate cases.
Oh, and BY THE WAY, your "article" says the following:
But industry critics say the record companies have, for more than a decade, ignored the effects of soaring CD prices on sales. They also contend the artistic quality of music has deteriorated.
"This is something that the industry has failed to address ... You could make downloading music go away tomorrow and the industry would still face challenges," said Sean Baenen, managing director of Odyssey, a consumer marketing research firm in San Francisco. "All the data suggests that quality and price are major factors to the equation."
That, Natoma, is the result of market forces.
Huh??
How is the fact that the RIAA companies were found guilty of illegal price fixing in order to gouge consumers in some way shape or form the result of market forces? What does the fact that the industry used its monopoly position to gouge consumers for years have to do with market forces?
If no internet existed and the only way to get music was still CDs and Cassettes, you can bet there would probably be no appreciable slowdown in sales attributable to anything other than the weak economy. While album sales have not slowed much, sales of singles have plummeted roughly 80% since the mid-90s. What has internet downloading thus far primarily affected? Popular singles.
Now you can argue that CD piracy has greatly affected music sales worldwide, but piracy was never a tenable distribution system to begin with. Internet distribution is.
Joe DeFuria
06-Sep-2003, 03:57
Huh??
How is the fact that the RIAA companies were found guilty of illegal price fixing in order to gouge consumers in some way shape or form the result of market forces?
1. Still wating for your google search results...
2. MARKET FORCES are consumers believing prices are too high for the product being peddled. This is one point made in the article. That IRRESPECTIVE of the internet downloading distribution "compeition" that you claim "broke the monopoly", the record industry would be introuble anyway because of the market forces going in the direction of csonumers not willing to pay the price. When that happens, consumers DON'T BUY it. I don't care what "price fixing" you claim goes on, if the price is fixed too high...people won't buy it!
CDs are not a necessity like water. People have a CHOICE on whether to buy music or not.
What does the fact that the industry used its monopoly position to gouge consumers for years have to do with market forces?
"Gouging" consumers on a luxury item is an oxymoron.
If no internet existed and the only way to get music was still CDs and Cassettes, you can bet there would probably be no appreciable slowdown in sales attributable to anything other than the weak economy.
Natoma, the exact OPPOSITE point is made in the article. Read the quote I gave you again:
This is something that the industry has failed to address ... You could make downloading music go away tomorrow and the industry would still face challenges," said Sean Baenen, managing director of Odyssey, a consumer marketing research firm in San Francisco. "All the data suggests that quality and price are major factors to the equation."
The challenge, Natoma, is addressing a falling demand for the product they are pushing, at the price they are pushing it.
Considering the industry was seeing record profits until 1998/1999 (roughly when they launched a suit against Napster I believe), it puts a little crimp in the idea of falling sales due to high CD prices. Also, that statement is being made in the context of today's environment, post-napster. No one knew that you could get music for cheap on the internet. No one knew it was possible to get music through any other channel other than the local music store in CD, Cassette, or Vinyl form. Yes, if you took away downloading today, the industry would still face problems because consumers would be the wiser about their choices and what they "should" be paying for their music. Pre-Napster, that wasn't the case. Also, most people don't consider music to be a luxury item. How you can call a $15 - $25 CD a luxury item is anyone's guess?
People also have a choice whether to buy overpriced gas or use public transportation. What do people normally do? (I saw on TV how the FTC is considering bringing a suit against the gas companies for potential price gouging this summer)
People had a choice whether to buy Nintendo's overly priced Cartridges or none at all. Yet Nintendo continually saw record profits every year through the mid to late 80s and early 90s when they had a 90% market monopoly with their NES. They were also found guilty of abusing their monopoly power with the NES a few years ago in a court ruling.
People have a choice whether to purchase Windows or get free Linux. MS was found guilty of abusing their monopoly power, yet they continually reap tremendously high profit margins from their software. Despite the options available to consumers, what do people overwhelmingly choose for their computing purposes?
"Market forces" isn't always the panacaea to lower prices that you're trying to make it out to be.
Joe DeFuria
06-Sep-2003, 04:24
Considering the industry was seeing record profits until 1998/1999 (roughly when they launched a suit against Napster I believe), it puts a little crimp in the idea of falling sales due to high CD prices. Also, that statement is being made in the context of today's environment, post-napster.
Hey, Natoma, I'm only quoting the article that you linked. You can pick and choose the parts of the article you think are valid if you like. Maybe next time you can find a way to only link to "part" of the article?
No one knew that you could get music for cheap on the internet. No one knew it was possible to get music through any other channel other than the local music store in CD, Cassette, or Vinyl form.
And this is nothing new from any other company that faces significant changes in market. No one "knew" that the horse and buggy would go away, either.
Yes, if you took away downloading today, the industry would still face problems because consumers would be the wiser about their choices and what they "should" be paying for their music. Pre-Napster, that wasn't the case. Also, most people don't consider music to be a luxury item. How you can call a $15 - $25 CD a luxury item is anyone's guess?
Um, luxury item meaning: a non necessity. This is not rocket science.
Oh, and take your pick: you can't fathom how a "mere" $15-$20 item can be "luxury", and then on the other hand, argue like that same $15-$20 is high-way robbery?
People also have a choice whether to buy overpriced gas or use public transportation. What do people normally do? (I saw on TV how the FTC is considering bringing a suit against the gas companies for potential price gouging this summer)
GAS is closer to being a necessity than Music. Come on Natoma, are you serious?
People had a choice whether to buy Nintendo's overly priced Cartridges or none at all.
Yup.
Yet Nintendo continually saw record profits every year through the mid to late 80s and early 90s when they had a 90% market monopoly with their NES. They were also found guilty of abusing their monopoly power with the NES a few years ago in a court ruling.
Source? Guilty of what exaclty? Price gouging, or handling of developers?
People have a choice whether to purchase Windows or get free Linux.
Yup. Why would anyonw want to buy Windows when Linux is free? (Oh, that's right, because Windows does a helluvua lot more of what a whole helluva lot more people want.)
MS was found guilty of abusing their monopoly power, yet they continually reap tremendously high profit margins from their software.
I don't give a damn what profit margins they have. Profit margin does not mean monopoly. You sell your product for what people will pay for it.
Despite the options available to consumers, what do people overwhelmingly choose for their computing purposes?
The one that does what they need it to do. Not the one that's free.
"Market forces" isn't always the panacaea to lower prices that you're trying to make it out to be.
That's because I never made it out to be that way, but thanks for trying. Market forces can lead to HIGHER prices too, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Except for the slobs who think that they "deserve" to have some product just because they "want one".
Considering the industry was seeing record profits until 1998/1999 (roughly when they launched a suit against Napster I believe), it puts a little crimp in the idea of falling sales due to high CD prices. Also, that statement is being made in the context of today's environment, post-napster.
Hey, Natoma, I'm only quoting the article that you linked. You can pick and choose the parts of the article you think are valid if you like. Maybe next time you can find a way to only link to "part" of the article?
You're making absolutely no sense whatsoever. Of course the market was different post-napster. That doesn't change the fact that pre-napster, the RIAA abused its monopoly position. That is what the suits were about. Pre-napster. That comment by that person was wrt the fact that even if napster went away, the RIAA would still face problems because of the fact that the internet "genie" was out of the bottle wrt music distribution. And that person turned out to be correct.
Anyways, I'm still looking for the judgement but frankly I must not be using the correct terms. Nothing has come up wrt the ruling on the suit brought by the states. Not that it's pending, was settled, the RIAA found guilty. Nadda. Strange considering I read about it within the recent past, i.e. the past year or two.
Found one article. The RIAA was found guilty of price fixing again a few days ago.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/32048.html
The labels deny any wrongdoing, which should not come as a shock. The labels also denied earlier charges from the FTC of a much larger price-fixing scandal that cost consumers an estimated $480 million. The pigopolists agreed to settle that little incident by paying 41 suing states $67.4 million in cash and offering $75.7 million in CDs.
So the suit brought by the states in 2000 was settled, outside of the current findings of guilt by the FTC and the 2000 FTC case.
Sounds familiar to the situation with MS continuing to abuse its monopoly position even though it's been found guilty of abuses in the past no?
Also,
A down economy and more competition in CD prices would seem to account for a large chunk of the downward revenue trends.
Competition in CD prices due to UMG lowering their prices, as stipulated in the article that I posted to begin this thread. Why? Because of the pressures that didn't exist before, i.e. the internet distribution model.
Also, keep in mind that the labels enjoyed tremendous growth throughout the 1990s - the prime price-fixing years, according to the FTC. Sales in 2002 were almost twice that of sales in 1993. Few industries have enjoyed such success.
And this is exactly what I was saying. They were guilty of flexing their monopoly power during the 90s when there were no other consumer options.
No one knew that you could get music for cheap on the internet. No one knew it was possible to get music through any other channel other than the local music store in CD, Cassette, or Vinyl form.
And this is nothing new from any other company that faces significant changes in market. No one "knew" that the horse and buggy would go away, either.
Again, this doesn't change the fact that the RIAA abused its monopoly position while it had a monopoly. AT&T did the same thing in the 70s and 80s, and they were found guilty and broken up.
Does AT&T have a monopoly today? No. Did it have a monopoly in the 70s and 80s? Yes. Did "market forces" change AT&T or did the government?
My point in illustrating this is that market forces do not always affect the market. Sometimes the monopoly is too entrenched for "market forces" to have any effect. See Microsoft with desktop Windows for example (another case where the government had to step in). See Standard Oil of yesteryear. The examples go on and on.
Yes, if you took away downloading today, the industry would still face problems because consumers would be the wiser about their choices and what they "should" be paying for their music. Pre-Napster, that wasn't the case. Also, most people don't consider music to be a luxury item. How you can call a $15 - $25 CD a luxury item is anyone's guess?
Um, luxury item meaning: a non necessity. This is not rocket science.
Oh, and take your pick: you can't fathom how a "mere" $15-$20 item can be "luxury", and then on the other hand, argue like that same $15-$20 is high-way robbery?
$2 for gas isn't expensive either but it is certainly overpriced, which the FTC is currently investigating for any evidence of price fixing. You can certainly see something as overpriced even if it isn't expensive.
People also have a choice whether to buy overpriced gas or use public transportation. What do people normally do? (I saw on TV how the FTC is considering bringing a suit against the gas companies for potential price gouging this summer)
GAS is closer to being a necessity than Music. Come on Natoma, are you serious?
And yet, it isn't a necessity. You don't need gas to live. There are other options. By your definition of what a luxury item is, gas certainly fits the bill.
Yet Nintendo continually saw record profits every year through the mid to late 80s and early 90s when they had a 90% market monopoly with their NES. They were also found guilty of abusing their monopoly power with the NES a few years ago in a court ruling.
Source? Guilty of what exaclty? Price gouging, or handling of developers?
1991: NYS Attorney General files suit against Nintendo claiming they have an illegal monopoly on the market which they used to inflate prices and lock out developers (AVE brought a suit against Nintendo later in 1991 through the US District Court on these grounds. Can't find the judgement though. Ugh). Nintendo agrees to pay out $5 to each NES consumer for purchasing a licensed NES game.
The handling of developers was certainly an instance of abusing monopoly position. While no developer sued Nintendo for overpricing Royalty fees, the scramble to Sony during the PS1 years illustrates this. Yes, this is a case of market forces at work in the sense that a direct competitor entered the market and gave the developers another option. But before this, they didn't have a choice but to eat the price of cartridges and the royalties that Nintendo charged.
People have a choice whether to purchase Windows or get free Linux.
Yup. Why would anyonw want to buy Windows when Linux is free? (Oh, that's right, because Windows does a helluvua lot more of what a whole helluva lot more people want.)
Does this justify the price that MS charges?
MS was found guilty of abusing their monopoly power, yet they continually reap tremendously high profit margins from their software.
I don't give a damn what profit margins they have. Profit margin does not mean monopoly. You sell your product for what people will pay for it.
That was not the point. MS was found guilty of abusing their monopoly power. They have already been convicted of monopoly abuses. And yet they continue to leverage that monopoly through software packaging and high prices.
If it's the case that you sell your product for whatever people will pay for it, then why did the RIAA settle for half a billion with the FTC wrt CD price fixing? You could argue (there goes that line again. ugh) that all they were doing was making sure their product sold for as high as possible. The consumers certainly supported those prices by the fact that the RIAA companies enjoyed great sales throughout the 90s while the price fixing was occurring.
Despite the options available to consumers, what do people overwhelmingly choose for their computing purposes?
The one that does what they need it to do. Not the one that's free.
Does that explain the market dominance of IE, WMP, Office, etc? Each of these products was brought to the forefront of the market by MS leveraging them into the market with Windows.
They didn't get where they are in the market because of their own quality.
"Market forces" isn't always the panacaea to lower prices that you're trying to make it out to be.
That's because I never made it out to be that way, but thanks for trying. Market forces can lead to HIGHER prices too, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Except for the slobs who think that they "deserve" to have some product just because they "want one".
We were discussing lower prices and market forces. Within the context of that debate, you certainly were stating that "market forces" would be consumers believing prices are too high and somehow forcing change by not buying the product or some other solution. And I'm saying that that is not how things work all the time.
Market forces leading to higher prices is a separate issue than the one we're dealing with at the moment. That is certainly understandable as demand can outstrip supply, thus forcing the sellers of the products to raise prices. But that was not the case wrt the RIAA.
Bigus Dickus
06-Sep-2003, 08:32
Joe is right on target here.
I've never understood the mentality so many people seem to have. "But, it only costs $1 to produce and they're selling it for $100... that's completely ripping off the consumer, isn't fair, should be illegal, is ridiculous, is unethical, etc., etc., etc."
Further, Natoma, while you're arguing that there is or was a monopoly in place that artificially disrupts the otherwise correct supply/demand curves, you haven't talked a lot about the rampant theft of their product (which, btw, no other industry I can think of has had to tolerate in this manner) which also artificially disrupts the otherwise correct supply/demand curves.
You don't like expensive CD's? Don't buy them. You like the new lower CD prices? Vote with your wallet.
Humus mentioned something earlier that many people seem to think is a "natural" idea - lower prices and they will sell more and make more money. Sorry, that's not at all guaranteed or even likely in many cases. There are plenty of examples in virtually every market segment and niche of businesses choosing the low volume high margin route to success. Do you really think Ferrarri would be more successful mass producing cars for $20,000? Expanding and increasing volume (a natural side effect of lowering margins if you want to remain profitable) is in itself a risk. Staying small and agile is an advantage, and thousands of businesses choose not to grow and are content to remain the size they are with their current volume and margin because it works, and is safer.
I'm not saying that recording companies don't want to grow, but it is entirely possible that such a path does not inherently lead to larger revenues. Business ain't so simple... especially when people are stealing your product.
Joe DeFuria
06-Sep-2003, 12:25
You're making absolutely no sense whatsoever. Of course the market was different post-napster. That doesn't change the fact that pre-napster, the RIAA abused its monopoly position.
Newsflash....EVERY TIME a company makes a lot of money, it gets hits with lawsuits. And most of the time these things get settled, even if they're not guilty, because it's cheaper than litigation itself.
I'm still waiting for the link that shows a guilty verdict, not a settlement.
That is what the suits were about. Pre-napster. That comment by that person was wrt the fact that even if napster went away, the RIAA would still face problems because of the fact that the internet "genie" was out of the bottle wrt music distribution. And that person turned out to be correct.
Then that position by definition means that RIAA doesn't have a monopoly. A new competitor coming in an altering their prices? That sounds like competition to me,
Anyways, I'm still looking for the judgement but frankly I must not be using the correct terms.
Perhaps....or perhaps you just think you remember how it went down.
Found one article. The RIAA was found guilty of price fixing again a few days ago.
Lol...the register...Next you'll tell me that they or the inquirer has a post about a huge "security flaw" in Windows...
And Natoma, can you please accurately report on the arcitles you link? RIAA was not found guilty of anything....just another round of charges.
Competition in CD prices due to UMG lowering their prices, as stipulated in the article that I posted to begin this thread. Why? Because of the pressures that didn't exist before, i.e. the internet distribution model.
If RIAA was a monopoly, the internet distribiution model wouldn't impact them.
And this is exactly what I was saying. They were guilty of flexing their monopoly power during the 90s when there were no other consumer options.
Here's an option: DON'T BUY IT.
Again, this doesn't change the fact that the RIAA abused its monopoly position while it had a monopoly.
Wrong. It doesn't change the fact that some people think they abused it, not that they did.
AT&T did the same thing in the 70s and 80s, and they were found guilty and broken up.
Yes, a move that is heavily questioned to this day.
My point in illustrating this is that market forces do not always affect the market.
I agree. This just doesn't happen to be the case with the music industry. If a volume of people are buying their stuff that they are happy with, stuff that can NOT be considered anything but a non-essential item, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
$2 for gas isn't expensive either but it is certainly overpriced,
Bullshit.
It's only "overpriced" because you don't like the price?
And yet, it isn't a necessity. You don't need gas to live. There are other options.
True. I said it's more of a necessity item than CDs.
By your definition of what a luxury item is, gas certainly fits the bill.
Make up your mind.
1991: NYS Attorney General files suit against Nintendo claiming they have an illegal monopoly on the market which they used to inflate prices and lock out developers (AVE brought a suit against Nintendo later in 1991 through the US District Court on these grounds. Can't find the judgement though. Ugh).
Recurring theme with you.
Does this justify the price that MS charges?
The only thing that justifies the price, is the fact that people BUY IT! Get that through that socialist head of yours.
That was not the point. MS was found guilty of abusing their monopoly power. They have already been convicted of monopoly abuses. And yet they continue to leverage that monopoly through software packaging and high prices.
Bull. Any "consequences" that the courts decide on for any action are carried out. I don't recall any judgements against MS for price abuses.
If it's the case that you sell your product for whatever people will pay for it, then why did the RIAA settle for half a billion with the FTC wrt CD price fixing?
Because it was less of a risk of going to trial. Same as always.
Does that explain the market dominance of IE, WMP, Office, etc? Each of these products was brought to the forefront of the market by MS leveraging them into the market with Windows.
To the BENEFIT of consumers, I would argue. Office became a better product than any other competing package. Which reminds me, I don't recall any other packages...there were stand alone spreadhseets (Lotus) and Word Processors (Word Perfect), but no one bothered to bundle them together in MS Did, saving costs.
Others were still futzing aroiun
They didn't get where they are in the market because of their own quality.
Says you.
They got where they are becuase of the entire value. That's price, quality, compatibility, conveniece, etc.
We were discussing lower prices and market forces.
Spare me. We are discussing whatever is relvant, which is not decided by you in exclusivity.
Within the context of that debate, you certainly were stating that "market forces" would be consumers believing prices are too high and somehow forcing change by not buying the product or some other solution.
Yes, particularly with a product that can not be considered a "necessity" by any stretch of the imagination.
And I'm saying that that is not how things work all the time.
And I agree.
You're also saying that the consumer CD situation is one of these, and that's where I disagree.
But that was not the case wrt the RIAA.
The case with RIAA is them deciding to sell their products at price X, and then consumers deciding whether or not to buy it at that price. End of story.
If it could break it up, then it wasn't a monopoly, was it?
:?
I gotta hand over the "weirdest argument of the week" award to you for this. Must monopolies be eternal? Of course monopolies can be broken, but it doesn't mean that there wasn't a monopoly in place prior to breaking.
It sort of was a semi-monopoly (and argubly still is), but its power was partly lost due to piracy.
If it could break it up, then it wasn't a monopoly, was it?
:?
I gotta hand over the "weirdest argument of the week" award to you for this. Must monopolies be eternal? Of course monopolies can be broken, but it doesn't mean that there wasn't a monopoly in place prior to breaking.
It sort of was a semi-monopoly (and argubly still is), but its power was partly lost due to piracy.
Amazing how these absolutes he argues make no sense whatsoever.... And here I was thinking I was the only one.
You can just state "distribution" all you want. That doesn't change the fact that "traditional" music publishers do much more than just distribute.
But then again, this doesn't reflect the market. People are less into the megastars that music companies are filling radio, tv and ads with. People are increasingly interested in the small artists, who got a serious upswing due to piracy, which as a side-effect works as a giant ad-space for unknown musicians. A small collection of people decides what's trendy today in terms of music and spends lots of money on advertising a tiny subset of the artists. Would the record companies would be independent, then they would have realized that consumers aren't that much interested in all the fluff besides the distribution, instead of like now when they all pack themselves into the exact same business model for everyone involved.
Joe is right on target here.
I've never understood the mentality so many people seem to have. "But, it only costs $1 to produce and they're selling it for $100... that's completely ripping off the consumer, isn't fair, should be illegal, is ridiculous, is unethical, etc., etc., etc."
Further, Natoma, while you're arguing that there is or was a monopoly in place that artificially disrupts the otherwise correct supply/demand curves, you haven't talked a lot about the rampant theft of their product (which, btw, no other industry I can think of has had to tolerate in this manner) which also artificially disrupts the otherwise correct supply/demand curves.
You don't like expensive CD's? Don't buy them. You like the new lower CD prices? Vote with your wallet.
I'm not saying that recording companies don't want to grow, but it is entirely possible that such a path does not inherently lead to larger revenues. Business ain't so simple... especially when people are stealing your product.
And yet every business has been subject to theft BD. Not every business or field of business have been found guilty of price fixing, which is certainly evidence of monopoly and collusion.
The movie industry's prices have stayed roughly flat over the past decade, and they are another industry subject to rampant piracy. The same goes for software companies. Yet you haven't seen judgements against these industries for monopoly abuses.
There is a world of difference between thinking something is too expensive and thus voting with your wallet to not purchase it, and that industry being guilty of price fixing.
It was said that that monopoly could be argued as illegal, which is where the settlement against the RIAA for collusory price gouging of consumers arose.
Of course it can be "argued" to be illegal. You can argue anything.
Forming cartels, secret price agreements, or using monopoly status to effectively erode consumers choice is definitely illegal in the EU and I would be very surprised if it wasn't in the US too.
Joe DeFuria
06-Sep-2003, 13:27
Forming cartels, secret price agreements, or using monopoly status to effectively erode consumers choice is definitely illegal in the EU and I would be very surprised if it wasn't in the US too.
Yes, we have anti-trust laws in the U.S.
No, monopolies in the U.S. are not illegal, but using monopoly status to "abuse" cossumers is illegal.
The discussion here, is about whether or not certain entities are tried and convicted of such practices, vs. being just being brought up on charges.
Every single large company / industry has been brought up on "anti-trust" charges of one form or another. Big pockets attract lawers and other people who want their money by whatever means necessary.
You're making absolutely no sense whatsoever. Of course the market was different post-napster. That doesn't change the fact that pre-napster, the RIAA abused its monopoly position.
Newsflash....EVERY TIME a company makes a lot of money, it gets hits with lawsuits. And most of the time these things get settled, even if they're not guilty, because it's cheaper than litigation itself.
I'm still waiting for the link that shows a guilty verdict, not a settlement.
Considering I barely found that one link on news.com.com regarding the case at all last night, I have no idea how I'm going to find the actual verdict.
That is what the suits were about. Pre-napster. That comment by that person was wrt the fact that even if napster went away, the RIAA would still face problems because of the fact that the internet "genie" was out of the bottle wrt music distribution. And that person turned out to be correct.
Then that position by definition means that RIAA doesn't have a monopoly. A new competitor coming in an altering their prices? That sounds like competition to me,
And you seem to think that a monopoly cannot exist within a certain time and space? It has to be never ending?
I can have a monopoly for 10 years and abuse that monopoly during that time, and at the end of that 10 years a competitor can come up and successfully compete. Can I be found guilty of monopolistic abuses because of this? Yes. Has it happened? Yes.
Anyways, I'm still looking for the judgement but frankly I must not be using the correct terms.
Perhaps....or perhaps you just think you remember how it went down.
Considering all I was using to search was "RIAA court ruling FTC" or "RIAA court ruling Federal Trade Commission," I fail to see how much more generic than that you could get, especially since it has nothing about the judgement in the search string.
Found one article. The RIAA was found guilty of price fixing again a few days ago.
Lol...the register...Next you'll tell me that they or the inquirer has a post about a huge "security flaw" in Windows...
And Natoma, can you please accurately report on the arcitles you link? RIAA was not found guilty of anything....just another round of charges.
In a unanimous decision, members of the U.S. FTC (Federal Trade Comission) chastised Vivendi Universal and Warner Communications for restricting competition in the sale of "The Three Tenors" - Jose Carreras, Placido Domingo, and Luciano Pavarotti - audio and video products. It seems that PolyGram (a company later bought by Vivendi) conspired with Warner "to curb discounting and advertising to boost sales of recordings that the two companies jointly had distributed based on the tenors' concert in Paris during the 1998 soccer World Cup."
Based on these practices, the FTC has arrived at a stunning ruling.
"The Commission's order bars PolyGram from agreeing with competitors to fix the prices or restrict the advertising of products they produced independently."
That sounds like a guilty verdict to me from the FTC.....
[quote]Competition in CD prices due to UMG lowering their prices, as stipulated in the article that I posted to begin this thread. Why? Because of the pressures that didn't exist before, i.e. the internet distribution model.
If RIAA was a monopoly, the internet distribiution model wouldn't impact them.
And you seem to think that monopolies can never be disrupted by anything.
And this is exactly what I was saying. They were guilty of flexing their monopoly power during the 90s when there were no other consumer options.
Here's an option: DON'T BUY IT.
Consumers not purchasing a product does not preclude the fact that the RIAA still colluded with one another, as was the judgement of the FTC, in order to set artificially high prices. What you're missing is that purchasing the music or not has no bearing on whether or not anti-competitive collusion was used in order to "rip off" the consumer.
Again, this doesn't change the fact that the RIAA abused its monopoly position while it had a monopoly.
Wrong. It doesn't change the fact that some people think they abused it, not that they did.
The FTC ruling and the ruling brought in the suit with the states, and now this ruling against the RIAA a few days ago disagree.
$2 for gas isn't expensive either but it is certainly overpriced,
Bullshit.
It's only "overpriced" because you don't like the price?
Actually I don't pay for gas. I don't have a car so frankly I don't care. However, the FTC sure seems to believe there is evidence of price fixing and are currently investigating.
And yet, it isn't a necessity. You don't need gas to live. There are other options.
True. I said it's more of a necessity item than CDs.
So now we're moving away from absolutes? I'm surprised.....
By your definition of what a luxury item is, gas certainly fits the bill.
Make up your mind.
About what in particular? I'm just using your argument is all.
1991: NYS Attorney General files suit against Nintendo claiming they have an illegal monopoly on the market which they used to inflate prices and lock out developers (AVE brought a suit against Nintendo later in 1991 through the US District Court on these grounds. Can't find the judgement though. Ugh).
Recurring theme with you.
As is snipping a statement that gives you your answer a recurring theme with you. The judgement that I couldn't find was wrt the AVE suit, not the NYS AG suit. If you read, Nintendo paid out quite a chunk of change after the NYS AG argued against it successfully.
Does this justify the price that MS charges?
The only thing that justifies the price, is the fact that people BUY IT! Get that through that socialist head of yours.
So I'm socialist because I believe a monopoly setting artificially high prices is an example of abuse? :lol:
Tell that to the FTC and the states that have brought suits against MS, the music industry, etc etc etc....
That was not the point. MS was found guilty of abusing their monopoly power. They have already been convicted of monopoly abuses. And yet they continue to leverage that monopoly through software packaging and high prices.
Bull. Any "consequences" that the courts decide on for any action are carried out. I don't recall any judgements against MS for price abuses.
They were guilty of using the monopoly power of their distribution network, i.e. Windows, to force products into the market to the detriment of competitors. Different reason, same conclusion.
Does that explain the market dominance of IE, WMP, Office, etc? Each of these products was brought to the forefront of the market by MS leveraging them into the market with Windows.
To the BENEFIT of consumers, I would argue. Office became a better product than any other competing package. Which reminds me, I don't recall any other packages...there were stand alone spreadhseets (Lotus) and Word Processors (Word Perfect), but no one bothered to bundle them together in MS Did, saving costs.
Others were still futzing aroiun
:lol:
How was Word Perfect supposed to be bundled into Windows when MS keeps the source code a secret??? How was Netscape supposed to bundle their broswer together with Windows?
Forming cartels, secret price agreements, or using monopoly status to effectively erode consumers choice is definitely illegal in the EU and I would be very surprised if it wasn't in the US too.
Yes, we have anti-trust laws in the U.S.
No, monopolies in the U.S. are not illegal, but using monopoly status to "abuse" cossumers is illegal.
Which is one of the things I've been arguing. Abuse of monopoly status.
The discussion here, .
Says who? Says you?
:lol:
There goes my "joe-ism" for the day.
Every single large company / industry has been brought up on "anti-trust" charges of one form or another. Big pockets attract lawers and other people who want their money by whatever means necessary.
I don't seem to recall the MPAA being charged with monopolistic abuses and anti-competitive behavior detrimental to consumer wellbeing, or being penalized by judgement of the FTC.
Forming cartels, secret price agreements, or using monopoly status to effectively erode consumers choice is definitely illegal in the EU and I would be very surprised if it wasn't in the US too.
Yes, we have anti-trust laws in the U.S.
No, monopolies in the U.S. are not illegal, but using monopoly status to "abuse" cossumers is illegal.
The discussion here, is about whether or not certain entities are tried and convicted of such practices, vs. being just being brought up on charges.
Every single large company / industry has been brought up on "anti-trust" charges of one form or another. Big pockets attract lawers and other people who want their money by whatever means necessary.
Well, simply being a monopoly can obviously not be illegal since you could get in that situation simply because the competitors failed, and it's not illegal in the EU or anywhere else (or so I assume). Misusing a monopoly status is however. I'm thinking of this situation more of a cartel situation though. They all join together under inflexible organisations like RIAA. I'm not sure if it would hold to press charges in court, but the business model it has created could very well be criticized.
Bigus Dickus
06-Sep-2003, 20:59
And yet every business has been subject to theft BD.
"...in this manner." Very important statement that you glossed over. It takes a long time and a lot of storage space to download a movie, or if you're going to get some asian illegit copy you still have to find someone who has done the work of making copies and shell out some money for it. Those to attributes keep movie piracy from being a wholly different monster than music piracy.
With music, you can punch a button and have practically any song you wish in a minute, absolutely free, with essentially zero chance of being prosecuted or punished.
If you could punch a button and download a Ford in a matter of minutes, for free, with zero chance of being prosecuted, how long do you think Ford would be able to remain in business?
Sure, almost every industry has faced theft of some form. The only thing that comes even remotely close is the piracy of the Windows operating system, and even in that case the number of legitimate copies bought by businesses helps reduce the impact of the theft damage done by the average consumer (not to mention the similarity to movies re: the length of time to download or the money required to buy a pirated copy - but the price of the legitimate copy of software IMO makes the theft much more damaging that that of a movie).
As far as music sales are concerned, there are essentially no business or corporate customers... it's all average consumers, and the damage done to the industry by theft is tremendous.
I just can't fathom how you can accuse an industry that has had both legs cut off by theft of being "unfair" as far as pricing goes.
Guess you're not on broadband, eh?
Theorethically I could get a 700MB DivX movie down in 6.5 minutes. Realistically 10-15 minutes. Still much quicker than heading down to the store and buy it. 120GB HD's are also dirt cheap now. Not everyone's on broadband though ...
Bigus Dickus
07-Sep-2003, 02:28
Theorethically...
LOL! :lol: That really cracked me up, especially since the context is downloading movies illegally! :)
Yes, I'm on broadband, and have plenty of storage space. Far from everyone is though, and I still think there's a practical difference in the time and storage requirements of video vs. music.
How many movies can you put on that HDD? How many MP3's? Essentially anyone with a computer built in the last ~ten years and a modem could download and playback MP3's with relative ease.
Again, name another industry that has to tolerate near-instantaneous theft-on-demand with practically zero prosecution? Software comes close. And if you press the issue, piracy of movies will become just as large of a problem as the average computer capability increases.
Hmm ... not sure what to say about your little associsation, guess you could take the other part of the word too and connection it to the greek word Theos which means God ...
Anyway, I don't think storage space is an issue for either of mp3s or movies. 120GB can easily take well over a hundred movies, probably larger than most people's DVD archieve. While everyone doesn't have broadband today, it's not particularly few either, and it's going to be the rule rather than exception in a few years. I read that over 50% has "broadband" in Sweden, but then ADSL counted as broadband too. People with "real" broadband, like 2mbit/s and higher, are around 15-20% or so I think it was.
And yet every business has been subject to theft BD.
"...in this manner." Very important statement that you glossed over. It takes a long time and a lot of storage space to download a movie, or if you're going to get some asian illegit copy you still have to find someone who has done the work of making copies and shell out some money for it. Those to attributes keep movie piracy from being a wholly different monster than music piracy.
It takes me about 10 minutes to find a movie I'd want to download on Kazaa, and another 30 minutes to an hour to download it on my cable connection.
That is not a long time to wait. Storage space is worth pennies these days. I can get a 300GB hard drive for dirt cheap on price watch, and do nothing but store films on it. At an average 700MB with DIVX compression, I can store roughly 200 films on that one hard drive. I have 252 DVDs in my collection atm, with another 200 on my wish list.
If I want to purchase a pirated cd, it is the same thing as purchasing a pirated dvd. I go down to china town in manhattan and on every corner I can find people peddling CDs and DVDs side by side. $15 CDs sell for $3-$5. $20 DVDs sell for roughly the same cost as well. It isn't anymore difficult to find pirated DVDs than it is to find pirated CDs.
The reason why movie piracy isn't to the point where music piracy is right now is that you can successfully download music on a modem connection in a few minutes, or a few seconds on a broadband connection. However, considering 60% of US homes are projected to have broadband connections within a year or so, the movie industry could be in a world of hurt as well.
The only thing saving the industry from "napsterization" are the speed of the broadband connections atm.
Another thing that is saving the industry is the lack of good wireless AV connections between a computer in a Den and the primary big screen TV in the living room. What family is going to crowd around the 19" Dell in order to watch Lord of the Rings?
With music, you can punch a button and have practically any song you wish in a minute, absolutely free, with essentially zero chance of being prosecuted or punished.
Zero chance is an exaggeration. If you are a non-computer savvy user and you use Kazaa (regular, not lite), you can be tracked a lot easier than you think. Kazaalite incorporated many techniques which make it far more difficult to be caught, but not impossible.
Sure, almost every industry has faced theft of some form. The only thing that comes even remotely close is the piracy of the Windows operating system, and even in that case the number of legitimate copies bought by businesses helps reduce the impact of the theft damage done by the average consumer (not to mention the similarity to movies re: the length of time to download or the money required to buy a pirated copy - but the price of the legitimate copy of software IMO makes the theft much more damaging that that of a movie).
What about pirated games? That is certainly a huge problem for the videogame/computer game industry, especially given the ease of use of obtaining ISOs on P2P services and the web.
As far as music sales are concerned, there are essentially no business or corporate customers... it's all average consumers, and the damage done to the industry by theft is tremendous.
The difference here is that people have been clamoring for good services online from the music industry. There are very few people who state they will never ever pay for music again. Take me for instance. I took 150 CDs and turned them into MP3s, then I downloaded another few hundred from the net. That about covers my MP3 collection.
I cannot listen to MP3s unless they are 320K. If they are lower quality, the only time I can really stand it is if they are mostly vocals. If there are instrumentals I can tell the difference easily. I've emailed the big services such as iTunes, BuyMusic, and Listen.com in order to tell them that they will not get my dollars unless they offer different compression rates for MP3 downloads. Until then, I'll have to satisfy my tastes for albums on Kazaa.
I have no wish whatsoever to get my music for free indefinitely. But the internet has given me a choice of how I get my music. Either pay for a product that I don't want in order to get my music, or get it for free in the format I do want it.
I just can't fathom how you can accuse an industry that has had both legs cut off by theft of being "unfair" as far as pricing goes.
Pricing was unfair. There wasn't any rampant downloading of music at the time that the RIAA was guilty of this. That is what the FTC charged and the states have charged, and why the RIAA companies were found to have been in collusion with one another wrt price fixing.
And all of this occurred before P2P arose in the late 90s.
Bigus Dickus
07-Sep-2003, 21:16
Humus, the word was misspelled and I found the misspelling humorous. ;)
Natoma, so what are you arguing exactly? That because software and movie piracy is becoming a problem just as music piracy did years ago (only the magnitude and rate of increase of that problem is up for debate... we all agree that if it isn't a huge problem now it will be soon enough if left unchecked) somehow that makes everything ok? Or maybe that movies have a better value than music (i.e., more "fair" prices)? The movie and software industry is also hurt from this piracy, just not to the degree the music industry is IMO, at the moment at least.
Zero chance is an exaggeration. If you are a non-computer savvy user and you use Kazaa (regular, not lite), you can be tracked a lot easier than you think.
So they can put your name on a list of people who have downloaded a few songs, along with millions upon millions of others. And what are the chances that they'll prosecute? Ever so slightly greater than zero. How many people have been prosecuted for downloading mp3's to date?
The difference here is that people have been clamoring for good services online from the music industry. There are very few people who state they will never ever pay for music again. Take me for instance. I took 150 CDs and turned them into MP3s, then I downloaded another few hundred from the net. That about covers my MP3 collection.
I cannot listen to MP3s unless they are 320K. If they are lower quality, the only time I can really stand it is if they are mostly vocals. If there are instrumentals I can tell the difference easily. I've emailed the big services such as iTunes, BuyMusic, and Listen.com in order to tell them that they will not get my dollars unless they offer different compression rates for MP3 downloads. Until then, I'll have to satisfy my tastes for albums on Kazaa.
Unbelievable how some people will justify theft. If you want quality mp3's, buy the CD and rip the song yourself at whatever quality you choose. Yes, I know that the DMCA has something to say about this, and I think it is primarily an over-reaction to the rampant piracy (and, if you want to push the issue, ripping CD's to mp3's is perfectly legal provided you use "approved" hardware for which royalties are being paid).
So you general attitude is since they don't provide the product you deem is best at the price you deem is fair, you're justified in stealing it? You know, Ferrarri isn't offering the car I think they should for $20,000, so I think I'll go steal one.
Pricing was unfair. There wasn't any rampant downloading of music at the time that the RIAA was guilty of this. That is what the FTC charged and the states have charged, and why the RIAA companies were found to have been in collusion with one another wrt price fixing.
Pricing was unfair by what or whose definition? Where are the court rulings showing this? As Joe has pointed out, many large industries have faced similar charges... it proves nothing.
I have no wish whatsoever to get my music for free indefinitely. But the internet has given me a choice of how I get my music. Either pay for a product that I don't want in order to get my music, or get it for free in the format I do want it.
Precisely. How is the music industry supposed to price anything "fairly" (whatever you think that means) when this attitude is so rampant and theft is so damned easy? The internet has given you a tool to steal, and you apparently have no moral or ethical issues with using it. Yet you somehow think there is an ethical problem with the music industry's pricing?
I have just one question... if you didn't "want" the product, why would you bother to steal it?
I really didn't want to go here, but think it's worth pointing out. I find quite often that attitudes such as yours are common among liberals. I believe it's tied to the whole socialist philosophy which tends to make supporters think they are entitled to things which they haven't worked for or paid for. It's not "fair" that someone else is making so much money off of this. It's not "fair" that some people are so much richer. It's not "fair" that some companies charge more than I can afford for their products...
Natoma, so what are you arguing exactly? That because software and movie piracy is becoming a problem just as music piracy did years ago (only the magnitude and rate of increase of that problem is up for debate... we all agree that if it isn't a huge problem now it will be soon enough if left unchecked) somehow that makes everything ok? Or maybe that movies have a better value than music (i.e., more "fair" prices)? The movie and software industry is also hurt from this piracy, just not to the degree the music industry is IMO, at the moment at least.
I'm not arguing anything wrt the movie industry of software industry in terms of things being ok. You stated that movie piracy isn't an issue, or a big issue, because of internet connections and hard drive space. I'm arguing that that isn't the case, as well as the ease with which you can get pirated DVDs on the street.
Zero chance is an exaggeration. If you are a non-computer savvy user and you use Kazaa (regular, not lite), you can be tracked a lot easier than you think.
So they can put your name on a list of people who have downloaded a few songs, along with millions upon millions of others. And what are the chances that they'll prosecute? Ever so slightly greater than zero. How many people have been prosecuted for downloading mp3's to date?
The RIAA has only begun its prosecution of individual users in the past few months. Ask me this a few years from now if pirated music environment doesn't improve.
The difference here is that people have been clamoring for good services online from the music industry. There are very few people who state they will never ever pay for music again. Take me for instance. I took 150 CDs and turned them into MP3s, then I downloaded another few hundred from the net. That about covers my MP3 collection.
I cannot listen to MP3s unless they are 320K. If they are lower quality, the only time I can really stand it is if they are mostly vocals. If there are instrumentals I can tell the difference easily. I've emailed the big services such as iTunes, BuyMusic, and Listen.com in order to tell them that they will not get my dollars unless they offer different compression rates for MP3 downloads. Until then, I'll have to satisfy my tastes for albums on Kazaa.
Unbelievable how some people will justify theft. If you want quality mp3's, buy the CD and rip the song yourself at whatever quality you choose. Yes, I know that the DMCA has something to say about this, and I think it is primarily an over-reaction to the rampant piracy (and, if you want to push the issue, ripping CD's to mp3's is perfectly legal provided you use "approved" hardware for which royalties are being paid).
What if I only want a few songs and not the entire Album? Why should I be forced to pay for part of a package that I will simply toss away? That's one reason why I build my own computer systems. I pay for what I want directly, not get charged for pieces I do not wish to have.
I will not pay $15-$25 for three songs. But I will pay for each song from a service that allows me to copy my music as freely as I could copy it if it were a CD or Cassette.
The DMCA was crafted in 1997 and passed early in 1998, before Napster, before internet piracy became the issue it is today. So no, it wasn't in response to rampant piracy as you claim.
So you general attitude is since they don't provide the product you deem is best at the price you deem is fair, you're justified in stealing it? You know, Ferrarri isn't offering the car I think they should for $20,000, so I think I'll go steal one.
Actually what I would do in the past is record a song off the radio and create my own mix tape if all I wanted was that particular song. If I wanted the entire album (usually after listening to it from a friend who made me a copy), then I'd purchase the album.
One thing that has me happy wrt online music services is the fact that you can stream the music before you purchase it, so you can hear what it sounds like. Same as radio. But I want to be able to download the music at the quality I want to get it at, without having to over pay for that music, which is what I'd have to do if I spent money on an entire CD for just a couple of songs.
I warez software all the time. If I like the software, I purchase it. If I don't, I get rid of it.
If you consider that justification for stealing, then so be it. I consider it exercising every avenue available to me as a consumer.
Pricing was unfair. There wasn't any rampant downloading of music at the time that the RIAA was guilty of this. That is what the FTC charged and the states have charged, and why the RIAA companies were found to have been in collusion with one another wrt price fixing.
Pricing was unfair by what or whose definition? Where are the court rulings showing this? As Joe has pointed out, many large industries have faced similar charges... it proves nothing.
In a unanimous decision, members of the U.S. FTC (Federal Trade Comission) chastised Vivendi Universal and Warner Communications for restricting competition in the sale of "The Three Tenors" - Jose Carreras, Placido Domingo, and Luciano Pavarotti - audio and video products. It seems that PolyGram (a company later bought by Vivendi) conspired with Warner "to curb discounting and advertising to boost sales of recordings that the two companies jointly had distributed based on the tenors' concert in Paris during the 1998 soccer World Cup."
Based on these practices, the FTC has arrived at a stunning ruling.
"The Commission's order bars PolyGram from agreeing with competitors to fix the prices or restrict the advertising of products they produced independently."
As I told Joe, that sounds like a guilty verdict to me from the FTC. I don't have the exact language for the other rulings, but frankly, $500 million (result of the 2000 FTC case against the RIAA) is a lot of money for any industry to pay for a settlement in order to end a court case if there is no evident instance of guilt involved.
I have no wish whatsoever to get my music for free indefinitely. But the internet has given me a choice of how I get my music. Either pay for a product that I don't want in order to get my music, or get it for free in the format I do want it.
Precisely. How is the music industry supposed to price anything "fairly" (whatever you think that means) when this attitude is so rampant and theft is so damned easy? The internet has given you a tool to steal, and you apparently have no moral or ethical issues with using it. Yet you somehow think there is an ethical problem with the music industry's pricing?
Fair pricing for a high quality MP3 has been established at roughly 50 cents to a dollar by the major online websites. Why? You have removed the cost of distribution (retailers, packaging, media, shipping, insurance, etc) from the equation.
I have just one question... if you didn't "want" the product, why would you bother to steal it?
I don't want the physical product of the CD. If I didn't want the music I wouldn't have it.
I really didn't want to go here, but think it's worth pointing out. I find quite often that attitudes such as yours are common among liberals. I believe it's tied to the whole socialist philosophy which tends to make supporters think they are entitled to things which they haven't worked for or paid for. It's not "fair" that someone else is making so much money off of this. It's not "fair" that some people are so much richer. It's not "fair" that some companies charge more than I can afford for their products...
:lol:
Well, I've gone there. So lets debate it rather than sling silly condescending platitudes about perceived liberal/conservative/capitalist/socialists agendas and ideals. :roll:
Bigus Dickus
08-Sep-2003, 04:01
The RIAA has only begun its prosecution of individual users in the past few months. Ask me this a few years from now if pirated music environment doesn't improve.
I thought we were talking about the prices today and the industry today, which is at a point in time where years of piracy have gone essentially unpunished. If things do change in the future as a result of prosecution, then hallelujah!
What if I only want a few songs and not the entire Album? Why should I be forced to pay for part of a package that I will simply toss away?
You're right, of course. I rarely like the stock wheels, tires, exhaust, and audio system in cars offered today. Why should I pay for these things when I'm just going to toss them away? That's why I feel it's justified to steal any car I want. :roll:
I will not pay $15-$25 for three songs.
You don't have to. Don't listen to music if you don't find it worth the cost. Jesus.
But I will pay for each song from a service that allows me to copy my music as freely as I could copy it if it were a CD or Cassette.
Unless they don't offer exactly what you want either (320K), in which case you'll simply steal it. Sounds like a fair price to me.
But I want to be able to download the music at the quality I want to get it at, without having to over pay for that music, which is what I'd have to do if I spent money on an entire CD for just a couple of songs.
There's that "overpay" thing again. I don't want to overpay for a whole loaf of bread when I know I'll only use half... so I'll just steal the whole thing.
I warez software all the time. If I like the software, I purchase it. If I don't, I get rid of it.
If you consider that justification for stealing, then so be it. I consider it exercising every avenue available to me as a consumer.
You're right again, of course. Why use functionally or time limited free demo's when you can steal it and take it for a test drive first? That's why when I'm shopping for a new car I typically steal several I'm interested in (you know how useless journal reports and dealer test drives are). I ditch the ones I don't like and pay for the one I want to keep.
Same with movies. It doesn't hurt the cinema (they don't lose money) by having one extra person in the theater who snuck in. So I don't pay until after I've "screened" the movie. If it was worth the money I'll go back and pay for it.
Fair pricing for a high quality MP3 has been established at roughly 50 cents to a dollar by the major online websites. Why? You have removed the cost of distribution (retailers, packaging, media, shipping, insurance, etc) from the equation.
Why should the value of a thing be tied to the cost of producing that thing? Um... this is a capitalist economy, not a socialist one.
If I produced a personal teleportation device that could send you anywhere instantly and safely which only cost me $1 to produce, would I be "unfair" in asking, oh... about the same price as that of a much less capable automobile?
I have just one question... if you didn't "want" the product, why would you bother to steal it?
I don't want the physical product of the CD. If I didn't want the music I wouldn't have it.
Oh... I see. I don't actually want books either, just the information contained in them (and I rarely read the whole thing anyway). That's why I routinely shoplift from bookstores.
The RIAA has only begun its prosecution of individual users in the past few months. Ask me this a few years from now if pirated music environment doesn't improve.
I thought we were talking about the prices today and the industry today, which is at a point in time where years of piracy have gone essentially unpunished. If things do change in the future as a result of prosecution, then hallelujah!
Things have already changed. As I stated, prosecution of individual users has already begun. What is your point again?
What if I only want a few songs and not the entire Album? Why should I be forced to pay for part of a package that I will simply toss away?
You're right, of course. I rarely like the stock wheels, tires, exhaust, and audio system in cars offered today. Why should I pay for these things when I'm just going to toss them away? That's why I feel it's justified to steal any car I want. :roll:
Actually you can customize your car purchase. What wheels, rims, audio system, etc, you want in your car. This is not a good example because you're allowed to get the car you wish through customization.
The music industry never gave you the option of customizing your music purchase. That is what people are asking for. The ability to get their music the way they want it.
I will not pay $15-$25 for three songs.
You don't have to. Don't listen to music if you don't find it worth the cost. Jesus.
If I want only 3 songs then I want to purchase those three songs. You would think the music industry would like to get my money for those three songs. You're right, if I don't like the music then I won't listen to it. But I want those three songs out of 15 on an album, so I want to buy them. Hello this is called giving the consumer what he/she wants.
But I will pay for each song from a service that allows me to copy my music as freely as I could copy it if it were a CD or Cassette.
Unless they don't offer exactly what you want either (320K), in which case you'll simply steal it. Sounds like a fair price to me.
Actually, I stated this:
I've emailed the big services such as iTunes, BuyMusic, and Listen.com in order to tell them that they will not get my dollars unless they offer different compression rates for MP3 downloads.
It's called giving consumers more than one option. Having only 128K downloadable mp3 rates is an unacceptable situation. They should offer all of the rates that current mp3 compression programs offer. 64K, 96K, 128K, 160K, 192K, 256K, and 320K.
But I want to be able to download the music at the quality I want to get it at, without having to over pay for that music, which is what I'd have to do if I spent money on an entire CD for just a couple of songs.
There's that "overpay" thing again. I don't want to overpay for a whole loaf of bread when I know I'll only use half... so I'll just steal the whole thing.
Who said anything about a whole loaf of bread. You didn't compute the most important part of this. I don't want to have to spend $15-$25 for an entire CD when all I want is 2-3 songs. What is so difficult to understand about this?
The technology exists to make this happen. In the past, if you wanted only a few songs and didn't want the rest, you'd have to bite the bullet and purchase the whole CD. Now that is not the case. The RIAA has simply been too stubborn over the past few years to realize this is what consumers want. Track by track purchasing. Not forced full album purchasing.
I warez software all the time. If I like the software, I purchase it. If I don't, I get rid of it.
If you consider that justification for stealing, then so be it. I consider it exercising every avenue available to me as a consumer.
You're right again, of course. Why use functionally or time limited free demo's when you can steal it and take it for a test drive first? That's why when I'm shopping for a new car I typically steal several I'm interested in (you know how useless journal reports and dealer test drives are). I ditch the ones I don't like and pay for the one I want to keep.
Why should I use functionally limited software when I'm trying to ascertain the value of the fully functional software? Obviously we differ here. I see absolutely no problem with warezing a fully functional program, giving it the test drive, then purchasing it if I like it (usually after a week or so of running the program) and uninstalling it if I don't. This way, I don't waste my money on a program if I don't like it, and I give the software makers their money if I do.
My question is, why are you making silly comparisons to cars? Most dealerships allow you to test drive a car for a day or two, sometimes up to a week if your credit is good enough. You get to test drive the car fully and make up your mind if you like the handling, the features, etc etc etc, before making your purchase. It's called making an informed decision.
For someone who seems to be a complete capitalist, does this ability by the consumer to make informed decisions make sense?
Same with movies. It doesn't hurt the cinema (they don't lose money) by having one extra person in the theater who snuck in. So I don't pay until after I've "screened" the movie. If it was worth the money I'll go back and pay for it.
:lol:
Word of mouth, reviews, trailers, etc all give a general picture of a film's quality. And if you're really interested in the storyline, then you can easily download the script on the internet most times. And this is beside the point. Watching a film in a theater is like renting it. You only partake in the experience temporarily. After which, you have to go back if you wish to partake in it again.
Software is different. You own it forever. Music is different. You own it forever. You make the purchase, that's it. You can't return it. Same with a car. What do people do when they haven't seen a film that they want to own forever and want to know if it's worth it? They rent it from their local videostore, then they decide if they really want to buy it and own it forever.
Why should the value of a thing be tied to the cost of producing that thing? Um... this is a capitalist economy, not a socialist one.
This comment makes no sense as this is how items sold in our economy are generally priced. Value is tied to the cost of producing that item. How rare it is, the difficulty in producing it, the time spent making it, how much the materials were, etc etc etc. :?
I have just one question... if you didn't "want" the product, why would you bother to steal it?
I don't want the physical product of the CD. If I didn't want the music I wouldn't have it.
Oh... I see. I don't actually want books either, just the information contained in them (and I rarely read the whole thing anyway). That's why I routinely shoplift from bookstores.
:lol:
That makes no sense as you're taking the physical product that you don't like. Your analogy would make sense if you went online and downloaded the eBook instead. :D
RussSchultz
08-Sep-2003, 13:36
The music industry offers a product. Either you buy it, or preview it in authorized mechanisms. Using it in manners not allowed by their license is theft. Period.
You don't have the right to use their product. You don't have a right to "reasonable" prices. All you have is the right to purchase it on their terms.
Your pathetic attempts to justify your theft ring hollow. I won't say they fall on deaf ears, because an astounding amount of Americans feel the same way you do.
But again, its just them trying to justify their thievery.
The music industry offers a product. Either you buy it, or preview it in authorized mechanisms. Using it in manners not allowed by their license is theft. Period.
And I've never argued that it isn't. However, I've also stated that this is my position on the matter. The whole point of this is to force the record companies to give consumers what they want. Track by track purchasing.
This situation has happened in the past, and it will occur again, i.e technology forcing the hand of an entrenched monopoly to change. If AT&T hadn't broken up, cellphones would have done it, unless they changed.
Today we have internet telephony which you could consider theivery since you're not paying the telcos for the use of their lines when you make a call. No where is it subsidized into the cost of your internet connection in the way that cellphones include the cost of calling anywhere through the myriad "hidden fees" you find in their plans. Do I have any issue with free phone calls through internet telephony? Nope. Would I pay for internet telephony from a phone company if they offer the services I desire? Yup.
Who said anything about a whole loaf of bread. You didn't compute the most important part of this. I don't want to have to spend $15-$25 for an entire CD when all I want is 2-3 songs. What is so difficult to understand about this?
The technology exists to make this happen. In the past, if you wanted only a few songs and didn't want the rest, you'd have to bite the bullet and purchase the whole CD. Now that is not the case. The RIAA has simply been too stubborn over the past few years to realize this is what consumers want. Track by track purchasing. Not forced full album purchasing.
You don't have the right to use their product. You don't have a right to "reasonable" prices. All you have is the right to purchase it on their terms.
The FTC would seem to disagree with that statement that consumers don't have a right to "reasonable" prices.
Your pathetic attempts to justify your theft ring hollow. I won't say they fall on deaf ears, because an astounding amount of Americans feel the same way you do.
But again, its just them trying to justify their thievery.
I don't consider it pathetic at all because frankly I've stated I'm willing to buy my music from online services, but they really need to expand what they're offering. Amazing how offering the consumer what he wants will result in a purchase no?
What would make me move to a legitimate service? Assured musical quality, selectable bit rate, per track purchasing, and unlimited copying to anything I want once the music is mine. Basically what I'd get if I purchased a CD, but without the need to subsidize 12 crappy tracks for the three I want.
What is this called? Making the consumer happy. I'm sure the vast majority of music downloaders are like me. Willing to pay for music if they offer the flexibility and ease of use that the current P2P programs offer, but not willing to be gouged given another option. Isn't the prime responsibility of a business to make its consumers happy?
Bigus Dickus
08-Sep-2003, 15:12
Things have already changed. As I stated, prosecution of individual users has already begun. What is your point again?
The point, which has obviously been lost on you, was that no other industry has yet had to suffer theft to the same degree as the music industry. Theft, yes. Same degree, no. Simple point.
Actually you can customize your car purchase. What wheels, rims, audio system, etc, you want in your car. This is not a good example because you're allowed to get the car you wish through customization.
No, they can't give me exactly the options I want (the specific make of rims, or the specific model of CD player, for example), so I'll just steal it. Likewise, the music industry doesn't give you exactly the options you want (the specific tracks, or the specific bitrate you want, for example), so you just steal it.
That is what people are asking for. The ability to get their music the way they want it.
"Or else?" :shock: Who are you (or consumers in general) to demand the format, content, options, price, etc. of a product? There's no law that says companies must give you want you want. Simply refuse to buy what they offer... if everyone agrees with you, the company will go bankrupt soon enough and be replaced by one more willing to offer the product you desire.
You're right, if I don't like the music then I won't listen to it. But I want those three songs out of 15 on an album, so I want to buy them. Hello this is called giving the consumer what he/she wants.
See above. Consumers should voice their opinions with collective buying power, not theft.
Actually, I stated this:
I've emailed the big services such as iTunes, BuyMusic, and Listen.com in order to tell them that they will not get my dollars unless they offer different compression rates for MP3 downloads.
Right. You stated that you won't buy MP3's unless they specifically meet your requirements. When they don't you'll steal them.
Having only 128K downloadable mp3 rates is an unacceptable situation. They should offer all of the rates that current mp3 compression programs offer. 64K, 96K, 128K, 160K, 192K, 256K, and 320K.
Having Ferrari's available only in a limited number of colors is unacceptable. They should have them available in all the current paint colors available.
:shock:
Who said anything about a whole loaf of bread. You didn't compute the most important part of this. I don't want to have to spend $15-$25 for an entire CD when all I want is 2-3 songs. What is so difficult to understand about this?
I said something about a loaf of bread. You don't want to spend $15 for an entire CD when all you want is 2-3 songs; I don't want to spend $2 for an entire loaf of bread when all I want is 8-10 slices. What is so difficult to understand about this?
Why should I use functionally limited software when I'm trying to ascertain the value of the fully functional software?
My question is, why are you making silly comparisons to cars? Most dealerships allow you to test drive a car for a day or two, sometimes up to a week if your credit is good enough. You get to test drive the car fully and make up your mind if you like the handling, the features, etc etc etc, before making your purchase. It's called making an informed decision.
Many software programs offer time-limited demo versions, just like some dealerships. Others offer functionally limited demo versions, just like other dealerships (not all allow extended test drives). I see no silly comparison here at all.
Word of mouth, reviews, trailers, etc all give a general picture of a film's quality.
I don't suppose word of mouth, reviews, and various demo's give a good enough picture of a software's quality? Why demand a 100% functional unlimited duration trial in one case, and accept heresay in the other? Shouldn't you demand to be able to make a completely informed decision on whether the movie was in fact worth paying for or not? Why so inconsistent?
And this is beside the point. Watching a film in a theater is like renting it. You only partake in the experience temporarily. After which, you have to go back if you wish to partake in it again.
Software is different. You own it forever. Music is different. You own it forever. You make the purchase, that's it. You can't return it.
:shock: Theft is theft.
Why should the value of a thing be tied to the cost of producing that thing? Um... this is a capitalist economy, not a socialist one.
This comment makes no sense as this is how items sold in our economy are generally priced. Value is tied to the cost of producing that item. How rare it is, the difficulty in producing it, the time spent making it, how much the materials were, etc etc etc. :?
Son, you have a lot to learn about a free market economy. One of the quickest ways for a business owner to commit economic suicide is to use cost based pricing. Sorry... our economy simply doesn't work like that, and I can't fathom where you got such a ridiculous idea.
Oh wait... I think I might have an idea...
That makes no sense as you're taking the physical product that you don't like. Your analogy would make sense if you went online and downloaded the eBook instead. :D
Wow. What is the difference in stealing the physical book and downloading the text illegally online? In both cases you have stolen the IP and reduced the number of legitimate book sales by 1.
What some people will say to justify theft is astounding.
Joe DeFuria
08-Sep-2003, 15:12
And I've never argued that it isn't. However, I've also stated that this is my position on the matter. The whole point of this is to force the record companies to give consumers what they want. Track by track purchasing.
Having ANYONE "force" the record companies, other than consumers themselves, is the whole problem, Natoma.
If "track-by-track" purchasing is, in fact, what consumers want, then they will stop buying CDs. No need for anyone to force anyone else to do anything.
If consumers still buy CDs at whatever price, then guess what....there is a demand for CDs at that price.
You don't dictate to companies what conusmers want. Consumers vote with their wallets.
Bigus Dickus
08-Sep-2003, 15:14
And I've never argued that it isn't [theft]. However, I've also stated that this is my position on the matter. The whole point of this is to force the record companies to give consumers what they want. Track by track purchasing.
Extorsion is as illegal as theft in this country.
Having ANYONE "force" the record companies, other than consumers themselves, is the whole problem, Natoma.
If "track-by-track" purchasing is, in fact, what consumers want, then they will stop buying CDs. No need for anyone to force anyone else to do anything.
If consumers still buy CDs at whatever price, then guess what....there is a demand for CDs at that price.
You don't dictate to companies what conusmers want. Consumers vote with their wallets.
Erm, this is what's happening. Consumers are not purchasing CDs and Cassettes anymore, as evidenced by the steady decline in sales over the years. Consumers are the ones forcing record companies to change the way in which they do business. Consumers want track-by-track purchasing, consumers won't stand for complete albums as the only available option, the music companies are finally learning and moving in that direction.
This is something that could have been avoided if the music industry had some foresight and began this move in 1998/1999 with the appearance of napster, as opposed to making the move in 2001/2002. Thankfully the MPAA is smarter than this and is moving quickly to provide the services consumers want online.
What is the lesson learned from the internet? If you do not capitulate to what consumers want, consumers will bury you. It just happens to be on a far grander scale now than it ever has been. Isn't that the best (or worst depending on your pov) of capitalism?
And I've never argued that it isn't [theft]. However, I've also stated that this is my position on the matter. The whole point of this is to force the record companies to give consumers what they want. Track by track purchasing.
Extorsion is as illegal as theft in this country.
So now consumers forcing the record companies to sell them the product consumers want is extortion? :lol:
Joe DeFuria
08-Sep-2003, 15:20
This comment makes no sense as this is how items sold in our economy are generally priced. Value is tied to the cost of producing that item. How rare it is, the difficulty in producing it, the time spent making it, how much the materials were, etc etc etc. :?
I have to reiterate Bigus' point here: you have zero idea of what a free market economy is about.
PRICING (therefore value to the consumer) has NOTHING to do with cost...nor should it. Especially for non-essential items like entertainment. (One can make a reasonable argument that cost should factor into price for necessity items like energy, water, etc, when there is not reasonble competition.)
Pricing has to do with supply and demand. The viability of a product has to do with cost, and how it relates to the selling price as dictated by supply and demand.
If it costs more to make and deliver than supply/demand dictates the price, then the product is not viable. Only idiots dream up a product, estimate its costs, and set the price accordingly. You dream up a product, estimate it's selling price based on supply/demand projections, estimate the cost, and determine if you should bother bringing it to market at all.
Bigus Dickus
08-Sep-2003, 15:23
So now consumers forcing the record companies to sell them the product consumers want is extortion? :lol:
:?
Legal: "If you don't offer the product I want, I won't buy your product!"
Illegal: "If you don't offer the product I want, I'll steal your product!"
Comprende?
First you say that pricing has nothing to do with cost. Then you say
You dream up a product, estimate it's selling price based on supply/demand projections, estimate the cost, and determine if you should bother bringing it to market at all.
I said that value is tied to the cost of producing said item. Not that it is the only qualifier of value. You're reading far more into my statement than intended.
Bigus Dickus
08-Sep-2003, 15:28
Erm, this is what's happening. Consumers are not purchasing CDs and Cassettes anymore, as evidenced by the steady decline in sales over the years.
Of course sales are declining. Theft is easier and cheaper.
What is the lesson learned from the internet?
The lesson is that people are more than willing to steal if the personal consequences are nil. The lesson is that people are greedy, even when accusing corporations of the same.
Isn't that the best (or worst depending on your pov) of capitalism?
Not when extortion is the leverage of choice. That's not how capitalism should work. That's not how any reasonable economny should work.
Joe DeFuria
08-Sep-2003, 15:29
Erm, this is what's happening. Consumers are not purchasing CDs and Cassettes anymore, as evidenced by the steady decline in sales over the years. Consumers are the ones forcing record companies to change the way in which they do business. Consumers want track-by-track purchasing, consumers won't stand for complete albums as the only available option, the music companies are finally learning and moving in that direction.
Erm, that is exactly my point. This drop in prices is a MARKET FORCE. Not any consequence of lawsuits because of perceived monopolistic actions on part of the record companies.
This is something that could have been avoided if the music industry had some foresight and began this move in 1998/1999 with the appearance of napster, as opposed to making the move in 2001/2002.
What could have been avoided? Drops in CD prices? You're making no sense.
Thankfully the MPAA is smarter than this and is moving quickly to provide the services consumers want online.
*Scratches head*. So what you're saying is that CD prices are dropping because of market forces. Isn't that, um, what I've been saying all along?
What is the lesson learned from the internet? If you do not capitulate to what consumers want, consumers will bury you.
True, exactly what I said: market forces. If you don't give consumers what they want, you'll be out of business soon. NOTE, however, that "what the consumer wants" is defined by what they buy with their money. NOT what you personally deem as what they want.
And further note, this doesn't make consumers pirating music a valid means of protest, if that's what you're getting at.
It just happens to be on a far grander scale now than it ever has been. Isn't that the best (or worst depending on your pov) of capitalism?
It's the best of capitalism...as long as pirating music isn't the reason for the price change.
So now consumers forcing the record companies to sell them the product consumers want is extortion? :lol:
:?
Legal: "If you don't offer the product I want, I won't buy your product!"
Illegal: "If you don't offer the product I want, I'll steal your product!"
Comprende?
Obviously. You consider that extortion. I consider it people voting with their wallets. They don't want the product the music industry is offering anymore. The music industry needs to change, and is moving then that direction. If you want to consider that extortion, then so be it. It's working.
Joe DeFuria
08-Sep-2003, 15:34
First you say that pricing has nothing to do with cost. Then you say
You dream up a product, estimate it's selling price based on supply/demand projections, estimate the cost, and determine if you should bother bringing it to market at all.
??
Those two statements don't contradict one another. Can you read?
Cost dictates if a product is viable.
Cost does NOT dictate price. The only reason to estimate the cost is to determine if you can be profitable with the product. NOT to set a selling price.
I said that value is tied to the cost of producing said item.
And I said it's NOT TIED to it. Cost is tied to the viability of the product. Not it's value.
Not that it is the only qualifier of value. You're reading far more into my statement than intended.
Not at all. You're not reading my statements at all.
VALUE of a product vaires by individual, based on each individual's demand for the product, and each individual's ability to more or less "substitute" that product at some different price point.
Erm, this is what's happening. Consumers are not purchasing CDs and Cassettes anymore, as evidenced by the steady decline in sales over the years. Consumers are the ones forcing record companies to change the way in which they do business. Consumers want track-by-track purchasing, consumers won't stand for complete albums as the only available option, the music companies are finally learning and moving in that direction.
Erm, that is exactly my point. This drop in prices is a MARKET FORCE. Not any consequence of lawsuits because of perceived monopolistic actions on part of the record companies.
You think I'm talking about CD prices? Err, I'm not discussing the drop in CD prices in my post. I'm discussing the drop in CD sales, which are due to consumers saying enough and not purchasing CDs anymore. You are correct in that the drop in prices is the response of the industry to declining CD sales.
The move to the internet and a new way of doing business with the client is the response to consumers showing how they want to get their music now.
The lawsuits by the states and the FTC (on multiple occassions) were in response to real monopolistic actions on the part of the record companies. I never made the connection that the drop in prices came about because of those lawsuits, nor have I espoused that line of reasoning. They aren't related, and I'm not sure why you believe I was trying to say they were.
This is something that could have been avoided if the music industry had some foresight and began this move in 1998/1999 with the appearance of napster, as opposed to making the move in 2001/2002.
What could have been avoided? Drops in CD prices? You're making no sense.
It doesn't make sense because you're debating something that I'm not. The current climate of rampant piracy of music on P2P services could have been avoided if the music industry had begun the move to this in 1998/1999 instead of the past couple of years.
Again, I'm not talking about CD prices.
Thankfully the MPAA is smarter than this and is moving quickly to provide the services consumers want online.
*Scratches head*. So what you're saying is that CD prices are dropping because of market forces. Isn't that, um, what I've been saying all along?
:lol:
Again, I'm not talking about CD prices atm. The MPAA is moving to provide streaming and downloadable movies to consumers over the internet. In fact you can already see this with VOD. TimeWarner already offers this.
Consumers have expressed this is what they want, the MPAA and its business partners are moving quickly to comply.
The RIAA did not have the foresight or the knowledge to understand that consumers would walk out on them en masse if the product they wanted wasn't provided.
What is the lesson learned from the internet? If you do not capitulate to what consumers want, consumers will bury you.
True, exactly what I said: market forces. If you don't give consumers what they want, you'll be out of business soon. NOTE, however, that "what the consumer wants" is defined by what they buy with their money. NOT what you personally deem as what they want.
Whoever said it's what I personally deem? I'm making a statement based on what has happened. Consumers as a whole decided that purchasing a whole CD for a couple of tracks was ridiculous, given the alternatives available. Consumers as a whole have decided that the music industry needs to get on board and offer track-by-track purchasing via the internet.
The consumer has obviously voted with their wallets by decreasingly purchasing CDs at retail.
And further note, this doesn't make consumers pirating music a valid means of protest, if that's what you're getting at.
Never said it was. But it's working.
It just happens to be on a far grander scale now than it ever has been. Isn't that the best (or worst depending on your pov) of capitalism?
It's the best of capitalism...as long as pirating music isn't the reason for the price change.
That happens to be the precise reason why the prices in CDs have dropped. The music industry realizes they need to spur demand because consumers have dropped CD purchases en masse, so they finally drop CD prices to levels consumers have been clamoring for for years. Unfortunately for them, it's too little too late as everyone now understands the choices involved with getting a couple of tracks as you see fit, rather than subsidizing an entire album that may have only a few good tracks on it.
Bigus Dickus
08-Sep-2003, 15:56
Natoma's version of acceptable capitalism in a nutshell:
(1) If the cost of a thing is not appropriately reflected in its price, then that price is innately unfair.
(2) If a company does not offer a product in precisely the form you want, theft of whatever they do offer is a valid means of exerting market pressure.
For someone who likes preaching about ethics and morals when it comes to social programs, these above two ideals are quite striking... and revealing.
1) If I go into a store and I see two shirts. One is a name brand shirt selling for $100. Another is the same exact shirt, without the name brand, selling for $50. I know that they each cost $10 to make, market, and distribute. Which price is fair and which one will I personally purchase?
2) I never said it was valid. I just said it's working, for the betterment of consumers by offering the product that consumers obviously want. If it were up to the record industry, the internet form of distribution would not exist and they would continue to sell consumers a product that is currently being rejected, simply because there were no alternatives. That is not what I consider ethical business practices.
War is never a good thing. It's not something that I wish for. Sometimes it's necessary in order to get a particular ends. Does that always justify the means? No. But it works.
To call it 100% right or 100% wrong is missing the fact that the entire situation is realistically one big gray area.
notAFanB
08-Sep-2003, 16:16
1) If I go into a store and I see two shirts. One is a name brand shirt selling for $100. Another is the same exact shirt, without the name brand, selling for $50. I know that they each cost $10 to make, market, and distribute. Which price is fair and which one will I personally purchase?
if I want the brand the yes otherwise I buy the shirt. they are 'not' the same product.
if I want the brand the yes otherwise I buy the shirt. they are 'not' the same product.
I'm not beholden to the idea that slapping a brand label on something automatically makes it a different product. I try to ascertain the costs of a product relative to the selling price when I make my purchases, and try to get as close to the cost as I can.
If I don't like the selling price of Fruity Pebbles, I buy the no-frills version for $2 less. If I don't like the selling price of a Dell computer, I buy the parts myself and build my own. I care nothing for brands, nor do I see it as integrated with the product itself.
notAFanB
08-Sep-2003, 16:31
I'm not beholden to the idea that slapping a brand label on something automatically makes it a different product. I try to ascertain the costs of a product relative to the selling price when I make my purchases, and try to get as close to the cost as I can.
as do I, however I cannot ignore that slapping a brand on a product and selling it in this manner 'does' offer value to the consumer however intangible it may be to me.
I care nothing for brands, nor do I see it as integrated with the product itself.
I don't but they are.
Joe DeFuria
08-Sep-2003, 16:36
You think I'm talking about CD prices? Err, I'm not discussing the drop in CD prices in my post. I'm discussing the drop in CD sales, which are due to consumers saying enough and not purchasing CDs anymore. You are correct in that the drop in prices is the response of the industry to declining CD sales.
In other words, we are talking about the same thing. The drop in PRICES as a reasult of market forces of reduced CD SALES.
The quesiton is, is the sales decline a genuine market response, or one tied heavily with piracy, which is not a legitimate market force.
It doesn't make sense because you're debating something that I'm not. The current climate of rampant piracy of music on P2P services could have been avoided if the music industry had begun the move to this in 1998/1999 instead of the past couple of years.
I disagree completely.
ZERO cost is always less than "some cost." As long as the piracy avenue is "readily available", there will be an artificial reduced demand for the legitimate product.
Mark my words...even if the music industry changes wholesale to track-by-track electronic distribution, piracy will not only be prolific, but it will explode.
Consumers have expressed this is what they want, the MPAA and its business partners are moving quickly to comply.
And that's fine as long as piracy isn't the reason for it.
The RIAA did not have the foresight or the knowledge to understand that consumers would walk out on them en masse if the product they wanted wasn't provided.
Likely, they had the unrealistic hope that people wouldn't turn into theives en masse. (Or how "easy" it would be for people to turn into thieves.)
Whoever said it's what I personally deem?
I did.
I'm making a statement based on what has happened.
But that statement can only be vlaid if "what happend" was largely NOT due to the ease of piracy.
All we know is "what happened" is that CD demand dropped.
We don't know by what extent that drop occured due to people simply unwilling to pay the price...or people unwilling to pay the price [i]considering that getting it for free is an easy alternative.[i]
Consumers as a whole decided that purchasing a whole CD for a couple of tracks was ridiculous, given the alternatives available.
Agreed. My point is, if the significant alternative is "Pirated Music", then that is a problem.
Never said it was. But it's working.
Wrong. You can't say it's working.
We can be witnessing the DEATH of retail music sales as a whole. If a profit CAN'T BE MADE by selling music, it won't happen. Be it CDs, electronic distribution, etc.
That happens to be the precise reason why the prices in CDs have dropped. The music industry realizes they need to spur demand because consumers have dropped CD purchases en masse, so they finally drop CD prices to levels consumers have been clamoring for for years.
Duh. Consumers ALWAYS WANT lower prices. This doesn't mean that consumers wont PAY higher prices. The product will sell at the price consumers are WILLING to pay, not what they "want" to pay.
RussSchultz
08-Sep-2003, 16:40
Natoma:
What you want from them doesn't enter into the moral equation. If you don't agree with their pricing structure, you have to make a decision as to which you prefer: paying what they ask, or not use the product.
If you don't like the manner in which their product is bundled, you have to make a decision as to which you prefer: accept how its bundled, or not use the product.
Otherwise, you are a thief.
Because you disagree with their pricing structure or how they market their product does not morally excuse you for stealing their product.
To address your other points: they're irrelevant. You are not the FTC; your telephony example is not on target.
Joe DeFuria
08-Sep-2003, 16:43
1) If I go into a store and I see two shirts. One is a name brand shirt selling for $100. Another is the same exact shirt, without the name brand, selling for $50. I know that they each cost $10 to make, market, and distribute. Which price is fair and which one will I personally purchase?
Man, why are you so dense on this issue?
If the "brand" means nothing to YOU, then the one YOU will personally purchase is the cheaper one.
If the "brand" means something to someone else, they might pay a higher price. BOTH prices are FAIR.
2) I never said it was valid. I just said it's working, for the betterment of consumers by offering the product that consumers obviously want.
Right...typical "end justifies the means", right Natoma?
Again, you CAN'T say that it's working, because you don't know the ultimate ramifications. All you know is that in the short term, record companies have to lower prices.
If it were up to the record industry, the internet form of distribution would not exist and they would continue to sell consumers a product that is currently being rejected....
Wrong.
If the product is really rejected because consumers don't "want it", then they would reject it flat out.
....simply because there were no alternatives. That is not what I consider ethical business practices.
There is NOTHING stopping any one, any new company, from creating their own LEGAL alternative to music distribution and sales. It certainly is ethical business to sell a product at at price point that consumers are WILLING to pay.
Just as it is ethical for a new competitor to start up, and compete with a new distribution mechanism.
It is certainly unethical to pirate music.
To call it 100% right or 100% wrong is missing the fact that the entire situation is realistically one big gray area.
Piracy is 100% wrong. No gray area there.
1) If I go into a store and I see two shirts. One is a name brand shirt selling for $100. Another is the same exact shirt, without the name brand, selling for $50. I know that they each cost $10 to make, market, and distribute. Which price is fair and which one will I personally purchase?
Man, why are you so dense on this issue?
If the "brand" means nothing to YOU, then the one YOU will personally purchase is the cheaper one.
Duh? That's what I said?
If the "brand" means something to someone else, they might pay a higher price. BOTH prices are FAIR.
I never said "other consumers." Obviously this is from my perspective.
2) I never said it was valid. I just said it's working, for the betterment of consumers by offering the product that consumers obviously want.
Right...typical "end justifies the means", right Natoma?
You must be responding to my posts without reading them entirely or something.
Sometimes it's necessary in order to get a particular ends. Does that always justify the means? No. But it works.
Again, you CAN'T say that it's working, because you don't know the ultimate ramifications. All you know is that in the short term, record companies have to lower prices.
I'm not concerned about the record companies lowering prices on CDs. I have no wish to subsidize CDs anymore. I want track-by-track purchasing, as do millions of other consumers.
If it were up to the record industry, the internet form of distribution would not exist and they would continue to sell consumers a product that is currently being rejected....
Wrong.
If the product is really rejected because consumers don't "want it", then they would reject it flat out.
Wrong.
There is no 100% this way or 100% that way. Rejection of a product does not have to be absolute. It does not have to happen all together at once.
....simply because there were no alternatives. That is not what I consider ethical business practices.
There is NOTHING stopping any one, any new company, from creating their own LEGAL alternative to music distribution and sales. It certainly is ethical business to sell a product at at price point that consumers are WILLING to pay.
Just as it is ethical for a new competitor to start up, and compete with a new distribution mechanism.
It is certainly unethical to pirate music.
Many companies in the early days of online music tried to create their own LEGAL alternative to music distribution and sales, only to be completely stifled by the music industry. That's why there were quite a few anti-competitive lawsuits thrown at the industry. In particular, you find many of them coming today from internet radio stations.
To call it 100% right or 100% wrong is missing the fact that the entire situation is realistically one big gray area.
Piracy is 100% wrong. No gray area there.
I disagree.
RussSchultz
08-Sep-2003, 16:53
There is no 100% this way or 100% that way. Rejection of a product does not have to be absolute. It does not have to happen all together at once.
Meaning you'll reject paying for it, but keep on using it?
Thief.
Joe DeFuria
08-Sep-2003, 17:01
I never said "other consumers." Obviously this is from my perspective.
Exactly.
This is where all the "you don't speak for other consumers" accusations come in, Natoma. :roll:
You must be responding to my posts without reading them entirely or something.
No. It can be the only conclusion. You don't think piracy is 100% bad. That notion is absurd in and of itself. But humor us and explain how it can't be bad....and do it without the notion of the "end result" justifying the piracy.
Because otherwise, it's exactly what I said: the end justifies the means, right Natoma?
I'm not concerned about the record companies lowering prices on CDs. I have no wish to subsidize CDs anymore. I want track-by-track purchasing, as do millions of other consumers.
Again, newsflash, Natoma. Millions and millions of consumers want EVERYTHING for free, and don't want to pay for ANYTHING they don't feel is of value to them.
That's a brilliant point you've got there, Natoma.
Now, tell me what that has to do with what consumers are WILLING to pay for any particular product. Which is the TRUE measure of a product's worth.
There is no 100% this way or 100% that way. Rejection of a product does not have to be absolute. It does not have to happen all together at once.
Wrong.
You either BUY A PRODUCT or you don't. If ENOUGH people buy a product at a given price for the product to remain viable, then by definition, enough consumers want that product.
Many companies in the early days of online music tried to create their own LEGAL alternative to music distribution and sales, only to be completely stifled by the music industry.
Really? It couldn't have been that not enough peopler were willing to pay for the given product at the given price it was being offered for?
Piracy is 100% wrong. No gray area there.
I disagree.
You are a thief.
Bigus, Russ, Joe, et al,
What is the difference pray tell between me getting a copy of a few tracks off the radio (free), off satellite radio (free), internet radio (free), getting a copy from my friend (free), or downloading a music track from kazaa (free)?
You say I'm a thief for downloading music tracks I want to listen to. Would you feel better about it if I went to my friends who have hundreds of CDs between them and copied the ones I wanted for free instead? What would be the difference? Would that set your minds at ease?
Joe DeFuria
08-Sep-2003, 21:49
Bigus, Russ, Joe, et al,
What is the difference pray tell between me getting a copy of a few tracks off the radio (free), off satellite radio (free), internet radio (free), getting a copy from my friend (free), or downloading a music track from kazaa (free)?
Though the main difference between "recording satellite, radio, etc" and direct downloads, is the physical threat. It may be leagal for you to record a radio broadcast...but it certainly is not legal for you to record and distribute it, or re-broadcast it.
You can't "pick and choose" what you record from a broadcasting source. You are also forced to record in "real time", not secods per songs. So the "threat" from piracy from over-the-air broadcasts isn't as great.
So go ahead and record hours and hours of radio broadcasts, then sift through them and pick out the tracks that you want. That's quite a lot of work, and not everything is broadcast, which is the reason why it's not a big threat.
You say I'm a thief for downloading music tracks I want to listen to.
Yup.
Would you feel better about it if I went to my friends who have hundreds of CDs between them and copied the ones I wanted for free instead?
No, because that's illegal as well.
What would be the difference? Would that set your minds at ease?
??
No, you're still a thief for doing it that way. I don't get your point.
Joe DeFuria
08-Sep-2003, 21:50
I would appreciate an answer to my question:
When is it OK to "pirate"?
And the answer must not be when the end justifies it...
Though the main difference between "recording satellite, radio, etc" and direct downloads, is the physical threat. It may be leagal for you to record a radio broadcast...but it certainly is not legal for you to record and distribute it, or re-broadcast it.
Eddie and I don't distribute our mp3s, nor do we re-broadcast our mp3s. We put them on our Ipods and sometimes play them on our stereo.
You can't "pick and choose" what you record from a broadcasting source. You are also forced to record in "real time", not secods per songs. So the "threat" from piracy from over-the-air broadcasts isn't as great.
So go ahead and record hours and hours of radio broadcasts, then sift through them and pick out the tracks that you want. That's quite a lot of work, and not everything is broadcast, which is the reason why it's not a big threat.
Actually Satellite Radio has hundreds of channels in which you can indeed choose which songs you want to listen to. Music on Demand also gives you playlists of songs depending on the cable channel you select, usually in the 600s through the 900s. And Internet Radio is really simple to do as well. They download playlists to your media player. All you have to do is look at the page source, recombine the JS url, and voila, you've got the playlist. Then you can choose which songs on the playlist you want to listen to. It's really quite simple.
It's not as much work as you think it is.
Would you feel better about it if I went to my friends who have hundreds of CDs between them and copied the ones I wanted for free instead?
No, because that's illegal as well.
Then millions of people who have been doing this since Cassette recorders came out in the 60s and 70s, not to mention VHS recorders in the 80s have been breaking the law. How often do you see people copy their tape or CD for a friend or family member, or make a tape of their movie for a friend or family member?
I realize that fair use laws say that you can make a "backup" copy for yourself only, but the vast majority of people don't do this in practice.
I would appreciate an answer to my question:
When is it OK to "pirate"?
And the answer must not be when the end justifies it...
It depends on how you're defining pirate. Bigus called me a pirate for warezing fully functional software, seeing if I like it, and if I don't removing it from my computer, or purchasing it outright through the company that makes it if I do.
I don't consider that pirating. He does. See the conundrum? That is a vastly open ended question.
Joe DeFuria
08-Sep-2003, 22:42
Eddie and I don't distribute our mp3s, nor do we re-broadcast our mp3s. We put them on our Ipods and sometimes play them on our stereo.
If the MP3s that you acquired were illegally distributed, then you are a theif.
It's not as much work as you think it is.
Then why download off the internet if it's not as much work to do it "legally" as I think it is?
Then millions of people who have been doing this since Cassette recorders came out in the 60s and 70s, not to mention VHS recorders in the 80s have been breaking the law.
Yes, they have. As are you. what's your point now? Everyone does it, so it's OK?
How often do you see people copy their tape or CD for a friend or family member, or make a tape of their movie for a friend or family member?
Um....it's illegal, Natoma, no matter how often they do it, or how commonplace it is.
I realize that fair use laws say that you can make a "backup" copy for yourself only, but the vast majority of people don't do this in practice.
No shit, really?
Doesn't make it any less wrong to do.
Do you think that the prices of LPs and CDs would be as high as they are, if everyone actually PAID for them like they SHOULD, vs copying it? Sigh....
Bigus Dickus
08-Sep-2003, 22:45
What is the difference pray tell between me getting a copy of a few tracks off the radio (free), off satellite radio (free), internet radio (free), getting a copy from my friend (free), or downloading a music track from kazaa (free)?
(1) Legality of making the copy (laws aren't always consistent on this)
(2) Ease of making the copy
(3) Quality of the copy
Would you feel better about it if I went to my friends who have hundreds of CDs between them and copied the ones I wanted for free instead? What would be the difference? Would that set your minds at ease?
Why would we feel one form of theft is any better than another? Stealing is stealing.
Then millions of people who have been doing this since Cassette recorders came out in the 60s and 70s, not to mention VHS recorders in the 80s have been breaking the law. How often do you see people copy their tape or CD for a friend or family member, or make a tape of their movie for a friend or family member?
Millions of people stealing doesn't make it any more legal.
The biggest issues here are the relative ease of copying and the quality of the copy. Fair use laws were more relaxed when the medium was analog and you couldn't get a copy of anything you wanted in a matter of seconds with the press of a button. The demand for degraded copies is much less than the demand for infinitely replicatable material of sustained high quality. Combined with the hassle of copying in the past (you had to purchase blank media, find someone with the original you wanted and the means to make a copy, and waiting for the copy - of degraded quality - to be made), there was just a lot less pirating going on.
The theft the music industry faced during the vinyl and cassette age was no worse than other industries typically faced. The digital age has changed this tremendously.
I don't consider that pirating. He does. See the conundrum? That is a vastly open ended question.
There is no room for debate. This is not an open question. It matters not whether I consider it pirating or not. The United States government considers it illegal, and that's all you need to worry about.
Joe DeFuria
08-Sep-2003, 22:47
It depends on how you're defining pirate.
(And I'm the one playing semantic games here...)
Bigus called me a pirate for warezing fully functional software, seeing if I like it, and if I don't removing it from my computer, or purchasing it outright through the company that makes it if I do.
Yup, that makes you a pirate. If the company wanted you to be able to try before you buy, then they would offer you that option via a shareware version with expiry date, etc.
I don't consider that pirating. He does. See the conundrum? That is a vastly open ended question.
I see no conundrum. If you use some software in any way in which the authors / sellers don't approve of, then you are a pirate. End of story.
Eddie and I don't distribute our mp3s, nor do we re-broadcast our mp3s. We put them on our Ipods and sometimes play them on our stereo.
If the MP3s that you acquired were illegally distributed, then you are a theif.
Meh. That is your opinion, and you are entitled to your opinion.
Am I a thief if I purchase a CD off the street, and that CD was itself stolen?
It's not as much work as you think it is.
Then why download off the internet if it's not as much work to do it "legally" as I think it is?
Actually I have quite a few MP3s from internet radio broadcasts. I also have quite a few from satellite broadcasts and MOD broadcasts. My computer and stereo system are directly connected through a wireless AV tuner, which in turn is directly connected to my TV and Cable Box.
It just so happens that the vast majority of our music is from our own CD collection and the current music on the market is not particularly palatable as a whole. Few songs here and there yes, but as a whole it's one big low quality mess.
Then millions of people who have been doing this since Cassette recorders came out in the 60s and 70s, not to mention VHS recorders in the 80s have been breaking the law.
Yes, they have. As are you. what's your point now? Everyone does it, so it's OK?
As I said before. I don't consider myself a thief for doing now what I did in high school, in church, all those years growing up. Obviously you feel differently.
I realize that fair use laws say that you can make a "backup" copy for yourself only, but the vast majority of people don't do this in practice.
No shit, really?
Doesn't make it any less wrong to do.
In your opinion. Others would disagree, obviously.
Do you think that the prices of LPs and CDs would be as high as they are, if everyone actually PAID for them like they SHOULD, vs copying it? Sigh....
:lol:
Wouldn't you think there would be more sales if the prices weren't so high? And your argument wrt internet copying goes down the tubes since the prices were steadily increasing throughout the 90s while the music industry saw record profits every year.
Joe DeFuria
08-Sep-2003, 22:48
This is not an open question. It matters not whether I consider it pirating or not. The United States government considers it illegal, and that's all you need to worry about.
Since when do liberals care about the law, when there is personal gain at stake. :roll:
Bigus called me a pirate for warezing fully functional software, seeing if I like it, and if I don't removing it from my computer, or purchasing it outright through the company that makes it if I do.
Yup, that makes you a pirate. If the company wanted you to be able to try before you buy, then they would offer you that option via a shareware version with expiry date, etc.
If a company doesn't offer a fully functional time trial or any trial at all of their software, I have absolutely no problem with finding an ISO or crack for the program and trying it out, completely functional, for myself. If I like it, I purchase it, always. If I don't, I remove it. But the point is I want to know what I'm buying, before I buy it. If that makes me a pirate, then I'm a pirate.
Since when do liberals care about the law, when there is personal gain at stake. :roll:
Oh please. This coming from a guy that had no problem with conservatives lying through their teeth about imminent danger in order to sell a war, simply because the ends of removing a tyrant "justified" the means. :roll:
Dr. Ffreeze
08-Sep-2003, 23:06
Natoma,
But the point is I want to know what I'm buying, before I buy it.
The software is not yours. The software writers decided not to give you the option of a fully functional timed trial. What gives you the right to do what you want to do with someone else's property?
Dr. Ffreeze
Joe DeFuria
08-Sep-2003, 23:23
Oh please. This coming from a guy that had no problem with conservatives lying through their teeth about imminent danger in order to sell a war, simply because the ends of removing a tyrant "justified" the means. :roll:
Sorry, I have problems with anyone lying through thier teeth.
The software is not yours. The software writers decided not to give you the option of a fully functional timed trial. What gives you the right to do what you want to do with someone else's property?
As I said, I want to know what I'm buying before I buy it. Software cannot be returned once it's been used. You open a game, it's yours forever, even if it's terrible. You pay for some spyware program and it sucks, your money is gone forever. This avenue is available to me to try a program before I commit my dollars to it. If it's awful, I get rid of it. If I like it, I go to the software maker and purchase it. I've done this with every piece of software on my machine from WinXP to Zone Alarm Pro to Norton Systemworks to WinZip to UT2K3. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.
Dr. Ffreeze
08-Sep-2003, 23:36
Natoma,
I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.
If it is illegal, do you see anything wrong with it? If there are laws on the books making it illegal, does this have any bearing?
Dr. Ffreeze
RussSchultz
08-Sep-2003, 23:37
Sure, Natoma. I do the same thing at times.
The difference being I'll admit I steal it and not try to excuse myself through mental masturbation. It doesn't matter what YOU or I want that defines theft. It's what the owner allows.
Oh please. This coming from a guy that had no problem with conservatives lying through their teeth about imminent danger in order to sell a war, simply because the ends of removing a tyrant "justified" the means. :roll:
Sorry, I have problems with anyone lying through thier teeth.
Oh, so you weren't one of the people saying "Well, we haven't found any WMD and even if we never find WMD we got rid of an awful tyrant and freed a people"? Gotcha.....
Which there's nothing wrong with.
There is something rotten though, the music industry is basically a monopoly, they do all sorts of things that should be illegal, and some are, they price fix by working together and deciding what the price should be for cd's. That is illegal, but people can get away with it.
They force radio stations to play songs that they choose or be subjected to unpaiable fees. This way they can determine which artists will become popular, and force artists to sign with them.
The main reason they are so fearful of piracy is that they loose control of what we are able to listen to. This is a good thing, and the best part is that most bands that are not on a huge label already do offer mp3's for free. But it would be nice for them to not have to pay for the bandwidth.
Recently I downloaded some bad religion songs, not ones they have for free I admit, b/c they only have their newest album with free mp3's, and then I went to buy the CD, but of course the record store did not have the one I wanted as it is not the newest one. In any case my opinion is that they should have streaming, low quality music that you can sample. Not 25 seconds but the whole song, sure we could copy it, but if it is low quality it offers the incentive to go buy it, and it is not simple to copy it so most people would not bother.
Natoma,
I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.
If it is illegal, do you see anything wrong with it? If there are laws on the books making it illegal, does this have any bearing?
Dr. Ffreeze
There are many things that are illegal that I do not personally deem illegal. Anal and Oral sex up until a few months ago was one of them.
But that's just an aside and not the point. Since the company gets my money anyways if I like the product, I don't see it as stealing. If I determined that I liked the software and kept it on my machine without paying for it, then yes, I would consider that theft.
Sure, Natoma. I do the same thing at times.
The difference being I'll admit I steal it and not try to excuse myself through mental masturbation. It doesn't matter what YOU or I want that defines theft. It's what the owner allows.
As I said earlier,
If a company doesn't offer a fully functional time trial or any trial at all of their software, I have absolutely no problem with finding an ISO or crack for the program and trying it out, completely functional, for myself. If I like it, I purchase it, always. If I don't, I remove it. But the point is I want to know what I'm buying, before I buy it. If that makes me a pirate, then I'm a pirate.
Do you really think Ferrarri would be more successful mass producing cars for $20,000?
Actually this is almost always true, i.e. mass producing cheaper cars = more money. It is a fact, but the consequence is that the name which is what they are selling loses value, and eventually they will not be able to charge a premium. Look to harley davidson as an example for awhile they made terrible motorbikes, and made tons of money b/c people like to have a "harley" as people began to realize they were trash however the name lost its allure and the company teetered on the edge of bankruptcy. The employees bought out the bigshots, and decided on the low volume high return method, they made quality bikes but sold them at more than normal price, and the name regained its allure and harley has once again reaped the rewards.
Similarly if the name looses its value with younger generations as seems to be likely from research then harley will have to figure out how to swing back to a low cost mass production type of model while still keeping high standards (i.e. manufacturing them in some third world country).
Would you feel better about it if I went to my friends who have hundreds of CDs between them and copied the ones I wanted for free instead?
No, because that's illegal as well.
Then millions of people who have been doing this since Cassette recorders came out in the 60s and 70s, not to mention VHS recorders in the 80s have been breaking the law. How often do you see people copy their tape or CD for a friend or family member, or make a tape of their movie for a friend or family member?
Um....it's illegal, Natoma, no matter how often they do it, or how commonplace it is.
Some comments here ...
Not sure if the law says something different in the US, but in Sweden the law makes a difference between copying for private use, and copying for redistribution. You can make personal copies of CD's, and you are also allowed to give away such copies to friends for free (though not for money). It's not legal to make a copy of a copy though.
Am I a thief if I purchase a CD off the street, and that CD was itself stolen?
Maybe not a thief, but it's still illegal to receive stolen goods.
Some comments here ...
Not sure if the law says something different in the US, but in Sweden the law makes a difference between copying for private use, and copying for redistribution. You can make personal copies of CD's, and you are also allowed to give away such copies to friends for free (though not for money). It's not legal to make a copy of a copy though.
You are allowed to make personal copies of CDs and Cassettes, but not copies for your friends or family. Though the law might as well be you are allowed to give away copies to friends and family for free considering how many people do so.
Since when do liberals care about the law, when there is personal gain at stake. :roll:
I agree with most of your argumentation and I do disagree with Natoma as the thread developed towards the end. But that comment was quite silly.
There are many things that are illegal that I do not personally deem illegal. Anal and Oral sex up until a few months ago was one of them.
There's a difference between illegal and wrong. You may not consider something to be wrong, and that is something subjective. Something being illegal or not is highly objective though. However, you may not always think that something is wrong even because it's illegal.
If I would go to Alabama I would be sure not to bring a dildo because the use of dildos are illegal there (not that I would bring a dildo anywhere else or that I even own one for that matter). I consider that law to be extremely outdated and think it belongs to the 1800s. That law should have been done away with a century ago. My disapproval of such a law doesn't make the dildo more legal and I can't come with a "but I don't think it's wrong" in court. I don't consider the use of dildos wrong, but it would still be illegal.
There are many things that are illegal that I do not personally deem illegal. Anal and Oral sex up until a few months ago was one of them.
There's a difference between illegal and wrong. You may not consider something to be wrong, and that is something subjective. Something being illegal or not is highly objective though. However, you may not always think that something is wrong even because it's illegal.
Indeed it is subjective. I accept that judgement from both sides wholeheartedly and openly. And yes, the meaning of my statement was there are many things that are illegal that I do not personally deem to be wrong. Same thought, incorrect wording.
Silent_One
09-Sep-2003, 01:01
If I would go to Alabama I would be sure not to bring a dildo because the use of dildos are illegal there (not that I would bring a dildo anywhere else or that I even own one for that matter).
Wow :shock: The Dildo Argument!!......good thing were staying on topic here.....
Joe DeFuria
09-Sep-2003, 01:35
Since when do liberals care about the law, when there is personal gain at stake. :roll:
I agree with most of your argumentation and I do disagree with Natoma as the thread developed towards the end. But that comment was quite silly.
Yes, it was silly, as it is the "stereotypical" liberal. The fact that Natoma's view on piracy fits this stereotype to a tee just makes it amusing. ;)
Joe DeFuria
09-Sep-2003, 01:38
As I said, I want to know what I'm buying before I buy it. Software cannot be returned once it's been used.
I'll give you one guess as to WHY software (typically) cannot be returned once it's opened.
You open a game, it's yours forever, even if it's terrible.
That's right.
And this same internet age which allows you to download music allows you to seek out other's opinions on the product, and e-mail the vendor and ask specific questions before you buy it.
You pay for some spyware program and it sucks, your money is gone forever.
Yup, so what you are saying is that you value a product more if it has a trial of sorts...or you value a retailer who's willing to accept opened software.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.
Other than you breaking the law, that is.
As I said, I want to know what I'm buying before I buy it. Software cannot be returned once it's been used.
I'll give you one guess as to WHY software (typically) cannot be returned once it's opened.
That was a statement, not a complaint. I know why software cannot be returned once it's been opened, obviously.
You open a game, it's yours forever, even if it's terrible.
That's right.
And this same internet age which allows you to download music allows you to seek out other's opinions on the product, and e-mail the vendor and ask specific questions before you buy it.
I've found game reviews to be helpful at times, and at other times completely off base wrt my own personal opinion, which in the end is all that matters when it comes to my dollars.
You pay for some spyware program and it sucks, your money is gone forever.
Yup, so what you are saying is that you value a product more if it has a trial of sorts...or you value a retailer who's willing to accept opened software.
I accept that retailers will not allow returned software unless it's defective. However, if a product does provide a fully functioning trial (usually the case these days) then I take advantage of that to try the product. If I like it I purchase it. If I don't, I remove it from my system.
OTOH, if a software maker doesn't provide a fully functioning trial and simply requests that you purchase their software, as I said before, I have no issue providing myself with my own trial period with the software. After a couple of days using it, I either remove the software from my machine or I purchase it outright. Either way, I will get my trial period with the software in order to determine if I truly want it on my system.
That makes me a thief? So be it. I'm a thief. And I have no issue with that.
Bigus Dickus
09-Sep-2003, 02:03
Do you really think Ferrarri would be more successful mass producing cars for $20,000?
Actually this is almost always true, i.e. mass producing cheaper cars = more money.
Looks like Natoma isn't the only one needing some economics courses. Your assessment would only be true if there were no competition. In reality, moving to a cheaper lower margin market segment almost always means increased competition. Many, many businesses have gone under trying to sell their products/services for less than the competition.
For an example, look to the high end audio market. Cables priced in the tens of thousands, speakers in the hundreds of thousands... Were any of these companies instead try to mass produce their product and sell it for a "fair" price, there would no longer be anything to distinguish them from the hundreds of other manufacturers in that market segment.
As you pointed out, name recognition will only last you so long, unless you become the champion of the mass market segment.
Often you'll see a company sell their product for much more than it costs to produce (Bose) because they want it to be associated with higher value, not "cheap" (which it really should be).
But if you really believe otherwise, go tell Ferrarri. I'm sure they'd hire you as a CEO on the spot! :)
You don't have the right to use their product. You don't have a right to "reasonable" prices. All you have is the right to purchase it on their terms.
Your pathetic attempts to justify your theft ring hollow. I won't say they fall on deaf ears, because an astounding amount of Americans feel the same way you do.
But again, its just them trying to justify their thievery.
Russ I respect your thoughts b/c they seem like thoughts and not sensless rhetoric that is regurgitated from another source.
Let me say one thing in regards to this.
Many people feel that the music industry is itself corrupt, they feel that the gov't does not bother to reign in their illegal actions due to bribes and so forth, this does not make stealing suddenly morally correct,( but since morals are either A) determined by something previously decided upon ala the 10 commanments, or B) determined by a group)
This perceived corruption makes people not feel guilty, and the intangibility of the object, stealing a cd from a store is something, and there are costs associated with it, a recording has the costs that went into the mixing, and production but not the actual materials.
Personally I will admit to stealing them if that is what you want to call it, but then I give them back by deleting them, so think on that, if you download a song and buy the album did you steal it? Maybe but since you have the album, it is no longer stolen. If you delete it, it is also no longer stolen.
In another example a song is on the radio, or a music video is on MTV, but due to its predetermined unpopularity you do not get to hear it and you download it listen to it and delete it. You might think it is stealing, but the experience is no different than what the record companies approve of, it is simply at a different time.
So could we have the time self-destruct files that have been so popularly attributed to solving this mess?? I am not sure b/c people could of course hack them.
That is why I personally find this a bit less clear cut than many individuals make it out to be. I believe that although it is possible to view things in a black and white clear cut sort of worldview it is not an accurate assesment.
Thats all
Joe DeFuria
09-Sep-2003, 11:46
That was a statement, not a complaint. I know why software cannot be returned once it's been opened, obviously.
Of course you're complaining about it. And you now what, I'm complaining about it too. Your complain is implicit in the fact that you go throguh the trouble of pirating software to try it out.
My complaint isn't directed at retailers / IHVs though...it's toward people like you who pirate which forced their hand.
I've found game reviews to be helpful at times, and at other times completely off base wrt my own personal opinion...
Yes, just as this pertains to every sinlge other product on the market, such as automobiles. You might get a test drive at a dealership, but you generally don't get to buy one and take it home for 30 days, use it like you want to, and then take it back if you're not satisfied.
...which in the end is all that matters when it comes to my dollars.
Exactly. Selfish. Because it's not just your dollars at stake...it's my dollars and the company's dollars.
I accept that retailers will not allow returned software unless it's defective.
Because of pirates....
DemoCoder
09-Sep-2003, 12:36
Natoma, what was the last PC game that you bought which did not require a CD key to play online? What about the last utility/application?
Wanna know why stores don't accept open games? You'll find out the next time you go to play online and find your CD key already in use.
Natoma, what was the last PC game that you bought which did not require a CD key to play online? What about the last utility/application?
Wanna know why stores don't accept open games? You'll find out the next time you go to play online and find your CD key already in use.
:lol:
I understand why stores don't take software back after it's been returned, as I said before. That's why I don't buy software from stores unless I'm absolutely sure I want it. It was a statement I made to show why I ISO software before purchasing it. Not a complaint.
That was a statement, not a complaint. I know why software cannot be returned once it's been opened, obviously.
Of course you're complaining about it. And you now what, I'm complaining about it too. Your complain is implicit in the fact that you go throguh the trouble of pirating software to try it out.
My complaint isn't directed at retailers / IHVs though...it's toward people like you who pirate which forced their hand.
:lol:
I've been buying computer games for almost two decades now, and at no time during that time was I ever able to take computer software back to the store once it's been opened, unless it was defective. So you're going to blame someone like me who tries out a piece of software before buying it for that policy? :lol: Ok.
I've found game reviews to be helpful at times, and at other times completely off base wrt my own personal opinion...
Yes, just as this pertains to every sinlge other product on the market, such as automobiles. You might get a test drive at a dealership, but you generally don't get to buy one and take it home for 30 days, use it like you want to, and then take it back if you're not satisfied.
You must not be going to the right dealerships. I know quite a few in NYC (for instance the one that my mom bought her Hyundai from 10 years ago, and then the one she bought her toyota echo from two years ago) that allow you to test drive for a week provided you have good credit and offer collateral. But that's not the point. Even a test drive with the dealer in the car is better than none at all and is generally allowed to give you a good sense of how the car handles, which besides the layout of the features you can customize, is one of the most important things you can directly affect at purchase time. The point is, being able to test the product is built into the system.
That is not always the case with music or software.
...which in the end is all that matters when it comes to my dollars.
Exactly. Selfish. Because it's not just your dollars at stake...it's my dollars and the company's dollars.
Their dollars are at stake for me trying out software before I purchase it to make sure I want it? Hell if I want it I always buy it, and if I don't, I delete it from my machine. How is the company losing money? Oh because they don't get my money unless I know it's a good product for me? If that's the case, then :cry:. I understand fully what product I'm getting and they get my money if it's a good fit for me. Everyone wins.
I get products I like and weed out the ones I don't. They get my money as recompense for those products I use.
I accept that retailers will not allow returned software unless it's defective.
Because of pirates....
That's prime reason why I don't purchase my games and software from local retailers until I've gotten a chance to try a beta of it out, or ISO it myself. There are rare instances where I'll go out and purchase a game without having played it, because I trust the quality from the software maker (HL2 is an example as I have it pre-ordered), but on the whole I know exactly what I'm buying before I buy it.
Bigus Dickus
09-Sep-2003, 15:15
I'm going to go a bit OT here and out on a limb. Natoma's attitude is precisely why I have a problem with social programs and liberals in general. For all their chest thumping about taking the moral high ground in helping out their fellow man, the underpriveledged, the needy, preaching about the disparity between the rich and poor and the need for equality, condemning large corporations as innately greedy and evil, when you get to the bottom of it they often are very selfish at the core.
This, IMO, is the distinguishing feature of socialism. While on the surface it proclaims that it is all about "what the system can do for everyone," it's champions have the hidden attitude of "what the system can do for me."
"Fair" to a liberal has a very curious and mysterious meaning.
Thanks for the laugh BD. :lol:
Joe DeFuria
09-Sep-2003, 16:09
Thanks for the laugh BD. :lol:
Yes, amazing how the truly funny things in life have a ring of truth to them, isn't it?
Thanks for the laugh BD. :lol:
Yes, amazing how the truly funny things in life have a ring of truth to them, isn't it?
Not at all. Many times it's the things that are completely absurd that bring a bout of laughter to me. :wink:
Do you really think Ferrarri would be more successful mass producing cars for $20,000?
Actually this is almost always true, i.e. mass producing cheaper cars = more money.
Looks like Natoma isn't the only one needing some economics courses. Your assessment would only be true if there were no competition. ...
As you pointed out, name recognition will only last you so long, unless you become the champion of the mass market segment.
....
But if you really believe otherwise, go tell Ferrarri. I'm sure they'd hire you as a CEO on the spot! :)
B.D. simply looking at your name is absurd it is kind of hard to take anything you say seriously. And you cant blame it on your parents for choosing your name so...
In any case exactly as I said Ferrarri would make tons of money if they mass produced crappy cars, but as I also said it would not be sustainable. So in the long run it is a bad idea, I fail to see how you missed that point, it seems you grasped it but then you end up saying that I should tell ferrarri to follow this self destructive policy if I believe it would make them money. Shortsighted stupid management is a very big problem for companies in the US, they pay CEO like Carly Fiorina incredible salaries to do exactly what you suggested I do, come in make short term decisions to boost profits, and also boost their own stock options, while at the same time virtually assuring the destruction or detriment of the company they are supposedly helping. If I had a good resume perhaps I could go sell stupid short sighted ideas and become incredibly rich.
Dr. Ffreeze
09-Sep-2003, 16:59
Natoma,
In response to Bigus Dickus:
Natoma's attitude is precisely why I have a problem with social programs and liberals in general. For all their chest thumping about taking the moral high ground in helping out their fellow man, the underpriveledged, the needy, preaching about the disparity between the rich and poor and the need for equality, condemning large corporations as innately greedy and evil, when you get to the bottom of it they often are very selfish at the core.
I do see his point, and I would have to agree with it. I am a conservative and I feel that often times conservatives are portrayed as greedy bastages that favor rich companies over the common man. Often times leftists portray themselves as the more moral caring group more interested in the common man.
From what you have told me, you are not offered music in the fashion that you want so you feel you are justified in stealing the music you want. Stealing is selfish. It seams hypocritical that leftists tell connectives that they are selfish and only interested in big business at the expensive of the average Joe when they themselves are stealing and being selfish.
Just do the right thing. It doesn't matter how hard or easy it is, just do the right thing. It also doesn't matter how likely you are to get caught or not, just do the right thing. Stealing is selfish. Stealing is wrong. Simple concept, hard to put into practice especially when it is so easy.
Dr. Ffreeze
You know, I'm not going to get into the conservative/liberal finger pointing because frankly this will go on for days, and doesn't serve this discussion at all.
We have around 3000 mp3s in our collection, roughly 2500 of which we burned from our purchased CDs. The other few hundred are singles that we've downloaded or got from our friends (for instance I have three Tears for Fears songs that I got from my co-workers CD collection. He let me borrow his CD and burn those few tracks to 320K MP3). When the services finally provide bitrates that are supported by the mp3 compression utilities as opposed to just 128K, then we'll ante up for the mp3s we have that did not come from our CD collection, as we do in every other case.
We do the same thing with tv shows. I'll download episodes of Stargate, The Simpsons, et al. Yes, I could purchase the VHS cassette, but that is not what I want to spend my money on. When the season DVD comes out, I purchase it. There's a reason why we have over 250 DVDs in our collection.
The bottom line is I'll pay for what I want. I see downloading music as no different than getting a satellite radio, hooking it up to my stereo, and digitally recording the music I want, or taping a broadcast of a tv show and keeping it for my own personal use rather than paying the $19.99 to purchase a recording of the show, ex: any nature show you see on PBS for instance. I also see it as no different than renting a movie from Blockbuster before deciding if you want to purchase a DVD.
You think it's selfish to do this. I don't. You think it's stealing to do this. I don't.
Joe DeFuria
09-Sep-2003, 18:24
The bottom line is I'll pay for what I want.
In addition, you also steal what you want.
I also see it as no different than renting a movie from Blockbuster before deciding if you want to purchase a DVD.
What "rent" do you pay to the IP / copyright owners of the music and software that you pirate?
What "rent" are you paying to the copyright owners of those 500 songs you have obtained illegally?
You think it's selfish to do this. I don't.
Exactly our point. You don't think it's selfish.
And whether or not it's selfish, there is no dispute that it's illegal. So you have no respect for the law...at least those laws that are an inconvenience to you or your wallet.
Joe DeFuria
09-Sep-2003, 18:31
Oh, and I almost forgot:
When the services finally provide bitrates that are supported by the mp3 compression utilities as opposed to just 128K, then we'll ante up for the mp3s we have that did not come from our CD collection, as we do in every other case.
Wrong.
What if
1) Services never emerge for those tracks
2) Those services are offered, but cost "more than you think you should have to pay."
What happens when high bit-rate MP3s for your songs come out, and they charge is $15 a track?
There's a reason why we have over 250 DVDs in our collection.
My, for someone so criticial of "the rich" and not giving their fair share "back to the community," you seem to waste an awful lot of money on stuff that serves no purpose but your own personal entertainment. Surely, this is a sign of your selfishness if nothing else...
I pay no more rent for music and software than I pay for shows I tape off the air, even though they ask that if you would like a copy of this show send $19.99 for a VHS or DVD. I do however pay for the software or delete it after trying it out. The same will go for music soon enough. Why? I've long since contacted the online services regarding bitrate quality and they have all stated that they will have this available most likely by the end of this year, or early next year. Your examples of $15 a track and the comments about my dvd collection are really ludicrous.
Joe DeFuria
09-Sep-2003, 19:22
I pay no more rent for music and software than I pay for shows I tape off the air, even though they ask that if you would like a copy of this show send $19.99 for a VHS or DVD.
Sure, because it's not illeage to tape shows over the air.
I do however pay for the software or delete it after trying it out.
But you don't pay to rent that software while you are doing so. It's NOT the same as going to a Blockbuster and renting a video before you buy it. When you rent, you are PAYING for the time you use it. When you pirate, you don't.
Presumably, those 500 MP3s you have ripped or downloaded illegally provide some value to you...because you have them. Yet, you have not paid one dime for them.
The same will go for music soon enough. Why? I've long since contacted the online services regarding bitrate quality and they have all stated that they will have this available most likely by the end of this year, or early next year. Your examples of $15 a track and the comments about my dvd collection are really ludicrous.
Nah...you just prefer not to consider the consequences of your actions, and you also underestimate the nautre of supply and demand. When the "really popular" tracks start going for significantly higher than the millions of other "shit" tracks, you'll complain that it's "not fair that it costs more", and pirate it just the same...
I also don't pay a dime for the software I get through free trials or the music I listen to on the online services. I'm using those services free of charge, and I haven't paid for that time at all.
As for your comments regarding the music services. Ahh baseless assumptions. How I love reading them. And btw, the "really popular" tracks sell for the same price as other tracks at all the services. Each mp3 costs the same. But yea, assume away.
Silent_One
09-Sep-2003, 19:57
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/09/technology/09MUSI.html
New York Times
261 Lawsuits Filed on Internet Music Sharing
The recording industry filed 261 lawsuits yesterday against people who share copyrighted music over the Internet, charging them with copyright infringement in the first broad legal action aimed at ordinary users of file-sharing networks.
The blizzard of lawsuits β which is expected to be followed by thousands more β is a turning point for the music industry, which has sought to avoid direct conflict with its potential consumers as it battles online piracy. But industry officials said they now believe that the only way to stem the widespread file-swapping is to make people realize they will be punished for participating β even in the context of an Internet culture where many forms of information are free.
"Nobody likes playing the heavy and having to resort to litigation," said Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Association of America. "But when you're being victimized by illegal activity there comes a time when you have to step up and take appropriate action."
In an effort to soften the legal attack, the record industry group is also offering amnesty for file sharers who turn themselves in before legal action is taken against them. Under the "clean slate" program unveiled by the industry yesterday, people seeking amnesty must destroy files that they have downloaded illegally and sign a notarized form pledging never to trade copyrighted works again.
Turn yourself in Natoma, turn yourself in :lol:
:lol:
I don't share music online. Haven't done so in a very long time. :wink:
Bigus Dickus
09-Sep-2003, 21:04
This entire thread makes me sick to my stomach.
Joe DeFuria
10-Sep-2003, 01:20
I also don't pay a dime for the software I get through free trials or the music I listen to on the online services. I'm using those services free of charge, and I haven't paid for that time at all.
WRONG.
The business models of those services take into account your "free" listening.
And btw, the "really popular" tracks sell for the same price as other tracks at all the services. Each mp3 costs the same. But yea, assume away.
Oh ye of little faith....
The "popular" games cost more than crap ones.
The "popular" DVDs cost more than crap ones.
The "popular" CDs cost more than crap ones.
Trust me. The "popular tracks", when/if electronic distribution becomes a standard, will cost more than unpopular tracks.
Supply and demand, Natoma. It's not a difficult concept.
That's far from always the case. I go to the local CD store, what do I find? The CD's on the top-ten list is typically cheaper than those you find in the alphabetically/genre sorted archieve of less-knowns. Top-ten is typically like 159SEK, while the rest is typically 179 or 189SEK.
Joe DeFuria
10-Sep-2003, 03:01
That's far from always the case. I go to the local CD store, what do I find? The CD's on the top-ten list is typically cheaper than those you find in the alphabetically/genre sorted archieve of less-knowns. Top-ten is typically like 159SEK, while the rest is typically 179 or 189SEK.
Humus,
Supply and demand.
It all depends on anticipated demand and available supply of the CDs. If demand outstrips supply, the price will be higher.
If a particular few tracks are saturating bandwidth from the distributor's server, their price will be raised on those tracks.
DemoCoder
10-Sep-2003, 03:01
Bargin bin games and DVDs.
Supply and demand.
It all depends on anticipated demand and available supply of the CDs. If demand outstrips supply, the price will be higher.
If a particular few tracks are saturating bandwidth from the distributor's server, their price will be raised on those tracks.
It's convenient to always use the phrase "Supply and demand" isn't it? First as an argument for one thing, then to explain the exact opposite. If it was mainly a question about supply and demand, then you'd think that those who estimate the demand would have a fairly good idea and would be able to match the supply accordingly, rather than constantly overestimating the demand for popular artists and thus being forced to lower the prices. If we would be talking about a reasonable amount of titles being misjudged, then fine, but the actual situation is that top-ten CD's are constantly and consistently sold at lower prices. Truth is, the reason why top-ten CD's are cheaper is that they are sold in much higher volume. The overhead / CD is lower and thus they can be sold at a lower price. The same still holds true for online distribution.
Joe DeFuria
10-Sep-2003, 12:42
It's convenient to always use the phrase "Supply and demand" isn't it?
Convenient? It's true.
First as an argument for one thing, then to explain the exact opposite. If it was mainly a question about supply and demand, then you'd think that those who estimate the demand would have a fairly good idea and would be able to match the supply accordingly...
As they DO successfully (and sometimes unsuccessfully) with CDs. Publishers and retailers have an idea ahead of time when a CD is going to be a big seller, (what they've been pimping on the radio, etc.) and they ramp up supply accordingly. Lots of times, they are right...sometimes, they are wrong and you end up with overstock and bargain bins.
Note, Humus, when demand is high, this also makes competitive forces stronger...if two retailiers know there's a high demand for a product, competitive forces also keep prices in check.
If Joe Blogg's latest CD that has 1% of the demand that the popular titles have.....but you can only get it at 1 retailer....the price can be higher.
Supply and demand.
...rather than constantly overestimating the demand for popular artists and thus being forced to lower the prices.
Who said they were constantly overestimating? The are many times estimating about right.
If we would be talking about a reasonable amount of titles being misjudged, then fine, but the actual situation is that top-ten CD's are constantly and consistently sold at lower prices.
My...what is everyone complaining about then?
Truth is, the reason why top-ten CD's are cheaper is that they are sold in much higher volume.
Correct. Produced volume that is dictated by an anticipated higher demand.
The same still holds true for online distribution.
Something has to give, Natoma. Just as there is not infinite CD manufacturing capacity, there is not infinite bandwidth. Companies will either have to decrease demand for the top titles by raising price, or put some limits on access, or lower the bit-rate quality...
Of course, I know what will actually happen in the end:
Pirates will still refuse to pay nominal fees for downloaded tracks, piracy will still run rampant in the future "electronic distribution" age moreso than it is now, fewer and fewer will be able to remain profitable because of it, and the industry will be MORE limited to a few "absusive, monopolistic giants", and the "I want my free MP3" crowed will bitch all over again about how they're charging "unfair" prices for a product, so they decide to pirate....
...and so it continues...
schmuck
10-Sep-2003, 13:56
Intelectual property is not an universal right, intelectual property is a right we as a society has given to the artists, inventors etc because we think these rights will benefit society. And in most cases it does.
But when i look at the enterteinment industri today im not so sure. In wich way does it benefit society to have so few providers for news, culture and enterteinment? Do we really want the future ted turners, murdochs to set the global agenda? In the end i see this as a big threat to democrasy.
Joe DeFuria
10-Sep-2003, 14:21
Intelectual property is not an universal right, intelectual property is a right we as a society has given to the artists, inventors etc because we think these rights will benefit society. And in most cases it does.
It's two fold:
1) Intellectual property for artisits / publishers is recognized because we believe the creator / inventor / distributor of that property has a right to be compensated for the value of that property
2) The "benefit to society" follows, because unless those with the IP are compensated for it, there is less incentive to try and create that IP in the first place.
Without incentive to produce, there is less production / variety / volume and risk taking with the product.
But when i look at the enterteinment industri today im not so sure. In wich way does it benefit society to have so few providers for news, culture and enterteinment?
It's a trade-off.
It costs moneyto provide news and entertainment. (Not sure how you figure culture into this....at best, this is "pop culture".) We reward those who give us a product that we want by paying a certain price for it.
There is nothing stopping you or anyone else from creating your song, putting it on your web-site, and trying to sell it. There is in theory an infinite number of providers. Of course, you'll quickly learn that in order for people to know your work is out there...you have to advertise it / publicize it.
Before a retailer will carry it, you have to productize it, and convince them that there is, or will be, a demand for it.
These things take an investment. And the more people there are trying to sell this stuff, the riskier it is. (The harder it is to make "your IP" stand out from everyone else's.)
Do we really want the future ted turners, murdochs to set the global agenda? In the end i see this as a big threat to democrasy.
You see the music and entertainment industry as a threat to democracy?
RussSchultz
10-Sep-2003, 15:07
You see the music and entertainment industry as a threat to democracy?
Just the Dixie Chicks. ;)
Joe DeFuria
10-Sep-2003, 15:18
Just the Dixie Chicks. ;)
Lol! :D
It's convenient to always use the phrase "Supply and demand" isn't it?
Convenient? It's true.
Supply and demand is not a magical system that automatic adjusts to fit the market. It's just a rule of thumb of how to successfully run a business, and it's just one factor out of many. Ultimate pricing policies are set by humans.
...rather than constantly overestimating the demand for popular artists and thus being forced to lower the prices.
Who said they were constantly overestimating? The are many times estimating about right.
That it's unlikely that they were doing that was my point.
My...what is everyone complaining about then?
I'm nor complaining over anything, I highlight the reality in the music industry, and I argue that it's unlikely to be changed by online distribution.
The same still holds true for online distribution.
Something has to give, Natoma. Just as there is not infinite CD manufacturing capacity, there is not infinite bandwidth. Companies will either have to decrease demand for the top titles by raising price, or put some limits on access, or lower the bit-rate quality...
Not sure who you're arguing with here ... me or Natoma ... but anyway. I don't think bandwidth is particularly sparse for those in the business. It better not be, since raising your price to compensate doesn't work that well in a competive market. And any such effect will be reduced over time ones the customer base has settled since technology goes forward.
You see the music and entertainment industry as a threat to democracy?
Just the Dixie Chicks. ;)
The Dixie chicks debacle was rather a healthy injection to the debate and brought forth many important issues. The threat to democracy is that a few individuals in high positions in the media has the power to cut off impopular opionions.
Joe DeFuria
10-Sep-2003, 21:21
Supply and demand is not a magical system that automatic adjusts to fit the market. It's just a rule of thumb of how to successfully run a business, and it's just one factor out of many. Ultimate pricing policies are set by humans.
Key being "successful" business.
[quoite]That it's unlikely that they were doing that was my point.[/quote]
Understood. My point is they don't always guess right...then you end up with bargain bin stuff, or stuff that's "sold out". Same will happen with on-line distribution.
You can't physically "sell out" of the product, but you can run out of bandwidth. So you will end up going to the source that is charging more but has the title "available", or you will wait your turn and comlain about crappy service. ;)
I'm nor complaining over anything, I highlight the reality in the music industry, and I argue that it's unlikely to be changed by online distribution.
I mostly agree with you...and I extend this to mean that when online distribution hits critical mass, prices will stabilize at a point where many people will feel "ripped off" for what they're getting. Pirating will continue...etc.
Mark my words...in 10 years we'll all be saying, "Geeze...I used to pay $18 back then, but I got more than 2 tracks for it...I got an entire CD! That's a dozen tracks, and it included the storage medium and nostalogic box art!" ;)
Not sure who you're arguing with here ... me or Natoma ...
Meh...what's the difference. ;)
but anyway. I don't think bandwidth is particularly sparse for those in the business. It better not be, since raising your price to compensate doesn't work that well in a competive market.
It can work as well or better than not raising your price, and being "sold out" (bandwidth saturated), selling X copies a minute...while your competitor is selling the same X copies a minute for a higher price.
If you can sell X copies a minute at $1/copy, or the same X copies a minute at $1.50/copy, you are a fool for selling it at $1.
And any such effect will be reduced over time ones the customer base has settled since technology goes forward.
I disagree.
Successful companies don't spend money on bandwidth and servers without an eye on cost.
And any such effect will be reduced over time ones the customer base has settled since technology goes forward.
I disagree.
Successful companies don't spend money on bandwidth and servers without an eye on cost.
I didn't say that they shouldn't keep an eye on cost. But it's my belief that spending money on bandwidth and servers are typically better, it's comparably small costs in relations to the gain. Many businesses with much lower returns has comparable levels of bandwidth and server capasity. Free email services living on ad space for instance.
Joe DeFuria
10-Sep-2003, 23:12
I didn't say that they shouldn't keep an eye on cost. But it's my belief that spending money on bandwidth and servers are typically better, it's comparably small costs in relations to the gain.
All depends on the price of course.
Many businesses with much lower returns has comparable levels of bandwidth and server capasity. Free email services living on ad space for instance.
what about Free ISPs? Don't see them much any more...
We see all kinds of "ad-based" web-sites failing left and right every day. Some just go away...some get gobbled up by bigger corporate entities.
I'm just saying that really, both you and I are not in a position to gauge the cost of bandwidth, the servers, the coding, etc., relative to the revenue that would be generated by downloading tracks.
The market will bear that out. ;)
Chris123234
10-Sep-2003, 23:13
I seriously doubt a website specializing in mass downloads of mp3 files is going to run out of bandwidth :?
And if X is selling @ 1.00 and Y is selling @ 1.50 people will go to X and buy it. Just like gas prices. People will go to the guy on the right side of the road intead of the guy on the left if its cheaper. And downloading wouldnt even be "going across the road to the better price" just typing a different address...
If I missed the point of anything it because i skipped pages 3-now.
Joe DeFuria
10-Sep-2003, 23:27
I seriously doubt a website specializing in mass downloads of mp3 files is going to run out of bandwidth :?
Why not? Particulary during peak download times (new releases, etc.)
And if X is selling @ 1.00 and Y is selling @ 1.50 people will go to X and buy it. Just like gas prices. People will go to the guy on the right side of the road intead of the guy on the left if its cheaper.
Then how does that gas station with the consistently higher-price stay in business? ;)
Couple reasons: I certainly agree that people are fickle with their $$, but they are also fickle about their time. I know that if I see a gas station that's charging a bit more, and has no cars in line...I'll go there vs. the station across the street that's a bit cheaper, but I'd have to wait 5 minutes.
If I go to site X and they say "wait is 5 minutes" (like many download sites for game demos where you wait in line if you don't "subscribe"), I might go to another site...even if they charge, if that means I get instant gratification.
There are also other factors that can distinguish one service from another. One might offer "cheap, but low bit-rate MP3s", another "more expensive, high bit-rate MP3s." These can of course also be offered by the same service....but the point is the market will determine how much of a premium people are willing to pay for the higher quality (more bandiwdth sapping) MP3s...
Bigus Dickus
10-Sep-2003, 23:53
You and all your pseudo-scientific marketspeak goobledygook! It's all nonsense!
The consumers want $.03 non-compressed tracks on demand NOW! Give them to us... it's only FAIR!
Sorry, couldn't help it. I think any further serious attempts for rational arguments in this thread are falling on deaf ears... or at least those occupied at the moment by stolen property. ;)
Chris123234
11-Sep-2003, 00:21
Why not? Particulary during peak download times (new releases, etc.)
It will be a constant flow of downloads thats why. Not a site that spikes when Britney releases her new song and then becomes stagnant til Justin releases his... (they could just get more bandwidth in preparation for the new release anyways... Its not like all of the sudden one day a song appears out of nowhere.)
Then how does that gas station with the consistently higher-price stay in business? ;)
Couple reasons: I certainly agree that people are fickle with their $$, but they are also fickle about their time. I know that if I see a gas station that's charging a bit more, and has no cars in line...I'll go there vs. the station across the street that's a bit cheaper, but I'd have to wait 5 minutes.
If I go to site X and they say "wait is 5 minutes" (like many download sites for game demos where you wait in line if you don't "subscribe"), I might go to another site...even if they charge, if that means I get instant gratification.
There are also other factors that can distinguish one service from another. One might offer "cheap, but low bit-rate MP3s", another "more expensive, high bit-rate MP3s." These can of course also be offered by the same service....but the point is the market will determine how much of a premium people are willing to pay for the higher quality (more bandiwdth sapping) MP3s...
There wont be a line because all downloaders will be paying for the service. Of course it is always possible... anythings possible...
And I seriously doubt that there wont be a standard for mp3's on these types of sites. Even kazaa's "standard" (yes I know there isnt a standard but there is a vast majority) is 128 kb/s
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.