CD prices officially dropped. It's about time.

[Natoma]

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]

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.

 

[Natoma]

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]

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".

 

[Natoma]

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.

[EDIT]

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.

[/EDIT]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Humus]

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.

 

[Natoma]

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.

 

[Humus]

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.

 

[Natoma]

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.

 

[Humus]

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]

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.

 

[Natoma]

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.....

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?

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

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?

 

[Natoma]

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?



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.

 

[Humus]

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]

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.

 

[Humus]

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]

Theorethically...

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.

 

[Humus]

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.