CD prices officially dropped. It's about time.

[Natoma]

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]

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]

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...

Well, I've gone there. So lets debate it rather than sling silly condescending platitudes about perceived liberal/conservative/capitalist/socialists agendas and ideals.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

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.

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.

 

[Natoma]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[RussSchultz]

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.

 

[Natoma]

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]

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?" 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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

 

[Natoma]

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?

 

[Natoma]

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?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

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]

So now consumers forcing the record companies to sell them the product consumers want is extortion?

:?

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?

 

[Natoma]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Natoma]

So now consumers forcing the record companies to sell them the product consumers want is extortion?

:?

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]

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.

 

[Natoma]

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?

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.