CD prices officially dropped. It's about time.

[Bigus Dickus]

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.

 

[Natoma]

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]

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.

 

[Natoma]

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]

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]

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 considering that getting it for free is an easy alternative.

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]

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]

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.

 

[Natoma]

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]

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]

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.

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.

 

[Natoma]

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]

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]

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...

 

[Natoma]

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.

 

[Natoma]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Natoma]

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....

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.