Slashdot Mirror
Still More RIAA News
We just did an article about the RIAA's mendacity with statistics, and here come some more: first, someone has gone to the trouble to deconstruct their income figures over the past few years, showing that the RIAA's lack of investment in new releases is in itself sufficient to explain any dropping sales, and second, this website concerning the music industry settling a price-fixing lawsuit, which I believe is this one, filed two years ago.
...article submission that got shot down, only to be posted 24+ hours later..
I'm beginning to think maybe I should be promoted to an editor. Stories like this would get posted a LOT faster, duplicates would decrease, etc.
Hell, I even put it as my sig after it was rejected.
*Sigh*
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
Ok. Let me see if I've got this straight. I fill out that form and the RIAA will give me some money to buy a DVD with?
High-speed Road Trip (18.000KPH)
But telling Slashdot won't achieve much - most people here already have a particular opinion on the RIAA.
Good luck with getting the message across to the public at large, to people who matter, and to people who make and shape laws.
I point this out because it gets grating every time it's suggested that the RIAA is some giant monopoly that controls what gets published and whatnot. It isn't. That's about as sane as headlining a report describing a "going postal" type massacre as "NRA goes on shooting rampage in post office".
The RIAA is an industry association. It does not control its members, its members control it.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
They scaled back supply because they knew that Napster would pick up the slack.
(-;
NOT!
Kill Trolls Dead. Here's
'gone to the trouble to deconstruct their income figures', Bad idea, there clearly not facts and so the RIAA can claim copyright violations.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I'd be much more willing to buy CD's if they were not insanely expensive.
Most new CD's cost around $15-$20... Considering I usually buy a CD mainly for 2 or 3 tracks, thats about $5 or more for a single song.
Or, I could buy the singles, and pay about $5 a song
Gee, that really makes me want to buy CD's. I'll stick with Kazaa Lite, Gnutella, or something.
The only time I buy a CD anymore is when it is a small band that I want to support, and then I usually buy from their website.
As usual, groups with relative power will alter and hide statistics if they really want to get their point of view across, especially when they are beseiged by FUD. On a side note, there are 4 CD's I wanted to buy but didn't, because of them.
Please direct all bug reports to
from the article : why is it that sales didn't start declining until AFTER the RIAA had Napster shut down?
kazaa, morpheus, audiogalaxy, gnutella...
frankly, can anyone (good or vilain) pretend that closing napster possibly changed anything in online music trading habits ? and hence in any sales reports an correlation analysis whatsoever ?
I wish the author was honest.
O.
Of course, that means I'd have to live with the thought that Oprah is still around in 3 years, but that's a pain I can easily live with.
Any sufficiently well-organized Government is indistinguishable from bullshit.
Back in the mid 1980s when CDs first came out you had a choice of LP, CD, or Tape. The typical list price for a new release LP or tape was $8.99. The CD list price was $16.99.
Their reason: There was a backlog of over a year to manufacture "back catalog releases". They (record industry) said the price high price of CD was because of the manufacturing process, as well as supply and demand.
Well for CDs there's no backlog now, they use less raw material, and provide less artwork. And yet the CD price remains inflated.
Does the artist get more royalties for CD than a LP or cassette? I think not.
I like how you post supporting "comments" yourself. Very amusing. I think your ego likes you just as much as you like yourself.
Pot
Kettle
Black
The article referenced is quite clear on this point. It is quotoing the RIAA's announcements regarding income industry-wide (though presumably the RIAA's definitaion of "industry-wide" refers only to it's members).
The differnce between saying that the RIAA's income statistics are incorrect and saying that the NRA shot someone is that the NRA was likely not involved in the shooting, and likely did not colude to make the shooting happen the way it did.
The RIAA is directly reporting these statistics. They are the RIAA's collective industry statistics. Also, the RIAA members have been shown to actively colude to make these statistics what they are through price-fixing and other tactics.
On the point of calling the RIAA a monopoly, I think it's perfectly fair. Just as a corporation can act as a single entity even though it is made up of many individuals, so too does the RIAA act as a single entity for the purposes of controling retail sales of music and lobbying (i.e. buying politicians) for music-industry causes like passing the DMCA. BMI did not lobby to pass the DMCA independantly, the RIAA did. This is a tactic for gaining control over the market and over the technologies that affect the market by the RIAA.
Monopoly tactics? Yep.
I'd say that you are the troll here. It seems that you are somewhat successful too. Contrary to your post, Taco does not discuss the recent issues in his journal. As for emailing him, that would be a pathetic waste of time as I'm quite sure his inbox is filled with a 1000 trolls a day.
But, it still doesn't change the fact that the many programmers and sys admins that read this site regularly, would like to know what is going on. Some may be able to offer help, and many others would gain very useful insite that could be invaluable to their own opertations.
The total amount alotted for disbursement (sp?) is 75 millon and if the total per claim is less than $5, they don't have to send out cash, just product. So if more than 15 millon claims are filed (likely) then some non-profit is just going to get a bunch of left over Moby cd's, I doubt that any cash will every even change hands.
Read the settlement, its a hoot.
Am I the only one to be amazed by the weird
complains the RIAA keeps on making and thinks
people still believes what they say ?
About all the missing sales they get because
people download mp3s - do they really believe
every mp3 downloaded is a cd less sold ??
Do they think someone with thousands of mp3s
would buy thousand cds ? We don't have unlimited
budgets..
And now they're complaining they don't get as
many profit as the previous years;
Hey we live in a capitalistic world..
the market also changes, and you should evolve
your product.
If your product doesn't sell anymore you've
only got yourself to complain to..
You don't hear McD complain these days that
people buy less burgers and pizzas or other
take-aways should be closed or are illegal ?
Learn about pinball machines on www.flippers.be
Maybe not. The author of the article goes on to argue that file swapping, which may have killed the singles market, couldn't add up to this amount. Alas, he didn't read the quote properly. $4 billion is what they attribute to physical piracy, not online swapping. There are parts of the world where you can buy just about any CD, music or software, for a fraction of the price of retail. In a street market in Thailand I saw MS Office and NT Server for $20 (with activation keys), music CDs of current US and European pop releases for $5, PS games for $5-10. All were in jewel cases with artwork.
Physical piracy is their real enemy, not file sharing.
Amen.
:)
I'm glad also not to hear you (quite) say, "Well, I'd stop stealing if they'd just lower prices." Stealing will always be free (esp. when P2P cuts out the street corner middle man in the trenchcoat), and they can never compete with free. Just say "no" to extortion.
CD prices have fallen surprisingly little in 20 years -- about a third in inflation-adjusted dollars. I don't remember prices like this with vinyl, and when CD's came along there was a hefty premium for them. Yes, they provided higher quality, but I bet their production costs are now far lower.
I think the RIAA members need to do some serious introspection about their business model. That doesn't mean ignoring infringement, but realizing that the boat is sinking because of a lot of larger holes in the hull. Direct sales are a great concept; other methods to lower costs must exist. Note however that we do live in a society that somehow manages to buy $130 Nikes that cost $30 wholesale. (Astonishingly, Nike only makes a few dollars profit on each pair.) The record industry is far from the only industry with big markups, so don't rush to any conclusions.
The RIAA members should not abuse market statistics or fix prices to promote their cause. Resentful consumers should not steal to promote theirs. Now, all join hands and sing....
The funny thing is I'm sure 99% of the public has no idea what all this talk is about. The one-quarter who do don't even talk to the three-eighths of the 10% of the last ninth who uh... Well, I'd like to see some statistics on that, I'm 110% certain.
According to RIAA President Hillary Rosen, "107% of the music consumers surveyed believe our statistics."
It is quite simple
Haiku should not be funny
Try a Senryu
...if this guy would do my taxes?
Well *I* won't be satisfied until I see a VH1 behind the music in two years about how Hilary Rosen is in Soviet Russia selling her body for 8-tracks!
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
to ruthlessly point out the factual, logical and mathematical "imprecisions" that underly the fight against savage piracy, then you are going to make it that much more difficult for the industry to successfully try and execute these heinous criminals who plague society.
Disproving the theory that "You'll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public" (P.T. Barnum ??), U.S. buyers have apparently come to the realization that $3.50 to $5.50 is too damn much to pay for one song.
I believe the quote is "No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public." from H.L. Mencken, the noted satirist.
P.T. Barnum's quote is "There's a sucker born every minute."
That whole "talking to yourself" form of dialog is often used in religious tracts that the fundies hand out. One wonders where the poster gets his inspiration.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
As the article mentions, there is a proposed settlement in a class action price fixing lawsuit filed by 43 state attorneys general against several major record companies and music retailers.
The terms of the settlement are that people who bought music CDs, records or cassettes between 1/1/95 and 12/22/00 can apply for a refund of up to $20.
But: Like most class action settlements, the terms are not necessarily favorable to consumers. For example, the settlement fund is $67,375,000 in cash plus $75,700,000 "worth of" prerecorded CDs. If "the number of claims filed would result in refunds of less than $5.00 per claimant, there will be no cash distribution to individual consumers. Rather, the cash portion of the settlement shall be distributed to mot-for-profit, charitable, governmental or public entities[.]"
Find out more at musiccdsettlement.com
Disclaimer: The poster (me) expresses no opinion as to the merits (if any) of this class action settlement, and this post is not legal advice nor is it an advertisement or solicitation for legal services.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
From the article:
If the number of claims filed would result in refunds of less than $5.00 per claimant, there will be no cash distribution to individual consumers
If you read on, you see the that in this situation, they give money (not product) to some not-for-profit which does work beneficial to the settlement group.
I wonder how they choose the benificiary. How about the EFF? BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!
"The Milliard Gargantubrain? A mere abacus - mention it not."
IANAET (I am not an English teacher) but I believe the use of mendacity is incorrect. You should either drop the "'s" from RIAA so it reads "RIAA mendacity" or you could use the form "the mendacity of the RIAA." A better idea would be to use a more common word, since the goal of communication is to get your point across, not impress people with uncommon words. If you can't use a "fancy word" correctly, drop it.
in the Ziemann report. There's a great deal of emphasis placed on the decline of the number of releases over the past couple of years. However, this whole train of reasoning seems to be based on the following quote:
"Each year, of the approximately 27,000 new releases that hit the market, the major labels release about 7,000 new CD titles and after production, recording, promotion and distribution costs, most never sell enough to recover these costs, let alone make a profit." (from the RIAA Price of a CD page).
Now, perhaps the number of releases *has* declined markedly over the past couple of years. But it strikes me as an awful big assumption to just plug in this 27,000 number as the number of new releases for each of the past two years.
Again, not saying it's wrong. I'm just saying that it could as well be an average over the past decade or an inexact number thrown out in a context other than market data. It's a slender thread on which to hang a big chunk of analysis.
Well, it used to cost about 10 cents to make the cd itself. The packaging costs more. I think about a buck 50 goes to the artist, and about the same to the store IIRC. The rest goes to build Hilary Rosens ultra-secure super-secret super-villain lair, a (gently) used Echelon terminal, and a closet full of body molded rubber piracy fighting suits. This is what has proved to be so expensive, they keep having to let them out. True to form, she loves loves loves her ding dongs.
And if you think that's markup, I've got one word for you my friend. Plastics!
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
The recording industry's business is out of date. They are trying to sell us horses when we all want cars. There are better ways to get music than paying $20 for a CD that only has 1 good song on it.
Could you imagine this country if an RIAA 'like' organization formed from horse trading companies in the early 1900's to try to keep Henry Ford from putting them out of business? Saying Henry Ford's Model T violated the HTIAA's patent on selling transportation methods.
Sure downloading copyrighted material is illegal, but they have to do somethign about it. Obviously people are fed up with $20 CDs.
It costs roughly £0.50 ($0.80) to press each CD that is sold to a member of the public. The expensive parts are the actual recording/mixing/mastering processes, and the advertising.
I wonder what percentage the artist gets off each copy of their work that is sold...? The post about Meatloaf is maybe outdated, but I wonder if the situation has improved for the artist or for the record labels...
I married Miss Right. I just didn't know her first name was 'Always.'
Actually, CDs were cheaper to produce than vinyl then as well as now. Of course nowadays, there is no correlation with the cost to produce a CD and its price--the cost of manufacturing is so low that if marketing et. al. was left out of the mix money could be made selling CDs at $2/pop.
As for quality, early CDs provided far lower quality than vinyl initially. Yeah, we got rid of the ticks, pops, scratches, and rumbles, but great violence was done to the music by the early digital recording and mastering technology which often couldn't muster more than 13 or 14-bits of resolution at best (and often far worse). To this day, many prefer vinyl and only the recent SACD and DVD-A technologies can give well produced vinyl a run for its money on sound quality. I'm not a luddite and most of my music is now on CD, but I'm not happy about it.
Better for convenience, yes. Better for sound, decidedly not.
--Len
Your description of mendacity is full of minacity.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
What does the RIAA think of barter? I have been searching for good resources on this issue but I haven't found very much useful information.
How to Download YouTube Videos
What does the community think about going after the RIAA this way. Collect some money to do direct mailing of a petition form explaining what is going on to the layman. This form should contain a pledge not to take some action that would make them a profit (somebody smarter than myself should work out the details of what kind of boycot like actions should be threatened) and make sure that the return card is postage paid. Take the threats (pledges) and generate a letter with the names of the signatories attached and send it to the share holders and board of directors of the major music companies explaining that drops in revenue are due to their participation in the RIAA. For the Coup de ta (I can't spell very well in english let alone French) send the exact same letter to as many media outlets as possible. No greater pressure can be applied than a 30 second story on CNBC causing the share price to drop slightly. Remember folks earnings drop, share prices drop, the board is elected by people who own shares, the share holders are unhappy the board is in jeopardy, the board is in jeopardy the executives are in jeopardy, the executives are in jeopardy they modify their behavior.
To quote Sam Clemens, "There are three kinds of lies...lies, damned lies and statistics." Trouble is, the American press (and by extension, the general American public) sees numbers and believes them to be absolute truth. The running joke/slogan seems to be "garbage in, gospel out".
It all sort of makes me wonder, though...what would happen to these numbers if the Generally Accepted Accounting Practices were applied?
Just my two cents' worth...save up the change for a root beer or something.
All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
From the Cost of a CD from the RIAA web site:
"While the RIAA does not collect information on the specific costs that make up the price of a CD, there are many factors that go into the overall cost of a CD -- and the plastic it's pressed on, is among the least significant."
They admit they don't really know the costs. They don't have the data so they speak from ignorance. Or, they do have the data but don't want to admit what they know.
How to Download YouTube Videos
I don't think it's quite that sinister, though your portrayal of the music industry is considerably sexier than mine.
I won't even ask what you mean by "she loves loves loves her ding dongs." (Lest any guys get misplaced notions about Hilary, read this.) I mean, I like ding dongs as much as the next guy, but....
I've heard figures for the artist's cut ranging form 50 to $2. I don't know what's accurate, but assume it depends a lot on how much leverage the act has -- there's a difference between Bruce Springsteen and WeEatToads but their CD's are both expensive. (Springsteen may be cheaper because of volume.) (And I'm not starting a f*cking debate about musical tastes!) Must be nice to be a solo artist rather than have to split the coins with other band members.
As for markup, we rarely think about it as we happily pay for it. Next time you see a box of Wheaties, ask yourself how much the wheat cost. Probably less than a raw CD. Now look at that pretty and informative 4-color box it comes in. Which costs more? Then look around at the supermarket. How much does it cost to run? A lot. What does this have to do with the price of wheat? Nothing, but it has a heck of a lot to do with the price of Wheaties.
Stealing is not free!!
That's a misconception. It doesn't cost any *money* to steal, but stealing still has cost. Most notable is time cost -- it takes time to locate and download a song you want. And even then once you're done you can't be sure you didn't get a lot of data errors in the track or different songs in the album were recorded with different loudness, etc.
Theoretically, if the recording industry priced CDs below ((peoples' value of own time * length of time it takes to find the cd) + value of quality) then the could compete with piracy on a price level. Obviously everyone's value of their time is different so they'll never be able to get everyone. For me, if CDs cost $5-$10 I would never mess around with Kazaa, and I think a lot of other people wouldn't either. $20? No, thanks.
Well frist off what is gained from posting this to /.? most people here are, well, agains the RIAA....
anyway i simply would like to know what the hell can we do to shut these people down. I mean quite simply they out resource us in the same way mexican druglords do--they have virtually an infinite budget!
not to mention pawns in the senate and house....
anyway, is there anything that we can organise, which really has a chance? as i student i don't have a lot of money or resources, but i do have time. i understand that we can't just stop buying their cd's(although that is a start)BUT THERE NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING MORE THAT WE CAN DO!
so write to your represenatives, hell if we could got together a sort of hate RIAA day similar to the ms return day or something...anything that will draw big media attention...
i dunno if what i'm saying makes any sense, but i keep reading more and more information and it just seems that nothing is really being done about anything
-seth
We talk a lot about supporting indie bands and buying their music from their websites and all. But where is all this. All the media is in the big control
AOL,Murdoch, etc., so they wont give people information. How about the slashdot editors putting up a page that gets regularly updated.. with information about indie and small bands.. what genre are they, where can people buy their music and stuff.
I feel that rather than talking about extreme steps like boycott etc., slashdot should put up a page so that atleast slashdotters hit on it.... son it will show up on googles results too! More information the people will make things better. We can have an ask slashdot story about indie and small bands and then the most informative posts can be used to compose the page initially.
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
I posted a similar comment to yesterdays RIAA story
Of course their declining record sales have nothing to do with the public is now fed up of mass marketed pop music where record contracts are won not by original musical talent and song writing , but by nieve and desperate individuals in f***ing competitions while real talent falls into the gutter, leaving a trail of destruction in its path while the instigators get rich.
The only thing killing music is not kids downloading mp3's or pirating dvds at market stalls but by the industry killing itself, kids are simply getting ripped off by these marketing/record companies and have just started to realise globally they are being taken for idiots
why is it that so many companies in the industry (or others for that matter), have so much contempt for their customers and choose short term monetary gains instead of actually concentrating on producing superior products ?
Here is my email to the author...
You have posted a great article. It's very informative and insightful and missing a couple important things.
First, I appreciate your promotion of independent artists and justly compensating them, but I disagree with you're numbers. Let me humbly suggest a different split. 16% for production costs. 34% marketing and bribes (we can dream that clear channel and mtv are with in budget). 16% for the label, 16% for investors and 17% for the band. I don't think anyone would disagree with their cut, but what I'm really trying to express is the rule that you spend twice as much on marketing as you do on R&D. And in this case, the world's demonstrated that marketing often counts more for sales than product quality.
Second, as the above somewhat illustrates, the real enemy of both the consumer AND the labels is radio consolidation and the evil empire of clear channel and the event venue lackies it holds. They limit our choice and variety. For the artist and labels, they charge too much money. At one time, music was often the program that pulled people in to listen to adds. Because of extravagently high payola.. er, I mean, "promoter" costs through elimination of competition, the radio stations have really become NOTHING BUT ADVERTISING. Ads are paid for, programs are paid for, automate and underpay local talent, buy out the competition and then print your own money. The Conrad Burns '96 telecommunications act did good things, but it brought more harm than good and needs to be corrected. The record labels have much much more to gain from investing in policial bribery to bring back competition than they have from making all their consumers and benifactors criminals.
Last, that leads to what the REAL issue with RIAA is. The RIAA's end consumer, the people who pay them, are the records labels. The RIAA has to justify thier high costs to the labels every year. Every year, they have to justify the existence of this perpetual parasitic beauracracy. The labels feel that they get good benifits from the current payola system; they just don't like today's prices. If they didn't like it, the lables have plentry of shills to create politicial winds of change. The RIAA's consumer is the labels, NOT THE CONSUMER. They don't care about us; we aren't even the corn in Rosen's shit. They are paid by the labels. What this whole piracy thing is about marketing themselves as relevent to the labels. Let me repeat; the RIAA's emphasis on piracy is their effort to keep getting money from the labels and to start asking them for more money. Yes, of course it's all about money. The RIAA and the labels know the numbers and reasons you cited. They are pursuing what they feel is a safer, more profitable route. The labels are culpable in all of this of course. I just think you need to cite and remember the root motive to all of this non-sense.
Good Luck!
Democrats and Republicans only disagree about how to enslave you
... on deconstructing the RIAA numbers would be much easier if the fucking dickhead could learn how to format his HTML so it isn't necessary to scroll right to read the end of every line.
There is a special place in hell for people like that...
With Love...
This sentence of Hilary Rosen is often quoted to prove harm filesharing is doing: "When 23 percent of surveyed music consumers say they are not buying more music because they are downloading or copying their music for free, we cannot ignore the impact on the marketplace." And I see that it is used again in this article. What this really means is that 23 percent are not changing their buying habits, and 77 percent are spending more. Where's the harm to their marketplace? This is typical politician double-speak - I can see her laughing everytime she sees it quoted. With the figures they published they are doing better than most anyway.
Freedom of speech doesn't come with bandwidth.
Between the dates mentioned (Jan. 1, 1995 to Dec. 22, 2000) I bought hundreds of CDs and LPs. "Up to $20 per claimant" does justice to someone who bought 5 or 10 CDs during that time... but completely screws those who bought a lot more.
I read the section on my legal rights which states...
I'd assume that I could opt out of the settlement group and then file a claim independently... but that sounds expensive and time consuming in order to (doubtfully) recover what would be, at most, a couple bucks per CD/LP (maybe $1K total if I calculated that way).
The other option, and maybe more preferable, would be to become a member of the settlement and then show up a the courthouse to object (Portland, ME is a couple hours away... could be an interesting/educational trip to be sure). Maybe if we could organize a small army of people from nearby with LARGE music collections to come and (hopefully) testify/object. What do you think folks? I'm game.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
The other day I was listening to NPR and they profiled James McMutry, a singer/song writer (he is the son of novelist Larry McMutry, who Lonesome Dove, etc). Larry has a new album out, Saint Mary of the Woods. NPR talked to him and played some samples of his music, which a kind of country/rock/folk fusion. I liked what I heard.
When I got home I jumped on Gnutella and found a song from his new CD and downloaded it. I liked it. Then I downloaded another and liked it too.
The next day I went out and bought the CD.
The RIAA can learn from this. Without being able to sample some songs so I could decide whether or not I wanted to buy the whole CD, I never would have plunked down my cash for an unknown (to me) artist. Thanks to Gnutella, James McMutry made a sale, and got a new fan.
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
IMHO, the best part of the article was in the comments at the bottom:
"Tooth & Nail has a christmas sale-$2,$3,$5 & $8 cds!"
Thanks, Jordan from Kuwait! You reminded me that there's an independent label whose music (except for Danielson - worst. song. ever.) I enjoy that I should support.
Your fantasies contain the seeds of important concepts.
Good grief, can it be that simple? I just went to that Web site and it appears as if by spending five minutes filling in a form I have submitted a claim and will eventually receive a small check in the mail.
(Or did I just give my name, address, date of birth, and last four SS digits to a scam artist?)
If this is for real, it should be widely publicized.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Why is it so obvious to the RIAA that the slowdown in CD sales is only the result of P2P piracy? There is a recession going on, last I heard. In my business, autosales, business sucks right now. No amount of cheap money can get people over their skittishness about the near future. Regardless of your opinion on the merits of going after Saddam, Iraq looms as a big unknown. Retailers of all sorts are worried about the xmas season. The spin from the media is that sales are robust, but a visit to the malls would indicate otherwise. The RIAA also doesn't seem to want to address other possibilities - high prices vs. low quality, people buying less music, but not necessarily downloading, constant poor press on music industry shenanigans. Sure, folks do download music that they probably ought to be paying for, but I suspect that a lot of the downloaded music is replacing music these people have or had on vinyl or cassette. You might want to listen to it on your mp3 player, but most likely would not go out and re-purchase these albums (assuming you can find them). Personally, I put tons of my money in the Beatle's pockets long before the PC was invented. How much do I owe them?
I'm glad also not to hear you (quite) say, "Well, I'd stop stealing if they'd just lower prices." Stealing will always be free (esp. when P2P cuts out the street corner middle man in the trenchcoat), and they can never compete with free. Just say "no" to extortion. :)
It's already been pointed out that downloading has a time cost associated with it. Owning a CD also has a benefit (pretty CD graphics and booklet and a permanent "backup" that I don't need to spend extra for).
The real problem is that many people are willing to pay $8-10 for a CD but this is usually not an option. Given the choice between paying $18 and paying $0 many people choose $0.
the problem with music, by Steve Albini
Depends on the artist, but from what I've read, they generally get more like 50 cents, not $1.50. And they usually don't even get that until after the record label recoups its costs.
If your so inclined to believe its your "right" to theft and that you should be able to steal these audio tracks just because its "insanely expensive" in your viewpoint and that you are justified... well then
Ok you don't like the middleman, you've stated that, could you at least goto the effort of finding the artists fan club or address, something and then send them money (as a *cough* donation so they don't get raped by their record company on it) for the songs you DO download and listen to? Even if its just $5 for all 3 tracks.. its one thing to claim its more expensive than you'd like... but its another if you don't even contribute ANYTHING to the artist.
Jesus... why do all people seem to think the world owes them and its their right to STEAL? If you don't like the price... don't buy it... but that doesn't mean you have the right to THEFT (and yes its theft not copyright BS).
Yes.
A thought experiment strictly from a buyer perspective:
Interesting?
...sue em for lible?
Blarf.
There's two Disney executives walking across a parking lot when they pass a beautiful girl coming the other way. After they pass, one of the suits says "I fucked her". The other looks suitably impressed "Oh yeah? Out of what?".
(Replace Disney with your favoured record company du jour.)
That was classic intercourse!
"Must be nice to be a solo artist rather than have to split the coins with other band members."
Bruce Springsteen's latest CD (The Rising) is with his old band (The E Street Band, I believe). Just a minor thing...
For perspective... a 50-lb bag of organic, hard, winter red wheat (Red Chief brand) will run you about $11 (more, of course, if you need it shipped to you). That's maybe 4 boxes of Wheaties?
My family has a hand-crank grain mill. So that 50-lb bag will give my family of four 4-to-6 months of bread, tortillas, pasta, cereal (nothing liked craked wheat and honey on a cold December morning!), cream of wheat, pancakes, etc (anything you make primarily with flour). Note, we haven't found a way to make flake cereals yet, so no Wheaties for us yet.
Think of the retail prices on all of those products (sold usually in roughly 1-to-2 lb portions). Now think how much cheaper the bulk, wholesale price of wheat goes for (anyone know the commodity price of a bushel of wheat these days?). Scary to think how much money is being made, all for the sake of a little convenience.
Of course the wheat thing doesn't apply to music production, but we consumers always pay an obscene mark-up.
Method of processing duck feet
That's basically what in investigation into the supply & demand curve would involve. The kind of datapoints you're discussion would be the demand line. Since large publishers act as a cartel they have limited monopoly pricing power (there are other publishers so they can't get totally out of whack). So that's a near vertical supply line. Of course, there is also the $0 option (or, in many cases, the street vendor hard copy fakes that are available). If the RIAA chooses their supply price poorly they're simply going to reduce demand and foster support for the alternatives.
Sure, nike only makes a few dollars profit per shoe AFTER they subtract the $600 million marketing budget...
I'm not sure I want to enter my personal information on this page, especially since they want the last 4 digits of my social security number. Given that sort of info, a crook could do a heck of a lot of damage to me identity-theft-wise.
Even if Rust Consulting is legit (and I admit, it looks like it is), I'd still worry about the security of their database.
Guess I'll have to pass up that $20.
While the article is persuasive enough in arguing that the $4 billion number is a preposterous exaggeration, I can see how the bottom line for these companies is, much like for the movie studios, is driven by *hits*.
They rely on the sales of albums with the really *big* songs for profit.
For your average music consumer, the type that listens to the radio Top 40, the only reason to buy an album is for that latest Eminem hit.
Naturally, once the song is available for free, the reason to buy the album disappears. And so do record company profits.
As much as we like to say that its just a matter of these lazy record companies getting off their butt and changing the business model, the truth of the matter is they are literally on the verge of extinction.
So, they are fighting for their very lives.
The good news is that they will fail.
And the really good news is that music will make a full circle back to the pre-recording days: where the only people to actually make money with music will be virtuoso live performers and composers (see history of music from 1550-1940).
Not distributors, labels, lawyers, radio stations, etc.
Contemplate the marvel that is existence, and rejoice that you are able to do so.
I plunk down money for CDs (even though DVDs offer more bang for your buck) because I can listen to music at work and in the car. That helps the day go by. (I buy DVDs too, but for different reasons.)
I cannot watch a movie while working, nor would I choose to watch a movie while driving. Technically, the latter isn't even an option, but for the discussion I'll pretend like it is.
I suppose I could hunt around and download a bunch of music and save the money. But then I'd either need to re-convert the mp3s to audio tracks, or buy an mp3 player for work and the car. They would probably break and then I'd end up with very little for the work I put in. Audio CDs already come in the format that is most useful for me. And while I don't like that I can't always play mix cds in the car, I can deal. I've decided that overcoming that via mp3s is not worth the effort. Yes, I could get a new CD player for the car. Somehow I find that other things are more important.
Oh, and in the fifteen years I've been buying CDs I've had to replace fewer than 10. And I rarely regret my purchasing decisions. Which means that years from now I will still be listening to stuff I bought this year. And I am still listening to things I bought years ago. $15 for 15+ years of enjoyment. Not what I would call a rip-off.
We all have our own perspective, don't we?
-r
Just because something is free does not mean you have to take it.
It doesn't cost any *money* to steal, but stealing still has cost. Most notable is time cost -- it takes time to locate and download a song you want. And even then once you're done you can't be sure you didn't get a lot of data errors in the track or different songs in the album were recorded with different loudness, etc.
Agreed. This clearly shows that our large scale piracy systems still need improvement.
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
Consumers also recognize the "Ripoff" in Wheaties. In that case, it's manifested in the rise of "private-label" Cereals and in people not eating cereal.
My case is that I download songs that are not available on the stores (special editions of 80s and 90s, extended versions) How can they lost sells of stuff they they do not sell? For the ones that are available, I hear them, if I like it, I'll buy, otherwise I'll recover the disk space average ... how many song do you download are available on the store?
It's more like $5-$20 to never be able to say the RIAA screwed you ever again. You waive a lot of rights for $20 tops, I'm definitely not signing up.
If the following is true, "So the record industry cut their inventory (and artist investment) by 25 percent and sales only dropped 4.1 percent, even though the economy is at rock bottom. There were almost 12,000 fewer new releases for the consumer to choose from in 2001 than 1999. The record companies are making more money per release than ever."
I'd like to know if is there any type of legal action to take against RIAA. For example claims they may have made under oath, any advertising they may have done (truth in advertising), etc.?
YOu can't ship sig. less product and claim the reason your gross is down is because of pirates!!
http://www.hawknest.com/
I, in my overzealous hyperbole, may have mistakenly given the impression that I'm against paying anything above cost.
I realize that with that markup above margin, I'm buying my time back. I'm totally ok with that. 25% for the store, 25% for the distributor, and hell, why not something for the manufacturer too.
Even allowing for that, CD's are way way over priced. Without the cartel, CD's would likely be much cheaper. $5 dollars from a random guy on the street? No, probably not. While his production costs may well be higher (or not considering some of what one hears about the Chinese manufacturers), his supply chain is really short, his costs for the card table negligible. But $10 bucks for a new album, which isn't just chock full of crap, and is at least 30 minutes long, isn't that much to ask.
If the constituent members of the RIAA really have costs so high as to justify use of their super-cartel-ultra-best-friend powers, perhaps they should look into controlling costs rather than illegally manipulating the market to make up the difference. Maybe forcing the market to accept whatever crap the suits think it should like is expensive. I would certainly imagine that acts that promote themselves by word of mouth save on studio time (by sounding decent without special effect wizardry), and advertising.
Until they do something to address the problem, I have a hard time feeling anything but a dull sense that justice is done when a million petty thieves rob the giant thief swindling millions. But then I'm not a lawyer either.
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
For me, if CDs cost $5-$10 I would never mess around with Kazaa,
But where would you find your porn?
What this really means is that 23 percent are not changing their buying habits, and 77 percent are spending more.
And you talked to each person in this 77% (of surveyed people) and they told you this? And you are sure none of them are lying?
What this really means, is that 23% are not changing their spending habits, and that 77% are changing their habits. It in no way proves that all the people in this 77% are spending more (what you said), or that all the people in this 77% are spending less (what the RIAA wants you to believe).
Flawed conclusions are flawed conclusions. No matter what spin you are trying to put on them.
-r
Just because something is free does not mean you have to take it.
I saw this posted on RIAA's site.
/. readers should do the same ;)
;)
The public is encouraged to call the RIAA's "BADBEAT" hotline line (1-800-BADBEAT) with any leads on retail outlets selling illegal product.
Since I'm not an expert when it comes to being able to tell a real CD from a pirated CD I'm going to just have to call this number everytime I go into a gas station and see them selling music.
I think all
Think about it
Stealing is not free!![...]Most notable is time cost
I agree that there is a cost to stealing, but I disagree that the cost is time. By the time I drive out to the mall, find a parking spot, walk to the CD store, find the CD, stand in line and buy the CD, walk back to the car, and drive home I could have found the CD on some P2P 5 times over.
The real cost to those who steal (and to those who don't due to the backlash towards those who do) is economic and/or political. And that's the battle we're losing. It really is more convenient and less time consuming to download music. If the RIAA embraced that fact, they could profit from it. Instead, they're trying to dictate demand based on their desire to supply music in the one way they think they can control, and they still haven't realized that their economic theory is flawed (that is until/unless they manage to litigate their problems away).
How about an honour system for payment of all music and video.
Fact: Unauthorised digital distribution of copyrighted material is _never_ going to be stopped. Therefore, rather than try and beat it (impossible), accept it.
The new form of digital distribution is chaotic. Whether it be underground websites, Usenet, Kazaa, let it be.
However, along with all digital entertainment content, include details of a website from where you can make an honour payment for the material you have obtained. MP3's etc. can use meta-data (ID3 tags etc.) and Video can just display a "Thanks, if you've enjoyed this please pop online and pay us".
had they fought this case in court they would have won far and away ... they chose to settle to save legal costs
stores like best buy, circuit city actually sell CDs AT A LOSS just so they can get you into their stores
this strategy would have driven many many retailers (especially for the mom 'n pop stores, indie shops, etc) out of business and was clearly not good for the diversity and availability of music. therefore, they set a minimum price that a CD could be sold at to prevent this type of behaviour.
I have a hard time feeling anything but a dull sense that justice is done when a million petty thieves rob the giant
:)
That's how they'll quote you, too.
I'll grant you that many CDs, perhaps most, do sound much worse than the best vinyl records, but that because the CD offers so much more capability that sound engineers abuse it. CDs can record trebles so high they would melt the solenoid coils in an analog record cutting lathe. CDs can record bass so strong it would make the needle jump off a vinyl record.
So, indeed, an LP can sound better than a CD, but that's because the CD was badly recorded, not because of any limitation in the digital recording system. Even the cheapest CD player will give you a 100+ dB signal-to-noise ratio, while the absloutely best analog record player, costing in the $10000+ range, will never get more than 75 dB or so.
The CD's themselves cost right around $0.08 each at relatively low volumes. This is for 5 color glass mastered cd's. Then, add a cover and 4 color jacket and you are around $0.80 tops. This is shrunk-wrapped, glass mastered cd's ready to go! This cost also includes the glass mastering fees and the film fees ~$750.00. Now, keep in mind these are prices paid to a third company...I hope the recording industry owns their own replication plants. I WILL NOT pay over $10.00 for a music CD! I also have not purchased a music CD since the RIAA started crying two years ago.
Yep. I assumed inelastic demand to make it simpler.
OK, now redraw the curve with perfect law enforcement -- every copy is a legitimate copy. What happens? (Not that I think you'll say, but someone will -- no, the music companies do not all go out business.) Where's the optimum price to maximize profit? Where's the "fair" price?
I'm playing with mostly because these questions affect nearly every discretionary purchase we make. Music CD's are just among the more irritating items.
This article is a joke. His conclusions are no more sensible than thos of the RIAA. The only thing that is true from the stats is that cd sales are down after 10 years of growth in sales. The reasons are more complicated than either side will admit. Both the economy and piracy are factors. Saying piracy isn't a factor is delusional. Saying piracy is the only reason is equally delusional.
Vote for Pedro
It is legit. This Google search shows that website linked directly from websites of 4 states' AG offices.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
I think what you really mean is that there is a relative benefit in time cost of stealing vs. buying, not that stealing does not have a time cost.
Everyone agrees that the RIAA could profit in all sorts of ways by taking advantage of this fact. Downloadable albums? Sure. Why doesn't the RIAA do this? Because any fuckhead can set up his own music download site, and nobody needs the RIAA record companies to distribute music anymore. Everything that the RIAA says is corporate PR bullshit that people, for some inexplicable reason, take at face value.
Well, *they* are lawyers.
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
My first suggestion is The Disco Biscuits . Incredible band that fuses rock and electronica (mostly trance but some DnB) for an unbelievable live experience. Mp3s are available on their site for free download and they actively support and encourage their fanbase to freely trade their live shows. Definitely worth checking out.
The music industry is a funny market thanks to the cartel that exists.
,if not less, than a release from a band who will be lucky to sell 5 CDs in their career.
If one looks at a different market like DVD players you see something a whole lot different. A Sony player costs a whole lot more than an Apex player, yet both sell and make a profit. Consumers are willing to pay more for what they preceive as value. Some are willing to pay the higher rents while others are not. Both companies win.
Music, on the other hand, is different. A hot new release from a multiplatium band costs the same
I am personally willing to pay $18 -> $22(CDN) for a group who I know and already like. I assume that the new release will have the quality that I am looking for. However, I have no desire to blow $20 on a group that I have never heard of before or only has had one release. I would be more impulsive if they cost only 1/2 what a major band costs.
A quick look at the music availible at a local store has U2's latest greatest hits CD on for $14CDN. It is infact the cheapest CD in the entire new release area yet it is also the number one seller for that store. Do you think that Sony would be willing to sell a DVD player for $98CDN while APEX charges $300? (Assume the Sony is better even if you don't think that is the case). When compared to any other market, the pricing in the music industry makes about as much sense as a pet rock.
Lawyers and executives and musicians and record shop owners and .....
I was kidding, anyway.
Let's see... The economy is in the toilet and the prices of their products are grossly inflated. Many people prefer to eat, keep a roof over their heads and close on their backs over paying 20 bucks for a couple of songs that they like.
Could this be part of the reason that their sales are down?? Nah, must be the pirating...
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
There is more unfairness. The plaintiff attorneys general have to release their (your) rights to sue, and there is a consent decree (injunction) that says the companies have to stop fixing prices, but only for a period of 5-10 years depending on the type of business practice involved. Then the defendants could (presumably) resume using Minimum Advertised Prices and other allegedly unfair business practices as alleged in the Third Amended Complaint.
If Slashdot readers really wanted to throw sand in the gears of the record companies, and if upfront money for legal expenses could be raised, the settlement agreement between the state AGs and the distributors says that if 500,000 people "opt out" of the settlement then the settlement is void and the lawsuit goes forward!
Suppose 500,000 or some large number of people opted out, hired lawyers, and demanded 1) more than $20; 2) a consent decree of longer duration; 3) removal of the clause that cuts off payments if too many claims are filed; and/or 4) the right to use peer-to-peer music sharing services as a remedy!
Again, (IAAL and I have to recite these words, sorry) this is not legal advice nor an advertisement nor a solicitation for legal services.
I agree 100%. Sometimes I can spend an entire afternoon trying to get a complete album. If I could download the complete album from the artist's website for 5 bucks, DRM or not, I would.
if anyone could get a hold of the RIAA mailing list, then publish this, I bet a few major media outlets will do some pieces on this.
No matter what the RIAA does to shamelessly promote the piracy issue, people who illegally download songs are no better. As I've said several times before, a very efficient way to ellicit a change in behavior is to change your own. Stop playing the game. Walk away. Forget the music produced by the RIAA members. Don't buy it, don't steal it...just forget it. What can the RIAA do? Can it pass laws forcing consumers to purchase a certain number of CD's per year? No...the fact is that it can't do anything but change its business model. Rest assured, the current m.o. of stealing and justifying it with a heavy dose of rationalization will accomplish nothing.
You say "monopoly" I say "trust", you say "cartel" I say "conglomerate". Let's call the whole thing off.
. . .
Okay, I have no idea if they're any good. I just figured there had to be such a band, and found them with a quick search. I didn't even go to the trouble of listening to the MP3s they have posted. Someone give a listen and let me know, 'kay?
- Stop buying music from the big 5 members of the RIAA (Sony, etc.) that essentially belongs to popular but truly "garbage of the month" purported to be hip, fresh, etc. --from any source.
- Only buy CDs where there is quality music (your definition not mine) throughout the whole album.
- Buy independent labels that have good reputations for how they treat their talent, or better yet
- see if you can find a way to buy from the artists directly or through a direct distribution medium -- i.e. artist to distributor to you, no big five profit
- Send a snail mail to any local radio station playing crap music from the big 5, suggesting that they play the better music indie labels and suggesting that you'll change your listening habits to their competitor's station if they don't.
Want to make it hurt even more?- Send a copy of each one of the radio station letters to the big 5 studios every time your selection has caused the indie labels make money and the big 5 didn't make a nickel.
- Send a copy to MTV explaining that you change the channel every time the crap music's video comes on.
- Maybe send even more copies to the NYT, LA Times, Washington Post etc. Bury the RIAA companies with exposure in the mass media via snail mail barrages and see if they can maintain the same kind of cartel pricing and crap music peddling in the glare of major media. Then you might just get their attention.
Still interested? or is standing up to the corruption just too much bother?...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
I was half kidding. Ok, maybe one third, but that's as low as I go.
Well, I think to a large part two of those four tow the party line. Perhaps the artists do so out of frustration involved with the nature of the business as it exists now, and there unwillingness to be screwed a little more, after the record companies were so complete in the first place. Being so close to corporate machinery isn't for the faint of heart, their contracts might not be the stuff of child labor laws, but still. Generating a hundred million dollars for a lable to find out after all is said and done, you've managed to dig yourself a million into the hole, certainly may cause one to entertain ideas of joining charlton heston's fan club. They're forced to choose between fighting a system they can't beat, or demanding their fans support the system they themselves wish was gone. Record shop owners...they're just concerned about meeting targets and conforming to more or less arbitrary standards.
Executives and lawyers, the only difference is the executive went on to get an MBA.
But jokes often touch on an element of truth. If lawyers were almost universally ethical people, the jokes wouldn't be funny. They'd be random unconnected remarks. Priest molestation jokes weren't funny until it spilled out rather publicly, with a great many victims seeking redress. (Sure it's a numbers game, there are a lot of priests and lawyers available to stumble in that special spotlight reserved for the ignoble, compared to say astronauts. But you still don't hear that many engineer - child molestor remarks, even after than van damm girl.)
Sometimes cartels and monopolies can be useful, oil and diamonds, for example. But more often than not, they're villians. There are others more deserving of any spare concern I sometimes find myself with than billionairs swindinling the all the little guys they can, seeking government subsidies, and the occasional millionaire. I'm just not a love and sunshine type of guy.
(I also tend to think its 'nice' to not add in the +1 karma whore bonus so the conversation collapses for other people, after it's started to drift a little.)
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
I doubt there are many musicians wild about the labels, but I had to talk to one before I realized they liked Napster far less. Napster just seemed like a good deal to the rest of use because, well, it was fun and cheap. Napster's gone, piracy's growing. (I laughed at the RIAA effort to spoof P2P transfers with bogus files -- fire with fire?)
:)
I can think of few contexts where monopoly is good, other than small-town hospitals, the water department, stuff like that. Don;t get me started on thos diamond fiends; I only figured it out after buying an engagement ring. (That plus the blood diamond thing.)
If lawyers were almost universally ethical people, the jokes wouldn't be funny.
Quick, name a group of universally ethical people!
I hope you didn't say "priest."
Let alone "software engineer." (eek!)
The jokes are pretty harmless, but I think lawyers are just the contemporary group to target. Not that many years ago it was doctors (think "golf" and "take two aspirin") -- why aren't doctors funny now? Most of the racist and ethnic jokes are taboo now. Sexist, even blonde jokes, too. I know of plenty of engineer jokes, but most people don't think of engineers as funny. Funny-strange, yes; funny-haha, no. What do engineers do anyway? The jokes there are all about how they prefer talking frogs to dates. (My best friend is one, honest. An engineer, not a frog.)
The lawyer jokes are fine; I just reserve the right to retaliate with deadly wit... Stupid hateful stereotypes, well that's ignorance more than humor, and reflects badly on the teller. There's a sort of mind that sees intricate conspiracies everywhere that makes me wary.
The +1 observation is a good one, but who the hell skims at less than +3?
stealing still has cost. Most notable is time cost -- it takes time to locate and download a song you want.
Hmm. Another interesting point.
Now, for accounting purposes, what dollar value do we put on that time? How much does your average computer-literate thief charge per hour anyway? Do you have to withhold taxes?
You are partly right that they will "compete with piracy on a price level" when the cost of the disk is less than the "cost" of the other methods. However, people often value their own time very cheaply; and, technically, stealing is against the law, so merchants shouldn't have to out-compete it. I know you're speaking in practical terms, not legal. I'd like to see how much online custom disk-ordering would costs (the quality would be higher), esp. for legacy stuff with a current promotional budget of $0.00.
Also, is there a Netflix for music CD's? (Besides my local public library, which has a surprising variety of stuff. Support your libraries!)
A. One is a desert island filled with extinct carnivorous reptiles. The other is a movie.
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
I have this irrational fear that all these new file sharing programs install spyware. Honest, haven't infringed on one copyright since napster shut down. Of course, I don't think I've bought any CDs since then either...
In order to participate in the settlement you have to provide last 4 digits of your social security number. In the US those four digits are used by most companies as a de facto password. The info on the signup page is a great first step in attempting to impersonate someone. Can't wait until someone breaks into THAT database...
which was rejected. Guess it wasn't newsworthy enough, huh?
I believe I provided my own loophole with "almost". :)
... I think you can guess the punch line. Rube Goldberg contraptions could even be considered engineering jokes of a sort. Why I'm of the opinion the funniest joke Dennis Miller ever told required at least a passing knowledge of quantum mechanics.
:).
:)
Maybe I enjoy a slightly rougher crowd, but rascist and sexist jokes are as popular as ever, they just have to have that new joke smell. We're very egalitarian, we hate everything equally. (Unless it's sweet).
I know this is going to bite me in the butt some day. I've so far managed to hold my tongue. But I can't for the life of me understand the deal with diamonds. It's a shiny rock. It just sits there in a setting and sparkles. And then that's not good enough, some poor african guy has to nearly kill himself digging it out at 130 degrees F. It can't be one of the man made diamonds which are better, and flouresce under ultraviolate light. Why? Because that's not romantic? One of these days, I'm sure I'll end up blurting out the origins of the engagement ring, which will, conicidenatally, preceed The Winter of Great Loneliness, I'm sure. At least with the idea of a gold ring, I can get behind the symbolism. But a little nub of tetragonal carbon? I guess I just don't get it. Not that I've thought about it at all, obviously.
You can usually trust a software engineer who uses ada.
Funnily enough, my favorite book on humor is Mathematics and Humor by John Allen Paulos. It's not as dry as it could be. (Someday I'd like to find a book that looks at the biology of humor, from a evolutionary and neurological perspective. I'm pretty sure dogs enjoy some kinds of practical jokes, for instance.)
I'm pretty sure lawyers are almost out of the lime light. It's going to be managers, accountants, and maybe the media in the spotlight for a while, I suspect. Of course if that missle defence crap ends up being the boondoggle it's threatening to be, there will probably be some decent engineer jokes, particularly if there's a significant mishap. Or if the next teacher to be shot into space follows the last. But so far most of the engineer jokes I know deal with pragmatism gone awry. A doctor an engineer and a lawyer go hunting
Stereotypes are useful, and inevitable. It's just how we quickly tease a set of expectations out of very complicated matters. But like any good thing, they can go too far. Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to judge them so harshly.
who the hell skims at less than +3?
"Just gimme the conclusions and the highlights." Spoken like a true executive. If you don't have the key to the fancy washroom with that strange water fountain next to the toilet yet, expect it soon.
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
A tidbit -- note I wrote "stupid hateful stereotypes" not just stereotypes. Reliance on stereotypes tends to reflect a dense, plodding intellect. Throw in the hateful and it's not about humor any more, it's about aggression and fear. I have to shake my head at people who complain all the good victims are getting protected by political correctness. You can still make the jokes, they're just not funny any more.
Chris Rock does an amazing job of walking the line between tasteless and very funny, entertaining both audiences black and white. He commented he spinds his jokes differently with black audiences, and can leave out a lot of set-up. Clever guy.
Oh yeah -- the ABM thing already is a boondoogle. Just not a well-funded one. Imagine the laughs we'll have when a missile just sails right through it and takes out San Francisco. Although it won't be a missile, it'll bea Ryder truck. (Why SF? Because I live on the East Coast and am tired of us getting all the fun.)
Re the diamond -- buy the stupid ring, but consider another stone. Donate the price difference to deflect suggestions you're just cheap. Share some lit on the blood diamonds and she may not want one. My wife and I might sell the diamond she has some day, hopefully before DeBeers loses its grip and price plummet. At the moment the damage is done, and no one even understands our concerns (if we'd say we just want our money back, they'd be OK with it; if we then donated it to, say, African health care, then we'd be sanctimonious).
PS: Even gem-grade natural diamonds are not that valuable and would cost far less without DeBeers' market control. The reason they fear manmade diamonds is that they can't stockpile and monopolize them; so they come up with the fluorescence test as appearance no longer identifies "fakes." Did you see you can get your dear departed relatives or pets memorialized as a diamond? Imagine the romantic possibilities while avoiding developing world political unpleasantries. Lots of folks want to give her grandmother's engagement ring; you can give her grandmother.
That is awesome! Do you buy your wheat online or from a local source? I'm totally going to get a grinder and a bag of wheat. I could go for some real, homemade whole-wheat bread... Is winter wheat better than summer? Any website for more information? I did find wheatandgrain.com, but I'm not sure if these are good prices or not.
I know, getting way offtopic, but your email address wasn't listed. heh..
It also takes time to locate the CD in the store, wait through the checkout line to purchase it, get through all the anti-shoplifting crap they wrap it in and even then, you don't know if the CD will work in your player of choice (and I'd rather not restart the arguement of WHY it won't work in my player of choice).
I also agree that lower priced CDs would reduce or eliminate the dependance on Kazaa and other P2P programs, but what do you do if your particular choice in music isn't on the Industry's release list? I mean, seriously, when was the last time you saw "Dead Skunk In The Middle of the Road" in a record store?
I'm sure there are many people who utilize Kazaa (et al) to obtain music the Industry decided no one wanted anymore. Is it truly piracy if the Industry does not wish to release this music? They obviously aren't losing money on it...
It sounds like the best solution is lower cost CDs for the popular stuff, and a vast database of music that a person can pick through and order either online for download, or on a "personal" CD from the company.
If the RIAA *IS* a cartel, and all these recording companies are in collusion, why can't they merge their libraries so we *THE CUSTOMERS* can best obtain the music we wish to pay for?
Michael
reserving my $0.02 until they wise up
The interesting thing here is that as the RIAA members' sales decline (if that is really happening), it's pretty obvious that independant labels' sales may be increasing. In fact, I think it's quit likely that that is what is happening.
As independant labels are selling more, RIAA members are selling less, and the RIAA is telling everyone that 'sales' or 'profits' are off, without qualifying that with "RIAA members'".
And the absolutely stunning thing is this quote:
How could they possibly prove that?
Hello little man. I will destroy you!
I would still say even those have their place in humor. Stuff like why I can't say "nigger" (not that I have a need to) based in stereotypes. A useful one imho. Upon seeing the freakish, glare eminating from my nearly translucet flesh, people know I'm not part of the community that can use that word. (I could be, but I'm not.) So I am not allowed. Because if I'm not a member, the assumption is that if I used that particular perjoritive, I mean them harm, and I put them at risk. Quite rightly so, particularly now, in such a situation, I'd almost certainly be a poser, but the risks are so great, it's best to act as if the more dangerous and less likely case is true. Same kind of thing if someone is walking alone and they see a group of urban youth heading towards them. Their almost certainly wrong in their negative assumptions, but the one time they're right makes up for all the times their wrong.
Or the stereotype of urban youth at the movies. I've seen that one in action, but it was ok, the movie was Ali, and the groups shouting back and forth at each other was far more entertaining. How they made a movie about such an interesting guy so painfully boring will mystify me forever. Jamie Fox was really good in it though.
Back to hateful and stupid. If you know they're untrue, it can be funny to say someone you know conforms to one, as invectives between friends. There was a really good one on Tough Crowd with Colin Quinn the other night. (It's a show were four comics and colin insult each other and discuss current events in an informal bare knuckled fashion) An irish guy, a hispanic guy, an italian, a european mutt, and a black guy. One of the comics makes a remark attribiting a black stereotype to the italian, who says, "That's blacks you idiot." To which the mutt replies, "Oh like there's a difference." Funny, at least to me.
I agree that stereotypes come from a wierd emotional place. But instead of trying to wall them off somehow, and expect everyone to do the same, I'd say I advocate using them, always tempered with that higher intellect we've been blessed with. When they get out of hand now days, they're definately more humorous than dangerous. Racists and their kin, sure they're a little scary, a little sad, but they're also really stupid. That always makes me laugh. But deep down, they're acting out of fear, because they're cowards. That makes them a little less scary.
But Chris does rock. He was always really funny, but when he relaxed and lost that self consciousness he had early on in SNL, he's been flirting with greatness.
With the ABM think I try to console myself that it will spin off spectacular civillian technologies that will make the whole kooky mess worthwhile. At the very least the lightweight interceptor should help make a lighter version of the deltas (eventually), cheaper space shots arent all bad. Maybe all the money they pour into the airborn laser will yield the breakthrough that makes inertial confinement fusion viable. (I'm pretty certain inertial confinment is the one where they zap a hydrogen pellet with a monsterous laser.) I doubt it. But who knows. I wouldn't have predicted an obscure device built to crack codes or calculate artillary tables would have completely remade the world in a few decades either.
I find that lifegem stuff pretty creepy. Supposedly those guys rolling their own diamonds are certain they'll be able to make them with out the flourescense (which would make me just a little sad), hence that stupid laser inscription system I assume. But I know some diamonds flouresce naturally under uv, the Hope diamond does iirc, so that test isn't fool proof. I should figure out what her birth stone is now, since they change that periodically. Good advice, thanks.
You could try donating some money to a pac that tries to influance how much the US spends on humanitarian aid. If you give to a charity, it may end up there after paying some overhead anyway. And the hundred dollars you give might move a hundred thousand. The state of africa being what it is, it would probably end up there, especially with the US trying to cultivate more allies.
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
Yes, what you say needs context. White calls black nigger, bad idea, brings up 500 years of history. Black calls black nigger, may be affectionate (or a way of saying you're trash). Black call white nigger, puzzlement.
:). He's good at walking the line between funny and not, and is trying to reveal some social truth, too. Oddly I've heard semi-racist white cops love him. He also knows to adjust his routine for white or black audiences.
... I thought the wagons were padded!)
;-) I can't say that I "get it," but I'm aware of a lot more than I used to be. And whereas before I might have debated speaking up at the usual dumb-ass nigger jokes, now I don't have the option: they're talking about my f'ing family! (One of the thing I love is that white people will confide in me their thoughts about race ... then I confide mine. Heh-heh. Landmine!)
... so what does that make you? When in doubt, pass the buck. He decided on black person, and went dancing away saying, yay, I'm a black person! (Maybe you had to be there. He's a funny kid.)
Chris Rock I haven't seen that much of, though what I have had some of the few lines I ever quote. An early one was his career-changing role as "political correspondent" for Politically Incorrect; from the Buchanan convention he reported, "It's just like Cheers, except nobody knows my name and nobody's glad I came."
Asked on NPR why it was OK for him to use racial cracks no white comic could get away with, he said it's like your mother calling you an idiot -- you know she's just messing around (depending on your family
Stereotypes -- I think they're generally none too bright, but worst are the ones designed to establish power or superiority of one group over another. Even well-meaning whites tend to be intensely clueless on the pain of stereotypes because of their immunity; so they come up with bright lines like, "Oh, I don't think of you as black." Thoughtless on one side of the conversation, devastating on the other.
Nigger is particularly funky example. I think saying "N-word" when trying to be polite is weird. It just underscores the power of the word and whit unwillingness to deal with racial discomfort -- more than sparing anyone's feelings. How many racial epithets can you think of that have a magic code-word? To use the word "politely" is to rob it of its power. The gay community figured that out a while ago. None of this means I make a practice of talking about it, but if it's relevant then call a spade a spade. (I still haven't figured out if that one's racist. I didn't realize "paddy wagon" was problematic
My wife and in-laws are all black (seems to run in the family), I'm white, it's been a subtle adjustment. It is an odd experience to be the only white person in the room, something she experiences all the time. (No, they didn't mug me.
Last summer my 6 y.o. asks me what color he is while were looking at a display about slavery at the Lincoln Memorial. I was like, um, can we talk about this later. But I asked him what color is your mom, and your dad
I think you can tell I don't take myself too seriously.
On the diamonds, I just scratch my head. Sapphires are cool. But where do they come from, anyway? The thing is to talk to your fiancee over time, people do adjust their preferences if given new information and time to think it over. Have you priced diamond rings? That may affect your thinking, too!
I guess it's the engineer in me. It's ok for me if things don't work, or don't work reliably. All that's important, for me, is for failure to be predictable. So while you see stereotypes as far too inaccurate, I see them as fast! and their modes of failure predictable and avoidable (for a good engineer of course :))
Like I know, in retrospect one of the things that affects my views on race are when I was in 5th grade there were two black kids, Freed and Rashard who, independant of each other, would just wail on me and never got busted for it. Needless to say, it doesn't take long before what isn't always true, certainly is true enough. (It's worth noting that I am TERRIBLE at remembering names, but I remember theirs.) For whatever reason, they didn't end up in the same middle school I did. And this other black kid, kenny (probably kennith now) got in a fight for something I said, which pissed him off, which surprised the hell out of me. For whatever reason, nothing came of it, and we ended up walking to school together and hanging out. Come to find out, part of it was white kids used to wail on him where he came from. But I had a ton of sweet GI Joe stuff and he had MTV, so it was all good.
Then what I think finally led me to my current view was when I was working retail to pay for college. I knew that black people frequently had a bad experience shopping. So I tried extra hard to hit the theoretical ideal of service, so on balance it would average out. Then I found out one of the things that black people dislike, is being doted on by an overly attentive person. So how do in the function of my job serve them in the way they wished to be served? That's acctually a very difficult problem to solve in moments. You'd really need to watch someone for a little bit, and everyone universally finds being watched like that at least a little threatening. So I decided it was a problem I can't solve, so I won't bother trying. Just do my job the same, and if some people take it the wrong way, well that really is their problem.
Ultimately I think that people making decisions based on race, that also correlate, even if realatively, loosly with race, does in part validate the use of stereotypes, and makes them unavoidable.
I think 'spade is a spade' is ok as many people assume you're talking about suits of cards now. Paddy wagons reffered to them being full of irish drunks right? Outside of Boston, or other strongly irish communities I don't think anyone, including the irish really give a crap. Irish drunks are a fun stereotype, I'm in the neighborhood of 1\4 irish so I think I'm covered on that one.
It's funny, and underscores my own level of self involvement. But if I happen to be in a situation where I'm in close proximity to a number of black guys, I obsess on how critically they're estimating my level of racism. Which is funny, since they're not likely to be thinking about me at all if we're not interacting in some way. As far as Gladd goes, they probably wouldn't be my biggest fan. I picked up the habbit of using gay, lame, or weak interchangably. And they have better publicists than the Polio Survivors of America.
Want to make a bunch of preinternet college guys heads turn, have the British guy say, "Hey, I'm going outside to smoke a fag."
Kids are all pretty cool. But the idea of taking care of one, since I'm fully aware of how much of a goof I am, scares the hell out of me. And seriousness is seriously overrated.
Sapphires are single crystals alumina (Al2O3), alumina is white, as the clear crystals that make it up scatter the light. Rolex and some other high end watches use sapphire faces (because it's very hard), which are completely clear. I think they're clear to UV too which is why they're used in optics. But the blue sapphires everyone associates the gem stones with come from all over. Alumina is really common. They get their blue color from being either oxygen poor or rich, I can't remember right now....it could be nitrogen too, but I'm pretty sure its oxygen. I believe the most sought after ones are the yoggle(sp?) sapphires of montana.
She's at the dropping hint stage. I did look briefly once. The pitch I had considered was why not go simple and put the money saved on rings and all that other stuff into a house. But I'm still at the undecided stage, as is she. She just wants to 'move forward.' We need to get on the same page. But I'm normally a go along to get along guy, I believe the technical term is 'whipped'. So she's likely to be surprised, and surprise can be fun, or very very not fun.
I've found a metastable state I like, even though it might not be ideal, it's always a gamble to destabilize it. Maybe it will come to a new better equilibrium, maybe it will disintigrate.
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
A couple of trivialities:
I learned about "paddy wagon" in Chicago, which is well-known for St. Patrick's Day drunkenness. With that and spades, I figure if I'm going to insult someone, I want to do it intentionally.
On gems -- the aluminum oxide base is called corundum and can be either ruby or sapphire. The tidbit I know about domestic corundum is that it was used to make the finishing touch on the National Monument, a cap made of aluminum, at the time the hot new metal and expensive as heck.
On Al and corrosion. (I'll read most anything.)
What is the difference between a Turing machine and the modern computer?
It's the same as that between Hillary's ascent of Everest and the
establishment of a Hilton on its peak.
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...