Diamonds & the RIAA

eaglebtc writes "After reading the previously-posted article on cdfreaks.com about the rapid erosion of cheap CDR's, I found another equally scintillating write-up about the economics of music CDs written by Richard Menta, founder of MP3 Newswire. Sure, we've all heard the whining about how CDs are so expensive, but Mr. Menta takes a unique perspective on the issue by comparing the RIAA to DeBeers. He argues that both companies control distribution of products in their respective markets with an iron fist, and by so doing can artificially raise prices. Coincidentally, the bubble is beginning to burst in both markets: the RIAA is fighting against the uprisings of P2P software, and the diamond cartel's lawyers are losing sleep over the $5 diamonds produced in a lab."

Comments

Synthetic diamonds

[Eric(b0mb)Dennis]

...are 'too' perfect, and still (sort-of) detectable when looking at earth-mined stones..

De Beers has been trying to 'educate' the diamond masses about these 'heretic' stones, but eventually, this will bankrupt them

Now, as for the RIAA, CD-Rs and file-sharing won't kill the music industry. I wouldn't even expect a drop in sale-price, just more and more bureaucratic nonsense.

DeBeers never promised

[BWJones]

However, unlike the RIAA, DeBeers never promised that the prices of their diamonds would come down when market forces and economies of scale entered. Remember when CD's first became available? I can remember saving my change so I could afford some of the first CD's that came onto the market at what.....$15-20? Did the price on those ever come down? No.

Re:DeBeers never promised

[AnotherBlackHat]

member when CD's first became available? I can remember saving my change so I could afford some of the first CD's that came onto the market at what.....$15-20? Did the price on those ever come down? No.

One of us must have a very bad memory then,
because I remember the uproar when they raised CD prices back to $15, after they had lowered them to $10.
They said that they didn't sell any more CDs at the lower price, so there was no point in charging less.
Back then they were at least honest about just being in it for the money.

-- this is not a .sig

It's more about awareness than technology

[nanojath]

Even more so than print publishing, for a long time music production has been available on a massively scalable level to the independent artist. (Someone can go off about how much it really costs to produce an album, because your cousin's girlfriend's dad is in the biz and... Okay, you can record an album that somebody will burn to CD from anywhere from tens of dollars to hundreds of thousands. Doesn't change the fact that 99% of what the conventional industry produces sounds like it was extruded from a tube.)

Diamonds are a rotten analogy because it suggests that, up to now and the magic golden age of P2P, the publishing industry posessed all of the real music. The only thing that really distinguishes their product is that it is so obvious. If you never want to buy a major label release again but want new music all the time it really is not hard at all to do. It just involves a little more work.

There are two ways in which the internet may create a revolution for independent musicians. One is by offering a viable replacement for radio. The second is by exposing music to the distributed filtering techniques of mass exposure and moderation that the internet essentially gave rise to the invention of. File sharing as such strikes me as something that will be much of an adjunct to the real 21st century revolution of music - assuming it really happens because it sure hasn't yet.

Re:Labor Of Love

[rsilvergun]

If you look at the history of the 'tradition' it wasn't started to make sure they guy had money/commitment, it was a marketing ploy by the diamond insdustry. That whole 'three month's salary' stuff is just a load of crap to make these bastards rich. Point is there really is no long standing diamond giving tradition, and the only thing backing up that 'tradition' is marketing. A $5 diamond can be marketed as well as a $15,000 one.

And besides, have you ever been married? With or without diamond wives freakin' expensive!

Re:Artificial Scarcity

[Telastyn]

Energy.

All these things need power, and all of these things will be developed before good solar power harnessing is implimented [thus practically eliminating that scarcity]

"Intellectual Property" is forever(?)

[Uncle Op]

Last I knew, you couldn't copyright a diamond. But you could hold on to it, and, if you didn't let it get stolen, damaged, or lost, you could sell it to someone else. So it could be a one time inheritance boon if your estate is otherwise meager and your heirs aren't sentimental. Which is why the Diamond Folk work in sentiment, too, so you don't see every dead woman's engagement ring on the aution block. And even if she and her son wouldn't mind, how many women want to wear Mommy-in-law's rocks? Instead, folk go out and buy a new diamond.

CDs aren't forever, but the force of copyright means that if you cut a Big Hit(tm), you and your heirs can have a recurring revenue stream for a long time, along with all the fat, balding, over-40 WASPs who are the bulk of the middlemen pushing your work. So RIAA wants to hawk as many "legit" jewels as they can without someone undercutting them. That you can buy some DRM'd songs and can't transfer them to a new system. Hard to find anyone against the concept of playing a "used" MP3 on their system, right?

The Problem with Music

[frission]

Here's a great article written by Steve Albini on problems with the music industry...very revealing.

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

PS: Steve Albini for those that don't know was in many bands very influential to the Nirvana/Pearl Jam type bands of the day. Bands like Big Black and Shellac...then he turned to producing bands like Nirvana and Bush and others...

Re:They aren't so worried about $5 synthetics

[torpor]

They're worried about the yellow diamonds that are now capable of being reproduced, in extremely large sizes, in extremely good quality. These are not 'just' industrial diamonds - these are extremely high quality, extremely pure, large diamonds which can be grown by two different independent research groups right now, using extremely high pressure systems that have been in development for years.

The yellows are at the very top end of the scale, and are something DeBeers has been cultivating as a market for years - now they're reproducable, and lab-made yellows are higher quality than anything DeBeers can muster.

DeBeers deserves to go down. There is no better example of corporate evil.

Re:Labor Of Love

[Anonymous Coward]

For the record I am a girl, recently proposed to, who didn't ask for a diamond. In fact, I specifically asked that if he strongly desired to spend an outrageous amount of money on me, he could put a downpayment on a house, though I told him neither was neccessary. If a woman "wants you to spend a lot of money committing to her so she can trust you" you may want to reevaluate your relationship. Money doesn't equal love. Demonstrating knowledge of a woman's likes and dislikes (i.e. making her favorite meal for her, writing her a love song if she's into that sort of thing) is just as romantic, and in my opinion far better than throwing down a wad of cash at the jewelry store.

PS: My last boyfriend proposed with a very large diamond ring and I turned him down. The fact that he would get that for me was the final and quite a major signal that he didn't know much about me at all.

Re:The names may change, but

[pmz]

Uh. HOWTO would be appreciated.

We knew eachother for years before we got married. We are best friends, and jewelry is hardly high on our list of priorities. We'd rather spend the money on a dishwasher or furniture, anyway.

How is that so hard? Romantic idealism is overrated, IMO. I think long-term happiness is more easily obtained by fiscal responsibility, for example, than credit-supported fantasy. Perhaps I sound like an old fart, but that's just how I am.

Re:Market effects

[arnie_apesacrappin]

It's worth what you spend. The $5 ring is worth $5. And the $1000 ring is worth $1000

The only problem I have with that logic is that you cannot sell a diamond for (anywhere near) what you paid for it. Ignoring the setting and assuming you spent all the money on the stone, your $1000 ring will most likely bring you $150-$200. When I went to sell a diamond I found about three dealers in the entire US that specialize in non-estate used diamonds. I was lucky enough to get almost 60% of what I paid for my ring, but it was a lot of work.

Re:The names may change, but

[arnie_apesacrappin]

Did you see Bill Maher's newest comedy special? In it he discusses the methods used by the controlling groups in Africa to keep the villagers in the mines. He said that they go as far as to cut off the arms of small children to keep the adults working.

He then recounts the time he told this to one of his female friends. He describes her as one of the nicest people you could ever meet. After telling her that the soldiers/work masters actually cut off the arms of small children, she made a sad face and said, "Both arms?"

That shows you the power of diamonds.

This is gonna feel good...

[sillypixie]

Wow, it isn't like all us Slashdot posters are judgemental, or anything... As a GIRL who is a GEEK and relatively socially conscious, but also a DIAMOND owner, I guess I really represent the minority here (-: Let's see here: 1) Some smart women like diamonds. I swear. In fact, I know quite a few of them personally. 2) If you are really planning to meet girls based on their gem preferences, you are a LOSER. 3) Canadian diamonds are a very cool alternative - they come with a lasered serial number and logo on the girdle of the diamond - perfect for us tech-geek girls 4) I personally had no desire to have a diamond when we first started ring shopping, but it was my husband-to-be who felt it was a good idea - so don't give me all that bullshit that the guys can see through the marketing stuff, while the girls dreamily suck it all in. 5) I would take an artificial diamond over a real one in a second - a symbol of technological acheivement and science - that sparkles? It's perfect!