Bootlegged Music in Russia

True by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-20 17:33 · Score: 1, Insightful

If these things didn't cost so much and were worth the effort to earn money for them, piracy MIGHT drop but most likely not. Long live FOSS!

15 bucks by Coneasfast · 2004-10-20 17:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

15 bucks is a lot anywhere for a cd! personally, i don't think it's justified to spend that much on a cd that maybe has 1 or 2 songs worth listening too.

that's why i like online music stores where you can get singles for $1. something like this could really kick of in russia, not sure what the internet usage is over there though.

--
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.

Re:15 bucks by Morkano · 2004-10-20 17:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

that's why i like online music stores where you can get singles for $1. something like this could really kick of in russia,

$1 out of an average of $260/month income is still HUGE. The problem is it's way too expensive for them in general. Of course, if they lowered the prices for Russia, then we could just buy music and software there for peanuts, and the publishers would be fucked.

--
Victory or awesome!
Re:15 bucks by Z-MaxX · 2004-10-20 17:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

I truly can't understand why a blockbuster Hollywood movie with the world's most famous actors, thousands of special effects created by the world's most powerful supercomputers, and a credits list that takes 5-10 minutes just to scroll by on the screen normally costs about $15, while a CD, often with already-released songs, and requiring only a singer, guitarist, drummer, etc., and a sound technician, costs the same amount. *What is up with that?!*

--
Dr Superlove 300ml. I use my powers for awesome
Re:15 bucks by G-funk · 2004-10-20 18:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

Of course, if they lowered the prices for Russia, then we could just buy music and software there for peanuts, and the publishers would be fucked.

They're fucked anyway. And I say good riddance to them. What they did worked before the internet, but it doesn't now. They use mass media to control 13yo girls and buy popularity, they suffer when we use the same systems to get their content free. I'd sleep if there were never another new song recorded, there's so much out there I'll never come close to running out of new stuff to listen to. And the people who're in it for the music will still produce, and the people who want to see live acts, and want to support the acts they like, will still pay.

--
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
Re:15 bucks by Seumas · 2004-10-20 18:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm not sure what portion of a DVD's cost goes to cover promotion, but 50% of the cost of a CD does. So $10 of that $20 CD you might have just bought will go to cover things like apperances on MTV's TRL, appearances, radio play and other forms of advertising, which are usually handled by the record labels. In addition to that, the labels take cuts in other direct and indirect ways so that something like 70% of the points (a point is about 80 cents) on an album go to the label. The artist themselves usually get one or two points - so from that expensive album, they're getting 80 cents to $1.60. The cost to manufacture the CD and put the music on it and print the sleeve and wrap it is about 1 point.

The reason they can afford to make DVDs for so cheap is probably because they've already factored the cost of promotion and other expenses into the movie itself and that is usually recovered in the box office long before it hits store shelves.

That and the fact that I'm sure they've conducted expensive research that has surely shown consumers are willing to spend six hours worth of pay on a CD or DVD, but not anything more than that. $20 for a CD and $30 for a DVD might be the price break after which people begin to stop and think "wait, do I really want to dish out this much of my income for a movie I'll only watch one time?".

I would find the cost of both DVD an CD to be acceptable if you were paying for the right to posess and view the content whenever you wanted for the rest of your life. But if your media is lost, stolen, damaged or wears out (or there hardware to play it is no longer made), then it's a rip off to have to pay for it all over again.

Just imagine you're some Star Wars dork and you payd $30 for three star wars movies on VHS. Then you spend $30 on each for laser disc. Then you spend $30 each for DVD. Then someone stole those DVDs or they were damaged while you were moving out of your dorm and you had to spend another $30. That's $480 on just three star wars movies over time - and your life isn't even half over year. Just wait until the next "big amazing format" comes out and you have to upgrade again if you ever want to watch those movies. :)

The best thing I've ever done is just give up buying DVDs and CDs and going to the theater. I have far more money in my pocket and can get more entertainment for the buck by purchasing used books at half the price.
Re:15 bucks by tobes · 2004-10-20 18:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

Because, either way you're paying for the marketing. The costs to manufacture either product is probably negligible compared to the amount the entertainment industry spends marketing the end result.

Getting on MTV, "music" magazines (think Rolling Stone), the radio etc. isn't cheap.
Re:15 bucks by Spy+Hunter · 2004-10-20 18:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

Econ 101 will also teach you that competition steps in to drive down prices to the production price point. You don't see that happening though, and not for lack of competition either (there are plenty of independents out there). Your Econ 101 lesson is a little simplistic. The real reason prices don't fall is that copyright produces artificial monopolies, disrupting normal capitalist economic processes. One company controls the market for Britney Spears music, and they alone set the price for Britney Spears. Combine that with effective marketing to essentially create a market for Britney Spears music, and you have a monopolized market where you can charge nearly whatever you want. Of course this is also a simplistic explanation, since copycat artists can substitute to some degree. But this is how the music companies work: they use marketing to create a market for the work of a single artist (the more specific to the artist, the better) which they hold a monopoly on thanks to copyright.

--
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
Re:15 bucks by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-20 18:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

0.80 to 1.60 goes to the artist? Please. My friend's dad has put out 16 cd's since the late 60's/early 70's. He's still putting them out today, and he gets about 10 cents per album. This is common from others I've talked to in the industry. Luckily for him, he's just one guy. A band of 4 people have to split those profits. Selling a million records does not make you a whole lot of money.

Interestingly enough, it's the shows and appearances that make them the most cash, not the records. Unfortunately, you can't sell many records without the backing of a big label because of the stronghold they have on the industry. Most artists would give their records away for free if they could gain more fans that way, then they would make even more off shows and appearances. But the record label charges for the albums, and it's impossible to get radio play on any popular station if you're independent. The record industry is a scam, and all signed artists know it. That's why you see some artists starting their own labels, both to make more for themselves, and to sign other bands and do the same to them. Dre, Eminem, Metallica... they all have their own labels, and they are all rolling in cash. But you've gotta be a superstar before you start a credible label or you will be ignored.

It would be nice if some big names that have made their money got together and started a campaign to take down the labels, or at least start some kind of change for the better. Maybe come together and start their own label that didn't screw their talent and is not part of the 4 letter organization that we all love to hate.
Re:15 bucks by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-20 19:06 · Score: 1, Insightful

Supply and demand. Movies and music are completely different forms of entertainment; you might watch a movie a handful of times in your lifetime (to paraphrase Steve Jobs), while you might listen to a given song many thoudands of times over.

Erase from your mind completely the misguided but popular notion that what producers charge for their goods is directly related to the costs of producing that good. Producers charge whatever price will bring in the most revenue. There is an indirect relation, of course, when competition between firms comes into play, driving profits towards zero; but as I'm sure you're aware the mainstream music industry is not exactly the most vibrantly competitive market in existence.
Re:15 bucks by Seumas · 2004-10-20 19:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

My understanding (this was broken down to me by a radio guy, so he might not know quite as much as a label guy) is that artists almost aways get at least one point and sometimes two. But the artist still has their own expenses that have to come out of that $.80 to $1.60.

If you're an average band and you pull 1 point (80 cents) per album, you are still going to have to pay your lawyer, travel expenses, equipment, studio time and sometimes even your own videos out of that. But from the standpoint of the album points, it's one or two points.

Stealing music is stealing music, and we're all adults here. We don't need to sugar coat that. But at the same time, when an artist walks away with a dime out of every $16-$20 album (or even ends up broke in some instances after all expenses) - it's hard to call that anything but theft and strong-arming, either.

There are a lot of similarities between the mafia and record labels.
Re:15 bucks by flechette_indigo · 2004-10-20 20:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

Being adults we also know the difference between copyright infringement and theft, yes? Also, being adults, we know that property/ip-law-enforcement is a convention with only limited utility and not some kind of holy doctrine and that it is quite ok to bend, mangle, or kick it to the curb if it seems like the convenient thing to do. Of course the primary property-holders/propoganda-spewers would say otherwise, but we take what they say with only a grain of salt, right?
Re:15 bucks by EzInKy · 2004-10-20 20:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

what's OUR excuse in the US?

Same as in Russia, cost (what a person has to sacrifice) over perceived value (how a person benefits from a product). I'll lay you odds that if legal DVDs/CDs were sold there for the same price as the bootlegs few if any bootlegs would've been sold.

--
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Re:15 bucks by a+whoabot · 2004-10-20 22:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

Okay, so they wouldn't get to finance the sequel. So? So they would be out of jobs. So? They would work somewhere else. Who cares? They do, but that's their problem. Everyone doesn't have to worry because they'll be out of jobs. You do what you want: don't buy their products out of charity if you don't want to. And the masses have made it quite clear that they do not want to.

Do you think that people have some default position of caring for others? The vast, vast, vast majority do not. Scarcely a soul lifts a single finger to help, in any way, the hordes of children rotting on shitty cots in Africa. And you expect these same people to worry about Hollywood movie makers and other "content producers" getting paid? Ha!

Or, are people to worry, for their own good? To worry that they won't have these wonderful movies and music to watch and to listen to no longer if they keep these terribly self-destructive actions up? Equally preposterous. Every modern consumer knows that with the production of a product comes, as well, the production of its desire. No movie is without its trailer, no album is without its hype, no hip new clothing brand is without its magazine spreads. People go to watch the Lord of the Rings because they're told to go watch Lord of the Rings. (Except for a few because they're fans or whatever, something not contained in the structure on production-consumption. And you'll notice that those are the people that pay for the DVD, that pay for the show. Just like the fans of bands who buy the albums, because you're a fan and that's what you do, you're not just buying a product.)

This is the advice of everyone in the business of selling shit: you have to tell people they want it. You have to persuade them. Who in their right mind is going to pay fifty dollars for a pair of jeans that are pre-worn and pre-ripped which say "I live so little, I have to pay for clothes that make it looked like I've lived instead?" Everyone! You just have to tell them that it's cool.

And, say all the makers of these clothes that everyone wants go out of business. Oh no, you say! A great tragedy for sure, right? I mean, it's obviously a good thing that must be saved because everyone pays their hard earned cash for these clothes! Not the case, however. As I said, every consumer knows, the production of any consumer product comes with it the production of its desire. When the product disappears, so will any desire for it. So, if all the super-cool jeans disappeared, no one would care. People would just buy some other jeans. And it is the same with movies, music, etc. Britney Spears no longer around to soothe me with her melodie dolce? I guess I'll, *gasp*, listen to something else? But from where, if the RIAA is fully out of business? And so we're brought to a question that if said, with seriousness, in front of any musician who knows the business would, no doubt, burst out laughing. Musicians make music, have for ten thousand years, won't stop because they're not making a living for it, like any artist. "Starving artist," ever heard the term? There's truth behind that. Would Van Gogh have stopped painting if he didn't make enough to live off of it? Oh wait, he didn't.

Indie artists with a small group of actual fans(like any artists, whereas big famous musicians have that along with a large group of people that purchase them for consumptive reasons that I mentioned) but with little production costs don't give a damn about copyright infringment of their work. Go ahead and download them as much as you want: they know that without the internet you would have never heard about them in the first place. Only the people they have immeadiate contact with at shows, around their town, in their musical community would: and those are where the actual fans are, and they buy the music anyway.

So, musics with million dollar productions won't exist any longer. And Hollywood movies with 500 million dollar productions won't either. Like the jeans, is this not a trage

The price of music by erick99 · 2004-10-20 17:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

An album costs 25% of a week's pay. The problem may start there. They simply can't do that. Why don't the music publishers price music a little more closely to a country's economy?

--
http://www.busyweather.com/

Re:The price of music by konekoniku · 2004-10-20 17:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

Because there will be smart opportunists out there practicing arbitrage, i.e., buying cheap music in poor economies and importing it into rich ones and taking advantage of the price differential to earn a profit.

This is one of the reasons why pharmaceutical companies are so reluctant to sell AIDS drugs for cheap in developing African nations. They know almost no one in African countries can pay full price for their drugs, but they're afraid that if they lower the costs of their drugs in these developing nations, people will buy drugs there and import it back into the first world, cutting into the margins they need to cover the costs of development and to underwrite further research.
Re:The price of music by Spy+Hunter · 2004-10-20 18:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

The MPAA tried to do that with DVDs, it's called the region system. You may have heard of it. Most Slashdotters aren't too fond of it. Since CDs don't have regions, if albums cost $2 each in Russia, they'd probably have a much harder time selling them for $15 in Europe or the US.

--
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
Re:The price of music by RayBender · 2004-10-20 20:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

they need to cover the costs of development and to underwrite further research.
As you've no doubt been told a million times by now, the cost of research is dwarfed by the advertising budgets. This is because company execs have figured out that a dollar spent advertising a drug you already have for a new disease returns at least twice as much as that same dollar spent trying to develop new drugs. That's why heartburn became "acid reflux disease".
The big, dark secret of the drug industry is that they just aren't very good at finding cures. I could name more than one large company with empty pipelines... This despite the fact that they receive what is in effect an enormous subsidy in the form of government-funded basic research. Part of the problem is that the for-profit modus operandi of "patent everything and let the lawyers sort it out" actually does more to stifle science than it does to stimulate it. Sure, there are now many companies that make their money selling licenced lab products and techniques to drug developers, but this just means that a lot of effort gets wasted in a) trying to do your science without infringing on 50 different patents, or b) raising funds so you can actually afford to pay for the one crucial step that would take 30 minutes in the lab with a heat-block and some enzyme.

--
Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?

If you're hungry... by Peyna · 2004-10-20 17:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

It seems that some of them don't have much trouble justifying it to themselves, with quotes like 'Yes, I know that some of the sellers are here with burned CDs. But they have to earn a living too, I can understand them.'

While it's kind of a stretch, it's basically the same as "it's okay to steal a loaf of bread if you're hungry." (With the vendors being the thieves).

--
What?

Re:If you're hungry... by danila · 2004-10-20 21:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

No. It's basically "It's okay to steal the leftovers from the trashcan if you are hungry". These people do not deprive anyone of anything, not even potential profits.

Also please note that 240$ is the average salary, but Russian society has very uneven distribution of income today. The decile (sp?) coefficient for Moscow (incomes of top 10% divided by incomes of bottom 10%) is greater than 40 and is more than 15 in Russia overall.

--
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.

Cannot afford expensive programs... by baywulf · 2004-10-20 17:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

People in some countries will argue they cannot afford to legally buy some software because the cost is very high compared to how much they get pain. But then there is nothing to prevent some company from developing software in the country that people can afford because the cost of development is cheaper there isn't it?

Re:Cannot afford expensive programs... by Doldonius · 2004-10-20 18:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yes, probably. But it's extremely hard to beat the pirates' prices, you know.

Think of it: the pirates only have to copy files. All right, probably translate something into the local language (which, in Russia, is usually done by twits with very feeble knowledge of either Russian or English. Therefore, that must be strikingly cheap as well.)

To produce something that can really compete with major products, years in development by major software shops, you have to invest lots of money and effort. Sure, probably somewhat less than you'd have to in Silicon Valley. But then again, keep your programmers seriously underpaid and the last you'll see from them would be an e-mail from California.

All right, suppose you managed to create something that is at least nearly as good as the stuff one can buy from pirates for $1.5/CD. Do you expect to return your investments? Really? Hey, it'll just be pirated as well.

Yes, there are some software companies in Russia that somehow manage to make ends meet. What they sell are mostly things that have no competition from the industry's leaders: Russian OCR systems, accounting software carved to fit the sick mess our raving legislators made out of accounting, etc. And most of it still can be bought for $1.5/CD in a shop around the corner.

I find it hard to believe that they can put pirates out of business.

Well duh! by roman_mir · 2004-10-20 17:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

Apparently, catchy slogans like 'Listen up, you pirate, I choose copyright!' just aren't working." - what is so difficult to understand? In the former Soviet Republics there are hundreds of millions of poor people who their entire lives lived under opression of a corrupt 'communist' government. Nothing in that society belonged to anyone. Property rights are virtually non-existant. When the president of the Country puts the most famous, richest person in the country into a prison cell for basically just that - being rich and thus dangerous (well Hodorkovskiy sort of was aiming at the president's position) and the company is now going to be sold at 1/10th of the value to the buddies of the president and to those who will share some of the wealth, what the hell do you expect from the people? Respect copyrights? HA!

It also works the other way around - when the people of a country, whose assets were supposedely owned by noone and everyone at once were 'freed' from the regime, and the valuable assets were divided among the top elite who had access to some money and were in power, and the average person was left in the cold with nothing at all, after slaving their entire lives for this regime, these are the people who allow Putin to be the president, obviously he is representative of the population and who is to say that anyone at all in that country would behave differently from Putin given the power, then what do you expect from those people?

Generations of Soviets grew up with assumption that they had to steal from the state because the state stole from them. The sense of someone elses property is nonexistant. Mix this with the fact that making digital copies nowadays is cheaper than buying a loaf of bread and you have yourself a runaway copyright infringement process on 1/6th of the landmass of this planet.

--
You can't handle the truth.

All Copyright laws are not created equal. by muntumbomoklik · 2004-10-20 17:44 · Score: 1, Insightful

In fact, societal perceptions of copyright vary greatly. If it's difficult enough convincing people in 'rich' countries with disposable income that copyrights must be adhered to, imagine going to a less-than-rich country and preaching the same thing. Even if the people who use pirated software or music wanted to be legal, often they can't afford to.

A lot of countries have no concept of copyright to begin with. The battle to standardize intellectual property laws across the world will be very, very long.

That's how things are over there by drgonzo59 · 2004-10-20 17:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

I grew up there and go back to visit once a year or so and that's just how things are over there. The communism has taught people that honesty and hard work doesn't pay, you can just stay home and the state (the rest of the people) will take care of you. After most have realized that, that is when the whole thing imploded in my oppinion. People learned that those who bribe, cheat and lie will always get ahead. Take my parents for example my dad is an engineer that has worked hard all his life and then overnight almost all our savings have turned into nothing and he lost his job. So now when the government comes up with slogans like "Copying Software is Wrong!" people just think "F*ck off, you screwed us, now everybody for themselves." So slogans like that won't work. Even the people who are supposed to enforce it probably don't see it as a problem and would go and buy burnt CDs when they shop for music. But on the other side, as far as music and software companies loosing money, I don't think they would make a whole lot of money if they ask for $600 for Adobe in that part of the world, people just wouldn't buy it, or find something cheaper. That was my 2 cents.

No Different In America by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-20 17:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's hard to justify the cost of a CD (or DVD, etc) to anyone in any country, if they've done the math and figured out where the $16 to $20 from each CD is going. Break it down and you'll find that about 75% of the points are going to the label in one way or another. Worse, as much goes to pay for advertising and promotion of the CD as goes to all other places (artist, representation, printing and pressing, shipping) *COMBINED*.

I found the best way to deal with this is just to avoid paying. I don't have cable anymore. I ditched it because the terrible programming wasn't worth $110/mo. I also don't buy DVDs or CDs and I don't go to the theater. Few movies are worth $10 per person these days. What, am I going to blow $20 so myself and a date can go watch Eurotrip? Get real.

I've taken the money I would have spent on the MPAA/RIAA/BSA goons and redirected it toward buying USED books. Instead of $30 to buy the latest ridiculous Spielberg rehash (ooh, this time he added three lighting effects in this one scene that weren't there before!) - I can use that $30 to buy half a dozen good reads. I've been working my way through the Top 100 Science Fiction Books of All Time (excluding the ones I'd previously read). Much better value. And when I'm through, I can hand them off to someone else without worrying about the MPAA/RIAA/BSA sending the FBI to break down my door and put me in prison for four years without due process.

Re:No Different In America by Seumas · 2004-10-20 18:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

I've always thought movies were a lame way to spend a date. You both go and sit and stare at a screen for two hours and walk out knowing nothing more about the person than you went in knowing.

Dinners are fine. Walks are fine. Going to a concert is fine. Going for a drive is fine. Going to the coast or a bookstore is fine. But going and staring at a movie? Not very interactive. Quite antisocial. And not very original.
Re:No Different In America by jollyhockysticks · 2004-10-20 21:37 · Score: 1, Insightful

Au Contraire my friend, I've found its possible to come away from the movie theater knowing a lot more about her tongue, taste and smell.

And since when did the credits rolling signify the end of a date anyway?

maybe you usaians all have TV's so big that the cinema (theatre) is nothing special now but personally i still like seeing movies like Hero/Crouching Tiger/The Returner/.. on the big screen with surround sound rather than a 30" like i have at home.

Hollywood however can keep its polished turds I don't want to watch that cheese mongering on any screen however big or small. no thanks. I don't even want it for free. The only incentive to download it is to keep up the global civil disobedience thats going on in regards to copyright law in the hopes that one day we'll have a fair system where creative arts are not held to ransom by accountants and are free to spread as they wish to and will anyway.

In a democratic society how does one end up with laws that make the majority of the population criminals every day of their lives?

Re:i for one... by to+be+a+troll · 2004-10-20 17:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

point taken but...the point really is i don't know if i would have ever picked up one of their album's otherwise and since have bought all of their cd's (legally) and the live DVD's (also legally)... oh yeah, the other point was that it was nice to have a decent selection of music in the third world.

--
~slashdot are my only freinds ):

Re:Maybe they need a new slogan by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-20 17:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

The United States has signed more than a few treaties which it ignores. The Geneva Conventions being the most recent example (thanks Bush, for Gitmo!).

Re:When I went to Russia... by mOoZik · 2004-10-20 18:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Sure, but what's to keep people from importing these into the U.S.? Their domestic sales would suffer as a result.

--
A blog like any other.

Hey Why Not by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-20 18:10 · Score: 0, Insightful

Let's say I can't aford a car. I need it for work. I can live without music but my living depends on a car. Why is it unacceptable to steal a car that is critical to my supporting myself and my family but okay to steal music which is a luxury? Albums cost money to produce just like a car. Corporate greed is a cop out. In many countries people can't aford food. I have far more sympathy for them stealing food than some one stealing music or software. If they steal Photoshop. Where did the computer come from to run it on? Could they aford that or did they steal that too? Is it okay to steal the computer as well? If they don't have the money for the software there are open source versions everyone is always boasting of that are free. Also groups are giving away music. The real issue is they want it so they take it. It's as simple as that. Anything else is rationalizing. The same rational many teens use for shoplifting. They can't aford it so they take it. Trust me you can live without it. I have to say how would programers feel if they were told no one wants to pay for software so they'll have to work for free?

Re:Hey Why Not by EEBaum · 2004-10-20 18:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

You're blurring the lines between stealing and pirating. When something is stolen, the original owner is harmed because they are now missing something. When something is pirated, the original owner is harmed because there is one less person to possibly buy a copy of something. They are both wrong, but are not apples to apples.

If nobody wanted to pay for software, I imagine it would fall to academia, hobbyists, and in-house jobs for corporations.

--
-- I prefer the term "karma escort."

Re:Thanks Russia for cheap music downloads! by mrchaotica · 2004-10-20 18:10 · Score: 1, Insightful

"Ethical" is a matter of opinion, and mine is that downloading off P2P is more ethical* than buying from the Russians. Here's my reasoning: if I download off P2P, the artist doesn't make any money. But if I buy from the Russians, the artist doesn't make any money and a third-party profits off the artist's work. I'd rather just mail the artist some cash instead.

*yes, I said "more ethical," not "less unethical." Please don't flame me about it; I'm not in the mood to argue. Instead, just read this.

--

"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

Robin RIAA Hood by Mulletproof · 2004-10-20 18:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Apparently, catchy slogans like 'Listen up, you pirate, I choose copyright!' just aren't working."

Well, when your countries' finacial system is in shambles and legitimate opportunities to thrive are next to non-existant, I could see where one might look to alternate forms of income. It's not nessisarily right, but then it's also hard to feel sorry for the music industry, who will be making billions a year regardless.

And WTF is so special about black caviar, anyway?

--
You need a FREE iPod Nano

The same thing is happening in the US to by Monkelectric · 2004-10-20 18:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

Downward pressure on wages (although no where near the levels in russia) has made music a luxury to a large portion of the population. Work for $6.25 an hour, 25 hours a week, and tell me if you can afford a 15-25$ cd.

--

Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

240-15 by Southpaw018 · 2004-10-20 18:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

There's just something horribly, horribly wrong when IP "owners" are complaining that people won't respect their property when said people cannot even begin to consider doing so. They're dangling food in front of the faces of the hungry and complaining when some of it gets snatched away. That thought just makes me ill.

--
ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.

Re:Rampant Music! GASP! by Guppy06 · 2004-10-20 18:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Interesting?" This post gets modded up as interesting?!?!

I swear I am never going to use Latin again! Between the editor who moved the link to someplace where it makes no sense and the moderator here who... sheesh...

Would y'all rather I said "the rampant music (and some other stuff besides music, like software and stuff, making this an obnoxiously long parenthetical for a group of people who probably don't even know what "parenthetical" means, all the while making me wonder if I should put this before or after the word "piracy") piracy in their country?"

Et tu, Slashdot?

Good for Russia by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-20 19:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

So the music industry doesn't make money off of Russia, where people are still desperately poor. So?

First, there is no way to stop this piracy until Russia has enough money that the average person has disposable income.

Second, I'm tired of dual standards, where western countries crack down on 'pirating' when the sale price is based on western incomes. Even if you changed it to fit local incomes, it's not enough. It needs to reflect /disposable/ income -- the income people feel free to spend. And many countries, Russia included, have almost zero disposable income.

And you would have them give that up to people in the west? Does the music industry, people like Britney Spears, and the software industry, people like Bill Gates, really need Vladya's two rubles after food and rent?

Re:Maybe they need a new slogan by A+beautiful+mind · 2004-10-20 19:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

My Karma is "bad" ...

The thing is i couldnt care less. If they "flamebait" comments like this, im actually proud to have "bad" karma. I have no idea where are the moderators are living, but when a heavily centralised goverment with a not rocket scientist leader to say the least thinks he knows better whats good for the world rather than following international "standards", then when someone points it out, shouldn't be considered flamebait.

To stay Ontopic a bit, if you look at the russian music market, from a production perspective, then "illegal music pirates who endanger the world order" are actually competition. Competition with low prices. And how does the industry react? Not wanting to fix the issue, they shout "pirates" and "crime", instead of being competitive (which they could be). Why everyone's "pirating" music in russia? Yes, because its cheaper than buying it in a music store. But if you look at the figures, this is totally irrational. Around 1-5% of the price of the cds goes to the actual artist. Well, if the music industry would be smart enough to realise things, they would go competitive. It would mean lowering prices to their 1/5. Giving around 10%-20% of the price to artists, and having the benefits of mass-production, the recording industry would still stay competitive. The only reason they are not doing this is just out of pure greed and short sightness. They can keep this state up for a while, but not on a long term. Eventually someone will figure out a way to pay artists while getting round the music industry.

Now you can hit the -6, Flamebait, Troll, reason of Apocalypse, etc button to rate my post.

--
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say

Let's end the hypocrascy by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-20 19:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

I always find it interesting that if you don't follow the party line and say it's the copyright law's fault and intellectual property should be free you get a zero mod. This is about getting something for nothing. It really is that simple. Deal with, you're just looking for an excuse for taking something you want without paying for it. Zero modding should be reserved for off topic not because you want to kill the messenger. I have never once heard anyone point out a reasonable model for producing film/music/software and giving it away for free. There's a small amount of software and such being produced for free but it represents a small percentage of what people use every day. The material you wish to pirate comes from somewhere and those people deserve to be paid for their work. If you don't want to pay then don't listen to the music or use the software or watch the film. For software use only open source free software, for music listen to the radio and for films watch broadcast TV or get cable. Trust me there are alternatives and those alternatives are reasonable and involve people being paid for their work. Mod away, you only prove my point.

The really funny thing about trying to stop piracy by SuperKendall · 2004-10-20 20:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

The thing I find most amusing about the effort to stop piracy is this.

The entertainment industry spends millions upon millions upon billions of dollars just trying to figure out what sells well. Omnipresent advertising saying how good something is, cover art designed by teams of marketing experts and run through focus groups. Music designed and tailored to appeal to people at the most fundamental levels.

Now you take this product that companies have literally spent millions on in an effort to make it the most desirable thing on the planet. You take that same item, and put it in the middle of a population and price it so 90% of the people are not going to be able to afford it.

Then you are surprised when all of the effort you put into making the product irresistible actually works? Even people with scruples have a breaking point, where they just throw them away. The products are designed to break you down and make you do something you were not planning on in the first place - it is all too easy for the human mind to turn that impulse to taking instead of a purchase, especially so if the purchase is not a practical option anyway.

That's why iTunes works so well. It's a great channel for that impulse to be satisfied fairly cheaply (for a US or UK citizen). But in Russia, they'd have to price stuff at, well, AllOfMp3.com levels. And that might even work except I have to imagine that the percentage of people with decent internet connections is somewhat low. So street vendors and a whole industry springs up to take up the slack and cater to the impulses that the media companies worked so hard to induce.

Now THAT to me is funny.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Geneva Conventions by rjh · 2004-10-20 21:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

First, the United States has not signed all the Geneva Conventions.

Second, the Geneva Conventions are in some ways absolutely absurd. For instance, prisoners are supposed to be guaranteed athletic uniforms. In a lot of ways the Geneva Conventions are a reflection of a 1920s notion of how gentlemen ought to act to each other in a state of peace; they do not speak very much to the modern state of the world or to the modern state of war. Let's not forget that Geneva was drafted in the post-WW2 period by diplomats whose military experience and notions of 'the laws of war' were shaped by WW1.

Third, Geneva sees the world in strict black and white. For Geneva to apply, you must be either a civilian or a uniformed soldier in the service of a recognized government. If you're neither a civilian nor a uniformed soldier in the service of a recognized government, Geneva considers you to be a spy and entirely outside the protections of the Geneva accords.

So think about this: the detainees captured during combat operations in Afghanistan are not civilians. (Some may be, and we desperately need a legal process to determine who is a civilian and who is not; but I do not believe the majority of them are civilians.)

The Taliban were not the recognized government of Afghanistan. Only one country in the world recognized their government as being legitimate, and anyone who suggests that the opinion of a generalissimo dictator (i.e., Pakistan's Musharraf) lends credibility to the Taliban-as-government idea has no credibility at all.

Thus, no Taliban fighter could be considered a soldier under the Geneva Conventions. Even if the Taliban were a recognized government, they'd still fail because they didn't have uniforms. (A pedantic point? Sure. But that's law for you; law is nothing more than the rigorous application of pedantism.)

Not only that, but the Taliban committed gross breaches of the laws of armed combat. They mixed in with civilians; they militarized noncombatant areas; they targeted medical personnel; they engaged in military operations against civilian targets. Under the Geneva Accords, they can be summarily executed for this without judicial process. After all, they're not in uniform, not in the service of a government, and not civilians--they're spies. Kill 'em without trials. It's legal.

So when you start talking about Geneva, start thinking long and hard. Do you really want us to treat them in strict accordance with Geneva? Or do you want us to treat them in accordance with some nebulous 'standard' which far, far exceeds Geneva protections?

If you want Geneva, fine. But don't go about talking how awful it is that Bush isn't strictly adhering to Geneva without understanding just how horrible Geneva allows us to be. I'm no fan of Bush, but I have to give him this: he's not summarily executing people in Gitmo. And under the law, he's allowed to.

(Addendum: None of this is an argument to abandon Geneva. I'm only suggesting that we acknowledge Geneva's many shortcomings and understand what it actually says, not what we wish it to mean. If I had my way, NATO would agree on uniform standards for prisoners, both regular and irregulars, with severe penalties for violators. I don't trust the UN to form a new Geneva Convention, given that Geneva is fundamentally a human rights issue and Libya's the current chair of the UN Human Rights committee.)

Re:Geneva Conventions by spoonyfork · 2004-10-21 02:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

4) Deliberate usage of civilians and protected sites in an attempt to protect their forces

I love this argument. I went to elementary school near Seattle. The school property was bordered on two sides by a National Guard base. Their garages were 20 feet from the playground. While it was really cool as a child to see tanks, helicopters, and soldiers everyday at recess... as an adult I look back and shiver at the thought of having gone to school that close to a military base. Don't think the US doesn't use these strategies as well.

--
Speak truth to power.
Re:Geneva Conventions by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 03:09 · Score: 1, Insightful

Oh give me a fucking break. Do you really think that base was built specifically next to a school for that reason? No. It was probably the only real estate available.

Also, news flash, Seattle isn't wasn't a battleground at the time, so putting a National Guard base there is hardly "using civialians to protect their forces"

Re:Maybe they need a new slogan by Mojojojo+Monkey+Inc. · 2004-10-21 00:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

If the music industry cannot be competitive while paying all their overhead (as bloated as it might be) and giving the artists 1-5%, how could they possibly stay competitive while raising their prices another 5-15%?

So, hypothetically, say that Sony Music gets lean and mean and somehow manages to lower its CD prices by 50%, while increasing the royalties to the artist (to give everyone a warm fuzzy feeling when they buy a CD). That'd set a price at $4-8, which is *still* priced way out of realm of affordability for the average Russian, and cannot possibly compete with a guy on the streetcorner charging next to nothing! Let me repeat: a company that actually has to pay royalties to the artists *and* pay the salaries of all the people working to produce and distribute that music CAN NOT "compete" with someone who contributes 0% to the artist or the company that produces the album.

Are thieves that steal car stereos and resell them on the black market "competition" for stereo manufacturers? Competition would entail actually creating their own alternative to what the RIAA produces, as crappy as it might be, and selling it at lower prices. That's not what's happening.

That said, the current music industry is definately outdated and past its useful life, and artists will eventually find a more direct way to get their music out. Unfortunately, even if they're charging $0.10 for a track or $0.50 for an album, some low-life will STILL find a way to profit off of that without paying anything to the artists. Portraying bootleggers as legitimate "competition" is flat-out wrong.

Re:Maybe they need a new slogan by brainburger · 2004-10-21 00:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

I am not sure if you personally believe Bush to be doing God's work, but I doubt God does.
- The 6th, 9th and 10th commandments (but particularly the 6th) have unambiguously been broken by the man. Those commandments don't allow any exceptions.
That leaves him with at most 70% righteousness - which is shit ;-)

yes, but by IshanCaspian · 2004-10-21 01:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

They have quality and reliability on their side...as the iTunes store has shown, it is possible to compete with free. Piracy is more of a response to price-gouging than an attack on them for charging anything at all.

Even if there is a legal technicality that distinguishes bootlegging from competition, remember that this is not true from the common person's perspective. Everyone hears music so much on the radio and in movies and from their friends, it really comes down to a price vs. hassle question of how to acquire it. I know for a fact that if the price were loweredo for cd sales or online downloads, I might consider paying for it before I just download it from someone.

--

But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.

Re:The truth? by Dominic · 2004-10-21 01:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

Is it reasonable to expect Americans to be paid a premium just because of where they live?

If a job can be done for $10 in some foreign country, it should be done for $10 in the USA.

Wait - that doesn't sound as nice does it? What's the problem? Ah, things cost so much more in the US do they? So people earn more? Oh. Funny how there is a reason for everything, when you think about it.

Re:Maybe they need a new slogan by hb253 · 2004-10-21 01:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

I was definitely trying to be sarcastic.

I am very afraid of people who think God is telling them what to do or who attribute everything to God. Can you say Taliban?

I am an avowed atheist. I'm very afraid of the fundamentalist Christian direction this country is going in.

--
Self awareness - try it!

Re:Maybe they need a new slogan by shark72 · 2004-10-21 01:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Every time I see someone complaining about this statistic, I ask the same question, and no one can give me a straight answer. Why on Earth should the artist get more than 5%?"

It's because Slashdotters by and large don't know how much time and effort by skilled people, and how much money it costs to record, engineer and produce a CD. There's a great deal of difference between that piece of paper with lyrics written on it that the singer takes into the studio, and a finished CD, but I think a lot of Slashdotters equate them.

If a good singing voice and a piece of paper with lyrics on it were the same as a finished CD, then there wouldn't be a lot more artists who want recording contracts than those that have contracts.

Either way, the poster who used "1-5%" has his math off. Royalties (to performers, composers, lyricists, etc.) are typically north of a buck and represent about 15% - 20% of the total cost of sale to the record company. If the record company is lucky, they might clear a net profit of $2 on a CD. The record company gets two bucks, the artists get a buck. Not bad considering that the record company takes all the risk and has to front all the money; if a CD fails, it's the record company that loses, while the artist loses nothing but time.

--
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.

51 of 888 comments (clear)