Music Download Pricing Lawsuits Pending?

larry bagina writes "New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has subpoenaed Warner Music Group, apparently looking into allegations of price fixing with Sony/BMG, EMI, and Vivendi, and apparently more subpoenas are in the pipeline. 'As part of an industrywide investigation concerning pricing of digital music downloads, we received a subpoena from Atty. Gen. Spitzer's office as disclosed in our public filings. We are cooperating fully with the inquiry.'"

Comments

This holiday season ...

[Catamaran]

remember downhillbattle and EFF. They are fighting for your rights.

who'd have thunk it?

[yagu]

Who'd have thunk it, the music industry being crooked? So, who are the pirates now?

It does seem maybe these (alleged) crooks may be losing their grip on the industry: getting caught with their hand in the pricing cookie jar, and potential other investigations into payola (the other way they control the flow and exposure to music/artists).

Disclaimer: I know, innocent until proven guilty, but with the propensity and willingness of these (alleged) crooks to string up the customer like so many Christmas (Merry!) lights, publicly indicting/convicting consumers before trial. How's the shoe feel on the other foot? Maybe there really is a Santa Claus(e)!

Re:who'd have thunk it?

[TubeSteak]

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal construct.

"Alleged murder" is not a crime. "Murder" is.

One of the main reasons we (as a society) go along with the fiction of "innocent until proven guilty" is to avoid prejudicing the potential jury pool.

Anyways, those two linked articles are very light on details.

Re:who'd have thunk it?

[diersing]

Spitzer is working for himself and his ambitious political future. Using the consumer protection aspect of his office he's attacking big business via a multitude of lawsuits extending outside the state boundries. He could care less about Apple or the rights of music buyers for that mattter, whatever garners his office and name the most press clippings.

NYTimes Article With Additional Details

[Furd]

Pricing of Downloaded Songs Prompts Antitrust Subpoenas

The New York attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, is investigating whether the four record companies that dominate the industry have violated antitrust laws in the pricing of songs that are sold by Internet music services, according to people involved in the inquiry.

Mr. Spitzer's office recently began serving subpoenas on the major record companies - the Universal Music Group, a unit of Vivendi Universal; Sony BMG Music Entertainment, a joint venture of Sony and Bertelsmann; the EMI Group; and the Warner Music Group, according to people involved.

Warner Music disclosed yesterday in a regulatory filing that it had received a subpoena on Tuesday in connection with "an industrywide investigation" into whether the companies colluded in the pricing of music downloads.

Representatives for Warner and Sony BMG said their companies would cooperate with the investigation. Representatives for the other major companies could not be reached or declined to comment.

Re:NYTimes Article With Additional Details

[TubeSteak]

Well... the part you quoted brings no new information to the table.

I'm not sure why both the nytimes and the latimes bring up Apple & iTunes unless they're trying to suggest that the music companies are being investigated for colluding on the (future) wholesale prices of tracks they'd like Apple to sell.

The "industry-wide" investigation likely centers on whether the four major record labels colluded to set the pricing of song downloads on iTunes and other online music stores. Currently, songs are usually priced at a flat 99-cent rate, but the industry has pushed for higher prices.

A Different Article

I wonder if those music studios have industrial strength paper shredders or full fledged burn rooms at their corporate headquarters?

Re:The New York AG?

[WCMI92]

"Does he even have jurisdiction for this? Isn't this a federal matter?"

Sure he does. So long as ONE person in his state has been victimized by RIAA price fixing.

Re:Spitzer is looking for publicity

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

I don't care what his motivations are, whether he's a demagogue or not, at least somebody is standing up for the little guy and trying to put these scumbags in their place.

Re:The New York AG?

[izx]

Don't forget, Wall Street comes under his jurisdiction. That's why he's gone after so many crooked corporations.

I've got karma to burn...

[hkmwbz]

...so I'll take a chance and say this:

Dear recording industry: Ha! Merry Fucking Christmas, motherfuckers!

Re:I've got karma to burn...

[thefirelane]

...so I'll take a chance and say this:
Dear recording industry: Ha! Merry Fucking Christmas, motherfuckers!

Posting such a controversial stance to Slashdot is admirable. I hope your Karma doesn't suffer from all the pro-RIAA moderators here

Re:I've got karma to burn...

[kaleposhobios]

um, guys...

Posting such a controversial stance to Slashdot is admirable. I hope your Karma doesn't suffer from all the pro-RIAA moderators here

it was sarcasm...

Re:I've got karma to burn...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear recording industry: Ha! Merry Fucking Christmas, motherfuckers!

Not all of us celebrate the same way you do. Next time please say "Merry Fucking Holiday, motherfuckers!"

Thank you.

Re:The New York AG?

[darkmeridian]

The Sherman Act gives state AGs the power to sue on behalf of its affected citizens as parens patriae. Private parties affected by anticompetitive conduct can also sue, but consumers in general ordinarily do not have a cause of action.

Well, there is price fixing . . .

[crimguy]

at the online music stores. My thought is that the music companies want this investigation, because they in fact want to sell music for more money, but are being prevented from doing so by yahoo, itms, etc. So, Spitzer might be working for them this time.

Re:Well, there is price fixing . . .

[Shoten]

I think you don't understand what "price fixing" means, in terms of the Sherman Anti-Trust act. It doesn't mean that a vendor can't set their OWN price for something...how else would they operate? It means that multiple companies in an industry (that are competitors with each other) can't collude to agree on prices. The point is that if all of these companies get together and say, "Yeah, I won't give iTunes access to our music if you don't give them access to your music, and he doesn't either, except if they agree to our pricing model" then the competition between them is reduced to a cartel. As a result, a de facto monopoly results, which is bad for consumers.

Re:Well, there is price fixing . . .

[twitter]

the music companies want this investigation, because they in fact want to sell music for more money

If they get together, say so, agree on a price structure and then find ways to exclude competitors, they have committed a crime. This is what price fixing and anti-competitive practices are all about. Everyone pays so a select few can profit. Artists and others who would make a living in the industry pay more than anyone else.

It's obvious that such a crime has been and continues to be committed. The cost of an electronic copy of costs more than the same with delivered by physical media. In a free market music can be had for a song. Those that would compete are locked out of traditional broadcast and physical distribution. They are also harassed at every point possible by lawsuits and bogus laws which make operations difficult and expensive. The world's three big music publishers seek to impose all the restrictions of physical media and 100 year old broadcast technology law onto the internet because they won't exist without them. The ultimate crime are laws seeking to "close the analog hole". It's nice to see some of the smaller crimes looked into, but a review of "price fixing" misses the big picture.

Spitzer might be working for them this time.

That depends on how deep he goes.

Man I'll miss Spitzer when he becomes gov(NY)...

[izx]

Arguably he's done it to boost the public's impression of him, but at least he's done something real good to do it unlike latching on to divisive issues. He's punished so many crooked corps: Wall Street, insurance, payola, and now the music companies again. Here's a profile: Wikipedia Profile The consumers will lose a great public advocate when he goes on to become Governor (although one hopes he'll use his clout there to do even more reform.)

Re:why warner

[darkmeridian]

If I recall correctly, Warner has a significant marketshare and tends to be the "market leader". Also, it tried to fix prices on certain Three Tenors recordings. That might be why they're on a short leash. Surely, if the subpoenas lead to anything, others will also get supoenas.

Re:Spitzer is looking for publicity

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhh yes. Totally clueless. That must be why he has such a good record. It's so easy to convince judges and juries when you don't know what you're doing.

Spitzer has been doing this for a while now

[goombah99]

The L.A. Times is reporting that Warner Music Group disclosed that "As part of an industrywide investigation concerning pricing of digital music downloads, we received a subpoena from Atty. Gen. Spitzer's office..,". N.Y atty. Gen Eliot Spitzer, fresh from multi-million dollar settlements in the radio payola law suits against the industry giants, is now examining if there is collusion on the wholesale price of digital music. Spitzer is also at the heart of the recent 50 million dollar lawsuit by the Beatles against EMI. It's hard to say if this helps or hurt's Apples case for a 99cent price cap on downloads.

price fixing?

[pintomp3]

wouldn't be the first time http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2002-09-30 -cd-settlement_x.htm I remember a case back in the late 90's where I got a small check.

Self-interests?

[DocStoner]

Maybe he really doesn't care about the little guy. Maybe he spent too much on the family this year for Xmas, owes his bookie or maybe he's just looking for some extra cash. He could just be doing this to get a secret payoff. The case will suddenly disappear. He won't find anything worth charges, just some suspicious/questionable items,enough for some hush money.

BTW, I got to open one of my Xmas presents early. The wife and kids made me a brand new tin-foil hat.

I don't believe in music downloads

[Anonymous Coward]

there's no mention of this in the bible, music downloads are just a theory of atheist scientists

FTC Site

[earthstar]

Snapshot:
According to the FTC complaint detailing the charges, in 1997, Warner and PolyGram (predecessor to Vivendi Universal), two of the largest music distribution companies in the world, formed a joint venture to distribute compact discs, cassettes, videocassettes, and videodiscs to be derived from the next public performance of The Three Tenors. Warner would distribute the 1998 releases in the United States, and PolyGram would distribute the 1998 releases outside of the United States. As the concert date approached, both companies became concerned that the new products would be neither as original nor as commercially appealing as products already available to consumers. In an effort to shield the new products from competition, Warner and PolyGram agreed not to discount and not to advertise certain of their catalog products for a limited period of time, the complaint says. The FTC alleges that the agreement violated federal law

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2001/07/tenors.htm

Like that other time they got caught price fixing?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, the one where they got fined and then CDs still cost the exact fucking same?

Re:The New York AG?

[Monkelectric]

Hey! Hey! Stop that! On Slashdot we work firmly on *CONJECTURE* and *KNOW HOW*. Bringing facts to the table is cheating!

Who does he really work for..

[segfault_0]

Might want to ask yourself who Spitzer works for, new yorkers or the record companies. Have you noticed a pricing change in CDs since his initial win? I havent - they still cost way too much. A few million bucks is nothing to these people, i say they are getting off way too cheap and then can hide behind these weak settlements if the questions ever come up again. If i was a record company i would be overjoyed to see this guy coming. So what benefit does attention to online music pricing give to record companies; Steve Jobs doesnt want to change itunes prices - be funny if he was ordered to in court wouldnt it...

Re:Who does he really work for..

[ZachPruckowski]

I don't care if the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice.

If Spitzer is doing this for his own good, for the good of the consumers, or just because he felt like suing someone, he is doing a good thing.

My views on him are mixed.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's difficult to not admire the tenacity and inginuity with which he pursues these people. But it's also difficult to make the case that they are punished in proportion to their transgressions. Steal hundreds of millions, but you'll have to give millions back. Where is the disincentive? Collude to steal billions, and be forced to offer rebates that customers won't take wide spread advantage of because we've got to make it convienent for the criminals. These people who do economic harm on this scale, they need to lose everything and spend everyday of the rest of their lives in a very deep, dark, lonely, empty hole. That's disincentive. But to think, we live in an age when half-measures from politicians are genuinly deserving of praise. It's sad.

ID at work

[Auraiken]

My god! A new meme has spawned! Er... i mean it was designed... intelligently.

Wow... wow... wow..

[Stan Vassilev]

... wow. While I'm ok with this partilcular lawsuit, when's the last time you woke up and check the news and didn't see few new gigantic lawsuits happening every damn day?

Is it just me, or we have waaay too much lawsuits going on here. I mean, lawsuits are supposed to be the exception, and the regulator is supposed to be the law with the help of a possibility for lawsuit.

Today, we just have a bunch of lawsuits from people raping the system, and no benefits. For how long can the system sustain this?

You know this is millions of people giving part of their wage for lawyer/lawsuit expenses. You have to work more and get less, so that all those lawsuits can happen. Directly or indirectly.

God damn it everything is so wrong.

**head explodes**

Re:Wow... wow... wow..

[thesandtiger]

Ideally, suits should be the exception, not the rule, as you say.

The problem is, lawsuits are a financially better alternative than following the rules for everyone but the consumer.

Until penalties for breaking the rules are made worse than the cost of a lawsuit, companies will break the rules - they look at fines as the price of getting to break the law. Engage in any unethical and illegal behavior you want - make a billion dollars, get fined at most a few million.

And then we have class action lawsuits. Ideally, those should be undertaken when there is real harm done to individuals, but now we have scumbags who see them as the royal road to riches and encourage people to sue because their coffee was too cold, or because someone said "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" or a clerk at a Wal-Mart looked at them funny.

Penalties need to be made 100x worse to corporations. Executives responsible for illegal behavior need to go to prison as a rule, not as a rare example. Class action suits should be handled by the AG's office, not by opportunistic private attorneys who recruit people to join their bullshit class action suits.

Business is able to rape and pillage with impunity - I say put the fear of god into the executives. CEO wants to make tens and hundreds of millions of dollars? Fine - as long as they do so legally - and can't use that money to shield themselves when they overreach.

Now, I like the idea of a free market, but there do need to be some limits or else we wind up with corporate tyranny. Ideally, government and business should balance each other out and let the rest of us get on with our lives without having to fear either one.

Re:why warner

[wfberg]

As the concert date approached, both companies became concerned that the new products would be neither as original nor as commercially appealing as products already available to consumers. In an effort to shield the new products from competition, Warner and PolyGram agreed not to discount and not to advertise certain of their catalog products for a limited period of time, the complaint says

So they decided not to advertise about previous releases?Well,dont many companies do this?Only here,seems both of them decided together.& what competition are they talking about,when they own the rights.?


1. Had there been actual competition, instead of a oligopoly of a few major labels, a decision to market older products less wouldn't have given the Three Tenors any competitive advantage, seeing as how 100 other record labels wouldn't hold back on the promotion.

2. The record companies screwed all other artists that weren't the Three Tenors.

3. Copyright is a (prohibition) right granted under the theory that allowing creators to benefit of their works stimulated them to make more works. If artists didn't get properly compensated, the reasoning goes, we would all be stuck with the same old tripe. In this case, the record companies clearly intended to delude the consumer into thinking, yes, the same old Three Tenor tripe is all that's out there to buy.
4. Pooling two companies' promotion clout allowed them to come on top of the Three Tenor deal. Had they not colluded, they would have taken a loss, to the benefit of their competitors, and the market (the invisible hand should smack down on crappy business, should it not). Competitors that (hypothetically) would play fair wouldn't be able to recoup bad investments in the same way, they'd be SOL - cf. Standard Oil's pricedumping.

So, they screwed the artists, the consumers, competitors, and the Constitution. Not a bad run.

The real price should be 0

[argoff]

The future isn't in people charging for things like content, it is for people charging for things like service. For some sectors that offer service value (like Linux) that is good - for other sectors (like music and movies) - that have littlemore than entertainment value, that is bad. And as for those who rely on a content revenue stream now, they are DOA. It's sorta unfair, because everyone crys kneejerk tears for all the "poor" folks in the content industries, but doesn't even give a ratts ass about all the billions who are economically inhibited by the "infrastructure of control" that copyrignt imposition requires.

essay: Straight Talk About Copyrights

Re:Man I'll miss Spitzer when he becomes gov(NY)..

[Starker_Kull]

While I like some of the things he has done, he also can be a grade-A asshole. He decided that AIG, the Starr Foundation, Hank Greenburg, and a few others responsible for building up AIG over the last 40 years were criminals, and so prosecuted them to get evidence for his suspicions.... and he is still looking for that pesky evidence, and gosh darnit, he hasn't found it yet. AIG has restated their earnings for the last 5 years (which is a massively big deal, for those of you who don't know), and in doing so, changed their estimated net worth from about 81 billion to 79 billion. Whooo-fucking-hooo. He is now trying to investigate transactions made between AIG and the Starr Foundation going back to 1967 in order to find something to justify the ruining of the lives of lots of people at those companies.

Don't get me wrong - I hate abuses by large corporations, and I think he has done many good things to protect consumers. But he has a large ego, and doesn't know when to quit. I think he was hoping AIG was the next Enron, and when it turned out it wasn't even close, he got vicious and couldn't let it go, despite the fact he is hurting a lot of innocent people in the process. Of course, I am a bit biased, since I personally know some of the people whose careers he has ruined and finances he has messed up.

He's better than many, but he ain't no saint.

Yeah, perfect way to solve the problem.. hah...er.

[Polarism]

Let's stuff a bunch of bullshit into an already bullshit-clogged legal system.

Seriously, the only way our problems with the recording industry are going to be solved is if they change their business model to reflect the 21st century. Until then, it'll just be the same old shit over and over again. Our legal system is warped beyond belief, so it's not going to help anyone here.

It's all fun and games...

[HangingChad]

...until the Attorney General shows up.

I wonder why, considering we have more than one state, that it's always New York taking the lead to try and give consumers an even break? He went after the mutual fund timing trades, record company payolla, and now more record company misbehavior. California also went after Edward Jones. California and New York the only states sticking up for consumers instead of standing by and watching consumers get the sticking.

Re:It's all fun and games...

[The Warlock]

Because Elliot Spitzer has ambition to higher office (where he'll certainly get my vote), whereas other states' attorneys general are content with sitting on their asses?

Just a theory.

Who'd have thunk of this interesting development?

[openfrog]

Everyone of us!

This is what we have said all along: "Reasonably priced (according to cost, not to traditional prices and unencumbered by nasty DRM schemes, we are willing to pay for music"

If this indictment goes forward, it might give honest distributors the occasion to prove the point. The cost of downloading a song on the Internet is pennies. Even considering a decent profit, a reasonable pricing will do wonders to discourage pirating. The value is there for the consumer and the business model is simple.

The message of this is: stop suing your consumers or your consumers will beging to sue you back!

Re:Spitzer is looking for publicity

[utlemming]

Very true. Even if you are one of the cynics and are stating that he is doing this to get younger votes, he probably is starting to really tick off Sony BMG. Afterall, he filed a class action lawsuit over the Sony Rootkit fiasco, and now he is looking into price fixing. Makes you wonder why he is out to get them, but it sure is nice to see a politician finally going after these guys. And the fact Sony BMG is squarely in his sights is really nice. If I was an exec over at Sony I would start looking at finding out when his term is up, and start looking at funding a potential person to run against him -- get him out of office, or get someone in Albany to cut his budget or something so that he couldn't pursue it. But I am all for it. I am really glad to see that states AG's are starting to treat RIAA like the scum they are.

Re:Who'd have thunk of this interesting developmen

[platypussrex]

The cost of downloading a song on the Internet is pennies

but the cost of processing the transaction is not nearly as cheap. Google for terms such as micropayment and you'll see what I mean. This is one of the biggest challanges to cheaper pricing in general.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

[merc]

I've solved the problem on my end.

I don't buy music anymore.

I can live without it -- the real question is, can they live without my money? The answer to that one is probably also "yes", but that's okay. I'm not out to destroy them, I just don't want to be a supporter of their industry anymore.

Re:I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

[dpreston]

For those of us music enthusiasts: Do you still listen to new music? or have you decided that 'what I have is good enough forever'?

Personally, I can't get enough new music. Most of it is independent (which is great), but many of them end up signing with larger labels that I must purchase from. The music industry is not going to change their ways with a few abstaining "informed citizens" (what a novel idea). The problem is, the music industry needs to shave off the top few layers of the money pyramid. Then, we may have ...gasp... REAL COMPETITION! We could possibly see such artists as "decent ones" and "true musicians" succeed, not from advertising, but by music enthusiasts themselves.

I don't believe the problem lies within the music industry itself. This is a needed social change. Big Business has become a privileged interest group, something that the founders of our (U.S.) country specifically legislated AGAINST. This is not collusion in a few oligopolies; this is collusion on a fundamental and governmental level.

How to solve the problem? Use the remnants of our Constitution and attempt for change.

I feel like singing!!

[cnerd2025]

So here goes
For a show called, "10 types of people"

Start spreading the news.
I'm leaving today!
I want to be a part of it,
New York, New York!
I want to wake up
In a city that doesn't sleep!
I'm a consumer with rights
I want my fair price!
And no price fix-iiing!

No DRM crap
For me in New York
I really love that Eliot
Spitzer, Spitzer!
Oh Mr. Spitzer,
Please remove that Sony Rootkit!
And give my music to ME
Without some greedy
Hollywood scheeeeeme!

In Manhattan and Queens
And Bronx if I dare
My iPod has cheap music
Bought in New York
We told that Warner
To stop screwing the litttttle guy!
"You have to set a fair price!
No fixing or die,"
Said Spitzer, Amen!

Eliot Spitzer
We love you so much
New York is fair and balanced
Because of yooooou!
We want to thank you
For protecting consumer rights
We really love you a lot
In-a straight kinda way
We're really not gay!

One hand washing the other...

[argent]

Without the DMCA and other strong copyright and licensing regulation there wouldn't be any point to the kind of DRM in the "Sony Rootkit", or Windows Media Player 9 and later, or Palladium, because there wouldn't have been any laws criminalizing reverse engineering. You'd buy the CD and pick up the patch to Windows to disable the DRM at the checkout counter.

This kind of after-the-fact bandaid on a few of the worst excesses of government interference in the market is hardly proof that the government needs to be involved.

Unofficial translation

[Lead Butthead]

... we received a subpoena from Atty. Gen. Spitzer's office ... We are cooperating fully with the inquiry.

Translation: We're busy shredding incriminating documents at the moment.

Re:Unofficial translation

[cnerd2025]

In other news, Arthur Anderson, Inc. has been heard shouting, "Yes! Yes! We have a new contract!!!"

Usefulness of Recording and Distribution Organizat

[bigpicture]

The music recording and distribution companies have come to the end of their usefulness. They are like dinosaurs in the space age.

Because recording and distribution has now been commoditized by the internet, there is no need for a "Recording and Distribution" specialized commercial function between the music artists and their fans and customers.

Don't you think that the recording industry sees that reality, and when anything is fighting for it's life, like the music Recording Industry is, there are "no holds barred". But that won't stop nature taking its course, extinction and replacement with something more suited is always inevitable.

Spitzer is a loose cannon

[kalel666]

Drunk on the power of his office, and vindictive. Here's a nice little interaction he had with a former chairman of Goldman Sachs:

Last April, The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed piece by me titled "Mr. Spitzer Has Gone Too Far." In it I expressed my belief that in America, everyone -- including Hank Greenberg -- is innocent until proven guilty. "Something has gone seriously awry," I wrote, "when a state attorney general can go on television and charge one of America's best CEOs and most generous philanthropists with fraud before any charges have been brought, before the possible defendant has even had a chance to know what he personally is alleged to have done, and while the investigation is still under way."

Since there have been rumors in the media as to what happened next, I feel I must now set the record straight. After reading my op-ed piece, Mr. Spitzer tried to phone me. I was traveling in Texas but he reached me early in the afternoon. After asking me one or two questions about where I got my facts, he came right to the point. I was so shocked that I wrote it all down right away so I would be sure to remember it exactly as he said it. This is what he said:

"Mr. Whitehead, it's now a war between us and you've fired the first shot. I will be coming after you. You will pay the price. This is only the beginning and you will pay dearly for what you have done. You will wish you had never written that letter."

I tried to interrupt to say he was doing to me exactly what he'd been doing to others, but he wouldn't be interrupted. He went on in the same vein for several more sentences and then abruptly hung up. I was astounded. No one had ever talked to me like that before. It was a little scary.

It's up to others to make their own conclusions. I have only set out here what happened.

Mr. Whitehead, former chairman of Goldman Sachs, is chairman of the Lower Manhattan Development Corp.

Re:A Genuine Question...

[sabat]

It's one thing to set your own prices. This works in an open market because other people can come along and offer a better price (if your price is too high).

But when there are limited players (a small handful of sellers, like in the record industry) and they collude to set their prices higher, that's illegal -- and it breaks the marketplace.

Of course, what ultimately fixes the whole situation is better competition, and that's coming. Musicians don't really need traditional publishing and distribution anymore. Once the practice of developing a fanbase and breaking bigtime really takes off, the dinosaurs will die. And they know it, btw.

Re:Let them sort it out

[Wylfing]

Where are the people who normaly say that there should be no governement control and that the market will decide what to do?

Hope you understand why governement involvement is needed.

I am not one of the people to whom you refer, but your statement is kind of stupid, and so I object merely on anti-stupid grounds. These corporations have their power because government gave it to them: both copyright and corporate existence itself are legal fabrications imposed on the free market by the government. If we take away both of these things, the government would have little reason to step in and "rescue" the public from price fixing, because the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.

Silver and Gold (side topic)

[argoff]

Money is no longer real. Its simply printed and/or blipped on computers. It is not backed by gold or silver like it used to be. The money holders (banks) hold less and charge people for giving it away (service) and they don't even own anything besides nice buildings (although that is changing). Its pretty much a crime to own a decent amount of cash money for some reason.

You know, I was reading that just as I was thinking if there was ever a kind of way that I could give a christmas present to people I don't even know. And then it came to me - my gift to people this year is the plea:

"PLEASE BUY GOLD AND SILVER".

Really! and I am not a "gold kook", it's just that the same information age forces that are killing the copyright cartell are also going to kill central banks ability to lie to people about the value of their currency. I am serious, the economic fundamentals today are WAY worse than the 80's when gold went to $850 usd/oz. Also, today the economony is sevral times more efficient so when the adjustment happens, it will happen several times faster. During the great depression, our currency came out OK, because it was backed by gold. During the 80's our currency came out OK, because Americans didn't have much debt. This time it really is different, and there is nothing to stop the US economy from heading off a hyperinflationary debt cliff after the over-indebted housing market falters and that's why the silver and gold market have been going up so high over the last 5 years.

Food for thought: in 1935, there was about $35 in circulation for every ounce of gold held by the central banks, in 2005 there is about $35000 in circulation for every ounce of gold held by the central banks. People should really buy silver and gold like their butts depended on it. Merry Christmas!!!!

Re:Man I'll miss Spitzer when he becomes gov(NY)..

[augustz]

It interesting, he's one of the few AG's to go after white collar criminals with any vigor. The stock research stuff was so obvious, they kept on hyping it, but it was basically sales literature. His point (correct I think), was that you can hype stuff, just don't dress it as independent research.

The music companies claim they are trying to help the consumers. Forced to pick between them and itunes (who released an honestly useful app with reasonable DRM) I'd pick apple in a heartbeat.

Re:Like that other time they got caught price fixi

[shark72]

Right; that judgement was a win for Wal-Mart and Best Buy. Wal-Mart and Best Buy went to the government when Universal was handing out program money (funds for newspaper advertisements and the like) to Tower Records and TWE in return for setting MAPs (minimum advertised prices). The only result was that the record companies ended their MAP programs. You only theoretically saved money if you'd bought CDs at Tower Records.

Many Slashdotters are under the impression that the price fixing settlement was a win for consumers, when in reality it was a loss for independent record stores, and a win for Wal-Mart and Best Buy, who get to keep selling CDs as loss leaders without worrying about stores like Tower (which subsequently filed for bankrupcty) and other dedicated music stores from being too much of a problem. Actually, if you're a fan of the mainstream music that Wal-Mart and Best Buy dole out, then it's a win for you, but I don't count myself in that crowd.

Hypocrisy!

[Nom du Keyboard]

Currently, songs are usually priced at a flat 99-cent rate, but the industry has pushed for higher prices.

And what happens when higher prices cause less people to download from pay sites? The music industry claims that every download is a lost sale. So is this intended to create more lost sales? If you can't get your fully inflated price, then you won't take any price? That kind of thinking only made sense when you actually did mostly control the only source of supply. Then along came the cassette deck recorder and your lives have never been the same since.

People are obviously stupid in so much as they continue to support the music industry at its present prices (I remember when CDs first came out the promise was that as manufacturing efficiencies increased that prices would actually drop significantly), but even stupid people reach a point where they know they're being ripped off -- and don't like it!

Re:A Genuine Question...

[Ohreally_factor]

Price fixing isn't when a single company sets a price. It's when all the businesses of an industry get together to set an artificially high price.

If you are company A, you can set any price at all you like for the widgets that you sell. However, if you price too high, you won't sell any widgets, thus you won't make any profit. The market place is where we determine what is the optimum price for your widgets: How much people are willing to pay vs. how much you want to charge. Of course, you are also competing with Company B, Company C, etc. who all sell competing widgets. So your price for your widgets must compete with the prices for the other widgets. (or you must find a way to differentiate your widgets, but that gets into other areas).

Now, what if you were to get together with the heads of Company B, Company C, etc., and say, "Hey, guys. We're killing each other. Let's set a price for widgets above what we're being forced by all this competition to charge. That way, we'll all be sure to reap lots of profits!" So, your company, Company B, Company C, etc. all set artificially high prices, thereby unfairly depriving the consumer of lower prices from competition.

That's the basics of price fixing. It's an unfair business practice.

Re:Who'd have thunk of this interesting developmen

[platypussrex]

I suppose you think that means something, but I think all it means is that you don't really know much about the whole micropayment problem. It really does exist, and if you do as I suggested and google for it, you'll find that a great deal of brainpower has been thrown at it, with less than stellar results. Wikipedia is not a bad place to start, just look up micropayments there.

Re:Man I'll miss Spitzer when he becomes gov(NY)..

[theLOUDroom]

AIG has restated their earnings for the last 5 years (which is a massively big deal, for those of you who don't know), and in doing so, changed their estimated net worth from about 81 billion to 79 billion. Whooo-fucking-hooo.

Hey dumbass, that's TWO BILLION DOLLARS.

I know if I was a shareholder of AIG I would be rightfully pissed.

Lying about the worth of the company is one step away from actually stealing two billion dollars.

I think he was hoping AIG was the next Enron, and when it turned out it wasn't even close, he got vicious and couldn't let it go, despite the fact he is hurting a lot of innocent people in the process.

If these people are innocent, then why is AIG restating their earnings? The actual facts you've present run completely counter to your accusations of trying to ruin people's lives for no reason.

Of course, I am a bit biased, since I personally know some of the people whose careers he has ruined and finances he has messed up.

What this statement does not say is that you personally know that these people are innocent of any wrongdoing.

Bullshit like this is a big drain on our economy. Why would you invest in any company only to find out you just paid too much because they lied in their legally required disclosures?