Sony Raises Price of Whitney Houston's Music 30 Minutes After Death

Silly Sony by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 12:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

Bunch of f-ing assholes.

Re:Silly Sony by kendbluze · 2012-02-15 16:31 · Score: 1

Supply (we've got about all we're gonna get) & demand (spiked by natural human interest). Yeah, it's craven. But that's the way things are.
Re:Silly Sony by thereitis · 2012-02-15 17:20 · Score: 1

It sounds revolting, but is this a case of "don't hate the player - hate the game"?
Re:Silly Sony by mjwx · 2012-02-15 19:53 · Score: 1

Bunch of f-ing assholes.
On the contrary, they discouraging the purchase of her songs, they're doing us a favour by not having us listen to Whitney Houston awful songs on repeat.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:Silly Sony by Elaugaufein · 2012-02-15 22:23 · Score: 1

I'm entirely capable of hating the player and the game. Especially since we're in a system where the players seem to write most of the rules for their own benefit to start with.
Re:Silly Sony by johny42 · 2012-02-15 23:48 · Score: 1

As much as I hate Sony, I don't see anything wrong with this. Same (infinite) supply, raised demand = raised price. If anyone is to "blame" here, then it's the bunch of hypocrites who buy music only because the singer just died.
We should not "boycott" Sony (well, we should, but not for this), we just shoudn't buy their (or anyone else's) music unless we actually like it (in which case we most definitely should not wait until the singer dies).

So? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 12:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

Tacky? Sure. Taking advantage of the situation? Yup. But they have a right to make money for their product.

When an artists dies, many people rush right out to purchase that artist's work. It's as if people think they suddenly won't be able to get it again now that the artist is dead.

Re:So? by Serious+Poo · 2012-02-15 12:52 · Score: 2

Does Sony have the legal right to raise prices? Of course. However, their decision to raise prices immediately after the announcement of her death demonstrates exceptionally poor judgement. Again. IMHO. / “The right to do something does not mean that doing it is right.” - William Safire

--
"There is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequal people." - Thomas Jefferson
Re:So? by sjames · 2012-02-15 12:52 · Score: 5, Interesting

And the rest of the world has a right to say no to tacky corporations because there's quite enough tacky in the world already. I hope enough do say no that Sony gets the message loud and clear.
Re:So? by Beelzebud · 2012-02-15 13:24 · Score: 1

Yep everything is fine as long as it's about how to make a buck!
Re:So? by pspahn · 2012-02-15 13:24 · Score: 1

Yea, and thanks to all this insta-sharing that goes on in the world today, the power (in one way or another) has been shifting toward the consumer.
Did we have a right to say no 20 years ago when much fewer people had tangible knowledge of the tacky that was happening? I'd argue that no, we didn't. Ignorance is a form of innocence.
Now, however, we are certainly more aware of the things that happen *behind closed doors*. This kind of story gets around and is a more tangible way for your average facebooker to justify the refusal of tacky.
I suppose tldr, the IQ of this story is precisely 100.

--
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
Re:So? by blueg3 · 2012-02-15 13:54 · Score: 4, Interesting

...those who are buying her music after her death are equally parasitic and not really deserving of any breaks.
I fail to see how buying her music shortly after her death is parasitic. Not real fans, sure. Trend-following, sure. Parasitic? It sounds like you don't know what that word means.
Re:So? by reub2000 · 2012-02-15 13:59 · Score: 1

Yep this is not much different from posthumous album releases. *hums along to Nirvana's MTV Unplugged*
Re:So? by PIBM · 2012-02-15 14:16 · Score: 2

Sadly, they haven`t yet developed a way to raise the price automatically a few minutes before the artist death.. or so I hope!
Re:So? by Windows+Breaker+G4 · 2012-02-15 14:26 · Score: 1

Someone should patent that before the record companies do.

--
brickspeed.net for your old Volvo performance addiction
Re:So? by crutchy · 2012-02-15 19:28 · Score: 1

not parasitic, just stupid
Re:So? by Vegemeister · 2012-02-16 06:16 · Score: 1

But they have a right to make money for their product.
No, they do not. They have at best, a right to try.
Re:So? by reub2000 · 2012-02-16 15:35 · Score: 1

Well it did have a price point, so a few people made a few bucks off a dead guitarist/singer.

What a class act! by stevenfuzz · 2012-02-15 12:48 · Score: 1, Funny

I'm excited about the Whitney Houston drug-inspired trance remix album that Sony will come up with next.

Re:What a class act! by Ethanol-fueled · 2012-02-15 13:03 · Score: 2

...and why the hell not? Tupac released more albums when he was dead than when he was alive.

Proof, once again, that he is not really dead but living on a secret island with Elvis and Steve Erwin.

Price fixing... by TheDarAve · 2012-02-15 12:50 · Score: 3, Interesting

There should be an investigation for price manipulation for that. They sue people for "copying" music for several hundred times the digital price, yet they pull dick moves like this and expect people to just ignore it as a normal matter of business. If there was going to be a run on resources, like in the production of CDs, I could see increasing the price to help open up a new line or two to produce more to compensate, but its digital. There's ONE master. They produce NOTHING, just data. Outside of bandwidth considerations, there's no significant additional cost to them over what's already being used.

Re:Price fixing... by aardvarkjoe · 2012-02-15 12:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

Since when is it illegal to price your product to make as much of a profit as possible? (That's not what's generally meant by "price fixing," by the way.)

--

How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Re:Price fixing... by TheDarAve · 2012-02-15 12:57 · Score: 1

For your reference... http://www.mobiledia.com/news/110939.html
Re:Price fixing... by Genda · 2012-02-15 12:58 · Score: 1

What part of "What mine is mine and what's yours is mine too..." do you not understand???
Re:Price fixing... by PReDiToR · 2012-02-15 12:59 · Score: 5, Informative

According to other sites that ran this story ages ago the pricing was done by an algorithm that detected the increase in sales and raised the price to maximise on those sales.
Plus it was stated that Apple only take 30% of iTunes revenue, SONY (and that other labels) set the prices.
Who knows?

Tagged: diesonydie

--

Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
Re:Price fixing... by Lunix+Nutcase · 2012-02-15 13:01 · Score: 5, Informative

Maximizing profit != price fixing. Also increasing the price of a product when the artist dies is also not illegal. So you know, price fixing means you collude with some other party to only buy or sell a product at a fixed price through controlling supply and demand. There was no price fixing in this case.
Re:Price fixing... by J'raxis · 2012-02-15 13:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

If a company charges too much, they're guilty of "price gouging."
If they charge too little, they're guilty of "dumping."
If they charge the same as their competitors, they're guilty of "price fixing."
Welcome to the "free market."

--
Liberty in your lifetime
Re:Price fixing... by thisnamestoolong · 2012-02-15 13:20 · Score: 1

Legal != moral

--
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Re:Price fixing... by thisnamestoolong · 2012-02-15 13:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

No, but there was dickishness on an epic scale. What they did is clearly legal, but absurdly scummy. A boycott would be a very appropriate measure.

--
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Re:Price fixing... by Beelzebud · 2012-02-15 13:25 · Score: 1

It's not illegal, it's just bone-headed, tone deaf, and stupid. People have a right to think so, too.
Re:Price fixing... by roman_mir · 2012-02-15 13:28 · Score: 1

also all of that depends on varying definition of what people perceive as "too much" or "too little".

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Price fixing... by Deadstick · 2012-02-15 13:35 · Score: 1

It's perfectly legal...just the Invisible Hand working its magic. But usually the Hand has the decency to wait until the body's cold.
Re:Price fixing... by jtnix · 2012-02-15 13:48 · Score: 1

waitaminute... so the US Gvt can redefine the meaning of the word 'person' to include corporations so corporations can donate millions to candidates and not be called out for it, but they can't redefine the phrase 'price fixing' to mean what it really should mean?
Sorry, but that's bullshit.

--
She blinded me with science, she tricked me with technology. ~ Thomas Dolby
Re:Price fixing... by Fned · 2012-02-15 14:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

"supply and demand" isn't a very useful descriptive tool when the supply is infinite and valueless. More like, "access control and demand"...
Re:Price fixing... by bzipitidoo · 2012-02-15 14:16 · Score: 2

If a company can get away with gouging, it's because they have no competition.
One reason a company would engage in dumping is to get rid of competition.
If a company can fix prices, then they don't have real competition.
Markets are like sports. They need rules and referees. That's not curtailing their freedom, that's providing structure so the game can be played at all. We as a society have an interest in holding these competitions, and keeping contests as fair and non-destructive as practical. No dirty pool! Otherwise, why not hire hitmen to bash your opponents' knees, or poison your competitors players and employees, or any number of other dirty tricks?

--
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Re:Price fixing... by SunTzuWarmaster · 2012-02-15 14:27 · Score: 1

also all of that depends on varying definition of what people perceive as "too much" or "too little".
As a competitor, the answers are "anything more than me", and "regulations should prevent these unfair market practices", in that order.
Re:Price fixing... by LordLucless · 2012-02-15 14:34 · Score: 1

It's not. However, supply and demand usually are usually the limiting factor. When demand goes up, prices go up because the supply is limited. In this case, the supply is unlimited, so you'd expect price to be static. It's increasing because the supplier has been granted a monopoly, generating artificial scarcity.
The copyright game has never been a fair one, it's just these particular circumstances are showing people that imbalance in practical terms. So people get antsy, not realising that this particular instance is just a symptom of the system as a whole.

--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Re:Price fixing... by Mana+Mana · 2012-02-15 14:35 · Score: 1

> illegal to price your product
No-no. You have a right to be a dick. However, don't be surprised when you are called a dick. Is all.
Re:Price fixing... by niftydude · 2012-02-15 14:46 · Score: 1

It isn't their product. It is Whitney Houston's product.

Recording labels are just middlemen - all these copyright laws and extensions are all about returning profits to the artists, right?

So why are they price gouging now that the artist is dead? She isn't going to benefit from the extra revenue.

--
You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
Re:Price fixing... by ganjadude · 2012-02-15 15:03 · Score: 1

would not dieing, meaning no more albums will come out (unless you are tupac) considered supply?

plus we are talking digital downloads, there is infinite demand, I would probably be ok with them raising the price of the packaged media, But the digital downloads???

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Re:Price fixing... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 15:03 · Score: 1

You omit a significant point for each one of these:
"Price gouging" means a price "unreasonably high" because there is no (significant) competition. It is illegal in some countries and consumers (or the state) may sue to make pinpoint how "unreasonably high" it is.
"Dumping" technically means selling at a price below what it cost to produce in order to underbid and destroy your competition, i.e. leveraging your company's size selling at a loss for a certain time until the competition is out of the market (after which the prices are usually jacked up).
"Price fixing" includes collusion, i.e. instead of competing with competitors' products through pricing, quality etc. the companies agree to offer very similar products and make sure no-one underbids the other in order to maximize margin thereby not offering the consumers any real choice.
All of these are unfair business practises and are used to circumvent healthy competition in the free market. Thus the state (or whoever else is in charge of protecting its citizens) has the obligation to find and prosecute any instance of these wrong-doings.
Re:Price fixing... by AK+Marc · 2012-02-15 15:07 · Score: 1

It is monopoly pricing, even if not price fixing or illegal monopolistic practices.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Price fixing... by Obfuscant · 2012-02-15 15:10 · Score: 1

That's not curtailing their freedom, that's providing structure so the game can be played at all.
Providing structure is inherently limiting freedom. "You can't do that" said to a game player to keep him "in bounds" is, by definition, limiting his freedom to "do that" or go "out of bounds". You say "potato", I say "starchy tuber".

We as a society have an interest in holding these competitions, and keeping contests as fair and non-destructive as practical.
Do we? Doesn't society benefit when a company reaches a size that it can offer significant price breaks to consumers through economies of scale, even though this is clearly not fair to small competitors? Note that I am specifically not talking about Walmart, where there is a considerable amount of other baggage that clouds the issue of size vs. benefit. The kneejerk "Walmat Bad, Local Good" is not relevant because there is so much more involved than just size. A local large supermarket has better prices than a corner store -- do we have an interest in trying to force the large market to raise their prices to keep things fair for the corner store?

Otherwise, why not hire hitmen to bash your opponents' knees,
Such rules exist not for the control of corporate profit and competitiveness, but for everyone as a whole. Try again.

or any number of other dirty tricks?
Well, I think the discussion is currently whether "raising the price of something because the author just died" is a dirty trick or just sleazy. Don't the prices for most works of art go up after the artist dies? The argument that upping the price on Houston's work is sleazy because there isn't an actual increase in the cost to produce the product is misplaced. That's an argument that applies to production of all digital content.
Re:Price fixing... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 15:11 · Score: 1

Price fixing -- the collusion of two or more parties either as buyers or sellers to artificially maniputlate the market price of a commodity
Price gouging -- a seller taking advantage of events to raise the price of a commodity to unfair or unreasonable levels, particularly after a calamitous event.
No need to redefine anything -- just a need to choose the right phrase that means what you want it to mean. :-)
Re:Price fixing... by cadeon · 2012-02-15 15:22 · Score: 1

Adding to above-
The real cause behind all this is the fact that Sony has a legal monopoly on Whitney Houston's music.
If her albums were available through other (legal) means, the free market would work. Sure, everyone would raise prices just like Sony did, but someone would raise them less than the others, and we'd have a price war on our hands. It's entirely possible that Whitney's death would result in *lower* album costs due to the increased attention and volume.
But since there's a monopoly on this particular product, the market can do nothing about it.
Maybe Korea can make some money off of all of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RgXC303Q5A
Re:Price fixing... by cadeon · 2012-02-15 15:24 · Score: 1

Taiwan, not Korea. Let the flames come.
Re:Price fixing... by Capt.+Skinny · 2012-02-15 15:35 · Score: 1

all these copyright laws and extensions are all about returning profits to the artists, right?
Not if the artist voluntarily signs away those rights. Once they do, it IS the recording label's product. For all the discussion in recent years about how little an artist gets in royalties from the record labels, it's rarely mentioned that the artist chose to sign on the dotted line. Presumably, they were willing to give up a larger share of the profits from their music in exchange for the higher volume of sales offered by the labels. And no, they weren't all duped.
Re:Price fixing... by jdavidb · 2012-02-15 16:19 · Score: 1

Well, it's not exactly price fixing, but they were given a government grant of monopoly which enabled this in the first place.

--
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Re:Price fixing... by tragedy · 2012-02-15 16:23 · Score: 2

Of course the concept of copyright introduces an artificial monopoly. There is always just one party controlling copyright for a particular work. Most commodities can be considered pretty much the same whoever produces them, but there's only one (legal) party producing a particular piece of Whitney Houston music (well, there may be more than one, but they're all licensees of one copyright holder) and one piece of music is not just the same as any other. Proof positive for this is the article in question. Whitney Houston dies, and the price of her music goes up suddenly. That wouldn't happen if it were just another piece of music. So, what we have here is a monopoly player price gouging. Of course, it's a luxury item, not a necessity, and no one is going to open an anti-trust case on this. Basically it's a really scummy move, and it demonstrates why monopolies are bad, but there's nothing much we can do about it except boycott Sony and tell as many people as possible what a horrible company they are. Of course, many of us have already been doing that for years for some of the other stuff they've pulled.
Also, how many people think this move by Sony may not have actually been a conscious choice? This actually seems like it could be the work of an automatic price adjusting algorithm plugged data mining the web. News sites fill up with Whitney Houston's name and some "popularity" index jumps up in a database somewhere. Someone forgot to include a "good taste" or "basic decency" filter, so poof, up go the prices. That doesn't really make it any better, of course. I'm sick to death of explaining to people that the law of supply and demand was an observation of how things tend to be, not a set of instructions people are legally obliged to follow. Also, since the supply is effectively infinite, clearly there's a problem.
Re:Price fixing... by J'raxis · 2012-02-15 16:24 · Score: 1

I don't know of a single sport where if you don't follow the rules, men with guns force you to (or haul you off to jail if you still refuse). That's what the state does to people who won't follow their regulations or pay their taxes.
And don't say people can just "opt not to play" the free market "sport" like they can with baseball or football if they don't like the rules. Unlike such sports, this free market "sport" provides things that both the "players" can't do without---their livelihood---and the "spectators" can't do without---things you probably buy like food, medicine, shelter, &c..
And if you do say people who don't like the rules ought to just opt out, then I hope you cheer every time some corporation moves their entire operation overseas and lays off a bunch of American workers: That's exactly what they're doing. They're sick of crushing regulations and confiscatory taxation, and they're voting with their feet and getting out.
There's a clear line between the hitman example and laissez-faire economics: The latter, which is what I'm talking about, permits companies to engage in any kind of consensual transaction that they wish to. If companies want to charge any price they choose, fine; if customers don't like it, they won't pay. If companies want to conspire together to lock out a third competitor, fine; that's just two entities mutually consenting to an agreement. Hiring a hitman or poisoning competitors' employees moves into the realm of committing acts of violence---using actual force and aggression (the kind of things governments are good at).

--
Liberty in your lifetime
Re:Price fixing... by arth1 · 2012-02-15 16:51 · Score: 1

Strike the iron while it's hot.
Or, as is more likely in this case, implement an automated system that raises prices on items as sales explode, and drop the prices as sales dwindle. There's no malice in that; just sound business. I can fault Sony for many things, but having such a system in place is not one of them.
Those who rushed out to buy Whitney Houston upon hearing about her death, on the other hand... Those are the cynical scum I have an issue with.
Re:Price fixing... by fafaforza · 2012-02-15 17:16 · Score: 1, Funny

Which court case, exactly, esablished the "dickishness" precedent?
Re:Price fixing... by aardvarkjoe · 2012-02-15 17:17 · Score: 1

Legal != moral
The OP wanted "an investigation for price manipulation". Which only makes sense if he thinks that their behavior is illegal.

--

How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Re:Price fixing... by fafaforza · 2012-02-15 17:21 · Score: 1

That's like saying that Nike has a monopoly on Nike shoes. Sounds ridiculous, right?
Sony has a specific product. That specific product is part of a product group, which one might called "pop music." Last I saw, there are many, many options for pop music, and you don't have to buy the Sony brand, just like you don't have to wear Nike sneakers.
Re:Price fixing... by cadeon · 2012-02-15 17:45 · Score: 1

Yes, but no.
There are other shoes that look and work like Nike shoes- therefore you can get very Nike-esq shoes from other manufacturers. Whitney wasn't allowed to sing for other labels. If someone else covers her songs, Sony can go after them (and block sales, if need be). If someone else uses similar music, they may get sued. Sure, if someone directly copied a Nike, Nike would likely send lawyers- but, short of using their trademarks and logos without permission, there's not a lot they can (or will) do. With music, it's a lot more subjective, and the threat of legal action is more than enough to not build on music that's currently with a label (unless you are also with that label).
But, more importantly, there's also the problem of exposure.
See, with shoes, there's exposure. You know you can buy shoes other than Nikes, because there are other shoes out there. With Sony's music, there is no other music. If you want pop music, you're likely buying it from them. Or from one of their close friends. This is by design.
You're unaware of the other products because you have no exposure. Everyone has feet, so everyone has shoes- but the only people allowed to broadcast music are people the labels allow to (and supply). There's very little exposure to let the public know there's music outside the major music labels.
And that, my friends, is what scares them about internet radio and piracy. It's not loss of sales, it's loss of control of exposure. As more of the public realize they can get music somewhere else, they will. That's why people who download music are pirates, internet DJs have to pay higher royalties than terrestrial radio DJs, and indie music labels are referred to as "Stepping stones" to really arriving and getting "properly" signed with a "real" label.
Re:Price fixing... by fafaforza · 2012-02-15 18:02 · Score: 1

As there are other pop stars that look/sound more or less like WH. They're not exact copies, but then again, neither are the sneakers. And besides, people have different tastes.
And I can't believe that people still hold on to the idea of big business' control of music with all the choices of distributing music. No one listens to broadcast any more. It's boring and repetitive and filled with payola. There are so many services for people to establish themselves, services providing hosting for your music, marketing via fb, twitter, word of mouth, etc. It will take more time, but big labels' control will ebb, and it will happen naturally.
As far as signing up with a "real" label, well, that's where the real money is, isn't it. Are those labels forcing those artists to sign, especially in light of their lessening grip over media outlets?
Re:Price fixing... by metacell · 2012-02-15 20:28 · Score: 2

It doesn't make much difference to the price if the singer is alive and producing new songs, since the supply of their old songs is practically infinite anyway. People are not prepared to pay less for one of the old songs just because the singer is producing new ones.
With music, the price is mostly determined by what the consumer is prepared to pay, (i.e, "demand"), and supply is mostly irrelevant to the price.
Re:Price fixing... by Custard+Horse · 2012-02-15 20:54 · Score: 1

I think it is a sensible reaction to a market interest which is in finite supply. Whitney Houston will not release any new material so the company needs to make the most of what they have.
Sure, there will be new compilations, special collections ("with the last photographs before she became addicted to smack!") and the like but in essence the cash cow that the company invested in now has limited appeal.
Cut throat? Maybe, but this is business after all...
Re:Price fixing... by metacell · 2012-02-15 20:56 · Score: 1

Any meaningful definition of "price dumping" includes "selling at a loss", not just "selling too low". Since a company can't sell at a loss in the long run, price dumping is often used to "starve" a competitor and then raise the prices again when the competition is gone.
It's only "price fixing" if different companies agree on a certain price. There's only reason to suspect price fixing if everyone charges the same price AND it's substantially above the manufacturing cost. If competition works well in the market,
Re:Price fixing... by Pope · 2012-02-16 02:27 · Score: 1

And people wonder why Apple didn't want to have variable pricing in the iTunes store for the longest time. It's this instant gouging of the customer that they were trying to avoid. Hell, some fuckwit from the labels wanted to have an automated system where the more popular someone's songs were, the more they would cost!
And now we've seen it happen with Whitney Houston. Ugh.

--
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Re:Price fixing... by J'raxis · 2012-02-16 05:37 · Score: 1

You still haven't explained what's "wrong" with this.

--
Liberty in your lifetime
Re:Price fixing... by J'raxis · 2012-02-16 05:39 · Score: 1

In Saudi Arabia, 99% of the time no one dares criticize the Prophet Muhammad... and so nothing happens. So I guess it's a free country and people have the freedom to say whatever they want, right?

--
Liberty in your lifetime
Re:Price fixing... by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-02-16 07:04 · Score: 1

You should keep an eye on the topic, perhaps. Let me quote the earlier post to which you replied:

there was dickishness on an epic scale. What they did is clearly legal, but absurdly scummy
It's quite obvious that "dickishness" and "scumminess" are determined in the court of public opinion, not in the court of law.
Re:Price fixing... by thisnamestoolong · 2012-02-16 07:45 · Score: 1

What do the following things have in common?:

1) Me making a video tape of me fucking your mother and then emailing it to you
2) Running down the street screaming racial slurs at the top of your lungs
3) Sony capitalizing on the death of a human being by raising the prices of her records before her goddamn body is even cold.

Answer: They are ALL LEGAL. The whole point of my comment is that talking about whether or not their actions were legal completely misses the point as to whether or not it is moral; there are a great many things which you are legally allowed to do, but probably shouldn't do. We the people need to use our combined efforts to show companies when they have done things that we don't like, that is at the heart of capitalism.

--
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Re:Price fixing... by Rakarra · 2012-02-16 10:27 · Score: 1

If a company can get away with gouging, it's because they have no competition.
It gets slightly murkier when we talk about creative works.
John wants to sell me a cart for $200. Instead, I buy a cart that does the exact same thing of the same quality from Jack for $150. That's competition.
Sony charges too much for Whitney Houston's album. Ok, I'll purchase that album from Warner Music instead. Oh wait, I can't, there's only one seller for that particular album. You can listen to different music from different sellers, so it's not exactly a no competition situation, more of a hybrid.
Re:Price fixing... by metacell · 2012-02-17 04:37 · Score: 1

Didn't say it was wrong, just explaining the facts so you can decide for yourself.
Re:Price fixing... by fafaforza · 2012-02-17 11:44 · Score: 1

I see, so we're just going to ignore "No, but there was dickishness on an epic scale" as a response to the legality of setting a price on your own product, and what it really means to fix prices.
Re:Price fixing... by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-02-17 11:47 · Score: 1

Yes, I'm going to be a dick, and ignore it. So sue me.
Re:Price fixing... by fafaforza · 2012-02-17 11:51 · Score: 1

You're free to boycott Sony all you want. I'm not saying I agree with what they did. This was a black eye for them. All I'm saying is that no one can dictate what price they charge for their product, and that what they are doing here is not "price fixing."
Re:Price fixing... by fafaforza · 2012-02-17 11:56 · Score: 1

The only mention of morality I saw in this thread was somewhere towards the middle of all the posts about "price fixing." Do you honestly think "price fixing" is what happened here?
Do you mean to say that a company isn't allowed to charge whatever they want for their product? Especially a song? This isn't natural gas we are talking about.
I'm also fairly certain that there are laws about taping other people when they have an expectation of privacy, and laws against instigating violence, just like there are laws against screaming 'fire' in a movie theater. Nothing on the books about you losing market share by overcharging for your product, though. That's left up to your business acumen.
Re:Price fixing... by JohnnyBGod · 2012-02-18 05:14 · Score: 1

If they charge the same as their competitors, they're guilty of "price fixing."
Riddle me this, then: where I live, different gas pumps from different companies in different places are charging the same price for gas down to the tenth of a (euro) cent. What am I supposed to think about this?
Re:Price fixing... by J'raxis · 2012-02-26 03:53 · Score: 1

That if an officious bureaucrat is looking to go after these stations for some reason, he could use their similarity in prices as a starting point for an investigation into "price fixing." Months of headache and thousands of dollars of legal bills later, they'd probably be exonerated if evidence of actual collusion didn't turn up---if the stations didn't get put out of business or coerced into a "plea" deal just to make the charges go away before a trial and verdict. Of course, the way laws are so broadly written, if the owners of any of these stations ever had even a friendly chat about each other's businesses, that's probably enough for the government to say there was evidence of a "conspiracy to commit" collusion.
That's the problem with laws like this, and many other laws. There are literally so many laws on the books nowadays that most people are committing numerous "crimes" each day---acts for which, if they were to be caught, would result in years of jailtime, huge fines, the "felony" label, or the like. There is a good book on this topic, and how the government uses these laws for harassment. Basically, if they don't like you, they can find something to go after you for.
What I pointed out in the OP is just a particularly good example of these kinds of laws, because of the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" nature of it.

--
Liberty in your lifetime

Any excuse... by Professr3 · 2012-02-15 12:50 · Score: 1

If it results in a Sony boycott, I'm fine with whatever reason you come up with.

Re:Any excuse... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 13:36 · Score: 1

Don't worry, it looks like they will continue to be giving reasons to boycott them for as long as they exist.

They meant well by Daetrin · 2012-02-15 12:50 · Score: 5, Funny

It was actually a gesture of sympathy to Whitney Houston's dependents. Since copyright lasts forever now, long after the death of the artist, they raised the price of the music so her estate will receive larger royalty checks for awhile.

... i kid of course. We all know Sony and the other RIAA members never _actually_ pay out royalties to artists.

--
This Space Intentionally Left Blank

Re:They meant well by TheDarAve · 2012-02-15 12:52 · Score: 1

Oh, that's what the increase is for, so they'll actually start for a bit then stop again once they don't feel bad about Whitney being dead anymore.
Re:They meant well by GodfatherofSoul · 2012-02-15 12:54 · Score: 1

And, what share of the profits does her family get? The music industry is notorious for ripping of artists. The story I always remember was the 90s group TLC that sold about $100 million on their debut album, but only took home about $200K each.

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Re:They meant well by Genda · 2012-02-15 13:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

Heck with that, what about John Foggerty, he was tricked by the record industry into selling his artistic soul while not yet out of puberty, After quitting CCR, couldn't write a note of music that didn't belong to the record industry for 20 years. AND finally after getting his life back after the 20 years and resumed writing kick ass music was sued in 1993 by Saul Zaentz, who owned CCR’s old label Fantasy Records. Zaentz asserted that Foggerty's new song "Old Man Down The Road" was plagiarized from "Run Through the Jungle." The recording industry sued John Fogertty for plagiarizing John Foggerty. Like raping him for 20 years wasn't enough, they wanted his new stuff too. The jury laughed Zaentz out of court after two hours (about as fast as a jury can make a decision without doing it right there in the jury box.) Foggerty demanded that Zaentz pay the $1.09 million court fees for this legal insult, and Zaentz told him to kiss his southern exposure. The law to that date had been heavily weighted on behalf of the plaintiff (corporations), such that if a plaintiff sues you and you lose you have to pay the attorney's fees, but if you win, they didn't have to pay yours. It took Foggerty over a year and appealing all the way to the Supreme Court to get a decision, that stated indeed if someone sues you, and they lose, they should pay your attorney's fees.
You know, there should just be a legal requirement for truth in advertising that has a permanent message tattooed into the heads of the RIAA and its minions stating "I am here to screw you, everything I ever do is designed to rob you, use you, and leave you buggered and you can tell whenever I'm lying by the fact my mouth is moving." Of course we'd then be forced to tatoo politician with the message "I blow more CEOs by 9:00 AM than a high priced call-girl does in a year." and who's going to pass that law?
Re:They meant well by moozey · 2012-02-15 13:50 · Score: 1

I'm going to go out on a whim and assume TLC didn't write their own songs (co-wrote a few tracks, maybe), like a whole lot of other pop artists in the past X years. If that is the case, and assuming that every aspect of their brand is manufactured by whichever record company they were signed to, then do they really deserve much more money for having their vocal talents and the attitude to go with it? Given the record company would have fronted the cash for the recording time, song writers, producers, promotion, video clips, etc. When it comes down to it, you can bitch about record companies all you want but sometimes (like in TLC's case) their share is justified... sorta.
Also, TLC's career spanned a decade. They would've made plenty of cash.
Re:They meant well by viperidaenz · 2012-02-15 15:29 · Score: 1

They'll now get 3 cents per sale instead of 2 cents
Excellent.
Re:They meant well by GodfatherofSoul · 2012-02-15 15:37 · Score: 1

OK, so fuck the TLC analogy. How about the Stones and Beatles getting screwed out of huge chunks of their catalogs?

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Re:They meant well by Capt.+Skinny · 2012-02-15 15:45 · Score: 1

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Today's recording industry has been around for what, 50 years now? Haven't they been duping people since Elvis? Any artist who was too stupid to sign on the dotted line in the last 30 years without a competent lawyer present deserves a Darwin Award. Hate on the recording industry all you want, but don't forget that it's not just consumers who keep them in business. Many artists DO have that lawyer present and choose to sign anyway.
Re:They meant well by GodfatherofSoul · 2012-02-15 19:41 · Score: 1

These guys aren't conning idiots. Their contracts are obfuscated. And, even if the artist does get someone with skill the read the contract, you never know if they've decided to get together with the agent/producer/manager to screw the artist out of money. Some of these guys are surrounded by teams working to milk them for every time. Any time you hear about some artist/athlete blowing through millions, don't think they partied it all away or couldn't stop shopping.
Hell, sometimes the industry calculates that even if they DO get caught they can settle for a profit. This has been happening with the record industry shorting artists on royalties. They do it on purpose, then when/if they get caught they just settle for a fraction of of what they should have paid rather than tying up the artist in court for years.

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Re:They meant well by benthurston27 · 2012-02-15 20:08 · Score: 1

The law of greediness is that as greedy and smart as someone is; there is someone more greedy and smarter that leverages the first person's greediness to satisfy their own.
Re:They meant well by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-02-16 00:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yes, that is always my favorite story about the record industry. Talk about shooting the goose that lays the golden eggs. When Foggerty realized how ripped off he was by his record company, he asked/demanded a renegotiated contract. Their answer was, "This contract is legally binding. We don't have to change it. You're stuck with it." Think how much more money they could have made if he had continued writing songs and performing with CCR if they had been willing to renegotiate a fair contract with him. There are probably even ways that they could have spun it to make it seem like they weren't really trying to take advantage of him. "Well, there are a lot of costs involved in bringing a young act along and not every act ever pays back that initial investment. I completely forgot that we still had you under a startup act contract. Let's renegotiate to better terms for you."

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:They meant well by IwantToKeepAnon · 2012-02-16 05:07 · Score: 1

Ok, I know this is a joke and a jab at Big Corp ... but Whitney didn't get royalties b/c she didn't write any of her own stuff. She got advances on predicted album sales. Her estate probably already owes Sony for loans and advances on yet unmade albums.
Dolly Parton will be the (ahem) big winner here.

--
"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-02-15 12:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I don't care by Squiddie · 2012-02-15 12:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

They are running a business and trying to make money. It's the same reason that I don't "support" their products. I don't care about Sony because they don't care about me. Also, If I wanted those albums, I'd torrent. She's dead anyway.

NOW we should boycott them? by GodBlessTexas · 2012-02-15 12:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

I've been boycotting them for years, starting with their rootkits on CDs, which should have been charged as a criminal act.

--
Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...

Re:NOW we should boycott them? by amicusNYCL · 2012-02-15 13:14 · Score: 2

I was thinking the same thing. The rootkit thing put me off of Sony immediately. Since then, I've seen several stories (like the removal of the PS3 "OtherOS" option, PSN getting hacked, etc) where people have been asking "should we boycott Sony?" I'm wondering how far those people have to be pushed before they decide that they can make do without Sony products. Living without Sony products is really not a problem. They aren't an essential company in any way.

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Re:NOW we should boycott them? by kyrio · 2012-02-15 19:59 · Score: 1

Yeah, you're right, other than Sony's massive R&D that has created (or helped create, or created the first type of, or exposed to the world) pretty much every consumer electronic for the last 60 years, they aren't that important.

I have no problem keeping Sony products out of my house, but I sure hope people keep buying their crap, because their R&D has been driving innovation for a very long time and that trickles down to the much better products others make thanks to it.
Re:NOW we should boycott them? by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-02-16 00:49 · Score: 1

I feel the same way. However, this is a good excuse to make more people aware of how unethical Sony is. Bring this up,then mention that it is a continuation of a pattern of bad behavior on Sony's part.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:NOW we should boycott them? by Ash-Fox · 2012-02-16 03:35 · Score: 1

However, this is a good excuse to make more people aware of how unethical Sony is. Bring this up,then mention that it is a continuation of a pattern of bad behavior on Sony's part.
So, how do you bring this up?
I'm having a hard time:
Hey, this company called Sony is unethical, you see, they use this thing called economics, and raise their prices when there is greater demand for a product to make more money, even increasing the prices of when an artist dies, because as we know, artist works don't become more valuable when they die, oh wait... This in turn stimulates the economy as they can then invest in future products, hire new people for these products, continue paying their existing staff. Such an unethical company. You should boycott them.
Mmm, no. This just doesn't make sense to me.

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Re:NOW we should boycott them? by amicusNYCL · 2012-02-16 05:41 · Score: 1

R&D is great, but it doesn't matter how good the R&D department is when management still wants to shit all over their customers. I don't have problems with the engineers working at Sony, I have problems with the decision-makers. Along with Phillips, Sony R&D invented the compact disc, but it was management that decided to put a rootkit on one.

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Re:NOW we should boycott them? by kyrio · 2012-02-16 08:46 · Score: 1

Wow, it's amazing how you completely missed the very clear point of my post.

Tasteless by DigiShaman · 2012-02-15 12:52 · Score: 4, Interesting

But logical. Fact is, I bet they earned more money from her death in these past few days than perhaps all last year alone. From a business perspective, you would be stupid not to raise the price. Bad PR yada yada yada. Give it a week and the bitching will stop and sales will increase. Money talks.

Oh look. Shiny!

--
Life is not for the lazy.

Re:Tasteless by DigiShaman · 2012-02-15 13:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

The glory of Sony died with the MiniDisk Walman. This company is just an empty shell of what was once a positive household name for many geeks and nerds alike. As they say. Nothing lasts forever. Not even a reputation.

--
Life is not for the lazy.
Re:Tasteless by grahamd0 · 2012-02-15 13:25 · Score: 1

Businesses are supposed to benefit society. Sure, their (as in the people behind the businesses) individual motivations may be to profit, but that does not mean they can or should do whatever they want. Some things are clearly immoral and we should not tolerate it.
I agree, but I hope you're not suggesting that this is the immoral, intolerable thing that the people behind the Sony corporation are guilty of.
In poor taste? Very much so.
Immoral? Intolerable? Meh. Not so much.
Re:Tasteless by GamemakerSupreme · 2012-02-15 13:30 · Score: 1

Actually, I was just saying that making money isn't always the most important thing.
At most, I'd say this was in bad taste. However, Sony has done immoral things in the past (root kits and OtherOS removal come to mind). Like I said, I can't believe that some people are just now starting to want to boycott Sony.
Re:Tasteless by Rockoon · 2012-02-15 13:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

Businesses arent supposed to "benefit society."

You have misplaced a tenet of capitalism, that trade benefits those involved, with this idea of "benefiting society."

If Sony is charging more than you would like to spend on a product, then dont buy it. Welcome to freedom of choice. If you dont trade, then neither of you are harmed. If you do trade, then we can only assume that you were happy to do so because you have free choice.

--
"His name was James Damore."
Re:Tasteless by GamemakerSupreme · 2012-02-15 13:42 · Score: 1

Businesses arent supposed to "benefit society."

I disagree entirely. That's why we have regulations on businesses and they can't do whatever they want to make money. Businesses can easily be immoral.
But as I said, this is merely tasteless. Just don't buy it.

then we can only assume that you were happy to do so because you have free choice.
Provided there isn't a monopoly on an essential service (read: not this), of course.
Re:Tasteless by Genda · 2012-02-15 13:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

You know, I'm getting a little sick and tired of all these self obsessed, narcissistic, machiavellian, amoral masses of motile human excrement turning the world into an ontological toilet. We live in a free society, but this lowest common denominator crap is just becoming a simple excuse to be free of social responsibility, dignity, compassion or accountability for one's own actions. True freedom implies taking responsibility for a complex world of interactions where the price of your freedom is responsibility for the freedom of those around you. All take and no give, is the beginning of a free-for-all that ends in a stinking dung heap where a workable society once stood. Maybe its time to teach ethics to our children so perhaps they avoid the stupid mistakes we're making?
Re:Tasteless by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 14:43 · Score: 1

Businesses are supposed to benefit its owners, yes.
CORPORATIONS, on the other hand, are supposed to be beneficial to society. That's the only reason why We the People cut them various breaks not usually given to random groups of people, such as limited liability AND legal personality (which are mutually contradictory, if you really think about it--I am a physical person, and I don't have limited liability on what I do), plus many, many more. They benefit us, and in return we give them privilege.
Of course, there are many ways corporations can be beneficial to society, and the best way for them to be beneficial is to make money selling products that people want. (You think corporations shouldn't make money? Well, think about how "beneficial" corporations are when they go out of business and screw employees of jobs, suppliers/shareholders out of money, AND customers out of their products!)
Within that standard, it is hard to argue that Sony's latest move is anti-beneficial to anyone except people who happen to be offended by the move.
Having said all that in defense of Sony, this move is in extremely bad taste. If I were an artist associated with Sony, I'd demand my royalty raised to take the posthumous royalty revenue into account.
Re:Tasteless by ganjadude · 2012-02-15 15:07 · Score: 1

no ,businesses are supposed to produce profit for the owners/shareholders. I dont agree with what sony did, I even called them out for this a few days ago in an apple thread, but a business is NOT supposed to benefit society, no matter how much you wanna think they do

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Re:Tasteless by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2012-02-15 16:10 · Score: 1

There is a difference between "benefiting society" and "not harming society". The regulations are in place to ensure the latter.
Re:Tasteless by fafaforza · 2012-02-15 17:30 · Score: 1

Sony employs thousands of people. They're in business of being profitable. If they are successful, they can keep employing their current folks, or add to the workforce. They're able to give raises and bonuses. To expand benefits. A benefit to society, no?
On the flip side of them raising the music prices, is anyone holding a gun to your head to spend your money? Is someone stopping you from going outside to your local music shop to buy cheap, second hand CDs? Or even doing that on eBay or Amazon?
How is Sony against social benefit, again? And since when are they the arbiter of morality and social behavior, and why do you look to corporations for moral guidance?
Re:Tasteless by fafaforza · 2012-02-15 18:07 · Score: 1

Some of whose comments? Whose argument? I was responding to GamemakerSupreme.
Re:Tasteless by Tom · 2012-02-15 21:21 · Score: 1

Businesses arent supposed to "benefit society."

Actually, at least in the US, corporations are. That's what the corporate charter is all about.
But that idea has been purely theoretical for decades, if not centuries.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:Tasteless by islisis · 2012-02-16 00:19 · Score: 1

Wouldn't you say, started? First time I had ever come across a DRM forcing your to transmit (from MD to another device) in analog, rather than digital... and record either full bit optical or half-bit USB....
Re:Tasteless by jones_supa · 2012-02-16 02:01 · Score: 1

Samsung is the next Sony. I'm not sure if they have products with similar cult following like the Walkman line. Well, their LCD panels have good reputation. But in general they make quality state-of-the-art electronics.
Re:Tasteless by Ash-Fox · 2012-02-16 03:28 · Score: 1

We live in a free society, but this lowest common denominator crap is just becoming a simple excuse to be free of social responsibility, dignity, compassion or accountability for one's own actions.
I still don't see what was wrong with what Sony did.

True freedom implies taking responsibility for a complex world of interactions where the price of your freedom is responsibility for the freedom of those around you.

Increasing prices to turn a bigger profit because of larger demand doesn't take away people's freedoms.

All take and no give, is the beginning of a free-for-all that ends in a stinking dung heap where a workable society once stood.
So... What you're saying is, Sony doesn't employ people and pay them? What.

Maybe its time to teach ethics to our children so perhaps they avoid the stupid mistakes we're making?
Sure, just not your ethics in this context, they just don't make any sense.

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Re:Tasteless by Ash-Fox · 2012-02-16 03:30 · Score: 1

if a corporation relies on what amounts to slave labor
If that was the case, it would make waves in the media and people would boycott over it.

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Re:Tasteless by toddestan · 2012-02-17 18:17 · Score: 1

Samsung isn't anywhere near the quality of Sony products back in Sony's golden era. Sony used to be a premium brand (and they still seem to believe they are). Samsung at best is a good value brand, offering a decent product at a very attractive price. I might rate them higher, but their reliability record stinks.

Sony doesn't care. by TheSpoom · 2012-02-15 12:53 · Score: 2

You already hate Sony. Sony already hates you. You're not Sony's primary audience. Sony's primary audience won't notice things like this.

--
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs

Re:Sony doesn't care. by couchslug · 2012-02-15 12:55 · Score: 1

"Sony's primary audience won't notice things like this."
Their primary audience deserves things like this. And who on /. gives a fuck about Whitney Houston?

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:Sony doesn't care. by amicusNYCL · 2012-02-15 13:16 · Score: 1

And who on /. gives a fuck about Whitney Houston?
1st: that's not really the issue, is it?
2nd: anyone who appreciates vocal talent.

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black

We should boycott only now? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 12:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

This article is assuming we shouldn't have been boycotting Sony already.
Silly people... why do they need so much time to learn?

Re:We should boycott only now? by Savage-Rabbit · 2012-02-15 13:14 · Score: 4, Informative

This article is assuming we shouldn't have been boycotting Sony already.
Silly people... why do they need so much time to learn?
Sony are a bunch of vultures, what's there to learn? Everybody knows how vultures behave.

--
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Re:We should boycott only now? by jc42 · 2012-02-15 13:45 · Score: 4, Informative

article is assuming we shouldn't have been boycotting Sony already.
Well, my first thought was that I can't boycott Sony over this, because I haven't bought anything of theirs since back when they were caught including rootkits on their CDs.
I don't know if it's possible to do two boycotts against the same company simultaneously. If so, you would one do it?

--
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Re:We should boycott only now? by Grishnakh · 2012-02-15 14:12 · Score: 5, Funny

I find your post insulting. Vultures play an important part in the ecosystem. Sony plays no useful role in human society, and vultures have more class and ethics than Sony.
Re:We should boycott only now? by ackthpt · 2012-02-15 14:15 · Score: 1, Flamebait

This article is assuming we shouldn't have been boycotting Sony already.
Silly people... why do they need so much time to learn?
I'd been boycotting Whitney Houston for all her music which I didn't like. So this plays straight into my hands!

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:We should boycott only now? by sjames · 2012-02-15 14:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

At least vultures have the decency to wait till the body is cold.
Re:We should boycott only now? by thebeige · 2012-02-15 15:04 · Score: 1

Yeah Sony ensuring that they suck in 2012 as well as 2011!
Re:We should boycott only now? by thebeige · 2012-02-15 15:09 · Score: 3, Informative

No way, we need Sony to train the script kiddies
Re:We should boycott only now? by ninsega · 2012-02-15 15:10 · Score: 1

Good point. I have been boycotting Sony since 1995! Have yet to break that boycott.
Re:We should boycott only now? by viperidaenz · 2012-02-15 15:24 · Score: 4, Funny

Sure you can, my country employs concurrent sentencing for prisoners, same concept as concurrent boycotting...
Re:We should boycott only now? by arth1 · 2012-02-15 16:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

At least vultures have the decency to wait till the body is cold.
Um, no. Vultures have to act quickly before other scavengers arrive. Flying gives them an advantage in finding the bodies quicker, and exploiting that they're still warm and haven't alerted other scavengers by starting to smell yet. Then they often get a second chance after other scavengers are done.
As for "decency", how do you know this wasn't an automated price setting based on number of purchases, in which case the ones to blame are the hyenas who rushed to the scene to buy the music of someone they never gave a fuck about when she lived?
Re:We should boycott only now? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 18:51 · Score: 5, Funny

I purchase all my music from Internet Piracy. They are good guys, the price is always stable.
Re:We should boycott only now? by bug1 · 2012-02-15 19:21 · Score: 3, Interesting

These movie and music distributors behave like they dont give a damn about the rest of society, they seem to spend all their time plotting the best way to take all our stuff, no consideration to ethics or morality at all.
Its like they are bunch of PIRATES !!!
Its time to turn the tables with this "pirates" tag and stick on them.
From now on consider usign the term "MPAA Pirates" or "RIAA Pirates"
Re:We should boycott only now? by crutchy · 2012-02-15 19:23 · Score: 3, Funny

yeah, why insult vultures by comparing the poor things to the likes of sony?
Re:We should boycott only now? by crutchy · 2012-02-15 19:25 · Score: 1

tell that to all the wankers on psn
Re:We should boycott only now? by justforgetme · 2012-02-15 19:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

As for "decency", how do you know this wasn't an automated price setting based on number of purchases, in which case the ones to blame are the hyenas who rushed to the scene to buy the music of someone they never gave a fuck about when she lived?
Somehow making my point there, Sony might well be a tumor of humanity but still this practice is nothing anyone should be ashamed of. The people who liked her music had her music. They didn't need her to die in order to buy it. This is classical herd tax every other idiot has to pay because he wants to be "part of the moment".
Why was this noise posted in the first place?

--
-- no sig today
Re:We should boycott only now? by tsa · 2012-02-15 20:24 · Score: 1

Yeah, they should have a website called The Pirate Bay.

--
-- Cheers!
Re:We should boycott only now? by Saintwolf · 2012-02-15 21:18 · Score: 2

As you said, "the people who liked her music had her music". Therefore nobody will buy these greatest hits and nobody has to give even the slightest fuck.
Re:We should boycott only now? by Saintwolf · 2012-02-15 21:19 · Score: 1, Flamebait

and also, if you just want to be "part of the moment", then you deserve to be conned.
Re:We should boycott only now? by Elaugaufein · 2012-02-15 22:01 · Score: 1

Actually the key problem there would be the automatic price setting based on number of purchases for a non-scarce good.
Re:We should boycott only now? by hairyfeet · 2012-02-15 22:13 · Score: 1

I'm afraid sadly boycotts won't work, because of what I call "PPT math". You see Sony will just bring a projector into congress with a PPT that shows "If we made X last year and Houston is dead you can see by chart B that artists who die have their sales go up by X. Since we didn't see our sales go up by X its those ebil pirates and we need SOPA/PIPA!" and they'll get it.
You see with PPT math they have a great "heads i win tails you lose' scam going as ANY reason for a drop can be blamed on their favorite scapegoat. Doesn't matter what they do, hell they could replace the covers of the albums with Goatse and it won't matter, thanks to PPT math if they made X last year they should make X+Y this year, economy or shitting on customers be damned. I haven't bought a single RIAA product in nearly a decade and instead support local artists, i also haven't touched a Sony product since the PS1 but does it matter that me, my friends and family won't touch a Sony product? No because any drops in sales is those ebil pirates and they get more draconian laws.
So boycott away, hell occupy Sony, it just won't matter, PPT math wins every time, just like it did with "too big to fail", the entire housing bubble, and the gambling that goes on today on wall Street, all PPT math.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:We should boycott only now? by marcello_dl · 2012-02-15 22:22 · Score: 1

And, compared to other moves, this one isn't particularly evil. The standard of sony's evil would have been to raise the prices 30 mins BEFORE she died.

--
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Re:We should boycott only now? by Captain+Hook · 2012-02-15 22:28 · Score: 3, Informative

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG

The venture's successor, the again-active Sony Music Entertainment, is 100% owned by the Sony Corporation of America.
a very different company in this case being the direct successor to the entity which did put rootkits on CDs with Sony Music being formed by Sony buying out the 50% share from Bertelsmann AG.

It like the difference between night and... well, slightly later that same night.

--
These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
Re:We should boycott only now? by GreatBunzinni · 2012-02-15 23:46 · Score: 1

Somehow making my point there, Sony might well be a tumor of humanity but still this practice is nothing anyone should be ashamed of.
I would be deeply ashamed if the idea of profiting from someone's death was ever suggested to me, particularly from a scenario where my profiting did not contribute any added value to society. It's not as if Sony is a mortuary, or even if the price increase was entirely handed to Whitney Houston's family.
And shame on you, too, for suggesting that, somehow, those who eventually purchase Whitney Houston's work now are doing something equally bad or even worse than profiting from a death. I suspect you are either a Sony shill or a sociopath, to be able to make such astoundingly crass comments.

--
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
Re:We should boycott only now? by MDillenbeck · 2012-02-15 23:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

As for "decency", how do you know this wasn't an automated price setting based on number of purchases, in which case the ones to blame are the hyenas who rushed to the scene to buy the music of someone they never gave a fuck about when she lived?
I didn't get very far in economics, but I always thought the more units you sold meant the lower the unit price could go due to scales of economy. Now I know scales of economy don't work with a digital good in the same way - after all, you probably have a fixed price for transmitting it over the internet and giving the device a license to play the song (plus a minimal future expected cost of allowing them the right to activate it on a few devices in the future, which have minimal bandwidth usages), thus there is no savings by increasing unit production.
However, digital music is not a tangible good and thus can have a nearly infinite quantity (ie, limited only by the bandwidth of the selling service, which would mean all songs on the service should increase if bandwidth was reaching maximum usage, not just one subset), thus there is no scarcity issue to drive up the price. Supply should always exist to meet any demand. Thus with infinite supply, cost should either remain steady or go down.
The only way I can see the company actively choosing to increase the cost is to increase their profits on an arbitrary basis. Okay, maybe not so arbitrary - maybe the stigma of the artist drove down the price, but Sony recognized the stigma was removed upon death (as people seem to be adverse to holding their bad opinions of when people die, Hitler and several other dictators being the exception to this rule) and restored their normal pricing structure. After all, I doubt that Vanilla Ice or Milli Vanilli sell as well as Adele or Lady Gaga right now, but who knows - maybe if Vanilla Ice had a horrible tragic death then there would be a resurgence in his sales that would result in a normal pricing structure.
However, for now I will just think of it as Sony price-gouging based on a blip of popularity due to an artist's tragic death.
Re:We should boycott only now? by CSMoran · 2012-02-16 00:48 · Score: 2

and here [google.com] is the google translate.
It says:

This created the impression that the record label wanted to punch a salad from the death of the singer
I think this explains sony's real motive.

--
Every end has half a stick.
Re:We should boycott only now? by delinear · 2012-02-16 01:04 · Score: 1

Same here, my last Sony purchase was a PS1, and technically I don't think that counts since I bought it second hand with all the games I cared about for it. At least once a year Sony demonstrates how little it cares about either its customers or humanity in general, and every time there is a huge "let's boycott Sony" call, yet they're still there, still doing the same crap. They probably feel by this point that they can never do anything so bad that it wouldn't be forgiven/forgotten - I'd love to see a real groundswell of opinion force a true boycott and see them change their ways (because honestly, some of their products do look nice, you just know if you buy into them they're likely to explode, or have features removed after sale, or be locked down or have rootkits hidden in them, or they'll lose your credit card details, etc).
Re:We should boycott only now? by SethraLavode · 2012-02-16 01:42 · Score: 1

Here's a hint: when you avoid buying something you don't like, it's called "being a rational actor." You have to actually want something to actively boycott it.
Re:We should boycott only now? by AmiMoJo · 2012-02-16 01:44 · Score: 2

Sony was cashing in on her death. They were going to make more money anyway, but felt that wasn't enough so decided (automated or not) to put the price up. Machines being programmed to do something does not excuse the operator from ensuring their actions are moral.
You shouldn't be so cynical either. I didn't own any of her records before she died but due to them being playing on the TV and radio I had a little listen. Doesn't make me a sheep, just means I reacted to something that interested me.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:We should boycott only now? by sjames · 2012-02-16 02:22 · Score: 1

Vultures ARE often first because they have aerial surveillance, but (at least with the new world vultures where I live) it's usually the small that attracts them, which doesn't happen immediately upon death.
Re:We should boycott only now? by omnichad · 2012-02-16 02:29 · Score: 1

Don't forget to boycott the Blu-Ray format. They're a member of the BDA, and yeah - they also get royalties on the DVD format. Good luck boycotting them entirely.
Re:We should boycott only now? by j00r0m4nc3r · 2012-02-16 02:31 · Score: 1

Correct. I've been boycotting Sony for over a decade now.
Re:We should boycott only now? by omnichad · 2012-02-16 02:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

You missed a LOT in economics. Economies of scale only matter when two companies are competing on the same product. Most things are priced based on what the market will bear. That is, prices are set as high as they can as long as people still buy it and the companies can maximize their profits. If dropping the price by 20% gives you 3x sales, then you do it. But if dropping the price just gives you less revenue, you'll not find many companies doing that. That is the basis of capitalism.
Sony can create artificial scarcity whenever they want as the sole supplier. You see the same thing when the price of oil skyrockets due to oil-producing companies stockpiling and withholding product from the market.
Re:We should boycott only now? by Culture20 · 2012-02-16 02:40 · Score: 1

But supply and demand (classic capitalism) breaks down when supply is effectively infinite.
Re:We should boycott only now? by g0bshiTe · 2012-02-16 03:03 · Score: 2

You say Sony, but what you are really talking is Sony's recording section, also it's not just Sony but all major labels that are vultures.

--
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Re:We should boycott only now? by g0bshiTe · 2012-02-16 03:06 · Score: 1

For me her death will not increase the value of her music, it's not any better than it was prior too. I've never liked it, and I doubt I ever will.

Sony raised the price, but did they do it at the behest of her estate or executor? That is probably the most logical assumption.

--
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Re:We should boycott only now? by GreatBunzinni · 2012-02-16 03:36 · Score: 1

You are helplessly wrong sir, but for what it's worth:
Whitney Houston's music got a price inflation because the projected desirability skyrocketed upon news of her death. (classic capitalism)
Before you feel entitled to accuse someone of being wrong, let alone "helplessly wrong", you should make sure you don't make yourself look likea fool by pulling a Rotsky. The matter of fact is that a sale price only increases if and only if some person decides to increase it. An increase in demand does not cause, as you tried to put it, "price inflation". The only case that you can make for that is if you assert that the supply and demand model is actually infalible, which notoriously is not, and that this price increase is tied to some form of scarcity, which obviously is not when talking about media sales, including the so called digital sales.

Also since you tried to give me one, here is your psych evaluation:
"You would be ashamed for profiting through murder."
Ok, no arguments to that. Nobody suggested Sony murdered Whitney Houston. Are you projecting your psychopathic tendencies on me?
"You think that I should be ashamed because I identify a commonly occurring non productive social behavior"
Don't put words in my mouth. If you are unable to refute or even face what has been said then you cannot simply lie and commit libel to try to put yourself in a position which is less hypocritical and sociopathic.

--
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
Re:We should boycott only now? by Spamalope · 2012-02-16 03:58 · Score: 1

Actually the pricing increase is completely fair.

The price increase covers the cost of the Whitney Houston Commemorative Rootkit!
Re:We should boycott only now? by macbass · 2012-02-16 05:10 · Score: 1

Hear, hear!!
Re:We should boycott only now? by Migraineman · 2012-02-16 05:25 · Score: 2

Further, the artificial scarcity coupled with monopolistic behavior (enabled by the copyright structure) allows the supplier to do whatever he wants. In this particular instance, Sony is charging more for Ms. Houston's music because:
.a) they can
.b) you have no alternatives

You're basically presented with Hobson's Choice. Free market economics don't really apply when goods aren't comparable or the market is constrained.
Re:We should boycott only now? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-02-16 06:49 · Score: 1

Keep in mind that you need to declare the purchase on your tax return and pay the use tax on it, though!
Re:We should boycott only now? by DaveGod · 2012-02-16 08:01 · Score: 1

Economies of scale only matter when two companies are competing on the same product.
Nah, the econcomies of scale still impact the supply curve because it reduces the cost to produce each unit. It's the margin that drives decisions, not the sales.
That said, the impact in a surge in demand is usually going to increase price, because it is actually moving the entire demand curve whilst just travelling along the pre-existing cost & supply curves. But, an increase in demand can result in a lower sales price when you have a cost curve shaped more like a wave (dramatic scale economies but only in intervals) or where the angle of the demand curve changes (demand becomes more price-elastic).
This often isn't covered in classes, since it's just a case of applying the taught principles to a new scenario, but does happen quite often in the real world. Probably a good example is where a niche high-end maker of clothing has his designs come into mainstream fashion. He may lose some high-end customers who appreciated exclusivity but gains heavily in the price-sensitive mainstream, so the demand curve pivots rather than shift to a higher parallel. This itself puts pressure that a new profit-maximising position is to reduce prices. But there is the secondary effect of serious scale economies kicking in from employing some massive factory instead of the wee bespoke outfitters used before. Because of this the new profit-maximising position may be dramatically lower prices to what it was before.
Another good example is often the supply of water to homes. The process is so incredibly capital-intensive that it is the norm for the monopoly's scale economies to be such that their profit-maximising position is actually a lower price point than under competition (of course there are way to still have competition but that's beside the point of the illustration).
http://tutor2u.net/economics/content/topics/monopoly/monopoly_profits.htm
Re:We should boycott only now? by LordLimecat · 2012-02-16 10:07 · Score: 1

I didn't get very far in economics, but I always thought the more units you sold meant the lower the unit price could go due to scales of economy.
Apparently not far at all. More demand=price goes up.
Re:We should boycott only now? by justforgetme · 2012-02-16 20:02 · Score: 1

Don't put words in my mouth.
I didn't. You did in your initial reply. Again projecting your own compunctions on me?

If you are unable to refute or even face what has been said then you cannot ...
I did, the proof is just above.
Now stop using the canned "insist on a lie" debating technique and try to actually positively provide to a conversation.

--
-- no sig today
Re:We should boycott only now? by wertigon · 2012-02-17 00:45 · Score: 1

Problem is, even if you're a pirate you're contributing to the demand and popularity of Sony.
A vegetarian is often eating a strict vegetarian diet because he or she does not wish to support the "unethical" meat factory practices. And yeah, those practices are by neccessity messy. Now, the pirate is like the almost-vegetarian (doesn't eat meat... Except for Salami. And a bit ham sometimes. And salmon). Still contributing to the problem you're saying you're against.
A true boycott must mean an across-the-bord /ignore. Not just pirate it. Complete and utter ignorance.

--
systemd is not an init system. It's a GNU replacement.
Re:We should boycott only now? by tbannist · 2012-02-17 11:18 · Score: 1

Not really. Sony has a monopoly on supply, thus they can arbitrarily limit supply or increase the price when demand increases. There's still a sweet spot where you maximize profits and with the news media focused on Whitney Houston's death that sweet spot is going to go up because of increased demand. From a pure capitalist point of view it's better to sell 10,000 units at $10 than it is to sell 20,000 units at $4, even if the cost of the product is $0.
That doesn't mean this isn't a scummy move. It just means that you don't believe in the infallibility of the invisible hand of the marketplace and that's probably a good thing.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Re:We should boycott only now? by sjames · 2012-02-18 13:09 · Score: 1

All of that only works if you have some mechanism to prevent rent seeking. Otherwise, the monopolist will jack prices and margins into the stratosphere even whil reaping huge savings through economies of scale. Particularly for an essential good like water but to a lesser extent for even a pure luxury item.
Other than regulation, that mechanism is typically competition. The effectiveness of competition will depend on the inter-changability of goods. In a world of IP monopolies, that inter-changability will be limited. Two artists (for example) may be similar and more or less equally enjoyable, but (hopefully) not exactly the same. When a single artist is thrust into the public spotlight (for example through an unexpected death), the interchangability is at an all time low.
Curiously, Sony keeps having little pricing accidents specific to those artists.
Re:We should boycott only now? by MDillenbeck · 2012-02-20 01:32 · Score: 1

Apparently not far at all. More demand=price goes up.
Doesn't more demand = price goes up only apply when there is some constraint on the supply? Theoretically a digital good can be replicated as many times as needed (only the bandwidth is restricted), and thus in this case all music on the service should have gone up due to bandwidth consumption (because it doesn't matter what song you are buying if the bandwidth is limited, all songs suffer from the limitation and not just Whitney Houston's songs).
Also, I purchase my share of niche goods. Often it is explained to me that because of the low volume of sales, prices are higher. That is also the explanation for the cost of my college text books - since there is such a small market, they have to charge more due to higher production costs (the scales of economy I mentioned).
Thus I am left in the situation where you tell me more demand = price goes up, and others have told me (and so does the real world) that less demand = price goes up. This leaves us with a case where price will never go down based on shifting demand. Somehow, that seems incorrect.

Okay, but there are bigger questions by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-02-15 12:54 · Score: 4, Funny

Is there anyone here on Slashdot that's willing to admit they own a Whitney Houston song?

--
#DeleteChrome

Re:Okay, but there are bigger questions by sgt+scrub · 2012-02-15 13:02 · Score: 5, Funny

Is there anyone here on Slashdot that's willing to admit they were the ones that uploaded a torrent of all of Whitney Houston's songs 30 minutes after hearing about Sony raising prices?

--
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Re:Okay, but there are bigger questions by thejaq · 2012-02-15 13:08 · Score: 1

depends what you mean by 'own,' the bodyguard was one of the few cds I ever purchased. I was 11 or so. The CD is lost in time, but I did purchase it, I did appreciate it, and I recently torrented the fuck out of it.
Re:Okay, but there are bigger questions by jedwidz · 2012-02-15 13:12 · Score: 1

Let's see now, my first three LPs were:
Fore - Huey Lewis and the News
Invisible Touch - Genesis
No Jacket Required - Phil Collins
But no Whitney. I'm not a psycho.
Re:Okay, but there are bigger questions by colinrichardday · 2012-02-15 14:46 · Score: 1

Yes. I have her rendition of "The Star-Spangled Banner" on the official CD. I also like her cover of Chaka Khan's "I'm Every Woman".
Re:Okay, but there are bigger questions by ganjadude · 2012-02-15 15:10 · Score: 1

heh, invisible touch was my first CD along with an elton john greatest hits album!

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Re:Okay, but there are bigger questions by strength_of_10_men · 2012-02-15 16:14 · Score: 4, Funny

Personally, I celebrate the woman's entire catalog.
Re:Okay, but there are bigger questions by mjwx · 2012-02-15 20:14 · Score: 1

Personally, I celebrate the woman's entire catalog.
Commando team dispatched.

Please remain at your present location.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:Okay, but there are bigger questions by hack++slash · 2012-02-15 20:57 · Score: 1

Not sure if this counts, what with it being The KLF and all...

\Klf Albums\HISTORY_OF_THE_JAMS\03 Whitney Joins The Jams.mp3

--
To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
Re:Okay, but there are bigger questions by Green+Salad · 2012-02-16 06:53 · Score: 1

I only buy dead artists. I just haven't had time yet.
Re:Okay, but there are bigger questions by Anomalyst · 2012-02-16 09:47 · Score: 1

Who finances the transport of sports celebrities without underwear?

--
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.

Didn't Courtney Love tell us by cesman · 2012-02-15 12:54 · Score: 1

That the music industry was evil.
http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/

--
When the source is open, the possibilities are endless.

Awww, give Sony a break by davidwr · 2012-02-15 12:54 · Score: 2

I'm sure they were just doing their part to prevent iTunes and Amazon from crashing under heavy load.

--
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.

If people will pay.... by Mariomario · 2012-02-15 12:55 · Score: 1

If a lot of people want a singer's song after they die, then of coarse a company will raise the price. I have seen people get mad at sony, and I tell them simply to not buy the songs then. Don't boycott sony, just buy the songs somewhere else.

Yes, Sony is evil... by msauve · 2012-02-15 12:55 · Score: 5, Informative

But, to be fair, this seems to have been a simple mistake by a single employee, and was quickly corrected. Linking through to the NYT article:

"the changes - which were in effect only on the British version of iTunes, and were reversed Sunday evening...the price increase was the result of an error by a Sony employee in Britain, and that the company gave no orders for prices to be raised on Ms. Houston's music."

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law

Re:Yes, Sony is evil... by chrb · 2012-02-16 01:46 · Score: 1

So what are they going to do with the money they made from this profiteering "mistake"? Give it back?
Re:Yes, Sony is evil... by msauve · 2012-02-16 01:56 · Score: 1

They didn't force anyone to buy anything. What happened, whether a mistake or not, was perfectly legal, although perhaps in bad taste.

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law

Capitalism at work by gweihir · 2012-02-15 12:56 · Score: 1

I do not understand the outrage. Sony is a for-profit venture and saw the opportunity to increase profits. Of course, if they were a person, that would be despicable, but they are not.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.

Re:Capitalism at work by GamemakerSupreme · 2012-02-15 13:11 · Score: 1

Of course, if they were a person, that would be despicable, but they are not.
The people behind the corporation could be considered despicable, though. The fact that businesses want to make money doesn't mean they can do whatever they want.
Re:Capitalism at work by fafaforza · 2012-02-15 17:35 · Score: 2

For fuck's sake, we aren't talking about slavery or child labor here, nor dumping chemicals into drinking water. We're talking about a higher price on a luxury item, a luxury item you could likely get at the same, lower price a month from now. This is what we find despicable? Prices of MP3s? Get a grip!

Sony won't be around for much longer by BitHive · 2012-02-15 12:56 · Score: 1

With all the damage they've been doing to their reputation the invisible hand is surely about to come down, hard.

Re:Sony won't be around for much longer by koan · 2012-02-15 13:00 · Score: 1

The invisible hand of the cud chewing market? I doubt it people are getting dumber by the second...like someone's sig here says "Idiocracy is a documentary"

--
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Re:Sony won't be around for much longer by BitHive · 2012-02-15 13:21 · Score: 1

Here's a breakdown of how it will work:
1. People act in their own rational self interest and stop buying Sony products.
2. Sony runs out of money, disappears
3. Other companies compete to fill the gap
This is economics 101, people!
Re:Sony won't be around for much longer by geminidomino · 2012-02-15 13:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

It can be argued (rather convincingly, IMO) that the problem with "economics 101" is that, by and large, #1 is a grossly incorrect premise.
Re:Sony won't be around for much longer by BitHive · 2012-02-15 14:07 · Score: 1

What rubbish, next you'll be telling me that we should teach probability and statistical inference in high school.
Re:Sony won't be around for much longer by jdgeorge · 2012-02-15 14:26 · Score: 1

No! Then Ayn Rand's philosophy would lose relevance in the demographic of it's staunchest supporters!
Re:Sony won't be around for much longer by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2012-02-15 16:18 · Score: 1

Hah - you mistake Sony's customers for people who are even marginally aware of Sony's practices. Sony's reputation is just fine among the majority of people (keeping in mind that folks reading in and participating in communities where this kind of thing is discussed are far from a majority).
Re:Sony won't be around for much longer by Green+Salad · 2012-02-16 07:01 · Score: 1

After Sony is dead, their albums will be worth more.

Controlled market by sakdoctor · 2012-02-15 13:07 · Score: 1

With music there are only two choices:
1) Monopolistic pricing
2) Zero price point

The equilibrium price isn't an option, and most people value the product far less than its cost.

Re:Controlled market by retchdog · 2012-02-15 14:30 · Score: 1

what would "the equilibrium price" be defined as anyway, and how would it differ from monopolistic pricing? i say this because in practice, there is an equilibrium already; piracy is an option, and similar artists/single tracks/whatever are a lower-value option.

--
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky

TPB by J'raxis · 2012-02-15 13:09 · Score: 4, Funny

Price still seems to be $0.00 on The Pirate Bay...

--
Liberty in your lifetime

Re:TPB by Fned · 2012-02-15 14:09 · Score: 3, Funny

That's TEN TIMES what it was last week...!
Re:TPB by glwtta · 2012-02-15 15:08 · Score: 1

IF you exclude the risk of being infected up the wazoo.

On Pirate Bay? I suppose you could manage that, if you really put your mind to it.

--
sic transit gloria mundi
Re:TPB by 1u3hr · 2012-02-15 15:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

IF you exclude the risk of being infected up the wazoo.
From a bunch of MP3 files? How, pray tell, does that work?
In a discussion about Sony, who DID work out a way to infect computers using an "audio CD" that actually included a root kit, that's pretty ironic.
Re:TPB by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-02-15 17:18 · Score: 1

You can embed JPEG album covers in an MP3.
I seem to recall at least one historical bug in libjpeg that allowed a pathological jpeg file to cause a buffer overflow and execute arbitrary code.
So in, the admittedly unlikely, case of mp3 software with an old version of libjpeg trying to display a malicious album cover it could be made to happen.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Re:TPB by drinkypoo · 2012-02-16 00:10 · Score: 1

IF you exclude the risk of being infected up the wazoo.
From a bunch of MP3 files? How, pray tell, does that work?

It's called a buffer overflow, and vulnerabilities have been found in mp3 players before. For people who run as Administrator because software otherwise doesn't work, this is a potential problem. For automotive entertainment systems which generally run without a security context and which may not even have meaningful memory protection, it is doubly a problem.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:TPB by 1u3hr · 2012-02-16 05:40 · Score: 1

It's called a buffer overflow
Bollocks. Name a real world exploit, not something that you have to install a bunch of obsolete software to make it even possible. And then point out any time it actually happened in the wild.

For automotive entertainment systems which generally run without a security context and which may not even have meaningful memory protection, it is doubly a problem.
Again bollocks. Who cares if your MP3 player crashed? Reboot it. You're not seriously saying that the music system in a car could affect anything else? Again, cite a real example, not a what-if.
Re:TPB by drinkypoo · 2012-02-16 06:57 · Score: 1

Again bollocks. Who cares if your MP3 player crashed? Reboot it. You're not seriously saying that the music system in a car could affect anything else? Again, cite a real example, not a what-if.
Today's what-ifs are tomorrow's WTFs.
The music system in some vehicles is tied into the same CAN-bus with everything else so that it can get signals from the same steering wheel that has the cruise controls on it and which is listened to by the TCM. There's basically no security on this bus. And referring to your prior "point", people run obsolete software all the time.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:TPB by 1u3hr · 2012-02-16 15:26 · Score: 1

Today's what-ifs are tomorrow's WTFs.
Sounds more like the fictional liquid bomb that never could have worked outside a laboratory and has caused millions of people to waste millions of hours at airports ever since.
And in this case, millions of people are downloading millions of MP3s every day and never a "WTF". Except when they get Rickrolled.

The music system in some vehicles is tied into the same CAN-bus with everything else so that it can get signals from the same steering wheel that has the cruise controls on it and which is listened to by the TCM. There's basically no security on this bus.
You've been reading too much Neuromancer. Has this ever happened? No. If it were possible, some asshole would have done it by now.
Re:TPB by cffrost · 2012-02-16 17:38 · Score: 1

IF you exclude the risk of being infected up the wazoo.
Bullshit. There's more malware on Sony's media than on TPB's linked copies of that media.

--
Thank you, Edward Snowden.

"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
Re:TPB by drinkypoo · 2012-02-17 02:28 · Score: 1

Sounds more like the fictional liquid bomb that never could have worked outside a laboratory and has caused millions of people to waste millions of hours at airports ever since.

That's what everyone says until a 0-day shows up. When I read reports of how attacks were actually carried out I am often astounded.

And in this case, millions of people are downloading millions of MP3s every day and never a "WTF". Except when they get Rickrolled.
It's no consolation that it's not happening to millions if it happens to you.

You've been reading too much Neuromancer. Has this ever happened? No. If it were possible, some asshole would have done it by now.
So, because you don't know that it's happened, it's never happened? It's been shown that it's possible in pieces. It's not much of a leap to the next step.
It's not happening today for the same reason that most attacks aren't against the Newton, minimal installed base. But as such systems become more widespread you can bet they will be subject to more attacks.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Understandable by Sigvatr · 2012-02-15 13:14 · Score: 1, Insightful

If I was a major shareholder at Sony, I would have done the exact same thing. And you would have too. I don't know what the big deal is about.

Re:Understandable by benjfowler · 2012-02-15 23:03 · Score: 1

Speaking strictly for myself, I would never be a major shareholder for Sony.
There's no way I would let such a bunch of useless, amoral assclowns to invest my money.

According to SONY it was a mistake by VinylRecords · 2012-02-15 13:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/sony-says-price-of-2-whitney-houston-albums-was-raised-by-mistake/

According to the NYTimes the price raising was a mistake that only affected the UK Itunes store and nothing else. So of all the retailers and online shops only one was affected, Itunes, and only one region, the UK. If SONY wanted to capitalize on her death they likely would have raised prices across the board and just not the UK Itunes shop.

This probably was an error. Someone assigned to managing SONY's UK Itunes account royally fucked up by changing the price. And now it is basically a PR disaster because even though it likely was an accident SONY looks absolutely retarded. Someone will lose his or her job over this for sure.

Sadly I'm sure that some sneering fuck CEO from the RIAA or MAFIAA or SONY or whatever is sitting on his throne thinking of ways to capitalize on Whitney Houston's death without taking a major PR hit. They see her death as basically an opportunity for a lot of profit and a great time to line their pockets.

Re:According to SONY it was a mistake by Osgeld · 2012-02-15 14:33 · Score: 1

"SONY looks absolutely retarded"
Oh no, we are way past Sony only looking retarded. They were full blown, 24/7 nurse on call, even special education cant handle them,retarded well before now.
Re:According to SONY it was a mistake by ganjadude · 2012-02-15 15:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

yeah ok.. im sure it was more like this

sony execs - lets raise the prices in 1 area, see what happens
br wait, the backlash is huge, lets blame a rogue employee and not raise it in the rest of the country...success!

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Re:According to SONY it was a mistake by fleeped · 2012-02-15 18:51 · Score: 1

They'll do the same as they did with other famous recently dead artists - start releasing compilations/live videos/demo recordings etc etc. See Michael Jackson/Amy Winehouse.
Re:According to SONY it was a mistake by smurfsurf · 2012-02-15 21:45 · Score: 1

> because even though it likely was an accident
An accident means that the employee did not intend to raise the prices in the first place. I do not see that.
An employee had the authority and the means to raise the prizes and he decided to do so because he thought that would be a nice way to increase income. Because it was a PR disaster, someone above him reversed the decision. It was a mistake, but it was in no way an accident.

Re:They all do this. by MightyMartian · 2012-02-15 13:16 · Score: 4, Informative

Tom Petty was going bankrupt even while he had hit records. The Beatles, Pink Floyd, The Eagles and King Crimson all have no lack of horror stories about the record and publishing companies consistently screwing them on royalties, flagrantly violating contracts and in going out of their way to prevent the artists and the lawyers from looking at actual sales.

Whatever artists might be losing to illegal downloads, you can be sure that it is small potatoes to the rackateering that RIAA members have been up to for decades.

If you want to talk about real evil, you should look at the record companies treated artists like Bo Diddley, which amounted to userious contracts and outright theft.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

Re:I would do the same thing by MightyMartian · 2012-02-15 13:18 · Score: 1

Don't worry. The true fans will be shelling out for cleaned up outtakes, second rate tracks and "duets" with .

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

Re:It saddens me that people give Sony money by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-02-15 13:23 · Score: 1

If people want to listen to a song, they buy it on iTunes and hear it within seconds. When you go the CD-route like you're suggesting, well it's a lot longer than seconds.

Of course the fact that music shopping has changed that much isn't worthy of a Grammy.

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

So cute. by Beelzebud · 2012-02-15 13:28 · Score: 1

It's so cute to see all the free market people out arguing in favor of Root-Kit Sony.

Makes sense by zAPPzAPP · 2012-02-15 13:31 · Score: 1

She can't produce any new songs now, so the ones already out there are worth more.
Finally we can see that mythical scarcity of digital goods, that they are always talking about! For IP to work out, you have to die first.

Re:*shrug* by koan · 2012-02-15 13:34 · Score: 1

Sure mod me down assholes, but she was found on a Saturday afternoon by her body guard, so ask yourself just how quick do you have to move to confirm the death then contact the people to raise the prices on her music?

30 minutes is pretty damn fast, in fact I would wager they have a "death watch" on drug riddled stars like Amy Winehouse and Whitney Houston so that they can implement pricing changes as quickly as possible, that is... if they didn't murder her outright.
Every news corp has several preprepared death statements for politicians and stars so why a pricing model as well?

Next big star to die go to iTunes and refresh until you see it.

--
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."

Well, its a business by gorrepati · 2012-02-15 13:41 · Score: 2

And the market conditions determine what the price is. Sure you would pay more for food during natural disasters. This is a common theme on reddit "That big company did that, those assholes, how could they?"

If you are so pissed off about it, wait until the storm passes away and buy it then. Grow up and have a little bit of patience.

--
You will never have experience until after you needed it.

Re:Well, its a business by smurfsurf · 2012-02-15 21:59 · Score: 1

This has nothing to do with "big company blah blah". It is simply bad taste and people react accordingly. The market is not the ultimate guideline for human behaviour.

I am confused by zmollusc · 2012-02-15 13:48 · Score: 1

What about people who illegally downloaded her music after she died? Are they depriving Whitney of more money or no longer depriving her of money?

--
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.

Sony is RIGHT! by superflit · 2012-02-15 13:48 · Score: 1

Sorry but Sony is Right...

Dead People cannot sing or create new musics.

So Sony should milk all it can!

Live Long Sony

Supply and Demand by consumer_whore · 2012-02-15 13:48 · Score: 1

It's supply and demand. Sony wants to make money. Raising the price will only make more money if demand goes up. If demand goes up, but the price does not, there will be a shortage. Economic laws apply to everything. Whitney Houston's Music is no different.

Re:Supply and Demand by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 14:12 · Score: 1

Since the track in question is a digital download the "supply" is nigh-infinite. A copy can be made at nearly no cost so there would be no shortage.

Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-02-15 13:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

Sony is a profit-oriented corporation

Their mission is to make profit

Whitney Houston's death was a chance for Sony to make more money, so they took it

I really can't blame Sony for doing such a thing, even when it's kind of bad taste

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !

Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by jdgeorge · 2012-02-15 14:29 · Score: 5, Interesting

One might suggest it's the people who wouldn't pay for Whitney Houston's music until after she died who were doing something "in bad taste". So much for supporting artists while they're sitll alive.
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by gmuslera · 2012-02-15 14:32 · Score: 1

Is not the only one. In fact, the worrysome part is the "short term" profit goal that they all have. If the way picked to make a fast cash screws worlds economy, leaves hundreds or millons without work, house, or just end a good portion of the freedom of the mankind, in the end they will be affected too. Sometimes you can attribute both stupidity and malice at the same time to explain adequately things.
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by necro81 · 2012-02-15 14:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

I really can't blame Sony for doing such a thing, even when it's kind of bad taste
While it may be the job of a company, as an entity, to make money, the company is made of individuals that still ought to be directed by some semblance of common decency. But group thinking can have a powerful effect on the weak-minded, so I suppose one could have seen this coming.

So I'll still blame them, as individuals, for being cold-hearted assholes. I just won't be surprised that, collectively, they were just doing their job for the company.
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by dudpixel · 2012-02-15 14:35 · Score: 2

This is more like "making profit no matter the cost".
Not all for-profit organisations work that way. Many companies actually try to follow a code of ethics in the way they do business.
This move by Sony is seen as extremely insensitive and unethical.

--
This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by sjames · 2012-02-15 14:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

There's probably some slave traders who need a good PR man. They're just profit oriented people, who can blame them for taking the opportunity to make more money when it presents itself.
I certainly CAN blame them, because it IS in bad taste.They didn't have a gun at their heads, the soulless suits made a conscious decision to behave repulsively.
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by chilvence · 2012-02-15 14:50 · Score: 1

Sony is a profit-oriented corporation
Their mission is to make profit
Whitney Houston's death was a chance for Sony to make more money, so they took it
I really can't blame Sony for doing such a thing, even when it's kind of bad taste
Well, I really can't blame people if their knee jerk reaction is to want to punch whoever thought that was okay in the face. I find that rather encouraging actually. And I say this as someone who is not exactly a fan of her music. But in any case, they fucked up their profit angle, people don't exactly like to knowingly spend their money on exceptionally bad taste. Graverobbing doesn't come without its karma.
If Michael Jackson is anything to go by, I'm sure we'll be experiencing a 'revival' shortly. Isn't it all so touching.
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by Delarth799 · 2012-02-15 15:02 · Score: 2

Well now they can support her children and possibly her grandchildren down the road.
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by Johann+Lau · 2012-02-15 15:47 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'd rather support them by fighting for a sane society without disney copyright. Having Whitney Houston as a grandma is not a debilitating injury after all, more likely a boon. So I see zero logic in what you said. Your'e just echoing the cynicism of the coporate cancer: it points to and USES humans, but shares none of the concerns or insights.
Whitney Houston's grandchildren would benefit so much more if we simply burned down Sony and dispersed the ashes... but instead the idea is to buy her CD's, 0.000001% of the profites showing up in the checkbook of her relatives.... uhm, what? How about "no"?
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by Johann+Lau · 2012-02-15 15:50 · Score: 3, Interesting

"Many companies actually try to follow a code of ethics in the way they do business."
No, that would be some people in them. It simply doesn't apply to corporations, and if it did, that would be a defunct corporation in economical theory. Better wrap your head around that, the world will make much more sense.
Ethics is just something that is necessary, even though expensive. They would rather make it unnecessary than stay ethical. Any calculator can tell you that.
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by EdIII · 2012-02-15 16:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

possibly her grandchildren down the road
Not if copyright laws had any sanity in them.
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-02-15 16:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

Shrewd businesses will take the occasional loss in order to foster a loyal customer base.
While I can't argue with the above quote, I need to state that in the case of Sony hiking the price of Whitney Houston CD just after the news of Whitney Houston's death is this:
When you buy a music CD --- that is, if anyone still buy music CDs nowadays, but that's another story altogether --- would you buy a CD just because it is produced by Sony?
Loyalty doesn't play (and pay) in this case, my dear friend
People don't buy music CD just because it was produced by so-and-so corporation, but they buy because they like the songs

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by EdIII · 2012-02-15 16:10 · Score: 2

I can still blame them. It's so completely tasteless it borders on disrespect for Whitney Houston by disrespecting her fans.
If Sony wanted to make some extra money out of this they could have taken some time and put together a compilation, some tributes by other artists, etc. Add some value with a new product, and maybe even add some class to it by saying that a certain percentage was going to be donated to Whitney Houston's favorite charities.
Raising the price on an existing product so soon after she died just lacks any sense of decency and decorum.
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by jaymz666 · 2012-02-15 16:10 · Score: 3, Funny

Are you suggesting they receive some of this price hike?
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 16:28 · Score: 1

Sony is a profit-oriented corporation
Their mission is to make profit
Whitney Houston's death was a chance for Sony to make more money, so they took it
I really can't blame Sony for doing such a thing, even when it's kind of bad taste
You have to balance that against probable customer reaction to a given action. Some things are just obvious, you don't just jack up prices on exisiting work 30 minutes after the death, that looks ghoulish and unfeeling.
You take a couple of days and put together a "memorial special edition" with an bunch of extras and then sell that. Increased profit, no public going "dude, that's cold". Profit without alienating customers! The glory!
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by arth1 · 2012-02-15 16:40 · Score: 1

Sure, it's bad taste. Supply vs demand often leads to that, especially when automated.
But what's really bad taste are the buyers. If someone rushed out to buy Whitney Houston's album because she had died, they're no more than careless sensationalist-seekers, and have no rights to judge Sony, cause they're no better themselves.
They are, in fact, the very reason why the price went up.
If you didn't care enough about her while she lived, please don't pretend to do so now. Just. Leave. It.
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by arth1 · 2012-02-15 17:04 · Score: 2

Remember what happened when their playstation network got hacked?
Did Sony do anything to protect their users' privacy?
They hired security consultants to tighten security. I would call that "anything", even if not perfect.

Did Sony do anything to reimburse their users' loss?
Did they?
I got a month's free subscription plus a voucher for games.
Being a Sony-hater, you probably were unaware of the compensations they gave.
It may not be enough, but it certainly satisfies "anything".
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 17:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

Her children and grandchildren should have to earn a living, just like everybody else. Nothing in being the offspring of someone famous merits a free ride.
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by geekoid · 2012-02-15 17:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

IF you are going to fight, don't use terms like:
" disney copyright"
"0.000001% of the profites showing up in the checkbook"
you sound like a loon, and won't be taken seriously. You can say it shouldn't matter, and you would be correct.But it DOES matter. And changing that is a different fight.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by Nyder · 2012-02-15 17:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

One might suggest it's the people who wouldn't pay for Whitney Houston's music until after she died who were doing something "in bad taste". So much for supporting artists while they're sitll alive.
Buying her music when she was alive was supporting her crack addiction.

--
Be seeing you...
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by Phat_Tony · 2012-02-15 17:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

You have this exactly reversed, and the world would be a better place if you and more people in busnesses would recognize this. In economic theory, if consumers care how they are treated and whether businesses behave ethically, they punish corporations for doing the wrong thing, creating the economic incentive for corporations to behave ethically. The idea that corporations are mandated by capitalism to behave unethically in the pursuit of profits, even if behaving unethically is ultimately bad for profits, comes up all the time here on Slashdot and never makes any sense.

In this case this will be a public image nightmare for Sony. They spend millions and millions on advertising to try to improve their corporate image and make people think favorably of them, and this just cost them a ludicrous amount. They were already going to make a killing off Whitney Houston's death, with no downside. Now in an attempt to bump up short term cash-flow by some amount irrelevant to their bottom line, they are shooting themselves in the foot. They already have an image problem, but more people are going to understand this than a rootkit. If internal management is any goods, heads will roll over this decision, and if it isn't, it's one more sign Sony is doomed.

If you were a merciless investor, would seeing this news item make you think Sony stock has a bright future? If not, then it means it's bad for them and a mistake, that behaving unethically is moving them towards being a defunct corporation, not securing their economic future. That would be my bet.

--
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by jd2112 · 2012-02-15 17:52 · Score: 1

Remember what happened when their playstation network got hacked?
Did Sony do anything to protect their users' privacy?
They hired security consultants to tighten security. I would call that "anything", even if not perfect.

Did Sony do anything to reimburse their users' loss?
Did they?
I got a month's free subscription plus a voucher for games. Being a Sony-hater, you probably were unaware of the compensations they gave. It may not be enough, but it certainly satisfies "anything".
They shut the barn door after the horses ran off, after firing the people who's job was to make sure the barn door was closed. Then Sony made a token gesture of an apology to the owners of the horses than ran off in exchange for an agreement not to sue them for negligence.

--
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by Johann+Lau · 2012-02-15 18:32 · Score: 1

have an argument handy, or are you just moaning?
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by jamstar7 · 2012-02-15 18:33 · Score: 1

If the stock price doesn't go up, or the earnings don't go up, neither does the dividend check. Post enough short dividend checks, and the stockholders boot out the current board of directors in favor of somebody who WILL get that dividend check back up where it belongs.

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by Wattos · 2012-02-15 18:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

One might suggest it's the people who wouldn't pay for Whitney Houston's music until after she died who were doing something "in bad taste". So much for supporting artists while they're sitll alive.
Not really no. People do not buy her music because she died. People buy her music now because her death has been given a lot of media attention (as it usually is with deaths of celebrities) and :
a) some people are too young to have known this music and just discover it now
b) some people have somply forgotten how good her music was
This is really a turd move from a turd of a company
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by Johann+Lau · 2012-02-15 18:42 · Score: 1

In economic theory, if consumers care how they are treated and whether businesses behave ethically, they punish corporations for doing the wrong thing, creating the economic incentive for corporations to behave ethically.
Sure, *unless* those customers don't have that choice, or are not aware of what is going on. So that is always preferable. Ethical behaviour is a property of people, not capitalism. And it's not a property that cannot be routed around or modified to quite the extent.
And stuff backfiring seems to be the exception, not the norm? Do you really think this will make any meaningful dent in Sony as a whole? I'd love to see that, I'm just not holding my breath for it. And the people who make such decisions surely will see to it that any boycott of Sony would not hurt them personally too much, you know? Why would they care if a few Sony janitors get fired?
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by Johann+Lau · 2012-02-15 18:51 · Score: 2, Informative

On second thought, even *I* find the phrase "corporate cancer" stupid and needlessly offensive; but I was just rambling, you know... but what *really* gets you is that I exaggerate numbers (simply meaning "a very small part", exaggerating as to make sure it's not intended to be an exact figure), or "kinda bring up" that that Disney singlehandedly is responsible for a lot of copyright extension* --- ??? Just wow. So on second thought, I'd like to laugh even harder ^^
(* which is rather obviously NOT for the benefit of the authors, the goal that copyright bases its existence on. which is why they call it "intellectual property" now, as if questioning that would make you a commie or something -- I condense this stuff because I can't be arsed to write an essay, and unless you want to pay me to do otherwise, you can go and fuck yourself :P)
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by quantaman · 2012-02-15 19:22 · Score: 1

Sony is a profit-oriented corporation
Their mission is to make profit
Whitney Houston's death was a chance for Sony to make more money, so they took it
I really can't blame Sony for doing such a thing, even when it's kind of bad taste
Why not?
The fact that Sony's mission as a corporation is to make money doesn't mean you have to endorse them acting amorally.
You're perfectly free to say "Screw you Sony! I'm not going to buy product X now!"
And suddenly now Sony has a motivation to make money by acting morally.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by TehZorroness · 2012-02-15 19:30 · Score: 1

Removing an accidental moderation.
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by Znork · 2012-02-15 19:30 · Score: 2

I can say that I've personally foregone about $3500 of Sony purchases over the last five years where their products were the best option in the price range I was looking at (projector, console, etc), entirely due to Sony's vile behaviour, and I've probably influenced several others to avoid them in some instances.
It may not be a large dent. But then again, Sony has not exactly been performing that well, which may very well be partly attributable to their piss poor reputation.
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by metacell · 2012-02-15 19:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

The idea that corporations are mandated by capitalism to behave unethically in the pursuit of profits, even if behaving unethically is ultimately bad for profits, comes up all the time here on Slashdot and never makes any sense.
Corporations tend to think fairly short-term, at most a few years into the future. If the badwill accumulates slowly over time, but the profit from unethical behaviour comes immediately, it'd explain why corporations would keep doing unethical things that are ultimately unprofitable.
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by vivian · 2012-02-15 20:02 · Score: 2

I think that in order to appease the "think of the children" crowd, an artist's children should be able to collect royalty payments too - but once the children are adults, or a little older - perhaps 21 to go with the traditional age of maturity, the artist's works should go into the public domain. If the artist laves a spouse, it would probably fair to allow the spouse to collect payments along with the children as long as they are looking after children too, but really, just as a doctor or lawyer's spouse has to find new means of financial support following their partner's death, so should the spouse of any intellectual property owner.(Including programmers like myself)
The children are thus thought of, and once they are adults are now seriously motivated to emulate their parent's success - after all, just bring brought up in the household of a successful artist should have endowed the children with some degree of connections and hopefully even talent and training to launch their own musical careers if they so chose. Either that or they can get a regular job, just like the rest of us.
Oh, and R.I.P Whitney. you really did have a magnificent voice. I can only hope your daughter Bobbi Kristina inherited some of that talent and is motivated enough to do something with it too once she recovers from this awful loss. I wish you all the best in your future - just make something of it.
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by mjwx · 2012-02-15 20:04 · Score: 1

possibly her grandchildren down the road
Not if copyright laws had any sanity in them.
So they're going to get a royalty cheque then.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by Saintwolf · 2012-02-15 21:22 · Score: 1

Is not the only one. In fact, the worrysome part is the "short term" profit goal that they all have. If the way picked to make a fast cash screws worlds economy, leaves hundreds or millons without work, house, or just end a good portion of the freedom of the mankind
So basically, how the banks screw our economy and slowly degrade our rights?
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by Tom · 2012-02-15 21:26 · Score: 1

While it may be the job of a company, as an entity, to make money, the company is made of individuals that still ought to be directed by some semblance of common decency.

Are you kidding us? We're talking about the recording industry. The guys who have made it a business model to screw both sides of their market - the artists as well as the customers. The only person with any decency left that I can possibly imagine working there is the janitor.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by Elaugaufein · 2012-02-15 22:09 · Score: 1

There's a problem with capitalist theory though , people aren't rational agents with perfect knowledge (the vast majority of people will never even hear about this). If they were things like market dominance and regulatory capture couldn't happen. This is how capitalism , as it is practiced, can actually reward unethical behavior.
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by Elaugaufein · 2012-02-15 22:13 · Score: 1

Actually it kind of does but in this case the loyalty is to the Artist (and these companies know that, this is why Copyright legislation is always for the artist even though their actual benefits are tiny).
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by Elaugaufein · 2012-02-15 22:19 · Score: 1

Gatekeeper's like Sony are in a very strong position when it comes to this. You *can't* boycott Sony without also effectively boycotting people you want to support.
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by Elaugaufein · 2012-02-15 22:22 · Score: 1

There is no Supply vs Demand here, the supply of digital items is effectively infinite, so the idea of automated price increases based on such doesn't make sense.

And some people might have rushed out to buy it because of the publicity her death generated ie this is the first time they've heard of her, or they heard some of her music they wanted to on one of the news clips.
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by Half-pint+HAL · 2012-02-15 22:23 · Score: 1

Most record deals specify the royalties as a percentage of retail price after deductions. This means that when a recording is discounted, the artist is doubly screwed. Artists (or in this case, their estates) traditionally get a much better deal when prices are up than when they're down. Whether iTunes has changed the situation or not, I don't know.

--
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by Half-pint+HAL · 2012-02-15 22:29 · Score: 2

You're not exactly comparing like for like.
If you work for a salary, you get paid up front for your work. You can spend your money or save and invest it. If you save it, and you die, that money goes to your next of kin. You don't forfeit that money simply because you didn't spend it while you were alive.
If you work for royalties, you don't get paid up front -- you get paid as returns on investments. An artist's back catalogue is the artist's savings plan (Noddy Holder of Slade has described the song Merry Christmas Everybody as his "pension", as have several other people with UK Christmas hits). The artist working on royalties already has the risk of being a commercial flop, a risk the salaried worker doesn't have. Taking away his right to continue earning posthumously would really skew the risk:reward ratio.

--
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by equex · 2012-02-15 22:36 · Score: 2

Companies just want the rights and privilegies of humans, but none of the responsibility.

--
Can I light a sig ?
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by GreatBunzinni · 2012-02-16 00:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

IF you are going to fight, don't use terms like:
" disney copyright"
"0.000001% of the profites showing up in the checkbook"
you sound like a loon, and won't be taken seriously. You can say it shouldn't matter, and you would be correct.But it DOES matter. And changing that is a different fight.
Johann Lau does not "sound like a loon", nor is he wrong. USA's Copyright Term Extension Act is known as Mickey Mouse Protection Act,for being notoriously pushed by Disney, whose main purpose was to avoid Disney's earlier work to go into public domain. And if you are trying to claim that Johann Lau is a loon for stating that fact then, before that, you must accuse Lawrence Lessig of being also a loon, and a bigger loon as wel, as he publicly made that very same assertion regarding Disney's copyright.
And regarding the percentage of profits that actually go to the artist, music industry insiders such as Steve Albini already already explained quite well how the music industry actually works.
So, you are either a Sony shill, trying to astroturf some damage control here on slashdot, or you are incredibly out of touch with reality, factually wrong on multiple accounts and simply an idiot.

--
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by ultranova · 2012-02-16 00:21 · Score: 1

I really can't blame Sony for doing such a thing, even when it's kind of bad taste

The language used here seems to be similar to how you would describe the actions of, say, a wolf: the entity is entirely directed by its instincts, which are geared towards filling its belly as much as possible, so you can't really blame it for going after easy prey (like kids). This, in turn, rises a question: is it really wise to let such an entity wield power to the tune of billions of dollars?

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-02-16 00:30 · Score: 1

Every economic theory I have seen that addresses ethical vs non-ethical corporate behavior suggests that ethical corporate behavior is more profitable in the long run than unethical corporate behavior. In addition, those economic theories suggest that corporations which routinely practice unethical behavior are the ones which become defunct.
The logic behind the idea that unethical corporations do not last is too complex to spell out in a slashdot post, but several posters further down the thread do a good job of pointing out elements of it.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by chill · 2012-02-16 00:30 · Score: 2

Not really.
Whitney had no talent other than her voice. She was a performer. What she wasn't was a music writer and publisher. Thus, the bulk of the money didn't go to her. Ticket sales, yes. Music sales -- radio play, album sales, etc. -- no.
She was deep in debt and living on loans from the music label. The people who will make the money were the writers/publishers of the songs Whitney performed.
For example "I Will Always Love You" was written and published by Dolly Parton. *SHE* stands to make a bunch more $$ from this, but Whitney's estate will still have to pay off the debts with the little that is due her from increased sales.
Things like t-shirts, posters, memorabilia, etc. will go to the estate directly but they still have the debt to pay off before the kids get it.

--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by rwise2112 · 2012-02-16 01:30 · Score: 1

Even without copyright benefits, her children.grandchildren will get a free ride for life anyway - her will.

--

"For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by rwise2112 · 2012-02-16 01:39 · Score: 1

People don't buy music CD just because it was produced by so-and-so corporation, but they buy because they like the songs
Agreed! Same with movies/TV shows , so I really don't understand the need to self advertise on DVDs. For instance, if you buy a TV show, why do I have to see the company logo as soon as I enter the DVD, and again before each episode? It's this type of thing that makes me rip it to hard drive, or download it (because it's quicker).

--

"For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by pantaril · 2012-02-16 01:46 · Score: 1

In this case this will be a public image nightmare for Sony.
I read this lot on slashdot. "Just stop buying from company X and it will go down". I don't think so.
Can you name a single company which went bancrupt, because people boycotted it due to its unethical methods?
Companies are doing unethical things all the time (pattent suits, working conditions in china factories, lobbying for controversial legislative etc) and most people just don't care because this unethical behaviour is well hidden in all the marketing and media noise.
Few informed and angry slashdoters will not make any significant difference. Rest of the consumers just don't care, they just want to play with their new PS3.
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by gmuslera · 2012-02-16 02:32 · Score: 1

Ask half of the europeans how banks (mostly US ones) screw their economies. Regarding freedom, wasnt about (specifically) banks, sopa/pipa/etc media corporations (including Sony, btw) sponsored laws hit everywhere... when you can't do a joke in twitter because you can get deported some basic freedoms were lost somewhere.
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by Zebedeu · 2012-02-16 02:37 · Score: 1

But Sony produces more than just CDs. The produce a very large range of consumer devices, and in some of those markets they depend on brand awareness.
For example, in the TV or stereo markets the competition is so fierce and the products have so little differentiation that the company image can be a decisive factor for many people.
As someone above said, Sony spends a lot of marketting dollars on improving their brand image, and then pull a stupid move like this and throw it all away.
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by fuzznutz · 2012-02-16 03:06 · Score: 1

The artist working on royalties already has the risk of being a commercial flop, a risk the salaried worker doesn't have.

That's a risk EVERY salaried worker has when he takes a job. And if he is a "commercial flop" and fails, he finds himself looking for work elsewhere doing something else. I don't hear you advocating paying the salaried worker perpetually along with his children and his children's children for work he did during his career, though.
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by kilfarsnar · 2012-02-16 04:14 · Score: 1

Sony is a profit-oriented corporation
Their mission is to make profit
Whitney Houston's death was a chance for Sony to make more money, so they took it
I really can't blame Sony for doing such a thing, even when it's kind of bad taste
This. I have little patience for people who are all about Capitalism and the Free Market one minute, and the next minute clutching their pearls over a company exploiting an opportunity to make more profit. What did people think they were advocating; profit until it offends someone's delicate sensibilities? Please. It's like the Americans who are all for bombing other countries, and then get all upset over wartime atrocities. Well, what did you think was going to happen? The naiveté is astounding.

--
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by sootman · 2012-02-16 04:25 · Score: 1

> So, you are either a Sony shill, trying to astroturf some damage control
> here on slashdot, or you are incredibly out of touch with reality, factually
> wrong on multiple accounts and simply an idiot.
Or both. :-)

--
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by Half-pint+HAL · 2012-02-16 06:48 · Score: 1

if he is a "commercial flop" and fails, he finds himself looking for work elsewhere doing something else.
Even if he loses his job, he's still already been paid for the work he did. A royalty-based worker who sell no work makes no money -- in fact, in many creative sectors he actually loses money, as he'll have invested a lot in producing his latest work.

I don't hear you advocating paying the salaried worker perpetually along with his children and his children's children for work he did during his career, though.
Of course not, because he's already been paid. That's what a salary is. His children and grandchildren inherit whatever is left in his savings when he dies. Someone working for royalties isn't paid when he puts the work in, and instead gets paid when (and if!) the work sells.
This is pretty simple stuff, really....

--
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by EdIII · 2012-02-16 07:56 · Score: 1

possibly her grandchildren down the road
Not if copyright laws had any sanity in them.
So they're going to get a royalty cheque then.
I'm sorry, it seems as if you are saying that her grandchildren getting a royalty cheque is a sign of sanity? I don't know if you are being facetious, but if you are serious.....
Sanity? Far from it. Direct ownership of ideas and their expressions is outright insanity. The Public Domain is really a term that expresses a fundamental truth in all advancing societies....
All people benefit from the hard work and innovation of their ancestors. All current innovation is not created in a vacuum, but relies upon every aspect of current society, from agriculture, exposure to prior art and innovation, health, etc. Every single artist owes a debt of gratitude to their ancestors for the luxury of being able to create new music..
Depending on your philosophy and idea of a working society you can favor no direct or indirect "ownership" of ideas and expressions at all, or a copyright system in which it temporarily rewards those contributing to the Public Domain by allowing them certain legal entitlements to profit for their works (indirect benefits of ownership).
Allowing Whitney Houston's grandchildren the benefit of enjoying legal entitlements is not in the best interests of society. No legal entitlement should last longer than 20 years, and certainly not through generations. It is an impediment to further creation and innovation.
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by arth1 · 2012-02-16 08:39 · Score: 1

There is no Supply vs Demand here, the supply of digital items is effectively infinite, so the idea of automated price increases based on such doesn't make sense.
Correct, which is why the price increase in such a situation is based on demand only, not on supply vs demand.
If you have a lemonade stand with an infinite supply of lemonade, you will raise the prices if you see people queueing up. If some people exit the line as a result, it's still a win if the increase in profit per sale makes up for that.
If there is a lemonade stand next to you, you may have to adjust the prices down (or agree on a set price, which is illegal) to prevent a mass-scale exodus of customers.
But when you're the only one selling Whitney Houston MP3s, you control the supply, and if you see customers line up to buy them, it would be foolish not to increase the price based on the increased demand.
I would be surprised if this isn't automated.
On cduniverse.com, it appears to be - most songs are 99 cents, but some are $1.29. I can watch a TV show and they play a song, and then go to cduniverse and see that it's 99 cents, and do a reload half an hour later, and it's $1.29. The interest increases the demand, so the prices go up.
Similar with plane ticket ordering. Just looking at the prices for a certain date/destination will bump the prices. Do a bunch of searches with different engines, and you find that the prices are higher than when you started. You drove up the prices by the demand alone, without the supply changing (because you haven't bought anything yet).
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by Rakarra · 2012-02-16 09:56 · Score: 1

No, that would be some people in them. It simply doesn't apply to corporations, and if it did, that would be a defunct corporation in economical theory.
Corporations are people, my friend! :-)
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by Rakarra · 2012-02-16 10:04 · Score: 1

Ethical behaviour is a property of people, not capitalism.
Here's the problem, most -people- do not care enough about the issues to change their spending habits. They hear about Nike sweatshops, but they do not care enough to not buy Nike products. They hear about Sony increasing the price of Houston's album, or about the Sony rootkit (not likely, few people outside of the Slashdot group care about that), or Sony's support of onerous copyright terms, but they do not care about those issues enough that they will not buy Whitney Houston's Greatest Hits. Nor do they care enough about the issue that they'll say "Well, Paul Blart: Mall Cop is a Sony picture. I guess I won't see it."
The average, everyday non-corporate person doesn't think any of this is nearly as important as you or I do, and they don't have the level of empathy that you seem to assume that they do.
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by T+Murphy · 2012-02-16 10:20 · Score: 1

He is simply asking that we stick to facts instead of hyperbole. Nowhere in your citations do I see anything about artists being given a 0.000001% cut of the profits, but rather that their cut is decieving due to all the advances and fees that get deducted. Yes, an artist that barely paid all that off might actually wind up with 0.000001% of overall profits, but without the explanation it is misleading, especially as the original post was referring to Whitney Houston, who is not a good example of a typical musician.

Yes, he was wrong about "Disney copyrights" being off the mark, but he's right to call out "0.000001%" as dishonest. You say that, and RIAA & Co. can say "no, it says right here in their contract they get 20%" (or whatever cut). You say they never see their cut due to (specified) dishonest accounting tricks, and now you have an argument that makes RIAA shills squirm.

NB: going into blind hate mode against someone that is just asking for the facts to speak for themselves makes you look bad in exactly the way he was warning against.

--
My webcomic
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by mjwx · 2012-02-16 13:15 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, it seems as if you are saying that her grandchildren getting a royalty cheque is a sign of sanity? I don't know if you are being facetious,
It seems as if you have trouble reading my post. I'm certainly not being facetious nor am I being sarcastic. Why would _ I _ ever be sarcastic.

OK, to hit you with the clue by four, to say that "yes, they'll receive their royalty cheques" is a sarcastic way to say that there is no sanity in copyright laws.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by EdIII · 2012-02-16 13:34 · Score: 1

Which is why I added the disclaimer, "but if you are serious".
Did you have trouble reading my post? :)
P.S - I still can't tell if you were being sarcastic when you said you would never be sarcastic. Was it?
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by Elaugaufein · 2012-02-16 15:57 · Score: 1

Yeah. I'm aware of that. I think my point is more that in the case of infinite supply there's no reason demand should increase the price, profits would naturally increase from the higher demand anyway (and by increasing the price for no reason they should in theory decrease the demand). It just does because we're accustomed to thinking of it working that way with things that have limited supply and companies are more than willing to take advantage of that in order to make a profit.

This is basically one of those circumstances where capitalism doesn't work properly ,and encourages unethical behavior, because people aren't rational agents, if they were they'd simple wait for the price to go back down before they bought it.

I don't think plane ticket ordering is the best analogy, its a reasonable assumption that a surge in demand would cause a limit of supply in such cases (there's a finite number of seats), so the price increase is still sort of tied to a finite supply.
Re:Sony is a Profit-Oriented Corporation by AK+Marc · 2012-02-20 14:53 · Score: 1

The idea that corporations are mandated by capitalism to behave unethically in the pursuit of profits, even if behaving unethically is ultimately bad for profits, comes up all the time here on Slashdot and never makes any sense.
I've never seen it stated that unethical behavior is in any war encouraged in and of itself. Suggesting that corporations would do bad, just because they can, even if that decreases profit is something I've also never seen. I think you are making that up. Profit motive in an amoral (not immoral, but amoral) corp causes many actions to be unethical. Perhaps the issue is that your opinion on what may be "ultimately" and eventually bad for profits is unrelated to what a competent businessman would say.

--
Learn to love Alaska

Yes Supply and Demand by Osgeld · 2012-02-15 13:54 · Score: 1

No to price gouging

Oblig MegaTokyo by cvtan · 2012-02-15 13:54 · Score: 1

http://megatokyo.com/strip/33

--
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.

So what? by DavidinAla · 2012-02-15 13:59 · Score: 1

If people are willing to pay more, why wouldn't they charge more? The market value sets the price. Period. If you don't want to pay the higher price, well, don't buy the stuff. What's the big deal? It's just business.

Stay classy Sony! by Lieutenant_Dan · 2012-02-15 14:07 · Score: 1

In addition, Sony put in some new DRM trojan that will delete all your Bobby Brown mp3s.

--
Wearing pants should always be optional.

Supply & Demand for an digital copy by LandoCalrizzian · 2012-02-15 14:10 · Score: 1

I'm not an economist and I was fortunate enough to stay in computer science and not transfer to business school so please explain how increased demand for a good that is digital results in increased supply. There is no added cost for Sony to reproduce the digital album once it's on iTunes so why is it acceptable to increase the price of an existing song (or any song)? Isn't this a prime example of price gouging? If the demand for a product increases suddenly and it costs you more to produce additional products then by all means raise the price. If the product is collecting dust on the shelf and in response to some external factor you blantantly scratch out the old price and add texa$ to it then that makes you a greedy @$$hole.

Re:Supply & Demand for an digital copy by fafaforza · 2012-02-15 17:47 · Score: 1

So what you're driving at is that all music and PhotoShop should all be free. Well, in the case of photoshop, if it cost them 100,000 to develop a new version, and each copy cost $500, so then only the first 200 people would pay the retail price. Anyone past that number would get it for free. I hope that this sounds as ridiculous to you as it actually is ridiculous.
Re:Supply & Demand for an digital copy by LandoCalrizzian · 2012-02-16 02:55 · Score: 1

I don't see where you get "free" from my post. If Photoshop version X was already developed and sitting on the shelf of some store at $99.99 and they raised the price because the lead designer decided to join a monastery, you're OK with Adobe increasing the price of existing software on the shelf to $120 when it's at $99.99. If they create Photoshop Version X+1 then there is a cost associated with developing that version and hence the increased price.
Re:Supply & Demand for an digital copy by fafaforza · 2012-02-17 11:47 · Score: 1

> There is no added cost for Sony to reproduce the digital album once it's on iTunes
Isn't "free" the logical end? I don't even think that iTunes charges you for the bandwidth, and even if they do, it's a pittance. So it doesn't cost Sony anything after a certain number of "units sold." Ergo, how can they charge for their units?

Why? by wisnoskij · 2012-02-15 14:15 · Score: 1

So why is it considered tasteless/evil for the price of an artists work to raise after death?

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.

Re:Why? by mark-t · 2012-02-15 16:28 · Score: 1

I think it's more the 30 minutes after her death was announced than it was simply the idea of raising the price of an artists work after their death.
It's normal that the prices of works should rise after the artists death, but in keeping with good taste, that should probably happen as people who cared for the person have come to accept the loss, not before they have barely had time to have even processed the news.
If you really want a timeline that would have been much appropriate, this kind of price increase should probably have been delayed by about 4 to 6 months... ultimately, however, it would have to be played by ear to see how the emotional climate was surrounding her death. Basically, once things simmer down, it would probably have been acceptable to raise the prices the way they did.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:Why? by wisnoskij · 2012-02-15 16:46 · Score: 1

"it would have to be played by ear to see how the emotional climate was surrounding her death"
So you want international companies to play it by ear based on the emotional climate?
Ignoring the impossibilities of this, I still have no idea why this would be consider to be in bad taste. You are obviously not hurting the artists themselves or their families. They, theoretically, want as much money from their IP as possible and should enjoy the esteem granted their dead relatives.
Is it the fans who make it in bad taste? They just had to "deal with" the loss of an artist they liked and now Sony is piling an increased price tag on to their "grief"???

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Re:Why? by mark-t · 2012-02-15 18:49 · Score: 2

Of approximately the same degree of bad taste as asking the widow of a person out on a date at the man's funeral.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:Why? by Ash-Fox · 2012-02-16 03:16 · Score: 1

Of approximately the same degree of bad taste as asking the widow of a person out on a date at the man's funeral.
I don't even see it of being any sort of degree of 'bad' or 'good'. You have weird ethics.

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.

If you want to support an artist ... by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-02-15 14:18 · Score: 2

...those who are buying her music after her death are equally parasitic and not really deserving of any breaks.

I fail to see how buying her music shortly after her death is parasitic.

If you really want to support an artist, support the artist when he or she is still alive

What good would it do for Whitney Houston if you go out and buy tons of Whitney Houston CDs after she is dead?

I mean, she's already dead, no matter how much royalty generates from your purchase of her songs / CD won't do her any more good

Just like those who pays hundreds of millions for paintings painted by dead painters.

Who's benefiting?

The painters who are already long dead?

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !

Re:If you want to support an artist ... by Capt.+Skinny · 2012-02-15 15:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

Who's benefiting?
Presumably, the person buying the album. I didn't buy a sandwich today to support the restaurant owner, I bought it because I was hungry and thought it would taste good.
Re:If you want to support an artist ... by JoeMerchant · 2012-02-15 16:05 · Score: 1

If you really want to support an artist, support the artist when he or she is still alive
...
Just like those who pays hundreds of millions for paintings painted by dead painters.
Who's benefiting?
The painters who are already long dead?
Great sentiment, but you're attempting to ignore human nature which has clearly demonstrated across the centuries that dead artists are worth more to the buying public than live ones.
Sony, on the other hand, is finely tuned to this fact and responded in coldly capitalistic fashion, raising the price of the commodity they control in response to its increased market value. If you want to live in a "free market," this is one example of how that plays out when a non-person is maximizing shareholder value.
Sure, lots of potentially vocal people will be upset, but that's unlikely to affect the bottom line as much as the price increase will.
Re:If you want to support an artist ... by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-02-15 16:48 · Score: 1

... you're attempting to ignore human nature which has clearly demonstrated across the centuries that dead artists are worth more to the buying public than live ones
Maybe I was giving out the impression that I had ignored human nature and if I did, you have my apology
As a human being myself, I do recognize the many silly sides of human nature, including what you have stated above
And because of that, people who know me say that I'm too calculating, to sneaky
shrug !!

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Re:If you want to support an artist ... by fafaforza · 2012-02-15 17:10 · Score: 1

Some day, when the whole planet is covered with solar panels, you might just have to pay for a dose of sun!
Re:If you want to support an artist ... by geekoid · 2012-02-15 17:17 · Score: 1

well, there is a whole generation or two that never had exposure to her music when she was good.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:If you want to support an artist ... by metacell · 2012-02-15 19:40 · Score: 1

If you want to live in a "free market" with a copyright monopoly, this is one example of how that plays out when a non-person is maximizing shareholder value.
Fixed that for you.
Re:If you want to support an artist ... by pantaril · 2012-02-16 01:56 · Score: 1

If you really want to support an artist, support the artist when he or she is still alive
What if i just want to listen to her music?
Re:If you want to support an artist ... by ClickOnThis · 2012-02-16 08:23 · Score: 1

Who's benefiting?
Presumably, the person buying the album. I didn't buy a sandwich today to support the restaurant owner, I bought it because I was hungry and thought it would taste good.
In the context of the GP's remarks, it is clear that he was asking rhetorically who benefits from the money, not the item sold. And his point was: the artist benefits in some small way, unless s/he's dead.
Obviously you are going to spend your own money on something that benefits you, even if the benefit is the good feeling you get from supporting a business or charity you respect. Spending your money on something that does not benefit you in any way is just insane.

--
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Re:If you want to support an artist ... by Capt.+Skinny · 2012-02-16 15:00 · Score: 1

It sounded to me like GP was making the unjustified assumption that any purchase would be intended to support the artist. The subject started with "if you want to support the artist...".
Re:If you want to support an artist ... by metacell · 2012-02-17 04:49 · Score: 1

I'm not sure copyright is needed - all independent studies so far have concluded that file sharing has a roughly zero net effect on sales. Most studies have been carried out on music sales, so we can't say for sure if it applies to, for example, ebooks, but it should make us pause.
There's also the problem that once we have a limited-term copyright - say, the original 14 years - the media industry builds up an infrastructure around copyright, and becomes dependent on the money from their most popular franchises. When a lucrative franchise is about to slip out of copyright - say, Elvis Presley's music - the industry gets a very strong incentive to lobby for an extension, are prepared to throw a lot of money at it, and can point to the lost job opportunities when they can no longer sell the franchise at a hefty price margin. That seems to be very difficult for the politicians to resist, which is how we ended up with the current life of the author + 70 years.

yeah. right. by alienzed · 2012-02-15 14:24 · Score: 1

Since when does anyone pay for music?

--
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!

Re:yeah. right. by Osgeld · 2012-02-15 14:34 · Score: 2

I do, the problem is there is rarely anything worth buying

In a tweet? by n3r0.m4dski11z · 2012-02-15 14:33 · Score: 1

"In a tweet, Rasiej wrote"

Who the fuck cares what some random twit thinks? Why is this in an article summary. Are you going to start posting random *internet* peoples opinions as validation points for your crappy summaries now?

Or maybe make the summaries just opinion.
May i be the first to welcome jon katzish journalism back once agian... Time flows like a river, and history repeats!

--
-

Good for Sony by NotQuiteReal · 2012-02-15 14:37 · Score: 1

They were quick to look out for the well-being of Whitney Houston's bereaved family, by maximizing the royalties to her estate. Recognizing that her loved ones should benefit from their share of the artist's work, and that no further work is forthcoming, they risked the possibility of being called money grubbers, just to help out this family.

--
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.

I wondered how long this would take... by alanshot · 2012-02-15 14:43 · Score: 1

When they announced the "new lower* prices on downloads!" based on the popularity of music, I kinda wondered how long it would take a company to get nailed for something like this.

IF you recall when they announced this new variable price model, All tracks were $.99. They said they would lower the cost of "most" (yeah right) tracks as low as $.69. Also some tracks would stay the same, and a few hot/trending tracks would increase "slightly" to $1.29 (since when was 29% "slightly"?)

Most artists see a spike in purchases postmortem as fans reminisce and realize they dont have their fave tracks and now want to listen to them due to the increased publicity. As I recall when Jackson died, the week following his death, he sold millions of tracks. Im actually surprised nobody did this price spike at that time. (maybe it was before the variable pricing model? I dont recall.)

I actually wondered to myself how long it would take a label to take one of those low to original priced artist tracks and bump them to premium since they knew the purchases would spike?
I guess we now know....

It makes you wonder... by Lawrey · 2012-02-15 14:44 · Score: 1

It makes you wonder... was there a Bravia TV in the room at time of death?

Re:*shrug* by colinrichardday · 2012-02-15 14:47 · Score: 1

Why would Kevin Costner do that?

Refund by ericdano · 2012-02-15 14:54 · Score: 1

Sony should AT LEAST refund the difference for the people who bought her albums after the prices went off. Issuing an apology without a refund is sorta douchebaggie.

--
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--

It's in their DNA by surfdaddy · 2012-02-15 14:59 · Score: 1

It started with their stupid proprietary memory chips, like the memory stick that became immediately obsolete after I bought a Sony camera.

Then there was the CD I bought that installed a rootkit on my PC. I had to jump through hoops to get rid of that.

And now another dick move. Frankly, Sony used to be a good an innovative company. The Walkman. The Trinitron TV. They were known for high quality products. Now they are scum. I've had enough of their attempts to lock me into proprietary formats.I have deliberately avoided anything from Sony for at least five years. They won't get ANY of my business any more.They aren't the company they once were.

Not news by ikea5 · 2012-02-15 15:08 · Score: 1

If Sony raises the price 30min BEFORE WH's death, now that would be news.

Sony by C_Kode · 2012-02-15 15:08 · Score: 1

I've more than been aware of Sony's activities. For the most part I know they suck for what they do, but they are a for profit public company and expect some idiot anti-consumer crap. Especially with share-holder pressure, but this is beyond acceptable. To try and profit off someone's death is sickeningly unacceptable.

I officially bought my last Sony product if I can help it. /goodbye-Sony

Better ask the politicians by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-02-15 15:09 · Score: 2

If what you say is true, why does copyright exists beyond the artist's life?

Well, it's the politicians who re-wrote the copyright laws, after receiving $$$ from the PACs representing the "copyright owners", aka, the corporations

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !

BULLSHIT by ganjadude · 2012-02-15 15:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

sounds like a good coput to me. How convenient that it was a "rogue employee" that just happened to raise the prices of a singer who died only 30 minutes earlier... im sorry, I simply dont believe it. If it was someone other than sony, I MIGHT believe it, but coming from sony, after the past mistakes, I simply cannot believe that excuse. They got called out for doing something dickish, and they are tyring to save face.

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same

Re:BULLSHIT by seriesrover · 2012-02-15 18:24 · Score: 2

You only get to call bullshit if you *know* differently. Otherwise its complete made up conjecture.
Re:BULLSHIT by drinkypoo · 2012-02-16 00:08 · Score: 2

Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence, unless it's Sony, which has proved itself to be made up of pure, concentrated evil, like the green sphere in Heavy Metal. "Mom! Dad! Don't touch it! It's eeeeeevil!"

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:BULLSHIT by vidnet · 2012-02-16 01:31 · Score: 1

Sounds plausible to me. An employee saw a breaking news story affecting demand, and responded to take advantage of it to make money for the company and a probably a small bonus for themselves. That kind of quick thinking is grounds for a promotion in sales and marketing.
I don't think that Sony had time to gather their dark council of unspeakable evil in just 30 minutes.
... unless they knew it was going to happen ...
Re:BULLSHIT by TheSpoom · 2012-02-16 03:23 · Score: 1

And which "rogue employees" have access to change the Amazon prices of their employer's most valuable properties? They'd have to be fairly high-ranked.

--
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs

Profit maximization by f97tosc · 2012-02-15 15:12 · Score: 1

Of course Sony tried to maximize their profits before Whitney Houston passed away as well. It was just that then the demand pattern was different and the optimal price was lower.

Most people seem generally OK with the notion that companies set prices to maximize their profits. It is only in those special situations where supply- or demand- side events causes the profit-maximizing price to shift upward that there are cries of greed, manipulation, etc. The old price sets a mental frame as to what is "normal" or "fair" and the new price becomes "abnormal" and "unfair".

automated price increase based on rise in demand? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 15:14 · Score: 1

I'm sure Sony can claim they use an automated algorithm, and the price is based on demand.
For all I know, that might be the case.

Hey, It's Sony... by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2012-02-15 15:55 · Score: 1

Hey, it's Sony. So why are you surprised?

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."

In the immortal words of Bender by AbsoluteXyro · 2012-02-15 16:02 · Score: 1

Demand suddenly skyrocketed! You all saw it!

Those who should thank you for your support .. by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-02-15 16:21 · Score: 1

I didn't buy a sandwich today to support the restaurant owner

You may not think that the act of buying a sandwich today means anything, but the following people, if they are decent enough, ought to thank you for it:

1. The restaurant owner
2. The bread maker employed by the restaurant owner
3. The flour maker
4. The wheat planter
5. The city/state/federal government which profited from the taxes paid by the above individuals

The above only talks about one specific ingredient. There are others, like egg, mayonnaise, ham, lettuce, sesame seed, etc ...

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !

But everybody knows by jargonburn · 2012-02-15 16:21 · Score: 1

that art is more valuable after the artist's death!

Eww. by apcullen · 2012-02-15 16:31 · Score: 1

Eeww. Just... Eeew.

Automated system? by Tropaios · 2012-02-15 16:54 · Score: 1

Is there any chance this was an automated response due to the album/tracks moving up the long tail quickly? I would think it sensible to do this to capitalize quickly on unforeseen resurgences in popularity of old standards.

Did you miss the story? by geekoid · 2012-02-15 17:19 · Score: 1

people where outrage and companies, and the price went back down. The time for boycot is over./

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Screw Sony and the RIAA by Cito · 2012-02-15 18:11 · Score: 1

Whitney Houston's Discography (1985 - 2009): http://kat.ph/whitney-houston-discografia-1985-2009-t3412754.html

Why would anyone in their right mind actually pay those scammers in the first place.

Boycott? Hell, rob em' blind! by TiggertheMad · 2012-02-15 18:14 · Score: 4, Funny

I don't know if it's possible to do two boycotts against the same company simultaneously. If so, you would one do it?

I worked this out: First go fire up torrents of all the Sony artists you can find and download every Sony .mp3 on the net. Then, once you are done, go delete all the .mp3s and do the whole thing again. There you have just "Stolen" their entire catalog twice. That will show the corporate bastards that the Intarweb is not to be trifled with!

--

HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!

Re:butthurt? by MLease · 2012-02-15 18:55 · Score: 1

I wouldn't. It's tacky. Money isn't the most important thing in life. Guess that makes me some sort of heretic.

--
I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!

Makes sense ... by golodh · 2012-02-15 19:33 · Score: 1

Houston's music just got more rare, hence the price goes up. Where's the surprise?

Same thing happens with paintings: when the artist dies the supply dries up and the price goes up.

Re:Makes sense ... by smurfsurf · 2012-02-15 22:07 · Score: 2

Thank god I snatched up one of these rare MP3 before Sony ran out of stock!

Sony used to be a great company by Just+Brew+It! · 2012-02-15 19:39 · Score: 3, Interesting

Along with brands like Pioneer back in the '70s and '80s, they helped make decent hi-fi gear affordable. With the Walkman they launched the entire portable audio market, and they co-invented the CD. Their Trinitron TVs and monitors were well-respected, and they were a major player in developing the portable camcorder market as well.

Then in 1987 they acquired CBS Records, and in 1989 they acquired Columbia Pictures; this started them down the road to becoming a "content" company. It's been all downhill ever since. Quality of their hardware declined sharply; the last piece of Sony electronics I bought was a Digital-8 camcorder around 7 years ago, and it sucked. Debacles like the CD rootkit incident, the controversial change in stance over 3rd party code on the PS3, and the PSN security breach have now become the norm.

In my lifetime the Sony brand has transformed itself from something I actively sought out, to something akin to a warning label. It's a damn shame; I now go out of my way to avoid their products.

RIP Sony, you are dead to me.

well... by KingAlanI · 2012-02-15 19:40 · Score: 1

when life (or the end of a life) gives you lemons, make lemonade

--
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.

Not sure how much MORE I can boycott Sony. by faulteh · 2012-02-15 19:55 · Score: 1

OK Sony have added +1 to their boycott level, bringing their Douchebag Boycott level to +5. I'm already boycotting them for:
+1 piss-poor customer service in their stores
+1 piss-poor service for their laptop repair
+1 CD rootkit issue
+1 removing the "Other OS" option on the PS3 (ok I never even bought a PS3 but it was a douche move)

Essentially, Sony's douchery have demanded I revise the scale for boycott actions. The +4 level they held previously caused me to
- live Phony free
- defriend on facebook or unfollow anyone with anything good to say about Phony in a status update.
- actively discourage friends/family from purchasing Sony products
- persuade a neighbour to purchase a new TV of brand other than Sony so I did not have to stare at the Phony logo when watching TV when visiting

Ideas for additional sanctions for this new +5 boycott? Currently under consideration: building Rube Goldberg like devices to cause "accidental damage" to any Phony device owned by friends, colleages and acquaintences.

Re:Not sure how much MORE I can boycott Sony. by Ash-Fox · 2012-02-16 03:11 · Score: 1

OK Sony have added +1 to their boycott level
Oh dear God, a company used simple economics to turn a profit much like any other company. Let's boycott them more!!!
Seriously, LOL.

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.

Sony Execs say by Dishwasha · 2012-02-15 19:56 · Score: 1

What....too soon?

infection vector by KingAlanI · 2012-02-15 20:00 · Score: 1

I see two problems, neither of which are limited to TPB

shady ad servers can dump crapware onto your PC.
AdBlockPlus for the win.

As for crapware disguised as desirable content:

http://thepiratebay.se/about
"The Pirate Bay only removes torrents if the name isn't in accordance with the content. One must know what is being downloaded."

--
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.

You don't get it! by DerPflanz · 2012-02-15 20:01 · Score: 2

It is all for the protection of young, emerging artists.

--
-- The Internet is a too slow way of doing things, you'd never do without it.

Re:You don't get it! by ElusiveJoe · 2012-02-16 03:54 · Score: 1

Yeah, some Sony CEO's son quite artistically sniffed some coke from a slut's belly.

Playing the devil's advocate by Griller_GT · 2012-02-15 20:06 · Score: 1

FTA: "Apple and Sony originally declined to comment, but Sony later answered to the outcries from fans around the world including those in Australia and Great Britain. 'Whitney Houston product was mistakenly mispriced on the U.K. iTunes store on Sunday,' Sony said in a statement according to the New York Times. 'When discovered, the mistake was immediately corrected. We apologize for any offense caused.' " So the price was changed in one of their storefronts and was later corrected. I don't like Sony one bit but I think by now they would know when not to do stupid stuff like this on purpose.

Re:Giant Goliaths against tiny davids by blackest_k · 2012-02-15 20:25 · Score: 2

here is the original guardian article which helped kick up the stink

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012/feb/13/whitney-houston-album-price

thou to be honest Twitter was where it was originally tweeted about, with people initially blaming Apple.

here is a more recent article

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-57378242-501465/whitney-houston-itunes-prices-hiked-by-mistake-says-sony/

where Sony are saying it was all a mistake by some guy in England.

Your suggestion that we can't do anything is false, public opinion matters, from a few tweets Sony's stirred up the ant nest and now has to back pedal furiously.

Another example
Apple is having to do something to protect its sales due to bad publicity about the working conditions of the people producing its products.

Then there are the various civil wars that are taking place, last summers riots in the UK even the back pedalling on ACTA in Europe. All pretty much a case of a lot of little david's going up against goliaths and kicking arse.

The UK riots were an interesting one social media helped fan the flames but it also helped mobilise people to fight back and clean up with huge numbers of people taking to the streets with brooms to reclaim their communities.

The situation has changed where once the Goliaths could pretty much get away with anything and david pretty much muttered under his breath and was ignored. Now David tweets and posts on facebook and pretty quickly the discontent spreads and Goliath is having to back down.

David probably has more power to change things than ever before and governments and corporations are becoming uncomfortably aware that this is the case and having to act accordingly.

--
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants

free market by Tom · 2012-02-15 21:17 · Score: 1

Free market at work - if demand increases, you can raise the price. That's how it works. We love the free market, don't we?

Come on, americans! Where's the cries that any outrage over this is socialism? We wouldn't want to interfere with the magic of the free market, right? It's as important as free speech!

Just like our politicians sell out to the highest bidder...

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org

What happened to the Free Market? by dataxtream · 2012-02-15 21:54 · Score: 1

Supply and Demand? Embrace the Free Market? Isnt this type of capitalism the reason Americans live and die (and kill others) for? So why blame Sony for being a good learner, and playing the game?

Unknown command in line 1: individuals by Half-pint+HAL · 2012-02-15 22:34 · Score: 1

While it may be the job of a company, as an entity, to make money, the company is made of individuals

Individuals? People? Does not compute!

A modern company isn't made of individuals, it's made of systems, procedures and algorithms. The most likely explanation is that some algorithm somewhere automatically makes popular items full-price and drops prices when they're not selling well. Demand went up, price went up. There's no active "decision" in there, just an automated process.

--
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'

No problem by reboot246 · 2012-02-15 23:14 · Score: 1

I never cared for urban yodeling anyway.

Governor Dodd by yerktoader · 2012-02-16 00:54 · Score: 1

I should have expected to find you holding RIAA's leash. I recognized your foul stench when I was brought on board.

Re:Confused by queBurro · 2012-02-16 00:56 · Score: 1

how long before Whitney comes out of copyright?

--
sag

Good question. by MachineShedFred · 2012-02-16 01:14 · Score: 1

Why was this noise posted in the first place?

The article summary makes it sound like this is a Slashdot front page retweet of some guy named "Rasiej"

Man, have the mighty fallen.

--
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.

Boycott sony (again) by ConfusedVorlon · 2012-02-16 01:19 · Score: 1

I thought we were all boycotting Sony after the Geohot abuse anyway?

I know I am. It's a shame - they make good e-readers and I would have bought one otherwise.

--
VLC Remote for iPhone and Android

So, piracy . . . by SebaSOFT · 2012-02-16 01:27 · Score: 1

is hurting the music industry . . .

Re:Giant Goliaths against tiny davids by delinear · 2012-02-16 01:29 · Score: 1

Spot on. The problem as I see it is when companies are allowed to have such diverse interests, how do consumers fight back anymore. If Ford do something bad, you can stop buying their cars/parts/paying them for a service. It's not difficult to identify their products and it's relatively easy for you to actively avoid them. In the case of Sony, they have so many fingers in so many pies, you'd need to be on constant alert to avoid putting money into their pockets. Don't like the practices of their music arm? Well good luck buying a TV or camera or phone or pretty much any home media kit or even Blu-Rays or any recordable media in fact, or in car entertainment or going to see a movie or ... well, you get the picture. Suddenly avoiding them is a full time job, you have to be an incredibly clued up customer to spot their involvement with some of these products. Even if their music arm takes a battering over this (and past experience tells me they won't), they'd just cover the losses elsewhere until business picked back up. I won't say it wouldn't hurt them a little, but it's not like they have to comply with customer demands or face going out of business. All those people who say "if you stand up to a bully they'll stop bullying you" probably never stood up to a bully. It might work occasionally, but most of the time it'll just get you pounded into the dirt.

The problem with economic theory by Moraelin · 2012-02-16 01:42 · Score: 3, Informative

The problem with economic theory is that it is based on a _perfect_ world. It's just handwaved that, uh, well, it works close enough in the real world.

Among the assumptions that are necessary to have most of that shiny-happy outcome for everything -- and I mean, really, necessary, as once you have a margin of error, real world starts to happen -- are such gems as:

- many manufacturers of perfectly homogenous and fungible products. Which works well if you're buying orange juice, but less well when your brand of pneumonia is only sensitive to the latest patented antibiotic.

- zero (or negligible) entry and exit barriers. This is in fact needed both for the previous one, as well as to prevent collusion. In a market where it costs nothing to enter or to exit if it didn't work, you can't form a cartel to regulate the price of bread, because someone else will then start making bread anyway and undercut you. This assumption is increasingly false in the real world, with entry barriers in some domains being in the many billions range. No, really, try starting a CPU manufacturing company.

- perfectly informed buyers. To have any chance that the market punishes behaviours X, Y and Z, or even rewards fine differences in quality, basically all (or the vast majority) of buyers must know that stuff. Again, this is not only getting to be very false, but most corporations actively work through marketing and PR to make sure that you care more about their beer making you cool than whether beer X actually tastes better than beer Y.

- perfectly rational everyone, including buyers and sellers. Which already is false in the case discussed here. Perfectly rational buyers would buy her music because the genuinely like them more than some other music, not just because they heard she died.

- no externalities. An assumption which may be mostly correct for music, but is also something that produced barely breathable smog and other problem at the times it was basically true.

- perfectly elastic supply and demand mechanics. Which sadly was only really true up to the start of the 20'th century. The Great Depression arguably happened when we ran into a domain where things started to be inelastic.

Etc.

What I'm getting at is that while this kind of thing makes for a great BS libertarian rhetoric, it is very much divorced from reality. In the perfect world used in such economic theory, monopolies are impossible, in the real world they are a fact of life. In the perfect world used in such economic theory, collusion isn't viable, in the real world there are real cases where for example a bunch of big pharma companies agreed to not undercut each other. In that ideal world you couldn't make money by recommending that other people invest in the same imploding dot-com that you're selling your shares in, because buyers would already be informed, but in the real world it actually happened. Etc.

If you were a really merciless investor, you'd also know that, and factor it in. E.g., you'd know that if you make ten millions and then have to pay a million to PR to whitewash your image, then, meh, being an asshole actually paid.

And in the end, that's the real difference between those who actually know how to abuse an imperfect market, and idealist nerds who think the world works like in perfect-world BS propaganda.

--
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.

anonymous, where arrrrrre u? by hesaigo999ca · 2012-02-16 01:52 · Score: 1

Sony, I guess you haven\t learned your lesson, you greedy mofos, well I guess this is where Anonymous
would get my gratitude to really f*ck you up again, and this time even worse then the first.
Now if I could only find a way to contact them and give them a green light to go ahead.....

while pointing at a sony poster > .....ANONYMOUS......KILL!

Monitor Them! by king4string · 2012-02-16 02:37 · Score: 1

Maybe all of their artists should be under contract to wear heart monitors. When they report 0, Sony can programmatically raise the artist's catalog prices. Please sign here: _____________

Oblig Bender quote by pak9rabid · 2012-02-16 02:39 · Score: 1

Sony: Demand just skyrocketed, you all saw it!

Copyright now violates the premise of promoting the useful arts and sciences. Here is my logic:

Copyright provides framework to generate huge amounts of money
Huge amounts of money provide opportunity for lavish living
Benefactors of copyright spend copious money on drugs legal and illegal
Artists and copyright benefactors die of overdoses and cannot generate new content

Don't believe me? --> Michael Jackson, River Phoenix, Janis Joplin, Whitney Houston, Heath Ledger, Brittany Murphy, Jim Morrison, Amy Winehouse, Chris Farley, Judy Garland, Elvis Presley, Jimi Hendrix...

Paints a Vulgar Picture by SomePoorSchmuck · 2012-02-16 02:54 · Score: 1

This story only confirms the reality that for every situation in life, there is a Morrissey lyric.

At the record company meeting / On their hands - a dead star
And oh, the plans they weave / And oh, the sickening greed

At the record company party / On their hands - a dead star
The sycophantic slags all say : "I knew him first, and I knew him well"

Re-issue! Re-package! Re-package!
/ Re-evaluate the songs
Double-pack with a photograph / Extra track (and a tacky badge)

A-list, playlist / "Please them , please them !" "Please them !"
(sadly, this was your life)

But you could have said no / If you'd wanted to
You could have said no / If you'd wanted to

BPI, MTV, BBC / "Please them ! Please them!"
(sadly this was your life)

But you could have said no / If you'd wanted to
You could have walked away / ...Couldn't you?

I touched you at the soundcheck / You had no real way of knowing
In my heart I begged "Take me with you ... / I don't care where you're going..."

But to you I was faceless / I was fawning, I was boring
Just a child from those ugly new houses / Who could never begin to know

Who could never really know / Oh...

Best of! Most of! / Satiate the need
Slip them into different sleeves! / Buy both, and feel deceived

Climber - new entry, re-entry
World tour! ("media whore") / "Please the Press in Belgium!"
(This was your life...)

And when it fails to recoup ? / Well, maybe :
You just haven't earned it yet, baby

I walked a pace behind you at the soundcheck / You're just the same as I am
What makes most people feel happy / Leads us headlong into harm

So, in my bedroom in those 'ugly new houses' / I danced my legs down to the knees
But me and my 'true love' / Will never meet again...

At the record company meeting / On their hands - at last! - A dead star !
But they can never taint you in my eyes / No, they can never touch you now

No, they cannot hurt you, my darling / They cannot touch you now
But me and my 'true love'
Will never meet again

"Paint a Vulgar Picture" as written by Johnny Marr, Steven Patrick Morrissey
Lyrics © Universal Music Publishing Group, Warner/Chappell Music, Inc.

--

Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine

Corporations are Children by fuzznutz · 2012-02-16 03:10 · Score: 1

Companies just want the rights and privilegies of humans, but none of the responsibility.

Holy crap! That sounds like my kids. Corporations are just entitled, spoiled children.

Morrissey said it best... by Reasonable+Facsimile · 2012-02-16 04:33 · Score: 1

At the record company meeting
On their hands - a dead star
And oh, the plans they weave
And oh, the sickening greed

Paint A Vulgar Picture -- The Smiths

Nothing to See Here...Move Along by dcw3 · 2012-02-16 05:35 · Score: 1

Disclaimer: I've been boycotting Sony products sine the 80s when they screwed me over on my first CD player, and refused to honor a $50 coupon for free music because I was "outside the continental US".

Let's not pretend there's some evil plot to profit off of Whitney's death when it would easily be attributed to something much simpler. Without additional evidence you can't jump to the conclusion that it wasn't just an automated price increase based upon the increased demand. That hardly takes any human intervention. Now we can all pile on and hate them for a lot of things, but the price rise isn't enough in this case. Even if they withdraw the increase, I'm certain many of you will still be claiming that they only did so under pressure...it's a no win situation for them now.

--
Just another day in Paradise

Consider the alternative by Slicebo · 2012-02-16 07:09 · Score: 1

I'd be more freaked out if they raised the price 30 minutes *before* she died.

Nothing wrong here by sfranklin · 2012-02-16 07:26 · Score: 1

What a load of crap. Taking advantage of increased irrational demand isn't a problem. It's following market trends, and that's good business. The smart people that are interested in her music will simply wait a while before buying, allowing prices to go back to normal. Nothing wrong with capitalizing on people who are 1) willing to pay more or 2) have so little self-control that they can't wait.

--
Skip Franklin
It's always darkest just before it goes pitch black. -- despair.com

Non Sequitur by fuzznutz · 2012-02-16 07:46 · Score: 1

Very well...

What about the poor schlub who works for himself. He repairs roofs, cars, computers, or builds homes on spec. He draws no corporate salary and he can't demand the recipient of his labor and their children and their children's children pay him in perpetuity for his effort. If he is unsuccessful in his business acumen, he will end up with nothing. Your "simple stuff" makes the assumption that copyright delivers a inalienable and incontrovertible right to an income (for successful works) forever (for all intents and purposes).

I never advocated that there should be no copyright. My argument is that copyright is unworkable, untenable, and illegitimate in the eyes of the public when extended to such extreme lengths. Life plus seventy years could extend copyright to 130 years or more under the right circumstances. That is unconscionable for a country that has only existed for a little over 200 years..

The copyright compromise is that the public domain and humanity is enriched by offering the author or artist the carrot of a limited monopoly. This compromise has been hijacked by big media and left nothing but crumbs for the rest of us. There is no argument that can ever justify the unbridled robbery that the public domain has suffered at the hands the last three copyright law amendments and the corporate lackeys that voted for it.

This is pretty simple stuff, really....

Re:Non Sequitur by Half-pint+HAL · 2012-02-16 21:34 · Score: 1

That's all very fair, but that's not what you said before -- I argued against what you said, not against that. I agree that copyright terms are too long, and I agree that they should be reduced. But I don't agree with releasing everything into the public domain immediately on the author's death, because dead or alive, they still should be recompensed.

--
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Re:Non Sequitur by fuzznutz · 2012-02-17 02:45 · Score: 1

I guess the key word in my original post was perpetually.

If you wanted to make copyright a sane proposition, I would advocate a few changes to make it more acceptable:

Make copyright a REASONABLE FIXED maximum term, not some multi-generational annuity for the lucky few. Right now, copyright is used as a lottery win for the very lucky few to guarantee an eternal legacy to families and as a cudgel for corporations to stifle competition (essentially) forever. Untold multitudes of works are lost to history forever in the sole endeavor to milk the last remaining cent from the very few works that have value 95 years after publication.

Require clear, public registration identifying the work and the scope of the copyright to enable copyright protection and require periodic renewal. Inclusion of licensed work must be identified and referenced with its own copyright registration. If it isn't valuable enough for you to register and renew, then you shouldn't have any complaint when it drops into the public domain. That will make works available that under the current clusterf*ck can't be used because nobody knows if copyright exists anymore or who owns it if it does. Require copyright notice and registration numbers on subsequent publications of the work like patents.

Slashdot Mirror

Sony Raises Price of Whitney Houston's Music 30 Minutes After Death

377 of 507 comments (clear)