Some are born to the poor, some to the middle class, and others the rich. Some have to work for things, and others are given them.
The person you mention has as many opportunities as they choose to take advantage of. Look at all of the people that immigrate (legally and illegally) to the US with no more then this man who was "gutter and bereft of education" and make things of themselves. He's been born with more opportunities then they were by simple being born in the US.
The market should be allowed to determine what lives and what dies, Government propping up failed policies and institutions teaches no one a lesson, specifically the market.
What if the cost of that lesson is another great depression? And what if who dies is thousands of people? Is it worth it to teach the lesson?
Ultimately the questions for conservatives is whether they believe that people have an inherent right to live, even if at the lowest standards of living, or if people that can work or can find work do have that right. Because if they do have a right to live, then we must be prepared to give those people some amount of charity.
I am not a conservative, but I'll still share my opinion. People do not have a right to live, in the sense that you mean. They have a right for the opportunity to live, but not to have life provided to them.
"I think the Record industry is getting mixed signals. When Napster came out, Many people said it was the cost of the cds that were people to download it for free. Over the last couple of years, they started to change the model. You can now get individual tracks for 99 cents or less."
Nice to know after all of that you do agree with me.
"They do. While someone might pirate vs. $15 for a CD, they might purchase the actual CD if it was at a lower price point."
Would you do work for free and then expect your employer to pay you what they thought it was worth?
If people aren't willing to fork over the cash for music, they shouldn't get the luxury of listening to it either.
There is validity in what you say. However, it is a poor analogy because creating and selling music does not translate well to a 9-5 job. As for the "luxury of listening to it", it is already give to the public for free via the radio (yes, I know the radio station pays for it.) However, you can legally record it off of the Radio.
"There are people that download illegally and still purchase new CDs at $15 a pop. There would be more that fit into that catagory if the price was lower."
any stats to back this up? I keep hearing this, but see no actual evidence. I think this probably does happen, but at a much smaller level than you are trying to convey here.
Common sense backs it up. People like that do exist, and if CDs were less expensive, the numbers would be larger. As for the number of people like that, I don't know how many there are. Maybe it is a small number. But during the hey-day of illegal download (napster), there were still a fair amount of people purchasing CDs. I would certainly love to see a study that could show what these numbers might be.
"Having a better product (CD artwork & "extra's") at a more affordable price is a better plan then offering an inferior product (Bogged down with DRM, vs. DRM free pirated MP3's) and the current price."
DRM was created because of piracy. If all restrictions were lifted, piracy would still continue.
There is no evidence to show otherwise.
I never claimed that piracy would go away. With or Without DRM, your going to have piracy. DRM is not going to stop it. Because it's all just 1's and 0's, it's going to be pirated. There is no stopping that.
However, offering a better product then the pirated product would encourage more people to purchase the product instead of pirating. Instead of the game plan now, of offering a worse product then the pirated product.
"These are computers. If someone can create the security, someone can break it. It's pretty much that simple. The only thing stopping someone from breaking security measures is drive, and it seems that there is a lot of drive for free music, games, & movies. The sooner that these companies realize that, the sooner they can move towards accepting different business models."
It's pretty easy to break into a house, but people still have locks.
Horrible analogy.
I guess there is a larger drive to pirate then there is to burgle.
"I give Radio Head and NIN as examples of bands that are changing the RIAA business model, and proving that they can still produce studio quality work while allowing their works to be purchased at a price point of $0."
This shows two examples that moderately worked. However, you left out the part where trent reznor tried it with a lesser known artists named saul williams and it was a complete failure (less than 20% paid). (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080305-reznor-makes-750000-even-when-the-music-is-free.html)
This model may work with the top 1% of musicians, but lesser known ones that make the majority of their money from online music sales will not be as successful, if at all.
What's changing the RIAA are services like iTunes, which actually sell music online. Giving something away for free (especially when it is counterfeit..and not part of an actual competing business) is not new or innovative.
I think this goes along with something I said about changing business model and improving the product. (Not just giving it away for free). I'm glad to see you do agree with me.
So,
If someone threatens you into buying them things with your Credit Card, you can charge them for the threat, butyour SOL for the stuff you bought them becuase your only out virtual cash and there was no fraud going on.
Compared to your AC unit, Washer/Dryer, Fridge, Heater, Hot Water Heater, Computer(s), TV(s), and everything else. Saving 1 hour of having a few lights on in the house is small.
Apparently I need to acquire a lawn. Because words like "chillax" really annoy me. Did chill somehow need san "ax" at the end? A hybrid of two words (Chill and relax) that already mean the same thing where the hybrid is longer then both of the original words is just annoying as all hell.
"How do you steal an item that doesn't really exist (a.k.a. virtual)?"
So, if I take your Credit card and charge it up, I did not steal anything because the physical money never exsisted?
Or how about MP3's? Do those have any value? There as virtual as anything in a game is. Just 1's and 0's like the items in a game and the money on your credit cards.
So send them with supplies to last 3 years. Sending *willing* people on a mission that might get you killed might sound crazy, but the military does it all fo the time. Why shouldn't civilians?
"They do, but in this case the studios have no reason to lower their costs"
They do. While someone might pirate vs. $15 for a CD, they might purchase the actual CD if it was at a lower price point. There are people that download illegally and still purchase new CDs at $15 a pop. There would be more that fit into that catagory if the price was lower.
Having a better product (CD artwork & "extra's") at a more affordable price is a better plan then offering an inferior product (Bogged down with DRM, vs. DRM free pirated MP3's) and the current price.
These are computers. If someone can create the security, someone can break it. It's pretty much that simple. The only thing stopping someone from breaking security measures is drive, and it seems that there is a lot of drive for free music, games, & movies. The sooner that these companies realize that, the sooner they can move towards accepting different business models.
Yeah, the horse and buggy gets brought up, and it has its merits. but But, it's too different at the same time and distracts from the real discussion.
"Now, if artists were releasing their music independently (on myspace for example) and actually competing with the RIAA, it would be a different story. The ironic part is that because piracy is so rampant, independent artists have no choice but to go with the RIAA if they want to actually make money on their music."
I give Radio Head and NIN as examples of bands that are changing the RIAA business model, and proving that they can still produce studio quality work while allowing their works to be purchased at a price point of $0.
I don't see why they wouldn't. The SOS people have verified the accuracy of the information versus a standard and it seems that this is being targeted towards schools is need. And while we all might agree that the schools in the US are in needs, it seems that this might be targeted towards schools in far more need then the US's.
Well, studios could always charge less. I'm pretty sure they would look into that option before shutting down.
As for people who "like properly produced studio albums and don't mind paying for them". Well, if there are enough of you, then there will still be a demand for for properly produced studio albums from people willing to pay for properly produced studio albums. So i'd bet that there will be someone selling properly produced studio albums.
IT does not ahve to be all or nothing. Things usually tend to fall in the grey zone. IF downloading was made legal, sure the profits would suffer. However, there would still be profits to be made. The industry would not just shut down and go home, it would reorganize around new business models and implement ideas (like charging less) to boost sales.
And as I've said before, Studios would not shut down, they would just start charing a rate more balanced to the adjusted end profits. So, people that want to pay for properly produced studio albums will still have that option.
Sure, when music is downloaded some sales are lost. However, it is not a 1 for 1 basis. If there was no illegal downloading, there would be more CD sales, but not equal to the amount that was downloaded.
To add to our generalizations. Many who downloaded a copy also eventually went out and purchased a physical copy. Having been burnt buy CDs with only one or two good songs, some people want to check out the music before purchasing. In this respect, downloading the song actually resulted in new sales of the CD being made that would not have happened if the CD was not available for download.
IF a million people (in America/Europe) want to download a CD, then there is probably enough draw that the artist will sell some CD's too.
one downloaded song does not equal one lost sale. Many people that download would never purchase albums in the first place (i.e. they are cheap). So those people do not result in lost sales.
Your annology does not work because both a DVD and the Theater are the same, just a bigger screen. Much more different then listening to a recording, and listening to a live performance.
Slashdot Mirror
Life isn't fair.
Some are born to the poor, some to the middle class, and others the rich. Some have to work for things, and others are given them.
The person you mention has as many opportunities as they choose to take advantage of. Look at all of the people that immigrate (legally and illegally) to the US with no more then this man who was "gutter and bereft of education" and make things of themselves. He's been born with more opportunities then they were by simple being born in the US.
Wish I could mod you insightful. Things liek this will probably be a very large problem.
The market should be allowed to determine what lives and what dies, Government propping up failed policies and institutions teaches no one a lesson, specifically the market.
What if the cost of that lesson is another great depression? And what if who dies is thousands of people? Is it worth it to teach the lesson?
Ultimately the questions for conservatives is whether they believe that people have an inherent right to live, even if at the lowest standards of living, or if people that can work or can find work do have that right. Because if they do have a right to live, then we must be prepared to give those people some amount of charity.
I am not a conservative, but I'll still share my opinion. People do not have a right to live, in the sense that you mean. They have a right for the opportunity to live, but not to have life provided to them.
It's relative to the normal Government efficiency. Compared to the other agencies, the IRS is efficient.
People buy MS Visual Studio? I thought everyone just pirated it?
That's what I keep telling my girlfriend
"I think the Record industry is getting mixed signals. When Napster came out, Many people said it was the cost of the cds that were people to download it for free. Over the last couple of years, they started to change the model. You can now get individual tracks for 99 cents or less."
Nice to know after all of that you do agree with me.
"They do. While someone might pirate vs. $15 for a CD, they might purchase the actual CD if it was at a lower price point."
Would you do work for free and then expect your employer to pay you what they thought it was worth?
If people aren't willing to fork over the cash for music, they shouldn't get the luxury of listening to it either.
There is validity in what you say. However, it is a poor analogy because creating and selling music does not translate well to a 9-5 job. As for the "luxury of listening to it", it is already give to the public for free via the radio (yes, I know the radio station pays for it.) However, you can legally record it off of the Radio.
"There are people that download illegally and still purchase new CDs at $15 a pop. There would be more that fit into that catagory if the price was lower."
any stats to back this up? I keep hearing this, but see no actual evidence. I think this probably does happen, but at a much smaller level than you are trying to convey here.
Common sense backs it up. People like that do exist, and if CDs were less expensive, the numbers would be larger. As for the number of people like that, I don't know how many there are. Maybe it is a small number. But during the hey-day of illegal download (napster), there were still a fair amount of people purchasing CDs. I would certainly love to see a study that could show what these numbers might be.
"Having a better product (CD artwork & "extra's") at a more affordable price is a better plan then offering an inferior product (Bogged down with DRM, vs. DRM free pirated MP3's) and the current price."
DRM was created because of piracy. If all restrictions were lifted, piracy would still continue.
There is no evidence to show otherwise.
I never claimed that piracy would go away. With or Without DRM, your going to have piracy. DRM is not going to stop it. Because it's all just 1's and 0's, it's going to be pirated. There is no stopping that.
However, offering a better product then the pirated product would encourage more people to purchase the product instead of pirating. Instead of the game plan now, of offering a worse product then the pirated product.
"These are computers. If someone can create the security, someone can break it. It's pretty much that simple. The only thing stopping someone from breaking security measures is drive, and it seems that there is a lot of drive for free music, games, & movies. The sooner that these companies realize that, the sooner they can move towards accepting different business models."
It's pretty easy to break into a house, but people still have locks.
Horrible analogy.
I guess there is a larger drive to pirate then there is to burgle.
"I give Radio Head and NIN as examples of bands that are changing the RIAA business model, and proving that they can still produce studio quality work while allowing their works to be purchased at a price point of $0."
This shows two examples that moderately worked. However, you left out the part where trent reznor tried it with a lesser known artists named saul williams and it was a complete failure (less than 20% paid). (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080305-reznor-makes-750000-even-when-the-music-is-free.html)
This model may work with the top 1% of musicians, but lesser known ones that make the majority of their money from online music sales will not be as successful, if at all.
What's changing the RIAA are services like iTunes, which actually sell music online. Giving something away for free (especially when it is counterfeit..and not part of an actual competing business) is not new or innovative.
I think this goes along with something I said about changing business model and improving the product. (Not just giving it away for free). I'm glad to see you do agree with me.
So, If someone threatens you into buying them things with your Credit Card, you can charge them for the threat, butyour SOL for the stuff you bought them becuase your only out virtual cash and there was no fraud going on.
He said: home electrical usage
Compared to your AC unit, Washer/Dryer, Fridge, Heater, Hot Water Heater, Computer(s), TV(s), and everything else. Saving 1 hour of having a few lights on in the house is small.
Apparently I need to acquire a lawn. Because words like "chillax" really annoy me. Did chill somehow need san "ax" at the end? A hybrid of two words (Chill and relax) that already mean the same thing where the hybrid is longer then both of the original words is just annoying as all hell.
"How do you steal an item that doesn't really exist (a.k.a. virtual)?"
So, if I take your Credit card and charge it up, I did not steal anything because the physical money never exsisted?
Or how about MP3's? Do those have any value? There as virtual as anything in a game is. Just 1's and 0's like the items in a game and the money on your credit cards.
So send them with supplies to last 3 years. Sending *willing* people on a mission that might get you killed might sound crazy, but the military does it all fo the time. Why shouldn't civilians?
If that joke was actually said, it was very funny.
"They do, but in this case the studios have no reason to lower their costs"
They do. While someone might pirate vs. $15 for a CD, they might purchase the actual CD if it was at a lower price point. There are people that download illegally and still purchase new CDs at $15 a pop. There would be more that fit into that catagory if the price was lower.
Having a better product (CD artwork & "extra's") at a more affordable price is a better plan then offering an inferior product (Bogged down with DRM, vs. DRM free pirated MP3's) and the current price.
These are computers. If someone can create the security, someone can break it. It's pretty much that simple. The only thing stopping someone from breaking security measures is drive, and it seems that there is a lot of drive for free music, games, & movies. The sooner that these companies realize that, the sooner they can move towards accepting different business models.
Yeah, the horse and buggy gets brought up, and it has its merits. but But, it's too different at the same time and distracts from the real discussion.
"Now, if artists were releasing their music independently (on myspace for example) and actually competing with the RIAA, it would be a different story. The ironic part is that because piracy is so rampant, independent artists have no choice but to go with the RIAA if they want to actually make money on their music."
I give Radio Head and NIN as examples of bands that are changing the RIAA business model, and proving that they can still produce studio quality work while allowing their works to be purchased at a price point of $0.
I don't see why they wouldn't. The SOS people have verified the accuracy of the information versus a standard and it seems that this is being targeted towards schools is need. And while we all might agree that the schools in the US are in needs, it seems that this might be targeted towards schools in far more need then the US's.
Well, studios could always charge less. I'm pretty sure they would look into that option before shutting down.
As for people who "like properly produced studio albums and don't mind paying for them". Well, if there are enough of you, then there will still be a demand for for properly produced studio albums from people willing to pay for properly produced studio albums. So i'd bet that there will be someone selling properly produced studio albums.
IT does not ahve to be all or nothing. Things usually tend to fall in the grey zone. IF downloading was made legal, sure the profits would suffer. However, there would still be profits to be made. The industry would not just shut down and go home, it would reorganize around new business models and implement ideas (like charging less) to boost sales.
And as I've said before, Studios would not shut down, they would just start charing a rate more balanced to the adjusted end profits. So, people that want to pay for properly produced studio albums will still have that option.
Business models change over time. Maybe Studio Produced music would die out, or maybe they would lower their costs.
"Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat."
They were in on it together.
Sure, when music is downloaded some sales are lost. However, it is not a 1 for 1 basis. If there was no illegal downloading, there would be more CD sales, but not equal to the amount that was downloaded.
To add to our generalizations. Many who downloaded a copy also eventually went out and purchased a physical copy. Having been burnt buy CDs with only one or two good songs, some people want to check out the music before purchasing. In this respect, downloading the song actually resulted in new sales of the CD being made that would not have happened if the CD was not available for download.
Ops, I forgot to include the Spelling and Grammar errors for your enjoyment. Sorry
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
/.'s lame filter
Here is some random crap to try and get the "no" past
IF a million people (in America/Europe) want to download a CD, then there is probably enough draw that the artist will sell some CD's too.
one downloaded song does not equal one lost sale. Many people that download would never purchase albums in the first place (i.e. they are cheap). So those people do not result in lost sales.
Your annology does not work because both a DVD and the Theater are the same, just a bigger screen. Much more different then listening to a recording, and listening to a live performance.