Similar concepts apply for books and movies, although Stallman explicitly mentions that it might be inconvienent to be forced to distribute source code with published books.
Actually, he doesn't *explicitly* say that's what he's talking about, and in fact I don't think that is (but frankly I can't figure out what he was talking about). Anyway, the GPL doesn't require that you distribute the source code with the book. Instead you can "Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange." Might not work very well for music which you broadcast over a radio station, though!
For example the sampling+ license might as well be a completely commercial 'no rights' license, since all it permits would be allowed by fair use anyways.
Fair use isn't available throughout the entire world, and not everyone is an expert in US copyright law anyway. Taking the guesswork out of licensing of online works is pretty much the entire reason Creative Commons was started, and the Samping License does accomplish that.
Creative Commons is not the FSF for content. There really isn't one yet.
The status quo is that you may not copy creative works and give them to your friends. Every license in the CC suite allows you to do that. Every one.
Not the Sampling License and Developing Nations License, which are mentioned in the interview.
"Sampling: People can take and transform pieces of your work for any purpose other than advertising, which is prohibited. Copying and distribution of the entire work is also prohibited."
"Developing Nations. You may exercise the above freedoms in developing nations only."
The GNU GPL is written primarily for software, but it can be used for any kind of work. However, its requirements are inconvenient for works that one might want to print and publish in a book, so I don't recommend using it for manuals, or for novels
Which I find an incredibly odd thing to say, because the GFDL, which was created by the FSF for manuals, is even more inconvenient for works that one might want to print and publish in a book. Of course, maybe I'm just confused as to what requirements of the GPL he's talking about.
Such a system benefits all parties - the production company is guaranteed a profit before they invest a single dime, something completely unheard of in the world of entertainment business. In return for that guarantee, the end result is made freely available to one and all so that the people who funded the creation can share it with anyone they want without legal or moral issues. Ultimately the free distribution of previous episodes acts as advertising for future episodes.
Furthermore it is 100% free-market, no government intervention required, no dollars wasted on the FBI tracking down pirates because piracy is meaningless in such a system. And if the show sucks? People are only out a buck, not a big a loss and the chances of the next episode being funded goes down - it is survival of the fittest with no middlemen like advertisers and "programming execs" to muddle up the difference between good shows and crappy shows.
So - that's one idea demonstrating why copyright is indeed obsolete.
I tend to agree with this, but at the same time, it's perfectly to do all of this within the confines of copyright law. And since this is true, then it can't really be true that such a system benefits all parties, because if it benefitted all parties, then all parties would agree to it (there's no law, at least in the US, which says that you *must* use copyright).
I think something closer to the truth of the matter is that for now, in most situations, copyright does indeed benefit some parties. Namely, it benefits the large corporations which have the capital to invest in producing copyrighted works, by increasing their profits *beyond* what they'd achieve using your payment scheme. This is starting to shift though, partly because of technology such as the Internet, and partly because consumers are beginning to demand more freedoms. Copyleft is a great invention, and personally I believe it will one day surpass standard copyright even without any government intervention.
And many of those producers of art, etc., lived life as paupers unless they could find a rich patron to support them because they certainly didn't make much of a living from their work.
And nowadays there aren't many producers of art, etc. who live life as paupers unless they can find a rich megacorp to support them because they certainly don't make much of a living from their work?
Is the term "starving artist" really older than the concept of copyright?
There was no printing press before Gutenberg. Copying books was extremely time consuming prior to that, and even after the printing press I'm sure it was still tedious for some time. Wholescale copying was not feasible prior to this invention.
None of which proves that copyright has any social or economic merit at all.
It's quite the paradox, in order to try to fight racism we actually perpetuate it.
It's only a paradox if you believe that perpetuating racism is the only way to fight it. I and many others don't believe this.
What are we to do? Pretend that racism doesn't exist?
I didn't know racism existed for a large portion of my childhood, and I didn't become a racist because of it. Not that I'd suggest pretending racism doesn't exist would magically solve anything, though. Pretending race doesn't exist, on the other hand, I think that's a useful exercise for all of us.
Low unemployment (very low) is bad because it causes inflation, which pretty much screws everyone (it will leads to higher unemployment over time).
Actually, inflation is pretty good for people who are deep in debt, which tends to mean most Americans. Inflation is bad for rich bankers like Alan Greenspan, though.
As I understand it, Civil Disobedience is fighting against a specific law that you believe to be wrong, and possibly unjust, without attacking the system behind the law.
Have you ever read "Civil Disobedience" or any of the works of Thoreau? In more recent years the civil rights movement adopted many of the concepts of civil disobedience and applied them to specific laws, but I don't think you can look at that and ignore the history of what civil disobedience is.
The way I see it, civil disobedience is questioning the very authority of the government to enact laws in the first place.
Not really. The essence of civil disobedience, as I understand it, is being willing to pay the penalty if you're wrong.
I really don't see how you can ignore the anti-government sentiment of civil disobedience. The pioneering essay "Civil Disobedience" was even originally entitled "Resistance to Civil Government". The very first few sentences of the essay are:
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe-- "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.
But even more than that, if the people are empowered to disobey unjust laws, then how is that consistent with government power?
Civil disobedience certainly implies a willingness to accept those things which you cannot change without resorting to violence, but I wouldn't say that's the essence of it.
Now, I don't think you meant it that way, but unless "You did the crime, now do the time." applies to everybody, nobody's going to pay any attention to the law.
Well sure, anarchy is the natural conclusion of civil disobedience. Of course many people believe that nobody paying any attention to the law would be a good thing.
Hiding your activities and taking great pains to avoid being caught isn't the act of a citizen rightfully protesting an unjust law in the most direct way possible, it's the act of someone who knows that what they're doing is wrong.
No, it's the act of someone who knows that what they're doing is illegal. Big difference.
"The purpose of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias don't work this way."
Uh, be careful relying on that argument *too* much when it comes to wikipedia. Encyclopedias don't let just *anyone* edit them, either.
Ah, but I didn't say the purpose of Wikipedia was *to be* an encyclopedia, I said the purpose was *to create* an encyclopedia. Letting (just about) anyone edit is merely a choice in how best to create the encyclopedia, not one about what the content will be.
The point is, we have to see where wikipedia isn't working as well as it could. We can't assume that this current incarnation of wikipedia is the best version.
Of course it isn't. But I don't think that means you should change the fundamental goal of the project. I would argue that the very reason Wikipedia is so successful is because they have remained focussed on a clear goal. Other wikis just get thrown up and have no stated purpose. Even non-wiki projects like Everything2 seem to have this problem (a lack of clear focus), though E2 might be much more successful if they'd turn off the robots.txt and license their content under a free license (the latter probably being impossible at this point).
Letting people write multiple articles about the same subject would fundamentally change the nature of Wikipedia. I'm not even saying it's necessarily a bad idea - for another project. But it'd seriously compromise the ability of Wikipedia to meet its goal, which is creating a single comprehensive and inclusive article about each subject.
I'm not talking about a "stable" and "development" branch. I'm talking about multiple concurrent versions. That way no side of the debate feels left out. Each side presents their case in the way they see fit. Currently what we have is contention for *the* single article. Well, there are a lot of subjects that a lot of people aren't going to agree upon.
This is the idea behind Wikinfo. Wikinfo isn't very successful, but that probably doesn't have much to do with the fact it uses this idea.
Personally I don't think it's such a great idea for Wikipedia. The purpose of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias don't work this way. I think it'd be a good idea for a peer-to-peer content system, but then again, we could just call that content system "the Internet".
To me, the problem is that wikipedia is presented in "traditional mode" where the user assumes that the current article to be the best of the best, like traditional encyclopedias.
I'm not sure that's a problem with wikipedia, but rather the way wikipedia is being used. IMO Wikipedia, like any wiki, can never *be* an encyclopedia, it can only be a tool used to create an encyclopedia.
That said, I foresee some sort of "stable versions" feature coming out in the next 6 months (and not because I have some great foresight, I follow the Wikipedia mailing lists and this is a feature being actively discussed, there are even some proposed patches to allow it to happen). That will largely address the problem you're referring to. Most likely the "stable version" of the article won't be the default one presented on wikipedia.org, but it will be available for those who want to view something which isn't just "the latest winner of a revision war posing as a proper encyclopedia entry".
If there were no rebates, the price would be higher.
This is what they want you to think.
Yes, but it's also the truth. For instance (though this is only one factor), if 50% of people don't even cash in the rebate, then the store can afford to set the rebate price at a higher value. As long as you aren't one of those suckers who doesn't turn in the rebate, you save.
It's not really much of a loophole. If you're on a cash basis (small businesses usually are) then you get the full price as an expense (or basis for depreciation) and you declare the rebate as revenue (actually I'm not sure if that's technically correct for a depreciable asset, though I can't imagine a rebate for which the error in that treatment would be material). So if the rebate comes the next year at best you get to postpone taxes by a year. If you're on an accrual basis (like large businesses are), then the rebate comes in as an asset from day one, and you can't deduct it ever.
Now if you're going to commit tax evasion and not declare the rebate, it's a whole different story. You'll probably get away with it if it's a small amount, because most people don't get audited. But if you do get audited, you might very well get caught. AFAIK, your receipt is usually going to mention the rebate, so if the receipt is examined in the audit that would raise a red flag. Otherwise, you might still get caught if you deposit the rebate check into a bank account that is part of the audit. When you reconcile the bank account to your books, you've gotta include the rebate somewhere. Maybe if you cash the check and distribute the cash in some way that it all stays off the books you could get away with it, but frankly if you want to commit tax evasion there are much easier ways to do it.
You're quite right though. People picking up a laptop or desktop at Best Buy aren't really the geeky type. But that's about 95% ignorance, 5% thinking building a computer is actually difficult (or even thought-requiring).
For me it's ignorance. I've had too many bad experiences with buying things over the Internet. I'll still do it from time to time, if I can get a really good deal and want to potentially go through the hassle of online returns, but I try tend to shy away from it otherwise. I bought my wife her desktop computer from one of those chain stores, I think it was CompUSA. I probably could have saved $50 online through some store I've never heard of or $100 building my own from parts from stores I've never heard of, but it would have been much more hassle, and in the case of building my own it probably wouldn't have been as nice looking or had the nice extras like USB, firewire, and camera card ports in the front. I did wind up replacing the 256mb memory with a gig, which I also picked up at CompUSA for $60 (no mail-in rebates) on black friday.
Anyway, I'll check out newegg. It seems like people have had good experiences with them, and maybe they'll have better prices than the retail stores. I'm actually in the market for a new computer for myself right now. My laptop is dying, and I'm not sure if I'm going to replace it with a laptop or a desktop. 19" LCD monitor $229.99 after $40.00 Mail-In Rebate, not bad if I go with the desktop.
Shopping clubs only pretend to save you money. You have to compare not to the non-discounted price at the same store, but to the normal price at a non-shopping club store.
Shopping clubs with an annual membership fee often are able to give discounts compared to non-club stores. This can be true for the average shopper even when the membership fee is factored in, because the guaranteed revenues make it cheaper to raise working capital.
They went to a city with two supermarkets with shopping clubs and bought a good list of various items with their club cards. Then they went to a neighboring city, bought the same items from a similar supermarket with no shopping club, and the non-discounted items without a card were a LOT cheaper.
That's not really a very good study. The prices of different items in different cities is often going to be different, and often for legitimate reasons (higher distribution costs, higher employee salaries, higher real estate prices, etc).
They only need per-buyer info to figure out how to make their store less attractive to customers who aren't making them much money.
Or maybe it's to make their store more attractive to customers who are making them the most money.
Club cards don't magically make it cheaper for the supermarket to buy that head of lettuce, or can of soup.
I've seen some rebated stuff at stores that are far cheaper than any online price. They tend to be small things (a spindle of CD-Rs or similar)
I've learned the hard way never to buy spindles of write-once media through a rebate. Bought a bunch of DVD-Rs, cut the UPC code, started using them, and about 50% are defective. The store won't take them back, because I cut the UPC.
Why not just deduct the rebate at the cash register?
You mentioned one reason - it allows different people to pay different prices. Another reason is that it gives the company a short-term loan. But probably the most important reason for traditional rebates (complete with cutting and sending in the UPC code), is that it stops most resellers from coming in, buying the product at the low price, and then reselling it at a profit (some will just sell the item without packaging or without the UPC code, but there is a much smaller market for this).
To a lesser extent, and a situation which is still available with online rebates, it allows the store to enforce quantity limits more strictly. With an instant rebate, you can just pay cash and buy at least as many items as there are store clerks to sell them to you (and probably more considering that many clerks won't remember you or care). Considering the number of Best Buys within a few miles of my house, this could easily turn a quantity limit of 1 into a limit of 20. Combine that with reselling on ebay, and you've got a fairly useless discount system. In fact, this is already done quite a bit - take a look at the DVD sales at Best Buy each week and then look over the next week at what's getting sold on eBay.
Much of this could be accomplished through a store loyalty card, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, you can send anything with digital radio broadcasts, but I was talking about plain old AM/FM.
Similar concepts apply for books and movies, although Stallman explicitly mentions that it might be inconvienent to be forced to distribute source code with published books.
Actually, he doesn't *explicitly* say that's what he's talking about, and in fact I don't think that is (but frankly I can't figure out what he was talking about). Anyway, the GPL doesn't require that you distribute the source code with the book. Instead you can "Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange." Might not work very well for music which you broadcast over a radio station, though!
For example the sampling+ license might as well be a completely commercial 'no rights' license, since all it permits would be allowed by fair use anyways.
Fair use isn't available throughout the entire world, and not everyone is an expert in US copyright law anyway. Taking the guesswork out of licensing of online works is pretty much the entire reason Creative Commons was started, and the Samping License does accomplish that.
Creative Commons is not the FSF for content. There really isn't one yet.
The status quo is that you may not copy creative works and give them to your friends. Every license in the CC suite allows you to do that. Every one.
Not the Sampling License and Developing Nations License, which are mentioned in the interview.
"Sampling: People can take and transform pieces of your work for any purpose other than advertising, which is prohibited. Copying and distribution of the entire work is also prohibited."
"Developing Nations. You may exercise the above freedoms in developing nations only."
The GNU GPL is written primarily for software, but it can be used for any kind of work. However, its requirements are inconvenient for works that one might want to print and publish in a book, so I don't recommend using it for manuals, or for novels
Which I find an incredibly odd thing to say, because the GFDL, which was created by the FSF for manuals, is even more inconvenient for works that one might want to print and publish in a book. Of course, maybe I'm just confused as to what requirements of the GPL he's talking about.
Such a system benefits all parties - the production company is guaranteed a profit before they invest a single dime, something completely unheard of in the world of entertainment business. In return for that guarantee, the end result is made freely available to one and all so that the people who funded the creation can share it with anyone they want without legal or moral issues. Ultimately the free distribution of previous episodes acts as advertising for future episodes.
Furthermore it is 100% free-market, no government intervention required, no dollars wasted on the FBI tracking down pirates because piracy is meaningless in such a system. And if the show sucks? People are only out a buck, not a big a loss and the chances of the next episode being funded goes down - it is survival of the fittest with no middlemen like advertisers and "programming execs" to muddle up the difference between good shows and crappy shows.
So - that's one idea demonstrating why copyright is indeed obsolete.
I tend to agree with this, but at the same time, it's perfectly to do all of this within the confines of copyright law. And since this is true, then it can't really be true that such a system benefits all parties, because if it benefitted all parties, then all parties would agree to it (there's no law, at least in the US, which says that you *must* use copyright).
I think something closer to the truth of the matter is that for now, in most situations, copyright does indeed benefit some parties. Namely, it benefits the large corporations which have the capital to invest in producing copyrighted works, by increasing their profits *beyond* what they'd achieve using your payment scheme. This is starting to shift though, partly because of technology such as the Internet, and partly because consumers are beginning to demand more freedoms. Copyleft is a great invention, and personally I believe it will one day surpass standard copyright even without any government intervention.
And many of those producers of art, etc., lived life as paupers unless they could find a rich patron to support them because they certainly didn't make much of a living from their work.
And nowadays there aren't many producers of art, etc. who live life as paupers unless they can find a rich megacorp to support them because they certainly don't make much of a living from their work?
Is the term "starving artist" really older than the concept of copyright?
There was no printing press before Gutenberg. Copying books was extremely time consuming prior to that, and even after the printing press I'm sure it was still tedious for some time. Wholescale copying was not feasible prior to this invention.
None of which proves that copyright has any social or economic merit at all.
The rule is for FEDERAL CONTRACTORS!!!
Hey, finally, thanks...
Reading this story and knowing the track record of Slashdot I knew something had to be wrong, but I couldn't figure out what it was.
Now, rereading the article it seems like this could still be fairly far-reaching. What percentage of employers are federal contractors, anyway?
It's quite the paradox, in order to try to fight racism we actually perpetuate it.
It's only a paradox if you believe that perpetuating racism is the only way to fight it. I and many others don't believe this.
What are we to do? Pretend that racism doesn't exist?
I didn't know racism existed for a large portion of my childhood, and I didn't become a racist because of it. Not that I'd suggest pretending racism doesn't exist would magically solve anything, though. Pretending race doesn't exist, on the other hand, I think that's a useful exercise for all of us.
Low unemployment (very low) is bad because it causes inflation, which pretty much screws everyone (it will leads to higher unemployment over time).
Actually, inflation is pretty good for people who are deep in debt, which tends to mean most Americans. Inflation is bad for rich bankers like Alan Greenspan, though.
As I understand it, Civil Disobedience is fighting against a specific law that you believe to be wrong, and possibly unjust, without attacking the system behind the law.
Have you ever read "Civil Disobedience" or any of the works of Thoreau? In more recent years the civil rights movement adopted many of the concepts of civil disobedience and applied them to specific laws, but I don't think you can look at that and ignore the history of what civil disobedience is.
The way I see it, civil disobedience is questioning the very authority of the government to enact laws in the first place.
Not really. The essence of civil disobedience, as I understand it, is being willing to pay the penalty if you're wrong.
I really don't see how you can ignore the anti-government sentiment of civil disobedience. The pioneering essay "Civil Disobedience" was even originally entitled "Resistance to Civil Government". The very first few sentences of the essay are:
But even more than that, if the people are empowered to disobey unjust laws, then how is that consistent with government power?
Civil disobedience certainly implies a willingness to accept those things which you cannot change without resorting to violence, but I wouldn't say that's the essence of it.
Now, I don't think you meant it that way, but unless "You did the crime, now do the time." applies to everybody, nobody's going to pay any attention to the law.
Well sure, anarchy is the natural conclusion of civil disobedience. Of course many people believe that nobody paying any attention to the law would be a good thing.
Hiding your activities and taking great pains to avoid being caught isn't the act of a citizen rightfully protesting an unjust law in the most direct way possible, it's the act of someone who knows that what they're doing is wrong.
No, it's the act of someone who knows that what they're doing is illegal. Big difference.
Uh, be careful relying on that argument *too* much when it comes to wikipedia. Encyclopedias don't let just *anyone* edit them, either.
Ah, but I didn't say the purpose of Wikipedia was *to be* an encyclopedia, I said the purpose was *to create* an encyclopedia. Letting (just about) anyone edit is merely a choice in how best to create the encyclopedia, not one about what the content will be.
The point is, we have to see where wikipedia isn't working as well as it could. We can't assume that this current incarnation of wikipedia is the best version.
Of course it isn't. But I don't think that means you should change the fundamental goal of the project. I would argue that the very reason Wikipedia is so successful is because they have remained focussed on a clear goal. Other wikis just get thrown up and have no stated purpose. Even non-wiki projects like Everything2 seem to have this problem (a lack of clear focus), though E2 might be much more successful if they'd turn off the robots.txt and license their content under a free license (the latter probably being impossible at this point).
Letting people write multiple articles about the same subject would fundamentally change the nature of Wikipedia. I'm not even saying it's necessarily a bad idea - for another project. But it'd seriously compromise the ability of Wikipedia to meet its goal, which is creating a single comprehensive and inclusive article about each subject.
I'm not talking about a "stable" and "development" branch. I'm talking about multiple concurrent versions. That way no side of the debate feels left out. Each side presents their case in the way they see fit. Currently what we have is contention for *the* single article. Well, there are a lot of subjects that a lot of people aren't going to agree upon.
This is the idea behind Wikinfo. Wikinfo isn't very successful, but that probably doesn't have much to do with the fact it uses this idea.
Personally I don't think it's such a great idea for Wikipedia. The purpose of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias don't work this way. I think it'd be a good idea for a peer-to-peer content system, but then again, we could just call that content system "the Internet".
To me, the problem is that wikipedia is presented in "traditional mode" where the user assumes that the current article to be the best of the best, like traditional encyclopedias.
I'm not sure that's a problem with wikipedia, but rather the way wikipedia is being used. IMO Wikipedia, like any wiki, can never *be* an encyclopedia, it can only be a tool used to create an encyclopedia.
That said, I foresee some sort of "stable versions" feature coming out in the next 6 months (and not because I have some great foresight, I follow the Wikipedia mailing lists and this is a feature being actively discussed, there are even some proposed patches to allow it to happen). That will largely address the problem you're referring to. Most likely the "stable version" of the article won't be the default one presented on wikipedia.org, but it will be available for those who want to view something which isn't just "the latest winner of a revision war posing as a proper encyclopedia entry".
Every time there's a virus there's always a big number shown for the amount of money it cost due to lost productivity.
And that number is always complete bullshit.
This is what they want you to think.
Yes, but it's also the truth. For instance (though this is only one factor), if 50% of people don't even cash in the rebate, then the store can afford to set the rebate price at a higher value. As long as you aren't one of those suckers who doesn't turn in the rebate, you save.
It's not really much of a loophole. If you're on a cash basis (small businesses usually are) then you get the full price as an expense (or basis for depreciation) and you declare the rebate as revenue (actually I'm not sure if that's technically correct for a depreciable asset, though I can't imagine a rebate for which the error in that treatment would be material). So if the rebate comes the next year at best you get to postpone taxes by a year. If you're on an accrual basis (like large businesses are), then the rebate comes in as an asset from day one, and you can't deduct it ever.
Now if you're going to commit tax evasion and not declare the rebate, it's a whole different story. You'll probably get away with it if it's a small amount, because most people don't get audited. But if you do get audited, you might very well get caught. AFAIK, your receipt is usually going to mention the rebate, so if the receipt is examined in the audit that would raise a red flag. Otherwise, you might still get caught if you deposit the rebate check into a bank account that is part of the audit. When you reconcile the bank account to your books, you've gotta include the rebate somewhere. Maybe if you cash the check and distribute the cash in some way that it all stays off the books you could get away with it, but frankly if you want to commit tax evasion there are much easier ways to do it.
You're quite right though. People picking up a laptop or desktop at Best Buy aren't really the geeky type. But that's about 95% ignorance, 5% thinking building a computer is actually difficult (or even thought-requiring).
For me it's ignorance. I've had too many bad experiences with buying things over the Internet. I'll still do it from time to time, if I can get a really good deal and want to potentially go through the hassle of online returns, but I try tend to shy away from it otherwise. I bought my wife her desktop computer from one of those chain stores, I think it was CompUSA. I probably could have saved $50 online through some store I've never heard of or $100 building my own from parts from stores I've never heard of, but it would have been much more hassle, and in the case of building my own it probably wouldn't have been as nice looking or had the nice extras like USB, firewire, and camera card ports in the front. I did wind up replacing the 256mb memory with a gig, which I also picked up at CompUSA for $60 (no mail-in rebates) on black friday.
Anyway, I'll check out newegg. It seems like people have had good experiences with them, and maybe they'll have better prices than the retail stores. I'm actually in the market for a new computer for myself right now. My laptop is dying, and I'm not sure if I'm going to replace it with a laptop or a desktop. 19" LCD monitor $229.99 after $40.00 Mail-In Rebate, not bad if I go with the desktop.
Shopping clubs only pretend to save you money. You have to compare not to the non-discounted price at the same store, but to the normal price at a non-shopping club store.
Shopping clubs with an annual membership fee often are able to give discounts compared to non-club stores. This can be true for the average shopper even when the membership fee is factored in, because the guaranteed revenues make it cheaper to raise working capital.
They went to a city with two supermarkets with shopping clubs and bought a good list of various items with their club cards. Then they went to a neighboring city, bought the same items from a similar supermarket with no shopping club, and the non-discounted items without a card were a LOT cheaper.
That's not really a very good study. The prices of different items in different cities is often going to be different, and often for legitimate reasons (higher distribution costs, higher employee salaries, higher real estate prices, etc).
They only need per-buyer info to figure out how to make their store less attractive to customers who aren't making them much money.
Or maybe it's to make their store more attractive to customers who are making them the most money.
Club cards don't magically make it cheaper for the supermarket to buy that head of lettuce, or can of soup.
Then why do they have them?
I've seen some rebated stuff at stores that are far cheaper than any online price. They tend to be small things (a spindle of CD-Rs or similar)
I've learned the hard way never to buy spindles of write-once media through a rebate. Bought a bunch of DVD-Rs, cut the UPC code, started using them, and about 50% are defective. The store won't take them back, because I cut the UPC.
Why not just deduct the rebate at the cash register?
You mentioned one reason - it allows different people to pay different prices. Another reason is that it gives the company a short-term loan. But probably the most important reason for traditional rebates (complete with cutting and sending in the UPC code), is that it stops most resellers from coming in, buying the product at the low price, and then reselling it at a profit (some will just sell the item without packaging or without the UPC code, but there is a much smaller market for this).
To a lesser extent, and a situation which is still available with online rebates, it allows the store to enforce quantity limits more strictly. With an instant rebate, you can just pay cash and buy at least as many items as there are store clerks to sell them to you (and probably more considering that many clerks won't remember you or care). Considering the number of Best Buys within a few miles of my house, this could easily turn a quantity limit of 1 into a limit of 20. Combine that with reselling on ebay, and you've got a fairly useless discount system. In fact, this is already done quite a bit - take a look at the DVD sales at Best Buy each week and then look over the next week at what's getting sold on eBay.
Much of this could be accomplished through a store loyalty card, though.