Re:Was anyone actually paying attention here?
on
NARAS vs. the RIAA
·
· Score: 1
I'll take a stab at it.
1. "between the years 1991 and 2001, the average price of a CD went from $13.01 to $14.64, which is a 12.53 percent increase in price. The record companies raised prices precisely at the time costs were coming down. When a DVD costs $19.99 and includes the movie in multiple formats with bonus material and no hassle, and a CD costs $18.99 and comes with potential legal hassles, limits on fair use, and all the finger waving the RIAA can muster, the choice of which product to buy becomes clear."
Sure, he states the *average* price of a CD is $14, because that's statistical and hard fact proof, but you go to a local chain store and over 60% of the CDs are going to be upwards of 16-18.99 each. Out of that, the artist only makes about.75 a cd or maybe a couple dollars, while the rest goes back into overhead. (for example, Alana Davis on her last release made.75 a CD until she sold at least 100 thousand. She told me that shortly after the record came out). That's why I buy all my CDs at shows where the cds are usually no more than $15, and the artist sees the profits directly.
2. "despite President and CEO of the MPAA Jack Valenti's recent statements that the future is bleak. Not since the 1950s have so many movie tickets been sold. Meanwhile, movie sharing on the Internet is at an all-time high. The movie business isn't suffering because of activity on the Internet."
So where *is* the fallacy? You're trying to claim Valenti's statement, I believe. Let me break it down a little for you. File sharing is at an all time high yet more movie tickets were bought this last year than any other. Valenti thinking the future is bleak just shows how offbase the upper brass are in organizations like the MPAA (lest we forget his argument against the VCR) *rolls eyes*. Valenti saying things as clueless as that is the exact proof that the Snyders were looking for and therefore very valid in the paper.
3. " It's also been widely reported that the most downloaded album of all time was "The Eminem Show," by Eminem. It was downloaded so heavily that Interscope took the unusual step of releasing the album a week early due to the rampant online sharing of tracks from the album. Fast-forward to the end of 2002, and "The Eminem Show" is the best-selling album of the year. This seems to indicate the opposite of what the RIAA would have you believe. When people share MP3s, more music is sold, not less."
If you know anything about that situation you know that's exactly true. I was listening to it before the cd came out due to p2p networks (and Foo Fighter's new one was out on IRC before it came out, and... you get the idea). Once it got so widespread, Interscope released it early. There's a poster they even put out that had the Em logo on it and then the Eminem Show and the normal release date, then printed over that "AMERICA COULDN'T WAIT" and the actual release date. I fail to see a 'fallacy' there. The proof is in the numbers.
The err in that is even if you DO have documentation including IP addresses and all the like, Ebay STILL will not remove the negative feedback. I recently received a negative due to a lady/girl who swore she never got my emails. However, she has had on more than one occasion negatives that say the exact same thing. http://www.angelfire.com/ks/lyrickat/ebay.txt is finally what I wrote to her via email and put as a retort in my negative feedback. I as well sent all that information to Ebay. The negative is STILL not removed, though it's a clear violation on her part of not sending the money. I've got far more positive feedbacks than she, as well.
Apparently Miranda Rights don't count in this situation. It's guilty until proven innocent, if indeed this is a truth. I personally rip most of my mp3s off my CDs because of convienience. (Of course, I'm also picky about my mp3s - none in my collection are below 192, and that's because I'm on a 56k modem. If I was on cable, nothing would be below 256.)
Either way, I think it's wrong. Why should the government, or in this case, an organization, get to look at *my* private files? I can tell you I easily spend $3000+ each year travelling to music shows, buying merchandise, CDs, etc. I do music promotion for a living. Things like this that the RIAA does make me want to puke. They have no business wanting to know. In my case, I'd rather have them come up to my apartment and open my door. They could see the 600+ CDs I have, and the many many posters, tshirts, and related things. Charge me then, but not before.
If stores didnt carry Grand Theft Auto 3, they would be losing out on a good chunk of change.
Sears didn't sell Max Payne, GTA3, but they would sell Medal of Honor.
why? because it offered realistic views of death.
a death is a death no matter how you cut it.. eesh.
Slashdot Mirror
unfortunately the dead guy has more to say than Ashcroft, because Ashcroft just does what he's told.
1. "between the years 1991 and 2001, the average price of a CD went from $13.01 to $14.64, which is a 12.53 percent increase in price. The record companies raised prices precisely at the time costs were coming down. When a DVD costs $19.99 and includes the movie in multiple formats with bonus material and no hassle, and a CD costs $18.99 and comes with potential legal hassles, limits on fair use, and all the finger waving the RIAA can muster, the choice of which product to buy becomes clear." .75 a cd or maybe a couple dollars, while the rest goes back into overhead. (for example, Alana Davis on her last release made .75 a CD until she sold at least 100 thousand. She told me that shortly after the record came out). That's why I buy all my CDs at shows where the cds are usually no more than $15, and the artist sees the profits directly.
Sure, he states the *average* price of a CD is $14, because that's statistical and hard fact proof, but you go to a local chain store and over 60% of the CDs are going to be upwards of 16-18.99 each. Out of that, the artist only makes about
2. "despite President and CEO of the MPAA Jack Valenti's recent statements that the future is bleak. Not since the 1950s have so many movie tickets been sold. Meanwhile, movie sharing on the Internet is at an all-time high. The movie business isn't suffering because of activity on the Internet."
So where *is* the fallacy? You're trying to claim Valenti's statement, I believe. Let me break it down a little for you. File sharing is at an all time high yet more movie tickets were bought this last year than any other. Valenti thinking the future is bleak just shows how offbase the upper brass are in organizations like the MPAA (lest we forget his argument against the VCR) *rolls eyes*. Valenti saying things as clueless as that is the exact proof that the Snyders were looking for and therefore very valid in the paper.
3. " It's also been widely reported that the most downloaded album of all time was "The Eminem Show," by Eminem. It was downloaded so heavily that Interscope took the unusual step of releasing the album a week early due to the rampant online sharing of tracks from the album. Fast-forward to the end of 2002, and "The Eminem Show" is the best-selling album of the year. This seems to indicate the opposite of what the RIAA would have you believe. When people share MP3s, more music is sold, not less." ... you get the idea). Once it got so widespread, Interscope released it early. There's a poster they even put out that had the Em logo on it and then the Eminem Show and the normal release date, then printed over that "AMERICA COULDN'T WAIT" and the actual release date. I fail to see a 'fallacy' there. The proof is in the numbers.
If you know anything about that situation you know that's exactly true. I was listening to it before the cd came out due to p2p networks (and Foo Fighter's new one was out on IRC before it came out, and
Ben Snyder is a frequent /. reader and infrequent poster. I'm surprised no one mentioned that yet.
Go Ben!
The err in that is even if you DO have documentation including IP addresses and all the like, Ebay STILL will not remove the negative feedback. I recently received a negative due to a lady/girl who swore she never got my emails. However, she has had on more than one occasion negatives that say the exact same thing. http://www.angelfire.com/ks/lyrickat/ebay.txt is finally what I wrote to her via email and put as a retort in my negative feedback. I as well sent all that information to Ebay. The negative is STILL not removed, though it's a clear violation on her part of not sending the money. I've got far more positive feedbacks than she, as well.
Either way, I think it's wrong. Why should the government, or in this case, an organization, get to look at *my* private files? I can tell you I easily spend $3000+ each year travelling to music shows, buying merchandise, CDs, etc. I do music promotion for a living. Things like this that the RIAA does make me want to puke. They have no business wanting to know. In my case, I'd rather have them come up to my apartment and open my door. They could see the 600+ CDs I have, and the many many posters, tshirts, and related things. Charge me then, but not before.
> (not literally, but it wouldn't work quite right)
I think some people's brains in this day and age will never work quite right, no matter how little or how much of their brain they use...
If stores didnt carry Grand Theft Auto 3, they would be losing out on a good chunk of change. Sears didn't sell Max Payne, GTA3, but they would sell Medal of Honor. why? because it offered realistic views of death. a death is a death no matter how you cut it.. eesh.
the next thing will be when we download a song, they'll want us to pay for every single time we listen to it....