"Obviously, all of you just DON'T understand. In order to properly make a recording, not only to you need musicians and a producer; you need lawyers, agents, marketing reps, and dozens of other various hangers on. Without this huge support staff, then how else could you justify charging so much for a recording?"
It's sad that the people who watch Love Monkey have a better understanding of the music industry than most people on/.
"By the way, ever notice that the retail price of a CD and of a DVD are about the same? We know the music CD has far less data on it, and costs less to produce at the studio to stamping plant stages. Even if unit sales of each are comparable, the CD should be cheaper, probably by a factor of 10 or more (CD studio cost... $1M , DVD studio cost... $30M). Music people have no one but themselves to blame for piracy. It is just payback for the gouging they do on a regular basis, even at WalMart."
What something is worth is due to supply and demand, not how much data is on the disk or how much the original costs, or whatever. So why is music more expensive per bit than a movie. Maybe because a person who buys a cd will play it many times while most people only want to see a movie once, so the demand for owning movies is lower than owning music.
"Music people have no one but themselves to blame for piracy. "
That's intelligent. Blame the victim. Msuic producers have the right to set whatever price they want. You don't have the right to just take something because you can't get it at a price you want.
"If I artifically restricted the natural supply of food to people arround the world because "I had no incentive", most people would see that as the pure economic evil that it is. But when they restrict the natural flow of information, then oh my God "It's a RIGHT !!! "... Well bullshit, it's not a right and has everything to do with economics."
The "natural supply of food to people around the world" is restricted. If you don't believe me, try walking into a supermarket and taking some food without paying for it. The rights to information aren't much different than other rights. It pretty easy to steal anything if laws don't exist to protect property.
"If they told Apple that they wanted to make some songs cheaper and leave popular songs the same there wouldn't have been so much of a problem. They'd still make all that money from the long tail."
No. If they make songs cheaper, Apple still sells them for $0.99, and Apple makes more money. Do I need to dig up quotes for you where Steve Jobs says all music should cost $0.99.
At what point does what the RIAA is doing constitute breaking some kind of law? Anti-trust maybe? Anyone have some insight into this?"
Steve Jobs says all songs are worth $0.99, and it's the record labels that are being investigated for price fixing? I think we already know which monopoly is setting the price.
Record labels want to stop price fixing of online music. The want spearate pricing for each song, depending onit's popularity. Apple is the one that thinks every song should cost $0.99, and want to force all record labels to take their cut from this revenue.
Everybody is outraged by the patriot act but I doubt anyone posting has been personally affected. On the other hand, our socialist tax code affects everyone, and no one complains about it. Can't we put our energy into something more worthwhile?
"Now that you understand that, I'll explain what's going on here with Bellsouth et al.: They're trying to (effectively) end the peering agreement by charging both ends of the connection, instead of just their own subscribers. The net result is that everyone gets charged twice for the same service. If you can't see how that's unfair, and more importantly, harmful to the design of the Internet itself, you must not be paying attention."
I'll try to make this simple since you don't really understand what's going on. People pay for last mile bandwidth only. Therefore, there is no incentive to improve the internet backbone, despite the increasing pressure to transmit more and more data in the form of voice, audio, movies etc. So telcom providers, want to charge users for more than just the last mile, but customers don't want to pay, so they are lobbying congress to pass a law saying the internet is free as in beer.
Eventually pocket computers that do a lot more than just play mp3s will be available for the same price. Why carry around a separate device to just play music when it can also check your email, surf the web, download songs directly, make phone calls, etc.
Although people think of programs like welfare when they hear the term socialism, govt. incentives to help business are the same thing. You can argue that giving incentives to companies to produce technology in areas the US needs to be headed in is a good thing, but don't be surprised when the money is ill spent. Unlike in a corporation, where people are fired for wasting money, in govt. you win elections for getting tax dollars into your district, even if they are being spent on something completely non-productive.
"You comment tax money, what should they be used for if not to protect the goverments citiziens and corporations."
Yes they're doing a great job of protecting Microsoft's right to do business. Typical socialist mentality that consumers gain additional unfair rights at the expense of producers. That's the story anyway. The reality is that competitors are looking for an unfair advantage in a market they've failed in, so they use the govt. to do their dirty work. When is Apple going to get some of that protection for doing the same thing in the online music market?
"Well, this is rejected by many becuase when you really think about it, the concept of "stealing an idea" is bullshit on the basis that an idea is neither your, nor can only be created by entity."
Ideas don't exist outside a sentient beings understanding of them. So if I have an idea, I either copied it or deduced it.
"How do you explain two different people coming up with an idea, the same idea on their own independently?"
How do you explain someone accusing someone of stealing his car because the accused is driving an identical looking car?
"Gosh, you're right! You seem to have a firm grasp of the nuances of language.
Maybe you could help me explain to the customers at my restaurant why they get tuna when they order chicken. You and I both know tuna is the "chicken of the sea", but these customers just don't seem to get it! They keep citing the most narrow definition of the term "chicken", even though I'd rather use the vague, metaphorical definition implied by a common English phrase because it supports my business model (1. buy surplus cat food, 2. sell to humans, 3. profit!)."
People who claim I cannot use the word theft to describe copyright infringement are doing they same thing govt. officials did in 1984. They changed the language so that I can't even express my idea because no word exists to describe it. I don't care if you agree with me or not whether copyright infringement is theft, but don't tell me it's not correct English, because that is how you start creating newspeak.
BTW a brand name does not genrate a definition in the English language, so your analogy is pathetic. Because Ford calls their car a Mustang, doesn't mean cars are sudenly horses.
from your own link: "This statement, that copyright infringement was not theft under the specific federal statute being used to prosecute Dowling, has since been widely misinterpreted by by advocates of file sharing that copyright infringement is not "stealing". Rather, the Court made plain that the Copyright Act already contained a criminal provision, making it unlikely that the authors of 18 U.S.C. 2314 intended for it to cover copyrights in addition to physical goods."
"Blame MS? Nice try Napster, but I call bullshit. I've said it before and I'll reiterate: people don't want to rent by the month, they want to own on demand."
"What did you expect in this monopoly-controlled market? What does Microsoft have to do for you? Surely, you MUST be doing something wrong if the Bush Administration agrees that Microsoft should remain a monopolist."
How is Microsoft a monopolist in a market where Aplle just sold 1 billion songs, and no one else is even close to that kind of revenue?
You can either buy music, or buy a music subscription. It's more flexible than iTMS. So how is it a bad business model, aside from the fact that Apple won't let them support iPod?
"Careful, you're injecting logic and reasoning into an article where Apple-haters are trying to feel hip and enlightened by defending Microsoft and turning the tables by calling Apple the monopoly."
If by logic and reasoning you mean faulty logic and bad reasoning, then you are correct. Apple has a monopoly in the portable music player market in the same sense that Microsoft has one in the OS market.
"Back the in 90s, Microsoft would pull your Windows license if you dared sell anything non-Microsoft. Hence, monopoly abuse charges."
Apple won't even give you a license to sell Fairplay DRMed music. Yeah that's a much better practice.
"With the iPod, Steve Jobs knows his little player is kicking everyone's butts because it's simply better."
"Apple isn't a monopoly. Go to the average computer store and you will have a hardtime buying another OS then MS. Hell you will even have a hardtime buying a PC without MS pre-installed/pre-payed."
Apple is a monopoly in both the online music market and the portable music player market in the same sense that Microsoft is a monopoly in the OS market.
"Nobody in their right mind would call Dell a monopoly even if they are one of the biggest players in the market."
"I believe they meant a economic ecosystem, since MS's DRM is set up to allow hardware and software manufacturers to compete with one another. By comparison the iTunes/iPod system is set up to allow Apple to sell you music."
It should read: By comparison the iTunes/iPod system is set up to prevent other people from competing with Apple.
"Threats such as retroactively withdrawing rebates and removing future discounts on chip purchases have ensured that the major PC manufacturers in the US push Intel chips. To do otherwise would increase the cost of a given manufacturer's PCs to the point where the manufacturer couldn't be competitive.
Illegal? I'm not sure, but I don't think so (IANAL). Immoral? Duh (IAAHB)!"
Threats such as retroactively withdrawing rebates and removing future discounts on Windows purchases have ensured that the major PC manufacturers in the US push Microsoft Windows. To do otherwise would increase the cost of a given manufacturer's PCs to the point where the manufacturer couldn't be competitive.
Illegal? I'm not sure, but I don't think so (IANAL). Immoral? Duh (IAAHB)!
They're not, but if they're the "victim" of cooersion by Intel, i.e. we'll raise the price of our chips if you also make AMD Macs, then AMD wants to know about it for their case against Intel.
"I'm in no way saying copyright infringement is harmless. I'm just saying that it's less damaging than physical theft."
If someone distributes your song for a lower price than you do, legally or otherwise, the economic impact is a decrease in the monetary value of the song. For instance, if I open an iTunes store that is identical to Apples iTMS, but charge $0.25/song, the value of those songs will move from $0.99 to $0.25 as people catch on and don't bother using Apple's service. So copyright infringement can easily be more damaging than physical theft.
Slashdot Mirror
"If you want to stop anti-competitive practices, digital distribution needs to adopt the rules of radio:
"
No, if you want to stop anti-competitve practices, force Apple to license fairplay. Problem solved.
"Obviously, all of you just DON'T understand. In order to properly make a recording, not only to you need musicians and a producer; you need lawyers, agents, marketing reps, and dozens of other various hangers on. Without this huge support staff, then how else could you justify charging so much for a recording?"
/.
It's sad that the people who watch Love Monkey have a better understanding of the music industry than most people on
"By the way, ever notice that the retail price of a CD and of a DVD are about the same? We know the music CD has far less data on it, and costs less to produce at the studio to stamping plant stages. Even if unit sales of each are comparable, the CD should be cheaper, probably by a factor of 10 or more (CD studio cost ... $1M , DVD studio cost ... $30M). Music people have no one but themselves to blame for piracy. It is just payback for the gouging they do on a regular basis, even at WalMart."
What something is worth is due to supply and demand, not how much data is on the disk or how much the original costs, or whatever. So why is music more expensive per bit than a movie. Maybe because a person who buys a cd will play it many times while most people only want to see a movie once, so the demand for owning movies is lower than owning music.
"Music people have no one but themselves to blame for piracy. "
That's intelligent. Blame the victim. Msuic producers have the right to set whatever price they want. You don't have the right to just take something because you can't get it at a price you want.
"If I artifically restricted the natural supply of food to people arround the world because "I had no incentive", most people would see that as the pure economic evil that it is. But when they restrict the natural flow of information, then oh my God "It's a RIGHT !!! " ... Well bullshit, it's not a right and has everything to do with economics."
The "natural supply of food to people around the world" is restricted. If you don't believe me, try walking into a supermarket and taking some food without paying for it. The rights to information aren't much different than other rights. It pretty easy to steal anything if laws don't exist to protect property.
"If they told Apple that they wanted to make some songs cheaper and leave popular songs the same there wouldn't have been so much of a problem. They'd still make all that money from the long tail."
No. If they make songs cheaper, Apple still sells them for $0.99, and Apple makes more money. Do I need to dig up quotes for you where Steve Jobs says all music should cost $0.99.
"I don't even have to RTFA to see that one.
At what point does what the RIAA is doing constitute breaking some kind of law? Anti-trust maybe? Anyone have some insight into this?"
Steve Jobs says all songs are worth $0.99, and it's the record labels that are being investigated for price fixing? I think we already know which monopoly is setting the price.
Record labels want to stop price fixing of online music. The want spearate pricing for each song, depending onit's popularity. Apple is the one that thinks every song should cost $0.99, and want to force all record labels to take their cut from this revenue.
Everybody is outraged by the patriot act but I doubt anyone posting has been personally affected. On the other hand, our socialist tax code affects everyone, and no one complains about it. Can't we put our energy into something more worthwhile?
"Now that you understand that, I'll explain what's going on here with Bellsouth et al.: They're trying to (effectively) end the peering agreement by charging both ends of the connection, instead of just their own subscribers. The net result is that everyone gets charged twice for the same service. If you can't see how that's unfair, and more importantly, harmful to the design of the Internet itself, you must not be paying attention."
I'll try to make this simple since you don't really understand what's going on. People pay for last mile bandwidth only. Therefore, there is no incentive to improve the internet backbone, despite the increasing pressure to transmit more and more data in the form of voice, audio, movies etc. So telcom providers, want to charge users for more than just the last mile, but customers don't want to pay, so they are lobbying congress to pass a law saying the internet is free as in beer.
"I'm sure if we keep a close eye on it, we'll be finding out a lot about where some of our senators are getting their "funding" from."
Yes, Google and AOL, as well as Skype and Vonage. Basically anyone who wants a lot of nationwide bandwidth, but only wants to pay for the last mile.
Eventually pocket computers that do a lot more than just play mp3s will be available for the same price. Why carry around a separate device to just play music when it can also check your email, surf the web, download songs directly, make phone calls, etc.
Although people think of programs like welfare when they hear the term socialism, govt. incentives to help business are the same thing. You can argue that giving incentives to companies to produce technology in areas the US needs to be headed in is a good thing, but don't be surprised when the money is ill spent. Unlike in a corporation, where people are fired for wasting money, in govt. you win elections for getting tax dollars into your district, even if they are being spent on something completely non-productive.
"You comment tax money, what should they be used for if not to protect the goverments citiziens and corporations."
Yes they're doing a great job of protecting Microsoft's right to do business. Typical socialist mentality that consumers gain additional unfair rights at the expense of producers. That's the story anyway. The reality is that competitors are looking for an unfair advantage in a market they've failed in, so they use the govt. to do their dirty work. When is Apple going to get some of that protection for doing the same thing in the online music market?
"Well, this is rejected by many becuase when you really think about it, the concept of "stealing an idea" is bullshit on the basis that an idea is neither your, nor can only be created by entity."
Ideas don't exist outside a sentient beings understanding of them. So if I have an idea, I either copied it or deduced it.
"How do you explain two different people coming up with an idea, the same idea on their own independently?"
How do you explain someone accusing someone of stealing his car because the accused is driving an identical looking car?
"Gosh, you're right! You seem to have a firm grasp of the nuances of language.
Maybe you could help me explain to the customers at my restaurant why they get tuna when they order chicken. You and I both know tuna is the "chicken of the sea", but these customers just don't seem to get it! They keep citing the most narrow definition of the term "chicken", even though I'd rather use the vague, metaphorical definition implied by a common English phrase because it supports my business model (1. buy surplus cat food, 2. sell to humans, 3. profit!)."
People who claim I cannot use the word theft to describe copyright infringement are doing they same thing govt. officials did in 1984. They changed the language so that I can't even express my idea because no word exists to describe it. I don't care if you agree with me or not whether copyright infringement is theft, but don't tell me it's not correct English, because that is how you start creating newspeak.
BTW a brand name does not genrate a definition in the English language, so your analogy is pathetic. Because Ford calls their car a Mustang, doesn't mean cars are sudenly horses.
from your own link:
"This statement, that copyright infringement was not theft under the specific federal statute being used to prosecute Dowling, has since been widely misinterpreted by by advocates of file sharing that copyright infringement is not "stealing". Rather, the Court made plain that the Copyright Act already contained a criminal provision, making it unlikely that the authors of 18 U.S.C. 2314 intended for it to cover copyrights in addition to physical goods."
"Blame MS? Nice try Napster, but I call bullshit. I've said it before and I'll reiterate: people don't want to rent by the month, they want to own on demand."
Napster offers this, just like Apple.
"What did you expect in this monopoly-controlled market? What does Microsoft have to do for you? Surely, you MUST be doing something wrong if the Bush Administration agrees that Microsoft should remain a monopolist."
How is Microsoft a monopolist in a market where Aplle just sold 1 billion songs, and no one else is even close to that kind of revenue?
"Blaming a bad business model on the tools."
You can either buy music, or buy a music subscription. It's more flexible than iTMS. So how is it a bad business model, aside from the fact that Apple won't let them support iPod?
"Careful, you're injecting logic and reasoning into an article where Apple-haters are trying to feel hip and enlightened by defending Microsoft and turning the tables by calling Apple the monopoly."
If by logic and reasoning you mean faulty logic and bad reasoning, then you are correct. Apple has a monopoly in the portable music player market in the same sense that Microsoft has one in the OS market.
"Back the in 90s, Microsoft would pull your Windows license if you dared sell anything non-Microsoft. Hence, monopoly abuse charges."
Apple won't even give you a license to sell Fairplay DRMed music. Yeah that's a much better practice.
"With the iPod, Steve Jobs knows his little player is kicking everyone's butts because it's simply better."
You mean marketed better.
"Apple isn't a monopoly. Go to the average computer store and you will have a hardtime buying another OS then MS. Hell you will even have a hardtime buying a PC without MS pre-installed/pre-payed."
Apple is a monopoly in both the online music market and the portable music player market in the same sense that Microsoft is a monopoly in the OS market.
"Nobody in their right mind would call Dell a monopoly even if they are one of the biggest players in the market."
Dell doesn't have an 80% marketshare.
"I believe they meant a economic ecosystem, since MS's DRM is set up to allow hardware and software manufacturers to compete with one another. By comparison the iTunes/iPod system is set up to allow Apple to sell you music."
It should read: By comparison the iTunes/iPod system is set up to prevent other people from competing with Apple.
"Threats such as retroactively withdrawing rebates and removing future discounts on chip purchases have ensured that the major PC manufacturers in the US push Intel chips. To do otherwise would increase the cost of a given manufacturer's PCs to the point where the manufacturer couldn't be competitive.
Illegal? I'm not sure, but I don't think so (IANAL). Immoral? Duh (IAAHB)!"
Threats such as retroactively withdrawing rebates and removing future discounts on Windows purchases have ensured that the major PC manufacturers in the US push Microsoft Windows. To do otherwise would increase the cost of a given manufacturer's PCs to the point where the manufacturer couldn't be competitive.
Illegal? I'm not sure, but I don't think so (IANAL). Immoral? Duh (IAAHB)!
"And why is Apple obligated to make AMD Macs?"
They're not, but if they're the "victim" of cooersion by Intel, i.e. we'll raise the price of our chips if you also make AMD Macs, then AMD wants to know about it for their case against Intel.
"I'm in no way saying copyright infringement is harmless. I'm just saying that it's less damaging than physical theft."
If someone distributes your song for a lower price than you do, legally or otherwise, the economic impact is a decrease in the monetary value of the song. For instance, if I open an iTunes store that is identical to Apples iTMS, but charge $0.25/song, the value of those songs will move from $0.99 to $0.25 as people catch on and don't bother using Apple's service. So copyright infringement can easily be more damaging than physical theft.