Dynamic pricing. It's happening everywhere. The net allows consumers to be more involved with the pricing and bundling of products. The old-world model you're talking about doesn't allow consumers to be involved in determining what they think is a fair price for your product.
This is not really true. The record companies obviously have to compete with each other on price, to get both the consumers, and the artist's contracts. However, it's definitely true that there is a certain amount of latency in this model, which in some sense is "suboptimal".
It would be cool if someone did come up with and succesfuly exploit such a model. You say the best price is "free" -- well that's not going to make anyone any money. But if someone can profit by making a system as slick and responsive as say the stock exchange, then all the more power to them.
The problem is that all we've seen from the napster advocates is a lot of pro-freeloading or freeloading-sympathizer talk.
Yet commercial CDs sell for between 10 to 20 dollars. What exactly is it that we're paying for with that 2000% to 4000% markup?
Do some research, and then you'll be in a position to make comments like this ( the truth is that the money is intercepted by all too many levels of middlemen in the distribution network ). If you really think the record companies are inefficient , you can always start your own outfit that gives the artist more and sells for less. Then all the artists would sign onto you ( because you offered them more money and better quality wrapping for their CDs ) and you'd be rich, and so would the artists and everyone ( except the greedy evil record companies ) would live happily ever after !
( my point isn't that you should do it -- but that someone could and would if your theory that CDs were overpriced held water )
After nearly a decade and a half of freeloading, the freeloaders are finding newer and better ways to freeload, and to justify their freeloading. "It's too expensive, so I'll just take it without paying!" Surprise surprise.
They'd probably make twice as much money paying for duplication up front and selling them direct for $1 each. But they can't. There's a little problem of contract law, and only the record company has the right to distribute the albums
No one's forcing the band to sign on with the record companies. If they really can get it to the market for much less and still make more $$$ per CD, then perhaps they should set up their own independent label instead of signing on.
The fact that current copyright has the potential to help some deserving people is no reason to not abolish it, or to not live as if it were abolished.
But why should copyright be abolished ? Because Joe Slashdot Freeloader wants something for nothing ? This is what it seems to boil down to. Sure, there are these other business models, but why abolish the copyright business model ? It works very nicely ( especially in the software industry )
I never said it was. However I object to the term "Pirate". I prefer "share" or "Copy"
I object to the term "share", because it makes it sound as though you're being generous as opposed to cheap. This act of "sharing" is really an act of forcing someone else ( namely the artist ) to share. IMO, you have no right to force someone else to share.
If artists want to offer MP3s on a "try-before-you-buy" basis, that's fine and good, but IMO, you should respect the artists wishes and not "share" their work if they don't want it to be shared. At best, such conduct is rude, at worst, criminal.
I for one, will shed no tears at the demise of an industry that still charges 18$ for a cd that costs maybe 50 cents to make.
I have a fantastic idea. You obviously have a business plan whereby you can get those CDs to the market for say $15- and give the artists twice as much royalties, otherwise you wouldn't be whining about how much CDs cost ( unless you're blowing smoke which I'll assume you're not )
So I'll tell you what -- why don't you go to town with this business plan, sign up all the artists ( who'll gladly accept your better royalty arrangements ) and at the same time, put the "greedy record companies" out of business ?
I don't agree that "this is the best model for software and making money from it". I've contributed to openSource, but I wouldn't dream of doing it for money. I just don't think it's a money maker -- I don't do it for the money.
No one is currently making money from giving software away and "selling service" ( even Redhat are losing ) It's a myth that this is a money maker.
The problem is this -- you can sell service whether or not you do anything else. So why spend money on anything else ? This so-called model proposes running one losing business ( a software business where you give it away ) and another business ( service ). Obviously, it's optimal to only run the service business unless the software business makes the service business much more profitable ( and from what we've seen with Mandrake whipping Redhat, it hasn't worked )
ck to the situation before the means of recording. Artist were paid for playing and composing, not for selling records.
And how do you have them paid for composing ? IMO, the main reason people are pushing napster is it makes freeloading easy, and makes it easy to circumvent compensating the artist. IMO, it doesn't matter how the artist is compensated as long as they are. Unfortunately, the napster pushers haven't come up with good alternative models.
The answer, of course, is for artists to ditch the label first and then ALL the money from their tours/t-shirts go directly to the artists, instead of 99% of the revenue ending up in some record boss' pocket.
The problem with this is that they eat the middleman's costs as well as revenue.
With the record company out of the picture, the artist would also be free to sell CDs at a low price - ie. $5-$10 - which would make piracy irrelevent
No, they wouldn't because their costs would increase. They'd effectively be running their own independent record company.
Look -- to those who whine about "overpriced CDs", I suggest that if you have a business plane that can get CDs to the market any cheaper, then go to it , make a killing and put the other record companies out of business. If you don't have such a plan, you're just blowing smoke IMO. It's often cheaper to buy imports directly from the US because of import duties and things -- that are not the record companie's fault.
The answer, of course, is for artists to ditch the label first and then ALL the money from their tours/t-shirts go directly to the artists, instead of 99% of the revenue ending up in some record boss' pocket.
The problem with this is that they eat the middleman's costs as well as revenue.
With the record company out of the picture, the artist would also be free to sell CDs at a low price - ie. $5-$10 - which would make piracy irrelevent
No, they wouldn't because their costs would increase. They'd effectively be running their own independent record company.
Look -- to those who whine about "overpriced CDs", I suggest that if you have a business plane that can get CDs to the market any cheaper, then go to it , make a killing and put the other record companies out of business. If you don't have such a plan, you're just blowing smoke IMO.
Look, if you have a business plan that enables you to get CDs to the market cheaper than the status quo, then go do it -- you'll make a killing and put the "greedy corporations" out of business at the same time. If you don't have one, then you're just blowing smoke about the CDs "costing too much". The reason why CDs cost what theydo comes down to the fact that markup goes up exponentially with the layers of "middlemen".
Why should we care about those dirty peasants in places like France and Japan scratching a meager living from the exhausted soil? They mean nothing to us. American school children learn nothing about foreign countries beause there is nothing about them that is worth knowing. They have no arts, no sciences, no culture, no technology.
I sincerely hope you are being sarcastic. Please excuse me if you are -- because taken literaly, your comment is no stupider than others in this thread. France, no arts ? Greece, no culture ? Japan, no technology ??? Sarcastic or not, that's damn funny...
Graduates of "public education", under "socialist" regimes such as those in Canada, Australia and elsewhere, soundly whip stupid yanks like yourself on international tests. Beat your chest all you like, but the fact is that on average, you are behind the rest of the world. Sure, you have some outstanding educational institutions ( mostly the Universities ) but on average, you simply suck.
If the copyright system were weakened then record companies might be forced to other business plans. The artists might get less money and the executives would get a lot less, but that's fine with me!
If there truly is a way to distribute music more efficiently at a lower cost to consumers, then the record companies will be forced to adopt that method to save themselves whether or not the copyright system is weakened.
Yeah, I know you don't care if the music industry and the artists starve, as long as you can get something for nothing. This is what I call the "freeloader" mentality.
The in-between (record companies) have no particular right to exist; they're an institution that was established to aid in music distribution back in the days of physical media. Now that those days are over, it's time for them to be removed from the system, and we're trying to figure out the best way to do that, is all.
Until someone else can perform the same services at a better price than the record companies, they have every right to exist. Of course removing middlemen will make it cheaper, but you don't need to get rid of the copyright system to take the middlemen out of the picture ( once the middlemen are gone, how do you make sure the artists can be compensated ? Ans: copyrights. )
The article clearly indicates one thing about the author's mindset -- he wants something for nothing. He wants a convenient way to circumvent compensating the artist and hide behind the popular "greedy-corporate-pig-record-companies" line.
The fact is that the copyright model, despite charges that it is "outdated" is here to stay. Other models that make it easy to freeload do not seem to be economically viable ( if it was true that they were, why aren't we seeing anyone succesfully making money with such a model ? ) It's all well and good to say "you shouldn't use copyrights -- you can use the street-panhandler or service model" , but it doesn't really help much if these models are not shown to be profitable. If they are profitable, they will be profitable with or without the copyright system in effect, and if they are really superior to the copyright system, then everyone will move to those models whether or not the copyright system is dismantled. However, the freeloaders want the copyright system dismantled to force artists to use their ( unprofitable ) model rather than letting their model succeed or fail on its merits ( or lack thereof ) IMO, it's fine and good if artists want to share their work, but no one has the right to force anyone else to share. I can understand why all the warez kiddies might want something for nothing, but that doesn't mean we should pander to their need to freeload.
As I've said before, I'm bothered that the free software community is starting to look like a freeloader community. I sincerely hope this mentality is confined to slashdot.
The fact that you can't go a day without seeing some Slashdotter say something anti-IP does not may ones saying pro-IP things hypocrits unless it's the same person!
Most of the anti-copyright crowd do seem to be pro-GPL which strikes me as inconsistent , since the GPL is a copyright ( a lot of the anti-RIAA noise is made by people who completely oppose any kind of copyright protection ) . They usually try to push the (false) theory that the GPL wouldn't be necessary in the absence of copyright.
So yes, there are a lot of hypocrites on slashdot ( even though you don't appear to be one of them ).
Beyond the law, there's a fundamental economic problem with the whole "pay per use" universe that the critics say the media moguls want to force upon us.
So how should the costs of compensating the artist be distributed ? Copyright says that everyone pays the same amount, and that amount is usually determined in advance. Prices are kept in check by competition. Between publishers.
Information has to be priced in terms of value to the customer,
It is. The customer sees software package (X) which costs $Y. If the utility of the software is >= $Y , the customer purchases. So the total revenue obtained is equal to the utility to the customers ( as perceived by the customers ). A more valuable piece of information results in greater revenues for the copyright holder. Competition keeps prices down -- if someone prices above the market, someone else can provide the same utility at a lower price and prices will reach an equilibrium.
I'm curious why you don't think art and science are self-sustaining? Or can they only not be given away when something has to be given (i.e. a physical exchange)?
Without financial incentive, the arts and sciences would die. We all need to eat.
I offer Linux as a science counter-example,
As much as I like Linux, if we had to wait for OpenSource , we'd be in the dark ages ( for example, we'd have no good office suites ). It's also a simple fact that Linus was paid to write Linux ( he was on a graduate stipend ). So no, Linux doesn't "sustain" itself -- people are and were paid to work on it.
When "artists" band together and lobby the government, you know something is SERIOUSLY wrong.
Everyone else "bands together and lobbies the government", so I don't see why artists shouldn't be able to do so.
Don't you think that Coca-Cola'$ opinion just might be biased?
This is hardly a matter of opinion. They either have a registered trademark or they don't. They apparently claim that they did register the trademark. Do you have evidence to the contrary ?
The only two companies that make cards that I can respect are ATI and Matrox. They don't play the hype game, they're among the most Open Source friendly..
ATI were giving the OpenSource developers hell for a long time. They're a newcomer to the bandwagon. Matrox on the other hand have supported Linux for a long time.
do you have any references concerning AA being bad? i've never heard this.
Mostly usenet. For example, Jim Gettys said this. I can't find any sources. I don't think it would be a bad idea if anti-aliasing was available. It's useful ( for example ) for print-previewing.
DPS is also a good answer, though you do lose some remote-capability ( because it's implemented at the server end, you can only send it to an Xserver with DPS AFAIK )
Slashdot Mirror
This is not really true. The record companies obviously have to compete with each other on price, to get both the consumers, and the artist's contracts. However, it's definitely true that there is a certain amount of latency in this model, which in some sense is "suboptimal".
It would be cool if someone did come up with and succesfuly exploit such a model. You say the best price is "free" -- well that's not going to make anyone any money. But if someone can profit by making a system as slick and responsive as say the stock exchange, then all the more power to them.
The problem is that all we've seen from the napster advocates is a lot of pro-freeloading or freeloading-sympathizer talk.
Do some research, and then you'll be in a position to make comments like this ( the truth is that the money is intercepted by all too many levels of middlemen in the distribution network ). If you really think the record companies are inefficient , you can always start your own outfit that gives the artist more and sells for less. Then all the artists would sign onto you ( because you offered them more money and better quality wrapping for their CDs ) and you'd be rich, and so would the artists and everyone ( except the greedy evil record companies ) would live happily ever after !
( my point isn't that you should do it -- but that someone could and would if your theory that CDs were overpriced held water )
After nearly a decade and a half of freeloading, the freeloaders are finding newer and better ways to freeload, and to justify their freeloading. "It's too expensive, so I'll just take it without paying!" Surprise surprise.
No one's forcing the band to sign on with the record companies. If they really can get it to the market for much less and still make more $$$ per CD, then perhaps they should set up their own independent label instead of signing on.
But why should copyright be abolished ? Because Joe Slashdot Freeloader wants something for nothing ? This is what it seems to boil down to. Sure, there are these other business models, but why abolish the copyright business model ? It works very nicely ( especially in the software industry )
If you can print a CD for less, go ahead, and form your own record company. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.
hey are just forcing the artists to actually go out and play.
Why should artists be "forced to go out and play" ?
I object to the term "share", because it makes it sound as though you're being generous as opposed to cheap. This act of "sharing" is really an act of forcing someone else ( namely the artist ) to share. IMO, you have no right to force someone else to share.
If artists want to offer MP3s on a "try-before-you-buy" basis, that's fine and good, but IMO, you should respect the artists wishes and not "share" their work if they don't want it to be shared. At best, such conduct is rude, at worst, criminal.
I have a fantastic idea. You obviously have a business plan whereby you can get those CDs to the market for say $15- and give the artists twice as much royalties, otherwise you wouldn't be whining about how much CDs cost ( unless you're blowing smoke which I'll assume you're not )
So I'll tell you what -- why don't you go to town with this business plan, sign up all the artists ( who'll gladly accept your better royalty arrangements ) and at the same time, put the "greedy record companies" out of business ?
Good luck
Buy yourself a single
No one is currently making money from giving software away and "selling service" ( even Redhat are losing ) It's a myth that this is a money maker.
The problem is this -- you can sell service whether or not you do anything else. So why spend money on anything else ? This so-called model proposes running one losing business ( a software business where you give it away ) and another business ( service ). Obviously, it's optimal to only run the service business unless the software business makes the service business much more profitable ( and from what we've seen with Mandrake whipping Redhat, it hasn't worked )
And how do you have them paid for composing ? IMO, the main reason people are pushing napster is it makes freeloading easy, and makes it easy to circumvent compensating the artist. IMO, it doesn't matter how the artist is compensated as long as they are. Unfortunately, the napster pushers haven't come up with good alternative models.
The problem with this is that they eat the middleman's costs as well as revenue.
With the record company out of the picture, the artist would also be free to sell CDs at a low price - ie. $5-$10 - which would make piracy irrelevent
No, they wouldn't because their costs would increase. They'd effectively be running their own independent record company.
Look -- to those who whine about "overpriced CDs", I suggest that if you have a business plane that can get CDs to the market any cheaper, then go to it , make a killing and put the other record companies out of business. If you don't have such a plan, you're just blowing smoke IMO. It's often cheaper to buy imports directly from the US because of import duties and things -- that are not the record companie's fault.
The problem with this is that they eat the middleman's costs as well as revenue.
With the record company out of the picture, the artist would also be free to sell CDs at a low price - ie. $5-$10 - which would make piracy irrelevent
No, they wouldn't because their costs would increase. They'd effectively be running their own independent record company.
Look -- to those who whine about "overpriced CDs", I suggest that if you have a business plane that can get CDs to the market any cheaper, then go to it , make a killing and put the other record companies out of business. If you don't have such a plan, you're just blowing smoke IMO.
I sincerely hope you are being sarcastic. Please excuse me if you are -- because taken literaly, your comment is no stupider than others in this thread. France, no arts ? Greece, no culture ? Japan, no technology ??? Sarcastic or not, that's damn funny ...
If there truly is a way to distribute music more efficiently at a lower cost to consumers, then the record companies will be forced to adopt that method to save themselves whether or not the copyright system is weakened.
Yeah, I know you don't care if the music industry and the artists starve, as long as you can get something for nothing. This is what I call the "freeloader" mentality.
Until someone else can perform the same services at a better price than the record companies, they have every right to exist. Of course removing middlemen will make it cheaper, but you don't need to get rid of the copyright system to take the middlemen out of the picture ( once the middlemen are gone, how do you make sure the artists can be compensated ? Ans: copyrights. )
The fact is that the copyright model, despite charges that it is "outdated" is here to stay. Other models that make it easy to freeload do not seem to be economically viable ( if it was true that they were, why aren't we seeing anyone succesfully making money with such a model ? ) It's all well and good to say "you shouldn't use copyrights -- you can use the street-panhandler or service model" , but it doesn't really help much if these models are not shown to be profitable. If they are profitable, they will be profitable with or without the copyright system in effect, and if they are really superior to the copyright system, then everyone will move to those models whether or not the copyright system is dismantled. However, the freeloaders want the copyright system dismantled to force artists to use their ( unprofitable ) model rather than letting their model succeed or fail on its merits ( or lack thereof ) IMO, it's fine and good if artists want to share their work, but no one has the right to force anyone else to share. I can understand why all the warez kiddies might want something for nothing, but that doesn't mean we should pander to their need to freeload.
As I've said before, I'm bothered that the free software community is starting to look like a freeloader community. I sincerely hope this mentality is confined to slashdot.
Most of the anti-copyright crowd do seem to be pro-GPL which strikes me as inconsistent , since the GPL is a copyright ( a lot of the anti-RIAA noise is made by people who completely oppose any kind of copyright protection ) . They usually try to push the (false) theory that the GPL wouldn't be necessary in the absence of copyright.
So yes, there are a lot of hypocrites on slashdot ( even though you don't appear to be one of them ).
So how should the costs of compensating the artist be distributed ? Copyright says that everyone pays the same amount, and that amount is usually determined in advance. Prices are kept in check by competition. Between publishers.
Information has to be priced in terms of value to the customer,
It is. The customer sees software package (X) which costs $Y. If the utility of the software is >= $Y , the customer purchases. So the total revenue obtained is equal to the utility to the customers ( as perceived by the customers ). A more valuable piece of information results in greater revenues for the copyright holder. Competition keeps prices down -- if someone prices above the market, someone else can provide the same utility at a lower price and prices will reach an equilibrium.
Without financial incentive, the arts and sciences would die. We all need to eat.
I offer Linux as a science counter-example,
As much as I like Linux, if we had to wait for OpenSource , we'd be in the dark ages ( for example, we'd have no good office suites ). It's also a simple fact that Linus was paid to write Linux ( he was on a graduate stipend ). So no, Linux doesn't "sustain" itself -- people are and were paid to work on it.
When "artists" band together and lobby the government, you know something is SERIOUSLY wrong.
Everyone else "bands together and lobbies the government", so I don't see why artists shouldn't be able to do so.
This is hardly a matter of opinion. They either have a registered trademark or they don't. They apparently claim that they did register the trademark. Do you have evidence to the contrary ?
ATI were giving the OpenSource developers hell for a long time. They're a newcomer to the bandwagon. Matrox on the other hand have supported Linux for a long time.
Mostly usenet. For example, Jim Gettys said this. I can't find any sources. I don't think it would be a bad idea if anti-aliasing was available. It's useful ( for example ) for print-previewing.
DPS is also a good answer, though you do lose some remote-capability ( because it's implemented at the server end, you can only send it to an Xserver with DPS AFAIK )