The issues of the auto industry, they're irrelevant (do you really read my entire comments in their entirety?)
The incentive is that their old business model doesn't work
We're talking about car duplication, right? Of course their business model isn't going to work if you kill it by making counterfeit copies of their products. That's like saying paper money doesn't work anymore if you print out one trillion fake dollar bills that look real.
if you copied their car design you have not made an exchange and therefore they are not damaged by your lack of patronage.
God fucking damn, if you're not fucking retarded then you're one hell of a successful troll. Do I need to point out the obvious? If you don't buy their car and make a copy instead then they're damaged in that they're not getting a sale. I'm familiar with the way you morons think so in your feeble mind it won't register as anything obvious, so scale things up if you're even capable of it and think, think of how many car sales if EVERYBODY duplicated their cars. Then how many cars would they sell? 0? 1? Do you see now how they would be damaged, or are you too much of a cretin to see how that works out? Or are you going to argue that they should have seen this coming and moved on to something different, which is just as retarded? You can't destroy an industry and act like it's fair game. I wish you to live in a world where duplicating everything is possible and legal, and see how you like never getting any new computers or telephones because everyone just copies what's already out there and won't pay a dime and ruined all these industries. See how that works out.
Nobody is forcing you to look at the screen, are they?
No it's okay, if I keep trolling you libertardians there must be a good reason. I think the reason is that I get a kick out of seeing you suckers struggle with your pathetic and nearly non-existent grasp of how the economy and to a larger extent how reality works. No wonder no one listens to your laughable opinions but yourselves.
Artists make usually between 8 and 14% on their works. I don't know any musicians but my parents were writers and they made about 10%, and I just know that I've read the aforementioned range in some other places. Although some times the record companies can fuck you deep and sometimes you don't even end up with a penny:D.
Leaving aside how you attribute the death of the auto industry to peoples intent rather than natural progression, why would we need the auto industry in its previous form at that point?
That's completely off topic. You're extrapolating on the situation of the analogy used to make a point that has little connection with the subject the analogy was used for. But sure, why not.
There will still be plenty of incentive for new designs.. for example more eco-friendly cars and safer cars.
So you have that car duplicator thing, and you don't want to pay the license I talked about to GM for duplicating their cars, am I right? So what's the incentive for GM to innovate anything if they're not gonna get any money for it? It pains me to even have to explain it (seriously, more people should read about Adam Smith, it's getting old always explaining why corporations do the things they do), but GM doesn't care about eco-friendly cars, or safer cars, it only cares about money. So where's the incentive if you don't pay GM something for their new cars? (Also, what's wrong with my license idea? Please address that).
If you can't think how people would get the money considering we've done things from providing countrywide support networks funded by charity to putting a man on the moon funded by political desire then perhaps you should exercise your imagination more.
lol.. what? Are you trying to say that car makers should be publicly funded either through charity, or be entirely nationalised, paid for by tax payers money and told what to do by the government? Let me guess, would you use 5-year plans like communists do?
Seriously, it's getting painful to listen to people's suggestions that wouldn't begin to hold together if someone was mad enough to even try these.
If you produce something people aren't willing to pay money for, your expectations of getting money are irrelevant.
Sure, no one's disagreeing with that.
You don't set the price, the market demand sets the price.
Wrong (God, why can't anyone here make any valid claims when it comes to economics? You wonder what these guys were taught in high school, let alone college), you set the price, the market decides if it buys.
You've failed to demonstrate that the product has maintained its market value. That is that people are still willing to pay the same price for the same good.
No one talked about prices remaining the same, and no one cares, we don't care if it loses value, it's not the point, the point is that it still has a value. Yeah, sorry for failing to demonstrate claims that I'm actually not making.
You will continue making money on album sales, and I don't think anyone would argue otherwise. So if you aren't concerned with making a living income, then there's no issue. But don't expect a large profit on those albums.
You'll notice that it's consistent with every of my claims in this thread. Thanks a lot for summing up what I've been saying from the beginning. It's like you pretty much understood what I've said.
Wow, don't you think that was a hell of a stretch? Even a double stretch. I talked about the oil industry to prove the other guy's claim that "Worth is not determined by the producer. It is determined by the consumer." is wrong. Nothing whatsoever to do with copyrights. And even then I don't see how it's like murder and war. Seriously, get subtle when you're trolling, or if you can't get subtle, do like me and throw insults in the mix.
True, but is music really just information? One reason that people pay for music is that they want to give back to the artist. So in a way, they're not paying for the information, nor the access to the information, but for something completely different, to support the people who created the information, either by sympathy or in the hope to create an incentive for them to create more such information.
Its not that artists shouldn't get a dime for their work - it's just that it shouldn't necessarily be guaranteed by law in the form of copyright.
I agree, the market should decide for itself. That's my entire fucking point. I'm starting to think that people only see what they want to see in my ambiguous comments..
Fuck no! What kind of Slashdotter do you think I am??
I really don't see how excepting to get a cut of album sales is contrary to the way economics work. That's like producing beef/cars/TV shows/bananas, you expect to get money when the job is done, if you didn't expect any return then you wouldn't do it in the first place.
You're mad because one source of resource glut is artificial (infringing downloads).
No, I'm mad because the armchair economists around here expect that because one thing can be obtained for free therefore it loses all its market value, whereas it doesn't, i.e. you can get something for free but you'd still rather pay for it.
Conclusion, the free market has absolutely no obligation to provide you with the ability to make a living on album sales only.
Okay WTF, people keep acting like I talked about obligation, entitlement, deserving, but I never talked about that. Period. That has nothing to do with anything I said, or at least meant. Not only I didn't talk about entitlement, but I even less talked about making a living out of it.
Well, it's not that you'd expect that, I mean, it doesn't HAVE to be like this, and who knows, maybe one day in bizarro future people will suddenly refuse to spend a cent on studio work. Nothing to do with entitlement, it's just that I doubt it will ever happen, I truly think that people will always want to pay for the music they like, just like people would still pay for their groceries even if you let them get away with not paying for them.
Finally a point that you haven't touched on, if we suddenly came upon a replication technology that allowed us to cheaply and easily reproduce anything and everything (Much like the internet has done with media) should we start making laws to control what people can and can't make with their own replicators? In the name of GM making a buck should it be against the law to replicate a '69 Camaro Z28, even when it costs them nothing for me to do so, conversely I had to expend my own energies, time and presumably money making the duplicate? If so, why?
Good question. If you wanted things to be "fair", then by doing the replication, the only things you're sparing GM are the entire manufacturing costs. So if you wanted to be "fair", you'd pay GM the price of the car minus its manufacturing costs, so that it would get the same money to pay for its designers and whatever else that is paid for when you buy a car, minus the manufacturing.
If you didn't pay anything to GM because you think it's all in the manufacturing, GM wouldn't have any incentive to make any car if they're only going to sell one, and neither would any other car manufacturer, so you'd successfully kill the auto industry, and be doomed to replicate cars that were made before the replication craze started, which means that even in 200 years people would drive 20th and 21st century cars.
The actual sensible solution that would save the auto industry from dying and make things fair would come from a license system, in which you wouldn't buy a car but a license to duplicate a car, much in the same way as software licenses. The licensing costs would of course depend on how much GM thinks it should get paid for a particular car model, and also how much GM would think the buyer would be ready to cash out, just like it currently does right now, except with a different kind of product.
It doesn't matter how much money is involved, all that matters is that people are still willing to pay for it. I don't even see what we're arguing here.
By the way, are you gonna reply to all of my posts or what?
You have implied in most of your posts that someone who does this is entitled to be paid, because in the past and present artists have made a living this way.
No, I argued that there's no reason people couldn't keep making money on doing that since the market is still willing to pay for it. Other people didn't seem to agree that the market was still there to pay.
By the way, you keep using the words 'entitlement', 'deserve'. It's not about deserving money, it's about finding people to pay you.
If in the future no one values a studio-camper who sings into a mic
Right, very fucking likely.
If you get paid for what you do, go ahead and fucking do it, if that's what you want. No one is arguing with you on that, you stupid shit.
I never claimed that in the first place, sucker. Whatever the fuck that claim is supposed to be, are you saying that I was arguing that "if you get money then you get money and good for you"??
In the comment you replied to, I didn't argue that there was no issue with piracy, I only claimed that it wasn't such a problem that it made an entire industry bankrupt, which is a fact. Nice strawman argument, you almost had me confused.
I agree, except maybe for calling it a niche market, not too sure why you'd call it that, it's not like anyone's suddenly going to a concert every week and not ever buying a single album.
lol, I have bad news for you, you're so wrong, and the record industry is a good example of that, but an even better example of that is the oil industry. Seriously, think about the oil industry, how does the consumer determine the worth of oil? He doesn't, he needs the oil so he'll pay for it no matter the price. And yes, the price here equals the worth, cause if you're gonna pay the price it means it's worth it to you. Of course in the record industry there's a bit less price elasticity, but I'm addressing your generalistic claim.
Why is it that all the Slashdotters I ever argue with have a shitty grasp of basic economics?
If an album you produce is sold by you, you should get the money.
Sold? You mean, like, you give me $10 and I give you my album? lol... isn't it like saying that the only added value comes from the record store?
The idea that just because you produce others should pay is simply wrong.
What's wrong is people failing to understand basic economy. So many libertarians on Slashdot yet so many who seem to understand anything Adam Smith described. If you're an artist, then you shouldn't want to make albums unless you get paid for it (very very basically, throwing out any other forms of retribution like fame, accomplishment, and so on), which means no album for the listeners to enjoy.
If truly no one wants to buy your album, in the real world it means you suck hard, although in Slashdot's distorted world of wishful thinking, it's only because everybody wants to get music for free these days (which is obviously not the case, see iTunes). Really, half of the points in this thread involve a parallel world in which people don't want to spend a cent on an album yet would give up the riches for a concert. This is just not the case, and it's getting silly arguing against that. Actually, if artists had the smarts to get entirely rid of any middleman, then perhaps making studio albums would get them good money.
I beg to differ on the "forcing" comment. You may argue that the RIAA tactics can be seen as coercive, but the fact remains that regardless of that, there's still a lot of people out there who want to pay for music, even when given the option to grab a torrent instead. That's why the iTunes music store sold over a billion tracks for $1 each. Not everybody is like us, some people actually have money that they consider expendable in things they could get for free.
No particular activity has an inherent right to compensation for time and energy expended.
The word 'right' has nothing to do there, but besides that, any activity that can create value can (and should, if you're not too dumb) create a monetary gain. If an artist isn't getting anyone to want to pay for his studio work, it probably means that he sucks too hard to be an artist in the first place anyways. I mean, there's people out there who'd buy all types of shit provided it's (not even) half decent, so if you can't get anyone to want to pay for it, you must suck hard.
Well, it's true that things are changing and it's not always very clear where's the solution to any of the related issues, however I somehow doubt that selling albums is a thing that will entirely die. I think we're in a period of transition and dramatic change, but I don't think that what existed before that transition will ever truly disappear, I believe it'll be one way to do things among many others, even though it will probably not be anywhere near the most lucrative solutions.
Well, I don't see what's wrong with that either, however what seems wrong to me is expecting that an artist shouldn't make a dime off his studio work. Well that's fine if he does concerts, but the reason why I asked the original question is that while we keep saying "let's just download albums and go to concerts" like everybody does concerts, what about the artists who don't do that? Then they should not make a dime out off any of their work/creation?
Slashdot Mirror
What was off topic?
The issues of the auto industry, they're irrelevant (do you really read my entire comments in their entirety?)
The incentive is that their old business model doesn't work
We're talking about car duplication, right? Of course their business model isn't going to work if you kill it by making counterfeit copies of their products. That's like saying paper money doesn't work anymore if you print out one trillion fake dollar bills that look real.
if you copied their car design you have not made an exchange and therefore they are not damaged by your lack of patronage.
God fucking damn, if you're not fucking retarded then you're one hell of a successful troll. Do I need to point out the obvious? If you don't buy their car and make a copy instead then they're damaged in that they're not getting a sale. I'm familiar with the way you morons think so in your feeble mind it won't register as anything obvious, so scale things up if you're even capable of it and think, think of how many car sales if EVERYBODY duplicated their cars. Then how many cars would they sell? 0? 1? Do you see now how they would be damaged, or are you too much of a cretin to see how that works out? Or are you going to argue that they should have seen this coming and moved on to something different, which is just as retarded? You can't destroy an industry and act like it's fair game. I wish you to live in a world where duplicating everything is possible and legal, and see how you like never getting any new computers or telephones because everyone just copies what's already out there and won't pay a dime and ruined all these industries. See how that works out.
Nobody is forcing you to look at the screen, are they?
No it's okay, if I keep trolling you libertardians there must be a good reason. I think the reason is that I get a kick out of seeing you suckers struggle with your pathetic and nearly non-existent grasp of how the economy and to a larger extent how reality works. No wonder no one listens to your laughable opinions but yourselves.
Artists make usually between 8 and 14% on their works. I don't know any musicians but my parents were writers and they made about 10%, and I just know that I've read the aforementioned range in some other places. Although some times the record companies can fuck you deep and sometimes you don't even end up with a penny :D.
:D Thank you thank you, few people recognize it but it takes a lot of practice and dedication.
No.
Leaving aside how you attribute the death of the auto industry to peoples intent rather than natural progression, why would we need the auto industry in its previous form at that point?
That's completely off topic. You're extrapolating on the situation of the analogy used to make a point that has little connection with the subject the analogy was used for. But sure, why not.
There will still be plenty of incentive for new designs.. for example more eco-friendly cars and safer cars.
So you have that car duplicator thing, and you don't want to pay the license I talked about to GM for duplicating their cars, am I right? So what's the incentive for GM to innovate anything if they're not gonna get any money for it? It pains me to even have to explain it (seriously, more people should read about Adam Smith, it's getting old always explaining why corporations do the things they do), but GM doesn't care about eco-friendly cars, or safer cars, it only cares about money. So where's the incentive if you don't pay GM something for their new cars? (Also, what's wrong with my license idea? Please address that).
If you can't think how people would get the money considering we've done things from providing countrywide support networks funded by charity to putting a man on the moon funded by political desire then perhaps you should exercise your imagination more.
lol.. what? Are you trying to say that car makers should be publicly funded either through charity, or be entirely nationalised, paid for by tax payers money and told what to do by the government? Let me guess, would you use 5-year plans like communists do?
Seriously, it's getting painful to listen to people's suggestions that wouldn't begin to hold together if someone was mad enough to even try these.
If you produce something people aren't willing to pay money for, your expectations of getting money are irrelevant.
Sure, no one's disagreeing with that.
You don't set the price, the market demand sets the price.
Wrong (God, why can't anyone here make any valid claims when it comes to economics? You wonder what these guys were taught in high school, let alone college), you set the price, the market decides if it buys.
You've failed to demonstrate that the product has maintained its market value. That is that people are still willing to pay the same price for the same good.
No one talked about prices remaining the same, and no one cares, we don't care if it loses value, it's not the point, the point is that it still has a value. Yeah, sorry for failing to demonstrate claims that I'm actually not making.
You will continue making money on album sales, and I don't think anyone would argue otherwise. So if you aren't concerned with making a living income, then there's no issue. But don't expect a large profit on those albums.
You'll notice that it's consistent with every of my claims in this thread. Thanks a lot for summing up what I've been saying from the beginning. It's like you pretty much understood what I've said.
Nobody talked about owing anyone anything. Period.
Wow, don't you think that was a hell of a stretch? Even a double stretch. I talked about the oil industry to prove the other guy's claim that "Worth is not determined by the producer. It is determined by the consumer." is wrong. Nothing whatsoever to do with copyrights. And even then I don't see how it's like murder and war. Seriously, get subtle when you're trolling, or if you can't get subtle, do like me and throw insults in the mix.
True, but is music really just information? One reason that people pay for music is that they want to give back to the artist. So in a way, they're not paying for the information, nor the access to the information, but for something completely different, to support the people who created the information, either by sympathy or in the hope to create an incentive for them to create more such information.
That's true. The coercion is unnecessary even to get people to keep paying.
Its not that artists shouldn't get a dime for their work - it's just that it shouldn't necessarily be guaranteed by law in the form of copyright.
I agree, the market should decide for itself. That's my entire fucking point. I'm starting to think that people only see what they want to see in my ambiguous comments..
Did you RTFA?
Fuck no! What kind of Slashdotter do you think I am??
I really don't see how excepting to get a cut of album sales is contrary to the way economics work. That's like producing beef/cars/TV shows/bananas, you expect to get money when the job is done, if you didn't expect any return then you wouldn't do it in the first place.
You're mad because one source of resource glut is artificial (infringing downloads).
No, I'm mad because the armchair economists around here expect that because one thing can be obtained for free therefore it loses all its market value, whereas it doesn't, i.e. you can get something for free but you'd still rather pay for it.
Conclusion, the free market has absolutely no obligation to provide you with the ability to make a living on album sales only.
Okay WTF, people keep acting like I talked about obligation, entitlement, deserving, but I never talked about that. Period. That has nothing to do with anything I said, or at least meant. Not only I didn't talk about entitlement, but I even less talked about making a living out of it.
Well, it's not that you'd expect that, I mean, it doesn't HAVE to be like this, and who knows, maybe one day in bizarro future people will suddenly refuse to spend a cent on studio work. Nothing to do with entitlement, it's just that I doubt it will ever happen, I truly think that people will always want to pay for the music they like, just like people would still pay for their groceries even if you let them get away with not paying for them.
Finally a point that you haven't touched on, if we suddenly came upon a replication technology that allowed us to cheaply and easily reproduce anything and everything (Much like the internet has done with media) should we start making laws to control what people can and can't make with their own replicators? In the name of GM making a buck should it be against the law to replicate a '69 Camaro Z28, even when it costs them nothing for me to do so, conversely I had to expend my own energies, time and presumably money making the duplicate? If so, why?
Good question. If you wanted things to be "fair", then by doing the replication, the only things you're sparing GM are the entire manufacturing costs. So if you wanted to be "fair", you'd pay GM the price of the car minus its manufacturing costs, so that it would get the same money to pay for its designers and whatever else that is paid for when you buy a car, minus the manufacturing.
If you didn't pay anything to GM because you think it's all in the manufacturing, GM wouldn't have any incentive to make any car if they're only going to sell one, and neither would any other car manufacturer, so you'd successfully kill the auto industry, and be doomed to replicate cars that were made before the replication craze started, which means that even in 200 years people would drive 20th and 21st century cars.
The actual sensible solution that would save the auto industry from dying and make things fair would come from a license system, in which you wouldn't buy a car but a license to duplicate a car, much in the same way as software licenses. The licensing costs would of course depend on how much GM thinks it should get paid for a particular car model, and also how much GM would think the buyer would be ready to cash out, just like it currently does right now, except with a different kind of product.
It doesn't matter how much money is involved, all that matters is that people are still willing to pay for it. I don't even see what we're arguing here.
By the way, are you gonna reply to all of my posts or what?
You have implied in most of your posts that someone who does this is entitled to be paid, because in the past and present artists have made a living this way.
No, I argued that there's no reason people couldn't keep making money on doing that since the market is still willing to pay for it. Other people didn't seem to agree that the market was still there to pay.
By the way, you keep using the words 'entitlement', 'deserve'. It's not about deserving money, it's about finding people to pay you.
If in the future no one values a studio-camper who sings into a mic
Right, very fucking likely.
If you get paid for what you do, go ahead and fucking do it, if that's what you want. No one is arguing with you on that, you stupid shit.
I never claimed that in the first place, sucker. Whatever the fuck that claim is supposed to be, are you saying that I was arguing that "if you get money then you get money and good for you"??
In the comment you replied to, I didn't argue that there was no issue with piracy, I only claimed that it wasn't such a problem that it made an entire industry bankrupt, which is a fact. Nice strawman argument, you almost had me confused.
I agree, except maybe for calling it a niche market, not too sure why you'd call it that, it's not like anyone's suddenly going to a concert every week and not ever buying a single album.
lol, I have bad news for you, you're so wrong, and the record industry is a good example of that, but an even better example of that is the oil industry. Seriously, think about the oil industry, how does the consumer determine the worth of oil? He doesn't, he needs the oil so he'll pay for it no matter the price. And yes, the price here equals the worth, cause if you're gonna pay the price it means it's worth it to you. Of course in the record industry there's a bit less price elasticity, but I'm addressing your generalistic claim.
Why is it that all the Slashdotters I ever argue with have a shitty grasp of basic economics?
If an album you produce is sold by you, you should get the money.
Sold? You mean, like, you give me $10 and I give you my album? lol... isn't it like saying that the only added value comes from the record store?
The idea that just because you produce others should pay is simply wrong.
What's wrong is people failing to understand basic economy. So many libertarians on Slashdot yet so many who seem to understand anything Adam Smith described. If you're an artist, then you shouldn't want to make albums unless you get paid for it (very very basically, throwing out any other forms of retribution like fame, accomplishment, and so on), which means no album for the listeners to enjoy.
If truly no one wants to buy your album, in the real world it means you suck hard, although in Slashdot's distorted world of wishful thinking, it's only because everybody wants to get music for free these days (which is obviously not the case, see iTunes). Really, half of the points in this thread involve a parallel world in which people don't want to spend a cent on an album yet would give up the riches for a concert. This is just not the case, and it's getting silly arguing against that. Actually, if artists had the smarts to get entirely rid of any middleman, then perhaps making studio albums would get them good money.
I beg to differ on the "forcing" comment. You may argue that the RIAA tactics can be seen as coercive, but the fact remains that regardless of that, there's still a lot of people out there who want to pay for music, even when given the option to grab a torrent instead. That's why the iTunes music store sold over a billion tracks for $1 each. Not everybody is like us, some people actually have money that they consider expendable in things they could get for free.
If you record an an album and no one pays you for it,
then it means your album sucked. Hard.
No particular activity has an inherent right to compensation for time and energy expended.
The word 'right' has nothing to do there, but besides that, any activity that can create value can (and should, if you're not too dumb) create a monetary gain. If an artist isn't getting anyone to want to pay for his studio work, it probably means that he sucks too hard to be an artist in the first place anyways. I mean, there's people out there who'd buy all types of shit provided it's (not even) half decent, so if you can't get anyone to want to pay for it, you must suck hard.
Well, it's true that things are changing and it's not always very clear where's the solution to any of the related issues, however I somehow doubt that selling albums is a thing that will entirely die. I think we're in a period of transition and dramatic change, but I don't think that what existed before that transition will ever truly disappear, I believe it'll be one way to do things among many others, even though it will probably not be anywhere near the most lucrative solutions.
Well, I don't see what's wrong with that either, however what seems wrong to me is expecting that an artist shouldn't make a dime off his studio work. Well that's fine if he does concerts, but the reason why I asked the original question is that while we keep saying "let's just download albums and go to concerts" like everybody does concerts, what about the artists who don't do that? Then they should not make a dime out off any of their work/creation?