[Zipperfish]

Lemmy Lemmy:

The problem, from an economics perspective, is that technology has driven the market price of a recorded song to $0. When a hungry person steals bread, they're stealing something that has market value. A song no longer does. That's a paradigm shift in the market that's out of the control either the producer or the consumer. If record companies continue to supply to the market knowing full-well that the market price of their product is zero, well, that's foolishness on the record companies' part. Given that fact (price =$0), the rational producer must alter their production decision. But if they make the choice to continue to supply, they must accept that their expected returns are $0. So if the recording industry wants to stay in business, they must find another revenue source.

I agree with this.

$1:

I appreciate your moral position (and I largely agree with it in principle). But your position is ignoring the economic reality (P=$0) of this particular market. But there's another moral dilemma at play here too: is it theft to steal from those who've stolen from you? The recording industry, for fifty years, ripped off both artists and consumers. They were able to exercise significant market power through collusion and labour (artist) exploitation. Well, now the other shoe has dropped. Technology has eroded the industry's ability to exploit its market power. It's little different from Gutenberg's impact on the church's ability to control the supply of knowledge in Renaissance Europe or the internet's current impact on Islam's ability to do the same in the third world. Some changes in the world are tidal. Horse-drawn carriage makers surely bemoaned the invention of the automobile. And I'm certain that the last horse-drawn carriage manufacturer made one hell of a good carriage. But whether the tide is welcomed or not has little effect on its reality. So my advice to the recording industry, as an economist, is: "Price your wares according to the realities of the market or suffer whatever consequences failure to do so brings. There's demand for music. Find other avenues (where price > $0) to exploit that demand." When it comes to selling prerecorded music, in the words of John Lennon, "This bird has flown."

And I agree with this, with the codicil that it's not just a moral position on my part, but also a legal one. And the note that whatever phoenix rises from these ashes they will be pretty much the same as the record industry. Or, in the words of The Who "Meet the new boss / Same as the old boss."

Who knows how it will turn out. How the internet will be "commodified" (is that even a word) is anybody's guess, but the ones that guess right will be billionaires. Just ask Mark "I've got an incrementally better version of myspace" Zuckerberg. ha ha ha.

[Xort]

Thanos Thanos:

Maybe because the old proven model of selling CD's, tapes, and LP's from a store staffed by humans was infinitely preferable to a download from god knows where that potentially contsans god knows what in terms of viruses or defective copy. And you could also return your CD to the store if it was fucked but if your download is botched you're SOL. But going to the mall to buy something is such a hassle...

I can't tell if you are being honest, or ironic.

[herbie]

It's a complete fucking load like e-books. They want you to pay just as much or more for no physical product at zero cost for delivery and distribution cuz they're mooching off the backs of the ISP for the bandwidth to boot.
Go ahead and go deaf listening to shit music and shitty mpegs on 350 watt boom boxes stuffed in a Honda Civic. At least I got some quality from the old vinyl in exchange for half my hearing!

[CanadianJeff]

Tricks Tricks:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

She smells like information wants to be free, even if the old guard thinks their best business model is to sue the customers they expect to buy their products.

Why not? Walmart charges people that steal from their store.

Artists deserve compensation. All the theives know. The hilarious part is these pretty facades they put up to justify their actions--"Business model", "technology revolution" "just screwing the Man"

Stealing ain't that hard to wrap yer head around, and downloading an artist's siongs without paying is staling.

Stealing =/= piracy.

One very very big thing needs to be noted there. If no one pays for cars no more cars will be made for you to copy.

For music it's not nearly as big of a deal because something like a live concert cannot be copied even if a CD can and often music pirates pay for albums on itunes anyway.

What pisses me off though is game and movie pirating. There is no other way for Games to make income except selling you the Game itself. They have no live show or theater run before hitting digital media so they only get the one shot and that's it.

I hate pirates simply for the fact that they often don't give a damn if another product is made or not as long as they are not the ones paying for it. I pirated stuff when I was an immature little teenager with no money.

If your an adult pay for you shit like an adult.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Unsound Unsound:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

the old guard thinks their best business model is to sue the customers they expect to buy their products.

They just don't learn do they? The music industry has lost every time it's tried fighting technological progress.

And the more they whine about losses due to piracy, the more their own figures show the exact opposite. But still, the lobby has enough power to change laws that let them change civil violations into criminal, and actually ruin people's lives.

Not quite on topic but what pisses me off is if you rip off a company, it's a criminal matter. If that same company rips you off, it's a civil matter.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

She smells like information wants to be free, even if the old guard thinks their best business model is to sue the customers they expect to buy their products.

Why not? Walmart charges people that steal from their store.

Artists deserve compensation. All the theives know. The hilarious part is these pretty facades they put up to justify their actions--"Business model", "technology revolution" "just screwing the Man"

Stealing ain't that hard to wrap yer head around, and downloading an artist's siongs without paying is staling.

Interesting. Generally speaking, the only way the artist would lose any significant profits would be if they self-produced. As it is, it's the record companies that get screwed. And why not? They're still screwing us. Remember the extra fee that was added to recordable media? It was a tactic used by the record companies to recoup some of what they lost due to "piracy". Funny thing is, they now have the ability to trace and prosecute downloaders but guess what? That extra fee is STILL tacked onto the price of recordable media. On top of that, the greedy fucks suing individuals for thousands of dollars for a product the industry has priced at $0.99 is nothing short of avarice.

The whole thing is stupid for the simple reason that file sharing has been around since the first humans invented the written language. Hell, libraries are little more than file sharing buildings. Now libraries have DVD movies. If I take out a couple of movies to watch, am I still stealing them because I haven't paid for them? Is the library breaking the law by charging me a 50 cent fee to watch them?

[bootlegga]

herbie herbie:

It's a complete fucking load like e-books. They want you to pay just as much or more for no physical product at zero cost for delivery and distribution cuz they're mooching off the backs of the ISP for the bandwidth to boot.
Go ahead and go deaf listening to shit music and shitty mpegs on 350 watt boom boxes stuffed in a Honda Civic. At least I got some quality from the old vinyl in exchange for half my hearing!

That's because the big six publishers think e same way the record and movie companies do.

Try indie books - ebooks cost far less than ones from the big houses do. My paperback goes for $10.99, but the ebook goes for $2.99. And if you buy the paperback from Amazon, you can get the ebook for free through their Matchbook program!

[bootlegga]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

She smells like information wants to be free, even if the old guard thinks their best business model is to sue the customers they expect to buy their products.

Why not? Walmart charges people that steal from their store.

Artists deserve compensation. All the theives know. The hilarious part is these pretty facades they put up to justify their actions--"Business model", "technology revolution" "just screwing the Man"

Stealing ain't that hard to wrap yer head around, and downloading an artist's siongs without paying is staling.

Interesting. Generally speaking, the only way the artist would lose any significant profits would be if they self-produced. As it is, it's the record companies that get screwed. And why not? They're still screwing us. Remember the extra fee that was added to recordable media? It was a tactic used by the record companies to recoup some of what they lost due to "piracy". Funny thing is, they now have the ability to trace and prosecute downloaders but guess what? That extra fee is STILL tacked onto the price of recordable media. On top of that, the greedy fucks suing individuals for thousands of dollars for a product the industry has priced at $0.99 is nothing short of avarice.

The whole thing is stupid for the simple reason that file sharing has been around since the first humans invented the written language. Hell, libraries are little more than file sharing buildings. Now libraries have DVD movies. If I take out a couple of movies to watch, am I still stealing them because I haven't paid for them? Is the library breaking the law by charging me a 50 cent fee to watch them?

Good points in this thread, +5

[Jabberwalker]

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

quote]

Where did you plagiarize that image from, again? Are you sure that it is REALLY in the public domain?

[Zipperfish]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Interesting. Generally speaking, the only way the artist would lose any significant profits would be if they self-produced.

Yes, that was the case with my CDs. We self-produced. I didn't lose any profts since it was a charity venture, but we can't be bothered to make any more CDs, since there's no money in it for the charity.

$1:

As it is, it's the record companies that get screwed. And why not? They're still screwing us.

I don't particulalrly like Walmart as a corpoate entity, but it doesn't mean I go there and steal their stuff.

[Zipperfish]

bootlegga bootlegga:

herbie herbie:

It's a complete fucking load like e-books. They want you to pay just as much or more for no physical product at zero cost for delivery and distribution cuz they're mooching off the backs of the ISP for the bandwidth to boot.
Go ahead and go deaf listening to shit music and shitty mpegs on 350 watt boom boxes stuffed in a Honda Civic. At least I got some quality from the old vinyl in exchange for half my hearing!

That's because the big six publishers think e same way the record and movie companies do.

Try indie books - ebooks cost far less than ones from the big houses do. My paperback goes for $10.99, but the ebook goes for $2.99. And if you buy the paperback from Amazon, you can get the ebook for free through their Matchbook program!

I've got a copy oft he ebook if anyone wants it for free.

[bootlegga]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

bootlegga bootlegga:

herbie herbie:

It's a complete fucking load like e-books. They want you to pay just as much or more for no physical product at zero cost for delivery and distribution cuz they're mooching off the backs of the ISP for the bandwidth to boot.
Go ahead and go deaf listening to shit music and shitty mpegs on 350 watt boom boxes stuffed in a Honda Civic. At least I got some quality from the old vinyl in exchange for half my hearing!

That's because the big six publishers think e same way the record and movie companies do.

Try indie books - ebooks cost far less than ones from the big houses do. My paperback goes for $10.99, but the ebook goes for $2.99. And if you buy the paperback from Amazon, you can get the ebook for free through their Matchbook program!

I've got a copy oft he ebook if anyone wants it for free.

Cool, feel free to send it out to everyone you know. Heck make a torrent of it and upload it for all I care.

The enemy of all authors is anonymity (indie authors especially), not downloading. I see downloading the same way I see the library - free publicity.

[Jabberwalker]

There is nothing like reading a book. it is a visceral experience and I'll bet that it uses different parts of the brain to read a huge book over these little snippets of bytes. You are cheating yourself if you read a great book off of a pixelated, backlit, little screen.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Interesting. Generally speaking, the only way the artist would lose any significant profits would be if they self-produced.

Yes, that was the case with my CDs. We self-produced. I didn't lose any profts since it was a charity venture, but we can't be bothered to make any more CDs, since there's no money in it for the charity.

$1:

As it is, it's the record companies that get screwed. And why not? They're still screwing us.

I don't particulalrly like Walmart as a corpoate entity, but it doesn't mean I go there and steal their stuff.

Walmart doesn't charge you a fee to shop at Target either. Yet if I buy blank cds for non-piracy purposes, I still get to pay the recording industry a fee for something they didn't produce and have nothing to do with. Why? If they have the ability to invade someone's privacy and sue them for illegal downloading, why do they need to keep getting that fee on recordable media? That's basically institutionalized theft.
I mean what's next? Is the recording industry going to start demanding extra fees on playback devices because people can listen to/watch pirated material on them? Or computers because they can be used for downloading?

[Zipperfish]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Walmart doesn't charge you a fee to shop at Target either. Yet if I buy blank cds for non-piracy purposes, I still get to pay the recording industry a fee for something they didn't produce and have nothing to do with. Why? If they have the ability to invade someone's privacy and sue them for illegal downloading, why do they need to keep getting that fee on recordable media? That's basically institutionalized theft.
I mean what's next? Is the recording industry going to start demanding extra fees on playback devices because people can listen to/watch pirated material on them? Or computers because they can be used for downloading?

You've obvious convinced yourself that your stealing is actually an act of virtuous rebellion.

If you are using the CDs to store your stolen music, then they should be charging a fee. If you weren't stealing music, you'd have a strnger argument. As it is, you're just justifying it.