Muisc Industry Steals $60 Billion...

[ebaycj]

Why do artists turn to these 'uncreative fucks' if they provide no value?

I was referring to the record companies / record company execs.

 

[Moonbeam]

I was referring to the record companies / record company execs.

So was I.

 

[brblx]

I agree that it will affect the consumer somehow.

But I also think it's EXTREMELY naive to believe that in a shitty economy, marketing a completely optional good (not food/water/shelter/etc...), that they will be able to pass on 60 billion dollars of cost to their customers successfully. They could try to raise the prices, but people could also just stop buying.

...supply and demand has a liberal bias.

 

[cubby1223]

Wow, what an amazingly slanted and biased article.

I'm fairly certain there is another perspective on this subject.

 

[bamacre]

I disagree. You miss the point. In every topic it seems that involves a corporation being fined or taxes for some public purpose, one or more right-wing people can be counted on to say the right-wing tenent that the cost won't affect the company but only hurt consumers, implying if not saying all such acts are a bad policy. The topic might be taxes (we have plenty who call for zero business taxes because of this tenent), public policy fines such as for pollution, or consumer protection and regulatory laws.

The same tenent was parroted in this thread when he saw the topic of a company being penalized, like a knee-jerk reaction.

You are exactly wrong IMO in saying it's not a right-wing tenent. It is as I described in the countless posts on the topics I listed, and it got repeated in this topic.

That was my point, how it's so pervasive a tenen that it got parroted even here, spreading from the usual topics.

No, you're the one missing the point. And it's obvious because you keep bringing up fines and taxes when they're totally irrelevant here. Every time someone posts something you don't like, you just yell out "right-wing ideology!" This is a civil lawsuit. You're just dragging arguments from other threads into one where they aren't relevant.

 

[Zorba]

No, you're the one missing the point. And it's obvious because you keep bringing up fines and taxes when they're totally irrelevant here. Every time someone posts something you don't like, you just yell out "right-wing ideology!" This is a civil lawsuit. You're just dragging arguments from other threads into one where they aren't relevant.

It is still the same net effect on the company, whether it is a government fine or a civil penalty.

 

[bamacre]

It is still the same net effect on the company, whether it is a government fine or a civil penalty.

In a sense, yes, but it's not the same. If prices of audio CD's and whatnot increase due to this lawsuit, then some people will decide not to purchase them, and instead put those resources elsewhere.

But let's look at it this way. Suppose some company or group (not AMD, but some 3rd party) was able to sue Intel. Could Intel just raise prices of their products to make up for the lost resources due to the lawsuit? No, not if AMD was competitive with their products and their prices.

It is different when government taxes something like cell phones or services, because all companies are affected.

But to say that companies and/or organizations shouldn't be able to sue each other, especially over theft, is not "right-wing ideology." Sure, in some indirect ways, it is an extra cost to consumers. But the flip side of this would be a much worse cost to consumers, stifling creativity and innovation.

 

[bfdd]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

fuck those guys and I don't even pirate music.

 

[Craig234]

In a sense, yes, but it's not the same. If prices of audio CD's and whatnot increase due to this lawsuit, then some people will decide not to purchase them, and instead put those resources elsewhere.

But let's look at it this way. Suppose some company or group (not AMD, but some 3rd party) was able to sue Intel. Could Intel just raise prices of their products to make up for the lost resources due to the lawsuit? No, not if AMD was competitive with their products and their prices.

It is different when government taxes something like cell phones or services, because all companies are affected.

But to say that companies and/or organizations shouldn't be able to sue each other, especially over theft, is not "right-wing ideology." Sure, in some indirect ways, it is an extra cost to consumers. But the flip side of this would be a much worse cost to consumers, stifling creativity and innovation.

Bamacre, you are the one missing the point and this has reached the 'can't get through to them' stage.

Your error is reflected in your statement I say 'anyone who disagrees' is guilty of right-wing ideology. That's incorrect - I say that when I see right-wing ideology, not for all disagreements. But you, not understandng the argument, don't see that distinction and make the false claim. Pointing out right-wing ideology does come up all too often, because there are a lot of people who post it. You are guilty of simply blindly denying, and not listening to the argument. It's sort of like any time someone points out a broad probliem, there are always the blind deniers defendng the status quo.

I don't see much point in repeating the explanation in our circular posting. I wrote a long explanation for Corn that was lost because of forum problems with the PS3 browser I'm using.

The dogma I am pointing out is that the right selectively objects only when corporations face fines or taxation for 'public policy' - regulation, discriminationn, pollution and other public policy.

They typically don't go so far as to defend the wrongdoing but they attack the fines as if the harm to consumers outweighs the deterrent effect on the wrongdoing.

They do not say anything about the harm to society if the fines did not get done when the wrongdoing ubcreased, they only attack the 'harm to consumers'.

In the lost post I made an anally to individuals sent to jail, where t can be argued the jail only hurts innocents - sociiety payin for jail, his family hurt by his being in jail.

But they don't make the argument for individals, they accept the costs. t'hey only post about the harm of the punishment for wrongdoing to others when it involves corporations.

That selectivty and that bias - and the same dogma exists whether it's about corporations paying taxes or fiines - without ant mention of the harm if the fines weren't done to deter wrongdoing - is ideology.

 

[3chordcharlie]

If they could make more money by charging more, it wouldn't take a lawsuit to make them do it.

Don't feel bad, the best post in most threads is usually ignored.

 

[bamacre]

Bamacre, you are the one missing the point and this has reached the 'can't get through to them' stage.

Your error is reflected in your statement I say 'anyone who disagrees' is guilty of right-wing ideology. That's incorrect - I say that when I see right-wing ideology, not for all disagreements. But you, not understandng the argument, don't see that distinction and make the false claim. Pointing out right-wing ideology does come up all too often, because there are a lot of people who post it. You are guilty of simply blindly denying, and not listening to the argument. It's sort of like any time someone points out a broad probliem, there are always the blind deniers defendng the status quo.

I don't see much point in repeating the explanation in our circular posting. I wrote a long explanation for Corn that was lost because of forum problems with the PS3 browser I'm using.

The dogma I am pointing out is that the right selectively objects only when corporations face fines or taxation for 'public policy' - regulation, discriminationn, pollution and other public policy.

They typically don't go so far as to defend the wrongdoing but they attack the fines as if the harm to consumers outweighs the deterrent effect on the wrongdoing.

They do not say anything about the harm to society if the fines did not get done when the wrongdoing ubcreased, they only attack the 'harm to consumers'.

In the lost post I made an anally to individuals sent to jail, where t can be argued the jail only hurts innocents - sociiety payin for jail, his family hurt by his being in jail.

But they don't make the argument for individals, they accept the costs. t'hey only post about the harm of the punishment for wrongdoing to others when it involves corporations.

That selectivty and that bias - and the same dogma exists whether it's about corporations paying taxes or fiines - without ant mention of the harm if the fines weren't done to deter wrongdoing - is ideology.

Perhaps you can just explain how Patranal's response is "right-wing ideology."

 

[EagleKeeper]

Perhaps you can just explain how Patranas's response is "right-wing ideology."

Because he is right wing - therefore anything from him must be considered to be wrong:thumbsdown:

Another case here of ideoloogy overriding common sense

 

[Moonbeam]

Don't feel bad, the best post in most threads is usually ignored.

If you add to it that any other opinion is idiotic, it WILL attract some attention, however, because most people are here to expound what they think rather than hear what others do. They do take some notice, however, when you tell them their opinions are stupid. They mistakenly post with the assumption they are not.

 

[Zebo]

I don't know why I'm even bothering with this reply. I don't think that Patranus thinks a judgement against the CRIA for their behavior is bad policy--just that it is still the consumer who ends up getting screwed for someone else's bad behavior. The bottom line is that this industry is pretty darn near a monolopy and if you think that a 60 billion dollar judgement against the CRIA will not affect the consumer, I wold find it amazing if you don't have to concentrate just to breathe.

How do you figure consumer pays? if record companies in question had to sell their CD's for $50 now due to fines, thus making consumer pay, artists would opt to sign with companies not paying these fines because no one would buy their $50 CD's. Therefore, due to competition to keep prices low, the companies in question will have to find other areas to cut in order to meet thier fine obligations..perhaps salaries of executives or profit magin like any other business who fucks up - competition prevents passing it along very easily.

I could give you examples where I fucked up starting and conducting business and it came out of me not consumer. I've worked for free lots of times trust me. And it was a good deternt not to repeat mistake. Much like these guys will learn should they lose. Otheriwse why even hire a lawyer? just pay up a summary judgment and pass it along..

 

[CLite]

This thread is a shining example of how no one on P&N reads articles. The article clearly states $6 billion many times, while quite a few people parrots the $60 billion figure provided by the OP.

I personally find it hilarious that the industry is in trouble because of the ridiculous damage claims they created to go after file sharing servers. However does anyone know how much the Canadian music industry was involved in that whole business? The article clearly states only the Canadian music industry is liable for these damages.

 

[mk]

This thread is a shining example of how no one on P&N reads articles. The article clearly states $6 billion many times, while quite a few people parrots the $60 billion figure provided by the OP.

The article originally had the $60 bn figure but it was changed to $6 bn after someone pointed out the error in math.