Nice opinion piece by John Dvorak regarding the RIAA and P2P

[ahartman]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: vi_edit
A little more money goes into a cd than simply material costs.

True but lets say he was way off on his estimates and double or triple the $1.40 to reflect those costs. We still get nowhere near the current $15.00 per CD currently charged by most major labels.

At what point did the price of something determine that it's okay to steal it (trading MP3s)? I don't disagree that there's a great deal of crap being sold. I don't disagree that it's overpriced.

I just don't understand the position that because it's not worth paying for, it's okay to steal it.

No moral high ground here, I've got a hard drive full of MP3s, but call a spade a spade. I know what I'm doing is wrong.

 

[kgraeme]

Originally posted by: ahartman

I just don't understand the position that because it's not worth paying for, it's okay to steal it.

It's not stealing, it's a copyright violation. You may see it as semantics, but it's not.

The point of the article is twofold:
1. Mass production and format popularity should have seen a decrease in production costs.
2. Young people are being more savvy about the cost-benefit business than the record industry is. The industry needs to recognize this fact.

 

[tcsenter]

Here is what I don't understand: The music industry does not follow the economic law of supply and demand. If demand for something is low, then the price of the CD should be lower, but it isn't! Now as an example, I listen to a heavy metal artist named King Diamond. Nobody listens to this guy, he paints his face and sings about satanic crap (it's kinda funny.) Here's a picture of King Diamond so you can get a general idea of what I'm talking about:

haha, I saw King Diamond at the Capitol Theatre in Flint, Michigan, several years ago.

A friend of mine has every King Diamond album and he doesn't pay $18.99 for them. Going to a upscale record chain that charges way more than anyone else for the same product isn't "the music industry". That is you, if I may say so, being dumb enough to pay $18.99 for a CD that sells elsewhere for $14.99.

But, since you mention supply and demand, here's how it works: King Diamond fans like to buy King Diamond CD's just as much as N'Sync fans like to buy N'Sync CD's. King Diamond fans want King Diamond CD's just as much as N'Sync fans want N'Sync CD's. Looking at raw sales volume has nothing to do with it.

Each market is governed by its own supply and demand forces. To their respective labels, King Diamond's market isn't N'sync's market. They don't discount King Diamond CD's because they sell a lot more N'sync CD's, nor vice versa. They will only discount King Diamond CD's when King Diamond CD's start selling poorly, not in comparison to N'sync's market, but in comparison to Kind Diamond's market. In addition, I presume N'sync and King Diamond are on two completely different labels, each with different expense/investment/profit structures.

Further, let us suppose the following oversimplification is true:

Record Company A invests $20 million into N'sync

Record Company B invests $500,000 into King Diamond

Obviously, King Diamond sells but a fraction of the albums of N'sync. In that case, the cost of the album may have to be the same in order to recoup your investment + the same profit margin because, though you've invested a whole lot less, you're also selling a whole lot less.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

all those things were paid for with an $8 cassette. and a cassette cost more to manufacture. why does a CD cost double that from the same stores?

Why does an Intel Processor of equal speed cost 10%(number out of my ass) more than an AMD processor? Why does an Intel chip cost 50% more than a Cyrix chip of comparable speed?

Why did my Audiovox PDA that's simply a rebadged toshiba unit cost $200 less than a comparably equiped Compaq Ipaq?

Why does a movie poster that cost $.25 to make, cost me $10 to buy?

Why is a Hyundai of equal(or great specs) than a toyota or a honda $4,000 less?

I can go on and on and on and on. Your answer is: Because that's what people are willing to pay for it.

so now you're changing your argument? you get style points on that back-flip.

 

[Nemesis77]

In related news, RIAA-partners-in-crime have payed 67.4 million dollars to settle a lawsuit regarding illegal price-fixing. But I'm sure that price-fixing has NOTHING to do with declining sales, of course it doesn't! RIAA told me so!

EDIT: Article on USAToday on this issue. quote:

Former FTC chairman Robert Pitofsky said at the time that consumers had been overcharged by $480 million since 1997 and that CD prices would soon drop by as much as $5 a CD as a result.

So RIAA-partners-in-crime has been ripping us off?!?!?! Say it aint so!

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Whoa, Nemesis77, good find!

Let'em burn in hell! Besides which, they're only paying for the crap they've done in the States, but how about the rest of the world?

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: ahartman

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: vi_edit
A little more money goes into a cd than simply material costs.

True but lets say he was way off on his estimates and double or triple the $1.40 to reflect those costs. We still get nowhere near the current $15.00 per CD currently charged by most major labels.

At what point did the price of something determine that it's okay to steal it (trading MP3s)? I don't disagree that there's a great deal of crap being sold. I don't disagree that it's overpriced.

I just don't understand the position that because it's not worth paying for, it's okay to steal it.

No moral high ground here, I've got a hard drive full of MP3s, but call a spade a spade. I know what I'm doing is wrong.

IMO, if you are being overcharged for something, it's okay to smuggle it!

 

[BD2003]

I have absolutely no moral dilemma downloading music when CDs cost 18.99.