# What would happen if the record industry went ka-put? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 21, 2004, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-happen-if-the-record-industry-went-ka-put/235505 "2004-03-21T03:48:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Tentacle\_Monster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ba9def/32.png) [@Tentacle\_Monster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tentacle_Monster)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2004, 8:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-happen-if-the-record-industry-went-ka-put/235505/41 "2004-03-23T08:49:06Z")
So this is what I get for starting a thread, reading the first reply and thinking “That actually answers it quite nicely”, and sticking to the other forums for a week or so. Clearly, P2P networks [are](http://www.azoz.com/music/features/0008.html) [not](http://www.wired.com/news/mp3/0,1285,35848,00.html) [killing](http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/18/1079199330947.html) the music industry. Neither the music industry nor the P2P networks are going anywhere. There will always be music, there will always be those who distribute it (but guys, would it kill you to give a bit more to the artists?). There will always be the boosters who buy all the CDs and the leechers who download them all, and every shade in between the two. ---
**Author:** ![Club\_33](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/df705f/32.png) [@Club\_33](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Club_33)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2004, 9:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-happen-if-the-record-industry-went-ka-put/235505/42 "2004-03-23T09:24:23Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > On the whole, do you think public libraries have increased or decreased book sales? I don’t recall ever buying a book that I had already checked out and read from a library. I buy books that I haven’t read yet. I also don’t know too many people that purchase what they download, they already have a copy that they can listen to whenever they want. I do understand that there are people who use file downloads to make informed purchases, but that really doesn’t explain the ones that have gigs of files on their hard drives or CD cases full of writable disks. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2004, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-happen-if-the-record-industry-went-ka-put/235505/43 "2004-03-23T14:03:26Z")
> [@Tentacle Monster](#): > > There will always be music, there will always be those who distribute it (but guys, would it kill you to give a bit more to the artists?). Yes it would be ashame if J-Lo could only afford the Gulfstream G100 instead of the 500 ---
**Author:** ![jymjim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/45deac/32.png) [@jymjim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jymjim)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2004, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-happen-if-the-record-industry-went-ka-put/235505/44 "2004-03-23T18:46:42Z")
Blowero, i don’t know what i did to upset you, but i’ll try and be a little more civil as i answer you ok 🙂 > [@](#): > > Ah, yes - the “all my friends” argument. That’s ever so convincing. I agree that the argumentum ad populum is not a valid source to use in backing ones arguement, which is why i did not offer it as such. In this case, i was merely offering some anecdotal background to the formation of those two general reasons. I wasn’t trying to convince that they were the only or best general ideas. > [@](#): > > Your logic is already falling apart. First you say your friends bootleg only when it’s stuff they “wouldn’t buy normally” (also known as stealing, BTW). Then you say they bootleg because CDs cost too much. Well it’s either one or the other - can’t be both. If you’re doing (2), then (1) is moot, isn’t it? If that were the case, it still wouldnt be a moot point, because, as i said, the two are linked. But anyway, i wasn’t saying that everybody i knew held BOTH of those reasons for themselves; only that they were reasons that i knew people to have. I said nothing about holding them simultaniously. If you are not sure about something, better to ask than storm in 🙂 > [@](#): > > And let me be very clear about something; I’m not here to judge anyone. It’s really not my business to do so…BUT - if you bootleg music, you cannot claim the moral high ground. You guys really ought to save us all your flimsy justifications. You want to cheat? Go ahead. Just please don’t act self-righteous about it. I just can’t bear to hear that. It makes me ill. I will assume that is addressed at leastin part to me; if i am wrong, say so and i will apologise. If you are not here to judge anyone, i think you have inadvertantly done so, because i did not offer any opinion on the morality of “bootlegging” in what i said; i only offered some of the common reasons for doing so. > [@](#): > > So you think the consumers should get to set the price, and if it’s higher than they like, it’s o.k. to go ahead and steal it? Holy cow, you can’t be serious. Well in a way, consumers do set the prices don’t they? When something is put out for sale, its price is a reflection of what the market will tolerate, and since the market is only other people described in another way, those other people determine what you can effectivly sell at. And, given that sales are high, we can assume that the price isn’t that high as to discourage everybody yet…in fact, i would go so far as to speculate that the “threat” of copying music etc has been quite effectively exaggerated…as one would expect in a capitalistic society. > [@](#): > > Nice of you to speak for the record companies as to what’s good for them. Are you willing to back up your “guarantee” out of your own pocket? I wouldn’t have to; its quite simple to see that demand would increase should price be lowered. I’m not in reality advocating a massive price drop; just a show of good will towards demonstratably loyal customers. This would have numerous effect, economic and social, the main one would be of course to bring back a lot of people who at present perhaps don’t buy many of their cds. > [@](#): > > So there’s a precise “magic” price, over which consumers will obtain the music for free, but under which, consumers will suddenly become honest and pay for the music? Oh - and you get to set that magic price. Sorry, not buying it. Well nice strawman you make there, but that isn’t what i said. I was simply saying that, if the previous “record empire” had fallen due in part to over charging, that to set up a new one while still charging those high prices would be a matter of not learning your lesson for others failures. And there is a price over which demand drops off for goods, although i can’t recall the actual theory right now; not that im trying to defend something which only you seem to have conjoured up from what i said before 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2004, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-happen-if-the-record-industry-went-ka-put/235505/45 "2004-03-23T22:09:39Z")
> [@megatrollificus](#): > > Quote: > You argue with a point I didn’t make. SUPERSTARS are created by promotion, not talent. People like what they are exposed to, what they hear all the time, what gets PLAYED AND PROMOTED. They are not hypnotized, but I hope you are not denying the synergy of the forces I actually cited. I’m not denying it, and I never _was_ denying it. You are still misinterpreting what I said, and now are trying to pass it off as _my_ misinterpretation of what _you_ said. It’s very simple - if the public did not like the music of Brittney Spears, etc., THEY WOULDN’T BUY IT. Yes, of course marketing has an influence - duh. But marketing does not _force_ people to buy that which they do not like. What possible motivation would a record company have in aggressively promoting an artist that they _know_ people hate? All the marketing in the world won’t make people buy things they don’t like. Two words: New Coke. I said people won’t buy something if they don’t like it. It is a plain, obvious truth that you keep trying to deny. > [@](#): > > Not so much an argument for stealing music as for redefining who OWNS it in the first place. I don’t know what that’s supposed to mean. Can’t you expound on the point any better than that? > [@](#): > > It was mostly a single sentence…basically stating that if less of the money were, by saturation marketing, directed to ‘superstar’ acts, a greater number and variety or musician would be supported. Guess that was kind of a sloppy statement. Sorry. Oh, O.K. - That would be wonderful, but I fear you overestimate the general appeal of bluegrass musicians, garage band punks, and techno-obsessive geniuses (the examples you gave). Do you honestly think that if a major label just started pouring millions of dollars into marketing some obscure punk band, that they are going to recoup that money in sales? The demographic is just too small. There just aren’t as many teenage girls who are into punk-rock as there are those into Brittney, and no amount of marketing is going to change that. I happen to like bluegrass music, too, but you are NEVER going to get a significant number of young urban dwellers to like it. It just ain’t gonna happen. Just like you aren’t ever going to get senior citizens to like rap music. You could run ads for rap artists on the Paul Harvey show every day for 20 years, and old people just aren’t ever going to buy it. And we both might personally agree that a particular artist has no talent, but you will never get _everyone_ to agree on anything. Maybe you think Brittney is crap, and techno-pop is genius, but I happen to think jazz is genius, and techno-pop is crap. And even in that jazz world, there are posers galore. Any serious musician will tell you that Kenny G. can’t play his way out of a paper bag, but he sells out large venues (or did, I don’t know how he’s doing lately). It didn’t take a marketing team to do that, it just took a public that doesn’t want to hear anything too mentally challenging. > [@](#): > > You again insert the conclusion that I am arguing X when I did not state X. Good, then I take it you agree that bootlegging music is _not_ justified by your argument. > [@](#): > > Again, I was saying that if the RIAA gets less, it does not mean musicians will get less. We’re getting our subjects all mixed up here. First, I would say that, the way things are right now, if less money comes in from sales, then yes, the musicians get less money. Musicians get a percentage of the sales - it’s a direct relation. Less sales=less money for the musicians. Second, you seem to be saying that you don’t think the business should work that way. O.K., but how things _should_ work, and how they _do_ work are not the same thing. Third is the topic of _how_ one might change the way things work. Some in this thread seem to be implying that if consumers continue to steal music, that it will somehow magically result in these positive changes to the recording industry. I find that ludicrous, and from what you are saying, I believe you are agreeing with me, although it’s kind of hard to tell. > [@](#): > > I did not say massive bootlegging would necessarily bring this about, combined with removal of a top-heavy distribution of revenue from music sales, artists getting a much larger portion of a slightly smaller pie is a good thing. P2P distribution can be part of an improved distribution system. Well again, we seem to be conflating two distinct ideas. (1) A widespread system of legal music distribution over the internet - something which I don’t think has been accomplished yet; and (2) Homegrown “file-sharing” networks where individuals illegally share music with each other. You keep protesting that you _don’t_ believe bootlegging will bring about the changes you favor, so why are we talking about (2) at all? Allowing (2) to exist will not bring about (1). ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2004, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-happen-if-the-record-industry-went-ka-put/235505/46 "2004-03-23T23:00:48Z")
> [@jymjim](#): > > Blowero, i don’t know what i did to upset you, but i’ll try and be a little more civil as i answer you ok 🙂 Why do you think I’m upset? Did I say something that offended you? > [@](#): > > I agree that the argumentum ad populum is not a valid source to use in backing ones arguement, which is why i did not offer it as such. I believe you did. This was the exchange: > [@](#): > > Blowero: And after a few hundred copies are sold, they will be taken home, copied on people’s home cd-burners and passed around to their friends, then shared on the internet, until millions of people have the CD for free, and the band doesn’t make a thin dime. Yes, that sounds wonderful > > jymjim: I’m not sure that would necessarily be the case. > > All the people i know that have mp3 collections also have fairly big CD collections too, and only use mp3 from the net for 2 reasons… You very clearly used “all the people i know” as evidence in support of your argument. Why the backpedalling? > [@](#): > > In this case, i was merely offering some anecdotal background to the formation of those two general reasons. What’s that supposed to mean? “Anecdotal background”? Give me a break… > [@](#): > > If that were the case, it still wouldnt be a moot point, because, as i said, the two are linked. The fact that they are linked is irrelevant to the point. If one bootlegs music because it “costs too much”, then whether or not one “normally” buys it is irrelevant, because one would bootleg it _anyway_, whether it was within their “normal” scope or not. > [@](#): > > But anyway, i wasn’t saying that everybody i knew held BOTH of those reasons for themselves; only that they were reasons that i knew people to have. O.K., point taken. > [@](#): > > If you are not sure about something, better to ask than storm in 🙂 Better yet, you might try being clear in the first place.🙂 > [@](#): > > I will assume that is addressed at leastin part to me; if i am wrong, say so and i will apologise. No, absolutely not. If you aren’t trying to justify music bootlegging, then _quite obviously_, I wasn’t addressing you. > [@](#): > > If you are not here to judge anyone, i think you have inadvertantly done so, because i did not offer any opinion on the morality of “bootlegging” in what i said; i only offered some of the common reasons for doing so. Then I’m not judging you. Perhaps my point wasn’t clear, so I’ll try again. We ALL cheat. Every one of us. If you say you’ve never cheated at _anything_, you are either a saint or a liar. So who the hell am I to tell people they shouldn’t bootleg music? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone and all that… BUT… I do draw the line at anyone who cheats AND tries to use some flimsy, bullshit justification for what they did. I’m sorry, but cheap rationalizations for dishonest behavior make me sick. You cheated? Fine; be a man and admit it. > [@](#): > > Blowero:So you think the consumers should get to set the price, and if it’s higher than they like, it’s o.k. to go ahead and steal it? Holy cow, you can’t be serious. > > jymjim: Well in a way, consumers do set the prices don’t they? Non sequitur. I’m talking about theft, and you’re talking about supply and demand. Theft completely skews the supply and demand equation. > [@](#): > > And, given that sales are high, we can assume that the price isn’t that high as to discourage everybody yet… Nonsense. We can assume no such thing. You are ignoring the fact that it’s illegal. Gasoline costs too much, but the majority of people aren’t stealing it. > [@](#): > > in fact, i would go so far as to speculate that the “threat” of copying music etc has been quite effectively exaggerated…as one would expect in a capitalistic society. Perhaps, but one could also argue that it is precisely _because_ of the record industry’s counter-measures that it hasn’t gotten out of hand. Let’s say Jack and Jill own a liquor store. Jack locks the door each night and sets the burglar alarm. One day, Jill says, “Jack, you don’t need to lock the door - we haven’t had many break-ins at all.” Jack says, “Yes, because I LOCKED THE DOOR every night.” > [@](#): > > I wouldn’t have to; its quite simple to see that demand would increase should price be lowered. Yes, well that’s nice that you know more about the record business than the people who are in it. I hope you don’t mind if they don’t take your competely unsupported advice. > [@](#): > > This would have numerous effect, economic and social, the main one would be of course to bring back a lot of people who at present perhaps don’t buy many of their cds. Don’t want to put words in your mouth again, but didn’t you just get through saying that sales are doing fine right now? If sales are good, why would they need to get people “back”? > [@](#): > > Blowero: So there’s a precise “magic” price, over which consumers will obtain the music for free, but under which, consumers will suddenly become honest and pay for the music? Oh - and you get to set that magic price. Sorry, not buying it > > jymjim: Well nice strawman you make there, but that isn’t what i said. Um, yeah - it wasn’t a direct quote. You didn’t realize that? > [@](#): > > I was simply saying that, if the previous “record empire” had fallen due in part to over charging, that to set up a new one while still charging those high prices would be a matter of not learning your lesson for others failures. No, THIS is what you said: > [@](#): > > Hopefully therefore, after this hypothetical death of the salesmen, reasonable prices would be set; they would have to be, because everybody would have learned already that if you charge too much, your gonna get screwed by mp3 rippers. Look, that makes no sense. You are suggesting a business model where setting prices too high will result in massive theft, and that business owners should have to take that into account. So you are on the one hand relying on the consumers’ good will in not just stealing what they want, whenever they want, period; and on the other hand suggesting that if prices are too high, that they _will_ steal it. I disagree. A thief is a thief. My point was that honesty does not suddenly kick in at some arbitrary price. People do not say, “Oh, if it’s $15, I’ll steal it, but if it’s $12, I won’t.” At least not rational, moral people. If the industry comes crashing down due to theft, little price breaks will not save it. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-happen-if-the-record-industry-went-ka-put/235505/47 "2004-03-25T08:30:12Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > My point was that honesty does not suddenly kick in at some arbitrary price. People do not say, “Oh, if it’s $15, I’ll steal it, but if it’s $12, I won’t.” At least not rational, moral people. If the industry comes crashing down due to theft, little price breaks will not save it. Your false assumption–that people who download music illegally are just dirty, no-good thieves who can never be expected to pay for music under any circumstances–is the reason online music sales have taken this long to get off the ground. Many of the people who currently pay 99c for songs on iTunes are the same folks who illegally downloaded songs from Napster and Kazaa a couple years ago (and some still do it today); somehow I doubt they only started using iTunes because they magically changed from reprehensible scum into upstanding consumers. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2004, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-happen-if-the-record-industry-went-ka-put/235505/48 "2004-03-27T22:32:03Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > Your false assumption–that people who download music illegally are just dirty, no-good thieves who can never be expected to pay for music under any circumstances–is the reason online music sales have taken this long to get off the ground. Wow, dude! That’s gotta be the strawman of the century. I’m going to use that in the fallacies thread. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![laigle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ce7236/32.png) [@laigle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/laigle)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-happen-if-the-record-industry-went-ka-put/235505/49 "2004-03-28T02:37:24Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > You didn’t accurately read what I wrote. I said “these people wouldn’t be famous if people didn’t like their music”. I said nothing about how Brittney go to be a star, I simply said if people didn’t like her music, she wouldn’t be a star - which is true. I don’t care how sexy someone is, people won’t buy their records if they hate the music. Riiiiiiiight. And kids won’t buy tasteless cereal they stop eating after two bowls because they like the cartoon characters on the box. And teenagers make a conscious, debated choice to get themselves pierced all over, not having anything to do with pissing off their parents or trying to be like the teen superstar of the week. Middle aged men go out and buy the tricked out sports car because its a responsible vehicle choice that fits in with their life plan and budget, not because the middle aged guy in the commercial is clearly banging that nineteen year old blow up doll in the passenger seat. People buy her music because that’s what the professional actors portraying the cool bunch on MTV pretend to do. The human race is nothing more than a bunch of talking chimps that are about as difficult to manipulate as tinker toys. Welcome to the machine. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-happen-if-the-record-industry-went-ka-put/235505/50 "2004-03-28T08:04:18Z")
> [@laigle](#): > > Riiiiiiiight. And kids won’t buy tasteless cereal they stop eating after two bowls because they like the cartoon characters on the box. Hmmm…I loved Cap’n Crunch, and bugged my mom constantly to buy it. I couldn’t stand Fruit Loops; I thought they tasted like cough drops. It had absolutely nothing to do with my relative like or dislike of sea captains vs. toucans. > [@](#): > > And teenagers make a conscious, debated choice to get themselves pierced all over, not having anything to do with pissing off their parents or trying to be like the teen superstar of the week. I don’t know what this has to do with the point. Where exactly did I say that teenagers make _responsible_ choices? Does that have anything to do with what we’re talking about? The people I know who get piercings, _like_ to get them. They are not _forced_ to get them. > [@](#): > > Middle aged men go out and buy the tricked out sports car because its a responsible vehicle choice that fits in with their life plan and budget, not because the middle aged guy in the commercial is clearly banging that nineteen year old blow up doll in the passenger seat. But do they _like_ the cars? We’re not talking about whether people make _smart_ decisions, we’re talking about whether they are somehow _forced_, via marketing, to buy things they don’t like. I don’t think they are. > [@](#): > > People buy her music because that’s what the professional actors portraying the cool bunch on MTV pretend to do. The human race is nothing more than a bunch of talking chimps that are about as difficult to manipulate as tinker toys. Welcome to the machine. Hmmm…wasn’t that exactly my point? Who is to blame for the human race being “a bunch of talking chimps”? You’re saying people listen to Britney because they’re stupid, I guess. How exactly is that the fault of the record industry? Would you have them say, “No, you can’t buy this because you’re stupid, buy some Mozart instead”? ---
**Author:** ![TheRealJohnPeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/4bbf92/32.png) [@TheRealJohnPeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheRealJohnPeat)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-happen-if-the-record-industry-went-ka-put/235505/51 "2004-03-28T23:38:50Z")
If the Record Industry did go ‘poof’ and cease to exist I believe it would be replaced by something even more bizarrely inexplicable… Indeed - many people believe this has already happened 🙂 (Sorry Douglas! RIP) JP ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-happen-if-the-record-industry-went-ka-put/235505/52 "2004-03-29T05:30:03Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Wow, dude! That’s gotta be the strawman of the century. I’m going to use that in the fallacies thread. 😃 Thanks. :rolleyes: Perhaps I was a little too general. You said people who download music illegally won’t pay for it at any price (“a thief is a thief … honesty does not suddenly kick in at some arbitrary price”); however, the fact that services like iTunes Music Store are used by people who’ve downloaded music illegally is proof that they will. If someone who isn’t willing to pay $15 for a CD in a store is willing to pay $9.95 to get it from iTunes, that suggests dropping the price of CDs can help the record industry. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-happen-if-the-record-industry-went-ka-put/235505/53 "2004-03-29T19:35:33Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > You said people who download music illegally won’t pay for it at any price (“a thief is a thief … honesty does not suddenly kick in at some arbitrary price”); You’re mischaracterizing what I said again. “A thief is a thief. Honesty does not suddenly kick in at some arbitrary price.” is NOT equivalent to: “People who download music illegally won’t pay for it at any price.” I don’t believe I ever made the latter statement. I’m sure many people engage in _both_ legal and illegal music procurement. I don’t think it’s an either/or situation, as you seem to think. > [@](#): > > however, the fact that services like iTunes Music Store are used by people who’ve downloaded music illegally is proof that they will. If someone who isn’t willing to pay $15 for a CD in a store is willing to pay $9.95 to get it from iTunes, that suggests dropping the price of CDs can help the record industry. Saying that some of the same people who bootleg ALSO use iTunes proves nothing. It’s ALSO true that some of the people who bootleg have paid $15 for CDs in stores. By your logic, that would also prove that HIGHER prices help discourage theft.😃 But I suspect that we agree on more than you realize. I think having sites like iTunes is a great idea. I think the prices should _necessarily_ be lower there, since I’m sure the relative cost of the bandwidth is less than the cost of physically producing CDs, jewel cases, packaging, printing of liner notes, distribution, maintaining retail spaces and employing salespeople to sell the physical product. However, I reject the notion that the record industry ought not to enforce copyright law in favor of an unlimited appeasement strategy towards bootleggers. Why can’t we respect copyright law AND develop on-line distribution methods like iTunes? I don’t see the two as mutually exclusive at all. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-happen-if-the-record-industry-went-ka-put/235505/54 "2004-03-30T04:21:10Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > You’re mischaracterizing what I said again. > > “A thief is a thief. Honesty does not suddenly kick in at some arbitrary price.” > > is NOT equivalent to: > > “People who download music illegally won’t pay for it at any price.” > > I don’t believe I ever made the latter statement. I’m sure many people engage in both legal and illegal music procurement. I don’t think it’s an either/or situation, as you seem to think. Maybe I’m just reading too much into “a thief is a thief”, then. If you agree that even these “thieves” will buy music when it’s packaged the right way, then it seems to me they’re just like any other consumers from an economic perspective. > [@](#): > > Saying that some of the same people who bootleg ALSO use iTunes proves nothing. It’s ALSO true that some of the people who bootleg have paid $15 for CDs in stores. By your logic, that would also prove that HIGHER prices help discourage theft.😃 If higher prices were leading people to buy music instead of downloading it for free, then yes, it would. Good luck finding someone who has made that choice because of a price increase, though. Some people actually have made that choice because of cheaper prices - it’s not just that they buy music _and_ pirate it, but that they buy music _instead of_ pirating it. If it costs $15 to buy a CD, they’d rather download it or go without; if it only costs $9 to buy (or better yet, $1 for the song they want), they’d rather pay for it. > [@](#): > > However, I reject the notion that the record industry ought not to enforce copyright law in favor of an unlimited appeasement strategy towards bootleggers. Why can’t we respect copyright law AND develop on-line distribution methods like iTunes? I don’t see the two as mutually exclusive at all. Of course. Problem is, the industry itself saw the two as mutually exclusive for a long time, and refused to embrace online sales at all, just as they did with cassette tapes, DAT, internet radio, and so on. IMO piracy is a _symptom_ of people not wanting to buy CDs, not a cause. Fighting the symptoms with lawsuits, copy protection, and lobbying is fine for the short term, but they won’t get anywhere without addressing the causes: mainly, the feeling that CDs offer less bang for the buck than other media. Lawsuits and copy protection don’t help convince the kid with $20 in his pocket that he should buy a CD instead of a DVD or a cheap video game. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-happen-if-the-record-industry-went-ka-put/235505/55 "2004-03-30T07:43:50Z")
Mr2001, you are arguing against made-up points that were never mine, the last straw being when I pointed out how your logic, when taken to its conclusion, results in an absurdity, and you proceeded to PRETEND THAT THE ABSURDITY WAS MY POSITION. I refuse to waste any more time with you. Have a nice day. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-happen-if-the-record-industry-went-ka-put/235505/56 "2004-03-31T01:48:59Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Mr2001, you are arguing against made-up points that were never mine, the last straw being when I pointed out how your logic, when taken to its conclusion, results in an absurdity, and you proceeded to PRETEND THAT THE ABSURDITY WAS MY POSITION. Nope. What I proceeded to do was point out the differences between the made-up logic that you took to its conclusion and the logic I was actually using. I believe you can tell the difference between “he buys music online INSTEAD of downloading illegally” and “he buys music in a store IN ADDITION to downloading illegally”. I’ll give this one more shot: Would you care to explain what you meant by “A thief is a thief. Honesty does not suddenly kick in at some arbitrary price.”, if you didn’t mean that someone who downloads music illegally when the price is high won’t pay for it when the price is lower? Is the word “thief” in that sentence not an epithet for someone who downloads music illegally, or does “honesty” not refer to buying music instead of downloading it? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-happen-if-the-record-industry-went-ka-put/235505/57 "2004-03-31T19:13:34Z")
Well, since you’re giving it “one more shot”, I’ll go ahead and waste another minute here. > [@Mr2001](#): > > Nope. Yep.😉 > [@](#): > > What I proceeded to do was point out the differences between the made-up logic that you took to its conclusion and the logic I was actually using. I believe you can tell the difference between “he buys music online INSTEAD of downloading illegally” and “he buys music in a store IN ADDITION to downloading illegally”. Not what you said, my friend. You said “…services like iTunes Music Store are used by people who’ve downloaded music illegally…”. If this is true, it does not prove that those people don’t _still_ dowload music illegally, nor does it prove that those people don’t buy physical CDs. Are you in fact contending that ALL people who have downloaded music illegally now use iTunes INSTEAD, and NONE of them illegally download anymore, AND none of them ever buys physical CDs? I would absolutely LOVE to see your proof of that. > [@](#): > > I’ll give this one more shot: > > Would you care to explain what you meant by “A thief is a thief. Honesty does not suddenly kick in at some arbitrary price.”, if you didn’t mean that someone who downloads music illegally when the price is high won’t pay for it when the price is lower? Is the word “thief” in that sentence not an epithet for someone who downloads music illegally, or does “honesty” not refer to buying music instead of downloading it? Hmmm…how many times do you need it explained? I’ve told you what it means, and, due to all your mischaracterizations, I even have had to tell you what it _doesn’t_ mean. What do you want me to do, translate it into another language?😃 Why don’t YOU tell US what the “magic” price break is that will definitively end all bootlegging. After all, you are arguing that if the record industry cuts their prices, that it will end bootlegging, right? So what is that price? What are they charging now - $15? Is the magic price $13? $10? $5? Free? I assume you have proof that the magic price at which all bootlegging ends, is _higher_ than the price at which the people who produced the CD _lose_ money, right? Please submit your proof of this, right after your proof that EVERYONE who used to bootleg now uses iTunes, and never buys physical CDs. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-happen-if-the-record-industry-went-ka-put/235505/58 "2004-03-31T23:08:29Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Are you in fact contending that ALL people who have downloaded music illegally now use iTunes INSTEAD, and NONE of them illegally download anymore, AND none of them ever buys physical CDs? No, just that many people have stopped downloading music illegally, or at least stopped doing it as much, due to lower prices at legal download sites - lowering prices has lowered piracy. It’s unreasonable to expect to _entirely_ eliminate piracy, or any other unwanted behavior, just as it’s unreasonable to expect every single person to buy a CD. No matter what price you set, there will always be at least a few people who aren’t willing to buy that CD at that price. That’s the reality of business and it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. > [@](#): > > Hmmm…how many times do you need it explained? I’ve told you what it means, and, due to all your mischaracterizations, I even have had to tell you what it doesn’t mean. What do you want me to do, translate it into another language? Take another look at your responses to me in this thread; I believe you’re mistaken. You haven’t said what it means, only complained that I was misinterpreting it. Response #1: “Strawman of the century” quip. Response #2: “You’re mischaracterizing what I said again … [blowero’s quote] is NOT equivalent to [Mr2001’s quote]” … some people bootleg and also get music legally … enforcing copyright isn’t mutually exclusive with new distribution methods. Response #3: “you are arguing against made-up points that were never mine” If writing in another language will help you finally explain what you meant by > [@](#): > > A thief is a thief.My point was that honesty does not suddenly kick in at some arbitrary price. People do not say, “Oh, if it’s $15, I’ll steal it, but if it’s $12, I won’t.” then by all means, do it. It must be very difficult to explain how that last sentence means anything other than “CD prices don’t affect the decision of whether to pirate or buy music”, and perhaps English just doesn’t have subtle enough words to describe the difference. 😉 > [@](#): > > Why don’t YOU tell US what the “magic” price break is that will definitively end all bootlegging. After all, you are arguing that if the record industry cuts their prices, that it will end bootlegging, right? So what is that price? What are they charging now - $15? Is the magic price $13? $10? $5? Free? I assume you have proof that the magic price at which all bootlegging ends, is higher than the price at which the people who produced the CD lose money, right? Please submit your proof of this, right after your proof that EVERYONE who used to bootleg now uses iTunes, and never buys physical CDs. Stop the presses, we’ve got a new contender for Strawman of the Century! ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 8:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-happen-if-the-record-industry-went-ka-put/235505/59 "2004-04-01T08:50:51Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > No, just that many people have stopped downloading music illegally, or at least stopped doing it as much, due to lower prices at legal download sites - lowering prices has lowered piracy. If that is true, then why are you criticizing the record industry? It sounds like you are saying that the state of affairs is exactly as you think it should be. > [@](#): > > It’s unreasonable to expect to _entirely_ eliminate piracy, or any other unwanted behavior, just as it’s unreasonable to expect every single person to buy a CD. No matter what price you set, there will always be at least a few people who aren’t willing to buy that CD at that price. That’s the reality of business and it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. Interesting. Kind of sounds like MY point, doesn’t it? That a person _might_ bootleg, or _might_ use legal download services, or _might_ buy CDs in a store, and it’s silly to say that “if they lower the price by x dollars, it will save the industry”. The x is completely arbitrary, and depends on the individual. You want them to lower prices because YOU think they’re too high. You just proved that there’s no set formula that x price will stop x amount of bootlegging, which was my point all along. Thanks for the assistance. I notice you left out _this_ exchange: > [@](#): > > Mr2001: What I proceeded to do was point out the differences between the made-up logic that you took to its conclusion and the logic I was actually using. I believe you can tell the difference between “he buys music online INSTEAD of downloading illegally” and “he buys music in a store IN ADDITION to downloading illegally”. > > Blowero: Not what you said, my friend. You said “…services like iTunes Music Store are used by people who’ve downloaded music illegally…”. If this is true, it does not prove that those people don’t still dowload music illegally, nor does it prove that those people don’t buy physical CDs. It looks like you were raving at ME because I wouldn’t acknowledge that not EVERYONE who uses iTunes will stop bootlegging, nor will EVERYONE who uses iTunes stop buying CDs in stores. But now, after berating ME for making the point, you claim it is YOUR point. Lame, dude. > [@](#): > > Take another look at your responses to me in this thread; I believe you’re mistaken. You haven’t said what it means, only complained that I was misinterpreting it. > > Response #1: “Strawman of the century” quip. Uh, that wasn’t my first response. Try again. > [@](#): > > Blowero: A thief is a thief.My point was that honesty does not suddenly kick in at some arbitrary price. People do not say, “Oh, if it’s $15, I’ll steal it, but if it’s $12, I won’t.” > > Mr2001: It must be very difficult to explain how that last sentence means anything other than “CD prices don’t affect the decision of whether to pirate or buy music” You _really_ think what you just wrote is equivalent in meaning to what I wrote? It’s not difficult to explain; it’s just difficult to get YOU to understand it. We’ve been over it a million times; I really don’t have an unlimited amount of time to spoon-feed logic to you. > [@](#): > > Stop the presses, we’ve got a new contender for Strawman of the Century! Well that’s quite clever how you parroted my quip, but it’s not really a strawman. You’ve made it clear that “buys music online INSTEAD of downloading illegally” is how you believe the market functions, as opposed to “buys music in a store IN ADDITION to downloading illegally”, which I believe is a more realistic assessment. I think consumer behavior is more complex than you are making it out to be. There is no simple formula where cutting CD prices by x dollars is all of a sudden going to make the record industry the greatest thing since sliced bread. But you seem to think that cutting prices will cause people to buy it INSTEAD of downloading it illegally. I don’t think so; I think they will continue to download illegally. Now, you attempted to mischaracterize my position as saying there is NO EFFECT from lowering prices, but of course I never said that. So, getting back to what you are calling a “strawman”, I am simply extending this argument. If I say that people are going to CONTINUE to bootleg even if the record industry cuts prices by a couple bucks, and you DISAGREE with me, then you are NECESSARILY arguing that people will STOP bootlegging. If they don’t continue, then they have stopped - that’s logic itself. So if people will stop bootlegging, I would like to see your proof of this. On the other hand, if people WON’T stop bootlegging after a price decrease, then I am right, and you are wrong. Get it yet? ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-happen-if-the-record-industry-went-ka-put/235505/60 "2004-04-01T13:36:22Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > I’ve got news for you **laigle** , horny guys don’t buy Britney’s CDs. Britney is a star because she sells millions to pre-pubescent and early teen-age girls who want to grow up to be Britney. Horny guys salivating over her is just a side effect. I believe that’s true. My 11-year-old neice has been buying pop crap for a couple years now…‘n’ Stynk, Brittany, and some others who I’m not familiar with because I avoid those radio stations like the plague. I think it’s about kids getting their musical feet wet. As she grows up, she’ll see that this music doesn’t hold up and her taste will mature. Or I’ll have to disown her. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-happen-if-the-record-industry-went-ka-put/235505.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-happen-if-the-record-industry-went-ka-put/235505.md?page=4)