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 arenotkilling 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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
I don’t know what that’s supposed to mean. Can’t you expound on the point any better than that?
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.
Good, then I take it you agree that bootlegging music is not justified by your argument.
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.
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).
Why do you think I’m upset? Did I say something that offended you?
I believe you did. This was the exchange:
You very clearly used “all the people i know” as evidence in support of your argument. Why the backpedalling?
What’s that supposed to mean? “Anecdotal background”? Give me a break…
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.
O.K., point taken.
Better yet, you might try being clear in the first place.
No, absolutely not. If you aren’t trying to justify music bootlegging, then quite obviously, I wasn’t addressing you.
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.
Non sequitur. I’m talking about theft, and you’re talking about supply and demand. Theft completely skews the supply and demand equation.
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.
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.”
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.
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”?
Um, yeah - it wasn’t a direct quote. You didn’t realize that?
No, THIS is what you said:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”?
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Well, since you’re giving it “one more shot”, I’ll go ahead and waste another minute here.
Yep.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Stop the presses, we’ve got a new contender for Strawman of the Century!
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.
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:
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.
Uh, that wasn’t my first response. Try again.
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.
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.
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.
