Well, the introduction of iTunes and similar services is a step in the right direction. But the industry is also stepping in the wrong direction at the same time. IMO they should put less effort into lawsuits and copy protection, and more effort into opening up new distribution methods. Instead, they’re putting a lot of effort into the former, and a tiny bit into the latter; more lawsuits and copy protection might possibly slow down illegal downloads, but I don’t believe it’ll help the industry in any real sense, because it won’t convince pirates to buy CDs - it’ll only convince the pirates not to listen to the music at all, and it’ll alienate people who only use P2P as a means of discovering or trying out music before they buy it.
If that was your point, I wonder why it’s taken you so long to say so.
By that same logic, you could say that price changes will never have an impact on sales of any product. If a car maker like Kia is floundering because not many people are willing to buy their low-end cars for $30,000, should they lower prices by X dollars? Nah, the X is completely arbitrary! Some people still wouldn’t buy a Kia for $10,000, so lowering prices can’t possibly save the company, right?
(No, because they can save the company without convincing everyone out there to buy a car, just like the record industry can be saved without convincing everyone who downloads music to buy it instead.)
Everyone who won’t buy CDs at today’s prices thinks the prices are too high.
If that was your point, I’m disappointed. I was hoping for a nugget of wisdom buried in those 36 words, not just the common sense that no price will satisfy every single customer.
Some people, sure. If CD prices drop by $X, there will be some people who stop downloading all music and start buying it instead, some people who buy certain CDs and download others, and some people who still aren’t willing to pay the new price and keep downloading all their music - each depending on the value they personally assign to each CD.
If prices were incrementally lowered over time, then at some point, enough people would be buying CDs instead of downloading them that the industry would no longer be in peril. (Assuming, of course, that it’s in peril now.)
And if we agree on that, then we’re good.
My interpretation of
was that you didn’t believe anyone would use that logic, that you believed nobody’s decisions would be affected by CD prices dropping from $15 to $12. If you actually meant that not everyone’s decisions would be affected, then I’m sorry for dragging this out, but you could have made your meaning clear a lot sooner.
Those are two seperate issues. I think the idea of expanding the market for legal dowloads makes sense. But what doesn’t make sense, is the idea that this will be accomplished simply by saying “O.K., go ahead and pirate whatever you want.” You seem to desperately want for their to be a causal connection between the two, where if they just stop discouraging theft, then everything will be peachy keen. But why must the two ideas be mutally exclusive? Why can’t they discourage theft AND pursue legal on-line distribution methods?
The way I’m understanding you, the big problem you have is that there isn’t enough legal music available over the internet (presumably iTunes doesn’t have enough stuff, I guess?). So what is the solution to not having enough legal stuff on the internet? I believe the solution would be to HAVE MORE LEGAL STUFF on the internet. The solution would NOT be to have more illegal stuff on the internet. It’s a non-sequitur.
Well now I think you’re the one who underestimates the ethics of the average person. Maybe you think they will say, “Well if I can’t steal it, I refuse to buy it.” I don’t think that’s the case at all. If something is free, and there’s little chance of being prosecuted for taking it, then the temptation is just too great for most people. That doesn’t mean they wouldn’t buy it if it weren’t available for free.
Imagine a donut shop, with a table outside giving away free donuts. Are you going to go in and pay for a donut, when they’re free right outside? Of course not. But let’s say the next day the free table is gone. If you still want a donut, you’ll go in and pay for one. You’d have to be quite an asshole to say, “Oh yeah, well if I can’t get 'em free anymore, then I’m boycotting your donut shop.”
You mean you wonder why it’s taken you so long to get it.
No, that’s not the same logic. It’s quite different. In fact, we call that a strawman. And I already pointed that out. I never said price changes have no effect at all, and I just got through telling you so. Did you even read what I wrote? I can’t believe you just posted the exact same strawman argument twice in a row. Have you no shame? Are you just trying to waste everyone’s time, or what?
O.K., I didn’t think we needed to get this basic, but there is a point in an industry where if you don’t charge enough, you LOSE money. Kia would sell a hell of a lot of cars if they charged $5, for example, but they would go bankrupt.
Congratulations, you just out-thought EVERY corporate executive in the world. Apparently, the magic formula for any business to thrive is to lower prices. You seem to be saying that lowering prices automatically saves any business.
cite?
Well you’d think it was common sense, but then you keep on arguing and arguing.:rolleyes:
Can you prove this? You keep saying it like it’s a fact. Lowering prices does not automatically ensure profit, because WHEN YOU LOWER PRICES, YOU MAKE LESS MONEY.
Reminds me of the “Change Bank” skit on Saturday Night Live. It was an ad for a bank that just made change, that’s all. They said, “You may ask how we make a profit? Simple - VOLUME”. The joke being that if your intake is not more than your costs, all the volume in the universe won’t make you any profit.
My point is, and has been all this time, that your unsubstantiated claim that CD prices are “too high” and should be lowered, is completely arbitrary. What if they charged $20? Should they then lower it to $15? THEN would $15 be O.K. because it’s lower? Or what if they already charged $12? Would you then say that was “too high”? Your point is arbitrary. If you don’t know what “arbitrary” means, please look it up. The reason it’s taken you so long to come around is because of all the bullshit, mischaracterizations, and strawmen you keep throwing around, and that I have to keep wasting time refuting.
wow, blowero, lay off the MATH1061 buddy. Just because someone says something, doesn’t mean it will keep the meaning they intended. Don’t quote me please.
I had never heard of the Counting Crows until my sister had a song on a tape, and I heard it and I thought wow, that’s good. Then I downloaded their music… liked what I heard then went out and bought their cds. I also bought tickets to their concert. Without Kazaa I never would’ve bought any of that.
And I am saddened to admit, I bought baby one more time. Yes, the entire album. I didn’t even like the music. It was a phase.
So it appears, blowero a counter-example exists to your theory, “there exists a person, y, who bought x cd and did not like it.”
I’ m sorry blowero if you think I’m stupid and wish to point it out by quoting me, but please don’t.
Dude, what exactly is your big fucking problem? Did I say word ONE to you in this thread? I don’t know what “MATH1061” means, but I take it it’s some kind of cryptic reference to what I said to Mr2001. I’ll just remind you of what he said to me FIRST:
He TOTALLY mischaracterized what I said in this thread. I think someone who does things like that deserves a response. And the guy’s obviously a glutton for punishment; he won’t let it go - I even tried, but he practically begged me to come back and address his nonsense. If you disagree, why don’t you start a Pit thread about it? I’d be glad to go over there and hash it out with you.
Well the Counting Crows are PERFECTLY FREE to offer their songs on the internet to be downloaded. In fact, it looks like they DID, but aren’t offering them at the present. So I ask you, if the Counting Crows doesn’t want to offer their music for free, then who the hell are YOU to suggest that they ought to HAVE to let it be had for free? You want to blame somebody? Blame the band. Lots of bands offer free demos. You don’t NEED KAZAA to get demos. Don’t blame the RIAA, any band can offer their stuff for free. Shouldn’t it be THEIR choice, not YOURS? Who are YOU to say what’s “good” for them. If they think it’s good for them, they can fucking well give their stuff away - nobody’s stopping them.
Well then I believe you just provided an example of my point. You are a person who engaged in internet dowloading AND bought an album. So they aren’t mutually exclusive, are they? Isn’t that exactly what I said?
O.K., this is pretty much gibberish. That is in no way, shape, or form, my “theory”, nor is it even remotely close to anything I’ve ever advanced as a theory.
Some things don’t even need to be said, my friend. Some advice: You might want to try hanging out in IMHO or MPSIMS if debates make you uncomfortable.
Of course. That’s why no one has suggested they should say that.
What they should do is spend less effort–not none, but less–on preventing the symptom, and more–not all their effort, but more–on preventing the cause.
The industry has fought internet radio, they’ve sued hundreds of P2P users, they’ve tried copy protection schemes left and right. What have they done to increase their product’s bang for the buck? They’ve only given the nod to a couple of download sites, neither of which offer music in the most popular digital format, and even that has only happened in the past year or so. They haven’t lowered CD prices significantly, they haven’t made CD singles competitive with single MP3 downloads, and they haven’t cut filler tracks.
An asshole? No, just someone who thinks donuts aren’t worth what the shop is charging for them.
If a donut at the shop is $1.00, but a donut is only worth 50 cents in my personal view, then of course I’d rather get a free donut from the shady guy on the corner than buy one from the shop. Now if the guy on the corner gets arrested, and my only choices are to buy a donut for $1.00 or go without one, what makes you think I’d suddenly be willing to pay $1.00?
If you believe most P2P users would be willing to pay today’s prices for CDs in a world where P2P didn’t exist, well, you can certainly hold that opinion. I believe otherwise, based on my own experiences and the experiences of people I know.
And you believe CD prices are at that point?
Let me explain what “too high” means: it means higher than people are willing to pay. If people were willing to pay those prices, they would be doing so.
Seriously, pal, you’re embarrassing yourself. Read your posts again; what you said was not what you now claim you meant, and no amount of backtracking is going to change what you posted earlier.
If by ‘People do not say, “Oh, if it’s $15, I’ll steal it, but if it’s $12, I won’t.”’ you really meant ‘Some people say that and some don’t’, then just admit you misspoke. Really, it’s okay. I wouldn’t still be on the subject if not for your absurd insistence that you meant the opposite of what you wrote.
Why? Why can’t they spend more effort on preventing theft AND more effort on electronic product delivery? If you agree they aren’t mutually exclusive, why do you keep arguing as if they ARE?
Again, this has nothing to do with the seperate subject of preventing theft. Imagine you’re a car dealer, and 1/3 of your inventory gets stolen off the lot. You install lights on your lot to prevent theft. Then imagine that your customers start saying, “The problem is that your cars are crappy and cost too much; Why don’t you lower your prices?” The reasoning is flawed at its very inception.
Not what I said, my friend. We were discussing whether measures to prevent theft will alienate (your word) customers. In that particular sentence, I wasn’t talking about prices, but rather about whether preventing theft will drive customers away. As usual, you lost the train of thought.
This makes absolutely no sense. I suggest you try again.
No. Did I SAY that? Please try to focus.
And I think it’s unfair to skew the market by insisting that theft should be allowed, and figured into the equation. If something can be had for free by stealing it, then the price that that person would be “willing to pay” would be exactly ZERO, wouldn’t it? Your position is like Econ 101 from hell.
:yawn:
More mischaracterizations, I see. All you have said in this thread is that lower prices=more demand. That’s patently obvious. It’s also patently simplistic. If that hopelessly simple formula were the only consideration, then all companies would give away their product FOR FREE.
Your reasoning is circular. You say that people will stop bootlegging if the record industry lowers its prices. But your definition of what price is too high, and what is sufficiently low, is simply “what people are willing to pay”. I’ll say it again - theft skews that relationship. You refuse to state what price would be the “right” one, nor offer any evidence, or even to acknowledge that there even exists any price at which a company might not make a profit. This is utter nonsense. Your density in this matter is approximately that of neutronium.
I’ve been assuming they’re already working as hard as they are willing to; if they want to light a fire under themselves and put more effort into both, then I suppose that’s fine too, though I still think more copy-protection and lawsuits will alienate more customers. If they aren’t going to work harder overall, then putting more effort into one thing will necessarily mean putting less into another.
This one’s too easy. The car dealer loses money when cars are stolen. The record industry doesn’t lose money when music is downloaded; they (effectively) lose money when music is not bought, whether or not it’s downloaded instead. Convincing more people to buy music solves the industry’s problem, but not the car dealer’s problem.
In that case, let me spice up your analogy a little: You enter a donut shop and find that all the donuts on display are chained to their trays. Some of them have been sprayed with a special “anti-theft” aerosol that you happen to be allergic to. As you leave the store, the doorman frisks you to make sure you haven’t stolen any donuts and hidden them in your pockets. Clearly the store doesn’t trust the people who patronize it. Might you be less likely to visit that store in the future? I sure would.
All right, finally we agree on something: CD prices are not at the point where the industry would lose money by lowering them. Therefore, lowering prices would increase demand without lowering profit.
Of course there is a point at which lowering prices will result in less profit, but since neither of us believe CD prices are at that point, it’s not relevant.
:shrug: I don’t believe it skews the relationship significantly for music, which can already be heard for free on TV and radio.
As for what price is the right price, that would depend on consumer polls and other data which I don’t have and, frankly, don’t care to look up at this point in the thread. It’s been fun, but I can only take so many of your bizarre accusations.
Ok, a couple of points.
I don’t think Mr 2001 was mischaracterizing what you said at all. You are embarrassing yourself. He was not the one not letting it go. Count up the posts.
And as to why I said something to you in the first place, (in your own words) “I think someone who does things like that deserves a response.”
MATH1061 is discrete mathematics, or logic maths. Since you’re whipping up “logical arguments” all over the place I assumed you had a background in logic. You don’t.
Me buying Baby one more time was not saying anything about the buying cds and downloading them as well argument. It was intended as a counter example to your ridiculous argument that people don’t buy britney’s cds if they don’t like them. I did, and I didn’t even like her. So there goes that argument.
That last bit of gibberish was a logical argument in discrete mathematics. I never advanced it as your theory… or can’t you figure out what counter-example means?
Sure, this is Great Debates, but as I see it, a topic as insignificant as this does not deserve as many posts as it has. It’s not great at all.
For the umpteenth time, I am baffled by your contention that companies ought not to discourage theft for fear of “alienating” customers. C’mon into my store - steal whatever you like, because I wouldn’t want you to dislike me or anything. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.
Well, I thought we finally agreed, but now you’re backpedaling on the point. I don’t believe that discouraging theft and marketing music on-line are mutually exclusive. Apparently you do. Another one where we’ll have to agree to disagree, I guess.
Oh, cute. Now you’re gonna do the bait & switch where you say “downloaded” rather than “illegally downloaded”. Since you want to change the parameters of the discussion all of a sudden, I’ll take that as a tacit admission that my car analogy is valid.
Sorry, I don’t see the analogy there. What is the record industry analogue to the “anti-theft aerosol”? How is prosecuting piraters analagous to harassing people who legally purchase music? I have never felt put-upon by the record industry at all. If I had bootlegged stuff, and they pursued legal action against me, it would be warranted.
Lowering prices would not lower profit? Did you ever take math? I haven’t gone over their books, have you?
[quote]
The artists get paid when their works are broadcast. You didn’t know that?
In other words, YOU DON’T KNOW that lowering their prices would be beneficial. You’re just talking out your ass.
Sorry, Who Stole My Name, your posts are far too cryptic for me to have any interest in responding. You sound like you’re just spoiling for a fight anyway. Good bye.
Spare me. I thought it would be clear in context. :rolleyes:
The record industry doesn’t lose money when music is illegally downloaded; they (effectively) lose money when music is not bought, whether or not it’s illegally downloaded instead. Convincing more people to buy music solves the industry’s problem, but not the car dealer’s problem.
Copy protection that impairs the ability to play CDs in certain devices, or to exercise fair use rights.
Even if you legally buy music online, you can’t get it as an MP3, which is by far the most widely supported digital music format, because the industry is afraid you’ll copy it. Just as with copy protection on CDs, they essentially cripple their product on purpose to discourage copying, which hurts legitimate customers.
Let me remind you of this:
So, are they or aren’t they? If CD prices are not yet at that point, then prices can be lowered without losing money.
Thanks for the tip. Now how is that relevant to your claim that the free availability of music significantly lowers the price people are willing to pay for it? The money that goes to an artist when his song is played on the radio comes from advertisers, not listeners - songs on the radio are just as free for listeners to hear as songs on Kazaa are.
Since you don’t know it would be harmful, my position is at least as solid as yours.
Stuff like:
[ul]
[li] RIAA sponsered bills such as that one that amounted to the RIAA would be able to hack you on mere suspician. If they were wrong tuff cookies. You could’nt do anything about it unless they did something like $20,000 in damage. [/li]
[li]Some of the current law suites against people like a 12 year old girl, a singel mother trying to get through collage, an Elderly man who does not have internet access.[/li]
[li]Some of the copy-protected disks. When I buy music I like to be able to rip it and them add it to one my cd-rw disks for my mp3 player. [/li][/ul]
I could go on but this Dvorak keyboard is really flustraighting me (I’m used to qwerty).
