Piracy, DRM, and Mini D

[moot]

I don't think you understand what I'm saying.  I'm talking about the fundamentals of economics.
The market's mechanics of distribution, promotion etc is another matter.. I'm not talking about that specific case, although what I am talking about rules that too.

You can't get things for sale at a cost for free under the pretense of fairness.  
Why don't we split Aces High into a thousand modules worth a 1/1000th of the present 15$/mo, as a sort of teaser, distributed for free, and then share all those modules cracked to work together, effectively getting the 15$/mo content for free?
That's what you're doing with the P2P and "free bits and pieces for advertisement" stuff.  

Two wrongs don't make a right - however much of a racket the MPAA & RIAA are running, it doesn't excuse shoplifting the pants off copyright holders.

Yes, DRMs are a ***** (I doubt there aren't ways available to remove DRMs already), yes the whole personal copy restrictions is utter BS (plenty of ways to bypass them IIRC), yes digital distribution and less middle man money sinks and all the more flexibility in buying and selling is something to strive for, yes I agree to all that, but that's no excuse to steal artists' revenue.

0 purchase price = 0 revenue.  The author's rights to profit from his own work are voided.
It means your effort to produce something with the intention to get a reward for it is in vain, absurd, it means you've wasted your time making it.  
And frankly I think it's effectively similar to communism.

[Catalyst]

actually Mini the prohibition comment is all well see, I said 'CONTROL', prohibition was 'CONTROL of ALCOHOL', alphabet soup(DRM, MPAA, RIAA) is the same, 'CONTROL'

and again, if you think i'll let the govr. control everything, you got another thing coming, it just won't happen...

P2P is just another medium for them to let folks hear there songs, don't like it, don't use it, or just plain don't make music...but you will not control my medium, try it, and another medium will appear, then more biatchin, as the wheels turns and turns and turns...

Hollywierd doesn't mind coming out with dumb stupid movies that just shouldn't get done, yet they will charge me 10$ to go see this movie...i'll find another medium to actually see if I should or shouldn't pay my 10$...

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Originally posted by moot
I don't think you understand what I'm saying.  I'm talking about the fundamentals of economics.
The market's mechanics of distribution, promotion etc is another matter.. I'm not talking about that specific case, although what I am talking about rules that too.

You can't get things for sale at a cost for free under the pretense of fairness.  
Why don't we split Aces High into a thousand modules worth a 1/1000th of the present 15$/mo, as a sort of teaser, distributed for free, and then share all those modules cracked to work together, effectively getting the 15$/mo content for free?
That's what you're doing with the P2P and "free bits and pieces for advertisement" stuff.  

Two wrongs don't make a right - however much of a racket the MPAA & RIAA are running, it doesn't excuse shoplifting the pants off copyright holders.

Yes, DRMs are a ***** (I doubt there aren't ways available to remove DRMs already), yes the whole personal copy restrictions is utter BS (plenty of ways to bypass them IIRC), yes digital distribution and less middle man money sinks and all the more flexibility in buying and selling is something to strive for, yes I agree to all that, but that's no excuse to steal artists' revenue.

0 purchase price = 0 revenue.  The author's rights to profit from his own work are voided.
It means your effort to produce something with the intention to get a reward for it is in vain, absurd, it means you've wasted your time making it.  
And frankly I think it's effectively similar to communism.

You missed the part where I said that the experimental price cut boosted sales with 100%. Why do you think people did a stupidity to pay for the music they could download for free? Remind you that 95% of finns have broadband access today.

[Dago]

What pisses me off is that fact that any album (or cd) will have one or two decent songs, and a lot of filler crap songs.

[Mini D]

Originally posted by Catalyst
actually Mini the prohibition comment is all well see, I said 'CONTROL', prohibition was 'CONTROL of ALCOHOL', alphabet soup(DRM, MPAA, RIAA) is the same, 'CONTROL'

It was the elimination of alchohol. Controling it was never a problem. If there were no music for sale anywhere, then you'd have a point. As it is, you're just being rediculous.

[moot]

I did miss that Ripley, in fact I don't see where you mentionned it now either.
I would have agreed if I had seen you mention it.. in fact I said that the middle-man management costs too much, i.e. that records should cost less and benefit more to the authors.
That's been really obvious for a while now.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Originally posted by moot
I did miss that Ripley, in fact I don't see where you mentionned it now either.
I would have agreed if I had seen you mention it..

Shows you didn't read my post through

Look up: 03-24-2007 01:23 PM

[Hungry]

Is to be able to copy a cd or game or sofware and to be able to put it away  for safety.  Games that make you run the cd everytime you play irritate the stuffing out of me, over a period of time something allways happens to them the same with music cds.  The musicians and game makers are entitled to thier rights but when I pay my money dont I have rights too?

[moot]

Ripley I read all the posts quickly but carefully, and I sort of see one point where it could be read that way, but even now I'm not sure where you say so.
I see one part where you say the prices were raised in spite of consumers' complaint of high prices.
You'll have to quote it.. we don't have the same times.
Anyway, we agree on that.

Yep Hungry.. I'm not as computer tech savvy as some here, but I think a safe enough method is to make an image to at least one dedicated archive disk drive.
CDs and DVDs go bad after a few years.

[B@tfinkV]

who has seen the advert at the start of many DVD movies?


[dramatic music - scene of man stealing handbag]


DVD advert - "YOU WOULDNT STEAL A HANDBAG WOULD YOU"

viewer - "NO!"

[scene of man breaking into a car]

"YOU WOULDNT STEAL A CAR WOULD YOU"

"NO"


[Scene of man stealing a mobile phone]

"YOU WOULDNT STEAL A PHONE WOULD YOU!"

"NO!!!"

[dramatic pause]
[scene of two girls buying pirate DVDs off a street vender]


"YOU WOULDNT STEAL A MOVIE WOULD YOU!"

"....er.....n......wait....hel l yes, im only watching this DVD waiting for the rest of the Borat movie to download, suckers!"


VIDEO PIRACY IS A CRIME.

[Catalyst]

Originally posted by B@tfinkV
VIDEO PIRACY IS A CRIME.

Making bad movies and charging money is a crime, regulate that...

Making whole Albums and havin 1 or 2 good songs is pretty bad too...regulate that

and Mini, deciding WHAT i'm going to drink is 'Control', big brothers long arms out too reach...saying 'no alcohol for you'...now if that ain't 'Control' I must of missed the short bus.

[Mini D]

you didn't miss the short bus... you're still on it.

Speak easies did not pop up because alchohol was bad or overpriced, they were actually bad and overpriced themselves. They popped up because there was no alchohol outside of 3.2 beer. This does not compare to piracy at all. The analogy is so lame that I'm rather disappointed you've tried to stick with it this long. Hell, I could come up with a 1000x better analogy with the alchohol industry itself.

[moot]

Originally posted by Catalyst
Making bad movies and charging money is a crime, regulate that...

Making whole Albums and havin 1 or 2 good songs is pretty bad too...regulate that

Yep, you do that... squeeze the inspired artistry out of artists using "regulations"

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
It's not fair but the consumers are not being treated fair either.

Consumer wants digital distribution and search functions: Providers say no.
Consumer wants lower prices: Providers say no and raise prices. Then point declining sales growth figures being caused by piracy despite their own price raises caused them. Oh, and the fact that 50% less new titles were launched during the period. Duh..
Consumer complains about having to pay full album price for 1-2 songs: Providers say tough luck. Buy them in separate singles and pay full album price for the inconvenience.
Consumer wants to use the music he bought in all of his players: Provider says no and if you try we sue you.
Consumer wants to make a backup of his overpriced product: Provider lobbies restrictive laws to take away the right to back up media.

Cause and effect - relation folks.

Consumer wants digital distribution: Only way to get it hassle free is p2p
Consumer wants lower prices: Aint gonna happen, despite the fact that trials on lowered prices boosted sales over 100%.
Consumer complains on fill songs on albums: With failure of digital distribution, again p2p is the only way to go.
Consumer wants to use music in his players: The porked DRM digital media doesn't work in 90% of the existing playerbase. Consumer has the choice to buy a new player or download them DRM free. He chooses DRM free, he's not a fool.
Consumer wants to make a backup: Read above, no DRM no hassle.

This post moot.

[moot]

Ripley I don't see where I should understand that "[an] experimental price cut boosted sales with 100%."

Is this it?
"Consumer wants lower prices: Providers say no and raise prices. Then point declining sales growth figures being caused by piracy despite their own price raises caused them. Oh, and the fact that 50% less new titles were launched during the period. Duh..
Consumer complains about having to pay full album price for 1-2 songs: Providers say tough luck. Buy them in separate singles and pay full album price for the inconvenience."

Splitting hairs anyway