Obama Administration backs 1.92 Million RIAA File Sharing Verdict

i was paraphrasing, so it was likely worded diff.

it's still a strange question that leads to a huge variance in dollar amounts.

how much money would you accept if you never had the oportunity to play (insert game here) again?

How would you respond? $100? $1,000,000? The average of that measure in the research paper was close to $10K, if not higher. So it's a weird monetary measure no matter the case.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']This especially gets hairy with digital content. It's not like the individual product has material cost, it's all theoretical.[/QUOTE]

But let's go back to the candy bar for a moment. The difference between the fifty cent cost and the dollar retail is theoretical as well. Should the value of the item be determined at retail or cost?
 
I know I'm talking to the black-and-white "law is the law" crowd, but I'd like to step back out of the copyright propaganda rhetoric / philosophical realm and take a look at the real-world reasons we're in this mess right now.

Music is just priced too expensively. And almost none of that money is reaching the people who create it.

Movies and games are priced fairly reasonably when you factor in their entertainment value. But the prices for music are just unrealistic. When the sound track for a movie costs more then the DVD (sometimes more then the BluRay), something is just wrong.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Nonsense.

Music is $1/song on itunes.

The market reacted to piracy, and piracy continues.[/QUOTE]

Hell, it's 89 cents/song on walmart.com and doesn't have DRM (but is censored).

What *is* a fair price/song?
 
(off topic, I have no flippin' idea how WM maintains nearly 30% of domestic music sales when they censor all their albums...)

camoor's argument conflates a few things: the overall cost of an album and the portion that goes to the artist. The first is too high because the second is too low. I'm not sure if he's arguing that $13.99 (or whatever...if you can't buy a new CD for $10 in this day and age you're not looking hard enough) is (1) never a fair price or (2) only fair if the artist gets a larger portion of the sales.

I'm not sure if even he knows anything other than (1) piracy is easy and (2) there are convenient excuses that can help frame my criminal activity as noble.

$1/song is, indirectly, more than most CDs would cost (that Charles Bronson discography I own would have been a $117 2-disc set, for one extreme example). Any album with more than 10 songs would be more expensive by this measure. However, it's "cheaper" because of its a la carte purchasing options. Buy the hit single for $1 instead of the whole album you may not want for $10-13.

The problem with piracy is that people feel (1) entitled to anything they want anytime they want it and (2) with no willingness to pay the cost.

For my work, it's really interesting stuff - I don't think that there's any genuine logical merit to his arguments about "fair pay," but here's the kicker: I'm comfortable saying that I bet *he* believes it is true. I don't think he has any idea what actual fair pay looks like, or would be willing to believe fair pay existed if he were told it did...but he's still convinced the corporation is evil and the musician(s) easily manipulated victim(s). It's an easy frame to buy into, especially if you have a "Warner Bros" label on the back of the majority of your records.

I'm fascinated with the "I'm a noble pirate because I steal stuff to help the band!" argument. I don't buy a bit of it, but it is totally worth examining due to its prevalence for adults under the age of (roughly) 22.
 
I still haven't jumped on the digital distribution bandwagon (nor will I ever use the virus known as itunes). And I will not do so until someone starts mailing me the real CD's when I buy them digitally (best of both worlds).

I would pay a small premium to have the physical disc mailed while I download the mp3's. It's super stupid that they are considered two separate products when I can just rip the songs when I buy the CD.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I still haven't jumped on the digital distribution bandwagon (nor will I ever use the virus known as itunes). And I will not do so until someone starts mailing me the real CD's when I buy them digitally (best of both worlds).

I would pay a small premium to have the physical disc mailed while I download the mp3's. It's super stupid that they are considered two separate products when I can just rip the songs when I buy the CD.[/QUOTE]

The problem with that , is that the RIAA doesn't like that , and obviously doesn't believe in the concept of "fair use". If you buy a cd , that's the only way they want you to listen to that music , via the cd. In turn if you buy mp3 , you can't get a hard copy because your paying for the convenience if having a portable music source.

Now I know that this kinda goes out the window , when you have Amazon and Wal-Mart offering DRM free music , that of course is encourged to make a hard copy out of "just in case" , but personally I would much rather Amazon had a "music purchase history" that shows all the songs you've bought before and can redownload whenever you want (no more than 1 copy per machine or something) instead of having to make a hard copy of the songs , since that defeats the purpose of buying the mp3 in the first place (in my mind). If I wanted to do that I'd just buy the album and rip the songs myself , then I'd have a hard copy and a digital copy.

Ultimately no matter the solution , someone will end up unhappy with the setup.
 
[quote name='mykevermin'](off topic, I have no flippin' idea how WM maintains nearly 30% of domestic music sales when they censor all their albums...)

camoor's argument conflates a few things: the overall cost of an album and the portion that goes to the artist. The first is too high because the second is too low. I'm not sure if he's arguing that $13.99 (or whatever...if you can't buy a new CD for $10 in this day and age you're not looking hard enough) is (1) never a fair price or (2) only fair if the artist gets a larger portion of the sales.

I'm not sure if even he knows anything other than (1) piracy is easy and (2) there are convenient excuses that can help frame my criminal activity as noble.

$1/song is, indirectly, more than most CDs would cost (that Charles Bronson discography I own would have been a $117 2-disc set, for one extreme example). Any album with more than 10 songs would be more expensive by this measure. However, it's "cheaper" because of its a la carte purchasing options. Buy the hit single for $1 instead of the whole album you may not want for $10-13.

The problem with piracy is that people feel (1) entitled to anything they want anytime they want it and (2) with no willingness to pay the cost.

For my work, it's really interesting stuff - I don't think that there's any genuine logical merit to his arguments about "fair pay," but here's the kicker: I'm comfortable saying that I bet *he* believes it is true. I don't think he has any idea what actual fair pay looks like, or would be willing to believe fair pay existed if he were told it did...but he's still convinced the corporation is evil and the musician(s) easily manipulated victim(s). It's an easy frame to buy into, especially if you have a "Warner Bros" label on the back of the majority of your records.

I'm fascinated with the "I'm a noble pirate because I steal stuff to help the band!" argument. I don't buy a bit of it, but it is totally worth examining due to its prevalence for adults under the age of (roughly) 22.[/QUOTE]

More of a "worst of both worlds" scenario - too expensive and almost none of it going to the muscians. I want to pay the musicians a fair price and a modest fee to the middleman, so there's no way I can feel good about buying mainstream music.

I goto local shows and buy the CD there if I like it (although they're rarely good enough). Otherwise I can get by with youtube, shoutcast internet radio, and the occasional used CD off amazon/half/ebay.

[quote name='UncleBob']Hell, it's 89 cents/song on walmart.com and doesn't have DRM (but is censored).

What *is* a fair price/song?[/QUOTE]

Good question. What are you getting for a buck, a small compressed file worth 3-4 min of entertainment - some of it is more then 30 years old (same price). Whopdee doo. I just spent $30 and got ten games off steam. Ten games! That's the way to freaking sell digital content boys and girls. I was much happier to reward hard-working innovative indie game designers offering a fantastic deal over whiny mainstream record label fatcats and their lawyers trying to shove prices down my neck that are the result of industry collusion and government corruption.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Nonsense.

Music is $1/song on itunes.

The market reacted to piracy, and piracy continues.[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

Most albums come out around $10-13 and are on sale for that or less pretty often. MP3 albums and songs are in that range or cheaper. That goes for both big acts and unheard of bands.

An album is something I'll listen to a ton of times over the years. A game is something I place once and never touch it once I beat it. Maybe the odd online game I'll play for a few months off and on before I tire of it.

So I see no problems with music prices--beyond the crazy prices at FYE in the mall etc., but people are idiots if they're shopping their and paying those regular prices.

Even compared to movies (which I enjoy more than music as a hobby) I think the prices for CDs are better as the replay value is much greater. There's only so often I can watch even my favorite movies (once a year at most, once every few years for most films) where as I'm always listening to music while working, in the gym etc. so I get a lot more play out of that versus my movie collection.

But value is always in the eye of the beholder, so others can feel differently about music prices, but that doesn't justify getting content without paying for it. That justifies just not buying. I seldom buy games as I don't enjoy them much anymore. I just get them off Goozex, or wait for price drops. I don't got out and pirate them.
 
[quote name='camoor']
Good question. What are you getting for a buck, a small compressed file worth 3-4 min of entertainment - some of it is more then 30 years old (same price).[/QUOTE]

3-4 minutes of entertainment that I'll listen to hundreds if not thousands of times over the rest of my life. Vs. a game that I'll at most play through once, and most games I don't get around to finishing.

Again, value is up to how much one enjoys something and feels its worth to them. But that's not excuse to get content without paying for it. That's a reason to just not bother with that hobby much.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Again, value is up to how much one enjoys something and feels its worth to them. But that's not excuse to get content without paying for it. That's a reason to just not bother with that hobby much.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, my days of buying CDs are largely over. I goto live music, listen to internet radio, and occasionally cue up a song on the youtube. Plenty of legal options.

Although I do feel bad for parents today, they slip up and their kids download P2P software - and they risk getting bankrupted, just doesn't seem right.
 
[quote name='camoor']Although I do feel bad for parents today, they slip up and their kids download P2P software - and they risk getting bankrupted, just doesn't seem right.[/QUOTE]

It's called raising your children. I wish more parents would do it.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']It's called raising your children. I wish more parents would do it.[/QUOTE]

Or better yet would be if people would just stop having kids in the first fucking place.

On Topic
I think that its insane to make a statement by awarding corporations millions of dollars people are unable to pay like this. I think its far past time a realistic approach was taken to this where this is both regulated and enforced to a much more common degree, but at the same time that when people are busted they pay something much more reasonable such as 2x-3x what they would have had to pay. For instance if your busted downloading songs that are usually $1.00 a piece if downloaded legally I think its reasonable to charge someone $2.00 for each of those songs. Same with a movie which might cost you $13 and now would cost you $26 after being fined.

Penalizing people millions of dollars does not mean others will stop downloading things. . Two big things need to be done to really make a difference. First off the above, only if people are regulary being caught will it make a difference and fining a fair rate I think would make a lot less kids think fuck the corporations they are raping us anyways. That idea brings me to the second thing that needs to be done. Downloadable distribution needs to be brought to competitive and reasonable rates. Some people just want to get everything for free, but there are many people that honestly will pay for stuff if they are offered fair alternatives. For instance I know a few people that pirate, a few do it just to get everything for free. But a few simply dont have a lot of money and feel they are being ripped off by many of these companies anyways so they dont feel bad about it. However 2 of my friends in that later group tend to buy stuff from Steam and Atlus because they feel their being charged a fair price and because they respect the companies. When you do shit like MS is doing with their DD service charging $20 for games you can find for less people are going to fucking hate you. But if you actually offer people a discount for their DLC and occasionally have sales people will probaly pirate your stuff less or will at least buy it when it drops in price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top