Planetarion Forums

Cmdr_Cyrax · 14 May 2004, 14:39

http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/1084492882.html

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Dante Hicks · 14 May 2004, 14:43

Obiously the RIAA (and similar organisations) will exaggerate the effects of "piracy" as a method of encouraging government intervention. Most industries are the same : a lot of industries want government handouts, some want tariffs, they want extra laws to punish people who download.

Having said that, I'd be surprised if downloads were having zero effect on sales. I doubt they're having _that_ much though, because there's simply no easy way for an average (i.e. relatively clueless) user to get full albums without a lot of hassle.

ChubbyChecker · 14 May 2004, 14:43

hehe, arstechnica

sounds like arse technica

Stew · 14 May 2004, 15:24

I download less now - will only do so if I really like the song, I just cba downloadin 10 versions and seein which is actually ok throughout! CDs should be cheaper then they'll sell more!

Nodrog · 14 May 2004, 15:36

If ferraris were cheaper they'd probably sell more too.

Stew · 14 May 2004, 15:41

Downward sloping demand curve - yes.

But you know what I meant.

Dante Hicks · 14 May 2004, 16:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

If ferraris were cheaper they'd probably sell more too.

And if once one had been made they could be replicated at will for almost no cost I'd hope the costs dropped a bit.

Nodrog · 14 May 2004, 17:16

Its not even about copyright. If you cant spot the inherrant dumbness in the argument "they should make them cheaper so they can sell more!" then I'm honestly not sure what to say.

Also I'm not sure what difference it makes how much they cost to make. The price is set at the level they believe will make the most profit - ie the maximum value that the market can bear.

Dante Hicks · 14 May 2004, 17:29

I think the issue is that price does play an important part in people's decisions. The RIAA are basically competing with downloads.

I'm a pretty solid pirate I suppose, but with a lot of people, there's a realistic price range where they'll buy instead of faffing around with downloads. If there was a well-established downloads service (a'la iTunes) then a lot of people will be interested. Right now they're doing OK as there are a significant number of people who are either clueless, without an internet connection, or are against 'piracy' for whatever reasons. In the longer term, I'd imagine the proportion of people who meet this criteria will decline which means less people to spend £15 per music CD. They can cling to whatever price model they choose obviously, but there is some element to truth to "they should make it cheaper".

I really, really hope the RIAA keep their prices as high as possible. I was very pleased when they recently pressured Apple to raise the per-track prices on iTunes. But if I was giving them paid advice, I'd tell them to change their tactics asap.

As for prices, of course the cost of producing makes a difference. The profit per unit is a pretty strong indicator of how quick competetion will be to spring up. If I am making $50 dollars per cake and it's costing me $1 to make them that's a very strong incentive for other people in the market place to compete with me (offering them for $45 per unit or whatever).

Nodrog · 14 May 2004, 17:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

They can cling to whatever price model they choose obviously, but there is some element to truth to "they should make it cheaper"

They've obviously decided that for whatever reasons making it cheaper is not going to be profitable in the long term. Perhaps they're holding out hope that the government will start to actually enforce its laws, or they're just trying to squeeze the last few dollars out of a dying model, I dunno.

Quote:

As for prices, of course the cost of producing makes a difference. The profit per unit is a pretty strong indicator of how quick competetion will be to spring up. If I am making $50 dollars per cake and it's costing me $1 to make them that's a very strong incentive for other people in the market place to compete with me (offering them for $45 per unit or whatever).

Apparently your argument is flawed at some stage, since there does not seem to be many other record labels putting out vast quantities of music at $5 an album.

MrL_JaKiri · 14 May 2004, 17:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Apparently your argument is flawed at some stage, since there does not seem to be many other record labels putting out vast quantities of music at $5 an albumn.

The RIAA isn't a record label.

Nodrog · 14 May 2004, 17:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

The RIAA isn't a record label.

Did anyone imply they were?

Dante Hicks · 14 May 2004, 17:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Apparently your argument is flawed at some stage, since there does not seem to be many other record labels putting out vast quantities of music at $5 an album.

There are plenty of people putting out music CD's for $5 an album (and less). It just happens to be mainly illegal. It still forms the majority of sales in some parts of the world.*

Competition doesn't really exist in the music industry in the traditional sense. If I like Green Day, I can either buy their albums from supplier #1, or I can do without (or I can pirate). It's not like I can release Green Day CD's for a lower price using a different production technique, etc. The RIAA are a collective entity of all the major labels (afaik) so to talk about them competing with another major label is weird. As I say, they are in competition, but for most of their sales, all they are competing against is downloads or piracy, etc.

* = Obviously there is plenty of legal music produced at low prices - classical music CDs which are out of copyright, indie stuff, etc. Plenty of people sell their bands albums outside clubs and that kind of thing.

MrL_JaKiri · 14 May 2004, 17:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Did anyone imply they were?

You did. The 'other' in the bit I quoted.

Anyway, it's all to do with industry momentum, given that artists generally sign up to the largest record label they can get on to, assuming there's not some specialist label.

Nodrog · 14 May 2004, 17:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

There are plenty of people putting out music CD's for $5 an album (and less). It just happens to be mainly illegal. It still forms the majority of sales in some parts of the world.*

If these arists and their music weren't worth $15, then you would have a lot of people willing to buy cheaper alternatives for $5 or whatever. Since it would appear that this isnt happening, one can conclude that the market rate for popular albums is indeed around $15.

MrL_JaKiri · 14 May 2004, 17:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

If these arists and their music weren't worth $15, then you would have a lot of people willing to buy cheaper alternatives for $5 or whatever. Since it would appear that this isnt happening, one can conclude that the market rate for popular albums is indeed around $15.

Are you trolling again or do you actually think this makes sense?

Nodrog · 14 May 2004, 17:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

You did. The 'other' in the bit I quoted.

Anyway, it's all to do with industry momentum, given that artists generally sign up to the largest record label they can get on to, assuming there's not some specialist label.

This is probably nonsense. If a smaller record label could get the artist more sales and money by selling their albums for $5, I'm fairly sure they would sign with them instead.

Nodrog · 14 May 2004, 17:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Are you trolling again or do you actually think this makes sense?

I'm not sure what part of it doesnt. Do you understand how market rates work?

Dante Hicks · 14 May 2004, 17:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

If these arists and their music weren't worth $15, then you would have a lot of people willing to buy cheaper alternatives for $5 or whatever. Since it would appear that this isnt happening, one can conclude that the market rate for popular albums is indeed around $15.

I don't see how that follows. There are plenty of people willing to pay $15. There are a lot of other people who are not willing to pay $15. One of the things that RIAA is complaining about (rightly or wrongly) is that the number of people who are willing to spend $15 is declining. This is one of the reasons why piracy is very popular.

Once again, the idea that the only competetion in the music industry is Green Day (for $15) vs some crappy no-name punk band (for $5) is laughable. Competition on goods of this sort isn't just against like for like products. They are competeting for people's money against lots of different things. So, I could spend £15 on a CD, or I could buy a movie for £10. Or whatever really.

I'm sure if they put the price to £30 per CD they would have _some_ sales.

Nodrog · 14 May 2004, 17:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I don't see how that follows. There are plenty of people willing to pay $15. There are a lot of other people who are not willing to pay $15. One of the things that RIAA is complaining about (rightly or wrongly) is that the number of people who are willing to spend $15 is declining. This is one of the reasons why piracy is very popular.

Im not prepared to spend $300 for an ipod, and guess what? I dont own one.

Dante Hicks · 14 May 2004, 17:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Im not prepared to spend $300 for an ipod, and guess what? I dont own one.

Yes, and...?

Do Apple complain about their sales being low because of criminals with their casette players? If they do, then that's a marvellous analogy if now then wtf...?

Nodrog · 14 May 2004, 17:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Yes, and...?

Do Apple complain about their sales being low because of criminals with their casette players? If they do, then that's a marvellous analogy if now then wtf...?

They complain about as loudly as Greenday complain about people buying no name punk band CD's for $5 instead of their albums.

Dante Hicks · 14 May 2004, 18:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

They complain about as loudly as Greenday complain about people buying no name punk band CD's for $5 instead of their albums.

So what is your point exactly?

Something like "If you aren't willing to spend $15 (/insert set price of CD) on Green Day CDs, you shouldn't listen to their music"?

Nodrog · 14 May 2004, 18:03

thats the one.

Dante Hicks · 14 May 2004, 18:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

thats the one.

Thought so. Out of interest, do you follow that dictum yourself?

Nodrog · 14 May 2004, 18:09

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.html

Dante Hicks · 14 May 2004, 18:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I think ayn rand once said that one of the defining characteristics of a set of flawed moral premises was that they were impossible for an individual to live by

Nodrog · 14 May 2004, 18:12

I'm sure you could somehow manage to struggle through life without the sounds of blink 182 accompanying your every footstep.

Dante Hicks · 14 May 2004, 18:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I'm sure you could somehow manage to struggle through life without the sounds of blink 182 accompanying your every footstep.

Yeah, probably. But it doesn't bode well for a system of morals when their proponents don't actually abide by them. Practice what you preach and all that.

MrL_JaKiri · 14 May 2004, 18:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

This is probably nonsense. If a smaller record label could get the artist more sales and money by selling their albums for $5, I'm fairly sure they would sign with them instead.

Musicians tend not to be economists, ya know?

MrL_JaKiri · 14 May 2004, 18:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I'm not sure what part of it doesnt. Do you understand how market rates work?

Music is unique to the artist. Whilst there are certain styles, most people only buy music that they like, not because they like something by a better artist in a similar style. I have much music by Bach (for instance) and none at all by someone like Salieri.

People (as far as I know) aren't buying music simply to buy music, they're buying specific music. It's not like computers, where if you buy a cheaper one you'll just be able to run things less well.

MrL_JaKiri · 14 May 2004, 18:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.html

That doesn't apply, for fairly obvious reasons.