SOPA

[Balta1701]

You still haven't explained why a business should be expected to give away their product. When investors invest in a movie or album, who pays when someone steals a copy?

 

Who pays? Since you can't seem to figure it out, it is on the people who actually buy the product. As that pool gets smaller and smaller they pay more. You can justify stealing all you want. You can complain about profits. You can bring up cancer drugs and God knows everything else. But the conversation is about music and movie downloads. Since the evil investors want to make money you believe people should be allowed to steal from them. I disagree and believe companies should be protected by law when someone steals their stuff. I think Nike should be protected from Chinese counterfeit of their products, I think Clancy deserves the right to sell his books, not have them pirated on-line, and I believe record companies deserve to have people buy their product not steal it.

But every single thing you've written there is an absolute. Nike should be "Protected" from Chinese counterfeits. Clancy deserves the right to sell his books.

 

No one is disputing that.

 

The question is...should that end at some point, and how much legal protection should be granted to those matters?

 

Should Shakespeare be available on the public domain? Should the Bible? If you answer "Yes", then you have accepted a limit to the 100% exclusive copyright you have just advocated, unwillingly, in that last post.

 

Once you've accepted that, then the argument is how extreme the government's actions should be in order to protect copyright holders. Your last statement right there, and I'm not sure willingly or not, argues for infinite copyright protection.

 

And whether you like it or not, the stronger you make copyright law, the stronger you make the penalties, the stronger you make the black market.

[StrangeSox]

Tex refuses to acknowledge reality: pirating exists and is ready, yet entertainment is still very profitable. No one is arguing that 100% piracy is good or sustainable. Some level of actual theft and of copyright violation is inevitable, and there is no compelling argument to have the government go to great lengths to maximize the rent-seeking of copyright holders to the detriment of everyone else.

 

[southsider2k5]

Tex refuses to acknowledge reality: pirating exists and is ready, yet entertainment is still very profitable. No one is arguing that 100% piracy is good or sustainable. Some level of actual theft and of copyright violation is inevitable, and there is no compelling argument to have the government go to great lengths to maximize the rent-seeking of copyright holders to the detriment of everyone else.

 

Interesting contrast between this and right to work.

[StrangeSox]

Interesting contrast between this and right to work.

 

Not really. A free-rider downloading Batman doesn't impact my enjoyment of Batman.

[southsider2k5]

Not really. A free-rider downloading Batman doesn't impact my enjoyment of Batman.

 

Actually it is very similar if you think about it. If a union is negotiating a deal, it is really doesn't matter if it has 80%, 90, or 95% membership. Their activities are going to be the same. The intellectual property of the negotiations is the same either way. There isn't any extra added costs for more or less membership, and the people who aren't paying are free-riders, just like the people who pirate software and don't pay for downloads. The system is making enough money to exist just fine because these structures exist everywhere, and union bosses are making six figure salaries.

[StrangeSox]

There are costs associated with administering contracts and benefits, including legal representation.

[southsider2k5]

There are costs associated with administering contracts and benefits, including legal representation.

 

In both music/movies and unions.

[StrangeSox]

In both music/movies and unions.

 

There is no cost associated with me downloading a pirated copy of a movie. There are costs associated with unions being required to represent non-union members.

 

This is why digital copyright issues are distinct from numerous other "free rider" problems; digital piracy does not actually pose a direct burden on the copyright holders.

[Balta1701]

Which is why there's no easy answer to either of these...the question that should be asked at a governmental level is what is best for society. In both cases, there is a balance necessary. Shutting down the internet or arresting 10's of millions to protect copyright holders is an excessive maneuver that only Tex and the RIAA/MPAA seem to think is a good idea. The question in the 2nd case therefore should be whether the enforcement efforts provide such a negative on society that they outweigh the possible benefits of uniformly better paying jobs and better working conditions.

[southsider2k5]

There is no cost associated with me downloading a pirated copy of a movie. There are costs associated with unions being required to represent non-union members.

 

This is why digital copyright issues are distinct from numerous other "free rider" problems; digital piracy does not actually pose a direct burden on the copyright holders.

 

Not really, no. They don't get the protection of unions going to bat for them in things like arbitration, so there isn't that. They have benefits and stuff like that, but those structures are already in place. Like I said earlier the negotiations are taking place regardless of the number of employees.

 

These two items are very similar. The political parties being on opposite sides of them is funny.

[StrangeSox]

Not really, no. They don't get the protection of unions going to bat for them in things like arbitration, so there isn't that. They have benefits and stuff like that, but those structures are already in place. Like I said earlier the negotiations are taking place regardless of the number of employees.

 

These two items are very similar. The political parties being on opposite sides of them is funny.

 

The laws may vary from state-to-state, but unions are generally required to represent all people working under a contract regardless of whether they are dues-paying members. Reduced funding also impacts their ability to negotiate. The key difference here is that piracy mostly recovers deadweight loss while right-to-work does not.

 

I'm also not sure why you're breaking SOPA/PIPA down on partisan lines. Initial support was bipartisan and the massive backlash has been bipartisan. There's also some pretty fundamental differences on the impacts of right-to-work laws and the burdens they place (or remove) from individuals and organizations and what it requires the state to do and what SOPA/PIPA would have done.

Edited January 23, 2012 by StrangeSox

[bigruss]

The laws may vary from state-to-state, but unions are generally required to represent all people working under a contract regardless of whether they are dues-paying members. Reduced funding also impacts their ability to negotiate. The key difference here is that piracy mostly recovers deadweight loss while right-to-work does not.

 

I'm also not sure why you're breaking SOPA/PIPA down on partisan lines. Initial support was bipartisan and the massive backlash has been bipartisan. There's also some pretty fundamental differences on the impacts of right-to-work laws and the burdens they place (or remove) from individuals and organizations and what it requires the state to do and what SOPA/PIPA would have done.

Class warfare

[iamshack]

There is no cost associated with me downloading a pirated copy of a movie. There are costs associated with unions being required to represent non-union members.

 

This is why digital copyright issues are distinct from numerous other "free rider" problems; digital piracy does not actually pose a direct burden on the copyright holders.

There sure as f*** is...I'm not sure how someone so intelligent can continue to insist this is true.

 

The cost comes in the form of dollars that those who actually pay for the music are forced to spend. Don't you think that if more people will willing to purchase the product instead of steal it, regardless of cost, that musicians and or providers such as iTunes would offer it for a lower price? We could all be buying albums for $6.99 if everyone that pirates music would pay for it instead of stealing it. Instead, we have to pay $12.99 because they know there are X number of people who are going to steal music regardless of price or regardless of whether they can afford the music for the simple fact that they can steal it.

 

So I bare the cost. Tex bares the cost. Meanwhile, you download that s*** for free on Limewire or whatever.

 

I hope your computer gets infected with a virus and you have to spend more on a new computer than you would have ever spent on music in the first place!

 

[Balta1701]

Don't you think that if more people will willing to purchase the product instead of steal it, regardless of cost, that musicians and or providers such as iTunes would offer it for a lower price?

No.

[iamshack]

No.

Perhaps you could elaborate?

 

Don't you think they conduct profit maximization studies?

Edited January 23, 2012 by iamshack

[Balta1701]

Perhaps you could elaborate?

 

Don't you think they conduct profit maximization studies?

Yes, they certainly do.

 

However, what is the end result of that in terms of actual prices of music?

 

Do we actually see things like prices fluctuating depending on sales? Do we actually see prices varying substantially between artists depending on demand? Do we see substantial moves in prices depending on how an artist is selling? Heck, do we see different prices for the early-adopters for an album versus the people who decide to buy an album after hearing it on the radio 50 times?

 

There is uniformity. You pay about the same price per song on itunes that you pay for an actual CD. You might save a dollar or two if you buy an album on an opening week sale, and that's about it. You don't see deep discounting to move merchandise after a CD has been on the market for 4 years (like you do with movies, for example). You don't see variation in prices between bands who sell 50k copies and 5 million copies. Everything is uniform. And even beyond that, the price of music has barely changed since I bought my first CD's back in the early 90's.

 

The prices are totally uncompetitive. They don't go down if music sales go up, they don't go up if music sales go down.

[Jenksismyhero]

Yes, they certainly do.

However, what is the end result of that in terms of actual prices of music?

 

Do we actually see things like prices fluctuating depending on sales? Do we actually see prices varying substantially between artists depending on demand? Do we see substantial moves in prices depending on how an artist is selling? Heck, do we see different prices for the early-adopters for an album versus the people who decide to buy an album after hearing it on the radio 50 times?

 

There is uniformity. You pay about the same price per song on itunes that you pay for an actual CD. You might save a dollar or two if you buy an album on an opening week sale, and that's about it. You don't see deep discounting to move merchandise after a CD has been on the market for 4 years (like you do with movies, for example). You don't see variation in prices between bands who sell 50k copies and 5 million copies. Everything is uniform. And even beyond that, the price of music has barely changed since I bought my first CD's back in the early 90's.

 

The prices are totally uncompetitive. They don't go down if music sales go up, they don't go up if music sales go down.

 

The problem is you really can't say one way or the other because of the way it all worked out. Pirating was/is huge for the college crowd, and it was especially big back in the early 00's. The advent of Itunes and the cheap .99 per song price point probably saved the music industry a ton of money (and they knew this) because people were willing to part with a few bucks for a few of their favorite songs and not make the illegal/immoral decision to take it for free.

 

And as for the bolded, there is a movement towards paying more for premium/high demand content. Itunes just recently (last year or two) upped the price for new releases/popular releases to 1.29 and even 1.99 per song instead of the standard .99.

 

[Soxbadger]

Pre-napster I can remember CD's costing $15 or so, anecdotal evidence would suggest that pirating has caused music prices to go down.

 

I think the model is as follows:

 

X people will buy music regardless of price.

 

Y people will not buy music regardless of price.

 

Z people will buy music only if the price is low, if not they will download music.

 

 

[iamshack]

Yes, they certainly do.

 

However, what is the end result of that in terms of actual prices of music?

 

Do we actually see things like prices fluctuating depending on sales? Do we actually see prices varying substantially between artists depending on demand? Do we see substantial moves in prices depending on how an artist is selling? Heck, do we see different prices for the early-adopters for an album versus the people who decide to buy an album after hearing it on the radio 50 times?

 

There is uniformity. You pay about the same price per song on itunes that you pay for an actual CD. You might save a dollar or two if you buy an album on an opening week sale, and that's about it. You don't see deep discounting to move merchandise after a CD has been on the market for 4 years (like you do with movies, for example). You don't see variation in prices between bands who sell 50k copies and 5 million copies. Everything is uniform. And even beyond that, the price of music has barely changed since I bought my first CD's back in the early 90's.

 

The prices are totally uncompetitive. They don't go down if music sales go up, they don't go up if music sales go down.

They don't? I've bought all kinds of albums for $6.99 or 7.99 and I have also paid as much as $13.99 back in the day of physical CDs. That is a difference of 50% of 1 unit...that isn't price fluctuation?

 

Secondly, why is it somehow necessary for music pricing to follow the model of other goods? What does the fact that the price doesn't decrease with time have to do with you illegally stealing it?

 

Thirdly, do you realize how big of a leap it was for record companies to agree to sell single songs as opposed to full-length albums? I'd say that was a pretty big leap from how things were when you first began buying music in the early 90's.

[Balta1701]

Thirdly, do you realize how big of a leap it was for record companies to agree to sell single songs as opposed to full-length albums? I'd say that was a pretty big leap from how things were when you first began buying music in the early 90's.

You never bought a "Single"?

[iamshack]

You never bought a "Single"?

How many singles were released from each album?

[Balta1701]

How many singles were released from each album?

Depending on the album, between 1-5 ish.

[StrangeSox]

There sure as f*** is...I'm not sure how someone so intelligent can continue to insist this is true.

 

No, there isn't. This is basic economics and is separate from a free-rider issue. The act of me making a digital copy of something does not cost anyone anything, discounting the negligible electricity costs. This is a distinctly different situation than me stealing a physical CD from a store, as someone had to manufacture, ship and retail that physical good.

 

The cost comes in the form of dollars that those who actually pay for the music are forced to spend. Don't you think that if more people will willing to purchase the product instead of steal it, regardless of cost, that musicians and or providers such as iTunes would offer it for a lower price? We could all be buying albums for $6.99 if everyone that pirates music would pay for it instead of stealing it. Instead, we have to pay $12.99 because they know there are X number of people who are going to steal music regardless of price or regardless of whether they can afford the music for the simple fact that they can steal it.

 

So I bare the cost. Tex bares the cost. Meanwhile, you download that s*** for free on Limewire or whatever.

 

This is only true to some extent. I've linked to numerous studies in this thread that examine the actual impact of piracy, and it's found to be relatively minimal. Somewhere around 80% of illegal downloads are "deadweight loss" people, or, in other words, people who wouldn't be paying for the item if it wasn't available for free. They don't represent losses to anyone since their demand for the item at any price > $0.00 is zero. Now, the other 20% does represent some loss. Demand is less in this case, but I don't see a compelling reason for retailers and producers to suddenly start dropping prices due to increased demand for a digital good. There's essentially zero marginal costs for producing more, so additional sales represent pure profits.

 

 

I hope your computer gets infected with a virus and you have to spend more on a new computer than you would have ever spent on music in the first place!

 

 

Please take note that I have said several times in this thread that I am not advocating for pirating or saying that there should be no copyright protections. I clearly stated that I have no issue with The Mega Conspiracy arrests.

 

[StrangeSox]

The problem is you really can't say one way or the other because of the way it all worked out. Pirating was/is huge for the college crowd, and it was especially big back in the early 00's. The advent of Itunes and the cheap .99 per song price point probably saved the music industry a ton of money (and they knew this) because people were willing to part with a few bucks for a few of their favorite songs and not make the illegal/immoral decision to take it for free.

 

And as for the bolded, there is a movement towards paying more for premium/high demand content. Itunes just recently (last year or two) upped the price for new releases/popular releases to 1.29 and even 1.99 per song instead of the standard .99.

 

Unfortunately, they realized this far too late and after fighting against digitization. If they had realized this years earlier and implemented their own digital distribution systems, they may have headed off a good portion of the piracy. As it is, consumers wanted easy, instant access to their entertainment options and it was provided by Napster, Limewire, torrenting etc.

Edited January 23, 2012 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Depending on the album, between 1-5 ish.

 

I worked at a record store in high school (2000-2002). We had a whole wall of singles.