The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Music should be free. If you don't want it 'stolen' then don't record it.
Old 21st June 2010
  #301
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
Dude, I'm not going to argue with you. If you want to go ahead and eliminate a generation of people from your potential market, well, go for it. Not the smartest business decision you could make, but whatever. Talk about short sighted.
YOu just don't understand capitalism. It's a feedback system. It caters to those people who buy. If you stop buying and start stealing, then you are meaningless in capitalist terms. You have given up your right to vote so to speak. The only hold that customers have on business is that they are providing the money that the business needs. If they stop providing that money, then business has no requirement to cater to them at all. And honestly, as I've argued before, I believe that the music industry should just turn its back on them outright and start catering to those folks who are legitimate customers.
Old 21st June 2010
  #302
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhizomeman View Post
My apologies...I do not have the time or patience to explain things to you..I simply think you have not thought things through...there are many forces at work.
I've hread through this whole thread, but mostly you've been making vague one liner comments that do not in any way demonstrate that you have any idea what these forces are or why you are more correct in your understanding of them than anyone else. Saying 'you are wrong' over and over isn't much of an argument.
Old 21st June 2010
  #303
Lives for gear
 
rhizomeman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
YOu just don't understand capitalism. It's a feedback system. It caters to those people who buy.
This statement is not true...I do not mean to be vague - only concise...acquisitions through monetary purchase is not the means of market economies...only the ends in certain instances.
Old 21st June 2010
  #304
Lives for gear
 
oceantracks's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
Dude, I'm not going to argue with you. If you want to go ahead and eliminate a generation of people from your potential market, well, go for it. Not the smartest business decision you could make, but whatever. Talk about short sighted.
The generation that feels they are entitled to steal deserves to be eliminated. It's just more of the "me, me, I want it now, I want it free" mentality. "I DESERVE MUSIC FOR FREE. ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE DAMMIT!"

Try at it at your local grocers next time your hungry.

TH
Old 21st June 2010
  #305
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhizomeman View Post
This statement is not true...I do not mean to be vague - only concise...acquisitions through monetary purchase is not the means of market economies...only the ends in certain instances.
Yeh, right. There is one primary relationship in a market economy. Someone has something sell. Someone else has some money and wants to buy something. If I don't have what you want to buy, then I have no means to get anything from you. If you aren't going to buy what I offer, no matter what it is, then you have no means to influence me as a business, because I have no need to cater to your desires.

It's pretty basic stuff. If you want a company to cater to your needs, you have to pay for what they are providing.
Old 21st June 2010
  #306
Lives for gear
 
rhizomeman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
Yeh, right. There is one primary relationship in a market economy. Someone has something sell.
"something" is the critical word/concept...think...
Old 21st June 2010
  #307
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhizomeman View Post
"something" is the critical word/concept...think...
Whatever. When you actually get around to proving that you are not just a troll laughing while you make vague hand waving statements without any substance, and actually make an actual argument, then I'll debate with you.
Old 21st June 2010
  #308
Lives for gear
 
Robert Randolph's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
Whatever. When you actually get around to proving that you are not just a troll laughing while you make vague hand waving statements without any substance, and actually make an actual argument, then I'll debate with you.
He was pretty clear if you consider the context of this entire thread.
Old 21st June 2010
  #309
OK, then you feel free to explain his meaning. This is a debate, if you want to be debated, you have to actually make your own points, not expect people to guess what you mean so that you can claim you really didn't mean that after the fact.
Old 21st June 2010
  #310
Lives for gear
 
rhizomeman's Avatar
I do not mean to be rude. All I am implying is that businesses/economies can generate vast fortunes without actually sellingl 'products' in the noun sense. The recording industry is, perhaps, going through this transition - from product to action sales.

Ok, I need to eat dinner and work on music...bye heh
Old 21st June 2010
  #311
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhizomeman View Post
I simply think you have not thought things through...there are many forces at work.
Fair enough.
Your opinion is that I haven't thought things through.
That is not 'ignorance' of course. Never has been.
As it happens I do think I have a lot of experience in this area, and I do feel I've thought it through from many different angles.
Old 21st June 2010
  #312
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhizomeman View Post
I do not mean to be rude. All I am implying is that businesses/economies can generate vast fortunes without actually sellingl 'products' in the noun sense. The recording industry is, perhaps, going through this transition - from product to action sales.

Ok, I need to eat dinner and work on music...bye heh
Well, if that's all you meant, then that's pretty simplistic, and it's pretty much already been shown that it sucks as a strategy. Can you point to a single entity which has come remotely close to replacing the revenues that used to come from selling the product by way of selling something else indirectly from the product?

The thing that people always miss is that the people who made those fortunes are in the business of being a conduit, not in the business of making something. It's fine to point out that you can make money being a conduit, but that ignores the point that someone still has to make the product and if there's no money in that, then the whole thing falls down.

And if you try to be the conduit and the product maker, and everyone is stealing the product, then you are still screwed. They will just go around you, and someone else will make all the money as the conduit (ISPs and Youtube for instance) who paid nothing to create the product, so again it's not workable.

So, unless you meant something besides that, you are retreading long since worn out and and already seemingly failed ground.
Old 21st June 2010
  #313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Randolph View Post
He was pretty clear if you consider the context of this entire thread.
I also thought it was very unclear.

By the way, answer as yet not forthcoming (as I suspected it wouldn't):
Quote:
So you have no personal opinion on who benefits from piracy? Just for the record.
Old 21st June 2010
  #314
Lives for gear
 
Robert Randolph's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
Well, if that's all you meant, then that's pretty simplistic, and it's pretty much already been shown that it sucks as a strategy. Can you point to a single entity which has come remotely close to replacing the revenues that used to come from selling the product by way of selling something else indirectly from the product?
Well, patent trolls for one.

Another excellent example, unless I'm misunderstanding you, would be software developers. You are licensed to use the software and the monetary transaction never (extremely rarely) actually grants you ownership of the product.
Old 21st June 2010
  #315
Lives for gear
 
Robert Randolph's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
I also thought it was very unclear.
Yeah, we already covered why that may be.

Quote:
By the way, answer as yet not forthcoming (as I suspected it wouldn't):
Pirates benefit from piracy. There can be indirect positive marketing effects for the "victim", but in large I think it's fairly obvious that the benefactor would be the person receiving good/services for less than advertised price.
Old 21st June 2010
  #316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Randolph View Post
Well, patent trolls for one.

Another excellent example, unless I'm misunderstanding you, would be software developers. You are licensed to use the software and the monetary transaction never (extremely rarely) actually grants you ownership of the product.
That's just semantic hair splitting. For any practical purpose, you own the software in terms of benefitting from it once you've purchased it. It's made and its sold as a product (when it's not stolen.) Microsoft doesn't make its money selling Windows t-shirts, it makes it selling software.
Old 21st June 2010
  #317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Randolph View Post
I think it's fairly obvious that the benefactor would be the person receiving good/services for less than advertised price.
And as I said, if that's other people looking to get into the creative arts I think it's a very bad thing, very damaging.

Agreeing with Dean's point and back to MAFG who you initially questioned.
Yes we know the public benefits if they obtain a product for less than the asking price.
It's kind of a mind numbing debate if we have to discuss it in those overly simplistic terms.
The question is, does piracy essentially benefit the creative industries, or benefit in the longer term those who use cracked software and steal digital music in their own creative endeavors.
IMO, the evidence is that it does not benefit them.
They gain a short term (cost) benefit, but if the industry is on it's knees and you simply can't make a buck no matter how hard you work, it's meaningless that you created your work or learned your craft with illegally free software.
In short, it's the low cost/no cost road to nowhere.
Old 21st June 2010
  #318
Lives for gear
 
Robert Randolph's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
That's just semantic hair splitting. For any practical purpose, you own the software in terms of benefitting from it once you've purchased it. It's made and its sold as a product (when it's not stolen.) Microsoft doesn't make its money selling Windows t-shirts, it makes it selling software.
If you own the software, then how exactly are resale NFR's, reverse engineering disallowance, installation limits, authorization etc... all considered reasonable? These are certainly reasonable limits for a license, but for ownership? Perhaps I've missed your outcry on such barbarian treatment of things you own.

Anyways, software was just something I felt was an example 'close to home'. There are plenty of business models based on licensing and they all fit your criteria of replacing the sale of a 'product' with something that is byproduct instead.

You could also consider marketing for non-products. Things such as political campaigns, benefits, organizations, protests, product branding etc...


Just providing examples that answer the question you posed. thumbsup
Old 21st June 2010
  #319
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Randolph View Post
If you own the software, then how exactly are resale NFR's, reverse engineering disallowance, installation limits, authorization etc... all considered reasonable? These are certainly reasonable limits for a license, but for ownership? Perhaps I've missed your outcry on such barbarian treatment of things you own.

Anyways, software was just something I felt was an example 'close to home'. There are plenty of business models based on licensing and they all fit your criteria of replacing the sale of a 'product' with something that is byproduct instead.

You could also consider marketing for non-products. Things such as political campaigns, benefits, organizations, protests, product branding etc...

Just providing examples that answer the question you posed. thumbsup
Whether you buy a license or you buy an owned copy is irrelevant. You still purchased to gain access to that intellectual property. Whether it's a song, game, plugin, or OS - it has value assigned by the creator.
Old 21st June 2010
  #320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Randolph View Post
Anyways, software was just something I felt was an example 'close to home'. There are plenty of business models based on licensing and they all fit your criteria of replacing the sale of a 'product' with something that is byproduct instead.
But that's only because the customer isn't stealing the thing instead of licensing it. If they can steal it without consequence, and they do, then licensing isn't a viable option either. It's just another version of the same problem.
Old 21st June 2010
  #321
Lives for gear
 
Robert Randolph's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
And as I said, if that's other people looking to get into the creative arts I think it's a very bad thing, very damaging.

Agreeing with Dean's point and back to MAFG who you initially questioned.
Yes we know the public benefits if they obtain a product for less than the asking price.
It's kind of a mind numbing debate if we have to discuss it in those overly simplistic terms.
The question is, does piracy essentially benefit the creative industries, or benefit in the longer term those who use cracked software and steal digital music in their own creative endeavors.
IMO, the evidence is that it does not benefit them.
They gain a short term (cost) benefit, but if the industry is on it's knees and you simply can't make a buck no matter how hard you work, it's meaningless that you created your work or learned your craft with illegally free software.
In short, it's the low cost/no cost road to nowhere.
Within the current system used by the music industry I agree to a point. That's not to say that a new system could not takes it's place however.

I don't see why you say it's so mind numbing to discuss it in such simplistic terms, since the question you posed me was very simplistic itself. There will always be product to pirate because there will always be a 'job' to be done, and tools are required to do those jobs. Pirates will always have something to pirate and thieves will always have something steal. I think it's somewhat naive to think that piracy would lead to some sort of eradication of all tools due to erosion of demand. So the obvious point remains that the benefactors of piracy are pirates.

IMO, if the industry intends to progress it needs to learn how to benefit off the piracy culture. Other organizations have learned to benefit off the human desire to "steal" (or get things without cost with little effort) by offering various do X and get X free type deals and such. I think there's a lot of insight to be gained by figuring out by catering to the innate impulse rather than fighting the impulsive action.
Old 21st June 2010
  #322
People of course always bring up Google as a company making a lot of money by giving stuff away. But they aren't giving away anything. If they were giving it away, then they'd let anyone copy their huge databases and set up competing search engines. You have to go to Google to get it, so the fact that you don't pay anything isn't the point. You are paying with your time, which allows them to sell advertising. But only because you can't steal what they are offering. You can only get it from them, whether they choose to make you pay for it or not.

So those types of models are not relevant to the music industry, because its product can be stolen and therefore none of the models that depend on ads can work if you can't force people to come to you, even to get it for free. And of course way too many people are such degenerates that they'd still steal it rather than see an ad, or run ad blockers.
Old 21st June 2010
  #323
Lives for gear
 
Robert Randolph's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
But that's only because the customer isn't stealing the thing instead of licensing it. If they can steal it without consequence, and they do, then licensing isn't a viable option either. It's just another version of the same problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobius.media View Post
Whether you buy a license or you buy an owned copy is irrelevant. You still purchased to gain access to that intellectual property. Whether it's a song, game, plugin, or OS - it has value assigned by the creator.
Both of you need to look at the post I originally replied to in this thread of the discussion. I answered a question that was posed.

What has value or what is stolen or whatever is completely irrelevant to the question that was posed: "Can you point to a single entity which has come remotely close to replacing the revenues that used to come from selling the product by way of selling something else indirectly from the product?"

Yes. I did. Now move on without acting like I was implying some hidden meaning by answering a direct question.

This is getting really old.
Old 21st June 2010
  #324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Randolph View Post
Other organizations have learned to benefit off the human desire to "steal" (or get things without cost with little effort) by offering various do X and get X free type deals and such. I think there's a lot of insight to be gained by figuring out by catering to the innate impulse rather than fighting the impulsive action.
But that only works if you can't already get X for free anyway. It always comes down to you cannot make money on something that anyone can get for free. The examples that people give are not relevant because those things only APPEAR to be free, but they are not. With music, and movies more and more, and software to too large a degree, they really are free. They are free of any means to tax their consumption.
Old 21st June 2010
  #325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Randolph View Post
What has value or what is stolen or whatever is completely irrelevant to the question that was posed: "Can you point to a single entity which has come remotely close to replacing the revenues that used to come from selling the product by way of selling something else indirectly from the product?"

Yes. I did. Now move on without acting like I was implying some hidden meaning by answering a direct question.

This is getting really old.
No, you didn't. You pointed to completely other types of businesses, which weren't making a product, which then becamse stealable and then they came up with another way to make money while it was still being stolen. They aren't replacing revenues from a previously sold product. Ad based industries aren't making a product and selling it. They are conduits. They do create some of the content, but the ones that do are suffering more and more, unless they still have some reasonable means of preventing theft.
Old 21st June 2010
  #326
Lives for gear
 
Robert Randolph's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
People of course always bring up Google as a company making a lot of money by giving stuff away. But they aren't giving away anything. If they were giving it away, then they'd let anyone copy their huge databases and set up competing search engines. You have to go to Google to get it, so the fact that you don't pay anything isn't the point. You are paying with your time, which allows them to sell advertising. But only because you can't steal what they are offering. You can only get it from them, whether they choose to make you pay for it or not.

So those types of models are not relevant to the music industry, because its product can be stolen and therefore none of the models that depend on ads can work if you can't force people to come to you, even to get it for free. And of course way too many people are such degenerates that they'd still steal it rather than see an ad, or run ad blockers.
Of course an ad-based model wouldn't work for music. Look at radio.

Oh... wait. Damn.
Old 21st June 2010
  #327
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Randolph View Post
Both of you need to look at the post I originally replied to in this thread of the discussion. I answered a question that was posed.

What has value or what is stolen or whatever is completely irrelevant to the question that was posed: "Can you point to a single entity which has come remotely close to replacing the revenues that used to come from selling the product by way of selling something else indirectly from the product?"
A license isn't 'indirect' of the product for IP.

An indirect of the product example would be selling Microsoft t-shirts to recoup lost revenue from pirated Win 7 licenses/copies.
Old 21st June 2010
  #328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Randolph View Post
Of course an ad-based model wouldn't work for music. Look at radio.

Oh... wait. Damn.
You keep ignoring the core issue. Radio doesn't create the content and pay the price to do so. Radio is a conduit, and they only have to cover the costs of being a conduit. You keep ignoring the difference. The labels don't get the bulk of that money.
Old 21st June 2010
  #329
Lives for gear
 
Robert Randolph's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
No, you didn't. You pointed to completely other types of businesses, which weren't making a product, which then becamse stealable and then they came up with another way to make money while it was still being stolen. They aren't replacing revenues from a previously sold product. Ad based industries aren't making a product and selling it. They are conduits. They do create some of the content, but the ones that do are suffering more and more, unless they still have some reasonable means of preventing theft.
Many tech and pharmaceutical companies do this all the time. When a product becomes too easy to imitate or copy, they begin to license it by offering branding or trade secrets etc.. This is exactly what you were asking for. Product is easily 'stolen' so company continues to make money off the byproduct. This applies directly to music as these are intangibles being dealt with in these industries (patents).

I do agree that marketing companies are conduits. My point was that they are not always conduit for an item. Sometimes the 'product' is completely intangible such as a political campaign, or perhaps a religion.
Old 21st June 2010
  #330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Randolph View Post
Many tech and pharmaceutical companies do this all the time. When a product becomes too easy to imitate or copy, they begin to license it by offering branding or trade secrets etc.. This is exactly what you were asking for. Product is easily 'stolen' so company continues to make money off the byproduct. This applies directly to music as these are intangibles being dealt with in these industries (patents).
That's not really relevant. Those companies are either legally attackable, or they are outside of the legal reach of the company and therefore they wouldn't pay anyway. Otherwise, their use of the medicine is not without legal ramifications and they have to license it or end up court. If that applied in this case, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump