Hard News: The Casino
578 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 14 15 16 17 18 … 24 Newer→ Last
-
all the special effects that created stange creatures were real. They were mucking around with genetic engineering out there on those film sets
Steven, for some reason I'm thinking of Trout Farm in Cronenberg's eXistenZ:
If you haven't seen the whole film, please do. I'd be interested in what you make of it, in any case.
-
The analogy falls because there is no physical product that is analogous to intellectual property.
I think that's part of the reason it's so hard to get heads around the idea of value for IP. Most value in society is for a good or a service. IP is very different.
Really, IP is the means of production, rather than the product. Creating some IP is most analogous to making a factory. You spend a certain amount of time or capital on it, then it can produce profit in perpetuity. But it's a very special kind of factory - it's one where you get to stop anyone else making the same kind of goods, or at least demand a fixed cut of every good they sell.
I'm getting a feeling this idea is likely to have already been covered on the other thread, but don't care to read the entire thing to find out. Can someone who has already done that spare me the pain, I don't want to talk more on this if it's already being done.
-
Nope, that's a great new angle - please keep going.
-
The analogy falls because there is no physical product that is analogous to intellectual property. You've been resisting the comparison between breach of copyright and stealing for that very reason, no?
No, actually, I've been resisting it because stealing is about removal of property from the rightful owner such that they no longer have access, and copyright infringement is about making a copy of an item without permission. Two very different concepts. The physicality has little to do with it.
If I make a perfect copy of an artwork, stroke for stroke, but leave the original in place, I have stolen nothing, yet I have broken the law. I've infringed the copyright of the artist and, if I try to sell it, I commit fraud. But I have stolen nothing.
Digital content makes copying easier, but it doesn't make the activity of copying into "stealing".
But you can't really talk of fair market value with a technology that makes it possible to reduce the cost price to zero by opting to get the product for free from a p2p network - and with the exact same effort as accessing a paying service.
Wasn't talking about P2P, was only referring to the simple act of publishing and how the market might react to it in determining the price. Filesharing would have an impact on that price, as you'd want to pitch it low enough that it wasn't worth the effort of finding a free copy. Or you'd add a particular value to a genuine copy, that wouldn't be obtainable with the free copy. cf NIN and their Ghosts release.
The simple existence of that possibility obviously interferes with the concepts of fair value and market value (people used to say that CDs were too expensive - but too expensive in relation to what?)
Too expensive to buy each week because they represented a higher percentage of disposable income than the previous vinyl alternatives. Customers saw/see the high price as "gouging" by the industry.
and has the potential of turning the whole "paying for music and books" thing into one giant honesty box. There really is nothing that is analogous to that.
"fair value" ? There is only market value. If you want to put a nominal value on your work that the market doesn't agree with (i.e. beyond what people are prepared to pay), they won't pay it, and will seek out alternatives, which may be illicit copies of your work or it may be someone else's work entirely. If I hit a website that requires me to have umpteen different technologies enabled and will take forever to load, I flick it and go look for another site that fits my aesthetic. People do that with content too.
There will be people who will lose work the way of the saddlemakers, though: the printers, the paper and pulp millers, and so forth.
No doubt, but I think the majority of papermaking is not for books, but for printers and photocopiers. I doubt they'll disappear entirely.
These guys will be fine
They may call it publishing, but I call it "art" ;-)
-
Really, IP is the means of production, rather than the product.
Aha! and the Internet allows the struggling artist to control the means of production!!
<cue the dancing cossacks...>
-
Creating some IP is most analogous to making a factory. You spend a certain amount of time or capital on it, then it can produce profit in perpetuity.
Except that a factory needs maintenance, capital investment etc. The law of diminishing returns will eventually obsolete it.
But it's a very special kind of factory - it's one where you get to stop anyone else making the same kind of goods, or at least demand a fixed cut of every good they sell.
No, you get to stop them making copies of your product, but they can still make the same "kind"of goods - you can't copyright an idea, only the expression of an idea.
-
Jon, I think you're confusing ebooks with audio books. Not the same thing.
yes, my mistake. T2S on the brain.
-
Nope, that's a great new angle - please keep going.
You can take it where you like - I haven't thought much further than that. Despite having constructed an analogy, I don't see it leading to any conclusions about whether these special monopolistic factories are actually bad for society, and should have those exclusive rights taken away. Like I said, our other concepts of value tie to goods and services, whether you like fair value or market value. Analogy is a very weak argumentation method (despite sometimes being all we really have).
If you take them away then the act of creation becomes a performance art. It's like busking - people could either pay whatever they felt like, keeping in mind that if they don't pay then the busker may stop doing what they're doing, or the busker can be paid beforehand to play a chosen song (but only one pay per song). It's hard to imagine this generating anywhere near the profits that can be generated by owning the song itself, and getting a cut from any performance or copy. But would it lead to better or worse performances? I don't know. I'm pretty sure it would lead to more performances.
-
No, you get to stop them making copies of your product, but they can still make the same "kind"of goods - you can't copyright an idea, only the expression of an idea.
Yup, right, they can't make the exact same thing. Depending which part of IP you're talking about, there are rules about how much they can copy it. You're monopolizing your particular good.
Aha! and the Internet allows the struggling artist to control the means of production!!
Heh, I was thinking the opposite, the artist already owns that (to whatever degree they can swing with the publisher), but the internet could actually seize the means of production right back to the consumer.
-
"fair value" ? There is only market value
That's one of the biggest questions in economics. Some people believe in true underlying value (which might not be the same idea as 'fair' value), around which the market will fluctuate. Others discard that idea. I can see reasons for both points of view. Believing in only market values is somewhat solipsistic. But fundamental values are always in dispute, there is no clear way to measure them.
-
Too expensive to buy each week because they represented a higher percentage of disposable income than the previous vinyl alternatives. Customers saw/see the high price as "gouging" by the industry.
and on that they are wrong Mark. A physical CD sells for less than it's vinyl equivalent. When the LP was phased out of the mainstream in the mid to late 1980s it retailed for about $18. A CD was $32. The list price of a CD now is about $34 and a chart CD can be found well under $30 which is much less than the 1986 / 7 $18 adjusted for $2009.
Of course the thing costs substantially less to produce too.
-
And I noted that the price of a CD In NYC last month was pretty much what I paid for a vinyl slab in the same city 25 years back so it's an even greater differential in the customer's favour in that market.
-
and on that they are wrong Mark.
Not disputing the numbers, Simon, I was merely elucidating why people thought CD's cost "too much".
-
and on that they are wrong Mark. A physical CD sells for less than it's vinyl equivalent. When the LP was phased out of the mainstream in the mid to late 1980s it retailed for about $18. A CD was $32. The list price of a CD now is about $34 and a chart CD can be found well under $30 which is much less than the 1986 / 7 $18 adjusted for $2009.
That's a dubious argument Simon. There are many factors which have led to the change in price of products over years. The statement "CDs are cheaper than vinyl because they're currently cheaper than Vinyl was in the 1980s after inflation" is waiting to have all the holes picked apart. About as useful as a price comparison between my old commodore 64 and the Mac Pro that currently sits on my desk.
Not the least because, as you note:
Of course the thing costs substantially less to produce too.
Volume, production costs, efficiencies, new markets, changes in the distribution of income from CDs etc, could all be as much of a factor in where the price is now.
-
It reduces one's sympathies for the current plight of record company execs when you think of how much profit they gouged selling CDs for a higher margin than vinyl. It would be interesting to hear about potential price-fiixing conversations that might have gone on at the time.
And why did we consumers put up with uniformly crappy CD cases whose hinges break with normal use?
-
And why did we consumers put up with uniformly crappy CD cases whose hinges break with normal use?
I think because we were used to the fact that tape cases had done it for many years.
-
The cassette cases were made of thicker plastic if I recall. I never noticed breakages myself (but maybe I wasn't using them vigourously enough)..
-
And why did we consumers put up with uniformly crappy CD cases whose hinges break with normal use?
There is an alternative but it doesn't seem to be that widly adopted, well at least in this country. Paper Foam have a product that, according to the video, offers much more than the crappy plastic "jewel" cases. I guess one of the reasons people don't bother buying many CDs is the physical product is just so bad you don't want to give it house room let alone be the proud owner of. Now, if it were an extension of the work of art that is the content then it would be a different story.
-
That PaperFoam corporate promo is awesome.
-
3410,
What always struck me as dubious about CD prices was that the retail difference between CDs and cassettes ($10, give or take) was surely greater than the entire manufacturing cost of the cassette, which would seem to indicate a level of gouging. I accept that at the start CDs had a certain new-technology premium, but the difference remained long after that would've been a viable explanation.
BTW, in 1986/7 LPs were (at the Music Studio, where I shopped at the time) $7.99 or $11.99 for doubles.
-
........ back on page 1 of this discussion Russell put up a link which showed up some of the hyopocrisy of Peter Dunne ( whatsy dunne ) and united future. http://publicaddress.net/668 .
Reading the second post of russells on that page I found this interesting quote from united future ...... <i>United Future's Internal Affairs spokesman Marc Alexander was quickly on the defensive yesterday, issuing a press release implying that the only significant changes his party had inserted to the bill were "the strengthening of mechanisms for helping problem gamblers" and the blocking of the Green-backed plan to centralise the distribution of money from pokies.</i> ......
This bit in particular ..... <i>and the blocking of the Green-backed plan to centralise the distribution of money from pokies</i>
Anyone remember what Brent Todd got in trouble for ????
........ and who hasn't heard of various pokies rip-offs and rorts in their town ......
I wonder if whatsy dunne got any $5000 dollar donations to help him make up his mind to block the Greens plan ..........
Maybe some $5000 dollar donations could help him sort out his stance on climate change as well ...........
Better hope its not Rodney handing him the 5 grand .....
-
BTW, in 1986/7 LPs were (at the Music Studio, where I shopped at the time) $7.99 or $11.99 for doubles.
Then they would've been losing money on every copy sold I imagine. The wholesale price was higher than that (on which we were paid royalties).
The retail on a single LP in 1980 was $11.50 which jumped about 50c every six months. By 1985 it was $15.99 and it jumped a $1.50 in one bump early in 1986 which caused a huge fuss at the time.
-
3410,
The retail on a single LP in 1980 was $11.50 which jumped about 50c every six months. By 1985 it was $15.99 and it jumped a $1.50 in one bump early in 1986 which caused a huge fuss at the time.
Well, I'll defer to you on that one. I imagine my memory is failing me regarding the figures, rather than them losing money on every copy.
-
That's a dubious argument Simon. There are many factors which have led to the change in price of products over years. The statement "CDs are cheaper than vinyl because they're currently cheaper than Vinyl was in the 1980s after inflation" is waiting to have all the holes picked apart
to a degree but the fact remains that the product stored on the items in question costs far less for anyone to legitimately access in a physical format in real terms, especially in the world's biggest market where the price of said product is substantially less than it was, in real terms, 25+ years back.
I remember the big fuss when LPs went to US$12.98 (it was a Tom Petty album BTW) about 1981. And a new album in NY doesn't cost much more, often less, now.
Record companies in NZ have to a degree, too, passed in the reduction in cost of manufacture by holding the prices, although you could argue that, and I'd likely agree, because of the substantive drop in manufacturing, perhaps not enough.
There are other factors too, such as a percentage rise in average royalties over the past 25 years.
Well, I'll defer to you on that one. I imagine my memory is failing me regarding the figures, rather than them losing money on every copy.
My memory fails me every day, ask my wife....
In Singapore today..now, music is severely overpriced here..as is beer sadly.
-
My memory fails me every day, ask my wife
When disks got over 1MB, I quit relying on mine altogether. Having a memory is so 20th century. Now I have data, and search heuristics.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.