Cool Strip

[Jay]

http://www.deviantart.com/view.php?id=486631

EDIT:
Uploaded to my server for easier viewing on slower modems and those who don't want to wait for 400 images to load :) Click Here (http://www.radiotoolbox.com/images/RIAA_Is_Evil.jpg)

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

*clicks link*
*looks at IE's status bar*

"(299 items remaining)"

*alt-f4*


:D

Wouldn't be so bad if I didn't have a dialup...

[Jon Deaux]

Very cool strip!

[randman]

Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
*clicks link*
*looks at IE's status bar*

"(299 items remaining)"

*alt-f4*


:D

Wouldn't be so bad if I didn't have a dialup...

deviantArt is notoriously slow. I have a cable modem and it still takes 30 to 40 seconds for that page to load. Funny cartoon however. :)

[Jay]

Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
*clicks link*
*looks at IE's status bar*

"(299 items remaining)"

*alt-f4*


:D

Wouldn't be so bad if I didn't have a dialup...

hehe yea I wondered about that. uploaded it to my server for easier viewing, check the first post for the link.

[whiteflip]

can some one send that to a senator or something?

[Xerxes]

I don't really get the humor; the RIAA isn't out to destroy computers...

Am I the sole person left besides Hillary Rosen herself who still believes in intellectual property rights?

[rm']

Originally posted by Xerxes
Am I the sole person left besides Hillary Rosen herself who still believes in intellectual property rights?

No.

[whiteflip]

i belive in intellectual property rights when it belongs to the intellectual that made the property and not the employeer or slave driver... excuse me, recording executive that owns them.

[randman]

Originally posted by rm'


No.

We're up to two! :D

And Alex, the real "punchline" of the cartoon is when Evil RIAA comes back and takes the guys piggy bank. ;)

[Xerxes]

You and me and the devil makes three... http://www.uniquehardware.co.uk/server-smilies/contrib/scorchio/slookl.gif

[Jay]

Originally posted by Xerxes

Am I the sole person left besides Hillary Rosen herself who still believes in intellectual property rights?

It's not really the property rights idea that bothers me, I believe in ownership of ideas, however i think that it should come at a fair market value, and not inflated to cover costs of a failing business model, I also can't agree with the way most artists are treated by record companies. Put this in perspective, say you wanted to buy a car but you didn't have enough to buy that car, but you will as soon as you buy the car because you can go get a job, now say you go to a bank and that bank will give you a loan for the car with the following written in a contract.

Bank will have total ownership of your car, even after you have paid them back for the car. Once you have the car you must use this car until the bank drops you from their contract with you.

It's rediculous. It also makes no sense to live under this model, but what other choice does an artist have?

[binary hero]

Originally posted by KXRM
what other choice does an artist have?

go out and get a _REAL_ job :P

ok, i'll be hiding now. funny cartoon BTW.

[CremoNe]

Originally posted by Xerxes

Am I the sole person left besides Hillary Rosen herself who still believes in intellectual property rights?

I wonder when you will ask some money to let us see youre wise posts

[Fickle]

Aww.
Little Record Exec Assholes won't be able to make that Lambroghini down payment. Looks like they'll have to start doing what the people did before huge corporations surfaced--work for the greenbacks they get every Friday. I don't feel an ounce of pity for record companies. The problem with paying for online music is that it will be exploited just like Cassetes and then CD's were. It'll cost $.30 to post it somewhere, and they'll charge you a buck or five for it. Screw that bro.
Rockin Cartoon.

[rm']

Originally posted by KXRM

I believe in ownership of ideas, however i think that it should come at a fair market value, and not inflated to cover costs of a failing business model, I also can't agree with the way most artists are treated by record companies.

Yes, but does that give you just cause to rip off their music? Banana growers get screwed royally by the likes of Chiquita (they make less then 2% of the final sale price, and considering bananas are $0.20 CAN per lb, that's not a lot of money), but you won't see me stealing bananas from the supermarket. The best thing to do is to pay respect to the musicians by sitting by, and letting the recording industry implode. That's the beauty of the capitalist model: unfairness is it's own worst enemy.

[Jay]

well I don't see the cartoon even giving the idea that the music was stolen, the kid is simply playing music on his computer, something which CD's allow, but the RIAA because of others is trying to invent mechanisms to stop it, also you are given the right to rip one copy from a CD you bought however the RIAA is even trying to stop that. Most businesses try to cater to their consumers and help them with profit making techniques to give them what they want, but why are record companies going so far? Why are they trying so hard to stop something at the cost of good users who do not steal?

[Xerxes]

The fact that people buy CD's means that they are at a reasonable price- the market has dicated as much.

If they lowered the price of CD's, they would even sell more- but let the market force them to do so; not some quasi righteous artificial intervention.

[eleet-2k2]

Originally posted by whiteflip
i belive in intellectual property rights when it belongs to the intellectual that made the property and not the employeer or slave driver... excuse me, recording executive that owns them. I believe in intellectual property and rights. I dont however think that recording industries should basically steal artist's rightful money and keep it for their rich (mostly) white a$$e$.

If I didnt believe in itellectual property, rights and copyright, (for non-open source stuff) I wouldnt be a programmer, and I'm sure a lot of other people wouldn't either.

Xerxes --> the humor is that RIAA will do anything to keep you from listening to copyrighted music which has been shared on file sharing networks, and that includes sending an RIAA endorsed demon after you. ;)

[fish]

I have always thought of it as this.
Say there are two companies, Company X and Company Y.
Company X charges §19.99 for their Product N.
Company Y charges §15.99 for Product M, a product very similar to Product N with equal quality.

Now, say Group A of consumers think that §19.99 is a reasonable price, while a larger group of consumers, Group B, think §15.99 is a more reasonable price.

Even though Company B is making less profit per unit, there are more units being sold because more people want it. The smaller profits will add up with each unit sold (more units are being sold) and Company B will make more money.

(§ is sometimes consiered to be the unversal currency symbol so I thought this might be a good place to use it)

So, if the record companies charge less per CD, they will gain back buyers and thus make money.

[Sandman2012]

Good point phisherman, but as long as cd-quality music is available for free, it doesn't matter how low cd prices go. It's hard to compete with that in a (somewhat) free market. And no matter how low cd prices go there will always be a group of people who complain it's "too much" and offer various justifications as to why.

I believe in intellectual property rights. I also feel that the music industry is filled with corruption and that many artists are handled unfairly but that does not mean I have the right to steal. I still download .mp3s and burn music cds from friends, but I do not justify it by pointing at the wrongs of said industry. Downloading/burning is a choice I have made and I will continue to do it until such time as it becomes legally dangerous or near impossible to do so.

It's a dog-eat-dog world in a capitalist society, and currently technology has put some power into the hands of the so-called "have-nots." The music industry has a lot of money behind them, and will probably win this fight. It won't be a fair fight, and they will do all they can to stack the cards in their favor, but then again that's life in a capitalist society. Enjoy it while you can. They may be bastards but that doesn't justify anything you do.

BTW, I still thought the cartoon was funny.

[rm']

Originally posted by phisherman
I have always thought of it as this.
Say there are two companies, Company X and Company Y.
Company X charges §19.99 for their Product N.
Company Y charges §15.99 for Product M, a product very similar to Product N with equal quality.

Now, say Group A of consumers think that §19.99 is a reasonable price, while a larger group of consumers, Group B, think §15.99 is a more reasonable price.

Even though Company B is making less profit per unit, there are more units being sold because more people want it. The smaller profits will add up with each unit sold (more units are being sold) and Company B will make more money.

(§ is sometimes consiered to be the unversal currency symbol so I thought this might be a good place to use it)

So, if the record companies charge less per CD, they will gain back buyers and thus make money.

That sounds nice, but in actual marketplace dynamics, there is something called an equilibrium price. This is the point at which demand and supply meet up; the maximum price that can be charged by the supplier, without decreasing demand. This price yeilds the highest profits. If you charge more then the equilibrium price, you will sell less units, and gross profits will be lower. If you sell below the equilibrium price, you will sell more units, but will not be able to cover production/whatever costs, so gross profits will also be lower.

The market forces Xerxes has described ensures that the real market price is as close to the equilibrium price as possible. Artificial intervention cannot accomplish as efficiently what natural market forces can.

Also, this idea that the RIAA is screwing all musicians is bunk. There are literally hundreds of labels, both international, and domestic, which do not belong to the RIAA (remember, the RIAA operates more of as a union, rather then a corporation; membership is not mandatory). Musicians have a choice... like all businesses, there is a trade-off involved. They can retain more control of their music by signing on with an independant label, or they can increase their exposure through an RIAA label. Either way, this miss out on something. Ultimately, it is the musician's choice to make.

[Xerxes]

Originally posted by rm'

Artificial intervention cannot accomplish as efficiently what natural market forces can.


Although countless examples exist, people will disagree and try elaborate market manipulation schemes for eternity. There is something about people that does not allow them come to terms with the fact that just allowing natural market forces to exist without prodding or pushing is all that is needed for a healthy system.

Phish- § is the symbol for §imolean :)

[Twilightseer]

Originally posted by Xerxes
The fact that people buy CD's means that they are at a reasonable price- the market has dicated as much.

If they lowered the price of CD's, they would even sell more- but let the market force them to do so; not some quasi righteous artificial intervention.

I disagree. The price of CDs is everything but reasonable. Nothing justifies the difference between the actual cost of manufacturing a cd and the price at which it is sold in a shop. And there's no way, imho, that we could see record companies lowering deliberately the price of CDs just to please the consumers. On the other hand, they may do it to thwart file-sharing. The reason why MP3 and file-sharing are so successful is not only because of the incredibly wide choice of music available, it's also due to the fact that people feel they can finally get back at the record companies who have been seeling them ridiculously overpriced CDs for years.

[Xerxes]

If they were overpriced, people wouldn't buy them. That is the way the market works- the supplier gets highest price possible at the point people still buy a satisfactory amount.

And despite file sharing, people are still buying them.

Eventually MP3's will be priced... eventually. Either that or music will develop a completely different business model... and not one that i think is better for the end consumer...

[Jay]

Originally posted by Xerxes
If they were overpriced, people wouldn't buy them. That is the way the market works- the supplier gets highest price possible at the point people still buy a satisfactory amount.

And despite file sharing, people are still buying them.

Eventually MP3's will be priced... eventually. Either that or music will develop a completely different business model... and not one that i think is better for the end consumer...

People buy them because there is essentially one source to buy them from

countless times I hear more and more people going to used CD's because the cost of a New Release is rediculous. Overpricing is not something that I feel should be justified by Market formulas. Look at the SUV, this was essentially a vehicle that was bought at twice the price of a decent car, yet it doesn't cost that much to make one. What has happened is that a salesman talked people into buying them citing that it was a safer vehicle, we all know this isn't true, it is a resurgence of the 60's and early 70's where the mindset is that bigger is better. With music the salesman is the radio and the constant pushing of over processed music. You are basically beaten with a song until you eventually give in and buy it to satisfy some desire to keep hearing when you want.

What burns me is how much it costs to get a single track, I could care less about most of the contents of the disc, but yet I have to buy those parts in order to get one song. These are ridiculous concepts and packages for most consumers. I would love to see an RIAA member put their library online and charge a decent rate to have just ONE track. But they won't be doing this anytime soon. It will take another 3-5 years of marketing research and whatever else these guys need to prove that there is a viable market on the internet and that they could be potentially saving costs by allowing people to download their music for a price rather then going to a CD store and buying all of the packaging. This is really about choice and freedom of content, and availability. Why must we have to have a Greatest hits album or compiled discs, just put it up there say what it is and allow me to download it at anytime for a decent rate and I will.

[Aero Zeppelin]

When I saw cool strip, I thought it was about something else.:D Anyway, I already saw that from a link on the www.********RIAA.com website. I might buy one of those grey shirts too.

[rm']

Originally posted by KXRM


People buy them because there is essentially one source to buy them from

countless times I hear more and more people going to used CD's because the cost of a New Release is rediculous. Overpricing is not something that I feel should be justified by Market formulas.


Production costs aren't the only factor involved in determining a market price. Demand plays a large part in it as well. SUV's may be no more safe then cars, but public perception is that they are. This increases demand, increasing the price. Likewise, the general public sees CDs as the most convenient, highest quality format available. This is why they are willing to dish out more. If they didn't think CDs were reasonably priced, they would, as Xerxes pointed out, simply not purchase a CD. Ultimately, the consumer has the final say. Dollar votes. You think a product is overpriced? Don't buy it. Buy something cheaper, such as vinyl, or cassette.


What burns me is how much it costs to get a single track, I could care less about most of the contents of the disc, but yet I have to buy those parts in order to get one song. These are ridiculous concepts and packages for most consumers.

I wouldn't say it's ridiculous for most consumers. Most consumers are happy with CDs. No one is forcing you to buy a CD on which you only enjoy one track out of fifteen.

[Jay]

Originally posted by rm'


I wouldn't say it's ridiculous for most consumers. Most consumers are happy with CDs. No one is forcing you to buy a CD on which you only enjoy one track out of fifteen.

I don't buy CD's I have better places to spend $20, like bills and gas. I haven't spent money on a CD in at least 3 years. Mainly because they just aren't worth $18. The alternative format has become the mp3 and it is marketable, appearently you do not understand that point in my post.