Thread: SACD production cost ?

Posts: 60
Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 next

Post by Dan Popp January 15, 2008 (21 of 60)
Sam wrote:

Um, music royalties ARE capped. That's the reality today. It's funny that people are arguing about it without knowing this.

Or maybe someone got mixed up between music (composition) and recordings. There isn't any compulsary licensing of recordings, but that isn't relevant to this thread.

Sam,
Um, please show me where "music royalties ARE capped".

Yes, I am lumping together all forms of compensation to artists and their assigns, as they are different varieties of the same thing (as Kani correctly understands). What does "compulsary [sic] licensing of recordings" mean?

Post by Kani January 15, 2008 (22 of 60)
Dan Popp said:

Kani,
Thanks for your thoughts in post #17. There is a difficulty for those who would make a distinction between intellectual property and other kinds of property. No one holding your view has been able to answer this question for me: what is the ultimate difference between stealing my car; stealing the money with which I will buy the car; and stealing my idea or song with which I will make the money from royalties to buy the car?

In the US (where, btw, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are reversed from your terms), intellectual property is actually a foundation-stone of the government, the Constitution itself creating the Patent Office.

So, far from being a "cancerous growth," I would say that the right to intellectual property has always been, and is, a vital organ of Western Civilization, as well as one reason for its success. Many more life-saving and life-enhancing technologies come from countries where intellectual property is assumed, than from those countries leaning toward your view.

Finally, your ideal that "Artists should certainly be able to demand any pay for a service they perform" is at odds with the rest of your post, since, if consumers can have any recording for free, the recording is worth nothing. Scarcity and value drive prices. If it rained gasoline, gasoline would not cost $3/gallon.

Dan,

Scarcity and value drive prices though in some cases governemnt legislation makes quite a contribution. For example gasoline is $8/gallon in my country! This is however an irrelevant comment on my part :-) I support government taxes on the sale of specific products only when there are significant negative side effects of their use such as the pollution caused by gasoline. Government shouldn't interfere in the sale of for example cd's.

The primary difference between stealing your money and "stealing" your idea is that in the case of stealing money the victim loses what the thief gains. This is not the case with intellectual property. What the "thief" gains is the ability to enjoy and share new information but the victim retains this right. What the victim loses (in a loose sense of the term) is a potential sale but this sale has not yet been realised. If an action that causes a not yet realised sale to be prevented is stealing then stealing is a very wide concept indeed. It would include for example a person telling negative stories of a shop's service to potential customers. In both case the action of the offender causes the victim to lose revenue but in both cases I would argue that the action should be legal on behalf of it being necessary for true freedom of expression.

This is more or less my argument for limiting the concept of intellectual property; intellectual property is in the way of freedom of expression while physical property is not. To take an extreme example it certainly does limit the potential for making a profit in the field of assasination that the right to life is held sacred by the law. In the same way it would certainly limit the potential for making a profit (at least for some) if we were to similarly hold sacred a right to freedom of expression but in my eyes it is an economic sacrifice that is worth making to secure the cornerstone of a deliberative democracy.

That said I completely agree that my statement in my previous post was far too strong. Calling intellectual property a "cancerous growth" probably misrepresented what I wanted to say. I DO belive that a part of our current concept of intellectual property is as you say essential to our civilization. I see good reasons for limiting extreme freedom of expression to non-commercial uses. It is not from a liberal standpoint required that it should be legal for any company to make a profit out of the research of any other company. Thus I believe that many life saving technologies is in fact the result of the protection of new ideas from commercial exploitation. Protecting new information from commercial exploitation but not from non-commercial use would in fact still encourage the development of new technology in the most vital of fields. Those who might suffer because of upholding non-commercial freedom of expression is those businesses that produce products that consumers can easily multiply on their own. Thus record companies might suffer. However I belive strongly that the artists themselves would easily survive. Only instead of generic marketing by big companies they would sell their music through establishing a bond of loyalty with their fans. Artists would use the potential of new technology to reach a whole new segment of fans and thus build up a paying audience for live shows. Probably the market for mass-produced artists would be smaller in return for a lot of new experimental music bursting into view. This is however mere speculation. The important thing in my eyes is that the freedom of expression I advocate would not in fact limit the development of any life-saving parts of technology.

Post by Polly Nomial January 15, 2008 (23 of 60)
Kani said:

Artists should certainly be able to demand any pay for a service they perform such as recording, distributing or performing live. However in a liberal society they should have no right to control what happens to information or ideas once it/they are out there in the public.

I think one thing that the advocates of file "sharers" omit is that at no time do we, the consumer, actually purchase the intellectual property (such as a performance, book, film etc.) - instead we purchase a copy in a medium that conveys the IP to greater or lesser degree of success. We do not, and never have, "owned" the IP - this has always rested with the copyright/patent holder (until lapses). The IP holder leases this to the distributing company, who in turns allows us to purchase said IP in a medium of their choice. Indeed it is only once copyright/patents lapses that the IP is "out there in the public [domain]" and freely exploitable by the general public.

Post by Dan Popp January 15, 2008 (24 of 60)
Dan:
At the risk of scaring a certain poster, I feel I should structure my comments as follows to make a full reply to Kani #22. Anyone wishing to report me to the mental health authorities for my formatting choice must, of course, follow his conscience.

Kani:
Scarcity and value drive prices though in some cases governemnt legislation makes quite a contribution.

Dan:
Yes, indeed - and taxes are a large part of the cost of gasoline here as well. Still, my point is that if music is free, there is no way for artists to set their own price for their work, which you advocate. If artists can't get paid, then they cannot set a price. The price is zero. (And if we refuse to uphold copyright laws so that artists can be paid, we will end up with only amateur artists, by definition).

Kani:
The primary difference between stealing your money and "stealing" your idea is that in the case of stealing money the victim loses what the thief gains. This is not the case with intellectual property. What the "thief" gains is the ability to enjoy and share new information but the victim retains this right. What the victim loses (in a loose sense of the term) is a potential sale but this sale has not yet been realised.

Dan:
Since the value of the item depends on its scarcity (as you have agreed), the victim is indeed impoverished when others can control how scarce it is. That is what a loss of copyright protection is. Many legal actions (at least in this country) are based on the loss of future revenue. If you are hurt in an industrial accident, one of the factors considered for compensation is what you _would have made_ over the course of your lifetime if you had not been injured. The victim of intellectual property theft is just as much robbed as if he had held the currency in his hand. By your theory I can legally steal your money because you have not actually _bought_ anything with that money yet; it is just _potential_ goods or services.

Kani:
If an action that causes a not yet realised sale to be prevented is stealing then stealing is a very wide concept indeed. It would include for example a person telling negative stories of a shop's service to potential customers.

Dan:
This is called libel, slander, defamation, etc. There are laws against all of these. Your examples are disproving your argument. "Freedom of expression" is not absolute.

Kani:
I see good reasons for limiting extreme freedom of expression to non-commercial uses.

Dan:
Again, omniscience is required to know what uses may be commercial and non-commercial in the future. Many research discoveries had no obvious commercial use when they were first made. The formula for the adhesive for "post-it" notes was almost discarded because the inventor didn't think it was a viable glue.

If someone on the planet has omniscience, then socialism might work. If not, then not.

Post by raffells January 15, 2008 (25 of 60)
Dan
). Again, in practice (e.g. in the Soviet Union) central control of wages and prices has had disastrous consequences.

As far as I can see the Royalties amount of money is determined in the FREE World by Who has the biggest or best Legal team.(reply 16 /1 socialism)
Whats the difference between that and the " decision by Beaurocrats" as to correct payment.
Possibly the answer is " someone chose those beaurocrats" thats democracy.
Also heir is a possibility of a balanceds view by one of these methods.

I suppose the fact that Tchaikovsky Rimsky etc all survived and produced masterpieces for next to nothing and Mozart died a pauper is relevant.
It appears to me the Westerd World got the benefits of music culture free?.So why should the artistswho leech off this industry get highly paid for their inellectual but not original rights.

Ive no doubt that their are numerous "artists" living the life of luxury in the land of the free, having composed one or two hits.The fact that the tunes or even the words may be similair or derived from some obscure 16th century to 19th century composers who cannot obviously sue them is also not relevant.

I would agree that they should get paid for performance and then the public can say no to ticket prices.Having the music piped at us via the media generates loyalties.How can you avoid paying these as you never asked for them?,you just walked into a shop or boutique and have to put up with it.Along with tha cost added into your purchse price.

The fact that one nation is out of sync with most of the world seems to be effecting the original subject matter ie sacds.This ,like most things will resolve itsef in time.The people who have most to gain ie biggest Layers will not be part of the loop as economics will drive the industry elsewhere.

If this happens ,or history has shown us anything then the poor artists who have lost their easy gained livlihood will seek compensation.If they can still afford a decent legal team.
Great this free world isnt it Dan.?..

Post by Dan Popp January 15, 2008 (26 of 60)
To Polly #23: yes, bravo. To add a thought: the copyright protections expire (or "lapse") precisely because of the concept that the intellectual property belongs to the originator, not to his heirs to the end of time. Kani will get his free universal "expression" _after_ the artist has been properly rewarded during his lifetime for the value of his work. Rewarding things is the way we make sure we get more of them, just as punishing things (i.e. with taxes) is the way we curb behavior. Someone who is concerned about the "culture" (such as threeandot in #9) would do well to consider this.

P.S. To Raffels #25: I can't respond because I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Post by raffells January 15, 2008 (27 of 60)
Dan Popp said:



P.S. To Raffels #25: I can't respond because I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Well that avoids answering tricky questions.
Consider the words as observations which are directly opposed to some of your statements.post 16
Start with ,Intellectual property seems black and white in your book.

Post by Dan Popp January 15, 2008 (28 of 60)
raffells wrote:

Well that avoids answering tricky questions.
Consider the words as observations which are directly opposed to some of your statements.post 16
Start with ,Intellectual property seems black and white in your book.

Raffells,
Aq2asfnlknfasfadsflas saffasfds wrns?

Now answer that, or I will accuse you of avoiding tricky questions!

I can't tell which of your "observations" are supposed to be sarcastic and which sincere. Generally, they seem to be laden with emotion, but lacking logical connection.

And what color is intellectual property in your book? Your assertion that I see it as "black and white" is not an argument against my view. Maybe you see it as more of a mauve? This is your "observation"?

Post by Peter January 15, 2008 (29 of 60)

Post by dvdhu January 15, 2008 (30 of 60)
Peter said:

http://www.newstarget.com/022437.html

Good one ;-) Actually, it's quite hard to find any news from RIAA not laughable. But sometime, I just thought, to where did this wending road lead us to. Plausible as it is to protect consumer's rights for the fair use of our purchased media, how many of them are simply blunt action of piracy under the hood.

Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 next

Closed