«triple setback for music giants' global jihad»
this article from the register comments on the three most recent setbacks suffered by "the music industry," which still fails to grasp that this "battle" is indeed about supply and demand in a changing free market in which the consumer exercises the choice to which he is entitled while safeguarding his pocketbook from greed and outright abuse.technology has changed the market forever and the industry will have to adjust even if this means that parts of it may well be forced to disappear. see, once upon a time some people made a living by making, storing, delivering ice to homes and businesses. eventually the icebox/refrigerator/freezer became available and affordable to all and well, you can well imagine how this story ends... naturally with music and other art forms copyright is an issue as well as copying and distribution for the economic/financial gain of pirates. yet this hardly touches the private and personal realm of individuals who may download, share, burn for personal and private use, regardless of whether it's one or millions. artists will continue to make money the way they have since the beginning of time: by performing and in modern times also from royalties, which may also come from the sale of recordable media, software and even hardware. and "the industry" per se? whom might we mean, the executives who believe that their "work" is worth however many millions they can manage to extricate from consumers and artists alike, without any relation to actual cost and the demands of the market? well, they might as well, dig their own graves.
in 1983 it cost $3.00 to make a cd. it would sell at $16.99, list price. it was encased in wasteful packaging which soon had to be discarded, in part as a result from the outcry of consumers who could see the waste before they even understood the medium. although the industry simply refuses to provide direct and honest answers, it definitely costs a dollar or less, to make a cd today and they think that for $18.99-plus, list price, they can offer me a miserable 43 bloody minutes of music in a medium that can currently handle at least 99, and that i'll just hand over the cash like in days long-gone by? NO BLOODY WAY, MATE! consider how often one listens to those 43 minutes say, just a month after purchase! actually, consider how many of the the 43 minutes one actually cares for!
"the industry" is lucky we haven't simply gone on strike and stopped buying CDs altogether! and as i pointed out in this entry, studies clearly show that file-sharing does not kill cd sales. ridiculous, offensive pricing does.
and mind you, these arguments, which i recognise are far from flawless, come from someone who doesn't even benefit from the technology yet has stopped buying all but the most brilliant and unique of music releases as a matter of principle. does the economic concept of "utility" mean anything anymore?
and since we're at it, just take a moment to think about computer software. it's expensive, invariably buggy despite beta testing (performed for free by millions), lacks proper manuals (which are developed and sold separately by third parties), contains inadequate help files, can and often wreaks havoc sooner or later with one's current setup. consumers are sometimes even expected to pay for support regardless of who bears responsibility for the problem even when the software company doesn't even have the answers. consumers themselves have taken to the task of providing support for each other over the internet... and then they complain about software downloads, cracks and patches? notice that lawmakers pay virtually no attention whatsoever to the abuses in this regard experienced daily by millions of computer users.
enough ranting for now. cheers!
