ChezGiven

Do you complain about the differences in the price of big macs too? I don't know - if the burger sellers all get together and impose pricing models on geographical areas based on what they can get away with and against anti-cartel laws which governments completely bottle out of taking them to task over like the bastards in the music industry do then yes I would object. You make the burgers, I'll supply the spoons for people to eat them with. Kerching! Call it Pirate Burger.

Do you complain about the differences in the price of big macs too? I don't know - if the burger sellers all get together and impose pricing models on geographical areas based on what they can get away with and against anti-cartel laws which governments completely bottle out of taking them to task over like the bastards in the music industry do then yes I would object. Remember the CD-Wow case - CDs sourced from countries with all royalties and taxes paid (therefore no bleating moral issues) still could not be imported into the UK because the record companies insisted that they set the price - not the free market. Fuck them all. If the Burger sellers get together....? I'm pretty sure Big Mac sellers all fall under one umbrella organisation Interesting perspective, markets good, copyrights bad. Hmmm.

Right, so why is it ok for them to do that and not the music companies? Why should the music company or the artist not be afforded the same opportunity. You say that the musician tours but thats another thing entirely, thats a performance, which the artist quite rightly should expect to be paid for in addition to any media output. The film industry gets to release the DVD and make money again, the artist gets to tour to make money again. Your view is that this is ok for one industry but not the other? It's not a case of being ok for one and not the other. It's just a fact that the formats are different and the opportunities afforded to one aren't afforded to another purely on the mode of delivery. We're in agreement on that but the music industry could change the way it distributes its products (not sure how and neither are they) in which case they would be afforded the opportunity to make money on the file output. If people go up in arms about it, then you could just say well look at the film industry and it would be justified. You're not making a legal or moral argument for the film industry retaining that power, nor one against the music industry having it. You're just pointing to the practicalities of the situation. This is about producing something and having copyright on it, which is a moral/legal issue. That moral/legal issue hasn't changed in the decades from the cassette tape through minidisc and on to digital downloads. Of course stealing from the artists wasn't an issue back in the day because the record companies always had the next superior sounding format to push. Now they can see the gravy train slowing they're all worried about the welfare of their artists? Bullshit. Who has been lobbying for the changes apart from the BPI? British Music Rights and their artist Chief Executive. What persuaded me this was a fair issue? My professional musician friends. Both the companies and the artists are losing out. They want to count their blessings they work in an industry where they continue to get a cut of what they create. If I design a new spoon that Ikea buy those fuckers pay a flat fee for my inspiration and they rake in all future profits. If the Spoon was that good, whats to stop you producing it yourself. In fact if the design was 'creative' it would have to revolutionise the world of Spoons, in which you'd be stupid to license out the Spoon instead of looking for a development partner. Spoons

Do you complain about the differences in the price of big macs too?

You can still sniff her neck when no one is looking. BTW i blame you for developing that habit.

Right, so why is it ok for them to do that and not the music companies? Why should the music company or the artist not be afforded the same opportunity. You say that the musician tours but thats another thing entirely, thats a performance, which the artist quite rightly should expect to be paid for in addition to any media output. The film industry gets to release the DVD and make money again, the artist gets to tour to make money again. Your view is that this is ok for one industry but not the other? It's not a case of being ok for one and not the other. It's just a fact that the formats are different and the opportunities afforded to one aren't afforded to another purely on the mode of delivery. We're in agreement on that but the music industry could change the way it distributes its products (not sure how and neither are they) in which case they would be afforded the opportunity to make money on the file output. If people go up in arms about it, then you could just say well look at the film industry and it would be justified. You're not making a legal or moral argument for the film industry retaining that power, nor one against the music industry having it. You're just pointing to the practicalities of the situation. This is about producing something and having copyright on it, which is a moral/legal issue. That moral/legal issue hasn't changed in the decades from the cassette tape through minidisc and on to digital downloads. Of course stealing from the artists wasn't an issue back in the day because the record companies always had the next superior sounding format to push. Now they can see the gravy train slowing they're all worried about the welfare of their artists? Bullshit. Who has been lobbying for the changes apart from the BPI? British Music Rights and their artist Chief Executive. What persuaded me this was a fair issue? My professional musician friends. Both the companies and the artists are losing out.

The Nasca lines intrigue me, it seems difficult to imagine how they could have been created without aerial intervention. Surely they're just scaled up drawings? For example if you drew a spider with legs on pace long, then you could draw in the sand a spider with legs ten paces long? I understand what you are saying Dave, but it seems incredible to draw something so accurately at that scale without being able to see it from the air, and at what purpose too ? surely you would be creating such an image for someone viewing from altitude ? That's a fair point. I could only suggest that it wasn't meant for human eyes, instead it was an offering to Gods. The accuracy is impressive, but then so are the pyramids, they too are a monumental undertaking seemingly beyond the technology of the day. But there they are, all man-made and what not. I agree they're incredible, but I don't think they're advanced ancient civilisation, nor alien. (by the by, I'm entirely in the "close encounters" camp in that, I do believe Aliens exist, not so sure they'd let us know about it however. ) True, if the ancients could build a pyramid then they definitely could do a giant cartoon spider. I don't disagree, both creations are fascinating, in my opinion, and I'm sure modern man has yet to learn the significance of either, although to describe the images at Nasca as "cartoon" is a little bit insulting to such an ancient culture, its a bit like describing the Pyramids as a conservatory, as well as the Spider and Monkey images at Nasca, there are also "runway" like images too which aren't as obviously explainable in their purpose. It was a joke, am utterly fascinated by the pyramids too and have read all Hancock's books on them

Right, so why is it ok for them to do that and not the music companies? Why should the music company or the artist not be afforded the same opportunity. You say that the musician tours but thats another thing entirely, thats a performance, which the artist quite rightly should expect to be paid for in addition to any media output. The film industry gets to release the DVD and make money again, the artist gets to tour to make money again. Your view is that this is ok for one industry but not the other? It's not a case of being ok for one and not the other. It's just a fact that the formats are different and the opportunities afforded to one aren't afforded to another purely on the mode of delivery. We're in agreement on that but the music industry could change the way it distributes its products (not sure how and neither are they) in which case they would be afforded the opportunity to make money on the file output. If people go up in arms about it, then you could just say well look at the film industry and it would be justified. You're not making a legal or moral argument for the film industry retaining that power, nor one against the music industry having it. You're just pointing to the practicalities of the situation. This is about producing something and having copyright on it, which is a moral/legal issue.

The Nasca lines intrigue me, it seems difficult to imagine how they could have been created without aerial intervention. Surely they're just scaled up drawings? For example if you drew a spider with legs on pace long, then you could draw in the sand a spider with legs ten paces long? I understand what you are saying Dave, but it seems incredible to draw something so accurately at that scale without being able to see it from the air, and at what purpose too ? surely you would be creating such an image for someone viewing from altitude ? That's a fair point. I could only suggest that it wasn't meant for human eyes, instead it was an offering to Gods. The accuracy is impressive, but then so are the pyramids, they too are a monumental undertaking seemingly beyond the technology of the day. But there they are, all man-made and what not. I agree they're incredible, but I don't think they're advanced ancient civilisation, nor alien. (by the by, I'm entirely in the "close encounters" camp in that, I do believe Aliens exist, not so sure they'd let us know about it however. ) True, if the ancients could build a pyramid then they definitely could do a giant cartoon spider.

But they don't. That would be crazy. That's why I could never see why you made the Analogy. Because they dont release the DVD, no one can rip it and put it up online. Access to the service / product is restricted and hence they make money. Thats why i brought it up, to contrast with the music industry situation. I see that they're contrastable, but not comparable. Music and film are comparable! Both industries started by business not artists for one. Music could not be marketed in the same way as film though. I dont understand why the marketing process matters. Its just like pirate copies of DVDs being on the market. Or fake jeans, designer bags, fake cigarettes. Its the same as re-printing a book without permission. Or copying it into digital format and distributing it online. Its like taking research from a journal and copying it and putting it online for free. There are countless more examples. Because films aren't distributed to cinemas on DVD's that can be ripped and find there way online the day it's released. The film industry is able to time a dvd release to maximise profit from both the cinema run before the DVD release is rolled out. Right, so why is it ok for them to do that and not the music companies? Why should the music company or the artist not be afforded the same opportunity. You say that the musician tours but thats another thing entirely, thats a performance, which the artist quite rightly should expect to be paid for in addition to any media output. The film industry gets to release the DVD and make money again, the artist gets to tour to make money again. Your view is that this is ok for one industry but not the other?

That's the ironic thing, in the case of music and the internet they still can, there's absolutely no need for the Stasi-esq tactics. In the end they'll either evolve or die, no industry can wage war on it own consumers and survive, nor turn back time. Fuck know how many more laws they'll break and rights they'll crush before the industry fully realised this though. The good news is that on many significant levels this particular game is up. In 10 years from now no hip artist will belong to a major label and will be selling music direct with all the creative freedom that comes with that. To one person, then it will be available for free to all. It has been the case for years, yet millions of CDs and downloads are paid for every week. Consciously by many who dont believe you should steal from an artist.

But they don't. That would be crazy. That's why I could never see why you made the Analogy. Because they dont release the DVD, no one can rip it and put it up online. Access to the service / product is restricted and hence they make money. Thats why i brought it up, to contrast with the music industry situation. I see that they're contrastable, but not comparable. Music and film are comparable! Both industries started by business not artists for one. Music could not be marketed in the same way as film though. I dont understand why the marketing process matters. Its just like pirate copies of DVDs being on the market. Or fake jeans, designer bags, fake cigarettes. Its the same as re-printing a book without permission. Or copying it into digital format and distributing it online. Its like taking research from a journal and copying it and putting it online for free. There are countless more examples.

That's the ironic thing, in the case of music and the internet they still can, there's absolutely no need for the Stasi-esq tactics. In the end they'll either evolve or die, no industry can wage war on it own consumers and survive, nor turn back time. Fuck know how many more laws they'll break and rights they'll crush before the industry fully realised this though. The good news is that on many significant levels this particular game is up. In 10 years from now no hip artist will belong to a major label and will be selling music direct with all the creative freedom that comes with that. To one person, then it will be available for free to all.

But they don't. That would be crazy. That's why I could never see why you made the Analogy. Because they dont release the DVD, no one can rip it and put it up online. Access to the service / product is restricted and hence they make money. Thats why i brought it up, to contrast with the music industry situation. I see that they're contrastable, but not comparable. Music and film are comparable! Both industries started by business not artists for one.

Your assumption seems to be that no-one wants to pay anything for any of their music. But that's not the case. Exactly. Anyone sitting through a CAM Version is clearly besotted and will be seeing it at the cinema 14 times, buying the Blueray and getting themself a Joker mask to boot. So the film industry retains the scarcity power over its core product. If the DVD rip quality version was made available, how many people would NOT go to the cinema. Not everyone is like Jonny man! But they don't. That would be crazy. That's why I could never see why you made the Analogy. Because they dont release the DVD, no one can rip it and put it up online. Access to the service / product is restricted and hence they make money. Thats why i brought it up, to contrast with the music industry situation.

I notice you've still never commented on the drug development issue (the commercial need to develop new drugs for the sake of it). You're just insulting and wandering now. We both know why. Like a said 20th century thinking when it comes to the internet and music (and maybe other types of media). I know that will be your Holy Grail due to the field you work in, and that as such you'll never admit otherwise, but it doesn't mean that it is everyone's Holy Grail. I never commented on the DD issue as it was not part of the debate about the NHS and you were trying to steer it their to make some shit ill-informed political point that didnt relate to the debate. I also dont want to engage you in that debate, even though i went to Brussels yesterday to do just that with members of the European Commission. That debate is way above your head and i cant be arsed to start at the beginning and point out all the stuff you dont know. It would take me weeks. If you say what you do for a living i might consider engaging with you on it. However, you'll probably regret it. This is about music and copyrights.

Your assumption seems to be that no-one wants to pay anything for any of their music. But that's not the case. Exactly. Anyone sitting through a CAM Version is clearly besotted and will be seeing it at the cinema 14 times, buying the Blueray and getting themself a Joker mask to boot. So the film industry retains the scarcity power over its core product. If the DVD rip quality version was made available, how many people would NOT go to the cinema. Not everyone is like Jonny man!

Like I said name calling is an absolute sign that I'm right. If you actually look at the economic of the download industry you can see for yourself that I'm right, volume is where it's at, bigger total profits and cheaper music for the consumer (very similar to DvD sales in recent years in fact). I know how it works, it's just funny that a lot of people in a certain job won't admit the iffy things about their field, bizarre, but you see it a lot. As i said, demented to think you know how something as complicated as that works when you demonstrate time and again that you dont. A sure sign someone is losing an argument is when they start making up things like i wont admit there is iffy things about my field. Where did i say that? If you can see it in this thread i might re-consider your wanker status. So, there are now more profits in the music industry are there? Demented mate, utterly demented.

No Fop, every single company that makes money does so because they hold scarcity power. I'm not going to argue about it anymore, i suggest you do some reading. Start with Adam Smith and finish with why dotcom companies failed.

They're exercising their scarcity power, when we have enough money they're going to sell it to us. Money. You're not serious Shirley? No, it was a joke.

They're exercising their scarcity power, when we have enough money they're going to sell it to us.

You say that like it's a bad thing. TDK had the highest grossing opening night of any film in history. Seems to me the model is sustainable despite people downloading. You wouldnt be able to access the music anymore as no one would be incentivised to run an internet service I dont get it. You cant see the film online unless you want to see a shit cam version. Thats a threat to the model but not a big enough threat to affect it too much.

If George Bush knows about the aliens then why is he still a religious nutter?

Good point regarding familiarisation of new artists. If they then go and see them in concert, then the artists gets something back. The consumer gets to hear their work as much as they want for life, see them live and the artists receive a % of the entry fee for that service.