Yup, I know enough about stats to know that (a) he only surveyed a small number of consumers, (b) he only surveyed digital music consumers and not consumers as a whole, and (c) digital music consumers are a small part of the overall music consumer world.
Effectively, he selected a group of people most likely to answer in one manner. It is both too small and too narrow of a group to draw and signficant conclusions. The vast majority of music consumers are not "digital music consumers" (aka online buyers) but rather still buying shiny plastic discs. Asking the larger music community as a whole might actually reveal something meaningful.
In some countries, not everyone has a great home internet connection. In Thailand, many people find it cheaper to pay a few baht for a CD than to wait all day for a download.
Consider I was offered photoshop CS4 for a couple of hundred baht. The retail price? About 20,000 baht. Sort of a no brainer, right?
The criminals only have the costs of duplication, nothing more. They didn't have to pay to create the software, they don't have to support it after, etc. So they have a few cents of cost per unit, where the original creators have much more cost in every unit.
I know you are just trying to troll, but geez, come on, it's pretty obvious, no?
In my recent trip to Thailand, I found that much of the pirated software being sold (such as in Pantip Plaza) were basically downloads from torrent sites, plus keygens and hacks combined onto single discs. I have seen similar discs for sale in China as well. In both cases, I saw some pretty obvious "security" guys watching over the businesses, which would suggest some more powerful friends at work.
Recentl y when in Hong Kong, a visit to Mongkok street markets exposed me to a number of knock off sales people, all pushing watches, handbags, and other similar goods. Interestingly, a sweep by local police during my visit suddenly made all of these people disappear. I didn't see arrests or anything, but the police presence made them very scarce all of a sudden. They don't have any goods with them, you have to travel to hidden rooms down back alleyways, which is another indication that the sale is illegal, and very likely part of the triad gangs, and possibly some of the government related corruption coming out of southern China (where most of the factories that produce these goods in Asia are located).
There is plenty of indications out there that organized crime is behind much of this stuff, it's very profitable to them, and casts a wider net than drugs or prostituion.
Geez, you don't have to read too far into the article to realize that the professor quoted sort of went with too small of a sample:
Professor Iyengar, a specialist in pricing and consumer behavior, surveyed only 600 digital music consumers as part of the study, and no study can reveal precisely what would happen if the price of music were reduced by 50 percent or more.
Effectively, he is calling for a 50% decrease in the price of music, but has little more than a narrow sample to base this on. This isn't Econ 101, it's mass extrapolation from a horribly small sample.
It isn't a "fail" outright, but there isn't enough data to support the conclusions. Further, one only has to look at the profit levels of Itunes to understand that a 50% cut in retail price would likely decimate their business model (Apple isn't making 50% profits).
I would say another study that is not much more than wishful thinking.
Part of the problem of these sorts of studies is that the time frame is too short, and they are not able to easily remove other variables from the equation.
It doesn't take much more than a couple of days of better or worse weather in a given time period to change the numbers dramatically. The methodology used to determine the number of people on the phone is somewhat suspect as well, as it is essentially a "drive by" survey on an entrance ramp. There is no indication that entrance ramps are the area where the most "on the phone" accidents were happening.
One other thing that is missing is that use of a cell phone often won't get cited or won't be reported in anything but the most serious of accidents, so it is hard to judge just from police reports how many people were talking on the phone when an accident occurred.
These sorts of things could swing numbers in all sorts of directions. Were cell phone related accidents under reported in the past, and now over reported because of new laws? Are people who put down the phone now more likely to be distracted by the radio, their Ipod, or whatever? Are distracted drivers just distracted drivers?
It's hard to draw a real conclusion from the data, which makes the title of this post somewhat misleading.
My thoughts are that different players will have different positions, and that some of them might not be palatable in their home countries. Example, say a country like Sweden negotiating to block torrent sites, or the US to limit fair use. The end results might not include either of those things, but the privacy gives them the chance to air those ideas and concepts without fear of reprisals.
Free and frank discussions only can happen in private.
In the software world, typically there are few discounts.
In the hardware world, discounts abound. Careful shopping at christmas means I got a gaming console for a gift about $20 lower than "the price". I could have also paid "the price" but received an extra game for free. the MSRP wasn't the final price.
Even Microsoft hardware (keyboards and such) have variable prices, a little shopping can find you a wide variety of prices at retail, and pretty much all over them lower than MSRP.
After all as a rights holder you always have the option of NOT PUTTING IT INTO THE WEB IN THE FIRST PLACE (or of putting it behind some kind of access wall - which can be configured to keep search engines out).
Fail.
One of the big issues is users taking content from CDs or DVDs, ripping them, and putting them online. The rights holders aren't getting a vote in that discussion at all.
I think we can agree if they got 35,000 subscribers, they would be crowing about their great play. I just don't think they expected to see many signups.
Specifically in embedding; if I embed an image from somewhere else, I have 0 control over the content of that image. That somewhere else has control over it.
You are correct, but you do control that it appears as part of your webpage. The image (or whatever) owner does not control the code on your webpage, and would have to take specific negative action to deny you use of the image.
Your actions and your actions alone cause that image to be part of your website (by writing the code).
What manufacturer in the world builds an MSRP price and then directly sells below it "always"?
Sorry if I don't explain it clearly enough for you. The MSRP price on almost every piece of electronics in the world is a joke, rarely followed in the retail market.
The $129.99 MSRP is for a product that wholesales at $79.99, and the retailers push it out at $99.99. Nobody in the marketplace actually pays MSRP. It is more of a maximum price rather than anything else. Please check current prices in your market for printers, example. Retail price is NEVER the MSRP for the product.
If that's what their doing, then they're retarded, because it's just as easy and arguable more effective to say, "You're getting access to Newsday because you're a subscriber, and no one else has access to it but you", and at least that way you're not creating "illusions" like some kind of scheister Hudini....
All I can say is you need to spend more time working in marketing, and more time paying attention to some of the best crafted offers you will read. They all create the illusion of value (really artificial value) that allows the consumer to feel good about what the are paying for.
You may want to read this book, I think it explains it well (I haven't read it yet, copy is on order):
First, for the purposes of copyright infringement, is there any real difference between commercial and non-commercial uses? I am not talking the home use / fair use stuff, but rather non-commercial uses of a copyrighted product. Example, using copyrighted image software to create a family photo album as opposed to using it to create an advertising campaign for a multinational. In the end, the violation is the same, no?
Second, determining commercial use would have to look at the entire chain. Is anyone making money off the use of the product? Example, while you may post a video on YouTube without any commercial intentions, YouTube themselves uses the video for a commercial venture (their website). So even though your intention wasn't specifically commercial, you put the video into a commercial environment. If the material ends up on a commercial website, then it is commercial at least on the surface.
It would be similar to posting on blog hosting that puts ads on the page. While your intention might not be commercial, the end result is commercial for someone.
Claiming no interest in signing up outside subscribers is shown to be a lie in the fact that they set up a system specifically to do just that.
Sort of jumping to a conclusion here, no?
Putting up a subscription door gives them the chance to create a market price for site, basically defining a "value" for the cablevision subscribers. It isn't any different from putting a $129.99 MSRP on a product, and then always selling it at $99.99. The higher price is just to create the illusion of value.
If you say to cablevision subscribers "you are getting access to newsday, it's free for all subscribers", that is nice. When you say "you are getting access to newsday, a $19.95 a month value, free as part of your subscription" then you have created at least the illusion of a good deal.
Without the subscription door, that isn't possible.
So I would have to say that you are drawing a conclusion Mike that is easily shown not to be 100% true.
Here we have a lawyer arguing that merely causing copyrighted material to reach a new audience is infringement.
Not within reach, but as an integral part of your website. It isn't a link to some other place, it isn't a pointer, an included / framed / embedded item is part of your published site. While you may not control the content, you have chosen to make it a part of your page rather than just providing a link to it (click here to see the video).
The judge (or the lawyer who wrote the quote) got it right. It is all about what the visitor to the website sees, not the mechanics of how it was done.
On the post: Econ 101: Study Shows That If Record Labels Lowered Prices On Music, They Would Sell A Lot More
Re:
On the post: Econ 101: Study Shows That If Record Labels Lowered Prices On Music, They Would Sell A Lot More
Re: Re:
Effectively, he selected a group of people most likely to answer in one manner. It is both too small and too narrow of a group to draw and signficant conclusions. The vast majority of music consumers are not "digital music consumers" (aka online buyers) but rather still buying shiny plastic discs. Asking the larger music community as a whole might actually reveal something meaningful.
Carry on.
On the post: Seriously: Where Is The Link Between Copyright Infringement And Terrorism/Organized Crime
Re: Re:
In some countries, not everyone has a great home internet connection. In Thailand, many people find it cheaper to pay a few baht for a CD than to wait all day for a download.
Consider I was offered photoshop CS4 for a couple of hundred baht. The retail price? About 20,000 baht. Sort of a no brainer, right?
The criminals only have the costs of duplication, nothing more. They didn't have to pay to create the software, they don't have to support it after, etc. So they have a few cents of cost per unit, where the original creators have much more cost in every unit.
I know you are just trying to troll, but geez, come on, it's pretty obvious, no?
On the post: Seriously: Where Is The Link Between Copyright Infringement And Terrorism/Organized Crime
You might want to consider this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Knockoff-Deadly-Trade-Counterfeit-Goods/dp/0749443790
or this video from National Geographic:
http://www.amazon.com/National-Geographic-Illicit-Dark-Trade/dp/B00153ZQYG
Recentl y when in Hong Kong, a visit to Mongkok street markets exposed me to a number of knock off sales people, all pushing watches, handbags, and other similar goods. Interestingly, a sweep by local police during my visit suddenly made all of these people disappear. I didn't see arrests or anything, but the police presence made them very scarce all of a sudden. They don't have any goods with them, you have to travel to hidden rooms down back alleyways, which is another indication that the sale is illegal, and very likely part of the triad gangs, and possibly some of the government related corruption coming out of southern China (where most of the factories that produce these goods in Asia are located).
There is plenty of indications out there that organized crime is behind much of this stuff, it's very profitable to them, and casts a wider net than drugs or prostituion.
On the post: Econ 101: Study Shows That If Record Labels Lowered Prices On Music, They Would Sell A Lot More
Professor Iyengar, a specialist in pricing and consumer behavior, surveyed only 600 digital music consumers as part of the study, and no study can reveal precisely what would happen if the price of music were reduced by 50 percent or more.
Effectively, he is calling for a 50% decrease in the price of music, but has little more than a narrow sample to base this on. This isn't Econ 101, it's mass extrapolation from a horribly small sample.
It isn't a "fail" outright, but there isn't enough data to support the conclusions. Further, one only has to look at the profit levels of Itunes to understand that a 50% cut in retail price would likely decimate their business model (Apple isn't making 50% profits).
I would say another study that is not much more than wishful thinking.
On the post: New Data Shows No Decrease In Crashes After Driving While Yakking Laws Were Implemented
It doesn't take much more than a couple of days of better or worse weather in a given time period to change the numbers dramatically. The methodology used to determine the number of people on the phone is somewhat suspect as well, as it is essentially a "drive by" survey on an entrance ramp. There is no indication that entrance ramps are the area where the most "on the phone" accidents were happening.
One other thing that is missing is that use of a cell phone often won't get cited or won't be reported in anything but the most serious of accidents, so it is hard to judge just from police reports how many people were talking on the phone when an accident occurred.
These sorts of things could swing numbers in all sorts of directions. Were cell phone related accidents under reported in the past, and now over reported because of new laws? Are people who put down the phone now more likely to be distracted by the radio, their Ipod, or whatever? Are distracted drivers just distracted drivers?
It's hard to draw a real conclusion from the data, which makes the title of this post somewhat misleading.
On the post: ACTA One Step Closer To Being Done; Concerns About Transparency Ignored
Re: Re: Re:
Free and frank discussions only can happen in private.
On the post: Newsday Exec: We Didn't Put Up A Paywall To Get People To Pay
Re: Sadly, not true
In the hardware world, discounts abound. Careful shopping at christmas means I got a gaming console for a gift about $20 lower than "the price". I could have also paid "the price" but received an extra game for free. the MSRP wasn't the final price.
Even Microsoft hardware (keyboards and such) have variable prices, a little shopping can find you a wide variety of prices at retail, and pretty much all over them lower than MSRP.
On the post: ACTA One Step Closer To Being Done; Concerns About Transparency Ignored
Re:
However, I do agree that the government(s) need to negotiate international treaties in private, and bring those treaties forward once signed.
On the post: Lord Lucas Keeps Wanting To Chip Away At Digital Economy Bill: Exempt Search Engines
Re: Re:
Fail.
One of the big issues is users taking content from CDs or DVDs, ripping them, and putting them online. The rights holders aren't getting a vote in that discussion at all.
On the post: ACTA One Step Closer To Being Done; Concerns About Transparency Ignored
yeah, the public might lose their ability to "share" other people's IP with impunity. How horrible that would be!
On the post: Newsday Exec: We Didn't Put Up A Paywall To Get People To Pay
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Dutch Judges Plagiarize, Potentially Infringe, Blog Post In Decision About Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now, if you constructed a building and had the mural as one of the walls, such that it was an integral part of the building... ;)
On the post: Newsday Exec: We Didn't Put Up A Paywall To Get People To Pay
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They are a cable company. douchery is pretty natural, no?
On the post: Newsday Exec: We Didn't Put Up A Paywall To Get People To Pay
Re: Re: Re:
corrected is: http://www.amazon.com/Priceless-Myth-Fair-Value-Advantage/dp/080909469X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=boo ks&qid=1264802135&sr=8-1
On the post: Dutch Judges Plagiarize, Potentially Infringe, Blog Post In Decision About Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are correct, but you do control that it appears as part of your webpage. The image (or whatever) owner does not control the code on your webpage, and would have to take specific negative action to deny you use of the image.
Your actions and your actions alone cause that image to be part of your website (by writing the code).
On the post: Newsday Exec: We Didn't Put Up A Paywall To Get People To Pay
Re: Re:
Sorry if I don't explain it clearly enough for you. The MSRP price on almost every piece of electronics in the world is a joke, rarely followed in the retail market.
The $129.99 MSRP is for a product that wholesales at $79.99, and the retailers push it out at $99.99. Nobody in the marketplace actually pays MSRP. It is more of a maximum price rather than anything else. Please check current prices in your market for printers, example. Retail price is NEVER the MSRP for the product.
If that's what their doing, then they're retarded, because it's just as easy and arguable more effective to say, "You're getting access to Newsday because you're a subscriber, and no one else has access to it but you", and at least that way you're not creating "illusions" like some kind of scheister Hudini....
All I can say is you need to spend more time working in marketing, and more time paying attention to some of the best crafted offers you will read. They all create the illusion of value (really artificial value) that allows the consumer to feel good about what the are paying for.
You may want to read this book, I think it explains it well (I haven't read it yet, copy is on order):
http://www.amazon.com/Priceless-Knowing-Price-Everything-Nothing/dp/1565848500/ref=sr_1_1 ?ie=UTF8&qid=1264801469&sr=8-1
On the post: Can You Fairly Distinguish Commercial vs. Non-Commercial Use In Copyright?
First, for the purposes of copyright infringement, is there any real difference between commercial and non-commercial uses? I am not talking the home use / fair use stuff, but rather non-commercial uses of a copyrighted product. Example, using copyrighted image software to create a family photo album as opposed to using it to create an advertising campaign for a multinational. In the end, the violation is the same, no?
Second, determining commercial use would have to look at the entire chain. Is anyone making money off the use of the product? Example, while you may post a video on YouTube without any commercial intentions, YouTube themselves uses the video for a commercial venture (their website). So even though your intention wasn't specifically commercial, you put the video into a commercial environment. If the material ends up on a commercial website, then it is commercial at least on the surface.
It would be similar to posting on blog hosting that puts ads on the page. While your intention might not be commercial, the end result is commercial for someone.
On the post: Newsday Exec: We Didn't Put Up A Paywall To Get People To Pay
Sort of jumping to a conclusion here, no?
Putting up a subscription door gives them the chance to create a market price for site, basically defining a "value" for the cablevision subscribers. It isn't any different from putting a $129.99 MSRP on a product, and then always selling it at $99.99. The higher price is just to create the illusion of value.
If you say to cablevision subscribers "you are getting access to newsday, it's free for all subscribers", that is nice. When you say "you are getting access to newsday, a $19.95 a month value, free as part of your subscription" then you have created at least the illusion of a good deal.
Without the subscription door, that isn't possible.
So I would have to say that you are drawing a conclusion Mike that is easily shown not to be 100% true.
On the post: Dutch Judges Plagiarize, Potentially Infringe, Blog Post In Decision About Copyright
Re:
Not within reach, but as an integral part of your website. It isn't a link to some other place, it isn't a pointer, an included / framed / embedded item is part of your published site. While you may not control the content, you have chosen to make it a part of your page rather than just providing a link to it (click here to see the video).
The judge (or the lawyer who wrote the quote) got it right. It is all about what the visitor to the website sees, not the mechanics of how it was done.
Next >>