[BartSimpson]

Lemmy Lemmy:

In Canada, Bart, we have RETARDED high excise taxes on liquor. People use that to justify the illegal purchase of tax-free smuggled liquor.

That's legal tax avoidance if they purchase the liquor for personal use from a locale with lower taxes. It is tax evasion (illegal) if they are purchasing smuggled liquor. To which I say they should vote for MP's who support lowering taxes.

Lemmy Lemmy:

In Canada, the mark-up on rum is much more than on pop.

But that's a tax issue, not a manufacturer issue.

Lemmy Lemmy:

Elasticity of demand plays a huge role in that price structure...rum being highly inelastic; Coca-cola being pretty close to perfectly elastic.

True. Demand for rum is pretty constant, especially when the economy is down.

[BartSimpson]

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

(EDIT: Directed to Bart)
But the issue is so diseased. The whole idea of competition is bullshit when
everyone decides hovering at $3.50 for a bottle of Dr. Pepper is appropriate
when it's $0.05 in material, thus effectively robbing people by marking it up.
If this was the government, you'd call those mark-ups 'taxes'.

The thing about that is I just don't see the companies worrying about your interests.

Why oppose need over want?

But see, companies DO worry about your interests because your interests ultimately drive the market. Look at Toyota. As long as they thought they could get away with killing people they did it. But once word got out that Toyota was killing people for profit (really, isn't this what it came down to?) then people stopped buying their cars. Now Toyota is having to respond to the market.

Same with soda pop.

The price is what it is because people will pay that price. When they stop paying that price and the product starts gathering dust sitting on the shelf the price will come down. My advice to you is to stop buying soda pop until the price comes down. Or, better yet, go into business for yourself and produce a quality soda pop and sell it at an ethical price.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Well of course they should, after all there's nothing criminal about charging $20 for a product that only costs $5.

Here's a product that costs about $0.05 to produce and it sells from $1.50 in the US (a 3,000% markup) and so does that justify stealing it?

That's called theft in Canada. D/ling music is NOT theft according to Canadian law, which is where I live

[Scape]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Scape Scape:

Drug companies have patents but they expire. Music industry doesn't because the copyright is forever, that is not sustainable and requires reform. Creative commons would be a way around that issue but I doubt someone who is trying to have a monopoly is truly interested in such a distribution.

Actually, copyright expires too. In most cases, it expires 50 years after the death of the artist. Some states have extended that to 70 years.

Very true:

List of countries' copyright length

What I was clumsily trying to say during my lunch break was more along this line:

Why do copyright violations never expire?

In other words, as long as there is even the HINT of legal repercussions there in in effect a gag order that has no expiration date.

However, there is hope:

Concert Photos then and now

Now we can all remember the time that no cameras were allowed to be taken to a concert and were routinely confiscated. Now, in an era where cellphone cameras are ubiquitous such bans are ludicrous. The question remains however just because we can take the cell picture has the legal status changed? The answer is that the law is simply not enforceable it would be like trying to charge for air to breath. These pictures are not stealing the artists work any more then the download of an mp3 are ruining their sales when those same music sales are at an all time high. We need sensible copyright enforcement and anti-trust laws not nonsensical gag orders that stifle industry and creative license.

We need these rules now before we end up with an Ipad only formats emerging that are in clear violation of current anti-trust laws. This is why DRM was wrong when it started and just inventing new formats of DRM via hardware proprietary measures only brings us back to the same problem that Monopolies stifle the market. DRM has been used as a foil for anti-competitive behavior and a crutch to excuse high prices. We are learning this again now with Apple and apple accessories that are notoriously high priced and exclusive to apple only formats. This is why Flash is not supported on the Iphone because Apple doesn't own it, not because the phone can not run it. That sort of blacklisting is anti-competitive.

[Public_Domain]

[MacDonaill]

If in order to make what you deem as enough money, your business model requires round-the-clock government surveillance of citizens' private computer activities, hard drive contents and Internet surfing, then I think you have a pretty fucked up business model, end of story.

Fact of the matter is, all history shows that you cannot reverse market trends this powerful. If it has become unprofitable for whatever reason (including the ease and efficiency with which audio/video can be pirated) to market CD's and DVD's, if it has become unprofitable to sell even mp3's and video files, then there is nothing the companies or the government can do about it without eliminating constitutionally guaranteed privacy rights. What does this mean?

It means companies have to be cleverer about how to market their products. The example I brought up about network websites archiving and streaming their shows is a perfect one.

I guarantee you that where some companies are losing ground because of p2p, others will gain ground because they have spotted and exploited ways to make a profit. These latter companies will thrive. The ones who cling to out-dated media and who demand government interference will lose in the long run as they always do.

Prime example: the Criterion Collection. This label has found a way to convince the same sort of person who would otherwise download a film he loves to instead buy it for twice or even three times the price of other DVD's. How? Because they have understood that it's not just about the film. The fan wants more than just the same film he can download and has seen 100 times. He wants hard content. Decorative cases. Companion books. Photographs. Posters. Special commentary. Etc. Briefly put, he wants stuff you can't get in binary code. He wants something you can put on the shelf.

[Bacardi4206]

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:

While I am sure a lot of illegal sites are hosted on Canadian soil. That there would be a lot of Canadians who would illegally downloaded and some who hosted it for others to download. However they act like we are the only ones who do. Majority of the illegal downloaders (gamers) I have met online have infact been American, either because Americans represent a majority of gamers or that I just got lucky and never met more Canadian illegal downloaders than Americans.

I don't actually know any Canadian piracy sites. I use ThePirateBay rather religiously for almost anything I want.

$1:

To put in short, we host them. Everybody else downloads them, including us. Because music sales in Canada have been decreasing, they automaticly assume everybody is illegally downloading? I have illegally downloaded quite a few things, mostly Anti-Virus software and some games and mostly movies. I haven't illegally downloaded any music files to date. Fuck the IFPI, they can point fingers at a single country if they wish but everybody has piracy problems. Not juust Canada, I imagine this is some guilt trip or bs something to try and get Canada to get it's copyright laws in order?

Exactly.

There are two major ones, nothing like TPB. I use TPB as well, that is probally the biggest one and that's from sweden or someplace close. I forget which country. There are many more larger illegal download sites and communitys. All of which are far larger than the two largest Canadian ones. In General, it's rather pathetic if we are infact the bad boys of piracy.

[Proculation]

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

(EDIT: Directed to Bart)
But the issue is so diseased. The whole idea of competition is bullshit when
everyone decides hovering at $3.50 for a bottle of Dr. Pepper is appropriate
when it's $0.05 in material, thus effectively robbing people by marking it up.
If this was the government, you'd call those mark-ups 'taxes'.

The thing about that is I just don't see the companies worrying about your interests.

Why oppose need over want?

Robbing people ? What people ? The consumers ?
They decide to buy Dr. Pepper. I've never drank one Dr. Pepper drink in my life. Nobody tells me to buy one.

That's where BigKeith is right: if there's a demand, the price will stay up. If nobody drinks it, it will be discontinued. It's not a tax at all. It's the price of the product. Take it or leave it.

[DrCaleb]

RUEZ RUEZ:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Only if you play it on an iPod. Try and play it on anything else...nada.

The iTunes movies aren't DRM free either, IMHO. I can watch them on my PC, but if I want to download it onto a stick and play it on my TV (or Blu-Ray), I can't. That is because of compatibility issues (iTunes formats in a format my Blu-Ray player/TV isn't capable of playing). You can argue that that is the TV's fault, but I see it as ITunes locking my file to prevent me from watching it where I want.

With iTunes, you can only use it on an iPod. Hardly DRM free...

I buy music in iTunes, copy it to CD and play it in my truck. I don't know what you are talking about. The movies I am not sure about. Music is transferable.

Actually, it isn't. The digital file you buy from iTunes will only play using iTunes on a computer, or if transferred to an iPod. The digital version is a downgrade of the original CD quality, and to put it in a form that is playable in a regular CD player it is downgraded further in quality. Try creating an MP3 CD that contains a single song bought on iTunes.

You can't transfer that digital file anywhere else, and if you don't 'deauthorize' a computer from being 'licensed' to play those files, you lose the ability to play them at all. You get 5 'authorizations'. God can't help you if your computer crashes before you 'deauthorize' a computer, or if you forgot the username and password you used to install iTunes. And if you try to circumvent those digital protections - it's not a violation of copyright in the US, it's a crime. And ACTA will make it a crime worldwide.

You are at the mercy of Apple, in the perfect vertically integrated sales engine. You will do as they tell you, and you will like it. Lucky you didn't buy a Microsoft Zune. They just turned those off, and people lost all they content the had purchased. No transferring, no credit. Just *poof*. Gone.

Go DRM!

[BigKeithO]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Proculation Proculation:

Hey Lemmy, BigKeith made me wondered about something. I guess you can answer me I don't know if it's the same words in english than in french but I guess you will understand: When the price is not at the meeting of the demand and supply curves, you have the 'producer profit' and 'consumer profit'. The question is: Is the producer profit something you can steal, in a legal sense ?

If I understand you correctly, in English we call it "producers' surplus'. You're asking whether a consumer can steal "producers' surplus" (or, can a business steal "consumer surplus")? The answer is "yes". Consumers can "steal" producers' surplus through things like volume discounts and producers can steal "consumers' surplus" through auctions (like E-bay). The trick for consumers it to get busineses to price individual sales using the supply curve and, for businesses, to price individual sales using the demand curve.

Proculation Proculation:

BigKeith says that he doesn't steal anything by downloading for free since the cost is 0$. However, the producer profit when taking into account the other variables like intellectual property et al., is 'stealed' since you do not pay for it.

ANYTHING that's stolen has an effectual price of $0, so I don't think he's going to win the argument on that point. The prevailing market price of $0 is created by illegal activity. That's the same logic as saying the market price for a TV in Port au Prince was $0 when the city was being looted. Therefore I'm not stealling a TV that I just stole.

I never said that the cost is $0.00, I think I've been misunderstood. A digital file, once it has become digital, becomes a near infinite good. All that I am saying is at this point the price should be driven towards $0.00. The labels don't want to admit this but once online the costs associated with further duplicating this good go away. You recoup the original investment in the song through other means (concert, merchandise, artists time, etc.) and give the song away as promotion. Don't say it doesn't work, look at the radio for an example of it in action. The radio station "gives away" the song to you and I for free every day, in return they are selling our ears and attention to advertisers.

That said this entire conversation has been steered in the wrong direction, we are talking business models for the industry and that wasn't what the article was about. Also Lemmy/Proculation - it is disingenuous to call downloading a song "theft" or "stealing". No matter how you view the act morally the law views it as copyright infringement, NOT theft. Theft is a criminal matter, copyright infringement is a civil matter and there is a big difference. Talking about stealing a TV in Port au Prince and downloading a song is not fair. When I steal that TV there is only 1 TV, I have taken it and deprived someone of its use. When I download a song you are sharing we both have a copy, nothing has been taken. That is the difference.

[RUEZ]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Actually, it isn't. The digital file you buy from iTunes will only play using iTunes on a computer, or if transferred to an iPod.

Actually I can and do. I'm not sure why you think you can tell me I haven't done something that I know for a fact I've done. I have bought songs from iTunes. I have burned them to CD, and I have played them in my truck. End of story.

[DrCaleb]

BigKeithO BigKeithO:

That said this entire conversation has been steered in the wrong direction, we are talking business models for the industry and that wasn't what the article was about.

The article was about imaginary statistics used to shame people into justifying a group of corporations to lobby for the legislation of an outdated business model, and other people trying to justify that in the name of a 'free market'. So, yes it is on topic.

Canada is still the 'bad boy' because we refuse to let these corporations play their games, and ask that they actually work for a living.

[DrCaleb]

RUEZ RUEZ:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Actually, it isn't. The digital file you buy from iTunes will only play using iTunes on a computer, or if transferred to an iPod.

Actually I can and do. I'm not sure why you think you can tell me I haven't done something that I know for a fact I've done. I have bought songs from iTunes. I have burned them to CD, and I have played them in my truck. End of story.

As I said, the song you downloaded is not the same as what was burnt to CD. It is of lower quality.

But, you conveniently deleted that part of my post.

[BigKeithO]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BigKeithO BigKeithO:

That said this entire conversation has been steered in the wrong direction, we are talking business models for the industry and that wasn't what the article was about.

The article was about imaginary statistics used to shame people into justifying a group of corporations to lobby for the legislation of an outdated business model, and other people trying to justify that in the name of a 'free market'. So, yes it is on topic.

Canada is still the 'bad boy' because we refuse to let these corporations play their games, and ask that they actually work for a living.

Haha, I'm on your team DrCaleb! No need to get pissy with me about it, I'm just saying discussing how the industry can make money in the face of piracy isn't really what the article was saying. I guess I could be wrong about that...

As I posted a few pages back, the Canadian Government doesn't even recognize the "Special 301 Report" at all. It is a giant joke and everyone knows it. Contrary to popular belief Canada already has in place strict copyright laws, we just haven't imported the DMCA yet. The reason you don't see anyone getting sued over file sharing in Canada is due to our blank media levy. The industry pushed to have that introduced here and now they can't repeal it or sue infringers because of it. They run the risk of having P2P become officially legal in Canada should they lose. The US will sneak their DMCA like laws into Canada via the ACTA treaty, that is what everyone should be concerned about, not the silly 301 report.

Here is a link to Michael Geist's take on the 301 report, he explains why it is a joke:
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4997/125/

[RUEZ]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

RUEZ RUEZ:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Actually, it isn't. The digital file you buy from iTunes will only play using iTunes on a computer, or if transferred to an iPod.

Actually I can and do. I'm not sure why you think you can tell me I haven't done something that I know for a fact I've done. I have bought songs from iTunes. I have burned them to CD, and I have played them in my truck. End of story.

As I said, the song you downloaded is not the same as what was burnt to CD. It is of lower quality.

But, you conveniently deleted that part of my post.

Sorry, I didn't delete anything to make my point, I simply got as far as you saying it couldn't be done and had to challenge that. The only modification I did was convert my purchased song from AAC to MP3 which is all done within iTunes. There is no downgrade, I convert it because my truck plays mp3's not AAC. My iTunes music purchases are completely DRM free and have been for over a year. Look into it.