Industry News Report

Comments

apit34356 wrote on 11/8/2004, 10:30 PM
pmasters, "Price fixing is stealing.", again you are not understanding the law, but are using an emotional argument. I do not support Hollywood's goals concerning thier plans about the future extension of the copyright laws, but people need ways to protect thier work.

Nothing personnally, but you sound as if you just took 101 econ at a local college. Most 101 econ classes today teach more socialism that econ priniples.

Pmasters, a note about professionism, not everyone who reads these forums are non-professionals. When you were having rough times, most of the forum, especially Spot, tried to be helpful. You using the information as you did about Spot, tells me why your past if so troubled. Just as you were given the headsup about your "acidsex" nickname, you continue to miss the points given to you about image and conduct.

Grazie wrote on 11/8/2004, 10:51 PM
( 1, 2 , 3, 4, . . . 10 )


Ho! - Apologies, I came to this "open discussion", well . .late.

Please tell me - in everything that is Democratic and open - what this thread is REALLY about? Where's the Beef? What is going on behind all this?

We are all so much more capable than we think we are. We are all full of wondorous things - yeah? Let's go and do it!

I'm off to the Gym this morning to let off steam there . .Then I'm back doing what I do on my MONSTA! I've got a really neat go ahead from my client to go with an idea I've had. I'll get paid for doing this . . I think I'm going to make a really nice stew for tonight that my partner and I will enjoy. Maybe washed down with some full bodied Rioja . . then bed.

Now - Boyz, friends, colleagues and peers - think what all the thread above appears to "Global" folks - I for one - invite you here to see what Vegas is about and what it can do - yeah?

This is just a pointer as to where you could be going with this.

Of course, my best regards to all of you,

Graham Bernard
p@mast3rs wrote on 11/9/2004, 12:08 AM
apit34356, The information I used wasnot done with illintentions nor was it done to make Spot look bad. It was proving a point. If you listen to the RIAA/MPAA that every less sale they have is attributed to piracy. If you listen to the spin, everyone is a pirate and does nothing but download copyrighted works 24/7 and its clearly not the case. When I referred to Spot, I was trying to prove that not all people are like what the RIAA want you to believe. Perhaps my point didnt get across as well I had hoped. Do I Think Spot's a pirate? Nope. That wasnt the point I made. But in the eyes of the MPAA/RIAA, if you have ever downloaded one movie/song then you are just as bad as the guys who download gigs of media on P2P. Furthermore, they justify price increases by claiming piracy is the cause for their lost sales.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with what Spot did. I think all software should be this way and maybe even music as well. Customers should have a chance to try out fully functional software before investing their money in it. The problem with it is if you purchase something without the ability to try it first, how are you supposed to know that it meets your needs? Surely you dont rely on the the vendors ads to decide your purchase. So what happens after you make your purchase and you find out that it doesnt meet your needs or you dont like the album? Do you get a refund? Nope. That only adds to the reason for the pirates.

What I still dont understand is where in my original post that you think I was being confrontational or unprofessional? Did I condemn Spot? Nope. Was I trying to embarrass him? Nope. If anything, Spot is the perfect example. He works hard and he is accomplished. He is your typical person that the RIAA/MPAA paints as a pirate even though he is not.

The whole point of my message is that the RIAA/MPAA rely too much on blaming piracy as the main cause of loss sales. You never hear them say there is a lack of creativity or talent. As Spot said, people are free to do with their entertainment dollars as they see fit. IMO, especially over the last year, people have chosen to take their entertainment dollars elsewhere which results in lost sales or they simply havent spent those dollars. They purposely inflate the number they claim to have lost to piracy and they have no verifiable way to prove those figures. Because sales decline (but profits are up..figure that one out) it has to be those pesky pirates.

Thats why I wrote that piracy starts with the companies. Continious price increases will fuel piracy. The lack of content in the desired medium will continue to fuel piracy. They will continue to throw more and more money in to R&D to develop new protection schemes that will be broken not too long after releasing it and those costs will be passed on to us that abide by the rules and more importantly the law.

Billy Boy ( I believe) once posted his thoughts on activation protection and protection schemes. That the only thing that protection/activation does is annoy the legitimate customers. Pirates will continue to find ways around protection. But those of us who legally purchase the medium pay for those that dont play by the rules and have additional hoops to go through.






nickle wrote on 11/9/2004, 12:34 AM


In Canada the government has imposed the following taxes on recordable media
to offset royalties lost through illegal copying:


Media Levy
Audio Cassette tape (40-minute lengths or longer) 29¢ per unit
CD-R Audio, CD-RW-Audio & MiniDisc 77¢ per unit
CD-R, CD-RW (non-audio) 21¢ per unit
Non-removable media permanently embedded in digital audio recorder
Recorders less than 1GB $2 per unit
Recorders more than 1GB but less than 10GB $15 per unit
Recorders more than 10GB $25 per unit

I have never recorded commercial music and yet I have paid the levies on each cd I have purchased.

So my money has been given to Celine Dionne, The Barenaked Ladies, and other millionaires just in case I ever record their music on my cds.

One might think that I have the right to not only record their music, but to sell it because the royalties have been prepaid.

This is part of what creates piracy.
farss wrote on 11/9/2004, 4:36 AM
apit,
I can assure you the 'industry' does far more than steal, I've won one fight with them where they're conduct was clearly criminal, to the best of my knowledge their use of blatant blackmail continues to this day. I don't know the precise propotions but I'd estimate a sizable chunk of their funds comes from not just theft, but robbery with menaces.
Bob.
apit34356 wrote on 11/9/2004, 5:19 AM
farss, the 'industry' is very strong arm and their use of blatant blackmail is not new. I'm gald that you won your battle. The 'industry' influence is great in the US legal system, having also had to fight for my rights concerning my copyright material. But the problem is you can not argue in a US court or with a congressial committee that fix pricing should weaken the 'industry' legal protection granted by copyright law. The 'industry' needs some serious black eyes in the legal system concerning thier abuse.
Arks wrote on 11/9/2004, 6:40 AM
Do you know what else is funny pertaining to this topic? The same parent companies that own half the music rights are also making the recordable media to place the music on. LOL. Hmm...
Laurence wrote on 11/9/2004, 7:20 AM
Funny this topic should come up. I'm just in the process of downloading a couple of "conspiracy" videos that are not readily available for purchase legally. Boy is BitTorrent slow! Maybe it's just because these particular files are probably not that popular. My advice is that if you want the latest hit, or anything you can purchase legally, do it that way. The quality is better, you're not jeapordizing your assets, and if you value your computer's time at all it isn't even cost efficient. Bit Torrent is pretty cool though for checking out files you otherwise wouldn't have access to.
TheHappyFriar wrote on 11/9/2004, 7:50 AM
Oh.. online books. :) I used to have the hitchhikers guide to the galexy on CD. Lost it. :(

Well, that's different then. I've done that before and it IS a pain.

Of course you could be nice and upload all the info to cddb.org so others don't have to do it too. :)
TheHappyFriar wrote on 11/9/2004, 7:52 AM
People always ask me if I download movie illegally. I tell them just that. "The Quality sucks compared to what I can buy it for. I just wait for it to be sold used at the local video store."

TheHappyFriar wrote on 11/9/2004, 8:06 AM
I know. Anyone remember when Sony ran commercials for disc recorders that you can make custom mixes with & take to a party? :)

I just ran across an industry stong arm story yesterday.

Someone bought the new X-Box game Halo 2 from a legit game store. It was actuatly a day or so before "official" release, but he thought "hey, maybe they are selling them early!" Well, he bought it, got home, them got a phone call saying that the game was NOT susposed to be sold and legal action would be taken against HIM unless he returned the game.

He did return it but the store lied to him to avoid repurcussins from Microsoft.
Spot|DSE wrote on 11/9/2004, 8:56 AM
>>>>>>Bit Torrent is pretty cool though for checking out files you otherwise wouldn't have access to. <<<<<<<

And if the owner of said files doesn't WANT you to have access to the files, what right do you suppose you have to be accessing them? That's the WHOLE POINT of this discussion, isn't it?

"Hey Person,you might not want me to come into your house, steal your property, and distribute it among the poor, but I'm gonna do it anyway?"
And that's an acceptable frame of thought?

"I realize that you didn't give me the keys to your car for a reason, but I've always wanted access to a Ferrari, so I'm gonna hijack it and hotwire it, drive it around for a while."
That's an acceptable frame of thought?

sorry, I just don't get it. When did we start disregarding the property rights of others in our society? Regardless of what the reasoning is, WHEN did we start disregarding the right of ownership and stewardship?
Laurence wrote on 11/9/2004, 12:54 PM
I know what you're saying, but I'm talking about little know stuff where it is my guess that the people creating it would be glad for any exposure at all. On top of that, I've been checking it out more in order to understand what is going than for the content itself. In any case, my computer has been tied up for about two days already. I can't imagine using Bit Torrent again after experiencing first hand how slow it is. It ties up your bandwidth in both directions
p@mast3rs wrote on 11/9/2004, 1:09 PM
Spot said, "sorry, I just don't get it. When did we start disregarding the property rights of others in our society? Regardless of what the reasoning is, WHEN did we start disregarding the right of ownership and stewardship?"

I can answer that. Ever since the Pilgrims arrived. The US was built on taking things from others. One just has to look at Iraq to see that way of life is continuing. Look back at the days of the Wild West when the railroad companies took a rancher's land all in the name of progress. Doesnt make piracy right but history has proven that cheaters and thiefs do prosper.
filmy wrote on 11/9/2004, 1:46 PM
Wow - read everything up to this point.

I agree, I disagree, I can see that point and *that* one too...and so on.

I have probably said most of this in other threads but will do so again in this one and make somewhat of a tossed salad out of it all. On the PR - I also got that sent to me as well Spot. Sort of read it and hit the delete button. Why? Because to me it is the same old story and somewhat old news. Someone here said that by the time they try to shut down BitTorrent another piece of software will pop up. Anyone here who has a bit of knowledge already knows how to set up a peer to peer system at home without using someone else software - so to speak. How do you think these little hacker BoiEz and gUrlz get into a home PC? My point is that one person doing it is still not legal, but like everything else in this industry "file sharing" / "peer to peer" is dictated by money. BitTorrent is now extremely popular thusly more people take notice. How many of these people with a certian file go out and buy the actual product? How many people even watch it? Or would have gotten it?

I don't think this type of thread will ever go away because the internet and home computer users just keep getting "larger". My 5 year old has a "computer" class as part of her kindergarten class. They actually had a PC in her Pre-K class but it was broken so they never used it. My point is that by the time she is 7 I fully expect her to be computer literate, and she already goes online at home to play games at NickJr's website. There is not really anyway to avoid this fact - and the industry needs to figure out a way to coexist at all levels.

FIle sharing or not? Mp3 downloads? Divx or Mp4? Peer to Peer of FTP? It goes on and on and it has been going on. Most people seem to always take the black and white look at these issues. Somehow I feel the need to come in and take the multi colored areas.

I remember when things started going onto CD's for distribution and I remember lots of complaints about 10 megs or less of program on a 650 or so mb CD. People bitched about paying 400 bucks in some cases for this tiny program. Than when the CD's started being filled up with demos, shareware and other misc things people bitched about too much "Bloatware" hiking the costs up. Now things are moving to DVD distribution - nice. More complaints. What is the cost really? Across the board this is an issue - and trying to justify one thing based on the other is a bit muddy.

In Manhattan it can cost $10.00 - 15.00 to see a move. That is per ticket. Some people blame the high prices on file sharing. Others blame it on too short windows for PPV and Street Date. Others blame it on the cost of making the movies. I blame it on the theatres - after all you can see the exact same movie in another area for much less, wait a month and see it in a second run house for even less. And I will touch on street dates as it was brought up..the argument that people don't want to wait that long to own a film...so I feel it is a bit of a lame argument. Even if you take peer to peer out of the picture - take the entire internet out for that matter. What person really wants to spend 50 - 100 bucks for a family/date night out at the movies when they can wait 30 - 60 - 90 days and see it on PPV for 3.50? Or just wait a bit longer and spend $14 - 29.99 and buy a DVD of it with extras? Please, don't blame that on people online. The industry somehow set this goofy standard about windows - because of the power of places like Blockbuster and Hollywood Video. Yeah - the VSDA has a part in the "longer windows" syndrome but it is the combined buying power that certian chains have that really helped. Again - money talks. Studios find out they can make more money if they pop out the DVD 90 days after theatrical and than give a 30 - 45 day PPV window with another 60 - 90 before pay cable to allows for rentals and they can sell more units than if they wait a year and after it has already been on PPV *and* pay cable (Showtime, etc). Most of these issues came up before the internet was what it is now, certianly before the days of Napstar and the like.

And for the fans - at least those under say 15 - this is what the industry has created. I can blame it on that as a root - not just people who feel like stealing because they can. People now just expect the bulk of films to be out a few months after it was in the theatres...and they want less. In some case it is - in the case of indy films that make deals at Sundace or AFM and such. The film 16 was out in the theatres as a new film and a month after it was out on DVD. Turing back the hands of time - The Ace (aka - The Great Santini ) cause a fairly large "WTF?" because it took so long for it to get out and get noticed - it actually came out on video and was on pay cable before it really got to the theatres. Shaun of the Dead just came out in theatres here but I think over in Europe the DVD is already out. I just don't feel that anyone really has the final, best, way to put out material - some have tried same date worldwide, others stagger it, other just do it based on sales. Kind of like how a person makes any form of art - one size does not fit all.

What Spot said baout the costs - I will second. In aniother post I know I went into detail about certian video factors relating to cost but I will toss them out here again - when I got hired to run a domestic video compnay we hired a "consultant" to hel p laucn the compnay. Part of their salary was based on returns...we had a cap on it but still the first releases has somehting like 20% off the top going to the consultant. Another 10% of the top went to the main producer. Another 10% went to the copyright holder - i.e - film studio. What was left went to recoup the video distribution costs. So here was the typical *video* run down - "A" movies were going out to rental at 100 - 150 per unit. "B" title were goin out at 60 - 75 per unit. And sell through was goin out at a MAP of 19.95. in order for us to make any sort of money the low end out the door price for us was around $15.00 per unit. Most poeple can look at that and say "Geeeez - that is a huge profit for someone" but for us - the distributor/studio - no it isn't. up to 90 minutes duplication was about $1.50 per tape. Video sleeves were 15 cents each, but we had to do a gang run of 5,000 boxes minimum to get that price. Add on the video lables and shrink wrap and the cost or mailing out screening copies to all the main buyers at Tower, Blockbuster, Hollywood as well as buyers at Ingram, ETD, Baker and Taylor and so on - our average cost was about $3.50 per tape. (Also figure int he cost of paying someone to actually design the boxes and othe rpromo material) This *included* the sell through product. So the subs wanted the tapes for between 15 - 18.00 per unit because they would sell to their key accounts based on the rental SRP. Problems really arose with the sell through material - can't sell that tape for $15.00 when it is selling for $19.95. Ingram, for example, wanted us to sell to them for $7.00 per unit and they always wanted to in 2 days - we pay for shipping. You do the math.

And what does that have to do with the downloading and file sharing? Well, the agrument about rising cost and so on - for the most part duplication still is the same. On the DVD front media cost has actually come down but yet the consumer prices have risen. Again go back a few years and first studios and such were saying DVD proces would be under 20 bucks - much less than video products going out to rental. For stores it made more sense to go DVD because compre the 150 cost for them to a 20 cost. And certianly if you, the consumer, wanted to "own your own copy" getting a DVD was cheaper than the video with in the first 30 days (for used) or 90 days (when it would go to sell through). But now that most places have limited or phased out videos, DVD prices have risen for most "A" releases. So we are back to who did this? The consumer? No - the industry. And please don't blame file sharing as the reason.

But at the root of all of this - to be simple and black and white - if it ain't yours you can't give it to other people. it doesn't matter if the CD, book, DVD or Van Gough only cost a penny that still doesn't give someone the right to put it up on a hard drive for the world to feely take. *BUT* - lets go back to what I just spoke about - rentals of films. THis is a grey area to be sure. I go out and buy a DVD but I couldn't, for example, put it on a show for everyone in the area. Nor could I put in up on my computer and let someone "visit" my computer to look at it. But yet a video store can pay the same amount (likey less) and put it out on a shelf and not only let other people see it but *PAY TO SEE IT*. No wait a gosh derned minute - how does that work out? Again - thses issues have been talked baout in years gone buy...the video that cost us the same to duplicate even if it was a sell through price or rental price had built in "rights" so to speak if someone paid $150.00 verses 19.95. DVD however is not priced the same way.

Music - yeah Britney worked hard. By all counts she had very supportative parents that helped a lot. Can't say the internet made her really but you look at someone like Brooke Allison and that changes - if it wasn't for the internet she probably never would have gotten any sort of deal. Times are changing - have been for a while. I have said this before - you can find out info on an artist and hopefully listen to their music far easier than you could years ago. As an musical artist here in the states you can't get the masses to hear you on the radio unless you manage to break into the Clear Channel regeim. If you make a small film that goes to video you need to break into the Blockbuster regeim for rental or the Wall Mart regeim for sell through. (I am being a bit simple with this mind you) Thank god for the internet allowing me to see and hear about things I probably never would have before. That goes to SoFo - most people aren't walking into K-Mart, Wall-Mart or Target and picking up Vegas or Sound Forge. Still doens't mean one should steal - however in some cases you might not have any option. "How so?" you ask - well, in another post I mentioned a few muscial acts that I had never heard of that I discovered on the internet. I downloaded their CD - why? Because I wanted to hear it all and it is not available in the US. Unlike some people I am not a person to spend $40 - 50 on an import CD because the cover looks cool or the like. Ironic thing Is that I asked some people in the country where this band is supposed "big" and they didn't know who they were. Now Spot asked what if the owner of the file didn't want me to download them? In this case they may not want me to but I would also like to think they would rather have their music available in the United States - beyond that I am sure they would probably want a *deal* in the US. So back to films and P2P - how does one make "rules" that would fairly treat the indy films? Sure the big films will come out worldwide at some point but what about those who make a film that gets limited release here and no release anywhere else? Should they fall under the same rules? In a black and white world yes. But I am happy this is not a black and white world. (As opposed to a Bush led America which is really becoming black and white, or Red and Blue - but I digress)

Anyhow - we always say that one size does not fit all. Sometimes making art is not about money - there was one video company that used to put a disclaimer on the head of their videos that said something like "Feel free to copy this video a give to a friend". This was back at the start of all the video rental business - back before the dark times when mom and pops still were in the majority. They got it - even back then someone got it. Hell - as a film maker I want people to see my work if they want to. I would rather have someone freely video somehting and decide if it was worth their money. I wish I could have freely seen Garfield before I spent 8 bucks a ticket to take my daughter to see it., I would have taken her to somehting else for the $25 I spent on tickets and one small soda and a popcorn that day.
TheHappyFriar wrote on 11/9/2004, 6:52 PM
Spot, do you think if the Sonic Foundry people wearn't so nice about the "accidental" illegal copy you would feel the same (ie if they called the FBI & had you arrested for piracy & fined)? I ask because now a days (it seems) you can't play the "i didn't know" card. Microsoft doesn't care if you bought a pirated WinXP you thought was legit or if you used your friends copy. They'll get ya anyway. Same with the RIAA. They don't care if they fine a 80 year old lady $2000 for a mp3 being downloaded on her computer w/o her knowning by ger grand kids.

And the SF people were very nice about all this. Maybe we're spoiled by how good they were.
apit34356 wrote on 11/9/2004, 9:02 PM
This is one of the problems about Pmasters comment about Spot, pmasters has made Spot the center of a discussion which is really not about the subject.

Usually, everyone, at some point, breaks the law or regulations about something. There has been many great debates about wether regulations are used sometimes as politic weapons to transfer wealth from one group to another. But framing the debate as outline by pmasters, corps and copyright owners are evil, so its OK to steal from them, will not win the debate but sell alot of beer at the bar. If the corps are evil, then prosecute them by using the legal or the politic system, but stealing from them only aids them by shifting the focus to a simpler subject, stealing, .... no complex business issues to analyze, just you having stolen goods, which is at lot easier to understand.

p@mast3rs wrote on 11/9/2004, 9:42 PM
apit3456, first off, my post wasnt centered around Spot. Second, it was a fitting example and it had merit since he was the original poster. Again, was my post made to emabrass Spot? NO! AGAIN, I SAY NO! But if you asked the RIAA if Spot is any different than any other pirate they would say he wasnt. And we all know Spot is a good guy.

Furthermore, I am convinced that you cant read nor comprehend. I never said stealing was ok now did I? If you read back over everything I wrote the general consensus is that time and again the RIAA/MPAA are tooquick to blame pirates for loss sales instead of looking at lack of creativity, etc....

" If the corps are evil, then prosecute them by using the legal or the politic system" How funny. I am willing to bet that there are very few people that have the funds to wage a war against either of them. But the consumer who feels as if they have been screwed over and over charged for years have found a way to screw them whereit counts the most...their checkbooks. AGAIN, IT DOESNT MAKE IT RIGHT ( say it 5 times over apit so you understand EXACTLY what I am saying) but thats the mind of pirates. They justify what they do, not I. I am only explaining why its ongoing. Its more than black and white.

What I find rather comical is that both of these industries claim to be losing record sales due to piracy yet EVERY freaking year they increase thier profits. Now what is it? How can they claim sales are down yet they increase profits? My example: Company "A" sells 100 units at $10/ea. They make $1000. The following year they sell 75 units and make $1100. Now please show me where the loss is? YOU CANT! Then add to the equation Company "A" comes out and claims its loss of 25 sales is because of piracy and that they have lost a million more sales because of piracy.

Personally, if my organization was losing billions of dollars due to piracy, I would want to find out just why people pirate in the first place. Is it because of the high prices or the ease of access? Or is it just because they can and run a low risk of getting caught? UNTIL they try to figure out why this happens the problem will continue to exist. Then if they determine that prices are too high, then perhaps they should consider lowering prices. If its ease of access then they need to make it easier and quicker to get the products they want.

One last thing I want to point out about Spot's example of Walmart and lower prices, if they lowered their prices and made some sales, it would be more than they are making now and are claiming they are losing to piracy. If they could even get 5% of the pirates to purchase something then they are making more money than they were before.

Studies show that even with all of the lawsuits that have been filed, P2P usage is still on the rise. Piracy wont ever end but if the organizations were smart, they better adapt soon or their loss sales will continue to rise.
filmy wrote on 11/10/2004, 5:47 AM
Exactly! This is just what I was saying in my post below. I was just watching an awesome documentary called Dig and one of the issues came out, being said from an A&R person, is that it is amazing that this in one of the only industrys where someone can have a 90% failure rate and still be called a success. See - the loss isn't based on one product, it is an overall. So you have one or two "hits", many "ok" and the rest may be failures money wise - thus it is very easy to show a loss. Also keep in mind the "reality" vs the "marketing". A firend of mine allowed one of his films to be distributed by a compnay who at the time was just starting. This was maybe 10 years or more ago - he has never seen one penny from that films domestic video release. At the time it was "funny" seeing all the hype/marketing in all the trades because the president of the compnay would do all these trade interviews and this one film would be sited as being a "huge money maker" and a "great success" yet when my firend would confront them about "where is my money" he would promptly get "bills" saying how much in the red the compnay was and how much money was "made" on this one release - if I remember correctly it was showing the film being $25,000 in the hole yet verses the $250,000 in costs. It was laughable because they came to us and begged us for other films because that one had been so "successful". We told them they needed to cough up some money before they got any other films to distribute. So again, the industry sees these little flying piggie banks with plenty of films, bands, singers, books and so on but when it comes down to reality it is the few "hits" that allow for everything else to "fail". It is also extremely rare for an artist of get money off the top, thusly another reason how something could be a "success" yet not make any money for the creative team behind it.

>>>What I find rather comical is that both of these industries claim to be losing record sales due to piracy yet EVERY freaking year they increase thier profits. Now what is it? How can they claim sales are down yet they increase profits? My example: Company "A" sells 100 units at $10/ea. They make $1000. The following year they sell 75 units and make $1100. Now please show me where the loss is? YOU CANT! Then add to the equation Company "A" comes out and claims its loss of 25 sales is because of piracy and that they have lost a million more sales because of piracy.

Personally, if my organization was losing billions of dollars due to piracy, I would want to find out just why people pirate in the first place. Is it because of the high prices or the ease of access? Or is it just because they can and run a low risk of getting caught? UNTIL they try to figure out why this happens the problem will continue to exist. Then if they determine that prices are too high, then perhaps they should consider lowering prices. If its ease of access then they need to make it easier and quicker to get the products they want.
<<<
apit34356 wrote on 11/10/2004, 7:41 AM
Pmasters, I'm going to be nice and not compare our histories.

For a fact, I forced the Federal government to sue and remove from the Michigan BSBC their medicare program in 1993. BSBC was fined +70 mill for mismagement of the medicare in Michigan. It was a long, expense and painful process, but Mich BSBC was not only cheating, but causing excessive deaths by dening services using math models. The only way to stop thier program was using the failure to follow regulations controlling payments, not deaths caused by denied of services. So, you can change things, you just have to be smart about it and make fewer errors that your opponent.

Hollywood and the music industry has never been dumb went it comes to money. If you would analyze thier "business data", you would have found that the industry's weakens lays in the tax code, tax regulations passed in 1993 for the industry to handled expenses and losses. Huge amounts of profits are 'hidden' in these projected costs. This is very similiar to the insurance industry to project future loses and write them off, without having to actually spent the funds.

Research issues, single source or limited sources of information always leads to a bias or weak argument.

Again you managed to mention someone's name how many times? You need to frame your argument differently, using an abstract model. Think about how much time somebody will end up spending explaining this thread, your posts, to some professional client that has done some web research before hiring the individual or firm. This is why I do not post what I know about you because it may not be to your benefit,( this does not imply anything negative).



p@mast3rs wrote on 11/10/2004, 7:55 AM
apit, you said "Hollywood and the music industry has never been dumb went it comes to money. If you would analyze thier "business data", you would have found that the industry's weakens lays in the tax code, tax regulations passed in 1993 for the industry to handled expenses and losses. Huge amounts of profits are 'hidden' in these projected costs. This is very similiar to the insurance industry to project future loses and write them off, without having to actually spent the funds."

So they hide the profits and then blame pirates. And if you can have any sympathy for a company that hides profits for the benefit of tax breaks. Sorry I cant feel bad for them. Theft isnt the answer for either the companies or the consumers.

If you wish to further debate this, feel free to email me. Be as mean as you want with all this "information" that you claim to know about me. patrick.masters at gmail dot com.
apit34356 wrote on 11/10/2004, 9:11 AM
pmasters, I do not have sympathy for these companies, to win against these companies about 'pricing fix', one must use thier data against them. I do not want you to feel sorry for them, just battle them with information to win. Piracy does not help the public in the end, but forcing an end to 'fix pricing' is a legalite goal for all.

Thank you for the prompt response. We both agree "Theft isnt the answer for either the companies or the consumers." I believe that corps should have a higher standard in thier conduct,( this is a complex subject) . Emailing or posting to you, pmaster, any negative comment or opinion, serves no purpose. But I'll be in Orlando in a couple of weeks for 'industry'
business, maybe we can have coffee at Starbucks near Barnes& Noble if time permits.
p@mast3rs wrote on 11/10/2004, 9:40 AM
apit, dont mistake my offer. Its not an offer for negativity. More so to keep personal confrontations off of the forum that dont relate to the topic posted.

I will admit, Im quite intrigued to discover this information that couldpossibly be available about me. You said it wasnt negative so that peaks intrest even more.

Ill have to pass on the Orlando offer as I am no longer in the area to my regret. Once things begin to work out better I will surely be returning. That doesnt prevent us from thought provoking and pleasant exchange through email. :)
farss wrote on 11/10/2004, 12:31 PM
I mean if it was slabs of beer being stolen in such vast quantities I'm certain we'd see the impact on the streets. So if the figure are half right I should be hearing so much more music everwhere I go or at least see more people listening to this "free" stolen music but I don't.
Now maybe I'm just too over the hill or don't visit the right places but I hear far less music being played these days.
Having grown up in a generation where music was the ammunition of revolution this is kind of odd, vinyl was pretty hard to pirate so we mostly had to pay for our music and we pretty well wore most of the vinyl out. But today the 'records' don't wear out and it seems most consummers don't even have to buy a 'record' to listen to their music so what's happened?
Is it because now that it's free it's become devalued or is it because it's all become a big yawn. I'm suspecting it's a bit of both and that should be a bigger worry for the industry than theft.
Oddly enough the only folks I've run into lately that actually devote a lot of time to listening to music are listening to either vinyl or 1/4" tape, now there's a wierd mob if ever there was one.

Bob.