Posted by Technobarbarian on 10/13/07 03:55

"Jim Higgins" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:jk1vg3hv2ug4s49im259o6kc1kmrokvg49@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:04:07 GMT, Brian Henderson
> <BrianL.Henderson@NOSPAM.verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>No, the solution is for the RIAA and MPAA to stop living in the past
>>and get with the program. Both are using business plans that went out
>>in the 70s and instead of pulling their heads out and accepting the
>>net as a simple fact of life, they're still fighting tooth and nail
>>like they can stop it. I certainly don't want free copying, but the
>>RIAA and MPAA need to realize that their customers want things in a
>>certain format at a certain price point and if they are not given it
>>by the legitimate companies, they *WILL* go elsewhere for it.
>>
>>What the RIAA and MPAA are doing right now is just childish and is
>>driving away an ever-increasing number of potential customers.
>
> What is childish is the notion that the price point that will bring
> the current pirates back into the music stores to buy rather than
> steal is anything close to what record store owners and recording
> companies need to stay in business. When it's all said and done the
> projected return on their investment under the required pricing model
> probably will dictate that they'll be better off in another business.

There is obviously a price point for a viable business model.
Unfortunately those businesses probably won't be as grandiose as the current
dinosaurs. I would agree that the price point acceptable to the average
pirate probably isn't viable.
>
> Granted the current prices are outrageous considering the current
> business model consists of each new CD having a couple of good songs
> and the rest mostly filler.
>
> All in all I'd say the future looks somewhat bleak for the record
> companies. Also the pirates had better be at least marginally more
> intelligent than Jammie Thomas because it doesn't look like juries are
> going to tolerate commercial anarchy.

Being marginally more intelligent than Jammie Thomas shouldn't be too
hard, but I'm sure many people won't be able to manage it. It took her jury
about 5 minutes do decide on her guilt. They spent the rest of the time
haggling about the fine. Two of the jurors wanted to go for the maximum
which would have put her over $3 million in the hole. One of them wanted to
go for the minimum, but by the time you tack on the RIAA's attorney's fees
and court costs she's liable for she would have still ended up around
$300,000 in the hole.

http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2007/10/10/juror-from-riaa-file-sharing-trial-jammie-thomas-is-a-liar
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9795095-7.html?tag=nefd.pulse
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9794513-7.html?tag=nefd.blgs

She says she isn't a puppet for the RIAA foes, but she didn't know her
case was going to be appealed until her attorney announced it to the world.

TB

[Back to original message]