Google > “dvd copying software” > First result’s second recommendation is DVDFab.
Stop being intentionally thick. There’s no default program to unpack .rar files on windows but people somehow figure it out.
For one, it would be illegal to make a “backup” copy of a a CD or record and then sell or give away the CD or record without destroying the digital copy
That’s why I said: “when you’re done with it” because this point was made in the context of gifting or bequeathing your collection.
if the real objection is that digital media is a limit on your ability to own something forever
No, I made clear that my objection is that you don’t even own it. In the case of digital downloads from itunes you’re paying relatively the same price for an item that costs record industry nothing but the itunes store cut for distribution to get yourself a product that you have no ownership over.
practical limitations of the physical media aren’t irrelevant.
They are irrelevant, depending on the format and your committal to archive them. CDs, DVDs and vinyl aren’t particularly hard to store for a long time. I know why these companies constantly shift to the next format and it does nothing to endear me to them.
they’re not making as much money as you think
I know someone who works for a large record company. I am entirely aware of the profits they make (or don’t make). While they continue to make substandard anti-consumer crap, support the RIAA and litigate like motherfuckers, anything above $0 is too much in my opinion.
I’m tired of arguing against the devil’s advocate, especially when you argue so dishonestly.
@bwv812 how many people do you think you’ve convinced with your stubborn position? I didn’t even read your last reply because judging by this thread and most others you’re always right and everyone else should just shut up and listen.
I’m the one being thick? In your opinion, what percentage of people actually use rar files, and where are they likely to encounter them? To be honest, I only really encounter rar files when pirating stuff, and possibly when downloading obscure and possibly dubious software.
What percentage of people actually copy DVDs? What percentage of people think that this kind of software is 100% legal, especially when your #1 result touts its ability to defeat encryption? The hurdles may be low, but they’re enough to dissuade a lot of people from using them or from thinking that these products are legit.
Here’s what you said: “The record, book and film collection that could have been passed down to you is a thing of the past and is strictly disallowed by services like itunes. You’re buying a lifetime licence, not a copy.”
It’s not clear to me whether your objection is based on the theoretical grounds that you have a non-alienable license, or on the practical grounds that you’re unable to pass your collection on. If your objection is purely theoretical, then sure, you have a point, and maybe you should have bought your 8-track and cassette and complete CD version of the album instead of the specific 99¢ iTunes track you wanted. But if your objection is actually a practical one, then your 8-track and cassette versions are useless, the complete CD is quite possibly more than you wanted, and you actually save money by paying your 99¢ for your track and then buying the same track for 99¢ to give to your friend.
It’s entirely possible to be “done with” the physical container without being done with the music itself, and to me it seems strange to think that people would actually delete content from their hard drive even if they were “done with” their physical media and giving “it” away. I know plenty of people who have gotten rid of their CD collections after ripping it, either by sale or giving them away. I think that presuming people delete their already-ripped content when they get rid of their physical media is, as you might say, “being intentionally thick.”
That’s a pretty big “depending.” I’d bet serious money that only CDs are regularly ripped by consumers, largely because they are the only physical format supported by popular mainstream programs like iTunes. I’m guessing that Vinyl and DVD ripping is much less common, due not only to the difficulty and specialized software required, but because of the analog appeal of vinyl and the need to circumvent encryption in the case of DVDs.
Honestly, I doubt this makes you aware of the profits they make. It may mean you re aware of some aspects of their profitability and of some things you may or may not interpret as their margin, but I highly doubt it makes you aware of their entire cost and revenue structure. In all honesty, an analyst reading their 10-K forms is going to have a much better idea of their profitability.[quote=“teapot, post:81, topic:25822”]
In the case of digital downloads from itunes you’re paying relatively the same price for an item that costs record industry nothing but the itunes store cut for distribution to get yourself a product that you have no ownership over.
[/quote]
This is a great example of why you probably are not entirely aware of the profits a label does or doesn’t make, unless you actually think that this is how economics works. Lets pretend that someone has a 100% digital distribution network: do you think that this means that the “label” or artist has no costs other than whatever cut iTunes takes? That studio time, producers, advertising, engineering, etc. are all suddenly costless? That there may be no artist advances to recoup?
Hey, I’m not sure I’m being dishonest, and if you think I am then I’m certainly not the only one. I’m not the one who insists that you can rip DVDs without defeating DRM, or that you can use VLC to defeat all region coding. I’m not the one who keeps insisting that there are music and movie monopolies without ever saying what exactly makes them monopolies. I’m not the one pretending that iTunes delivery means music is suddenly costless, or who apparently believes that $0 record-label profitability would be good for music or consumers.
False equivalence. The barrier to me getting a Thai iced coffee, or better yet the little pork and shrimp spring rolls for under $1 here in the US is a real barrier involving supply-chain, demand, logistics, etc… The barriers to getting any form of digital media, nearly anywhere on Earth are constructed and artificial ones, attempting to impose equivalent barriers that exist for physical, freshness-sensitive products, so that a middleman can take more money. I have no obligation whatsoever to support a middleman who delivers no value to me.
Globalization has introduced some weird price dynamics into our economic reality. Hard drives are built less expensively in Thailand, so the jobs went there, and the product is shipped here to the US. Clothing, trinkets, etc… started to be made and sold overseas, and imported to the US, while middlemen involved in import attempted to keep prices relatively stable. So, people in the US either make less money year over year (in spending power terms, if not also in dollar terms), while corporates and middlemen source what they can elsewhere, using global price differences. But, the US consumer isn’t allowed via law or technical impediment to also source goods and services globally?
Price discrimination is an attempt to establish corporate supremacy over humans, plain and simple. Our government, owned by corporates, offers no protections to our side of this equation, and readily assists, as you’ve seen with book sourcing court cases, etc… in subjugating us to the corporate interest. This is more than an idle complaint that “stuff is cheaper in other countries; not fair!” This is a precise and deliberate attack on humans, economically. The term “grey market” is an obscenity, right along with “region restrictions.” They are artificial and meant to enrich non-humans, while the same entities freely source human labor without such restriction.
Coffee was chosen intentionally, as beans are a commodity traded on the international market. Their cost in Thailand, the USA, and China is pretty much the same. On the other hand, the USA enjoys economies of scale not available in Thailand or even China (given relative consumption levels). Localization costs are significantly higher, on a per-unit basis, for smaller markets, which to some extent explains why Canadians pay more for many products than Americans do.
This is false. The prices of just about everything have dropped as a result of globalization. Prices for Chinese-made consumer goods offered at mega US retailers like Wal-mart and Amazon.com are usually cheaper than they are at markets in China.
Not really. It’s an attempt to charge as much as people are willing to pay. A rich person may be willing to pay a lot for something, while a poor person may not be willing to pay as much. A small businessman who quotes a higher price to the rich than to the poor is engaging in price discrimination. More frequently this will be manifest with higher list prices, but with discounts available to the poor, seniors, etc. This is all price discrimination, and has little to do with being corporate. Merit scholarships to universities are a form of price discrimination, as are need-based financial awards: only those who are (thought to be) willing to pay the sticker price are actually charged that much.
[quote=“bwv812, post:84, topic:25822”]
This is false. The prices of just about everything have dropped as a result of globalization. Prices for Chinese-made consumer goods offered at mega US retailers like Wal-mart and Amazon.com are usually cheaper than they are at markets in China.
[/quote]False? I’ve purchased clothing, food, eyeglasses, random consumer goods, and electronics, in person, in China. I paid a lot less than I do in the states for the same things. Prices have dropped as a result of globalization? Have they dropped at a greater rate than the average US citizen’s spending power? At what levels? Electronic “luxury” goods, certainly… food, gasoline, housing, medical, utilities?
Perhaps I’ve used the term poorly. I’m not talking about these forms of price discrimination, which require a know-your-customer approach and are therefore small-time efforts at pricing as the market will bear. What I’m talking about as being truly insidious is the practice of corporate entities colluding and pushing technological standards or purchasing laws against the people at large. What I’m talking about is blanket price fixing at the national level. Where a government of old might enact a tariff to protect the jobs of its people, this activity is the opposite, corporates enact a rule preventing individual humans from finding the best price for a product in the global marketplace, while the corporates are free to use that global marketplace, to the detriment of everyone who has been “outsourced.”
I’m talking about “region restrictions” and “grey market” rules, not supply and demand, not the fact that the groceries cost more in the more “upscale” neighborhoods, not about financial assistance for tuition… those are different issues and don’t represent the same stark immorality that I take issue with.
You pay less in China for the exact same products? I have my doubts. Food and clothing for the Chinese market is typically (very) different in design and quality than it is for the US market. Buying international brands in China is typically more expensive in China. Internationally available consumer electronics are more expensive. Internationally-available eyeglass frames are just as expensive in China, though lenses are much cheaper (though also of lower quality… although even in the US it is perfectly possible to by cheap glasses from places like goggles4u.com, etc.).
For the most part food and gasoline are commodities whose prices are fixed by the global market. Your mythical middlemen are not driving up the prices of these goods. US healthcare costs are uniquely high, and at any rate it, like housing and utilities, are really not much affected by globalization.
But it is possible to buy things on the grey market. Yes, it is more difficult, but this is still a form of price discrimination. Those who really want to pay less, can. And those that want to pirate, can pirate. This is why I see DRM as it currently exists as a form of price discrimination: only those who are willing to pay higher prices have to, while those who are willing to go to more effort can pay less or nothing.
I’m not sure why you think there should be uniform global pricing, though. Take one of Cory’s books, for example. I imagine the price of his paperbacks in India are lower than they are in the UK. If he and his publishers had to charge the same price everywhere, I imagine it would make financial sense to simply not publish in India at all, and to only publish in the UK and other rich countries. I don’t think this is a preferable situation to what we currently have, with different prices in different countries, Cory making more money, and more people being able to buy his books. Obviously the story is similar and even more serious when it comes to things like medicine, as it is even more important to ensure that lots of people have access to them, even if it means different prices in different countries.
30% - 65% variation in cities where prices are more consistent, the price variation in rural areas is even greater. The probability that you could sincerely base every point off of a completely incorrect assumption = 0%. Decided to save my breath, this has to be trolling, that is the only rational explanation.
I have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to “cities where prices are more consistent”—let alone the relevance of “rural areas”—or really even what point or argument your chart is in response to, but I assume the variation in CD prices across markets (and tax regimes) is supposed to be instructive.
Prices vary within the industrialized West? How is this possible when media companies are monopolies hell-bent on circumventing market principles and have the ability to set any price they want to extract profits from powerless consumers at will?
