Don't give it away...

Wait for the prestige...

Had a good friend say this to me...

"I understand being financially pinched. So they can pirate any software as long as they allow me, who is also financially pinched to have unprotected sex with their mother. I mean... condoms cost a lot!"

Ouch!

Most software houses offer "student" versions of software (often with little or no functionality loss) at drastically lower prices. Microsoft packages at most colleges sell for 1/10th the normal shelf price. All you need is a current student ID. If they don't, often emailing the company will get you a "student coupon" for it, or in some cases a free code. (Especially if you mail from your schools .edu domain email.)

That said, no, I don't think it's ok. If they want to charge a student full price, find an alternative. One will exist, and it will be the one that's popular in 3 to 7 years when those students start entering the workforce and have skill with that tool set. (Ask Corel some time about how they lost the battle with WordPerfect.)

Me neither. Still, going by the dictionary it wasn't a contradiction, either. Besides, a win is a win. I'll take what I can get.

You started from the wrong conclusion that if you can sing you should be able to live from it. I can sing too (I can't really, but who are you to judge?), so I should quit my job and sing full time. As a result, I should be able to live off it.

That's not true. Nor should it be. In any market I can think of at the moment, you have to be good. And if you're good, loads of people want what you sell.

You also made the mistake of assuming a (good) musician lives off selling songs. They don't. They also have videos, concerts, tours, endorsements, all kinds of stuff. And lately, the managing and launching of others for a substantial sum - big names can raise someone from the mud, recommend them and later cash in.

I'm not saying they shouldn't live off it, but arguing that if you can sing and bought the equipment you should be able to live off it is (IMO) incorrect.

It's a failure of understanding. Pirating isn't theft, as per many simple diagrams all over the net saying that the original isn't removed.

The subtlety that's lost here on most of said people is that it isn't theft, but it isn't OK, either. It's not theft and shouldn't be punished as theft, because theft laws were designed to punish and compensate someone for the loss of their property. This doesn't happen in piracy, so, not, it's not theft.

Doesn't keep people from claiming that it's not theft like it's nothing, though.

That alone is worth another thread. If I'm in mortal danger from a person I can kill the sad sap but if I'm in mortal danger from low blood sugar I can't steak a pack of sugar for threat of jail.

Then again, a door is opened for a horde of poor people.

Like I said, not a simple matter.

I have an idea. Not an exact one, but I have SOME idea, and, might I say, just because you pump money in a project like you're trying to wet Sakkara doesn't mean that's how much it costs. Nor does it mean that's how much it should cost. But you're not paying for it, the poor saps are, so, you know, limos all around. How else can they afford another solid gold hum-vee?

That was part of my original rationalization. There are some options out there to give one an idea. You see, my poor 1+1 logic is that if an independent studio makes money on some rates, then a large studio that owns the equipment and employs the people should be able to do it for less. Otherwise, outsourcing.

Assuming you record with an artist, not a duck that refuses to cooperate, you should be able to record a song in an hour - after all, if an artist is any good they should be able to perform live, that is, sing from one end to the other. Assuming no ultra-complex stuff, like 50 members playing independently, it should take a little while.

In actual terms, the equipment is purchased and then broken down and assimilated as expense over the declared course of the object life. Should work for larger studios, after all, it works for smaller ones.

So, what, 1000$ per song? 2000? If *I* record it, I'd go to a studio in that list, take a few hours, then take all the master tracks at home. Use a good editor (16 bit stereo final and 24 bit in-process is more than enough for even the highest quality CDs - not to mention maybe 1% has zero artifacts and hiss in real life). That brings me to the astronomical sum of 200$. Plus 2 per CD. Sell at 4, and my BEP (Break Even Point) is at 100 units sold.

Let's assume I'm the next MJ and I need to mass produce. There are ways to get good prices, say $793 for 500 CDs, jewel case. Or,

80 cents for retail, sealed audio disc.

That means that it costs me $400.000 to go gold, assuming I don't get any volume discount and that I don't own the press. At this level, it matters not how much I stay in the studio, it won't matter if I move in.

A gold record (500K) at 13$ per disk (Amazon) makes 6.5 million. That means that either it costs 6.1 million to "produce" the rest of it or their margin is pretty high.

What does that entail? Keyboard samples? You'd think so, but "24 yodeling classics" is $12.98. What exactly "producing" goes into a yodeling disk?

Screw music. Let's talk people with more to fear from failure. Let's take movies.

Titanic took 200 million to make. A gamble, but no risk no gain.

.

The film made BEP in 15 days or so, and continued to sell like nuts, grossing out at almost 2 billion. Yes, billion.

After such a success, it has been released on DVD, and, 13 years later, the disk is $25. Exactly, what costs and what risk are they soaking in at the moment?

At this point, the only thing that justifies the price is "because you'll buy it anyway".

And we know it's wrong, because we've capped prices before, like communications, gas, and many others I could only find PDF links to.

Some are necessary products. Some are there to help stabilize economy and some protect consumers from blackmailing and other businesses from failing due to cartel pricing.

Maybe if we all unite and found a music-listening company we could get governments to help us stay in business. But then again, if we're a company we could just lobby ourselves, right?

Not that pirating is cool. But I'm not exactly bleeding internally if my version of Titanic ends in .torrent. Now, if the disc was priced at $5, how many would pirate that?

Oh, and, enjoy.

Nice ndi!

You completely ignored marketing in the cd/dvd examples and countless other expenses in bringing music to market. Not to mention the cost of pressing 10,000 cd/dvd's no one wants, or other losses.

Anyway you slice it, you are just attempting to rationalize theft.

Oh, if you don't like how rich a performer is, don't buy it or steal it.

Comparing stealing something because you're too poor to buy it to having the legal right to defend yourself from someone attacking you are two completely different things.

We're talking about stealing something straight out.

There may be far flung exceptions to stealing something like someone is chasing you with an axe and you steal a bicycle to get away but again that isn't stealing something because you're too poor, which is what this thread is questioning.

Nope, but it's OK to use alternatives, and in fact, that's the right thing to do.

You're basing that on rank opinion. I don't care how many contrary documents litter the web. I can spread spam far and wide, too, but that doesn't make the message true.

Based on legal precepts in many states and nations, infringement of intellectual property IS defined as a form of theft. I wish detractors would work harder on changing law rather than filling up the intertubes with disingenuous rationalizations around it.

Now, my long-lost uncle in Nigeria died, and I have to send some money to secure my huge inheritance...

Actually it's not.

I'm not sure how many time I need to write this. Hopefully I can get my point across. My point is this.

If someone creates something good enough for you to steal and listen to over and over again and keep on your laptop then the argument that it sucks doesn't fly, because you wouldn't steal something you don't want or need.

If the creator makes something you want and asks for compensation, you need to pay.

If someone's music sucked you wouldn't listen to it and it wouldn't be in your media device.
If software sucked, you wouldn't spend the time to download it and use it on occasion and in many cases every day.

People can make fun of Microsoft all day, long, bad code, evil company, the devil incarnate, whatever. But they use it all day long and all day long they're saying, this software is good because I depend on it. Don't like it, don't use it and theft would not be necessary.

BINGO. And by stealing it you're saying you want what they're selling. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand.

So? And if they wanted to promote their songs by giving it away for free they would have, but they didn't. And no, not all artist have videos, concerts, tours and endorsements. The big ones? Sure. The smaller ones? no.

By the way, some music artists have to use alternate revenue streams precisely because they can't make money off of music sales. Ever think about that?

I don't disagree, but that wasn't my point. They may not be able to "live off of their music" but what gives you the right to steal from them and prevent them from trying?