> >2) However, the means of digital reproduction are still, for
the
> >most part, centralized. The market is dominated by giants like
> >Sony, for example, which controls large market shares of both
> >reproduction equipment *and* the content--how's that for a
> >vertical monopoly? Even wonder why you can get an audio tape
> >recorder for $100 and a VCR for $200, but DAT (Digital Audio
> >Tape) has been all but kept off the mass market, as have CD-
> >recorders? Answer: because the ability of the average person
to
> >use digital recording media to perfectly copy information
would
> >cut into the giants' profits.
> >
>
> Dude, you sound like me -- got any other conspiracy theories?
<:
Heh. Actually this was fairly well publicized around the time
Sony bought their way into...oh, whatever the fuck the company
they bought was, I forget. (RCA? Warner?) The people in the
industry went into an uproar because they thought Sony was buying
up a major label so they could start releasing all the albums on
DAT thus creating a market for a product (DAT decks) that the
record labels had been trying to avoid. Didn't happen, though.
Maybe Sony wised up and figured out they'd lose more money to
pirated digital copies than they'd make off the decks.
> >3) Now imagine this future: computers develop to the point
where
> >we have enough bandwidth, processor speed, RAM, and storage
> >capacity to plug the stereo into the PC, capture Prince's new
> >album, and make it available via the net. The computer
hardware
> >manufacturing industry has no vested interest in protecting
> >Sony's copyright, so it's doubtful to me that they will keep
> >powerful computing like that off the market (and I doubt they
> >could anyway, since computing needs rise to meet the increases
in
> >computing ability).
> >
> >4) Now, after the initial investment in the equipment, how
much
> >does it cost to reproduce Prince's album?
>
> Let me answer your question. So far, >>this year<< the people
who own the
> internet (all three companies - there's a non-monoploy
situation!) have
> spent money measured in TENS of BILLIONS of dollars on fiber
optic line.
And while they've been spending all that money, ISP prices have
plummetted!! Thus the average user is paying *far less* than they
were even two years ago for Internet access.
Why? It's the economy, stupid. Improve your service & you attract
more customers. Attract more customers & you can lower your
rates. Lower your rates & you attract even more customers.
Attract even more customers and you can improve your service
again! It's a cycle limited only by the ability to improve
service.
> >One-quarter of a cent?
> >One-eighth of a cent?
>
> That is silly. It is like me saying - 'how much does it cost a
cinema to
> let me watch a movie?' and asnwering 'Well, the wear and tear
on my chair
> is probably 5 cents, so the answer is 5 cents!'
I'm not talking about how much it costs the service provider, JP,
I'm talking about how much it costs the *user*. The users are
going to be the plagiarizers who are using their cheap digital
reproduction & distribution technology to undercut the companies
who are trying to produce material products.
If it costs you 15 cents to make a physical copy of an album, how
do you compete with someone who can make a digital copy of that
album for one-quarter of a cent?
> >The pay enourmous salaries because they control the market. If
> >they can't control the market (i.e., if mass plagiarism is
cheap,
> >simple, efficient, and fast), then they're going to lose their
> >market share.
>
> impeccable logic.
Uh....did JP just agree with me? That's so unlikely that I fear
my sarcasm meter is miscalibrated...
> >The media hardest hit will be anything that's currently in
print-
> >-text, photo, graphic design, etc. And the *vast* majority of
our
> >information still resides in print form.
> >
>
> there's one basic assumption you are making here, that everyone
makes when
> they make this discussion.
>
> You are assuming people will RATHER read something on a
digitial medium and
> would RATHER NOT pay the preium for a physical copy.
See my post re: Digital Books for my explanation of that issue.
> That is an assumption. It may be correct, it may be totally
wrong.
> There is absolutely no way to predict the future.
No shit, sherlock. But if you really believe it's pointless to
discuss the *possibilities* why are you wasting your time on this
list?
Methinks JP, lacking a solid rebuttal, is grasping at straws! :)
> >> { And the cost of a huge internet-web-site -- say CNET's
(50
> >full time
> >> staff) or HOTWIRED (How many Taylor?) or the IBM's Olympic
site
> >($10
> >> million so far) is certainly no closer to zero. }
> >> Have you considered this ?
> >
> >Have you considered that the market for websites is brand new?
> >Maximum of what? Four years old? And it hasn't even approached
> >being a mass market until this year.
> >
>
> Good point .. I was just wondering ..
>
Uh...was that JP agreeing a second time? Someone help me out
here....
;)
> >> the cost of minting CDs is "trivial in relation to the
product
> >cost, but
> >> non-zero".
> >
> >And the cost of sending information over the wires is trivial
in
> >relation to the cost of minting CDs.
>
> Are you SURE about that?
Pretty sure. You want to test it by carrying on this conversation
with an audience of three hundred people worldwide by the *US
Postal System*?
Maybe I should have said "minting & distributing" CDs (not like
the last dozen posts haven't alread incurred a need for a macro
to type out "reproduction and distribution" for me.)
Yes, I am 100% positive that given enough processing power,
bandwidth, & storage capacity (which I've been saying all along
are prerequisites), it will cost a hell of a lot less to make a
digital copy in the memory of your computer and send the
information over the wires than it would to set up a physical
plant to mint CDs and hire the Teamsters to deliver them.
> What you are stating is:
>
> "the entire CD-printing industry, including plant and
personnel, and
> including every retail music store, personell, real estate and
so on .."
>
> .. is .. much bigger than ...
>
> "the entire fiber optic and satellite industry, combined with
Cisco and the
> entire segment of the computer indsutry devted to making
servers, etc .."
What the hell are you talking about? We are talking about a mere
*two* acts here:
1) copying information
2) distributing information
To do that digitally all an individual needs is a computer and a
network.
To do that non-digitally you need equipment and infrastructure
that is out of the price range of most individuals.
I.e., I get net access free through my work. (Truly free, since
I'm faculty and it's paid for primarily through student fees.) If
I want to send 500 copies of a short story around the world to
500 people it costs me...nothing! (Except the time it takes to
type in 500 e-mail address). Just to *print* 500 copies would
cost me several hundred dollars, and we're not even talking about
mailing costs yet.
Now, if you want to be royally stupid enough to try to
verticalize this process to include all the infrastructure
required to distribute the work (i.e. "the entire fiber optic and
satellite industry" (!)), then allow me to tack onto the 'costs'
of non-digital distribution: the entire worldwide postal system,
the entire worldwide air freight system, the entire worldwide
trucking system, and, oh, since we're talking about air freight
and trucking let's stick in the entire revenues of Boeing and GM,
not to mention what we have to pay all the air traffic
controllers...oh, and let's not forget the wear and tear on
*highways* for pete's sake--that alone should be worth at least a
few dozen entire satellite systems! Etc. etc. etc.
> I just am not sure if you are correct there Greg.
Way more correct than you, bucko! :)
> >Nope, not even remotely. The threshold will come about when
the
> >means of cheap digital reproduction and distribution are in
the
> >hands of people with PCs, DAT decks, CD-recorders, and a high-
> >bandwidth computer network connection. Still several decades
off,
> >IMO. (Which is why I still have a chance to make it big as a
> >writer!)
>
> You are saying the following:
>
> For Greg to be a famous writer:
>
> Society currently has to sustain:
>
> * sundry paper makers, printers
> * sundry distributors
> * sundry retailers
>
> In the future, society will have to sustain:
>
> * the telecommunciations industry
> * cisco & Sun
>
> Your assertion, Greg, is that B is vastly less expensive than
A.
>
> is it?
See above for how stupid your argument is.
All I'm saying--and this shouldn't be a big surprise--is that for
me or any other creative worker to make an enourmous deal of
money off their creative work, it's extremely beneficial to be
working under a system where plagiarism is difficult and rare.
> (PS your point that "you personally only have to pay $30 a
month under
> Model B" sort of makes my point. Under the current model A, ou
have to pay
> _nothing_ per month . You just have to walk into an agent and
convince her
> to rep your book <: }
I was speaking from the point of view of the consumer, not the
creator. A consumer pays $30 a month ($360/year) and for that
price buys access to all the uncountable megs of information on
the Internet.
Or, for the same $360 you could buy about 30 trade paperbacks (or
about 15 hardcovers or 45 mass market paperbacks).
Gee, Mildred, that there Internet thingie sounds like a right
good bargain--how come we're not already ditching books for the
Net?
Because the information we want is usually not on the Net--it's
out in the physical world. For now. The only thing keeping it in
the physical world is the limits of the current technology. As
the technology becomes more powerful people will demand the
information be distibuted via networks. (Remember the motto of a
consumer society: "Better, Faster, More!") And once it hits that
digital realm, IP laws aren't going to be able to stop the flow
of information any more than LA cops could stop the riots.
-- Greg Ritter gritter@saturn.vcu.edu <--NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS! ritter@urvax.urich.edu http://www.urich.edu/~ritter-- CompLink (a comprehensive resources for Rhetoric & Composition teachers) http://www.urich.edu/~ritter/CompLink.html