Whitney Houston - Dead at 48

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Free Ben Hur!

What does this have to do with the RIAA? The story quotes Sony as the organization that took the egregious action.

Sony Music is the RIAA. It's the biggest of the big 4 that make up that organization. There are more Sony Music Entertainment executives on the RIAA board of directors than any of the other labels.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Sony Music is the RIAA. It's the biggest of the big 4 that make up that organization.

Why shouldn't they control the price of their product? Shouldn't profit from someone's death? Why? They are not killing her nor celebrating her death. Other than the rah-rah corporations are evil crap, why is it wrong?

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Why shouldn't they control the price of their product? Shouldn't profit from someone's death? Why? They are not killing her nor celebrating her death. Other than the rah-rah corporations are evil crap, why is it wrong?

Just answered your own question. They are free to do it but it's a scumbag steve move.

[Free Ben Hur!]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Sony Music is the RIAA. It's the biggest of the big 4 that make up that organization.

Well OK, that clears it all up.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Why shouldn't they control the price of their product? Shouldn't profit from someone's death? Why? They are not killing her nor celebrating her death. Other than the rah-rah corporations are evil crap, why is it wrong?

I don't have a big opinion on this, but from a theoretical perspective, I'd support their attempt to let the price of the product float based on demand. But I'm pretty sure that they didn't drop their prices based on lack of demand / lack of popularity when Whitney was at her nadir. So if you're only responsive when increases in demand present themselves as an opportunity to raise prices, don't be surprised if people think it's exploitive.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I don't have a big opinion on this, but from a theoretical perspective, I'd support their attempt to let the price of the product float based on demand. But I'm pretty sure that they didn't drop their prices based on lack of demand / lack of popularity when Whitney was at her nadir. So if you're only responsive when increases in demand present themselves as an opportunity to raise prices, don't be surprised if people think it's exploitive.

In classical economics, prices float in relation to demand when there is a shortage of supply. This is iTunes. The supply is infinite no matter how many Whitney Houston albums that Patrick Bateman buys.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Just answered your own question. They are free to do it but it's a scumbag steve move.

disagree ... its their ethical obligation to the shareholders of the company to maximize revenue.

in fact, if pirates werent constantly stealing their music, maybe they wouldnt need to maximize revenues in this manner.

so really, if you want to blame anyone, blame the the people who are illegally downloading music that doesnt belong to them.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

disagree ... its their ethical obligation to the shareholders of the company to maximize revenue.

in fact, if music pirates werent constantly stealing their music, maybe they wouldnt need to maximize revenues in this manner.

so really, if you want to blame anyone, blame the the people who are illegally downloading music that doesnt belong to them.

Pirated content =/= lost sales

It was also the ethical obligation of American banks to maximize revenue to their shareholders and that devastated the world economy.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Pirated content =/= lost sales

interesting, if this is the right place to continue the discussion, i would like to hear that explanation.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

interesting, if this is the right place to continue the discussion, i would like to hear that explanation.

Assuming that every pirated copy is equivalent to one lost sale is faulty logic. At most, it is the loss of a potential sale.

As per a EU judge, paraphrased and translated:

"it is not possible to determine the damage and corresponding compensation due to loss of benefits to the rightsholder, for the simple reason that customers of pirated copies of music and movies, when making the purchase of pirated copies, externalize their decision not to be customers of music and movies as originals, so there is no profit that could have been gained. In other words, those customers either buy a pirated copy at a low price or they don't buy an original at a price between 15 and 20 Euros.

In any case, reversing the legal argument, it is conceivable that a customer, after hearing or viewing the pirated copy, may decide to purchase the original, finding it to their taste, so that the sale of pirated copies, far from harming, benefits the market for original items."

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Assuming that every pirated copy is equivalent to one lost sale is faulty logic. At most, it is the loss of a potential sale.

As per a EU judge, paraphrased and translated:

"it is not possible to determine the damage and corresponding compensation due to loss of benefits to the rightsholder, for the simple reason that customers of pirated copies of music and movies, when making the purchase of pirated copies, externalize their decision not to be customers of music and movies as originals, so there is no profit that could have been gained. In other words, those customers either buy a pirated copy at a low price or they don't buy an original at a price between 15 and 20 Euros.

In any case, reversing the legal argument, it is conceivable that a customer, after hearing or viewing the pirated copy, may decide to purchase the original, finding it to their taste, so that the sale of pirated copies, far from harming, benefits the market for original items."

i still disagree. if i want the LMFAO song "Sexy and I know it" and wasnt able to steal it, I would have to buy it. Illegally downloading it therefore represents a lost sale.

as for the 2nd point, thats speculation and there is no way to measure this. regardless, if the producer of the music wants to market and promote his music by giving some of it away, thats his right. its not the right of others to make this promotion decision for them, whether they can justify as such or otherwise.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

i still disagree. if i want the LMFAO song "Sexy and I know it" and wasnt able to steal it, I would have to buy it. Illegally downloading it therefore represents a lost sale.

as for the 2nd point, thats speculation and there is no way to measure this. regardless, if the producer of the music wants to market and promote his music by giving some of it away, thats his right. its not the right of others to make this promotion decision for them, whether they can justify as such or otherwise.

If I wanted a Whitney Houston song to put in my American Psycho mixtape and wasn't able to steal it. I would choose not to buy it.

See the difference there? Everything you want does not result in a purchase.

If I wanted a Ferrari and I couldn't steal it. I would choose not to buy it. If someone offered me a copy for free, whose cost is fractions of pennies in bandwidth, I would be a crazy man to not take it for a spin.

Both points are not measurable. That's the point.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

If I wanted a Whitney Houston song to put in my American Psycho mixtape and wasn't able to steal it. I would choose not to buy it.

See the difference there? Everything you want does not result into a purchase.

If I wanted a Ferrari and I couldn't steal it. I would choose not to buy it. If someone offered me a copy for free, whose cost is fractions of pennies in bandwidth, I would be a crazy man to not take it for a spin.

yup, i see your point but i dont support stealing music or other content, no matter how its justified.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

yup, i see your point but i dont support stealing music or other content, no matter how its justified.

I believe patent and copyright laws are in place to encourage invention and innovation, not to continue giving residuals for decades (in that way, the UK system where intellectual property rights of songs expire after a few decades is better) that outstrip the cost of creating the original content by a million times.

I don't agree with the laws or the system or the corrupt and greedy industry labels that foster it. I will gladly pay money directly to artists that I enjoy by going to their concerts or purchasing directly from their websites.

If anything, it's the labels who are stealing from the artists. When Sony/RIAA increases the price of a Whitney Houston song on iTunes to $3, Whitney Houston's estate does not get any more royalties. They get the same rate as before which is something like 8 cents per song sold. Sony makes more money because Whitney Houston drowned in her bathtub. Whitney's now-orphaned daughter will not see any of the profits from that price hike.

I think Neil Young said it best when he said that file-sharing was simply the radio of the 21st century. It's something that is ostensibly free from the public perspective and yet it is the medium by which good music is shared by person to person and is the best promotion tool for any one artist's work to get to people who haven't heard it yet so they might deem it worthwhile to compensate that artist.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

i still disagree. if i want the LMFAO song "Sexy and I know it" and wasnt able to steal it, I would have to buy it. Illegally downloading it therefore represents a lost sale.

as for the 2nd point, thats speculation and there is no way to measure this. regardless, if the producer of the music wants to market and promote his music by giving some of it away, thats his right. its not the right of others to make this promotion decision for them, whether they can justify as such or otherwise.

There's a flaw in your logic. I want the original Star Wars Trilogy on BluRay. I haven't downloaded them (at least not yet) however I also haven't bought them. I don't have the disposable income for it.

You're assuming that everyone who downloads a song, movie, or other medium would then purchase it.

To put it another way, I'm not going to purchase any album by Warren Zevon. I only know one of his songs. However, if I get a free copy of Werewolves of London I'd love that.

People will consume more of a product at a reduced price than an inflated one (shifts in demand and supply could change this, but with computer files the supply is essentially unlimited). With media being free it's boarderline impossible to determine what the sales would have been at the HMV, Walmart, or iTunes going rate if the free option wasn't available. Hence why you can't say 1.5 million torrent downloads = 1.5 million copies sold.

[metallicat]

Can we get back to posting funny Whitney Houston meme pics?

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

...

If anything, it's the labels who are stealing from the artists. When Sony/RIAA increases the price of a Whitney Houston song on iTunes to $3, Whitney Houston's estate does not get any more royalties. They get the same rate as before which is something like 8 cents per song sold. Sony makes more money because Whitney Houston drowned in her bathtub. Whitney's now-orphaned daughter will not see any of the profits from that price hike.

WH and her estate presumably exchanged the rights to market and sell her catalogue of music for something else of benefit from Sony and its Sony's contractual right to resell and distribute that commodity for their profit at their discression. Presumably anyhow.

but I digress .. go ahead and continue downloading, I wont exactly shed a tear for the record companies and I apologize for hijacking the thread.

[Caged Great]

I never understood why the music industry didn't get together and make something like Youtube, where it's free entirely, just ads coming out of the ying yang (like a 10 sec ad before it plays, and multiple ads on the pages etc and make a huge amount of revenue from there, and provide options to download the songs directly from their version of youtube for a minimal fee (again with more ads)

This is in addition to having cd's etc.

It would be a case where everyone wins, and there's virtually no draw back. Advertisers get more exposure, Bands get more exposure, the recording studios get more revenue, and the consumers get a more modern business model from the music industry instead of having to put up with their bs.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

I never understood why the music industry didn't get together and make something like Youtube, where it's free entirely, just ads coming out of the ying yang (like a 10 sec ad before it plays, and multiple ads on the pages etc and make a huge amount of revenue from there, and provide options to download the songs directly from their version of youtube for a minimal fee (again with more ads)

This is in addition to having cd's etc.

It would be a case where everyone wins, and there's virtually no draw back. Advertisers get more exposure, Bands get more exposure, the recording studios get more revenue, and the consumers get a more modern business model from the music industry instead of having to put up with their bs.

Yes, that'd basically be Radio + MTV for the 21st century and based on the same old business model. Revenue from advertising, except bolstered by the lowest distribution costs in history and the promotional power of social media.

They have some versions of this, the biggest is http://www.vevo.com/ which is a collaboration with Youtube and Google.

[Dion]

Whitney Houston's Death Highlights Accidental Drug Overdosing

Bottles of prescription drugs said to have been found in Houston's hotel room included Xanax, Valium and Ativan -- all of which are prescribed to treat anxiety.

According to TMZ.com, officials said Houston had water in her lungs at the time of her death, but they haven't determined how much water was present previously, so they can't yet say whether the singer, whose body was found in a bathtub with her face reportedly underwater, drowned.

Dr. Cyril Wecht, a forensic pathologist and former coroner in Allegheny County, Pa., said if Houston did drown, she would likely have been heavily under the influence of numerous drugs to not wake up after she slipped underwater. He explained that the body has a physiologic need to breathe and will respond reflexively if the head is submerged underwater.

"If you are deeply unconscious to the point of a deep stupor, then it is conceivable that there was a heavy concentration of drugs," he said. Wecht said he had performed about 300 autopsies in the past year, and a significant percentage of the deaths stemmed from drug overdoses.

http://www.kgoam810.com/rssItem.asp?...temid=29799807