In article <MPG.198b033bed7bc0be9897ef@news.cis.dfn.de>,
CQ <cappynospamcue@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In a previous post, flip said...
>
> > That's a really good one. You're telling me that I'm irrational - just a
> > few moments after you say that the record companies need to cooperate in
> > setting prices to make sure that there's no price fixing.
> >
> > Do you even read what you're writing?
>
> Yes, I actually read what you write, too. Unlike you who just seems to
> skim other's posts.
>
> I can't do anything about the fact that you cannot understand that if a
> group of people are guilty of collusion in any situation then, in order
> to reverse this situation a co-operative effort will be required not just
> a cessation of any further collusion. This is so basic as to make me
> once again sure you are just attempting to twist words and obfuscate any
> real points being made in order to somehow bolster yourself and your
> specious arguments.
>
> > How do you know that they're otherwise law abiding and moral? We know
> > that, in this respect, they're breaking the law and stealing someone
> > else's property.
>
> Sorry, flip, this is sidestepping and obfuscation again. Once again,
> duly noted. You've also returned to your inaccurate and inflammatory
> description of copyright violation as "stealing someone else's property".
> Also duly noted.
>
> It was my example, flip. I said "otherwise law abiding people"...I said
> it, you see, so the people in my example are therefore "otherwise law
> abiding". Now, it would have been okay for you to say "I don't think
> otherwise law abiding people indulge in this aberration" or some such but
> you cannot twist this around and ask "how do you know" things about MY
> hypothetical people. You are making a fool of yourself. Stop it, your
> Mother would not approve.
>
> > Can you prove that they haven't done anything else
> > wrong?
>
> Again, I have no burden of proof. These are MY hypothetical people in my
> example. Get your own hypothetical people if you want to make them all
> amoral thieves. Mine are good people who are just fed up with the
> overpriced nature and poor quality of the music industry's offerings as
> well as good people who want to embrace a new technology the music
> industry has desperately tried to suppress in order to maintain their
> artificially high profit levels.
>
> > I know from my own experience that when I first started buying CDs 20
> > years ago, they were $13.99 to $14.99.
>
> How very odd, flip. According to the RIAA's own figures the average
> price of a CD in 1983 was $21.50.
>
> Again, we are not using your made up on the spot example that doesn't
> really address the real world. I cited Mr. Jone's post which quoted an
> actual retail price being asked for a specific disc. You come back with
> this stuff. How do we know how much you paid for discs? How do we know
> whether you bought any? How do we know if you buy any now? None of that
> is the point, flippo. The point is that the public seems to be of the
> opinion that the product is overpriced. The public's reaction to the
> overpricing has been to stop buying (a method you seem to endorse) and to
> start trading (a method you certainly don't). Whether you agree with the
> general public's right to their reaction to the perceived overpricing in
> the music industry is a moot point. You have no sway over much of any
> public opinion, I'm afraid.
>
> > Do the math.
>
> Well, the math can either be simplistic (just take the percentage of
> inflation and add it to the first figure) or it can be more realistic and
> therefore not so simple (consider inflation, consider the price of the
> technology, consider the drop in manufacturing price, consider whether
> the initial investment has long since been recouped, consider whether the
> buying public has already enriched the folks who hold the copyrights to
> the material being sold, etc. etc.). I have no doubt that you would
> prefer we all take the simple route since it leads to the conclusion you
> want to drag everyone along to but sorry, some folks prefer a little more
> "reality" in their lives than they get from a steady diet of "reality
> TV". Here, this guy has done a bit of math for you, take a minute to
> read another point of view, flip, it really won't harm you.
>
> http://www.azoz.com/news/0025.html
>
> > > Hypocrites like you, in other words.
> >
> > Wrong.
>
> Again, it is MY example, I get to make it anything I want. If you want
> to argue then argue salient points don't just interject "wrongs and
> rights" like some sort of proclamations from above. I think, based on
> what I consider ample evidence, that you are a hypocrite. This behavior
> I am basing my opinion on has been witnessed and noted by quite a few
> others aside from myself. I noticed this morning that in another
> response to another poster you wrote this, even though you have
> repeatedly denied any connections to the music industry:
>
> "When we produce disks in quantities of 1000, the
> price is under $2.00. I believe that if we produce 10,000, it's
> below $1.00."
>
> What's all that "we" about if you don't have some sort of vested interest
> here? Is it true or is it an attempt to give yourself credibility of
> some sort? Either way, based on your previous statements. it is
> hypocritical.
>
> If I'm wrong about you, then so be it, life will still go on, flippo.
>
> > I'm not wearing moral superiority anywhere. I'm pointing out that
> > stealing music is wrong.
>
> I don't think this is true. If this were the case you would have been
> done long ago. It doesn't take long to weigh in on the discussion and
> say "My name is flippo and I think stealing music is wrong." You are
> taking all this time repeatedly stating your position and trying to make
> judgements on the morality and decency of people you do not know and have
> no way of understanding. You make judgements of people based on
> assumptions of their actions which you extrapolate from their arguments.
> Like this:
You're just plain wrong.
If a group has conspired to fix prices, the government tries to STOP
them from communicating on prices - with the theory being that the
market will return prices to 'market levels'.
Your proposal that you should end price fixing by forcing the companies
to fix prices at a different level is absurd.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
|