video cd's

[Matt Darcy]

first off all, all my digital and audio content is available by http / ftp and available on morphues, direct connect and imesh as I host linux based hubs for all these networks - so yes my money is where my mouth is, all 205 gig of available data is....well available.2.) Andy what are you doing up at this time. If your not getting paid go to bed !

[felice]

> every time you buy anything commercially > you are giving someone a large chunk of money (their> profit) for no other reason than that they own the> means of production with which to produce that > product. Not wishing to go all Bolshevick but that's> just the nature of the game, it's a model of market> economy based on profit driven exchange and it's> called Capitalism, and yes, it is exploitative, so> someone will always be making a profit at the> expense of someone else.What's wrong with going all bolshevik? Capitalism is insane... exploitative, massively wasteful of resources, largely unresponsive to the desires of the people, continually concentrating more wealth in the hands of a minority, resticting of personal freedom, and reliant on continual expansion to avoid collapse.Not that any of the attempts to implement an alternative have had much luck as yet; I certainly don't support abominations like the former USSR dictatorship. A proper socialist democracy would be _nothing_ like that.

[AndyThomas]

Mmm. I'm not sure that capitalism in its "pure" form can be blamed for all those things - political policy has a large part in them as well of course. In theory capitalism, or rather a free market economy, should actually bring about maximum efficiency. Unfortunately the model also requires everyone to be perfectly informed about their options - which of course they aren't. As with any economic theory, examine it closely enough and you'll find deviations from it.Interesting that you mention the USSR as well. In theory, the idea was that only what the people needed would be produced. The reality was that there was no way to determine what the people wanted in such a rigid structure, hence continual shortages of luxury items. I do wonder whether modern technology might actually be able to make a system like that work - for example, I imagine that a lot of web sites like Amazon base how much they actually order on the number of pre-orders they get. Ever notice how rapidly they tend to go out of stock after a release date?

[10TimesMan]

Ah, well, when "political policy" is implemented within, to compliment, and for the benifet of, the Capitalist modal structure I'm not sure if it makes sense to make the distinction between specific economic policies and the over-arching economic pursuits in that manner. But you're right of course, this is a big part of the problem; in the Uk and in much else of the world, increasingly democratically elected governments find their hands tied, forced to pamper to the needs of large corporations, offering tax breaks, interest rate concessions and so on in order to encourage the investment which is so essential to a countries economic propriety. This is a major problem in todays advanced industrial global network - if anyone's particularly interestedd I suggest Noreena Hertz: The Silent Takeover, who explains the issues much more articulately and in much more depth than I can manageAlso, it doesn't make much sense (outside government tutorials) to talk about economic systems in their "pure" or theoretical form. The only way we can look at economic models is with direct reference to those economic models as they function in the real world. If you're gonna use thatdefense of Capitalism then I've got to remind you that in its "pure" form, under Communism there would be no humger, racism or poverty, everyone would have everything they need and be happy about it......

[10TimesMan]

Mike, as you've probably already seen from my posts, I disagree; I think it's hypocritical to say that it's OK for some of us to sell the VCDs but it's not OK for others to do it. If that strikes you as too black and white well so be it.You make the distinction between hard work creating a set and simple CD-burning? To be honest its really not that hard work; a video capture card, a VCR, SCART/SVHS converter and a gold plated cable and you're away. I've done it myself with my Alan Partridge VHS since the DVD was discontinued, quite simple really. Taking Simon Coverdale as an example again (sorry, just that I expect you're the only one we all know about), fair ebough, he probably invested a couple of hundred quid buying the masters and renting/buying the kit to make the original VCDs, hes probably made between 2 and 10 grand since then (between 100 and 500 sets sold). Thats a lot of money. But thats beside the point, my original point - how can there be a moral distinction between the activities of "us" and "them"? Why is it OK for us to do it ('cos we post on this website) but not for them ?(cos they don't post on this website). It's possible to be a massive fan a#who doesnt go in for things like this.,...so then on what basis do we discriminate?

[felice]

> Mmm. I'm not sure that capitalism in its "pure" form> can be blamed for all those things It might not be the sole cause of all instances of those things in the world, but it does inevitably exhibit them.> political policy has a large part in them as well of > course. Political policy is largely shaped by capitalist economic imperatives. Note the pipeline project currently underway in Afghanistan...> In theory capitalism, or rather a free market economy, > should actually bring about maximum efficiency. Debatable. A capitalist economy exists purely to make the owners of the capital richer, and the needs and desires of the people are met only partially, as a side effect of the real motivations. That doesn't sound very efficient, even with the theoretical "perfect information". And capitalism is dependent upon perpetual growth, which is essentially unstable and in the long run unsustainable.> Unfortunately the model also requires everyone to be > perfectly informed about their options - which of course> they aren't. Yes, and that's an _extremely_ big problem. People's actual informedness is a tiny fraction of perfect, and consequently real world capitalism is only a fraction as efficient as it should be. And capitalists waste vast quantities of resources on advertising which makes this situation even worse, since their motive is to maximise sales of their own products, not to help consumers make informed decisions.Under capitalism, what proportion of the work that you do actually provides a net benefit to society, instead of just helping the some people get richer at the expense of others? I know I'm mostly wasting my efforts in that way, but I have little choice since I need the money and most of the available jobs are similarly intended to make the employer richer above all else.> Interesting that you mention the USSR as well. It's commonly presented as an indication of the superiority of capitalism.> In theory, the idea was that only what the people> needed would be produced. The reality was that> there was no way to determine what the people > wanted in such a rigid structure, hence continual> shortages of luxury items. I don't believe it wasn't possible; the big problem was the lack of democracy, restriction on personal freedoms, etc. The government didn't think providing luxuries was a high priority. A proper socialist state would be thoroughly democratic, with manufacturing priorities set by the people, not a privileged elite who thought they knew was best for the people.> I do wonder whether modern technology might actually> be able to make a system like that work - for example, > I imagine that a lot of web sites like Amazon base how> much they actually order on the number of pre-orders> they get. Exactly. I see no reason why such a system shouldn't be implemented on a much larger scale. I think most people would be willing to put up with delivery delays on non-consumable items if it meant cheaper prices, better quality, and more choice.

[felice]

On the topic of CD piracy, I just don't think it makes sense to charge directly for data of any kind (music, software, video, etc). Yes, there is work involved in creating the original data in the first place, but any number of copies require no additional effort to speak of, and limiting the number of copies reduces the value of the data to society as a whole. IMAO, the only reasonable system is for all data to be freely available, with the creators paid out of taxes based on how much that data is used. A similar system is already used for things like radio, where each radio station pays a set fee to the musicians' association for the right to play whatever music they like, and the association pays the artists according to the total number of times their songs are played on any station.

[CondorJoe]

10TM, have too disagree with you on your view. Simon was our first distributor and is the most reliable. So In short it kind of takes the piss when those who have got thier CDr's from Simon, make umpteenth copies and sell them too make a quick buck. On another point is it ok too make copies and give them too mates, but not make a profit?

[AndyThomas]

Felice, what you're describing with regard to data distribution is of course what the major film/record studios are currently wrestling with. The fundamental difference between what you might call the "new" economy and the old is that the resources of the new economy aren't diminishable. Traditional economics is dependent on supply being limited - because generally it is. But data can be duplicated without diminishing the original source of that data. However, effort is still required to produce the original data and so there must be some incentive for it to be produced in the first place. Without that incentive, without some revenue stream back, new data will not be created. I think what we'll see is the rapid growth of Digital Rights Management software - so that, as you suggest, listening to an album might be possible on a "pay per play" basis or as a flat fee for unlimited play. But whether that flat fee will be anywhere near current CD prices I don't know - it's the advertising costs and so on that the companies are mainly trying to recoup...