[BC] Arrested for just telling people where to find Copywrited material.

[Tom]

Not what I meant - The market _*SHOULD*_ set the price; most of the 
folks HAVE SPOKEN on what the value of the tracks they download is:
mostly, they say it's worth very little to nothing.  Supply and Demand.
Supply is large, demand low - price drops.  Drops far enough, and 
demand picks up.  At zero price, theory predicts virtually infinite 
demand; and that's what we see.  IF (big IF) somehow the free 
downloading could be curtailed,the demand for the record companies' 
products would fall RAPIDLY - as has been pointed out, most of the 
so-called music is not worth the plastic that holds it... BEYOND any 
artistic merit or lack thereof, *technically*, it's garbage - over 
processed, lousy mixes, artifacts out the yang... not worth wasting 
money on.  Which the consumer HAS STATED - and the record companies 
aren't paying attention.
Sure, it's free?  Give me some!  What?  I have to PAY for this?  No, thanks!

Point I was trying to make by comparing the record companies to Orban, Inc...

You've researched marketing the Optimod, no doubt.  Now, if you 
hadn't - or somehow set a price based what your sole opinion of its 
worth is - and I gave example pricing at 100x and 1000x the list, 
roughly, to make that point.  How many Optimods would you sell at 
that inflated level?
OTOH, set the price at x/10, or x/5 even, and even small mom-and-pop 
stations can afford NEW ones.  ROI sounds nice, and no doubt spells 
the difference between success and failure in the long run, BUT - the 
price HAS TO MATCH THE DEMAND - or the market WILL adjust the only 
way it can - by adjusting the demand.  Value vs cost.  That's the 
only way it would work.
Of course, the problem NOW is, even the "good" stuff has been 
subjected to the oversupply of audio available for "free" - so, the 
end result will be the same - the only way for the record companies 
to completely stop "unauthorized" copying / sharing is to stop 
producing copyable material.  And good luck with THAT - what makes 
audio copyguard so difficult; it's ALWAYS possible to copy audio - 
ANY audio.  Record the analog output.  If no other way than what many 
did back when - stick a mike in front of a speaker.

And you don't have to worry that I'm going to infringe on your 
patents, Bob - that's the OTHER point I was trying to make - if I 
did, yes, I'd be in the wrong... especially if I were to then make 
copies and sell them - and MOST especially if I were to sell my 
knockoffs AS OPTIMODS.
Maybe the analogy was a bit forced, but...

FREE - I'm not making one red cent off what I did.... and some use 
THAT as their benchmark.  It's "almost" counterfeit.  And we ALL know 
that "almost" is like "close" - only counts in horseshoes, hand 
grenades, and thermonuclear explosions <grin>.  At least to some.

Tom S.

Robert Orban wrote:
>At 03:58 PM 10/23/2007, you wrote:
>>Your argument is a variation of the old "Why pay for the cow if the 
>>milk is free?"   Not saying it's incorrect, but -
>>
>>Your analogy is a bit flawed... Note that, since the invention of 
>>audio recording, there have been those who "download" content - 
>>ever record something off-air?  Same exact operation.  Plus, radio 
>>stations frequently gave away those promotional copies they 
>>received from the record companies - "Not For Sale" - remember that 
>>all over the label?
>>So, they GAVE the records away.  Circumventing the intent, if not 
>>the letter.  Tape made it easier to make copies of favorites - now, 
>>the Internet, computers and CDs have replaced tape as the medium 
>>for "file sharing", but the act of sharing recordings is as old as 
>>recording itself -
>>As to the viability - I suspect it's not so much that it's not 
>>POPULAR, but that the record companies have it OVERPRICED.  Simple 
>>economics 101.
>>
>>Here's one right back at you, Bob -
>>
>>How many Optimods would you sell at $100k each?  $1M?
>
>Like any other business, we price Optimods by trying to maximize our 
>return on investment, which consists of a lot of different aspects 
>including cost of R&D, materials, labor, G&A, marketing, etc. Look 
>up "supply and demand," for example here:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand
>
>>   Now, suppose I could get an 8400 - New, In Box - for $1000... or 
>> maybe $100.  Would I be wrong to buy it?
>
>If it was originally manufactured and sold by us, you would not be 
>wrong. If it was a pirate copy using our intellectual property, not 
>only would you be wrong, but you would be legally liable for patent 
>infringement (and we could sue for damages) if you used the device. 
>It would not matter if you had not personally pirated our IP; U.S. 
>patent law says "make, use  or sell," which makes both pirates and 
>their customers legally liable.
>
>>What's it worth?  THAT's the basis behind folks who download; 
>>probably 90% or more.  The TRUE pirates are the one who SELL copies 
>>of the copies they download.  It's as if I managed to completely 
>>reverse-engineer an 8400, make copies, and sell them.  OTOH, if I 
>>manage to get one of those $1k units...
>
>So should the government force me to sell you an Optimod at any 
>price you see fit? Do you approve of coercive price controls? If so, why?
>
>Bob Orban