Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : LAST MILE TECHNOLOGIES - Let's Discuss Them Here -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (8159)	8/23/2000 11:33:10 AM
From: lml	Respond to of 12823

I think herein lies the difference between pre-Internet and post Internet I agree. The Internet advances the capability of the "benefits" of breaks in security to be distributed to millions in a matter of days. Before, such breaches would spread at a snail's pace, at least initially, which gave the content providers sufficient time to respond with an "antedote," or effective enforcement. With ease in copying & distribution, not only does the magnitude of the infringement become unmanageably large in a matter of days or weeks due to the Internet, but also the ability to enforce IP rights since the information stored on disks can be duplicated not only over the Internet, but by additional disk copying. Tracing & identifying perpertrators because a big problem. Hollywood has always battled technology from day one. Yes, but Hollywood is not alone. As an investment banker in the late 80s, I often viewed what I was doing, structuring tax-exempt municipal bond offerings, much as a game against the tax lawyers in Washington. I viewed it as a dance between DC lawyers and NY bankers, which never stopped. The lawyers would attempt to legislate laws that would implement gov't policy & attempt to close tax loop holes. In response the bankers (and their lawyers) would attempt to find ways to end run the new legislation for the benefit of their clientele, and not least, themselves. I view the "battle" you referred to here much the same way. It will always exist; there will always be a dance. Aren't they around $20 or $30 for a DVD. Dunno. Never bought one. Just rent them for about $4-5. And why are they so much? This is the argument we hear on the musical CD front. I am not the most informed. But, IMHO, the issue is not cost, but market demand. If the industry can convince the consuming public to shove out $15-20 for a musical CD, the money (profit margin's) will find their way to somebody in the chain of production, promotion & distribution, whether it be along the existing heirarchy, or the new one that is now battling for control. If anything, by raising this issue to the public, regardless of the merits, may very well diminish consumer appetitite to pay $15-20 for a CD, and thereby present opportunity for the new hierarchy to gain some market share. Under their model the record industry people get cut out, and the artists and the Internet folks get dealt in. But in the longer run, the consumer will always over pay for based upon cost since technology has made such costs minimal. The issue here is WHO should reap the savings in those costs, the artist or the industry? Under the new paradigm, the argument is that the industry should be squeezed, with a larger percentage of the profits going to the artists. IMHO, the consumer is merely an incidental beneficiary to this evolutionary process, as the only way the new paradigm can succeed is by taking less from the consumer's pocket book. So, as a result, maybe you'll see CD's drop to $8-10, and DVD's down to $15, with the industry taking a smaller percentage of the profits, but due to a less costly infrastructure (ie digital storage & distribution over the Internet and in the case of DVD vs. celluloid and overnight courier). The consumer will still "overpay" based upon cost. But really, what the consumer is buying is not the cost of the model but rather the creative expression contained within, which IMHO deserves protection under IP laws. Bottom line, more profit to the artist; less to the "machine;" incidental benefit to the consumer. A paradigm shift will only squeeze the machine, but never the artist, as the value of the artist's expression will always be demand, not cost, driven. JMO.