Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17
6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1571


  Reply # 540632 3-Nov-2011 10:35
Send private message

tdgeek:
freitasm: No, it shouldn't be (but again who knows) as much as the actual packaging and transport costs. But it wasn't listed in your previous post "Cost should be the artists margin and music company margin, so they are no worse off, the reduced costs will be those physical costs you just mentioned." 

It should not be ignored, however low it is.
 


Very fair point, point taken.



you might be interested in this articel about ebooks which probably shares some parralels with iTunes in terms of content delivery costs

http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal-tech/digital-content/231400005

"Of course, that $9.99 price [for an ebook] doesn't include any actual printed material, and incurs minimal delivery costs. But Hyatt argued against that view. "Some people assume that these two items represent the bulk of a book's costs. They don't. Together, they account for about 12% of a physical book's retail price. So eliminating these costs doesn't do much to reduce the overall cost structure."

"According to Levine, the cost for publishers to print and distribute a hardcover book adds up to a mere $3.50 per copy. "

wouldn't be surprised if a similar cost structure existed for music.  For an Album, when you think of the cost of a physical CD, it is a few cents.  add in the cost of distribution of maybe a $50c per CD, and retail store commission of a couple of bucks, and of course there is also the commision that iTunes gets that offsets that.  the total pysical cost for an album is probably only a few bucks.  On a $25+ retail price that doesn;t really allow for much discounting if you use a different medium (which of course also incurs it's own costs too)

677 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 27

Trusted

  Reply # 540642 3-Nov-2011 10:58
Send private message

StarBlazer:
kiwipearls:
StarBlazer: According to Stuff (so it must be true) - TelstraClear customers are cannon fodder for the infringements because they have fixed IP addresses.  I know that all IP addresses are logged at the ISP so they know always who has which IP at any given moment - but is this suggestion founded?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/5898211/Piracy-war-may-hit-easy-shots


I can't see how the right's holders would just pick on Telstraclear customers because of fixed IP's.  

It does not matter if you have a fixed/static ip or a dynamic one.  The ISP can still know who was using which Dynamic IP at the time of the infringing.
 


The point of the article is that rights holders may concentrate on issuing to IP address that they have already sent to.  For those on a static IP the target doesn't move compared to those on dynamic IP.

Did I read on here that Telecom are starting to use static as well?


Yes Telecom have 'fixed' IP addresses as well now.
If you are a customer from the beginning of this year you get one of those, and some other situations where an existing customer will get one as well.

TCL are not the only ones doing Fixed IP.




meat popsicle

956 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 222

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 540646 3-Nov-2011 11:06
Send private message

NonprayingMantis:
tdgeek:
freitasm: No, it shouldn't be (but again who knows) as much as the actual packaging and transport costs. But it wasn't listed in your previous post "Cost should be the artists margin and music company margin, so they are no worse off, the reduced costs will be those physical costs you just mentioned." 

It should not be ignored, however low it is.
 


Very fair point, point taken.



you might be interested in this articel about ebooks which probably shares some parralels with iTunes in terms of content delivery costs

http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal-tech/digital-content/231400005

"Of course, that $9.99 price [for an ebook] doesn't include any actual printed material, and incurs minimal delivery costs. But Hyatt argued against that view. "Some people assume that these two items represent the bulk of a book's costs. They don't. Together, they account for about 12% of a physical book's retail price. So eliminating these costs doesn't do much to reduce the overall cost structure."

"According to Levine, the cost for publishers to print and distribute a hardcover book adds up to a mere $3.50 per copy. "


What about if you take the bricks and mortar into consideration.  A high street retailer has rent and power plus staff wages to pay for each shop - itunes has 1 website (and a server farm etc) to maintain.  We've known for a long time that online only retailers have a significantly reduced operating cost and therefore can offer lower prices (if they want to).

Take Amazon for example excellent prices and at the moment amazon.co.uk is offering free delivery for orders over 25quid - yes free - to NZ.  I know where I'm going to buy my books, DVDs and CDs from for Christmas.

I know this is off topic, but if iTunes et al were to be completely fair about this the world would be paying the same price for a track and only the exchange rate should cause a fluctuation.  And that the price should be a reflection of actual cost.




Procrastination eventually pays off.


3290 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 209

Trusted

  Reply # 540654 3-Nov-2011 11:24
Send private message

StarBlazer: I know this is off topic, but if iTunes et al were to be completely fair about this the world would be paying the same price for a track and only the exchange rate should cause a fluctuation.  And that the price should be a reflection of actual cost.

Most people would prefer to know that a song off iTunes is going to cost them $x. They don't want to have it based on USD and take exchange rate into account.

956 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 222

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 540657 3-Nov-2011 11:33
Send private message

bazzer:
StarBlazer: I know this is off topic, but if iTunes et al were to be completely fair about this the world would be paying the same price for a track and only the exchange rate should cause a fluctuation.  And that the price should be a reflection of actual cost.

Most people would prefer to know that a song off iTunes is going to cost them $x. They don't want to have it based on USD and take exchange rate into account.


Personally I would prefer fluctuating costs if it meant I was getting a better deal.  I buy my electricity on a fluctuating cost (Powershop) and I save big time.




Procrastination eventually pays off.


21541 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4389

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 540659 3-Nov-2011 11:34
Send private message

I would rather the restrictions on using the foreign stores didn't exist so that I could make a decision to buy off the one with the items I wanted in any old currency.




Richard rich.ms

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1571


  Reply # 540661 3-Nov-2011 11:37
Send private message

StarBlazer:
NonprayingMantis:
tdgeek:
freitasm: No, it shouldn't be (but again who knows) as much as the actual packaging and transport costs. But it wasn't listed in your previous post "Cost should be the artists margin and music company margin, so they are no worse off, the reduced costs will be those physical costs you just mentioned." 

It should not be ignored, however low it is.
 


Very fair point, point taken.



you might be interested in this articel about ebooks which probably shares some parralels with iTunes in terms of content delivery costs

http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal-tech/digital-content/231400005

"Of course, that $9.99 price [for an ebook] doesn't include any actual printed material, and incurs minimal delivery costs. But Hyatt argued against that view. "Some people assume that these two items represent the bulk of a book's costs. They don't. Together, they account for about 12% of a physical book's retail price. So eliminating these costs doesn't do much to reduce the overall cost structure."

"According to Levine, the cost for publishers to print and distribute a hardcover book adds up to a mere $3.50 per copy. "


What about if you take the bricks and mortar into consideration.  A high street retailer has rent and power plus staff wages to pay for each shop - itunes has 1 website (and a server farm etc) to maintain.  We've known for a long time that online only retailers have a significantly reduced operating cost and therefore can offer lower prices (if they want to).

Take Amazon for example excellent prices and at the moment amazon.co.uk is offering free delivery for orders over 25quid - yes free - to NZ.  I know where I'm going to buy my books, DVDs and CDs from for Christmas.

I know this is off topic, but if iTunes et al were to be completely fair about this the world would be paying the same price for a track and only the exchange rate should cause a fluctuation.  And that the price should be a reflection of actual cost.


the margin that a bricks and mortar retailer would take from a product to cover their costs and give them some profit is probably in the region of 10-20%.  so of that $25 dollars you buy an album for,  the retailer would get somewhere between $2-4.  So remove all that cost and you don't save much money.

956 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 222

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 540664 3-Nov-2011 11:57
Send private message

NonprayingMantis: the margin that a bricks and mortar retailer would take from a product to cover their costs and give them some profit is probably in the region of 10-20%.  so of that $25 dollars you buy an album for,  the retailer would get somewhere between $2-4.  So remove all that cost and you don't save much money.


Fair enough!




Procrastination eventually pays off.


Hawkes Bay
8477 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5

Mod Emeritus
Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 540665 3-Nov-2011 11:58
Send private message

ptinson:
StarBlazer:
kiwipearls:
StarBlazer: According to Stuff (so it must be true) - TelstraClear customers are cannon fodder for the infringements because they have fixed IP addresses.  I know that all IP addresses are logged at the ISP so they know always who has which IP at any given moment - but is this suggestion founded?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/5898211/Piracy-war-may-hit-easy-shots


I can't see how the right's holders would just pick on Telstraclear customers because of fixed IP's.  

It does not matter if you have a fixed/static ip or a dynamic one.  The ISP can still know who was using which Dynamic IP at the time of the infringing.
 


The point of the article is that rights holders may concentrate on issuing to IP address that they have already sent to.  For those on a static IP the target doesn't move compared to those on dynamic IP.

Did I read on here that Telecom are starting to use static as well?


Yes Telecom have 'fixed' IP addresses as well now.
If you are a customer from the beginning of this year you get one of those, and some other situations where an existing customer will get one as well.

TCL are not the only ones doing Fixed IP.

Fixed or dynamic IP has zero impact on this.

Infringements from multiple users subsequently using the same dynamic IP could occur multiple times on the same site making it look like a static user going for it. Same could be said of a static IP that changes hands (cust leaves, IP assigned to new customer who infringes too).

The IP address is required to be mapped back to the account holder for a period of time, which ultimately is what renders the static vs fixed argument useless.

Periods of time between notices, and other parts of the legislation make it pretty clear that ultimately it is account holders, regardless of the IP they infringe from, that are liable. 







677 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 27

Trusted

  Reply # 540666 3-Nov-2011 12:01
Send private message

tonyhughes:
ptinson:
StarBlazer:
kiwipearls:
StarBlazer: According to Stuff (so it must be true) - TelstraClear customers are cannon fodder for the infringements because they have fixed IP addresses.  I know that all IP addresses are logged at the ISP so they know always who has which IP at any given moment - but is this suggestion founded?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/5898211/Piracy-war-may-hit-easy-shots


I can't see how the right's holders would just pick on Telstraclear customers because of fixed IP's.  

It does not matter if you have a fixed/static ip or a dynamic one.  The ISP can still know who was using which Dynamic IP at the time of the infringing.
 


The point of the article is that rights holders may concentrate on issuing to IP address that they have already sent to.  For those on a static IP the target doesn't move compared to those on dynamic IP.

Did I read on here that Telecom are starting to use static as well?


Yes Telecom have 'fixed' IP addresses as well now.
If you are a customer from the beginning of this year you get one of those, and some other situations where an existing customer will get one as well.

TCL are not the only ones doing Fixed IP.

Fixed or dynamic IP has zero impact on this.

Infringements from multiple users subsequently using the same dynamic IP could occur multiple times on the same site making it look like a static user going for it. Same could be said of a static IP that changes hands (cust leaves, IP assigned to new customer who infringes too).

The IP address is required to be mapped back to the account holder for a period of time, which ultimately is what renders the static vs fixed argument useless.

Periods of time between notices, and other parts of the legislation make it pretty clear that ultimately it is account holders, regardless of the IP they infringe from, that are liable. 


Agreed.




meat popsicle

956 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 222

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 540669 3-Nov-2011 12:07
Send private message

tonyhughes: Fixed or dynamic IP has zero impact on this.


Disagree.  A rights holder is going to be charged $25 to send a notice.  Would you;

a) send them randomly/to the first 100 IP addresses on a list, or
b) analyse the death out of the the IP addresses, find patterns and send them to what "appear" to be repeat offenders.

If you are on a dynamic IP address, how often does it change?  Every time you log on, every week, month?  Chances are that if the same IP address come up again after the cool down period - they will be highlighted and targeted.  If an account holder has a static IP address - chances are they will be hit with second and if stupid enough to continue third notices.

So far TCL, Orcon (I think) and new Telecom customers have static.  That's a lot of connections.





Procrastination eventually pays off.


13594 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2453

Trusted

  Reply # 540674 3-Nov-2011 12:20
Send private message

I'm not at Telstraclear, but it beats me how journos can post this type of article, that is effectively telling the many non tech internet users out there to avoid them, as a greater risk of getting a notice.

956 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 222

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 540691 3-Nov-2011 12:49
Send private message

tdgeek: I'm not at Telstraclear, but it beats me how journos can post this type of article, that is effectively telling the many non tech internet users out there to avoid them, as a greater risk of getting a notice.


True.  If anyone in my house did something to get an infringement notice sent I would drop TCL like a brick and find another ISP.  But only after giving the kids a lot of verbal and taking away their internet access.




Procrastination eventually pays off.


Go Hawks!
889 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 53

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 540704 3-Nov-2011 13:19
Send private message

StarBlazer: What about if you take the bricks and mortar into consideration.  A high street retailer has rent and power plus staff wages to pay for each shop - itunes has 1 website (and a server farm etc) to maintain.  We've known for a long time that online only retailers have a significantly reduced operating cost and therefore can offer lower prices (if they want to). 

Take Amazon for example excellent prices and at the moment amazon.co.uk is offering free delivery for orders over 25quid - yes free - to NZ.  I know where I'm going to buy my books, DVDs and CDs from for Christmas.

I know this is off topic, but if iTunes et al were to be completely fair about this the world would be paying the same price for a track and only the exchange rate should cause a fluctuation.  And that the price should be a reflection of actual cost.


(Apologies to StarBlazer - I'm not getting at you, just using your quote to supply context ...)

Amazon and the ilk will not be paying New Zealand Tax either (unless I'm mistaken) - I believe that iTunes does?

Bricks and mortar shops also have to factor in shrinkage (I was lead to believe that a certain major chain store had a shrinkage rate of 33% - that included theft and losses due to damages in transit etc.) 

956 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 222

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 540710 3-Nov-2011 13:32
Send private message

wazzageek: Apologies to StarBlazer - I'm not getting at you, just using your quote to supply context ...)

Amazon and the ilk will not be paying New Zealand Tax either (unless I'm mistaken) - I believe that iTunes does?

Bricks and mortar shops also have to factor in shrinkage (I was lead to believe that a certain major chain store had a shrinkage rate of 33% - that included theft and losses due to damages in transit etc.) 


No offence taken.  My comments were intended to be open and freely discussed. 

I'm not sure whether it's iTunes or Microsoft (or one of the big companies) that has it's offices registered in Ireland due to favourable tax laws.  No of course Amazon etc won't be paying NZ tax but isn't this law about ensuring the rights holder and artist etc get the money they deserve.  So wherever I buy from they will get their respective cut.

I would also think that the amount of money that does actually go off shore cannot be making that much of a dent on the coffers otherwise customs would reduce the threshold for imported goods.

Shrinkage - you mean actual theft depriving them of product and revenue, and not copyright infringement :) - sorry it's like tourettes - couldn't help myself.  Remember don't feed the troll (me).




Procrastination eventually pays off.


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.