In business school, I took a couple classes that were taught jointly to both business and law school students. One of those was a class on entertainment law, but it was mostly about music law, also known as how music companies still rape musicians to this day (metaphorically speaking, of course).
(more after the break)
I don't remember a whole lot from that class, and much of it was information I already knew from reading and researching the industry on my own, but the one thing I remember the most from that class, occurred because of the class itself. A music executive explained that cassette tapes retailed for $9.99, on average, while CDs had an average price of about $15.99. What was perplexing was that it cost about $5 to make a cassette tape, but only about $2 to make a CD, and in the case of the CD, more than half the cost was the packaging. So the question was, "How could music companies sell a CD that cost $2, for $16, while a cassette tape cost more to manufacture, but cost less.
I should stop for a moment, and note that the perplexed half of the class was almost entirely made up of law students, while the non-perplexed half was almost entirely business students. To a business student, it made sense that a vastly inferior product, that stretched over time, and actually had inferior sound quality to its predecessors, the LP and the 8-track tape, would sell for less than a CD copy of a digital master that would not erode over time. To business students, the cost is irrelevant to consumers, as it should be. Product cost is only relevant to manufacturers, in determining whether a product is profitable and therefore should be produced.
The law students, however, had real trouble with the idea that somehow consumers were being ripped off by being charged eight times what something cost to produce, even if they willingly purchased the product at that price. If law students had their way, we would only have to pay 10% more than actual cost for music. Of course, we would have to play the music by rubbing steel bars on rocks.
Which brings me to the point (didn't think there would be one, did you?). Lawyers, by and large, have no concept of the real world or how it works, because their brains function in an artificial world made up of concepts of equity and fairness that have no basis in real life. Not only that, but later they become the prime pornographers of law, by twisting concepts of fairness and equity to match the lies they tell, and the fabrications that they create. A bit hypocritical, for the devilish ones, and ironic, for the ones who believe in the fairy-tale goodness they are bestowing upon the world.
By extension, since most of them are lawyers or ex-lawyers, this applies just as well to politicians, which explains, in part, why laws have such unintended consequences. Consider for a moment the cameras that are so ubiquitous at traffic intersections these days. Ostensibly these cameras encourage drivers to stop rather than run red lights (and less ostensibly are merely a way to generate more tax revenues and prevent illegal traffic maneuvers when not another soul is actually on the street, thus making drivers look stupid at 4:00 in the morning). As I redlined my car's 400hp engine to 75 mph in a 45 mph zone today, in order to clear the intersection before the yellow light turned to red and the camera flashed, it occurred to me that this ingenious creation might have the exact opposite effect of that intended.
Ironic, indeed. Chalk another one up for the masters of reality.
PS Bonus points for knowing, without looking it up first, the relevance of the track included with this post.
(more after the break)
I don't remember a whole lot from that class, and much of it was information I already knew from reading and researching the industry on my own, but the one thing I remember the most from that class, occurred because of the class itself. A music executive explained that cassette tapes retailed for $9.99, on average, while CDs had an average price of about $15.99. What was perplexing was that it cost about $5 to make a cassette tape, but only about $2 to make a CD, and in the case of the CD, more than half the cost was the packaging. So the question was, "How could music companies sell a CD that cost $2, for $16, while a cassette tape cost more to manufacture, but cost less.
I should stop for a moment, and note that the perplexed half of the class was almost entirely made up of law students, while the non-perplexed half was almost entirely business students. To a business student, it made sense that a vastly inferior product, that stretched over time, and actually had inferior sound quality to its predecessors, the LP and the 8-track tape, would sell for less than a CD copy of a digital master that would not erode over time. To business students, the cost is irrelevant to consumers, as it should be. Product cost is only relevant to manufacturers, in determining whether a product is profitable and therefore should be produced.
The law students, however, had real trouble with the idea that somehow consumers were being ripped off by being charged eight times what something cost to produce, even if they willingly purchased the product at that price. If law students had their way, we would only have to pay 10% more than actual cost for music. Of course, we would have to play the music by rubbing steel bars on rocks.
Which brings me to the point (didn't think there would be one, did you?). Lawyers, by and large, have no concept of the real world or how it works, because their brains function in an artificial world made up of concepts of equity and fairness that have no basis in real life. Not only that, but later they become the prime pornographers of law, by twisting concepts of fairness and equity to match the lies they tell, and the fabrications that they create. A bit hypocritical, for the devilish ones, and ironic, for the ones who believe in the fairy-tale goodness they are bestowing upon the world.
By extension, since most of them are lawyers or ex-lawyers, this applies just as well to politicians, which explains, in part, why laws have such unintended consequences. Consider for a moment the cameras that are so ubiquitous at traffic intersections these days. Ostensibly these cameras encourage drivers to stop rather than run red lights (and less ostensibly are merely a way to generate more tax revenues and prevent illegal traffic maneuvers when not another soul is actually on the street, thus making drivers look stupid at 4:00 in the morning). As I redlined my car's 400hp engine to 75 mph in a 45 mph zone today, in order to clear the intersection before the yellow light turned to red and the camera flashed, it occurred to me that this ingenious creation might have the exact opposite effect of that intended.
Ironic, indeed. Chalk another one up for the masters of reality.
PS Bonus points for knowing, without looking it up first, the relevance of the track included with this post.
No comments:
Post a Comment