eMusic raises prices to sell soul to Sony

[SineSwiper]

EMusic-Sony Deal
CEO announcement, riddled with disappointed customers

I really liked spending about 30 cents a song for legal MP3s. Now with the price change a few months ago and this new deal, the margin has gone as high as 50 to 60 cents a song. Not happy about this, and frankly, they have sold their soul to the RIAA.

Shit like this is not good for the new MP3 industry. DRM models do not work. Amazon/iTunes models do not work. Frankly, I didn't like the monthly structure on this one, but I worked with it because it was the best price for US-legal songs.

I may end up canceling my account and sticking with the Russian sites now.

[Kupek]

DRM models do not work. Amazon/iTunes models do not work.

If you had said "I don't like the Amazon/iTunes model for philosophical reasons," then I'd have no response. But you said it didn't "work." What do you base that on? Both are wildly successful in terms of sales.

Also, doesn't Amazon sell DRM-free mp3s?

[bovine]

itunes went DRM free a couple months ago.

[Kupek]

Oh, that's right, duh, we had that discussion: viewtopic.php?t=13628

[Lox]

Yeah, Amazon has always been DRM free. Sine, are you talking about the pricing only when you say it doesn't work? As Kupek pointed out, they're making a lot of money the last I heard.

[Mental]

DRM is a dick in the ass of consumers the way it's been implemented. I've been unable to get downloads on several tracks and albums that I've purchased. In many ways I feel that I'm being punished for my decision to support the music industry legally...people wouldn't put up with scratched CDs where two of the tracks were unlistenable or jewel cases where the CD was just missing, not for long, but because it's online, you end up having to go "dammit, fuck it" in many cases.

[SineSwiper]

There are still DRM sites that let you "rent" music, only to screw you when the company goes out of business.

And if you're definition of work is that "they are making money from morons who will buy anything", then yes, it's working. However, that definition fits for total shit like Titanic, Superman 64, N-Gage, etc., too.

But, for the people who actually listen to music on a regular basis, and not when they want to buy the newest Jonas Brothers album, $10 an album is not the price range I want to reach. Labels need to just cut out advertising out of the budget and leave that to the artist, sites like Last.FM, and word of mouth.

This is the new Internet age; you don't need radio play to sell an album. You just need good music.

[Julius Seeker]

definition fits for total shit like Titanic

Could it be that you perhaps just don't like Romance movies? The movie was gigantically successful both commercially and critically. Perhaps the only movie in its class for attention to detail is Lord of the Rings.

[Shrinweck]

$10 for an album is too much money? What?

[Kupek]

I think N-Gage, Titanic and Superman 64 were considered failures.

So if I understand your complaint, you think music on iTunes is too expensive. That's valid. But what you said was it doesn't work - I think it clearly works because many people are happy with it, and yes, they sell a lot of music.

There's a big difference between you not liking it, and everyone not liking it - leading to failure. If anything, it's eMusic that didn't work, since they had to increase their prices to stay in business.

I'm making the distinction because I'm taking "works" in this context to mean "a valid business and technology model to digitally distribute music."

[Shrinweck]

Yeah, I'm unsure what you mean by iTunes doesn't work, as well. I rarely buy my music from anywhere else at this point. If I actually want a physical copy, I can burn it onto one of the 50-150 blank CDs I have in my bedroom at any given time in less than a minute and a half. I've never had a problem with iTunes.

And I'm not even an Apple enthusiast.

[SineSwiper]

$10 for an album is too much money? What?

Let's do the math by comparing the price ratios of video games. A video game generally costs $50. Thanks to accurate reviews and friends' recommendations, we can be fairly certain that we'll get a good game. For the sake of argument, let's say that 75% of your games are going to be at least above average.

The low end of a video game's gameplay is 10-12 hours. Typically, you're talking about 40 hours, averaging out the short games from the longer 100-hour RPGs. There's also the new market of cheaper games that seem to have a strong impact. You typically get 10-25 hours of play time for 20-30% of the cost. Used full games can average about half the price ($25).

So, the math:

40 hours / $50 = a ratio of $1.25/hr / 75% = $1.66/hr (full games)
40 hours / $25 = a ratio of $0.75/hr / 75% = $1/hr (used full games)
16 hours / $12 = a ratio of $0.75/hr / 75% = $1/hr (cheap games)

Okay, now music on the other hand is a lot harder to gauge its quality based on reviews, though sites like Last.FM and preview functions make this process a lot better. One could argue that with these in place, about 80% of your items would be above average, though it could drop to something around 30% if you're not as meticulous in checking the previews of the songs. (Takes a lot more time to review than just getting some friend's recommendations and buying a video game.)

The average album length is around 50 minutes. For GOOD albums, you're typically going to get 10-12 plays before you get tired of the album. (Depends on how often within a year period, etc.) For average stuff, maybe 5 or so. I'll say 8.

Used albums are available for $4-5, but it's really hard to find GOOD used albums for that much. (Everybody keeps the CDs they want and throw out the junk. Other people still sell good video games since they are somewhat expensive and they are done playing with them.) Furthermore, in the digital age, there is no such thing as "used" downloads. So, I'm not counting it here.

The math:

6.6 hours / $10 = a ratio of $1.50/hr / 50% = $3/hr

versus

40 hours / $50 = a ratio of $1.25/hr / 75% = $1.66/hr (full games)
40 hours / $25 = a ratio of $0.75/hr / 75% = $1/hr (used full games)
16 hours / $12 = a ratio of $0.75/hr / 75% = $1/hr (cheap games)

So, as you can see, $10 is a bit much for an album. The good-to-crap ratio is lower, the replayability is lower, and the experience is not as fun as a video game. That latter part alone is worth twice as much in a video game as it is in a CD.

Although, listening to music is still important to me, so I'm not discounting that. To keep my drive to work sane (1 hour round trip) plus other driving, I listen to 7 hours of music a week. At $10 an album and factoring the ratios above, that's $91 a month. That's not reasonable at all.

The fair price for an album is $4-5. That's where it should be.

[SineSwiper]

Yeah, I'm unsure what you mean by iTunes doesn't work, as well. I rarely buy my music from anywhere else at this point. If I actually want a physical copy, I can burn it onto one of the 50-150 blank CDs I have in my bedroom at any given time in less than a minute and a half. I've never had a problem with iTunes.

And I'm not even an Apple enthusiast.

I burn all of my music. I don't even have a physical collection any more. However, I have three problems with iTunes and Amazon:

1. It's too expensive. (See previous post.)
2. Artists get totally raped out of their share, even more so than CDs.
3. I get no album art, lyrics, etc. (This is a problem with all downloads, but I wish somebody would just think of that.)

It's true that pirating music (or downloading from the Russian sites) doesn't exactly fix the second part, but at some point, I just have to think about not getting raped in BUYING the album. In other words, if I'm not going to support the artist, I'll just download it for free and everybody acknowledges that it's not the official channels.

I would prefer to support the artist, but using something like iTunes is giving everybody the idea that the new "official channel" solution is to give artists such a small cut that they can barely live off of. To me, that's worse than just pirating the damn album.

I think the best way to go is a stock market approach detailed here.

[Tessian]

I didn't bother reading the whole thing... but Sine did you really just compare Video games to music in terms of dollar per hour spent? That's... beyond ridiculous.

I can't even think of a worse apples to oranges comparison to make... that's like complaining cars cost too much because you can buy a TV for much less.


Complain as much as you want about iTunes and Amazon and such, but they ARE successful... and as others have pointed they've all got DRM free versions of the music now.

Here's a serious comparison to make-- iTunes now offers DRM and DRM-free music, which version of the top songs are more popular?

[Kupek]

Dollars per hour is a meaningless comparison when it comes to enjoyment of a product.

[Kupek]

It just dawned on me you meant Titanic the movie, not Titanic the ocean liner that hit an iceberg.

Jesus Christ, I missed that one.

[Shrinweck]

Haha, I wasn't sure what you were going for with that, Kupek. I thought there was some company or product or some such that I hadn't heard of.

Also, assumptions about how people listen to music are pretty fruitless. The albums I do buy I end up listening to way more than 10-12 times. And I'm talking about the full album most of the time. A lot of my music listening is done when I'm at work or gaming (RTS, MMORPG mostly) and when I'm doing that I can't stop to change the album/song. There's also the fact that I don't have a car and walk everywhere so when the semester was on here at college I was probably doing about four hours of walking a week, translating to four more hours of music listening time per week.

Honestly, when all things are said and done I'm angrier at spending $50-$60 for a 12 hour video game (that I typically will play through once, twice at the most... the only games in the last year(ish) I've played through more than twice are Assassin's Creed and Mass Effect) than $10 for less than 1 hour of music that I'm going to listen to so many times I'll lose track. But then again that comparison has already been kind of thrashed. If you're only getting 10-12 plays out of most of the albums you buy then yeah, I'd tend to agree with you more. Also, I'd say that you're listening to shitty music, but then that's the kind of thing that would get me punched in the face

[Zeus]

definition fits for total shit like Titanic

Could it be that you perhaps just don't like Romance movies? The movie was gigantically successful both commercially and critically. Perhaps the only movie in its class for attention to detail is Lord of the Rings.

Commercially successful don't mean it's good. Neither does critically successful. It's a matter of personal taste. If Sine wants to ignore the superior filmmaking that went into the film simply due to a romance story that was at the core of the movie, it's his right to do so. He's not arguing that it was a poorly made film in terms of set design, cinematography, special effects etc. That would be a "scientifically" (note the quote, people) erroneous statement. He's simply providing you with his opinion of the film itself.

[Zeus]

Dollars per hour is a meaningless comparison when it comes to enjoyment of a product.

Not really. It's certainly not a pervasive form of measurement but it definitely is far from meaningless. It's about as meaningful as the +/- stat in hockey. Gives a part of the picture but it's not a stat to be taken by itself.

[Zeus]

I think N-Gage, Titanic and Superman 64 were considered failures.

Like Meatloaf said, two out of three ain't bad :-)

[Shrinweck]

Dollars per hour is a meaningless comparison when it comes to enjoyment of a product.

Not really. It's certainly not a pervasive form of measurement but it definitely is far from meaningless. It's about as meaningful as the +/- stat in hockey. Gives a part of the picture but it's not a stat to be taken by itself.

The problem, as far as I can see, is that the comparison assumes that either I'm enjoying myself or I'm not. I get a different kind of enjoyment out of a computer game than I do with music. They're completely different mediums of entertainment that I can enjoy while doing different things.

It can certainly give a part of the picture, but it isn't necessarily an important one.

[Julius Seeker]

definition fits for total shit like Titanic

Could it be that you perhaps just don't like Romance movies? The movie was gigantically successful both commercially and critically. Perhaps the only movie in its class for attention to detail is Lord of the Rings.

Commercially successful don't mean it's good. Neither does critically successful. It's a matter of personal taste. If Sine wants to ignore the superior filmmaking that went into the film simply due to a romance story that was at the core of the movie, it's his right to do so. He's not arguing that it was a poorly made film in terms of set design, cinematography, special effects etc. That would be a "scientifically" (note the quote, people) erroneous statement. He's simply providing you with his opinion of the film itself.

He didn't just say he didn't like it. He just declared James Cameron's masterpiece to be total shit as evidence to prove a point =p

I am not much into romance movies either; but I can certainly appreciate the large combination of strengths Titanic had that only a handful of other movies in existence have: Lord of the Rings, Gandhi, Lawrence of Arabia.... That's all I can think of off hand.

[SineSwiper]

Dollars per hour is a meaningless comparison when it comes to enjoyment of a product.

Why? They are both forms of entertainment. Not to mention that video games are a better form of entertainment than albums, so albums should be priced LOWER per hour than video games.

Also, if you're going to reply to my post, don't go all TL;DR on me.

[SineSwiper]

He didn't just say he didn't like it. He just declared James Cameron's masterpiece to be total shit as evidence to prove a point =p

I am not much into romance movies either; but I can certainly appreciate the large combination of strengths Titanic had that only a handful of other movies in existence have: Lord of the Rings, Gandhi, Lawrence of Arabia.... That's all I can think of off hand.

Everybody except you in this form thinks it's total shit. Millions of people watched Pearl Harbor and thought it was a great movie. But the reality is that the movie sucked ass and our population is too busy watching NASCAR and drinking Miller Lite to understand that. The people that matter, who actually watch movies more than once a year, all think it's total shit.

There are plenty of popular things that are ultimately failures, because they appeal to ONLY the masses. Truly successful products appeal to everybody, and the less successful (but still successful) products only appeal to the smarter population. Sure, you can make your money on something that only morons will buy, but why would you want to be know for that? Micheal Bay is just universally known as a bad director and writer, despite his "success" and popularity.

So, something/someone can still be popular and also be a total failure.

[SineSwiper]

Also, assumptions about how people listen to music are pretty fruitless. The albums I do buy I end up listening to way more than 10-12 times. And I'm talking about the full album most of the time. A lot of my music listening is done when I'm at work or gaming (RTS, MMORPG mostly) and when I'm doing that I can't stop to change the album/song. There's also the fact that I don't have a car and walk everywhere so when the semester was on here at college I was probably doing about four hours of walking a week, translating to four more hours of music listening time per week.

Honestly, when all things are said and done I'm angrier at spending $50-$60 for a 12 hour video game (that I typically will play through once, twice at the most... the only games in the last year(ish) I've played through more than twice are Assassin's Creed and Mass Effect) than $10 for less than 1 hour of music that I'm going to listen to so many times I'll lose track. But then again that comparison has already been kind of thrashed. If you're only getting 10-12 plays out of most of the albums you buy then yeah, I'd tend to agree with you more. Also, I'd say that you're listening to shitty music, but then that's the kind of thing that would get me punched in the face :P

Well, you're doing the opposite to your argument than I am. I spent $50, nay $90, on Fallout 3 (counting the failed PC install), but it was still worth it, considering I did spent a good 80-100 hours on it, and I'm probably going to pick back up my saved game to finish it up and play the DLC.

As far as my number of plays on an album, yeah, it may be as much as 20, but those are for the true gems that I may only find once a year. I'm extremely careful about not wearing out my music, because I know that I'll eventually get sick of an artist that I really like and it's better to save it for another year (or 6 months) when I haven't heard it in a while.

And for someone who listens to 4 hours of music a week, how exactly do you allocate enough time to find your artists? After all, your collection must be huge, meaning that you're running out of places to find music. (There are ALWAYS artists out there, but sometimes they are hard to find.) I just counted: I have 1087 albums on my collection (by 450 artists), so it's much harder to find out who left. Last.FM has been a good avenue for this, though, but I actually have to take an hour or so to find a bunch of artists, review some of their albums, and get them.

[Julius Seeker]

Everybody except you in this form thinks it's total shit.

So you are refusing the possibility that the people here who don't like maybe just don't like romance movies?

The people that matter, who actually watch movies more than once a year, all think it's total shit.

You mean like the movie critics and professionals in the industry that piled awards and praise onto Titanic? =P

Micheal Bay is just universally known as a bad director and writer, despite his "success" and popularity.

Pearl Harbour and Michael Bay aren't an adequate example to base a comparable reason for Titanic and James Cameron's wild success on. For starters, Titanic won 14 academy awards including best picture and best director.... Pearl Harbour and Michael Bay? See my point?

[Lox]

I know that a ton of you guys rag on Titanic as being extra sucky, but I don't remember exactly what it is that you guys hate about it so much. Is it Dicaprio? Is it the story?

I don't love Titanic, but it's by far from the worst movie I've ever seen and I'll even leave it on if I catch it on TV every now and again.

[Kupek]

For the record, I've never seen Titanic in a single sitting, beginning to end. But I've seen most of it in bits and pieces on tv, and it does not deserve the scorn it receives. I think it has problems (the biggest being the dichotomy of rich people are mean, poor people are nice), but overall it's a good movie. But not a great movie.

I think people, like Sine, trash it because it's a big, easy target and it's an easy way to differentiate yourself from "the masses."

Sine, to address your question of why dollars per hour isn't a meaningful comparison, Shrin got it by pointing out enjoyment is not binary. I paid about $7 to walk to the top of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. It took about half an hour to walk up more steps than I could count, and I was only at the top for less than ten minutes. I do not, however, measure that experience's worth at 70 cents a minute.

[Zeus]

Dollars per hour is a meaningless comparison when it comes to enjoyment of a product.

Not really. It's certainly not a pervasive form of measurement but it definitely is far from meaningless. It's about as meaningful as the +/- stat in hockey. Gives a part of the picture but it's not a stat to be taken by itself.

The problem, as far as I can see, is that the comparison assumes that either I'm enjoying myself or I'm not. I get a different kind of enjoyment out of a computer game than I do with music. They're completely different mediums of entertainment that I can enjoy while doing different things.

It can certainly give a part of the picture, but it isn't necessarily an important one.

That's pretty much what I'm saying. The volume of use can be one part of the measurement but certainly not an end-all solution. The method of use for each entertainment option is different after all.

[Zeus]

Dollars per hour is a meaningless comparison when it comes to enjoyment of a product.

Why? They are both forms of entertainment. Not to mention that video games are a better form of entertainment than albums, so albums should be priced LOWER per hour than video games.

You're bringing opinion into an otherwise objective/scientific analysis. It's not which is "better" that's is at the core of the argument, it's whether or not volume of use is a strong indication of value. I think it is to a degree as do you. Kup is arguing otherwise.

[Zeus]

For the record, I've never seen Titanic in a single sitting, beginning to end. But I've seen most of it in bits and pieces on tv, and it does not deserve the scorn it receives. I think it has problems (the biggest being the dichotomy of rich people are mean, poor people are nice), but overall it's a good movie. But not a great movie.

I think people, like Sine, trash it because it's a big, easy target and it's an easy way to differentiate yourself from "the masses."

Sine, to address your question of why dollars per hour isn't a meaningful comparison, Shrin got it by pointing out enjoyment is not binary. I paid about $7 to walk to the top of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. It took about half an hour to walk up more steps than I could count, and I was only at the top for less than ten minutes. I do not, however, measure that experience's worth at 70 cents a minute.

See, that's at least a fair opinion of the film. Kup's not ignoring the films obvious strengths but rather is taking them in conjunction with its perceived weaknesses (in his eyes). If you just stand there and say "it's a bad movie" rather than "I didn't like it", you're actually wrong. It's a well-made film, there's no doubt about that. You cannot argue the strength in the cinematography, production value, special effects (for the time), closeness to historical facts, etc. You may find holes in the plot which would cause you to dislike the film, and that's purely your opinion, but it's certainly not a bad movie in terms of quality when its parts are analyzed individually.

Titanic is the lightning rod for nerds or others to differentiate themselves from the masses since it's the most successful "mass-market appeal" film of all time. To many-a-nerd, it became the symbol of what's wrong with movies and something they could all agree on to show that they had "better" tastes. My love for this film is why I'm labelled as having "horrible" movie tastes when I agree with 90% of you at least 85% of the time, even now. It's really a silly label the movie's gotten that just allows a certain portion of the population to pretend to walk with their heads held high and their chests pumped out. It's stupid and childish.

You walking to the top of the St. Peter's Basilica is not entertainment, at least not in the strictest sense of the word. So you're not really comparing the same thing as music and gaming, which are both clearly forms of entertainment. If you really want to argue that it is entertainment or that spending time on traveling is the just taking away from spending time on other things to do with your free time and thus should be compared against your entertainment dollar, then the dollar-per-hour stat can still be used as part of an analysis although it will probably have less meaning than before. Won't be useless but it will need even more analyzes than comparing two much more similar uses of free time.

I COULD argue that spending $12 to go into the second great pyramid in Egypt for 30 minutes isn't nearly as "valuable" as spending $30 on Gears 2 and playing that for over 50 hours so far ($24 per hour vs 60 cents), but I really should bring into the fact that I'm seeing one of the wonders of the world for that $12 vs playing just another FPS-style video game (albiet one of the better ones) when making that comparison.

[SineSwiper]

Sine, to address your question of why dollars per hour isn't a meaningful comparison, Shrin got it by pointing out enjoyment is not binary. I paid about $7 to walk to the top of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. It took about half an hour to walk up more steps than I could count, and I was only at the top for less than ten minutes. I do not, however, measure that experience's worth at 70 cents a minute.

Yes, but you revalue that experience at a greater value because you don't exactly go to Rome everyday.

Do you enjoy video games more than music? I do. I certainly favor playing a video game than listening to music at home. Thus, mathematically speaking, one activity with a high favorability and lower price per hour ratio is more valuable than an activity with the opposite.

[Kupek]

Being at the top of St. Peter's Basilica is not what I'd call entertainment, but it is what I'd call enrichment. But so is good music. (And good books, some good movies, and a few good games.) Back to Shrin's point, our enjoyment of something is not binary, and nor is it simple to categorize how, exactly, we enjoy it.

"Mathematically speaking" means nothing to me when considering enjoyment. I can't objectively quantify my enjoyment of something.

[Zeus]

Being at the top of St. Peter's Basilica is not what I'd call entertainment, but it is what I'd call enrichment. But so is good music. (And good books, some good movies, and a few good games.) Back to Shrin's point, our enjoyment of something is not binary, and nor is it simple to categorize how, exactly, we enjoy it.

"Mathematically speaking" means nothing to me when considering enjoyment. I can't objectively quantify my enjoyment of something.

Again, this is why it's only a part of the analysis and not the whole thing. What I'm arguing against is your statement that a dollar-per-hour analysis has absolutely no meaning.

[Shrinweck]

Also, assumptions about how people listen to music are pretty fruitless. The albums I do buy I end up listening to way more than 10-12 times. And I'm talking about the full album most of the time. A lot of my music listening is done when I'm at work or gaming (RTS, MMORPG mostly) and when I'm doing that I can't stop to change the album/song. There's also the fact that I don't have a car and walk everywhere so when the semester was on here at college I was probably doing about four hours of walking a week, translating to four more hours of music listening time per week.

Honestly, when all things are said and done I'm angrier at spending $50-$60 for a 12 hour video game (that I typically will play through once, twice at the most... the only games in the last year(ish) I've played through more than twice are Assassin's Creed and Mass Effect) than $10 for less than 1 hour of music that I'm going to listen to so many times I'll lose track. But then again that comparison has already been kind of thrashed. If you're only getting 10-12 plays out of most of the albums you buy then yeah, I'd tend to agree with you more. Also, I'd say that you're listening to shitty music, but then that's the kind of thing that would get me punched in the face

Well, you're doing the opposite to your argument than I am. I spent $50, nay $90, on Fallout 3 (counting the failed PC install), but it was still worth it, considering I did spent a good 80-100 hours on it, and I'm probably going to pick back up my saved game to finish it up and play the DLC.

As far as my number of plays on an album, yeah, it may be as much as 20, but those are for the true gems that I may only find once a year. I'm extremely careful about not wearing out my music, because I know that I'll eventually get sick of an artist that I really like and it's better to save it for another year (or 6 months) when I haven't heard it in a while.

And for someone who listens to 4 hours of music a week, how exactly do you allocate enough time to find your artists? After all, your collection must be huge, meaning that you're running out of places to find music. (There are ALWAYS artists out there, but sometimes they are hard to find.) I just counted: I have 1087 albums on my collection (by 450 artists), so it's much harder to find out who left. Last.FM has been a good avenue for this, though, but I actually have to take an hour or so to find a bunch of artists, review some of their albums, and get them.

Working in a bar 10-15 hours a week where the bartenders bring in their own music I'm exposed to some good new stuff here and there. I have another friend who works at a college radio station (a good one) that gets sent a ton of promotional stuff so when she finds something good I'll hear about it. But I'm not constantly getting new stuff. At any point in time I typically have a dozen or so favorite albums that I can listen to non-stop while doing other things. Note that that list gets much, much smaller if I'm not doing something else while listening to the music.

To be quite honest we have a very similarly sized music collection. I have 526 artists and 1069 albums.

I use LastFM here and there but to be quite honest word of mouth and being forced to listen to whatever the hell the bartenders want to play (REALLY? THE NATIONAL.. AGAIN? GOD DAMMIT... sorry) is how I hear about almost all of my new artists these days.

[SineSwiper]

Yeah, I just CAN. NOT. STAND. listening to the radio. If I've heard it 100 times, it becomes an earworm that makes me want to switch it off. There are certain exceptions (Jimi, Led, Yes, etc.), but I've even started to get sick of Led Zeppelin, too. (After 500 times from each song, I start to reach a breaking point with them.)

And to Kupek's point about enjoyment factor, I do believe that sort of thing can be measured. It may vary from person to person, but everybody enjoys something more than other things. It would be nice if there was some sort of report that covered the average endorphin levels of a certain activity, but that's not exactly the kind of thing we can get a measurement of.

So, we would have to settle for some sort of multiplicative factor of enjoyment. If I said that video games were more enjoyable than music (on average), that would make my above price/hour ratio as a bigger gap between VGs and music. (If A=10 and B=20, and you multiplied A*2 and B*4...)

[Kupek]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiKM6g-dfBo

[SineSwiper]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiKM6g-dfBo

Silly Kupek, everybody knows that the enjoyment factor of poetry is always zero.

[Shellie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiKM6g-dfBo

Bravo.

[Andrew, Killer Bee]

mathematically speaking

Your campaign for allowing division by zero precludes you from speaking mathematically.

[SineSwiper]

mathematically speaking

Your campaign for allowing division by zero precludes you from speaking mathematically.

Why? You should know that X / 0 = infinity, except where X=0. It's the inverse property of X*0 = 0, except where X=inf.

Dodging that "division by zero" thing is the whole damn point of calculus.

[Kupek]

Jesus, not that again.

[Julius Seeker]

A loaf of plain bread should cost more sushi tray of sushi because it takes me longer to eath the bread than the sushi.

[SineSwiper]

A loaf of plain bread should cost more sushi tray of sushi because it takes me longer to eath the bread than the sushi.

Sushi has a much better enjoyment factor, which trumps the loaf of plain bread.

Jesus, not that again.

I see that my theory that logically (and mathematically) make sense are, in fact, very well defined.

[Julius Seeker]

You could argue that, BUT:

A good plate of sushi will cost 9 bucks.

$2.00 - a good rye
$0.90 - mustard
$0.50 - lettuce
$4.00 - some Montreal smoked meat and roast beef.
That's a little less than $7.50

I'll take 3 of those 50 cent songs while I'm at it to up the price to 9 bucks, sit in the shade with my 6 or 7 sandwiches and say FUCK the fucking sushi! 

ps. I'll have some extra rye and condiments left over too, and 3 songs that I can listen to whenever I want in th future =P

I fucking love bread arguments!

[SineSwiper]

You could argue that, BUT:

A good plate of sushi will cost 9 bucks.

Sushi is just that good, and has that large an enjoyment factor. I fucking love sushi!

[SineSwiper]

Just cancelled my account, and found this article, which really nails the issue, especially in combination of the comments.