Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Diamonds & the RIAA

CmdrTaco posted more than 11 years ago | from the something-to-think-about dept.

Music 739

eaglebtc writes "After reading the previously-posted article on about the rapid erosion of cheap CDR's, I found another equally scintillating write-up about the economics of music CDs written by Richard Menta, founder of MP3 Newswire. Sure, we've all heard the whining about how CDs are so expensive, but Mr. Menta takes a unique perspective on the issue by comparing the RIAA to DeBeers. He argues that both companies control distribution of products in their respective markets with an iron fist, and by so doing can artificially raise prices. Coincidentally, the bubble is beginning to burst in both markets: the RIAA is fighting against the uprisings of P2P software, and the diamond cartel's lawyers are losing sleep over the $5 diamonds produced in a lab."

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The names may change, but (4, Funny)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796327)

no matter. DeBeers will try and lobby a solution to protect their market.

If that doesn't work, I predict that your fiance will be expecting a new 'Mars rock' ring, and NASA will finally be able to finance that trip to the moon they've been faking^W talking about.

Re:The names may change, but (5, Informative)

the MaD HuNGaRIaN (311517) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796387)

Diamonds in jewelry are overrated any way.
There are much prettier stones available, many with cool characteristics []

Re:The names may change, but (3, Insightful)

Hogwash McFly (678207) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796433)

Yep, you're right, they are overrated for what you're actually paying for. Try telling the girlfriend or the wife that though. They don't give a shit about corrupt, murderous, exploitative companies they just want that fucking iceberg on their finger so they can one-up their girl friends in the coffee house. It's a sad sad situation.

Re:The names may change, but (5, Insightful)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796521)

Try telling the girlfriend or the wife that though. They don't give a shit about corrupt, murderous, exploitative companies they just want that fucking iceberg on their finger so they can one-up their girl friends in the coffee house. It's a sad sad situation.

Wait... you mean that you'd marry a girl like that?


For the record, my wife doesn't even like diamonds. :) And if I told her all the @#$ that DeBeers does, she'd probably spread it like hot gossip.

Re:The names may change, but (2, Insightful)

EnderWiggnz (39214) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796559)

amen, brother... if you choose to marry a girl, choose wisely.

Re:The names may change, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6796563)

I married young and sometimes regret it :-(
But hey I got two great kids...

Re:The names may change, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6796609)

Better than my situation. I married late and it doesn't look like we will ever have kids.

Re:The names may change, but (1, Insightful)

namespan (225296) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796626)

Wait... you mean that you'd marry a girl like that?

The problem here is that the scarcity on girls like that is far from artificial.

If you know a place where that's not true, I'd be very anxious to hear about it.

Re:The names may change, but (1, Insightful)

pmz (462998) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796598)

Try telling the girlfriend or the wife that though.

I told my wife exactly that. Good thing she isn't like most women: superficial and good for sex and not much else. Women who cry over a diamond are losers, period.

Dogbert at the jewellery store (5, Funny)

Jucius Maximus (229128) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796418)

Dogbert: So you're telling me that if I give you thousands of dollars, you'll give me a pebble you found on the ground?
Store Owner: These are not just ordinary rocks! They're precious and virtually priceless diamonds!
Dogbert: That's only because you chose to restrict the supply.
Store Owner: Ok Ok you figured us out. I'll give you a bag of diamonds if you'll keep quiet.

(Dogbert walking away with a bag of diamonds)

Dogbert: Well now I'm a party to this dirty little secret...

How *could* it work? (2, Insightful)

autopr0n (534291) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796426)

DeBeers dosn't have a total monopoly on diamonds now, and there is no reason that any democratic government would give them total control.

What will probably happen is that lab-grown diamonds will still be very scarce. The people making them are being very secretive about their processes and even their identities. They could sell their diamonds for $6 or $6,000, what do you think they'll do?

Maybe in 10 years or so the processes will be widespread enough to kill the market.

Re:How *could* it work? (2, Insightful)

sTalking_Goat (670565) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796577)

not necessarily. If they start maiing these for microchips the field changes. No one is going to pay Diamond ring prices for a microchip. And you can certainly sell more chips than rings. Eventually the industry is going to buckle, and I'll be laughing at DeBeers when it does. Blood money bastards.

Re:How *could* it work? (5, Insightful)

Frenchy_2001 (659163) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796606)

The fact is that De Beers is playing the sentimental trump. They are doing all they can to separate the "natural" diamonds from the "articifial" ones. They spent millions over the year to make every wife in every occudental country dream about a clear stone on her finger. They very wisely chose their sloga nas "a diamond last foreever" and are turning it around by saying the for a proof of forever love, you should give a gem that took forever to mature. Those people are very smart and very skilled at protecting their monopoly. Moreover, they are not over a bit of illegality and extortion if it can help them. They will hammer into our heads that the only good diamand are the "real" ones. Will it work? Time will tell... Anyway, diamond semiconductor might be a better outlet for thos artificial diamonds anyway...

The Song Remains The Same: DeCSS +1, Incendiary (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6796583)

#!/usr/bin/perl -w
# 531-byte qrpff-fast, Keith Winstein and Marc Horowitz
# MPEG 2 PS VOB file on stdin -> descrambled output on stdout
# arguments: title key bytes in least to most-significant order
$_='while(read+STDIN,$_,2048){$a=29;$b=73;$ c=142;$ t=255;@t=map{$_%16or$t^=$c^=(
$m=(11,10,116,100,1 1,122,20,100)[$_/16%8])$t^=(72, @z=(64,72,$a^=12*($_%16
-2?0:$m&17)),$b^=$_%64?12 :0,@z)[$_%8]}(16..271);if ((@a=unx"C*",$_)[20]&48){$h
=5;$_=unxb24,join"",@ b=map{xB8,unxb8,chr($_^$a[--$ h+84])}@ARGV;s/...$/1$&/;$
d=unxV,xb25,$_;$e=256| (ord$b[4])>8^($f=$t&($d>>12^ $d>>4^
$d^$d/8))>8^($t&($g=($q=$e>>14&7^$e)^$q*8^ $q>=8)+= $f+(~$g&$t))for@a[128..$#a]}print+x"C*",@a}';s/x/p ack+/g;eval

This is a fp (-1)

scumbucket (680352) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796328)

This is a fp. There are others like it, but this one is mine. Thank you very much.

YOU FAIL IT! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6796373)

Failure is not an option! Worse yet, the FP is ontopic, funny, insightful and leaves one with a feeling of peace and tranquility!P> FAILURE!

where's diamondster? (-1)

afex (693734) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796344)

man, that would be sweet.

Scott Lockwood is a fat bitch (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6796346)

Fuck that gay nigger, fuck him I say.
Vlad is a pussy, pussy I say.

And Israel is declaring war. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6796348)

Something to think about.


Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6796350)

When the fuck exactly are you people going to acknowledge Kirk Cameron [] as the genius he is?

Run, don't walk, and see The Growing Pains Movie [] , today!

If you have mod points and would like to support Kirk Cameron, please moderate this post up.

waah? (2, Insightful)

EMH_Mark3 (305983) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796354)

Wow! The guy must be a genius to see the similarity between the two!!

What to get that special someone (5, Funny)

pagluy (651141) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796364)

The latest Metallica wrapped in a box of of lab fabricated diamonds. Total cost? $100 Having your headbanging girlfriend love you forever? Priceless

moderation (-1, Offtopic)

NetMagi (547135) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796365)

If only congress had a slashdot like moderation system and regular plain old "voting-age" folks could meta-moderate. .

It would take some of the "well I'm in office now so I can do whatever I want" fuhqtards outta the system. If they're not doing what WE want. . then why are they there?

Re:moderation (1)

NetMagi (547135) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796442)

Gee thanks for the offtopic mod. Too bad it's right on topic. . it's all about the lobbyists pressure on lawmakers that keeps legistlature out there allowing the RIAA and debeers to keep their aging practices alive.

Re:moderation (1)

The Old Burke (679901) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796468)

Conrahery to the popular beliefs about "they should be doing what WE want" a democracy is not about that. A democracy is about listening to what the voters want and then to do What Is Best For The Country (TM)

According to the constitution the Congres should not comply with short-termed interest and popular wiews that don't reflect the believs of the whole people. In fact they shall instead decide after the opinions of the voters and after listening to organizatins and collecting the campaign contributions from the involved parts decide what would be in the best interest of the people.
So your special and limited opinions about RIAA are not the only truth.

Re:moderation (1)

NetMagi (547135) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796494)

Sure I can agree with that somewhat. .even if you weren't serious (I couldn't tell), but I'd rather have congress voting on what the majority of the people want short term that what the highest-paying lobbyist says.

Labor Of Love (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6796379)

$5 diamonds shouldn't be a threat. You can already get cheap crystals that look as good (or better) than diamonds. The whole point of diamonds is their expensiveness itself. Your bride wants you to spend a lot of money committing to her so she can trust you: she wants to know that you'll be around to help raise the kid before she accepts your seed. Cheap diamonds completely miss the point.

If guys start wedding gals using cheap diamonds, then chicks will just find a new tool with which to implement Expensive Labor of Love strategy.

Re:Labor Of Love (5, Insightful)

spencerogden (49254) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796436)

Yeah, but diamonds weren't super popular even 50 years ago, people still got married.

Re:Labor Of Love (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6796526)

and stayed married.

Re:Labor Of Love (5, Funny)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796449)

I've had plenty of chicks ready and willing to accept my seed after $10 worth of cheap vodka. All you diamond buyers are suckers.

MOD UP ++++ FUNNY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6796473)


Re:Labor Of Love (-1, Redundant)

darkov (261309) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796516)

Absolutely. I find my bottle of Rhohypnol makes me a real stud muffin. The girls are all over me, drooling over my body. They're putty in my hands. Much better than buying dinner or expensive jewelry.

Re:Labor Of Love (1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6796455)

Legal, safe prostitution solves the whole mess.

Two months salary my ass. Considering the history of the engagement ring (a down payment that the woman's family keeps if come wedding day her virtue is besmirched and the groom is nowhere to be found) there's aren't many women now day who fit the original bill.

You want to bring down DeBeers? You've got to break the government supported tang monopoly!

Re:Labor Of Love (5, Insightful)

MKalus (72765) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796461)

Yeah well, not being from the US (North America)I never quite understood that tradition, for ten grand I knew better things to do than buy a ring.

But then that's just me (and pretty much anybody else I know who didn't grow up in the US / Canada).

Re:Labor Of Love (1)

Yort (555166) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796492)

The whole point of diamonds is their expensiveness itself.

Exactly. All the diamond cartels have to do is start marketing "organic diamonds" or some such thing, and continue to charge the outrageous prices. Who cares if the $5 jewelry is synthetic, whether it's actual diamond or not? I can tell you that very few brides are going to want a rock on their finger that only cost their man $25 to get!

What *we* should be looking at is becoming the certifier or diamonds. Create some company, call it TrueDiamond(tm), and charge ridiculous amounts of money to verify that the diamond did, in fact, come from a big whole in the ground after having been pressed for thousands of years. We make lots of money, diamonds are even *more* expensive, and their desireability skyrockets.

Re:Labor Of Love (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6796580)

The point is, with modern synthetic diamonds. You can't tell. Thats why they're such a threat.

Re:Labor Of Love (5, Funny)

oliphaunt (124016) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796518)

What I'd like to see is a return to the days where women came with a dowry. Yes, I'll still buy her a ring that costs $X,000 and her parents will still spend $YZ,000 on a fancy wedding- but they will also give ME a check for $50,000 because they don't have to support her any longer.

Or if not a check, at least some cattle or some other form of livestock.

If the engagement ring is two months' salary, the dowry should be 20% of the value of the parents' net worth.

Re:Labor Of Love (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6796542)

I've seen your women, they are the livestock

Re:Labor Of Love (1)

MKalus (72765) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796610)

Well Marriage originally was a business transaction, the guy bought the woman from the parents.

But of course then Hallmark etc. happened ;)

Re:Labor Of Love (4, Interesting)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796536)

If you look at the history of the 'tradition' it wasn't started to make sure they guy had money/commitment, it was a marketing ploy by the diamond insdustry. That whole 'three month's salary' stuff is just a load of crap to make these bastards rich. Point is there really is no long standing diamond giving tradition, and the only thing backing up that 'tradition' is marketing. A $5 diamond can be marketed as well as a $15,000 one.

And besides, have you ever been married? With or without diamond wives freakin' expensive!

Re:Labor Of Love (2, Insightful)

robnit (698560) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796545)

Hmm. Which came first - "Women want you to buy an expensive diamond" or "Debeers says women want an expensive diamond" ? -robnit

Re:Labor Of Love (1)

mikeophile (647318) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796560)

How about something useful, like a house?

Re:Labor Of Love (1)

mugnyte (203225) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796567)

I agree. Thats why a cheap ring should be partnered with something outrageous and fun, like a motorcycle or a chef's stove or an exotic trip or wanted classes in some activity. Anything that has the potential to be a change into a passionate lifestyle is more worthwhile that a shiny finger.

Having said that, there is value and meaning to displaying to a society that you have been spoken for, and are loved by another. Rings are also an outward symbol that - no matter the content or expense - you've committed to a relationship for the time being.

My engagement will be inexpensive rings and probably a new car. Dunno yet. No hurry.


Re:Labor Of Love (1)

UserGoogol (623581) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796571)

Ignoring the fact that it is a stupid tradition (waste money on her to prove that you love her), you could still buy an insanely large fake diamond for about the same price as a real diamond, if your fiance is of that mindset.

Re:Labor Of Love (1)

RCO (597148) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796619)

Um, 'scuse me, I have a question from the other side, what let's the guy know that the female is going to stick around and be faithful to him. Oh, and what is his guarantee that the child he will be sticking around to help raise, would be his? I guess the overall question I have is, what is the benifit to the guy? Why should he/we bother spending the money, and believe it or not, more importantly, the TIME?

My perspective comes from dealing with a line of really sh!77V women.

Re:Labor Of Love (1)

EMH_Mark3 (305983) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796632)

hm one would figure that a woman with a brain would prefer a 10K$ down on a house to an useless 10K$ rock on a piece of metal.

Synthetic diamonds (4, Interesting)

Eric(b0mb)Dennis (629047) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796383)

...are 'too' perfect, and still (sort-of) detectable when looking at earth-mined stones..

De Beers has been trying to 'educate' the diamond masses about these 'heretic' stones, but eventually, this will bankrupt them

Now, as for the RIAA, CD-Rs and file-sharing won't kill the music industry. I wouldn't even expect a drop in sale-price, just more and more bureaucratic nonsense.

Re:Synthetic diamonds (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6796438)

The articles discussed in past on /. drew a distinction between artificial diamonds with certain impurities in them that were distinctive ( the yellow diamonds grown by the russian method for example ) that showed up easily under a spectrascope, and those that were completely perfect diamonds grown by the vapour deposition method.
Throwing a rock under a spectrascope is practical.
Spending thousands to send a rock to an expert to identify as "posssibly" fake due to being "too perfect" is not.

And besides, one would imagine imperfections could be introduced.

Re:Synthetic diamonds (1, Insightful)

neodymium (411811) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796484)

there should be several ways to distinguish between natural and synthetic diamonds. synthetic diamonds are almost always made using catalysts like nickel or iron - thats why they are yellowish. usually, natural diamonds have some small inclusions, which arent present on synthetic. for a properly equipped and trained diamond dealer, it should be no problem to find out if a stone is synthetic or not, by means of non-destructive chemical analysis methods like X-ray fluorescence. so this hazard to de'beers can be handled in some way.

compared to that, filesharing creates exact duplicates of any file - there is no way to tell if some file is an original or its tenth copy...

strange comparison. .-)

mod parent up - nice explanation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6796519)


Re:Synthetic diamonds (1)

shis-ka-bob (595298) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796630)

Do you really think that you cannot tweak the CDV processes to introduce defects? The scientists making the CDV are dreaming of very fast processors (Si single crystals get replaced by C single crystals - same structure - different band gap). They want to make huge single crystals. If you want to add imperfections, I'm sure that can be arranged. It was really hard to eliminate all of the defects, i'm sure they can dope or otherwise add imperfections.

Dammit! (0, Troll)

Dr. Bent (533421) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796388)

You bastard! You stole my post earlier today [] !

Ah well, take it. Thanks to sleep deprivation, there's plenty more where that came from.

Diamonds and DVD Rot. (0)

Channard (693317) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796404)

.. who needs them when you've got your own cubic zirconium-edge cutting tool. As for the CDRs - anyone else making mental connections between this and DVD Rot?

Darn (4, Funny)

Stargoat (658863) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796407)

I knew I should have waited two more years before getting engaged!

Re:Darn (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6796499)

Don't worry, I am sure your RealDoll(TM) won't mind if you call it off for another two years or so.

DeBeers never promised (5, Interesting)

BWJones (18351) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796415)

However, unlike the RIAA, DeBeers never promised that the prices of their diamonds would come down when market forces and economies of scale entered. Remember when CD's first became available? I can remember saving my change so I could afford some of the first CD's that came onto the market at what.....$15-20? Did the price on those ever come down? No.

Re:DeBeers never promised (3, Informative)

SimReg (99053) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796464)

"first CD's that came onto the market at what.....$15-20? Did the price on those ever come down? No."

Yeah, but wouldn't inflation make the prices lower, when compared to today's dollars?

So in a sense, by not raising the dollar ammount, they have lowered prices.

Re:DeBeers never promised (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6796537)

Inflation didnt keep cd player prices at 1000$$ though. Or ram prices at 100$$ per meg, etc etc.

The Cost of making a cd has gone down to pennies, yet prices stay the same. Dont forget this is the same RIAA that was convicted of pricefixing cd's.

Re:DeBeers never promised (2, Insightful)

harley_frog (650488) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796616)

So in a sense, by not raising the dollar ammount, they have lowered prices.

Yeah, but the quality of the product (i.e. the music) has retreated to the point of being worthless. Hell, I can't remember the last CD I bought from a current artist. Most of the CDs I own are re-released copies of older LPs.

$5? Where? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6796416)

I saw no mention of $5 diamonds:

"But they were made by a machine in Florida for less than a hundred dollars."

control is the problem (4, Informative)

514x0r (691137) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796425)

the problem i've had with riaa for a while now is the discrepency between cost and sell. if a cd costs several times less to produce than a cassette, why does a recorded cd cost up to twice as much. perceived value. incidentally i used to be the IT manager for a jewelry wholesaler and it opperates much the same way there.....and they are getting boned over these lab diamonds (1)

Agent Deepshit (677490) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796427)

How many times are we going to slashdot that poor site!

De Beers (5, Insightful)

El (94934) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796432)

Also note that no DeBeers executives have set foot on American soil in several years -- there afraid they will be arrested for their monopolistic practices! So why don't we treat RIAA the same way? Oh, they're headquartered in the US and contribute a lot more to political campaigns...

Modern indie music and synthetic diamonds (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6796434)

both are made under several tons of intense electric and heavy metal presure ;-)

So what happens when the two combine? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6796443)

Music encoded on to diamonds! Little stones could hold tons of music for a very very long time.

Same sort of idea, though (1)

w.p.richardson (218394) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796444)

Think about it...

The CD you buy has some "value added" features - artwork, lyrics, maybe an interview, etc. The copied CD will have none of this, and will be in a slightly lossy format.

Mined diamonds are less "perfect" than the synthetic ones. Thus, there will be a demand by folks with money to have the "real article".

Personally, I'm cheap, so gimme the copy and the lab gems! But that's a choice.

They aren't so worried about $5 synthetics (2, Interesting)

hellfire (86129) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796447)

The $5 synthetics are "industrial quality" diamonds and are used in manufacturing tools and products, not for being inset in jewelry. DeBeers is in the jewelry business and until the $5 synthetics can meet the same level of visual quality and appeal of a natural diamond, they aren't sweating it.

The real reason [] why DeBeers is sweating is the $1.5 billion worth of diamonds sitting in Israel which, if released into the market, could send diamond prices spiralling down.

Re:They aren't so worried about $5 synthetics (4, Insightful)

Dirtside (91468) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796523)

Not sure if you noticed, but that article in The Atlantic was written in 1982. (At least, that's the copyright date on the article. The fact that it doesn't mention any events that occurred after 1981 is telling, as well.)

I don't know whether those $1.5 billion worth of diamonds are still sitting in Israeli banks, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Industrial quality? (5, Informative)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796530)

You aren't paying attention. Previous artificial diamonds are too small for gems, they are used as abrasives in drill bits and so on.

These new companies are not making diamond dust, they are making gem size diamonds, and plan to use the income from that, as they destroy deBeers, to finance making diamonds for semiconductors, as in huge wafers.

Maybe you could come up with some definition for "industrial" diamonds, whatever that is, and then update it for the new artificial diamonds, and realize it has no more meaning.

Re:They aren't so worried about $5 synthetics (2, Informative)

Sheeplet (120355) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796570)

Did you read the wired story? They're making gem-quality diamonds for $5 a carat, that you can't tell from the mined counterparts. They're not talking about diamond dust used to coat saws here....

Diamond CDRs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6796450)

Maybe they will last longer?

Here's the stupid thing about this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6796454)

So these $5 diamonds from the lab are now available -- oh no, real diamonds are no longer going to be so rare and expensive!

Guess what, they aren't rare now! Just expensive.

DeBeers has created an artificial diamond market. If all the diamonds that have been mined were allowed on the market, they'd be cheap.

If you want to buy your wife something really rare, go with a ruby.

Diamond Myths []

Re:Here's the stupid thing about this (1)

Quill_28 (553921) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796548)

I agree, but they are still rare.

Water is rare in the desert because the poeple can't easily get to it.

Am i wrong? (-1, Troll)

mesmartyoudumb (471890) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796456)

Is it wrong to say that both of the markets are controlled by jews? :-p

Debeers can't stop them all. (2, Interesting)

Greenmonkey2021 (622738) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796467)

Even if Debeers can bring this innovation down and integrate it into their monopoly, they cannot keep their empire forever.

With the benefits that diamonds can bring to the tech sector, there will be a large demand for cheap diamonds with the right molecular properties. In other words, demand will bring about many more synthetic diamonds and Debeers can't stop them all.

of diamonds and women (3, Funny)

civilengineer (669209) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796472)

Among non-living things, the best carbon based object is considered to be diamond. Among living things (which are mostly carbon based) women are considered best. (It seems that's the reason women like diamonds so much.)

Artificial diamonds are here. When are artificial women coming up?

Re:of diamonds and women (1)

Quill_28 (553921) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796511)

They are not artifical diamonds, in fact they are more diamond that mined diamonds

I know that's not the point of your statement. :-)

Re:of diamonds and women (1)

Eric Smith (4379) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796549)

When are artificial women coming up?
If they're like Pris, I don't think I want one. Too dangerous.

Corporate bulls? (1, Insightful)

Teoti (678432) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796475)

Is it just me or does it seem like many corporations are now ignoring the will of the people? I think that a few of the more *noteworthy* corp. out there are letting bulls run loose in their china shops by relentlessly pursuing issues that the public deems to be ...tiresome. Especially SCO. And the RIAA could better spend its energy trying to catch up to the digital wave then pursuing petty lawsuits against students.

Taco needed $5 Diamonds (3, Funny)

capedgirardeau (531367) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796479)

About a year ago as I recall :)

Antoher reason I am glad I have ducked the marriage bullet to this point.

(honestly it wasnt that hard, I am a geek after all)


Authors implies diamond theft reasonable response (1)

geekee (591277) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796483)

By claiming that it is ok to use p2p technology as an alternative to buying cds or music online through legitimate sources, using the authors own analogy, he's implying that it's ok to steal diamonds from DeBeers because you think the price is too high. That's a more accurate analogy than the one he actually makes, anyway. A manufactured diamond is a legitimate competitive product. Copying a song because you don't want to pay for it, but still want it, unfairly lowers the value of the owners product, which is no better than theft of the product outright.

RIAA is focusing on the wrong area (1)

super_ogg (620337) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796488)

There are so many companies trying to profit from the loss of sales in CD's(too expensive, copying, plain bad music).

The money the RIAA is spending on anti-piracy tactics should be used to profit from this. They aren't going to scare millions of users into not copying. It's impossible. They'll be suing people for the next 10 milleniums.

Create a plan to start making some of your lost revenue back or accept it.

Re:RIAA is focusing on the wrong area (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6796579)

They'll be suing people for the next 10 milleniums.

...begin latin whoring...
or millennia even.
...end latin whoring...

Artificial Scarcity (4, Insightful)

Hamfist (311248) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796501)

They are similar becuase of artificially created scarcity. We are moving into an age of plenty. We can already print real objects using a modofied inkjet. It shouldn't be too long (compared to the time between the printing press and the computer) until our computers can produce most anything we want from a pile of atoms.

The better question is, what becomes scarce? Knowledge? Art? Service technicians for replication devices? I've yet to hear a good answer. The elimination of scarcity throws our entire economic model out the window. What's the new model? Do we go Star Trek and only care about improving ourselves?

However (2, Insightful)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796504)

DeBeers has something to worry about because there is nothing illegal about making artificial diamonds. (In fact, it's far less morally reprehensible than the virtual slavery of people in Africa caused by the bloodshed and civil wars that occur over diamonds and other gemstones.)

On the other hand, while music sharing causes a significant problem for the RIAA, they can still do something about it. The issue of the RIAA's price fixing will never be resolved until some method is devised and implemented successfully to bring independently-produced music to the fore.

compare apples to apples (1)

dwgranth (578126) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796506)

yes yes i know, this is a common saying but it definitely should apply here... the RIAA is a totally American organization that the government/law basically supports through the DMCA and other stupid laws....

while debeers is a multinational corp that makes tons of $$ but our govt has not made any diamond protection laws for them....

It's more about awareness than technology (4, Interesting)

nanojath (265940) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796515)

Even more so than print publishing, for a long time music production has been available on a massively scalable level to the independent artist. (Someone can go off about how much it really costs to produce an album, because your cousin's girlfriend's dad is in the biz and... Okay, you can record an album that somebody will burn to CD from anywhere from tens of dollars to hundreds of thousands. Doesn't change the fact that 99% of what the conventional industry produces sounds like it was extruded from a tube.)

Diamonds are a rotten analogy because it suggests that, up to now and the magic golden age of P2P, the publishing industry posessed all of the real music. The only thing that really distinguishes their product is that it is so obvious. If you never want to buy a major label release again but want new music all the time it really is not hard at all to do. It just involves a little more work.

There are two ways in which the internet may create a revolution for independent musicians. One is by offering a viable replacement for radio. The second is by exposing music to the distributed filtering techniques of mass exposure and moderation that the internet essentially gave rise to the invention of. File sharing as such strikes me as something that will be much of an adjunct to the real 21st century revolution of music - assuming it really happens because it sure hasn't yet.

RIAA & CD Sales are hand in hand, kind of... (5, Informative)

phaetonic (621542) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796525)

Did you know that there is a 2% surcharge on all CD recorders sold that goes directly to the RIAA, and a 2% hidden tax associated with the AHRA that is collected by the RIAA to give to artists, yet only roughly 36% of that 2% goes to the artist.

Don't buy blood music! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6796529)

I stopped buying all music as a moral stance. That purchase of that Jewel record could be funding terrorism, slavery, and, the most repugnant of all, future Jewel records.

Market effects (2, Interesting)

neglige (641101) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796534)

[...] both companies control distribution of products in their respective markets with an iron fist [...]

I'd say that this comparison is a bit inaccurate. DeBeers can reduce the number of diamonds offered on the market - supply drops, demand raises the price of the good. Simple. Raising the price and keeping the amount of goods offered at the same level will lead you nowhere, because customers will wait for the prices to drop since they know that a surplus of goods will build up over time (which decreases the price).

Now, does the RIAA really reduce the number of CD in the stores? Because only this would compare to the influence DeBeers has on the market... No, they just raise the price. And guess what - customers buy less CD and turn to P2P.

P2P music sharing distributes a good (mp3) that is nearly equal to the original good (CD). While the $5 diamond may be equal in the quality compared to a 'real' (= DeBeers) diamond, the price is part of the value of the 'real' diamond. Give a $10 ring to a woman, and she'll like it. Give the exactly same ring for $1000 to a woman, and she'll feel appreciated. Diamonds are a girls best friend, after all.

Re:Market effects (1)

Quill_28 (553921) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796576)

Give the woman a $1,000 tin ring and she will just think you are idiot.

It's does matter what it is worth not what you spent. And when diamonds plummet...

The Stallion (-1)

JismTroll (588456) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796539)

A full grown stallion's cock, when fully erect, will measure some two to
three feet long. It can be three to six inches thick at the base, to about
two inches thick at the head. Horses are somewhat different from other
animals in the way their cock head works. When a horse is fully erect and
excited and ready to mount, his cock head is somewhat pointed and not as
thick as might be normally observed. This is to facillatate an easier
entry into the mare. After the horse has entered and reaches a climax the
head swells (though it is more spongy then hard) into a fist sized mass as
he ejacultates. It is thought that this serves as a plug to force the
semen deep into the mare rather then allowing it to leak out. A full grown
stallion can ejaculate about one cup ( 8 ounces ) of semen. It will take
quite a few spurts to accomplish this. Each time his tail will raise and
lower in a brief flick. The first few jets are of a thin to average
consistency of cum. The final few jets are of a thick gelatinous
substance... it is thought that this serves to "seal" the mares pussy so
that the semen has time to do it's thing before leaking out. Horse semen
is extremely viscous, if you touch your finger to a pool of it you can draw
a thin string of it five to six feet long! Horse cum has a nice flat taste
to it...not at all bitter like man's cum. You can easily drink cups of it
with no discomfort.

The Mare - how to do it.

Mares can be quite satisfactory for the average well endowed male. If you
are somewhat less developed you might find better pleasure with a pony or
Miniature Horse. These are also better as they are lower to the ground. A
pony you can fuck standing up. A miniature horse on your knees or
squatting depending on the size. A mare will require something to stand on
or "platform shoes"...(IE mini stilts to raise you a foot off the ground)
so that you can reach her pussy.
Fucking any horse will depend on the horse. Some will be ready right
away...some will take coaxing. Pet the animal, talk to it softly, spend
time with it gaining it's trust. If something you are doing upsets it then
don't force it. Talk to it and calm it. If you work slowly you can make
an animal accept anything. It is just a question of helping it overcome
it's fears. All animals fear man if raised in the wild. How any animal
reacts will depend on it's own experiences. If you haved raised the animal
yourself in a loving enviroment, then you should have no problem
associating with it, if it is a strange animal that you have met in the
wild then you will have to go through an extended "courtship" to learn how
to respond to the beast.


When the filly reaches weaning age, seperate her from her dam. If you have
limited time to spend then she should be put to pasture. If you have
plenty of time then you should keep her in a stall. Spend time with her
during the day petting and grooming her and allow her some time to run
free. Limit her access to other horses though and see that she spends at
least 8-12 hours a day in the stall. (Start with more free time and as she
approaches her first birthday confine her more...she is now at the right
age and her confinement will have made her so bored that she is amenable to
any new experience so long as it is not unpleasant)Young fillys have no
objection to someone playing with their pussy's. I have walked up on a pen
full of strange fillys at night and they came right up to me and I petted
them and felt up their pussys and they just lifted their tales and seemed
to enjoy it. These fillys didn't even know me but they were young,
inexperienced and bored...also since they were penned they were used to the
presence of people and did not fear me. Most horses in a large pasture
will run when they scent a strange human in their pasture at night.
If you sit on the ground and wait patiently, they will get downwind of you
and snort and fret, but eventually they will get curious and come must wait until they have come close enough to smell and touch
you before saying anything or moving. Even then speak softly and move VERY
slowly so as not to spook them. If you can feed the horses and let them
smell you during the day on several occaisons then they will remember you
and come to you more readily when you appear in the middle of the night.
Also if you are seducing strange horses you should bring them food. This
is a good way to start a relationship.
Wild mares or those that have been artificially inseminated are usually
reluctant to have sex. The wild ones are used to violent horsecock and the
others have had peoples arms in their cunts so they can be apprehensive
about sexual events. Start rubbing ,scratching, etc in different areas
and observe the mare to see what she likes...almost all horses enjoy being
scratched under the chin and across the withers. Play with the horse until
it is comfortable with you and as you stroke it slowly move toward it's
hind end. Scratch her rump and around her tale and the move down her hind
legs. If she reacts to this well she might raise her tail
somewhat...gently rub her pussy and see how she reacts...if she doesn't get
violent then spit on your fingers and rub a couple of them through her
snatch...if she doesn't try to kick you then she is probably ready to fuck.
Note on horses and getting kicked.... Standing directly in front of a horse
is hazardous as it can raise on it's hind legs and come down with a front
hoof on your head. Standing 3-6 feet behind a horse is hazardous as it has
range to wind up and kick you a good one with the hind legs. Standing
beside a horse is fairly safe. It can only stomp on your toes which can be
avoided...standing behind a horse is safe if you are no farther then a foot
from it's are so close that the horse can't develop a full swing
and cannot kick you hard. If the horse can move forward you might fall
into range so try to tie up or use a stall or something so the animal
cannot pull away into striking range. If you make a good relationship
however the above is unnecessary though. I have had mare that welcomed
me...pushed back every time I shoved, and contracted her cunt to milk my
cock dry. Horses are some of the best pussy I have ever tried! And I have
tried plenty of PEOPLE & ANIMALS! Also horses are easily trainable! As
long as you make sure they enjoy what is happening and don't force them or
get angry with them if they misunderstand what you want of them, they will
love you always. Above all try to understand what they like and do it to doing whatever, to make them happy, they will respond by
granting you greater freedoms. Once you have succesfully fucked a filly a
few times she will be used to it and look forward to your visits so long as
you give her the attention she desires. You must experiment and treat her
as a lover and see what turns her on. Treat her as she wants and she will
give you all.

The Stallion

A stallion is is one of the most proudest, powerful, masculine, things
there is. All stallions are very oral and like to nibble and bite on
anything available. This can be annoying and painful and they should be
trained against it at a early age or else you should wear a padded suit, so
that they can bite you painlessly. This might be considered as a horse
that allows itself to be bitten without reacting is signalling that it is
sexually receptive. Stallions that have succesfully coupled in the wild
are somewhat resistant from seduction by humans. If they are isolated,
tempted and trained, then they will become more acquiessent but the best
ones are those that have been raised in a human enviroment since weaning,
since they have not had sex with other horses they are more amenable to
having sex with humans when their hormones kick in and they are looking for
some release. Bringing a wild horse to orgasm can be more difficult. They
are used to a mares pussy which is several degrees hotter then a humans
body heat. A person could fuck or suck them and not bring them to the
point of orgasm unless they had been isolated and deprived and unable to
help but cut loose with a load. Stallions can be readily trained though.
Most stud farms use artificial insemination, the stallions are aroused by
the scent of mares in heat and then an artificial vagina filled with warm
water is slipped over their cock and they reach orgasm. The stallions soon
learn the routine and just be leading them into the proper barn they know
what is coming and obtain an erection. This can work for you too. By
coming repeatedly to a horse and arousing him he will become trained to see
you as a sexual object. Soon just your presence will give him a throbbing

Arousing the Stallion

Stallions are aroused by the smell of horse pussy above all else.
If you have access to a mare, then gentle her till she will let you finger
her...then coat your fingers with her juice. Now rub your fingers across
the stallions nose! He will react even if she is not in heat! He knows
the smell! I have done this to geldings! Horses that have been castrated
and they still got a hardon!!! Also pet & rub the horse and rub his
cock...don't pull on it hard.. be gentle...big as it is it is still tender!
If you rub his belly and sheath slowly and gently and let him smell some
horse pussy juice then he will erect. If you can find a horse in heat then
grab some urine and refrigerate it. Take some out and thaw it when you
want it. Rubbing some hot mare piss on a stallions nose will make him
horny as hell! He will be all over you! Once a stallion smells that he
doesn't care what he fucks! He just wants a hot hole.
Make sure there are no other horses around...otherwise he will jump them
instead of you!
Some horses have been trained too react to certain cues, others react to
their own natural cues...I remember a $1,000,000.00 Arabian stallion I
trained.. He stuck his tounge out about 1/2 inch...when someone would rub
this small crescent he would instantly get a raging hardon...more proof
that stallions are very oral. This stallion had never had sex with a
mare...he had only climaxed through the intervention of humans and was
quite happy with having sex in a artificial vagina with the help of does wonders.

unless they have are experienced in fist fucking or have taken a large dog
in to the max ( IE knot and all). A horse has an enormus cock and could do
serious damage to someone who is not prepared. A horse cock can easily grow
as big as the knot in a large dogs cock so if you can't take that in then
you aren't ready. PS. A large dog can stretch you where a horse can fit
if you make the switch before the hole shrivels.

Country boys - you kbnow where the animals are and how to get
don't need to read this.

City Boys - Drive out to the suburbs and find some isolated horses.. try to
encounter them in the day and get them used to you then return at night to
have some fun. IF there are stables around then spend some time there.
Sign up for riding lessons or whatever and then kindof fade out and help
groom the horses and clean the stalls. Chances or whoever runs the scene
will be glad for the help and won't question your prescence there. You can
help run the show by day and return for sex at night. Just be careful,
there is less privacy in the city as compared to the country. You sure
don't want to be caught!

New animals on the block!!

We now have miniature donkeys and horses as well as the larger ponys to
play with!

These animals reach a maximum of about 200 pounds for the purebreeds and
somewhat larger for the crossbreeds. You can buy or breed an animal just
for your size specifications! Male and female animals made to order.
Miniatures are currently selling (dec. 1991) for $300 to $3000 depending on
pedigree. Anyone can find a horse their size. Support and promote these
animals. They are salvation to us all. The mares are tight and the
stallions are all can be found to fit any hole.

Ha ha (1, Funny)

FifteenSquids (647416) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796544)

Some sucka I work with just dropped 25 large on a diamond for his woman. I'll have to forward the diamond story and see if I can hear his weeping through the office wall. heh

The RIAA, DeBeers, Gemology and Maxell (2, Flamebait)

Kenterlogic (648880) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796555)

We have two seemingly seperate industries. Both, like mentioned in this post, rule their respective markets absolutely. The RIAA controls the price of CDs and DeBeers controls diamond prices. Both of them have been having to put up with some competition.

Gemology, a florida based company, is making synthetic diamonds for very little money that are near flawless. A 3-karat stone runs about $100 US. There is also a Boston based company that hasn't begun selling yet, but claim to have perfected a process that makes better diamonds than Gemology at a lower price. Meanwhile, dozens of P2P and blank media companies are developing new ways to "compete" with the iron-fist of the RIAA.

Everyone flames on the RIAA because of their lame tactics that are more annoying than effective at eliminating file-swapping and burning. But what about DaBeers that has been instigating international crime and inflating prrices on diamonds for decades? Near constantly we see stories of little children being tortured over diamonds in Africa yet the /. population seems more concerned with the RIAA placing fake copies of Christina Aguilera songs on KaZaa.

I am not trying to sound preachy. In fact, I don't really care about kids in Africa. Or anywhere for that matter. All that matters to me is being able to download whatever I want, whenever I want. And write longwinded posts on Slashdot with a good premice that go absolutely nowhere.

The only place I could find work as a writer is at Fox News. Sure, I can't make a point but I am "fair and balanced" TM.

No, no, no (2, Interesting)

(trb001) (224998) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796573)

Congress is told by the Record Industry Association of America (RIAA) that file trading is theft. In reality the P2P services bring balance to a system long unfairly tilted to favor the supplier.

In reality, file trading is *still* theft because you're breaching the artist's copyright. He's comparing apples and is a personally created work of art which is copyrightable. Diamonds are a naturally occuring deposit that just happen to be horded by one relatively nasty company. While I agree the two bare striking resemblances in their distribution models (read: iron fisted), that's where it ends.

The hullabaloo over file sharing is that, since music can be digitized, it can be easily replicated. We all realize by now that the reason P2P is succeeding is because it came up with a more convenient, but less secure, form of distribution. The RIAA's argument is that because music can be duplicated, they will lose the group of customers who would noramlly all individually buy an item but who instead buy one and dupe. A parallel would be DeBeers, had they created the Hope Diamond, getting pissed because someone was able to replicate it and sell it for $5 on the street.

That's not the case, this company is creating new diamonds (parallel: independant artists) that will use the same distribution model (retail sale, more than likely) as DeBeers. The only person who should be getting pissed in all cases is the owner of the original work, which for music is the copyright holder, with diamonds it's God (or, for you scientists, Mr. Pressure). I don't think God (or pressure, for that matter) cares.

It still infuriates both DeBeers and the RIAA, so I understand the comparison, but please don't argue that new, cheap diamonds are the same as P2P. One's legal, one's not (in most cases).


He paid *how* much? (1)

Unknown Kadath (685094) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796582)

If my hypothetical fiance presented me with a $14,000 lump of carbon, my first response would be "Are you fuckin' insane?!"

My second would be "Sell the rock and let's get a plasma TV."

Gems are just sparkly pencil lead.


The RIAA dream. (3, Funny)

hndrcks (39873) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796593)

"You should spend about a month's salary on the next Britney Spears album."

No comparison. (1)

mikeophile (647318) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796623)

DeBeers has private death squads to silence dissent.

The RIAA has Hilary Rosen.

Obviously, the RIAA is a much worse threat.

Flawed argumentation (1)

NetDanzr (619387) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796624)

Unfortunatelly, the article that compares the crarcity of diamonds and new music uses a very flawed argumentation.

The author claims that P2P hels to reduce the scarcity of new music. That is not true, though. It may help to improve the availability of existing music (as in "this CD is sold out; let's download it", which is a quite unlikely scenario), but the vast majority of P2P users still download the music that's published by the Big 5. Thus, new music is no less scarce, it's only more readily available. Only if P2P signifficanly improved the current music catalogue (plenty of new high-quality artists), he'd have a point.

No one noticed the obvious... (1)

SLiK812 (518195) | more than 11 years ago | (#6796636)

DeBeers still has awhile to inflate their market by the simple fact that these are "colored diamonds". The process that is used in Boston and in Florida have been used to create artificial diamonds for quite a few years now (Where else do diamond tipped blades for saws come from?) The aritificial diamonds always had problems with clarity and color due to the process used. Once that problem is fixed then DeBeers will have issues.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?