Here's what I don't get; is it okay to sell a really expensive cable as long as you don't claim it makes music sound better? If you market it as being durable and good looking then it's fine, but if I say it sounds better the Man should shut me down? Is the only difference between a Rolex watch and a pricey cable the fact that Rolex doesn't claim it tells time more accurately? This seems like a mighty fine line to get all bent out of shape about. Why isn't Rolex or any other maker of luxury goods being taken to task for their exorbitant prices?
I don't actually think that the Black Marias should be showing up at the doors of the Voodoo Pebbles manufacturer
(although I have been accused of being a crypto-fascist).
The issue here was really about fraudulent claims, I think, and not about price. As far as I understand it, the way fraud is prosecuted works something like the way patents are enforced. People are allowed to make whatever claims they want initially, and if enough people complain or someone dies and the claims are shown to be false, then they're not allowed to make them anymore. This isn't a principled, intellectually satisfying position to take as the libertarian one dado5 seems to propose, but it is pragmatic.
In this particular instance, it may be a fine line, as you point out. The problem with a pragmatic approach to this is that you are essentially on a slippery slope, and have to make arbitrary decisions somewhere (perhaps with much more serious kinds of fraud).
My main point, I think, is that manufacturers should expect to have their feet held to the fire by _somebody_, reviewers, consumers, whoever, when they make egregious claims. And it's pretty clear
that there a number of manufacturers of "audio products" who are either delusional or cynical liars.
The funny thing about me actually arguing these points is that I subscribed to the magazine and never really liked it.....
hopefully i haven't offended anyone too much.
