RIAA dirty tricks.

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: AnyMal
I think most of you folks need to take Basic Economics and learn about supply/demand model. The basic rule states that as long as there is a demand for a given product at a given price, someone will supply such product. Should the product be of inferior quality or priced too high, the demand will inevitably drop leading to drop in offering prices.

Some of you mentioned paying up to $17.00 per CD. I don't know where you guys shop, Best Buy usually has new releases for $10.00

maybe you should take intermediate economics and learn that theres a profit maximizing point and that companies try to reach it. and then take some game theory and learn that collusion is the best strategy in an infinite horizon game. which is what the RIAA is, the collusion of the record companies.

 

[AnyMal]

Many people don't live near a Best Buy. The only places around here that sell CD's are Wal-Mart (who edits the CD's and has a very limited selection) and the music store in the mall (Can't remember the name of it. They also have a very limited selection and their prices are between $17 - $20 for a single CD). That is completely ridiculous in my opinion. Be glad you live near a BB, but the closet one to me is an hour and a half away, and no CD is worth that.

Best Buy ships for free when you order from their website. So there goes your argument, sorry...

maybe you should take intermediate economics and learn that theres a profit maximizing point and that companies try to reach it. and then take some game theory and learn that collusion is the best strategy in an infinite horizon game. which is what the RIAA is, the collusion of the record companies.

Well, there is nothing wrong with little sarcasm I guess, it takes all kinds..

 

[syberscott]

Originally posted by: kasparov

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: kasparov
Not to be too off topic but two points:

1) The fact that you don't like Eminem probably means you are a liberal.
2) How much money have you lost due to file sharing?

My guess is that you haven't lost 5 cents due to file sharing because nobody downloads your stuff. No body even wants to sample it.
If someone did want to download your music via P2P, you'd probably be better off financially.

I am not attacking you. I am just making the point that small, honest artists aren't the ones losing anything from P2P technologies. Hell, I don't think that even rich sucessful artists are losing anything. The people who might be losing money are the rich execuatives who have cornered the distribution of the music in this country.

Your ignorance is astounding, and your audacity to make any assumptions about me, let alone about recording artists, successful and otherwise, tells me you need to do understand the meaning behind a title that is a parody of a famous country hit, "Don't It Make Your Blue Eyes Brown?"

Do you ever open your mouth to do anything besides changing feet? :Q

How are my assumptions wrong? How have you ever lost money due to P2P technology?

I will tell you exactly how most of us have lost money due to P2P file sharing. Most of us buy blank cd's right? Well guess what? Part of that money goes to the recording industry. I only use cd-r's to backup my customer invoices and work orders, but to do that I have to pay the music industry because people steal from them and they are trying to recoup their loses in a less than ethical way.

 

[kasparov]

Originally posted by: syberscott

Originally posted by: kasparov

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: kasparov
Not to be too off topic but two points:

1) The fact that you don't like Eminem probably means you are a liberal.
2) How much money have you lost due to file sharing?

My guess is that you haven't lost 5 cents due to file sharing because nobody downloads your stuff. No body even wants to sample it.
If someone did want to download your music via P2P, you'd probably be better off financially.

I am not attacking you. I am just making the point that small, honest artists aren't the ones losing anything from P2P technologies. Hell, I don't think that even rich sucessful artists are losing anything. The people who might be losing money are the rich execuatives who have cornered the distribution of the music in this country.

Your ignorance is astounding, and your audacity to make any assumptions about me, let alone about recording artists, successful and otherwise, tells me you need to do understand the meaning behind a title that is a parody of a famous country hit, "Don't It Make Your Blue Eyes Brown?"

Do you ever open your mouth to do anything besides changing feet? :Q

How are my assumptions wrong? How have you ever lost money due to P2P technology?

I will tell you exactly how most of us have lost money due to P2P file sharing. Most of us buy blank cd's right? Well guess what? Part of that money goes to the recording industry. I only use cd-r's to backup my customer invoices and work orders, but to do that I have to pay the music industry because people steal from them and they are trying to recoup their loses in a less than ethical way.

So you are blaming P2P'ers for puttting a surcharge on music CDs? Do you realize that the surcharge on CDs was enacted before P2P ever became popular? RIAA will add a surcharge to anything for any reason to increase profits. They put a surcharge on CDs to bump their profits, and they would put a surcharge on water if they could.

 

[Jeff7]

I still love what I saw in the letters section of MaximumPC - someone wrote in there (I'll say this as best as I can remember it was stated in the letter, as I don't have the issue handy) and brought up how there's a public place you can go to view copyrighted information as much as you want, and you may only need a card with a small fee to do so. You can take these copyrighted works home with you for weeks and view them, without giving the original creators a cent. Perhaps we should eliminate libraries as well?

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: kasparov

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: kasparov
How are my assumptions wrong? How have you ever lost money due to P2P technology?

First, you're right about my being a liberal, but sounds like you assume that's a dirty word, so let me set you straight. I'm proud of being compassionate and of caring about the environment, the rights of women to control their own bodies, and lots of other parts of supposedly "liberal" views, and I'm proud of the label. I'm even more proud of it when brainless so called "conservatives" try to hang it on me like it was something to be ashamed of. OTOH, your assumption that I'm a liberal because I think Eminem is tasteless twaddle suggests your logic is couple of frejoles short of a combination plate. I know plenty of "conservatives" who find him at least as offensive to good taste and common human decency as I do, so yes, your assumption is invalid.

Second, I have not been fortunate enough in my musical endeavors to have music on the market that others could rip off. However, over the years, my clients have included many musical artists, ranging from the the not so, and not yet, famous, to names you hear every day, as well as their producers, mixing engineers and the recording factilities they use. If you have downloaded any of their music, you have stolen from them. If they ever have to tell me they can't pay my invoice or go with a project because they're short on money, then yes, YOU have cost me money.

It really doesn't matter if I have personally lost money through file sharing. It's just plain WRONG! to steal their work product. I don't know what you do for a living, but I doubt you want others sticking their hands in your pocket to steal any part of whatever it is you do that you think has value.

Hmm.. right on both assumptions. You are a liberal. And, no college P2P'er has taken money out of your pocket.
Do you think Britney Spears or Pearl Jam couldn't afford you if some kid got a couple of his song off Kazaa? What if he taped it off the radio?
Do you think that these kids deserved to be tracked and put away like common criminals just because the CEO of Artista records lost 5 bucks?
Tell me how honest folks are losing their jobs because of P2P..

You Assertion that stealing is ok if the person/company you are stealing from is wealthy presents your point of view quite clearly. It's a common thread we see from the theives in Hot Deals and actually I feel it's quite a common viewpoint from people in your generation. It's quite unfortunate that your parents never taught you that stealing is wrong regardless of the income of the person you are stealing from. It's also fortunate that fools or your generation do not vote and will not have any say as the country corrects this mistaken belief you hold by making examples of people of your generation. I only hope that Karma plays it's role against you and someone steals from you so you know the pain of theft.

Wish you posted more Harvey, some of us miss ya.

 

[kasparov]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: kasparov

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: kasparov
How are my assumptions wrong? How have you ever lost money due to P2P technology?

First, you're right about my being a liberal, but sounds like you assume that's a dirty word, so let me set you straight. I'm proud of being compassionate and of caring about the environment, the rights of women to control their own bodies, and lots of other parts of supposedly "liberal" views, and I'm proud of the label. I'm even more proud of it when brainless so called "conservatives" try to hang it on me like it was something to be ashamed of. OTOH, your assumption that I'm a liberal because I think Eminem is tasteless twaddle suggests your logic is couple of frejoles short of a combination plate. I know plenty of "conservatives" who find him at least as offensive to good taste and common human decency as I do, so yes, your assumption is invalid.

Second, I have not been fortunate enough in my musical endeavors to have music on the market that others could rip off. However, over the years, my clients have included many musical artists, ranging from the the not so, and not yet, famous, to names you hear every day, as well as their producers, mixing engineers and the recording factilities they use. If you have downloaded any of their music, you have stolen from them. If they ever have to tell me they can't pay my invoice or go with a project because they're short on money, then yes, YOU have cost me money.

It really doesn't matter if I have personally lost money through file sharing. It's just plain WRONG! to steal their work product. I don't know what you do for a living, but I doubt you want others sticking their hands in your pocket to steal any part of whatever it is you do that you think has value.

Hmm.. right on both assumptions. You are a liberal. And, no college P2P'er has taken money out of your pocket.
Do you think Britney Spears or Pearl Jam couldn't afford you if some kid got a couple of his song off Kazaa? What if he taped it off the radio?
Do you think that these kids deserved to be tracked and put away like common criminals just because the CEO of Artista records lost 5 bucks?
Tell me how honest folks are losing their jobs because of P2P..

You Assertion that stealing is ok if the person/company you are stealing from is wealthy presents your point of view quite clearly. It's a common thread we see from the theives in Hot Deals and actually I feel it's quite a common viewpoint from people in your generation. It's quite unfortunate that your parents never taught you that stealing is wrong regardless of the income of the person you are stealing from. It's also fortunate that fools or your generation do not vote and will not have any say as the country corrects this mistaken belief you hold by making examples of people of your generation. I only hope that Karma plays it's role against you and someone steals from you so you know the pain of theft.

Wish you posted more Harvey, some of us miss ya.

Have you read what I said? I don't believe that sharing music via P2P service is stealing -- I believe that it is covered via Fair Use policy. BTW, I don't see any theives in hot deals -- just smart traders.

BTW (off-topic) are you a grumpy old man? Why are you generalizing my view point with my "generations" point of view?

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
I still love what I saw in the letters section of MaximumPC - someone wrote in there (I'll say this as best as I can remember it was stated in the letter, as I don't have the issue handy) and brought up how there's a public place you can go to view copyrighted information as much as you want, and you may only need a card with a small fee to do so. You can take these copyrighted works home with you for weeks and view them, without giving the original creators a cent. Perhaps we should eliminate libraries as well?

Hahaha ... I remember reading that too. Cracked me up.

"OMFG! WTF? Libraries - The #Warez-Central Of Books!!!!!!"

- M4H

 

[xirtam]

Yeah, I don't know how you can draw the line on something like intellectual property.

Somehow books, despite the existence of libraries, still sell. The music industry will survive.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: kasparov

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: kasparov

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: kasparov
How are my assumptions wrong? How have you ever lost money due to P2P technology?

First, you're right about my being a liberal, but sounds like you assume that's a dirty word, so let me set you straight. I'm proud of being compassionate and of caring about the environment, the rights of women to control their own bodies, and lots of other parts of supposedly "liberal" views, and I'm proud of the label. I'm even more proud of it when brainless so called "conservatives" try to hang it on me like it was something to be ashamed of. OTOH, your assumption that I'm a liberal because I think Eminem is tasteless twaddle suggests your logic is couple of frejoles short of a combination plate. I know plenty of "conservatives" who find him at least as offensive to good taste and common human decency as I do, so yes, your assumption is invalid.

Second, I have not been fortunate enough in my musical endeavors to have music on the market that others could rip off. However, over the years, my clients have included many musical artists, ranging from the the not so, and not yet, famous, to names you hear every day, as well as their producers, mixing engineers and the recording factilities they use. If you have downloaded any of their music, you have stolen from them. If they ever have to tell me they can't pay my invoice or go with a project because they're short on money, then yes, YOU have cost me money.

It really doesn't matter if I have personally lost money through file sharing. It's just plain WRONG! to steal their work product. I don't know what you do for a living, but I doubt you want others sticking their hands in your pocket to steal any part of whatever it is you do that you think has value.

Hmm.. right on both assumptions. You are a liberal. And, no college P2P'er has taken money out of your pocket.
Do you think Britney Spears or Pearl Jam couldn't afford you if some kid got a couple of his song off Kazaa? What if he taped it off the radio?
Do you think that these kids deserved to be tracked and put away like common criminals just because the CEO of Artista records lost 5 bucks?
Tell me how honest folks are losing their jobs because of P2P..

You Assertion that stealing is ok if the person/company you are stealing from is wealthy presents your point of view quite clearly. It's a common thread we see from the theives in Hot Deals and actually I feel it's quite a common viewpoint from people in your generation. It's quite unfortunate that your parents never taught you that stealing is wrong regardless of the income of the person you are stealing from. It's also fortunate that fools or your generation do not vote and will not have any say as the country corrects this mistaken belief you hold by making examples of people of your generation. I only hope that Karma plays it's role against you and someone steals from you so you know the pain of theft.

Wish you posted more Harvey, some of us miss ya.

Have you read what I said? I don't believe that sharing music via P2P service is stealing -- I believe that it is covered via Fair Use policy. BTW, I don't see any theives in hot deals -- just smart traders.

BTW (off-topic) are you a grumpy old man? Why are you generalizing my view point with my "generations" point of view?

I have read the whole thread and I don't care that you think stealing isn't stealing. Like I said, it's a common theme in your generation that you are entitled to the work and effort of others at no cost to yourself. This sense of entitlement is a paramount problem for generation Y. You will be taught hard lessons that you are NOT entilted to the hard work of others and because of your sense of entitlement you will strengthen the position and holdings of the Recording industry. You claim to rail against the RIAA but in stealing the work of artists you tie them more tightly to th RIAA because individually they cannot prevent the theft.

You facilitate what you seek to rally against and in doing so you will end up sacrificing the rights of others on your crusade of entitlement.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: kasparov
Hmm.. right on both assumptions. You are a liberal. And, no college P2P'er has taken money out of your pocket.

Repeat, PROUD of being a liberal, but as I said, previously, some of my clients and friends have had money stolen from them by file sharing. Why does it make a difference who got ripped off by it? It's still THEFT, nevertheless, and it is still a ripoff.

If you call yourself a conservative, I can understand why others who do will be hiding from that label just to avoid being associated with lowlife scumbag thieves like you.

Do you think Britney Spears or Pearl Jam couldn't afford you if some kid got a couple of his song off Kazaa? What if he taped it off the radio?
Do you think that these kids deserved to be tracked and put away like common criminals just because the CEO of Artista records lost 5 bucks?

Looks like they got your conscience during that last brain surgury. At least, we know why you failed your Ethics class. Last time I checked, the size of a theft doesn't change the fact that it is still THEFT, nevertheless, and it is still WRONG!

Tell me how honest folks are losing their jobs because of P2P..

Since you obviously do not qualify as "honest folks," the chances are less than negligible that you would understand the answer to that question.

 

[Vic]

While I do believe that "filesharing" (digital duplication of copyrighted material) is stealing and is wrong, I disagree with the idea that it is the same as physical theft. In physical theft (i.e. shoplifting), the owner incurs an actual loss: the physical item that he intended to sale has been stolen, and now not only cannot be sold but must be replaced. Actual physical loss has occurred.
In "filesharing," the loss is not actual, but theoretical. And it is not "loss" so much as it is failure to gain. I am NOT saying that no theft has occurred. What I am saying is that the damage to copyright holder is a potential loss of revenue only, and not an actual physical loss.
For example, it always amuses me when Adobe acts as though 13-year-olds pirating their $700 Photoshop program is an actual loss. Please. Just because someone will pirate a program (or music CD) does not mean that they would have purchased it.

Be clear of this though: I will never blame filesharers for the current actions of the RIAA/MPAA/BSA. That is a logical fallacy of the type of blaming murderers for the fact that murder is illegal. Laws exist for a reason that is more than the law itself. The theft of filesharing represents more of a marketing failure than it does anything else. Customers wish to purchase a product in a form that the products' owners have purposefully made unavailable. IMO, this entire situation has been a well-though-out power play from beginning to end, and anyone who thinks differently is very naive.

 

[Tom]

Kasparov(i think) said-
"I don't believe that sharing music via P2P service is stealing -- I believe that it is covered via Fair Use policy."

I hope you are joking. You can't seriously believe that giving away copyrighted materials to thousands or millions of people is fair use.

vic said-
"That is a logical fallacy of the type of blaming murderers for the fact that murder is illegal."

You can't be serious. Murderers are the SOLE reason for murder being illegal.

and vic said-

"While I do believe that "filesharing" (digital duplication of copyrighted material) is stealing and is wrong, I disagree with the idea that it is the same as physical theft."

You are right. It is exponentially worse. Stealing one loaf of bread is minor. File-sharing is the equivalent of stealing the bakery, the ingredients, and the wages of all the workers.

As far as the Photoshop example, I agree with you that the claims of RIAA and software companies are extremely inflated as to the actual losses from piracy. But that doesn't change the fact that the actual losses are HUGE ! Once it becomes morally acceptable to steal stuff that you don't care enough to buy it is a very short trip to stealing stuff that you would buy if it wasn't so easy to steal it.

 

[Tom]

Something else I wanted to comment on is the subject of libraries. There isn't any valid comparision between libraries and illegal downloading of copyrighted work. Libraries buy the things they loan out or provide access too, and that access is limited. It is limited by the length of time someone can use the borrowed item and it is limited because only one person, or perhaps a small group, can use the item at the same time.

 

[Vic]

Dead Parrot Sketch, I think that you and I are going to have to agree to disagree.

For the first part, I am serious. In a truly moral society, murder would be forbidden even in the absence of murderers.

You are right. It is exponentially worse. Stealing one loaf of bread is minor. File-sharing is the equivalent of stealing the bakery, the ingredients, and the wages of all the workers.

As for this, I feel that you couldn't be more wrong or more outrageously sensationalistic. To use your analogy, filesharing is the equivalent of stealing the recipe, nothing more. Otherwise, in reality the place and means of production remain intact, inventory is unaffected, and production continues.

edit: typo

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Something else I wanted to comment on is the subject of libraries. There isn't any valid comparision between libraries and illegal downloading of copyrighted work. Libraries buy the things they loan out or provide access too, and that access is limited. It is limited by the length of time someone can use the borrowed item and it is limited because only one person, or perhaps a small group, can use the item at the same time.

Those are minor details. There are thousands of libraries with the same books available. If it isn't at one, you go to another. Similar to one user on Kazaa being too slow... you download the file from the next user. What about material available online? Many magazines have their whole issues published online, but you still need to buy the magazine if you want a hardcopy.

 

[Tom]

The recipe with regards to music would be the sheet music.
The ingredients are the instruments
the bakers are the musicians
the bakery is the production, studio, distribution system
the product is the bread.

File sharing is taking the financial resources away from all of these things. If it becomes acceptable practice to get music for free there won't be much music being produced.

I agree we will just have to disagree about the murder thing. Obviously it would be impossible in the real world to not have any murderers, but if it was possible there would be absolutely no reason to have a law making murder illegal. Kind of like there wasn't any 65mph speed limit law in 1803.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Vic
Dead Parrot Sketch, I think that you and I are going to have to agree to disagree.

For the first part, I am serious. In a truly moral society, murder would be forbidden even in the absence of murderers.

You are right. It is exponentially worse. Stealing one loaf of bread is minor. File-sharing is the equivalent of stealing the bakery, the ingredients, and the wages of all the workers.

As for this, I feel that you couldn't be more wrong or more outrageously sensationalistic. To use your analogy, filesharing is the equivalent of stealing the recipe, nothing more. Otherwise, the place and means of production remain intact, and production continues.

edit: typo

In a truely moral society there would be no need to ban murder or even consider a ban on it because it wouldn't exist. The violation itself makes it necessary to make it illegal, without the violation occuring there is no reason to make it illegal. Unless I'm mistaken it is not illegal to create a rift in space/time and exploit that rift to time travel to alter history. The absence of this actually occuring means there is no reason for the law to exist so it doesn't. The same would be true of murder, without murders there would be no reason to make something illegal that is never done. Because murder does occur and murders do exist laws are enacted to punish violators.

In much the same way filetrading will result in the loss of freedoms in this country because actual damages will be shown to occur. With damages to the artists shown, congress will act and the supreme court will uphold the laws as a BALANCE between rights.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
The recipe with regards to music would be the sheet music.
The ingredients are the instruments
the bakers are the musicians
the bakery is the production, studio, distribution system
the product is the bread.

File sharing is taking the financial resources away from all of these things. If it becomes acceptable practice to get music for free there won't be much music being produced.

Using that argument, it could be argued that by my not acquiring new music at all, neither by filesharing nor by lawfully purchasing it, is taking financial resources away from those things. You are treading on very dangerous ground here (although unfortunately not a new one in the artistic community). You are trying to make it mandatory to purchase a luxury product, whether you realize it or not. When people don't buy homes, it hurts my business. Should I argue, using your same logic, that it should be mandatory that everyone buy a home??

I agree we will just have to disagree about the murder thing. Obviously it would be impossible in the real world to not have any murderers, but if it was possible there would be absolutely no reason to have a law making murder illegal. Kind of like there wasn't any 65mph speed limit law in 1803.

You forget the highest standard of morality, which is the Golden Rule.

I will, however, agree that this library analogy does not work (and is as stupid as the bakery analogy). Libraries do not spawn off infinite exact copies, used by multiple individuals all at the same time. Instead, one copy, legally purchased, is distributed to one person at a time. The theft involved in filesharing is not that multiple people hear the music. Under the law, I could buy a CD, listen to it, give the original to a friend, who listens to it, he gives it to someone else, etc., and it would be entirely legal as long as no one ever made a copy of the CD. The theft in "filesharing" is in the duplication, not the sharing, let's all be clear about that.

Why people fileshare is less clear. What I have seen is that most of the people who do it do not consider themselves thieves, and I do not believe that this is entirely due to an absence of morality. In fact, most of the filesharers I have met or spoke with seem to think of themselves as die-hard fans. This has led me to believe that the fault lies in the RIAA/MPAA. The advent of PC's and broadband internet has led to a whole new form of media distribution that provides an amazing form of consumer instant gratification. The ability to listen to or watch anything at any time instantly. Remember years ago when your geeky friends used to prophesy about a "day" when we would be able to watch any movie we wanted to at any time we wanted to? Well, guess what? That "day" was more than 2 years ago... and they (meaning the copyright holding interests) don't want to let us have that. So people are getting it anyway, just like they always do. I really believe that it is this, and not prices or anything else, that is the cause.

 

[kasparov]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: kasparov
Hmm.. right on both assumptions. You are a liberal. And, no college P2P'er has taken money out of your pocket.

Repeat, PROUD of being a liberal, but as I said, previously, some of my clients and friends have had money stolen from them by file sharing. Why does it make a difference who got ripped off by it? It's still THEFT, nevertheless, and it is still a ripoff.

If you call yourself a conservative, I can understand why others who do will be hiding from that label just to avoid being associated with lowlife scumbag thieves like you.

Do you think Britney Spears or Pearl Jam couldn't afford you if some kid got a couple of his song off Kazaa? What if he taped it off the radio?
Do you think that these kids deserved to be tracked and put away like common criminals just because the CEO of Artista records lost 5 bucks?

Looks like they got your conscience during that last brain surgury. At least, we know why you failed your Ethics class. Last time I checked, the size of a theft doesn't change the fact that it is still THEFT, nevertheless, and it is still WRONG!

Tell me how honest folks are losing their jobs because of P2P..

Since you obviously do not qualify as "honest folks," the chances are less than negligible that you would understand the answer to that question.

In some ways, file sharing is the ultimate liberal program. Who file shares? Those who cannot afford to buy the CD because they have been priced out of the market. 16 year old kids, college kids, inner city kids cannot afford the high cost of CDs. CEOs, Brain surgeons, and other fat cats can very easily afford CDs.

Who loses from filesharing? My initial guess is that no-one ultimately loses from the process. Artists and even their executives benefit. But, let me assume for a moment that you are right, and someone does lose. Who loses? It is the executives of big companies. Artists make so little per CD that they don't really ever lose anything.

There you have it: a progressive wealth redistribution program. The rich executive giving away some of his copyrighted material to those who cannot afford it. Consider it the ultimate liberal tax: money leaves the rich guys and goes to the poor guys.

Of course, I don't really think that this is happening. I frankly think that record companies could care less about the small amount of money they are losing. They are simply exerting tighter control over their copyright content to increase future profits by muscling in on their consumers.

 

[kasparov]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Something else I wanted to comment on is the subject of libraries. There isn't any valid comparision between libraries and illegal downloading of copyrighted work. Libraries buy the things they loan out or provide access too, and that access is limited. It is limited by the length of time someone can use the borrowed item and it is limited because only one person, or perhaps a small group, can use the item at the same time.

And yet, I can go in and photocopy articles and portions of books that I deem useful per the Fair Usage laws. I can also make recordings of video/audio material that I deem useful.

Wouldn't it suck if book makers made you sign a licence to read a book only a certain number of times by a certain number of users? Imagine how much money they could make in if they were to exert their influence that way.

 

[Maetryx]

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: amnesiac
When music companies wise up and let me log on to a site (WITHOUT membership fees), preview an album, and let me download the whole thing on unrestricted, "non-proprietary" MP3 for $5.00 I will be buying a whole lot more albums.

I don't believe in paying $13.99 for a CD when DVDs are still $15.99.

Some DVD's go for less than that too...

I've thought about this comparison before, and it's not quite valid. A movie has probably ALREADY been paid off from theater revenues before it even goes to DVD. On the other hand, a CD is the quite often the only revenue vehicle for the music. I know that some artists go on concert tours, but it's not the same as a theater release which hits the entire country at once.

Anyway, I'm 90% certain that's why DVDs cost only slightly more than a CD. Also, a CD has much more replay value that a DVD.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: xirtam
Yeah, I don't know how you can draw the line on something like intellectual property.

Somehow books, despite the existence of libraries, still sell. The music industry will survive.

Plus, I'll bring up the bit about VCR's too - the movie industry fought the introduction of the VCR like it was armageddon, that it would wipe movies off the face of the earth. They tried to get legislation introduced against it, but look what happened - home videos are a big moneymaker for the movie industry now. I imagine they could do the same thing with online music.

I've thought about this comparison before, and it's not quite valid. A movie has probably ALREADY been paid off from theater revenues before it even goes to DVD. On the other hand, a CD is the quite often the only revenue vehicle for the music. I know that some artists go on concert tours, but it's not the same as a theater release which hits the entire country at once.

Anyway, I'm 90% certain that's why DVDs cost only slightly more than a CD. Also, a CD has much more replay value that a DVD

I'm one who would prefer CD's over concerts - anytime I hear a song that's live, I don't bother listening to it again. All the background noise sounds like just that to me - noise. The studio recordings just sound better. That, and the idea of going to a concert, with massive speakers that are probably a step below qualifying as weapons of mass destruction, and thousands of roudy fans, just does not appeal to me in the slightest bit. My PC's sound system does a fine job of playing music.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: BatmanNate
Don't buy from the recording companies that are members. That is the best way combat them.

any bets that if RIAA started to suffer due to boycott, they would just whine how "Internet-piracy is hurting our sales! We need tougher measuers to combet these thieves!"

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Tabb
Besides that, it's stealing. I don't care if its from Osama Bin Laden or God. Its still stealing.

No it is not. If I download a mp3 from Kazaa I'm not stealing. I'm committing copyright infringment. If I walk to a nearby record-store and shoplift a CD, then I'm stealing.

Yeah, RIAA likes to tell how downloading mp3's is stealing. But the fact is that it's not