Originally Posted by Happy Camper
Definition has to be agreed upon. In my early days, friends/family would share new albums by recording a tape. Yes, in the strict definition, that's stealing. By sharing music, the hobbyist was able to hear (otherwise not heard) styles they were not familiar with on a portable device. The quality was not as good but you got the sound.
Today, a person can get exposure to new music from P2P (songs, not entire catalogs). If you like an artist, you go to the store or on line and buy it for additional selection and improved sq. If you don't like it, delete. You don't have the disc in your collection. Isn't that what shareware is supposed to do? I don't try to download every song I can get and I do not let anyone get total access to mine.
There is alot of music not marketed in all geographic areas. I had never heard of some of my "favorites" today until I sampled. I don't have to be limited to the label performers as my only option. Honestly, the artists major marketing companies choose are usually not my taste. I have increased my CD collection (would not have bought otherwise) and the producer/artist make their money. But I choose what to buy, not them. I had never heard of Ozric Tentacles, IQ, Marillion, etc... before. I have also been exposed to music of other countries that I would never have heard here in the US heartland. Don't understand the language but the sound is outstanding.
The hobbyist is stuck with what they want us to do with our property. Once we buy it, its ours isn't it? They want to control what my money bought? I guess we are only leasing the previlege of hearing their artists? Next, they will sell the software/hardware license used to play their material.
We should not have to accept obsolete technology for freedom. SQ is what drives us. Technology has now allowed musicians to market them selves direct. I think the industry will eventially succume to logic. Right now, current investers are concerned and have the money to control the laws. I do understand their concern about losing money on their investment but where is the dividing line when it is no longer their investment. When the money runs out and other forms of marketing are available to the artist, things will adjust to what works for the audience and artist.
The industry had little concern before about the hobbyist making favs tapes for their cars. Now, our devices , medium (obsoleting on purpose) and freedom of use are being threatened. I can only watch/hear my product at the location of my equipment. Itunes can only be played on an ipod. I can only play a hi def. program on the device it was recorded from. I should be able to choose the best technology and the flexibility to use it.
There has to be definition of what "stealing" and "hobbyist" mean with the hobbyist represented, not taken out of the equation or grouped with bootleggers. I haven't made a penny on music. Why am I being restricted? The current generation is being accused of something that was accepted practice by their parents. The thiefs bootlegging protected material to make a profit are ruining a good thing for us. DON'T BUY BOOTLEG.
You were really on a roll there up until the very last sentence. I don't believe that it's bootleg recordings that the music industry is worried about, in fact I don't believe that the war is over music at all. The battle may still be about music but the real war is about movies
. They just happen to be using music as the testing ground for their outrageous anti-consumer actions.
They have already lost the war as far as music is concerned, the real question is whether they can make everyone tow the line again in time to save the movie business. That's going to be a real battlefield and lots of fun to watch as it unfolds.
People are not going to accept the video equivalent of a lossy compressed audio file when they see just how bad it looks on their big screen hi-def TV. And if the Blu-Ray and HD camps keep fighting there may never be a mass market hi-def format for home use.
But I digress. The music and movie industry need to realize that if their product is in digital form it will be copied and no amount of copy protection is going to make it safe. The only thing the copy protection is going to do is alienate the consumer, not protect their product.
More to the point here are a just a couple of grey areas were copying and/or sharing of certain items cannot be so clearly labeled as "stealing":
1) A live broadcast taped from the radio.
2) A long out of print LP or CD.
3) This one is really tricky: an old TV series released on DVD that I borrow from my local library only to find out that the all the actors, writers, directors, producers, etc are not being paid a cent from any of the money from the sale of the DVD since it was not part of their original contract. Who am I "stealing" from if I copy the DVD?
The music and movie industries are not some charity organizations but a profit driven companies only concerned with their bottom line. They are never concerned with what's best for the consumer, that's the consumer's job.