[KONAKONA]

Quote:

Originally Posted by zotjen /img/forum/go_quote.gif And who exactly does these studies? While there certainly are people who will download music to see if they like it and then buy legitimate copies, I'm betting that the majority of people who download don't do this.

Anyone wanna take a head-fi vote for this one?

 

[jonathanjong]

Quote:

Originally Posted by zotjen /img/forum/go_quote.gif And who exactly does these studies? While there certainly are people who will download music to see if they like it and then buy legitimate copies, I'm betting that the majority of people who download don't do this.

Sure. But would they have bought it anyway? If we couldn't download music illegally, most of our music collections would be much, much smaller. Indeed, even my number of purchases would be smaller. I'd be pretty darned conservative, not foraying into unfamiliar musical waters. Or I'd buy used exclusively. At least in my case, if I was unable to download music illegally, even less of my money would go to the industry/artists.

 

[Busta9iron]

While this topic is like the pro life, pro choice debate for head fi'ers, I would like to address a point made on page 2 of this thread. I have heard this argument in threads past, and do not understand how buying used CD's is a valid argument for the anti RIAA'ers. In the short term it is a useful tool, but if the demand for used CD's exceeds the supply, which it will, for the sake of sticking it to the man, where will the future "used CD's" come from.

There are no easy answers to this argument, and it most certainly won't be solved today. The best answer is, do what is right in your mind. I am not condoning piracy, but I go over the speed limit on occasion. That too, is breaking the law, no matter what all the other drivers are doing around me. And I'm most certain that anyone with a license for more than two years, has done the same, Judges, police officers, attorneys, and all other purveyors of the law included.

 

[Kpalsm]

Quote:

Originally Posted by zotjen /img/forum/go_quote.gif And who exactly does these studies? While there certainly are people who will download music to see if they like it and then buy legitimate copies, I'm betting that the majority of people who download don't do this.

Study Reveals: Piracy Does Not Hurt Music Industry

Google is your friend.

 

[kodreaming]

Well, if you are still listening to those music RIAA pay attention to , you really need to have a better taste...

RIAA should die with all those crap.

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathanjong /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sure. But would they have bought it anyway? If we couldn't download music illegally, most of our music collections would be much, much smaller. Indeed, even my number of purchases would be smaller. I'd be pretty darned conservative, not foraying into unfamiliar musical waters. Or I'd buy used exclusively. At least in my case, if I was unable to download music illegally, even less of my money would go to the industry/artists.

For most Americans, the majority of RIAA music is readily available on "all you can listen" plans. I really don't understand the mindset that's fine with > $50/month for cable TV, but considers $15/month for music to be excessive.

 

[KONAKONA]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin /img/forum/go_quote.gif For most Americans, the majority of RIAA music is readily available on "all you can listen" plans. I really don't understand the mindset that's fine with > $50/month for cable TV, but considers $15/month for music to be excessive.

That music happen to be lossless?

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by KONAKONA /img/forum/go_quote.gif That music happen to be lossless?

About as lossless as cable TV.

Realistically, lossless doesn't matter. The encoding schemes used by these download services are effectively transparent to the vast majority of end users. Either their gear is unable to resolve the difference, their ears are unable to resolve the difference, or they don't care to focus enough to resolve the difference.

 

[earwicker7]

Wow, a person got fined for stealing... what is the world coming to?

 

[demoNMaCHiN3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by earwicker7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Wow, a person got fined for stealing... what is the world coming to?

so if someone went into a store and "stole" the same amount of music, would it be reasonable to fine them $2,000,000?

 

[earwicker7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by demoNMaCHiN3 /img/forum/go_quote.gif so if someone went into a store and "stole" the same amount of music, would it be reasonable to fine them $2,000,000?

Perhaps, if 90% of people under the age of 20 stole stuff from stores, the system would find it necessary to send a message.

 

[The Monkey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by demoNMaCHiN3 /img/forum/go_quote.gif so if someone went into a store and "stole" the same amount of music, would it be reasonable to fine them $2,000,000?

If the statute permits it, then arguably yes.

 

[Happy Camper]

Nobody said law was fair or just. How much is it worth to ya?

 

[bhd812]

Quote:

Originally Posted by demoNMaCHiN3 /img/forum/go_quote.gif so if someone went into a store and "stole" the same amount of music, would it be reasonable to fine them $2,000,000?

yes and no..

if someone went into a store and stole something they (if they were lucky) would have a choice. get arrested and have something on your record for ever (i dont believe the person in this case was arrested) or pay $1,000 restitution to the store if you stole something small like a pack of gum.

when i was a manager of the Grocery store and it was a stupid young kid doing it that was polite (AND SORRY FOR WHAT THEY DID) to us and went easy in the security room then they were given the $1,000 choice. if that person fought with the security guard or was stupid then they were charged with stealing goods higher then $500 which is a felony.

so yeah basically having an arrest of being charged with a felony for the rest of your life for a pack of gum is basically $1.92 for a few songs..point is the person was cocky and stupid in that court room to fight something everyone knew they did, as the RIAA had enough proof..and the jury spoke!

if you don't like the result of this case then don't download songs AFTER YOU KNOW THEY ARE WATCHING!!!! its like speeding 80mph over the limit with your radar detector going off...seriously your being cocky and stupid.


personally i can not stand what the RIAA has become or even worse what they have done to the music industry after learning about mp3's back in 95-97. but people walking into court after being busted red handed pisses me off that our tax paying dollars is slightly being waisted on these ****** bags that think they are going to get away scout free with a jury.

 

[earwicker7]

This guy (from the page the OP linked) sums it up perfectly...

"Legally acquiring a license to give copies of a song to potentially millions of Kazaa users might well have cost $80,000 per song," said Tom Sydnor, director of the foundation's Center for the Study of Digital Property.