[disturbed]

Why stop file sharing?

Lower your CD prices and I might just stop sharing.

 

[CaptBubba]

Just for the record, I never said that sharing mp3s was legal. I did say that sueing people for doing so is very bad buisness. The RIAA is a group of companies, they are not a law enforcement agency. If they want something done about this, they should pressure the FBI to do something about it.

I think that pat of the reason why people don't seem to think that they should pay for music is that they turn on the radio and...free music! Never mind that they listen to advertising to pay for it, they just know that no money left their pocket that instant for listening to it. I think that idea was expanded in their mind to include all music.

Hmmm, a bit off topic, but what if they gave away "free" cds with advertisments placed in the music (between tracks, ect). If you wanted, you could pay $16 to get a no-ad version... I wonder what would happen.

 

[kelly]

Quote:

Originally posted by CaptBubba Hmmm, a bit off topic, but what if they gave away "free" cds with advertisments placed in the music (between tracks, ect). If you wanted, you could pay $16 to get a no-ad version... I wonder what would happen.

Then when we copied them, the ad companies would sue us too.

 

[gloco]

Quote:

Originally posted by kelly Then when we copied them, the ad companies would sue us too.

and with cd wave i can hack out those annoying ads

 

[arnett]

Quote:

Originally posted by gloco What are they gonna do? Knock my door down and haul me off 3am? What are they gonna charge the thousands of people that will be arrested or sued? Or are they going to sue a few college kids? Is Grandma going to jail for her 10,000 elvis presley mp3 collection? Are they going to serve 21 to life sentences?

FYI,
IF the RIAA sues anyone, it would be a civil case. no one would go to jail. just a simple fine.

but the RIAA better hire several thousand lawyers to catch the millions of individuals who infringe copywrite laws (read: it ain't going to happen, folks).

 

[gloco]

Quote:

Originally posted by arnett FYI, IF the RIAA sues anyone, it would be a civil case. no one would go to jail. just a simple fine. but the RIAA better hire several thousand lawyers to catch the millions of individuals who infringe copywrite laws (read: it ain't going to happen, folks).

oh i know, i was just overreacting the way the RIAA is.

 

[grinch]

Quote:

Originally posted by CaptBubba Hmmm, a bit off topic, but what if they gave away "free" cds with advertisments placed in the music (between tracks, ect). If you wanted, you could pay $16 to get a no-ad version... I wonder what would happen.

<britney spears singing>
"..ooops! i did it -- BUY PEPSI! -- again, i played with your heart.."</britney spears singing>

sidenote: i would not buy britney spears cds with or without ads.

 

[jude]

Quote:

Why stop file sharing? Lower your CD prices and I might just stop sharing. [/B]

I don't usually chime in on debates related to this topic, but the sentiment quoted above is one I've seen echoed frequently in this debate.

I drive a Buick Rendezvous. It's a nice truck (or van, or whatever it is). When it comes to buying cars, I'm pretty loyal to GM for family reasons. I like my Rendezvous. But I like the BMW X5 much more. It's nicer looking. It's better built. It's faster. It handles better. And, let's face it, it's much cooler. But I believe it costs about $40,000 more than what I paid for my Rendezvous. What's my point? I wish I could get everything the BMW X5 offered for $40,000 less than it costs, because I don't like to spend so much dang money on such a rapidly depreciating asset. But as much as I'd like to acquire everything the X5 offers, but for $40,000 less than they're asking for it, I don't think I'm entitled to it. Long story short, I see a vehicle out there that I like more, but it costs more than I'm willing to spend. My choice was to not buy it. I opted for something else instead of stealing or buying an X5.

The point of my long post here is to simply say that the rationale in the quote above doesn't stick. We're not entitled to the music for free, or for less than what the companies are charging. If you don't like the price of the CDs, don't buy them. It's that simple.

I really don't understand why so many people feel such a sense of entitlement when it comes to music (not to mention many other things). If you like it, you pay for it. If you don't like it, don't buy it. If you choose to steal it, be prepared for the possibility of getting sued for it (however likely or unlikely that is). Since I don't "trade" (read: steal) music, I'm not worried about getting sued by the RIAA.

I don't side with the RIAA on all issues (nor am I aware of all issues). I don't like the idea of watermarking if it affects the sound. I don't like the idea of making CDs that don't function in CD-ROM drives (particularly because many people listen to CDs on their computers, and some new CD players have come out -- and will continue to come out -- that sport CD-ROM drives as their transport mechanisms). But, then again, if the "sharing" thing wasn't such a huge problem for them (and I believe that it has become a genuine problem for the industry now), maybe they wouldn't be so damn desperate that they'd consider (and implement) some of these awful copy protection schemes.

 

[kelly]

BMWs are physical property. Music files are intellectual property. When a BMW is stolen, the "original" is physically stolen. When a music file is stolen, the "original" file remains in tact.

To complete the analogy, let's say you had a machine that allowed you to make an exact copy of one of your buddy's BMWs without causing any physical harm to his original BMW.

At this point, I'm not saying you'd make the copy, but I'm sure you can see how the temptation would be pretty greater for the average person.

It is because intellectual property and physical property differ both in the manufacturing and in the perception of value in the mind of the consumer, that it is not intelligent to structure or enforce laws regarding such properties in the same manner.

I believe in order to regain an honest consumer base, the music industry will ultimately be forced to restore the perception of value of the product. Along with better (newer) music formats (SACD, DVD-A), quality recordings, more convenient access (ie: I buy the CD online, I download the mp3s for free) and yes, maybe even better quality content... this also may include reducing prices.

And frankly, and no one in the industry wants to hear this, it's not just the pirates who have stopped paying for the music.

 

[jude]

[size=xx-small] Quote:

Originally posted by kelly BMWs are physical property. Music files are intellectual property. When a BMW is stolen, the "original" is physically stolen. When a music file is stolen, the "original" file remains in tact. To complete the analogy, let's say you had a machine that allowed you to make an exact copy of one of your buddy's BMWs without causing any physical harm to his original BMW. At this point, I'm not saying you'd make the copy, but I'm sure you can see how the temptation would be pretty greater for the average person. It is because intellectual property and physical property differ both in the manufacturing and in the perception of value in the mind of the consumer, that it is not intelligent to structure or enforce laws regarding such properties in the same manner. I believe in order to regain an honest consumer base, the music industry will ultimately be forced to restore the perception of value of the product. Along with better (newer) music formats (SACD, DVD-A), quality recordings, more convenient access (ie: I buy the CD online, I download the mp3s for free) and yes, maybe even better quality content... this also may include reducing prices. And frankly, and no one in the industry wants to hear this, it's not just the pirates who have stopped paying for the music.

[/size]

As someone who owns companies that produce software (none of it distributed on discs of any sort) -- and who pays a small fortune to intellectual property lawyers -- I have a fair understanding of intellectual property. I've also been involved in at least one lawsuit concerning intellectual property.

The theft of my intellectual property is hardly any different to me than if one stole some of the hardware my software was housed on, no matter how many backup copies of the "original" I might have. It's property. And as the owner of the original, I determine how I want it distributed. If my intent was to create this software to give away for free, then I'd give it away for free. But that wasn't my intent. And if someone stole it, I would sue them.

Regarding value: Again, if one doesn't think that the price of the CD is a fair representation of the value of the CD (regardless of whether the value shortfall is due to poor format, poor recording quality, poor packaging, etc.), then one shouldn't spend the money being asked for for that CD on that CD.

No matter how little value the record companies provide in return for the dollar, it doesn't make it okay to steal it. That the reality exists that others would be more likely to steal it given (A) the perception of poor value for the money, and (B) the ease of stealing it doesn't make it okay that it's done.

 

[grinch]

great post jude. i feel exactly the same way (although due to mental constraints, i'm more likely to become a sanitation engineer before i ever become a software engineer

).

 

[kelly]

Quote:

Originally posted by jude Regarding value: Again, if one doesn't think that the price of the CD is a fair representation of the value of the CD (regardless of whether the value shortfall is due to poor format, poor recording quality, poor packaging, etc.), then one shouldn't spend the money being asked for for that CD on that CD. No matter how little value the record companies provide in return for the dollar, it doesn't make it okay to steal it. That the reality exists that others would be more likely to steal it given (A) the perception of poor value for the money, and (B) the ease of stealing it doesn't make it okay that it's done.

In reality, there are three options when a product has failed to live up to consumer demands. They are:

1) Buy it anyway. Live with it.
2) Steal it.
3) Stop buying it.

Many people I know who purchased a lot of music in the 80s have pretty much settled on option 3. The rest have settled somewhere in between--not bothering sometimes, stealing it if they care but only care a little and buying it if it's an exceptionally good product.

Not all change is wrought through legal protest. Maybe the real question you're asking is, "Is it okay to break the law?"

 

[jude]

[size=xx-small] Quote:

Originally posted by kelly In reality, there are three options when a product has failed to live up to consumer demands. They are: 1) Buy it anyway. Live with it. 2) Steal it. 3) Stop buying it. Many people I know who purchased a lot of music in the 80s have pretty much settled on option 3. The rest have settled somewhere in between--not bothering sometimes, stealing it if they care but only care a little and buying it if it's an exceptionally good product. Not all change is wrought through legal protest. Maybe the real question you're asking is, "Is it okay to break the law?"

[/size]


I'm not asking if it's okay to break the law in general. I'm discussing the very specific issue of stealing music through so-called trading. Your three options, no matter how real (and I know they are real) aren't any reason that #2 is the way to go. I mean, someone can choose #2, but, as with all things, those who opt for that option should understand the possible consequences, no matter the odds. I have to admit, though, that I wouldn't feel a tremendous amount of sympathy for someone who got bit in an illegal music trading sting. It's not like we don't all know that music "sharing" in most cases is stealing. And it's not like we don't now know that they're going to pursue legal action against some folks to set some public examples.

 

[HD-5000]

Don't steal music. The fact that it's expensive doesn't make it right to steal it!

Enjoy the music you buy.

 

[disturbed]

I'd have to agree with Jude here somewhat.

I have only shared music that I actually own with people who share a similar principle as mine (they own their music too). If we both agree to do it what's wrong with that? It's more of an exchange for something of similar value as CD's are generally similarly priced.

Perhaps not everyone shares the same ethics as me but to each his own. I personally feel some confict doing this. Maybe I don't understand what intellectual theft is until I have my own hard work stolen and distributed for free to the world.

Music I love. I would pay a good amount for it. If I had the money all the time. Sometimes I don't so I trade CD's with friends and the community around me. My statement was a bit bland and I didn't specify how I shared my music. It could have ment anything.

What enrages me is about the RIAA is the copy protection schemes. Why can't I keep backup's of my music? It's a dangerous world out there and if some turd on the streets decides to rob me potentially all my music is gone. Forever.

Even worse I spent so much money (being a teenager is hard if you are into audio

) on audio equipment just to buy a CD which is horribly compressed. If we are paying so much for a CD why not do us the courtesy of mastering them well or at least decent. Guess we audio nuts are still a minority.

The new watermarking stuff that supposedly degrades sound quality makes me mad again. What's the point in the Corda I bought if the CD itself is crap? Why buy Ety's? pointless. Amp makers and headphone makers should start worrying if the music we listen to is turning out to be crap in sound quality. Bye bye Sennheiser, Grado, Headroom, Meier Audio and god know how many other places. No headphone or amp manufacturer can create something that will make crap CD's sound good.

Look at that doomed format dataplay that they are pimping below my house. A guy ripped the poster off 5 seconds after it was put there in rage. I bet he doesn't even have good equipment but he still understood how dataplay is going screw him over. Some consumers are getting smart slowly.

Don't a lot of you trade CD's? Mystery Box and all?
Why shouldn't I at least trade something of similar value?
Bartering is a good thing.