disturbed
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2001
- Posts
- 831
- Likes
- 10
Why stop file sharing?
Lower your CD prices and I might just stop sharing.
Lower your CD prices and I might just stop sharing.
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. |
Originally posted by kelly Then when we copied them, the ad companies would sue us too. |
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? |
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). |
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. |
Why stop file sharing? Lower your CD prices and I might just stop sharing. [/B] |
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. |
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. |
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?" |