If we want open music and open policies from music and movie companies, it will help if we do what we can to discourage piracy.

How is one to discourage piracy? Saying "don't do it, it's bad" just makes people want to do it, and trying to prevent it via technological means makes people want to do it even more. So what do you suggest?

Oh come ON!
I wish you'd just cut it out with all that "piracy" talk.
What's even the point in you saying " If we want open music and open policies from music and movie companies, it will help if we do what we can to discourage piracy."?
What does that relate to?? I think that it's YOUR choise of words that is questionable.
The music and movie companies RUDELY (to say the least) prevent their customers from using their RIGHTS. Piracy can not be solved by making more and more people, who like to think of themselves as intelligent creatures, MAD. Plain MAD. -I-'m mad, MANY are mad, and it doesn't do any good, because restricting everybody's rights will never solve such piracy problems.
The net will be more and more flooded with "pirated" stuff if companies won't change their attitudes. I can see it as brightly as the sun. EVERYBODY will be more frustrated in the end if this keeps on.
Don't restrict me or anyone from doing what they have a right to do!!! Want a better solution to piracy? Lower the ridiculous CD prices. Got a better idea? No, i don't think you do.

What I'm about to say may branch too far away from the initial topic but if you have an issue witha copy-protected cd that has not been clearly marked as such (within the American borders), please contact the Federal Trade Comission once you have established that the company will not do anything about it.

-Jeff

Being said a thousand times, probably still to be repeated until the end of time, no means of "copy protection" measures affects "piracy" at all, it only pisses off customers, and artificially increases technology costs.

Besides those promoting this only seek more control, "piracy" is only the "politically correct term" to fool the media and their readers/viewers.

"Pirates" will always have the means to achieve their goals anyway, money has never been an issue to duplicate media, no tricks can stop it, only traditional law, without DMCA and much other nonsense.

"Artists" who sold their souls to major recording firms, don't receive a cent per disc sold either. If the so called "piracy" affects someone, it is a part of the recording industry only, specially the part that can't simply act like a disc replication business facility should, but think that they can own people and treat them like slaves.

"Customers" who are now given orders of what you do and what you should not do with the disc you no longer own, which by the way has lost reliability "in the name of copy prevention", thus giving customers more reason to choose a proper Standards Compliant disc (even if "Pirate") over a legal "self destruct at the first scratch or breach of usage terms" media that requires overly expensive equipment designed to support all this nonsense that people want disabled or never there on the first place.


Just what you think Artists think? Read Janis Ian Articles:

THE INTERNET DEBACLE - AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW
http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html

FALLOUT - a follow up to The Internet Debacle
http://www.janisian.com/article-fallout.html

Music industry spins falsehood
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/2002102...23/4557245s.htm

Thankyou for the links Artemis.

I think what the record companies are missing out on is that you will always be able to make a copy. Even if it's just by copying it analogly by playing it in a hifi and recording the output to your pc. Same as copying to a blank cassette.

The first sentance with the three exclamation marks sounded like something the NRA would say.

Who or what gives you a right to copy music that someone else has recorded? Seriously? Tell me.

If you bought the disc, you paid money under whatever conditions the record company sold the product. If you don't like the conditions, don't buy the disc. If everyone else agrees, then the record company has to change those conditions or go bust. If no one else cares, then you'll have to contact the artist directly and negotiate your own terms and conditions for buying their music. I'm sure it will be worth the cost!

For me, if I buy a CD, and find I can't copy it to my PC, it will go back to the shop. End of story.

Do you think CD prices are ridiculous? Seriously, I think the prices are fine, but the content or product probably doesn't justify the price. I'm 27 - I might die tomorrow, but was hoping to make 60 or 80! So, that's at least 30 years I'll get to use this product (yes, I do still have a couple of records from when I was 5 years old, so it's not unrealistic to expect me to still be playing CDs in 30 years long after everyone else has dumped all theirs for a new format). $20 to listen to some music I love for the rest of my life isn't bad at all.

Now, are the record companies making too much money from this? Probably. Because people buy CDs of crappy music that they won't want to listen to next year by the million. Well, Mr Miss and Mrs consumer - you're in control. Look at the product - is it worth the price? No? don't buy it then. End of problem.

Don't pirate or copy it either - find something else to do. Go to live concerts. Read books.


Do as I say, not as I do ;-)

Cheers,
David.

P.S. SME said, "We don't think the current system satisfies all users."
LOL!

Lowering the prices does result in a decrease in piracy copying and increases sales... Why buy a piracy copy when the original costs just as much? As far as I know, South Korea is one of the few countries in the world that piracy copying isn't increasing because of the very low prices on music... When was the last time you saw newly produced original CD:s for as low as $7? That's dirt cheap... When stuff costs +$20, people prefer to listen to the whole album before buying in and they often do that by downloading the music... Even if they find the music to be very good, they often end up keeping the copies and listen to them instead of buying the original... It's simple, lower price = more "impulse shopping"...

You make a very good point there Sachankara - if I'm not sure whether I like the music or not, then I'm much more likely to "try it" by buying it if the price is less. Especially if buying is more convenient than copying.

There are other solutions to piracy though. If you're very very rich, the price of CDs won't matter - so universal prosperity would be one solution.

Or maybe a new law which allows the RIAA to shoot on sight anyone who has a copied recording for which they don't own the original CD.

Ooops - shouldn't give them ideas - they'll probably lobby for that now!

D.

2Bdecided, your arguments make NO sense to me.


Oh, ahm, something called THE LAW.
You are "eligable" to create a backup copy of the CD.
If i wouldn't have done that, i'd lose some really good music, backing up 3 CD's i have was a reaaaally good idea. And there is NOT much sense in not allowing you to backup what you own is there? or is there hmm?


No sense.
Sorry to tell you, but i don't buy CD's containing crappy music. And what sounds crappy to you and me might sound great to someone else.
20$ isn't much hmm? No, sure it isn't, it's great price...sure... It's not about how good the music is, it's about how good the price is for the product you're buying, and when you buy a CD, you don't buy the music in case you don't know! You buy the CD! You don't own the music, you own the CD containing it, and you should be able to back up your CD that you've bought! Again, you don't buy the music, you buy the CD! You don't have a right to play the music in public, bring it to your friends for free, or do anything with it other than listening to it with your CD or with what you backed it up on. Plain and simple. And 20$ for a music CD is ridiculous. And again, it's not about the music!!! (yeah, -3- exclamation marks) You buy an OBJECTIVE thing, not a SUBJECTIVE thing. (subjective meaning how much you like the music. "good" music, "ok" music, "bad" music)


I have no idea what this relates to, we're talking about CD's, not live concerts or books, CD's. Don't pirate or copy it? Again, you insert "pirate" together with "copy".

And according to what you wrote, jokingly:

obviously you DON'T have a better solution, so that's all you have left to do, make up "jokes" (edited, sorry)

Please, keep cool. All arguments are interesting, but they can be stated without getting personal ("ridiculous jokes"). If things go ill, I'll close the thread.


Lawyers stated some monthes ago that copy for fair use was not a right. It is just something that is not forbidden, and CD manufacturers are not forced to give you the technical ability to do so.

One of the problems come from the spreading of home studios. With a computer, anyone can make some music. Consequently, the number of records issued has risen, but not their quality.

Another problem is FM stations and TV. They earn money from advertising. Advertising's cost is calculated according to the audience. Therefore FM and TV are focused only on audience, not in quality.
FM method is to generate a playlist composed of the most appreciated tracks, according to polls or sales.
Therefore variety has decreased, nothing outside the playlist will be played.

So we have nowadays a lack of variety from radio-TV medias, and a huge amount of CD and records from unknown artists, that are 99% worthless.

That's why I nearly don't buy CDs anymore : I know nothing interesting to buy, and I am quite sure that if I buy at random, it won't be worth.

Decreasing prices, in my opinion, will harm little artists even more, because they can only issue a few CDs for each of their albums (about 1000 or 5000), and the manufacturing costs are higher for them than for mainstream pop, that can issue 100,000 CDs at once for an album.

The problem is complex.
Personally, I'd like to hear good music on TV and/or radio, that would make me wanting to buy more CDs.


dit : removed "much" before "higher"

OK then. I take something that's not forbidden as a -right-. If it's not forbidden, i have a right to do it. Yeah.. a problem with it not being a legal "right" is that no one will care if you say they're not allowing you to use your right.
And OK, manufacturers are not forced to give me the ability to do it..
So, ANYway it will just get people mad and hurt everyone in the end. And i will backup my CD's forever and no one will prevent me from doing it.

If you buy a CD and don't agree with its copy protection policies then go and take it back. DUH! You're the one who is in control. If nobody buys a certain type of CD then the record companies will be forced to be more understanding to our wishes. Fighting this is only going to lead to a certain end. Frustration & Failure!


You know what's going to make things A LOT worse? And what will ultimately bring us down? Ignoring the policies. Acting like arrogant assholes that can excuse themselves from the law just because you know how to. That's how we got in this mess in the first damn place. How is that going to make the problem go away? Its not! In fact its selfish and just makes it worse for everybody!

The silly thing is we are perpetuating the problem were fighting. How? STEALING! Downloading something your not going to buy is stealing plain and simple. They don't give away music...nor should they. But millions of Internet users are perfectly complacent in amassing thousands of cds many of which they will not pay for. So what if a few of us buy what we download? Were obviously not the problem and are irrelevant.

Because people tend not to deal with reality when it gets in their way here are some pathetic excuses for justifying stealing.

1. We download more because the music companies put out trash....

Purely irrational. The music companies go where the money is. Can you blame them? If tens of millions of people want to here N'Sync then so be it. If the population as a whole acts like sheep then so be it. That's just how it is. And besides its not like all the good music somehow *disappears* because there is so much bad music out there. Music companies are NOT FORCING YOU TO LISTEN.


2. CDs cost too much.

I don't know how it is in other places but around here I can get *any* new release from best buy for less than 14 dollars. That's supposed to be ridiculously high? This is an example of how consumers are the ones in power....sales went down and they dropped prices. Same thing with copy protection. Money is the only thing that matters and if you use that then you're fighting a battle with real weapons.


3. Its just the recording industry and artist being greedy.

Pirating hurts both the recording companies AND artists. Not every artist makes all there money through concerts and selling t-shirts. The fact of the matter is artist DO get paid by the record companies. So what if it is just 50 thousand dollars, some even less? That;s still a living. And they do it based on sales. You hurt everybody by stealing.

It has become evident that given the option we WILL do the wrong thing.
And then come up with excuse after excuse justifying our wrong actions.

To safeguard the future from us they have been forced to preemptively fix all the shit we will do. They know they have to stop the coming epidemic. What is that answer? Control! That has always been the answer. Enter copy protections. Sure these early systems are non-complient and breakable but you got to start from somewhere! And no they aren't perfect. But again this is up to us don't buy it if its not to your liking. Something that is to your liking will very quickly become available. They do after all want your business.



Now dont get me wrong I am not totally pro music industry. I am just against justifiable theft. And all the people complaining about it. You got yourself into this mess then deal with it, or fix it.

The power to change is in your hands... stop perpetuating your problems.

Actually, it would be nice if it were so plain and simple. Arrest all the 'thieves', return the stolen property to its owners who lost it, problem solved. But it isn't quite as simple as "stealing," is it?

Where are the *clear* losses on the part of copyright holders? When someone steals from a store, it's a case of clear losers and winners... not so with piracy. *Especially* in the case of downloading something you weren't going to buy in the first place. I'm afraid the situation just isn't as clear-cut and uncomplicated as the people who shout "stealing!" seem to believe.

P.S. an unenforceable law is as good as no law at all. Laws are a matter for the legal system, not a matter of personal morality -- that's where a lot of people seem to get confused. The USA was built on a foundation of separation of "church" and "state," so if you're talking about the U.S. please keep the morality issue separate.

Actually Fewtch it is that simple. They don't give the music away. If you take it for free...then um I believe you stole it. Explain how thats not stealing?



LMAO! This is too much! So there has to be *clear* lossless for it to be wrong? Its wrong because thats the law. Plain and simple and for no other reason. Let me just ask you this. Why are music companies trying so hard to stop piracy? Do you think they like to just waste millions of dollars for the fuck of it? These are smart people who know what the hell they are doing. There is an obvious problem that they are trying to combat. Money is ultimately the most important thing to them so by the process of deduction we can conclude that this easily accessed pirated material is or has the potential to interupt some monies.



Wrong. Having virtually every cd available to you encourages quite a few people to just download copied version and not bother with the cd at all. Especially because the mass population of downloaders can't hear a difference in thier copies or the original. Wheres the incentive to buy? Before this people heard a song on radio or tv or read in a magazine or something and then went out and bought the cd now. Advertisers and Music companies monies were not wasted...not one bit. Now that same person goes and downloads it. Keeps the four songs he likes and doesn't give buying the cd a second though.



Laws make things okay. They do not make them right. By law it was okay for hitler to burn women and children alive. Are you saying that this was okay because it was in the confines of the law?



That was half-baked at best.
Whatever fewtch. If your going to steal you shouldn't have to come up with some pseudo real explanation that makes you feel better about yourself. Come to terms with your inner thief and don't complain about the consequences. Get your head out the sand. Just because you pretend to see no wrong doesn't mean its not there. Whatever...lie to yourself all you want. At least you only affect yourself. I don't get my kicks in fantasy land. And niether will the recording industry. The Industries with help from world governments will pull your head out of the sand.

Its funny fewtch I had this same conversation with you months ago at another forum and you gave the same answers. Too bad music companies and the goverment will have last word.

-suspect/mayhem

Hi "Suspect/mayhem"

I'm afraid you've confused religion (right/wrong, the bible, etc) with legal matters (laws, copyrights, etc). Until you clear up this confusion in your thinking, I have nothing further to say to you -- there's nothing to discuss, because there's no common ground for discussion.

If you really want to talk about "piracy," then please make it clear whether you're addressing the issue from a moral standpoint, or a legal standpoint. Just one thing I should mention:


Please try a Google search on "Godwin's Law" as regards your previous message .

Cheers,

fewtch

YOUR confused by the whole moral/legal thing!

You brought it up your self. You said that there was no *clear* loss so it was not wrong. What the hell? That seems like a moral issue to me. If morals didn't matter then who cares who wins or losses as long as the laws says its okay? Maybe you should think about what you say so you wont contradict yourself fewtch.


And by the way...I made no mention of religion or the bible. Calm yourself. Stealing is illegal no matter how you want to sugar coat it and make it seem like it doesn't matter.


You ALSO must not understand how laws are made. Let me spell it out.

Laws are based on ethics. Ethics are based on morals. Society in general (not just religious people) view stealing in a bad light. Therefore we as a society erected laws that made stealing a punishable crime. I rest my case.

Too bad you deal in a real world where laws do matter. A world where music industries WILL get the law on thier side. Attitudes like yours only further the frustrations that will be passed to you.

What the hell, indeed! Kindly show me where I said that?

I dislike it when words are put in my mouth (probably as much as you do), and I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from claiming I stated something that I did not state. In fact, I never once mentioned "right" or "wrong," as piracy is a legal matter as far as I'm concerned, not a moral one.

If you insist on claiming I said something that I didn't say, you'd better be able to back it up with quotes. You seem incapable of holding an intelligent conversation without wallowing in emotionalism and attempting to foist your personal morality on others, so consider the subject closed. I'm sorry I ever replied to your post.

Cheers,

fewtch

Sorry John... I really should have known better than to reply to Suspect's trolls in the first place (number of posts should have been a tip-off). I'm finished.

Cheers,

fewtch

Umm.. yeah, I was saying that keep it calm guys.
And imo Suspect isn't exactly trolling, although I don't quite share his opinions about everything he said..

Oh? How about a few choice quotes...

"By law it was okay for hitler to burn women and children alive. Are you saying that this was okay because it was in the confines of the law?"

"The Industries with help from world governments will pull your head out of the sand."

"Whatever...lie to yourself all you want."

"Attitudes like yours only further the frustrations that will be passed to you."

If that ain't trolling, then I'd love to see your definition...

Anyway... onwards...

I think that from a strictly legal point of view, Suspect is right. The moral thing comes when you start to interpretate the law and give excuses in your favor, and he just says that is not ok. IMO he's right here too.

Ehm... however, that doesn't mean that I make this way of thinking into facts 100% of the time. To follow the correct path always is very difficult in practice (that doesn't mean that I try hard ). Maybe when we see that some music companies and/or artists really have serious problems me and other people will take this more seriously, who knows.

BTW, I also think that most CDs are too expensive, and lowering the prices would help with this problem.

SK1,

I wasn't intending to upset you - you sound quite angry about this. And you're not to take the most extreme answers I give as representations of what I actually think (that should be quite obvious from the years I've been on the mp3/r3mix/HA forums) - sometimes taking an idea to the most extreme conclusion helps you think about what's happening - that's all.

We're almost into a very post modermn debate here. What is right and wrong? Does the law make something right or wrong? Does the law give us "rights"? These questions are probably way beyond the scope of the current topic, or even HA (but we are now in the off topic section, so we can discuss it forever if we want!)


For all the shouting SK1, I can't quite see the problem you have with my most basic point: If you don't like the product, don't buy it. If you think the CD is too expensive, don't buy it. If you object to the copy protection, don't buy it. That's a right no-one can argue with (I hope!) - your right NOT to buy the thing!


There are 3 different acts which may or may not be right:

1) copying a CD you own for your use.
2) copying a CD you do not own (or do own, but are about to sell or take back to the shop) for your use, by whatever method (e.g. direct copy, downloaded etc etc).
3) buying a "copied" CD from someone else.

The law in different countries says different things about each of these. 2) is legal in Holland(? - correct me - someone from some north european country has mentioned this on this board) where you are allowed to copy a CD borrowed from a library. 3) is accepted in many countries, even if it is not strictly legal.

Forgetting the law, it seems to me that (1) is OK, but (2) and (3) are not. If the law told me that (1) was not OK, then I'd lobby to change it (living in a democracy, I can). If the law was silent on (1), but CDs were sold that made it impossible, I simply wouldn't buy them.

The interesting question is: if CDs are made which try to stop you doing (1), but I'm a techy geeky kind of guy and I can copy anything, do I still buy the CD and copy it onto my PC jukebox; or do I, as a matter of principle, NOT buy the CD because they shouldn't even try and stop me doing this. This may be an important message to send: others can't copy it (and I think they should be able to for what I consider "fair use"), and if I buy this CD which is copy protected (but I can copy it), that makes the record companies think copy protection is a good thing, and they'll make the next copy protection even more secure.

As I say, it's in interesting question. I think I would NOT buy the CD.




I've told you my solution. The "jokes" were there to make you think about how desperate the record companies are to stop us copying things. One day, there may be technological solutions that are as effective as imprisoning anyone who dares to own a copied disc.




There does seem to be a "moral" (if that's what you want to call it) between theft where you having something deprives someone else of that item, and theft where it doesn't. It's still theft, because you've taken something that doesn't belong to you. Maybe the moral distinction is that it doesn't seem to hurt or deprive anyone.

But this isn't a fair defense of it. If you listen to any criminal (and I'm talking about "real" criminals, not people copying music ) they'll defend their crime by saying that it doesn't really hurt anyone. House burglary? People are insured - they can claim - they loose nothing. Credit Card Fraud? The banks can afford it - it doesn't hurt individuals. Benefit fraud - it's only the governments money. etc etc etc. In all these cases, something is stolen that deprives someone else, but the criminal doesn't recognise the "victim". In our case too, there is no recognisable "victim", but to use that as an excuse doesn't make it right.

Who is the victim? Well, if you would have bought it (if you hadn't copied it) then the artist and the record company is the victim. You may say that the record companies are evil and deserve to be victims - maybe - it doesn't make the "theft" right. If you would not have bought it (if you hadn't copied it), then it appears that there is no victim. No one looses out.

I've been thinking about this, and I think it may be untrue. For one thing, though I buy more than I copy, and often buy what I've downloaded, there are probably a few tunes in there that I would have bought if I hadn't downloaded them, but now I can't be bothered. I don't listen to them anymore - but at the time that I did, it represented a lost sale.

However, even in the case where people genuinely would never have bought the music they downloaded, there's still a loss to the industry. If you download it and don't listen to it, then you're just wasting your time. But if you do listen to it, then the chances are, if you hadn't downloaded it, you'd be listening to something else, or doing something else. You'd be listening to the radio, but you're not, so the radio stations looses listeners and advertisers and revenue, so the music industry suffers. Or you'd be listening to the CDs that you do own, getting tired of them, and going out and buying something else. Or you'd have the TV on. Or you'd go round to a friends house and listen to their CDs!


If the industry is sensible (and there is NO evidence that it is!) then copy protection could be a good thing. I heard the following suggestions at lecture (given two years ago at the university of essex) by the government watchdog in copyright... If music can be copy protected to a very high level of security, then music can be lent or given for a period of time, safe in the knowledge that you're not going to rip it off and keep it forever. Forget trying to find a track on WinMX to "freely sample it" - just go to the record companies site and download a "one time free play" copy of ANYTHING in their archive. Or buy a subscription to their entire archive, giving unlimited access to EVERYTHING they EVER recorded for the year. Or, for your 1970s party at the weekend, buy access to all the top tunes from the 1970s just for the weekend.

If they stop seeing consumers as enemies (which we are whilever any of us rip-off their products), and start trusting us with their content in this way, it benefits both sides. It could revolutionise music delivery in the way they keep talking about, but have so far failed to deliver. Of course it depends on broadband internet access. And it may mean the end of radio as we know it. And it'll probably mean you have to pay more for higher quality. But it might start a second "golden age" in the industry.

I can dream! But remember: you've got the power NOT to buy their product. Without customers, they'll all be sweeping the streets next year!


Cheers,
David.

I say give people freedom to choose their music!
Imagine this:
You go to the record store and next to the CD-racks there's a machine with a touchscreen. You can browse the shop's whole catalog and drag-drop individual songs into an 80 minute playlist that will fit on a CD. All the Top 40 songs are prominently featured so that it's very easy for the average Joe to find the "trendy" one-month hits.
Each song is priced according to the individual record label's price and you can control exactly how many songs you want on your custom made CD. You arrange the order in the playlist, see the total amount of money that it is going to cost you and click on "Burn". 2 minutes later your CD comes out of the machine along with a custom made cover that you can also select from a picture gallery. You are happy now, you only bought the songs that YOU wanted and you skipped the extra charges for the artwork, the lyrics, the special packaging. On your way to the register you also pick up your favorite artist's new album that you know is good and you want to enjoy in its entirety.
There you go, easy, cheap, legal.
The problem with this scheme is that Britney/Shakira/The Backstreet Boys/etc. won't be able to sell a one-hit record for the price of 12 songs as they do now. So, less money for swimming pools and fast cars, OR better music so that people buy more than one song out of their albums.
Is this so hard to do?
I think not B)

I don't agree.

The record companies decide what will be issued at 100,000 copies, and therefore will be put in stacks at the door of the record shops. Not the consumer.

Most consumer buy only those CDs because they are the only ones available at the supermarket, and because they are the only ones played on the radio.
Not everyone spends his time in little specialized shops with the latests imports or local artists CDs. Most sales come from people casually listening to music, sometimes they buy CDs to make a gift. They won't buy anything else than what the record companies decide to promote, because they don't have the possibility to know there is something else that they would prefer. It's just a matter of time. Music lovers take the time to search for good music. Other just discuss with friends, listen to the radio, or browse the supermarket music section.
The phenomenon feeds itself : the more an album is pushed by companies, the more it is sold, the more money comes from it, and the more the next release will be pushed.

Of course, things don't work without help. If an album is really bad, however companies push it, the sales won't be good. But for this to be true, the music has to be very special, like for example the last Autechre release. Very few people are going to listen to this, even if there are 100,000 released. It won't work.
Producers choose preferably tasteless pop music for their big releases.
But unfortunately, tasteless music selling well, and most people agrees that it is tasteless, occurs more often than artists gaining success due to popular demand.
Average example of the opposite : Delerium, an australian band. A bit special, but some people with whom I talked seemed to thing it was some fine music. In France, there is no way to buy their CD. Even the biggest imports shops can't have them on special order. One has to have Internet to get their CD in amazon.fr
The best example I know is Cosmic Baby - Stellar Supreme (1992). Never released in France, unfindable here, so to say. I got one, and everyone who listened to it wanted a copy. I made 11 copies of it (mostly on cassettes) to people wanting to buy it (and they couldn't). Some consumers in the shop of my parents (not a record shop), who let the CD play all day, asked what it was and where they could buy it. But in France, at this time, it was nearly impossible.

So record companies, and maybe even more TV and radio are pushing a way of things where only few artists are broadcasted. This is because they only pay attention to polls and audience. They don't pay attention to the opinion of people in their audience. For them, having people with the TV on is all that count, no matter if they are actually watching it. (I take the example of TV because the audience is calculated with a box plugged on the TV set of a sample of people, recording what channell they are watching and how much time).

This system should obey Darwin's law of evolution : if people don't like mainstream pop, they won't buy it and search for what they would prefer.
The problem is that they don't have the choice : most radios don't broadcast anything else than mainstream, and supermarket don't sell anything else. Again, I talk about people making sales, not the few music lovers searching for what they want to listen to.

One one hand, people have a power on this : in Japan, this power is maybe the weakest, because people never speak against companies. As a result, pop music is more tasteless, and pop-stars last no more than several monthes. Producers really decide by themselves what they will sell to the public. This wouldn't work outside Japan.
On the other hand, government also have a power on this : in Spain, my cosin have no legal problems with his festival ( http://www.espantapitas.com ). While with the means he has, such festival would be unthinkable in France, because he would never get the legal authorisations. Nor in England, I guess (thinking about the Criminal Justice Act).

Aside from ethical considerations, there is a practical aspect to this.

If we want high quality music delivered digitally, then we should encourage the providers of the music when they do the right thing. They have the money to build whatever you want, _provided_ they think you will buy it at a price that allows them a profit.

One thing that a lot of people don't understand is that the profit from most businesses, after all the expenses are paid, is usually around 5% of the sale or less. There are exceptions, like Microsoft, but even a healthy business like Sony earned about $1 billion on $62 billion in sales this last year:

http://biz.yahoo.com/p/s/sne.html

Sales (ttm) $62.7B
EBITDA (ttm) $7.11B (Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amoritization)
Income available to common (ttm) $1.31B (Profit)

On a $15 CD, that works out to about $0.30.

In our work in this area, we've met with the people who make the deals for the record labels, and I can't say they are sweethearts. They're hard-nosed business people who are usually more concerned with money than music. But it is their job to make money at delivering music. If you can help them figure out how to do it in the digital world, they will do it.

Right now, the digital community is considered a pirate community by many in the record labels. That's obviously not right and eventually they will change.

But behaving ethically as consumers is part of the solution.

That depends. I *wouldn't buy* the stuff I download anyway, it's just a 'bonus'. NO ONE LOST ANY MONEY. So no, I wouldn't call it stealing.

Back in the Napster days, I often 'sampled' music, then if I liked it I bought it on CD... so there's another argument in favor of so-called piracy. Of course, the ones who yell "stealing" won't change their tune... even if this "stealing" made the record companies twice as rich, they'd still scream & yell about "stealing" and how bad & wrong it is -- that's why it's pretty much impossible to discuss this topic with such people, imho.

You're a little late to the game, Jim... aren't you aware that the RIAA labels have basically declared war on the music-consuming public? And you expect ethical behavior from consumers while they get away with the usual scams...

Fine, I'm behaving ethically -- by no longer buying their product (I buy used CD's only, and won't pay for DRM-protected files or crappy 128k Xing-encoded MP3's either). In my opinion, the best way to "influence" them is to hit them in the pocketbook, since that's all they're capable of understanding. If they all go under financially like the dinosaurs they are, so much the better -- and the sooner the better, too.

And since you already bought your ticket on the Titanic (re: your business), better hope there are enough lifeboats...

Calm down fewtch. Just because I don't agree with you and I can ardently argue a point doesn't make me a troll. I believe in what I say and give it an honest attempt in my posts. What more can I do?

Besides...again you are confused about the whole morality issue.


Excuse me but the law states you cant steal. YOU imply in the above quote that as long as nobody has "*clear losses*" then its okay. I'm sorry to have to tell you but this is a moral issue. The courts have already decided on this. Its wrong regardless of how you feel. So when you make a decision that its okay when there aren't clear losses then it's a personal morality issue. I'm not saying a bad or a good one. I am not arguing the moral debate here. But you keep throwing it up. Isn't it kind of ironic that the person who wants to leave the moral issue out...uses it as his basis for argument?




Anyways...back on topic: rolleyes:


A) I wouldn't have bought it in the first place so it's not stealing.

In a strictly legal sense this is retarded. Just because the company would never have gotten money from you anyway doesn't give anyone any legal right to go and take it. It doesn't belong to you. I'm sure most thieves wouldn't have paid for the shit they steal.

B.) I buy what I download.

Not so fast. EVERYTHING? Yeah right. Who cares about the three CDs you went out and bought because you heard a song over the Internet??? What about the other 13 albums or individual songs you got on your hard drive? You know...the ones that are worth having but not buying. Because that scenario is even possible is good reason the industry is taking action.


C) File sharing helps discover new artist.

So does cdnow.com. They give samples of whatever CD they carry. Besides where are you going to buy the CD of the artist if they don't sell it in supermarkets or electronic stores? I think some people would just rather own the mp3s then go through the trouble. Especially with transparent sounding mp3s.


D) File sharing encourages CD sales...

Why on earth would companies be spending millions of dollars and resources on stopping pirating if it was helping them? Seems to me they would want to encourage it and stay out of the way if weren't a problem. That would be good business. BUT you know what?...there not doing that. We can't assume they are just dumb. These guys use the best of the best to find problems (current or potential) and then solve it. They are rich and powerful for a reason. Given that we can assume there is a problem. Which is...

The current system is undercutting them. They after all, are in this to make money. Were not giving them a chance to help us and use the Internet more efficiently. First they got to get control over the situation. Only then will they be able to work with us not against us. Fighting is futile.

It is also silly to assume that companies should or are about to go on the "in good faith" system and expect people to only download what they buy and only keep a download that they buy. Business cant work like that. Because people don't.

Its been said a thousand times that we are the ones in control...well then it can be said that we brought all this bullshit on our selves. And we have the power to change it. Right? Stopping pirating is in our best interest. In everybody's best interest.


In closing....
I know the stealing wont stop. Its even stupid to preach that stealing should stop. Because it wont. It's too easy and too free. We as a whole will not do it. Its not are nature to stop. But lets at least come to terms and realize what we are doing. So when we wake up and sirens are sounding you at least know what got you there (and possible evasion).

We can argue pro or against file sharing and talk the bullshit about the terminology all we want. You can feel that file sharing is good and has not one bad trait all you want. It doesn't matter. You can feel industry is greedy or needy, the riaa are useful or useless...whatever. It doesn't matter, in the end regardless of how you feel or what you argue, it will end a certain way.

Like in every aspect of our lives laws shall govern us.... the digital domain will soon follow. With help from world governments free file sharing will be outlawed. And close tabs will be kept on all perpetrators. FREE file sharing will be forced underground. The deep deep underground. Enjoy the freedom while you got it, call it whatever tickles your fancy...but stealing wont be "unenforceable" for much longer

Interesting article from Wired, for whoever may be interested:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/v.../view.html?pg=2

I believe this is exactly what you're doing. I'll explain why i believe so further on, since i can't just make such a claim and not explain why. And i don't think fewtch is "confused" about anything...


You can believe what you want. And the courts can "believe" what they want. -I- believe they don't believe what you believe they believe, the RIAA makes you believe they believe what you think they believe, while in my opinion, their decisions are based on corruption, and have nothing to do with "moral issues", their decisions are based on corruption. This is what i believe, and if you believe that i'm wrong, and that i'm a criminal for not accepting what you think courts believe, i believe you are wrong, but still, believe what you want, you are free to do so, isn't life grand?..
There is no moral debate here. Show me clear losses. Prove to me those "clear losses" are real. P2P will never be banned, i think it's senseless to think so, and i'm not trying to hurt you or anyone by saying it's senseless, i think it just is. P2P is a technology that will be a major part of the net in the future, and will affect all of us.


First, i wonder how you decided that what fewtch said was, -in a strictly legal sense-, retarded.. If you can tell me how, please do, since i tend to believe you added the "in a strictly legal" part to avoid "flames".
If you listen to music, is it stealing? Again, if you go to a store, that has a great sound system, and stay there for a long time, and listen to an entire CD, and ENJOY, yes, -ENJOY- it, did you steal it? No, because you can't steal music you hear. You can however steal CDs. The music doesn't belong to you or anyone but those who sell it, CDs that contain music can belong to you.
You can go to a store and put on headphones as well, and listen to a CD to see/hear if it's good enough to buy. I know TONS OF TONS of such places, only the lousiest places don't allow listening as far as i know. Is it legal for the store to allow customers to listen to music to decide if to buy it or not? Think about it for yourself..
I can go to endless clubs, stores, friends, to listen to music, that i like. Practically whenever i want. Did i steal it? Did i steal anything? No. I didn't steal a CD containing the music. I downloaded a song from a user/s using a P2P program or from a WWW site or from an FTP site, or from an IRC channel, and listened to it. Didn't like it, deleted the file. Downloaded another file, liked the music, so downloaded some more music by the same artist to hear if the rest of the songs are good as well, liked it. Am i going to keep the files or am i going to buy a CD by the artist/s? -I- am DEFINATELY going to buy a CD, that offers full quality, and offers me a chance to show my appriciation to the artist. Are YOU, or someone else gonna do the same? Anything is possible, i don't know, and i don't care either. What you will do indicates what kind of a person you are. You CAN "-not pay-" for music that you like that you've downloaded from the internet, or heard and keep hearing in clubs and stores and friends' houses. You haven't given any money to any wrong person, a real pirate for example, like people who sell burned CDs!!! Now THIS, IS PIRACY. Will you think about it?..


When someone tells you that he buys what he downloads (and likes and keeps, you can easily assume he means!) you can assume he is telling the truth, or assume he is lying. However, if you assume he is LYING, you should mention WHY you think he is lying! Why do you not believe him? Is there ANY reason for you not to?? Please tell, since -I- think, according to what you wrote, that you think everyone is like you, keep music they like on the comp and don't buy a CD containing it ever.
That scenario even possible is reason enough for the industry to take action? Well, i think this is a paranoid approach to the matter. So the "industry" should do anything in it's power to prevent people from listening to music they like without paying for it! They think something like "we can't trust them! most of them are ungrateful @#!$% who PROBABLY won't pay for anything! And since almost all our customers suck we should do something drastic about it to tame those wild beasts! Yeah it's a wild world out there, and we should do all that's in our power to defend our poor little old selves.."...


This made me laugh. It's obvious to me how much you don't know about stuff like this. CDnow?! About 80% of the music i listen to cannot be purchased from CDnow, simply because they don't HAVE content i'm looking for. pfff, cdnow , may be good for many people, but very often it isn't.
And where am -I- going to buy the CD of the artist? Well, not supermarkets, and often not in plain electronic stores. There are many music stores out there you know? That specialize in different kinds of music. Often music that's rarely possible to get from "regular" stores. Like of "underground trance music" and stuff. And heard about Hard To Find Records? Recommended. FILE SHARING HELPS DISCOVER NEW ARTISTS. There is NO doubt about it, and no sense in arguing otherwise.
Some people would rather keep their "transparent" 128kbps MP3's, because in my opinion, they suck, but it's not my problem, and someone who's worth something will pay for music he loves.


O Kaaaaaay...
Actually we CAN assume they are just dumb, i assume that. They use the "best of the best", pfff, what ever.
Here's what really alarms me "Were not giving them a chance to help us and use the Internet more efficiently", what the hell?!? How on earth and/or mars will THEY be able to HELP, US, use the internet more EFFICIENTLY?? I need NO help from them, i'm happy with my internet usage just as it is, i don't want ANYONE, ESPECIALLY RIAA, who has no business doing that, to interfere with my "internet usage experience" or decide for me what is "more efficient"! -I- decide what i want.
"First they got to get control over the situation. Only then will they be able to work with us not against us. Fighting is futile."
This is not a joke?! This is just too much. Oh yeah, they get more and more "control" alright. And yeah, they'll "work with us", in your dreams. And fighting is futile?? Now you can again read the beginning of this thread, i think this explains what i said i'll explain.


Yeah, AS IF they'll ever manage to control the internet, it's not like anyone has ever really succeeded.
Yeah, they should customize their services to fit their customers, which are according to them all dirty lying lowlife thieves.
Businesses CAN NOT CONTROL anything on the internet, don't you know? Practically EVERY popular software is cracked. Every popular CD is ripped. Every popular ANYTHING that can be transfered through the internet for free, gets transferred. MOVIES, MUSIC, GAMES, SOFTWARE, PICTURES, you name it. STILL, you see companies are still successful, and have tons of money.

I've said it many times and i'll say it again, the ONLY real solution to REAL music "piracy" is to lower CDs' RIDICULOUS prices. Period, dot. The old timer money hungry will always fall in the end.


We didn't bring ANYTHING upon ourselves, the music industry did. And it's the only one that is able to stop pirating, by stopping to act like pirates and treat their costumers like garbage.
They CAN stop illegal CD sales, let them focus on that, that's in everyone's best interest! THAT's REAL piracy.


(you can go back to the beginning again)
So... WHAT was the purpose of all you wrote? Saying that we're all actually just criminals and that nothing we think is worth ANYthing? And that even what you yourself wrote is worthless??
And about P2P, i've commented about it, and since i don't think you're fully aware of what you're saying, let me say that NOTHING is "enforcable" on the internet man. If i only wanted, i could get what ever software is availible on the internet in this planet, and whatever music or movies or whatever things for free. "stealing" will always be there. But it doesn't matter. Because people who are worth something and are NOT scumbags DO exist. It's not a question of "can they stop piracy?" It's a question of "can they stop the need for piracy?".


Just a final note, if it seems to anyone i have -personal- issues with anyone, i can assure that i don't. These are just subjects i'm concerned about and feel obligated to comment on in the way that i do, because i can. I don't intend to hurt ANYone, i truly mean it, if i've offended you, i am sorry, please tell me why and i will do everything i can to correct it.
"it should be fun".

[quote]You can believe what you want. And the courts can "believe" what they want. -I- believe they don't believe what you believe they believe, the RIAA makes you believe they believe what you think they believe, while in my opinion, their decisions are based on corruption, and have nothing to do with "moral issues", their decisions are based on corruption. This is what i believe, and if you believe that i'm wrong, and that i'm a criminal for not accepting what you think courts believe, i believe you are wrong, but still, believe what you want, you are free to do so, isn't life grand?..[/quote]

As hard as it was to even get through that paragraph I managed.

Sk1...honestly what you believe or what I believe really doesnt matter anymore. The laws have already been laid. I'm not codeming anyone at all. I'm merely stating that under current laws you are in fact doing an action that is considerd stealing. Regardless if these laws are based on mass propaganda and corruption really doesnt matter. Stealing is stealing and stealing brings with it certain consequences. Period. End of story.

[quote]There is no moral debate here. Show me clear losses. Prove to me those "clear losses" are real. P2P will never be banned, i think it's senseless to think so, and i'm not trying to hurt you or anyone by saying it's senseless, i think it just is. P2P is a technology that will be a major part of the net in the future, and will affect all of us. [/quote]

I know there is no moral debate here. But if we are talking stictly in a lawfull sense...then its not allowed...or wont be.... Nobody says p2p will be banned. It is the technology of the future. All I said was that it was going to be regulated. And the days of MASS totaly FREE file sharing will come to a certain end.

[quote]If you listen to music, is it stealing? Again, if you go to a store, that has a great sound system, and stay there for a long time, and listen to an entire CD, and ENJOY, yes, -ENJOY- it, did you steal it? No, because you can't steal music you hear. You can however steal CDs.[/quote]

Your analogy is tragicly flawed. Cds are nothing more than a storage medium. Like your hardrive. You do have the ability to keep songs indefinatly on your hardrive without ever paying for them. Even if the songs were meant to be paid for. In a store you just hear them....I don't even know where the hell you pulled that from...

[quote]You can go to a store and put on headphones as well, and listen to a CD to see/hear if it's good enough to buy. I know TONS OF TONS of such places, only the lousiest places don't allow listening as far as i know. Is it legal for the store to allow customers to listen to music to decide if to buy it or not? Think about it for yourself..[/quote]

This debate was settled long long ago, back in the days of FM radio. I never once said that merely listening to a song is stealing. Thats not even the issue. The issue is keeping that music. Again the cd is just a medium. Just like in the digital domain there are hardrives etc etc.

[quote]When someone tells you that he buys what he downloads (and likes and keeps, you can easily assume he means!) you can assume he is telling the truth, or assume he is lying. However, if you assume he is LYING, you should mention WHY you think he is lying! Why do you not believe him? Is there ANY reason for you not to?? Please tell, since -I- think, according to what you wrote, that you think everyone is like you, keep music they like on the comp and don't buy a CD containing it ever[/quote]

Oh please. I didn't say that I didn't believe him. I'm not calling anyone a liar. I'm just saying that there are alot of people out there who may buy what they download...but wont buy everything they download and keep. Thats all I said. Quit trying to grasp for something that is not there.

[quote]That scenario even possible is reason enough for the industry to take action? Well, i think this is a paranoid approach to the matter. So the "industry" should do anything in it's power to prevent people from listening to music they like without paying for it! They think something like "we can't trust them! most of them are ungrateful @#!$% who PROBABLY won't pay for anything! And since almost all our customers suck we should do something drastic about it to tame those wild beasts! Yeah it's a wild world out there, and we should do all that's in our power to defend our poor little old selves.."...[/quote]

Okay fellah your being a bit silly now. Its basic business practice to protect your property. Not everyone is as noble as your pretending to be. Some may be but EVERYONE? Surely you know a thief or a p2p user that has a file on his computer that he didn't pay for but intends to keep? Duh. Sorry man but thats just how the world has worked and will work.

[quote]Actually we CAN assume they are just dumb, i assume that. They use the "best of the best", pfff, what ever.
Here's what really alarms me "Were not giving them a chance to help us and use the Internet more efficiently", what the hell?!? How on earth and/or mars will THEY be able to HELP, US, use the internet more EFFICIENTLY?? I need NO help from them, i'm happy with my internet usage just as it is, i don't want ANYONE, ESPECIALLY RIAA, who has no business doing that, to interfere with my "internet usage experience" or decide for me what is "more efficient"! -I- decide what i want.
"First they got to get control over the situation. Only then will they be able to work with us not against us. Fighting is futile."
This is not a joke?! This is just too much. Oh yeah, they get more and more "control" alright. And yeah, they'll "work with us", in your dreams. And fighting is futile?? Now you can again read the beginning of this thread, i think this explains what i said i'll explain.
[/quote]

I don't even know where to begin. You distrust them and thier supposed to trust you? How can we ever get anywhere like that? We've got to work together. That is best for everybody!!!

But its attitues like yours "us agains them" that serve only to perpetuate the problem. And its attitudes like yours that are very reason that they are *not* paranoid by protecting thier property. You prove that they must! Your contradicting yourself at every turn. Please stop.


[quote]Yeah, AS IF they'll ever manage to control the internet, it's not like anyone has ever really succeeded.
Yeah, they should customize their services to fit their customers, which are according to them all dirty lying lowlife thieves.
Businesses CAN NOT CONTROL anything on the internet, don't you know? Practically EVERY popular software is cracked. Every popular CD is ripped. Every popular ANYTHING that can be transfered through the internet for free, gets transferred. MOVIES, MUSIC, GAMES, SOFTWARE, PICTURES, you name it. STILL, you see companies are still successful, and have tons of money.[/quote]

LMAO!!! Governments WILL control the internet. They just havent thus far because there are privacy laws that have protecting our babied asses. As soon as the laws are passed then the technology to log us will be implemented. It is as simple as that. MASS FREE trading will stop. PERIOD.



[quote]
I've said it many times and i'll say it again, the ONLY real solution to REAL music "piracy" is to lower CDs' RIDICULOUS prices. Period, dot. The old timer money hungry will always fall in the end.
[/quote]

First off cds are 13 dollars. Which is not at all expensive. For the vast world population I think 13 dollars is very reasonable.

[quote]We didn't bring ANYTHING upon ourselves, the music industry did. And it's the only one that is able to stop pirating, by stopping to act like pirates and treat their costumers like garbage.[/quote]

Actually we did do it. We are doing it now. Otherwise we wouldn't have a problem or a debate. Regardless of whose fault it is the solution that will come about will most certainly be CONTROL.

[quote]So... WHAT was the purpose of all you wrote? Saying that we're all actually just criminals and that nothing we think is worth ANYthing? And that even what you yourself wrote is worthless??
And about P2P, i've commented about it, and since i don't think you're fully aware of what you're saying, let me say that NOTHING is "enforcable" on the internet man. If i only wanted, i could get what ever software is availible on the internet in this planet, and whatever music or movies or whatever things for free. "stealing" will always be there. But it doesn't matter. Because people who are worth something and are NOT scumbags DO exist. It's not a question of "can they stop piracy?" It's a question of "can they stop the need for piracy?".
[/quote]

Calm down. DAMN! Nothing thus far has been enforcable...but you just watch the laws get passed. Things have been capable of being enforced for the longest time now. As soon as the laws are passed then the enforcment will start.

I think you have missed the point entirly on this. They only need to know who is doing wrong on the internet. And then they can go to thier house and raid them. This has already happened in a few cases. It will get more prevelant. It will force us to go deep deep underground.

:'(

You really don't have a clue about the world's financial state, right? A $13 CD might be cheap for someone living in the USA or Western Europe or a few other rich parts of the world but even in Hungary for example, which is actually not a very poor country, a $13 CD would be considered quite expensive by most people (and CD's usually cost more than $13 here). Buying like 5 CD's a month for $13 each (you can't buy CD's for that price here but let's forget about that) would sound simply ridiculous to most people I know (and yes, they have full-time jobs). I'm not saying that using alternative ways of getting music is the best thing to do but some people (like a few millions or hundreds of millions) simply don't have any other choice. I'm pretty sure no one will be able to stop or "regulate" P2P and similar methods of sharing information (digital music or books or software is just that) until there are masses relying on them.
That's just plain reality... maybe not in your world but in mine...

EDIT: I wish I had the money to buy half the music I have on my computer (and I don't have so much compared to e.g. CD collections (original CD's) of some German friends of mine) but I couldn't buy them even if I wouldn't eat. Not that I want to complain or make you feel sorry for poor me, it's just I wanted to inform you that your assumption about "the vast world population" might be somewhat imprecise.

Sorry for that poor assumption. As it surely isn't all inclusive.

But this brings me to a point I touched on earlier...

I'm sure music companies can't realisticly start pumping out 2 dollar cds. There profits aren't really overly high to begin with...as someone already pointed out.

So whats the solution? Well its offering cheaper music via the great tool we call the internet.

Its allowing them to give us samples. If we like them then go ahead and buy song or album digitaly. This should severly cut overhead and make a much wider variety of music available.

But how are we going to get companies in the position to help us like this? Is it by hacking thier every attempt? Is it by pirating to our hearts content? Is it by viewing them as our enemy?

No, no, no! Its none of these things. Can rely on ourselves to change it? No we cant. Its too free, to open for anyone to stop.

So here we are today. The companies are striving to gain control of the filesharing so they can incorporate it in a business model that is not only helpful to them but helpful to peoples such as you who are in less fortunate economical circumstances.

That'd be wonderful. However, things are not as nice and simple as you might optimistically imagine. Information in a digital form can be copied and spread unless you control all hardware people are using. There's simply no other way. If you don't believe me just have a look at Microsoft's plans on what they call 'Palladium'. The problem with such approaches is that, since machines equipped with centrally managed security systems will not only be used to play digital media but also to send emails, do business, etc., this way governments and even big companies will gain almost unlimited control over our lives and we'll lose even more of our privacy.

I'm not against paying a fair amount of money for music. But if I have to choose between these two alternatives, (1) letting music companies go down (which I don't think will happen they'll only have to reorganize themselves) or (2) forcing everyone to have centrally managed security systems in all devices they use, I'll no doubt choose the former one. Not because it's a good choice but because it's still way better than the other one. In fact, I'm willing to fight (i.e. not with physical weapons of course) for that issue since I think it is of enourmous importance and I guess I'm not alone with this attitude.

I understand you sincerely believe what you wrote would be a good solution but I think you're naive in this matter. No offense intended.

This should REALLY be of interest, to anyone interested in this topic:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/28231.html

Cheers

Not to be annoying but Delerium is Canadian...

Thanks for the link, fewtch, it really is.

Whoops ! Thank you for the info....

But who is Astralian, then ?

It does seem unfair that, since I live fairly prosperously in the US and I have a well-paying job, I can afford to buy any CD that I want. Sure, if I bought 10 CD's a month I might not have money for any other luxury items (like movies, theme parks, or big concerts), but I could still do it.

But comparing the cost of CD's with any other entertainment medium reveals their value. Where I live, a ticket to the movies costs $9. So a CD costs less than two movies. In other words, something that I can appreciate for years (a CD) costs less than four hours of sitting in a theater. It costs less than dinner at a decent restaurant. It costs less than a T-shirt. It costs 1/4th as much as a bungee jump. It's DAMN CHEAP in comparison, and it gives much more enjoyment, if you buy CD's wisely.

When I hear someone complain about the cost of CD's, and I see all the other things they own (maybe they upgraded to a new 21" monitor last year!), I just want to tell them how hypocritical they are. People in this cushy financial situation who still say "CD's are too expensive!" need to learn how to budget themselves.

I totally agree. Also, a cd costs less than seeing an artist live. Unless it is a relatively unknown or underground artist, a live show is gonna set you back anywhere from $50 to $300 (or more), and most live perfomances these days are so canned you might as well be listening to the cd in a big smoke-filled room full of noisy people. I can't really remember the last time I went to a show that I enjoyed and thought was worth the ticket price. I'll take a cd for $20 any day.

Rob

Where I live, a movie ticket costs about $2 in crappier movie theaters (i.e. no DTS, Dolby Digital, or anything, uncomfortable seats, etc.) and about $4 in good movie theaters. In fact, $4 is considered to be somewhat expensive for a movie ticket by most people. I can have a dinner for $2 or if I want to eat better, I pay about $4-$5 (some of my friends even go up to $10). In contrast, CD's usually cost about $16-$24... I would not call that damn cheap.

21" monitor? ROTFL
I have no 21" monitor and I tell you why: I cannot afford to buy one. It would be nice since I'm studying computer science and thus I spend very much time in front of my computer. In fact, that's why I bought a relatively cheap 17" one 2.5 years ago instead of a 15" one which is considered to be standard here.

As for learning how to budget myself... please don't give me advice on that because you know exactly nothing about my circumstances. I can budget myself well, thank you very much.

And finally about your prosperous life seeming unfair: as I stated before I didn't write things like the above to make anyone feel sorry for me. There are very many people who are really poor, who have never even seen a computer or don't even know what 'internet' means (to give some mild examples). If you think things are unfair then it's about those people. But that is beyond the topic of this discussion...

[Edit:] Sorry if I got a bit carried away... It was not meant to insult you or anyone. I just wanted to point out some things about different economical circumstances which many people are apparently not only completely unaware of but they even have the misconception that they are actually well informed in these matters. Well, they aren't.

Warrior, sauce, situation you're describing is not necessarily the same in the rest of the world, outside US that is. In some countries CD's prices are about the same but people in general make less money, than people in US. So all the comparisons made regarding CD costs have bit different context.
It's more like whether you buy a bunch of cd's or do payments of other sort (interests, education, bla bla bla)... Did I forget movies and restaurans?

Enough mercantile stuff, ethical aspects...
I've got such impression (maybe wrong), that copyrights are usualy held not by authors, but by their ehhm... employers. Which want to restrict you in every possible way, because they realy care about intelectual property (which they heavily invested)... guess their motives. Ethical ones that is.
I can hardly imagine good musicians running around and being juged with people regarding copyright issues.
Only if some unknown band finds own music in some major brand's commercial, maybe.

Legal issues? Copying is illegal, you have to deal with it.
...Or you can furnish yourself with something like

and good lawyer (not included, will cost you some extra money).

Unfortunatley, where I live, movies are usually $9 or $10 (unless you can go to a bargain show during the afternoon for around $5 or $6), and some of the new "luxury" theaters are charging $14.


Anyway, I think the point that is being made is that the value of what you get when you pay to see a movie and when you buy a cd are different. You pay to see a movie once. If you want to see it again, you have to pay again. When you buy a cd, you own it and can listen to it (theoretically) thousands of times without having to pay again. So, it just seems to me, that in the long run, when compared to the cost of other forms of entertainment a cd provides more "bang for the buck", so to speak.

Rob

"What have I done? Sweet Jesus what have I done? Become a thief in the night, become a dog on the run!" Jean Valjean, "Les Miserables."

Damn! where is Javert when you need him?

The copying issue comes down to this:
1) Record companies add value to the economy by matching music performances with music fans willing to pay for it
2) Record companies make money by manufacturing plastic discs and distributing them

As long as the record companies are focused on #2 and not on #1, then there will be issues. They need a new way to be fairly compensated for #1 while realizing that #2 is not really that valuable anymore due to advances in computer technology.

This will take about 10 to 20 years to be resolved given the legal complexities and the large amount of money involved. I don't know what the resolution will be, and we can influence it as consumers if we are reasonable and not seen as extremists.

i agree with 2Bdecided

one time charge of 20$ or so for a life-time of enjoying your favourite music isn't all that big of a deal (well, for most people in my country). i visit my local record shop often, and i found that the prices of crappy pop music CDs are actually much lower than 20$

some of the newest releases sell for 15 to 18$. so, if you dig this kind of music, in many instances the expense will be less than 20$. more creative stuff, less mainstream genres will probably cost you a bit more, and any special imports will certainly be more expensive than domestic releases

my local HMV shop is fantastic for imports. they have a huge collection of trance and techno music already in the shop, and if you still don't find what you want, they have a huge database which makes it easy to export the CD you want from another country. it takes time, though. 2 to 8 weeks, which is why i often order a few titles at a time



oh we have plenty of delerium here

its a canadian group based in british columbia me thinks. delerium is one of my favourite groups, but they've gone a bit shitty in the last few years imho

The problem for anyone in the minority on an issue is the ignorant masses. But yes, you are right about the possibility of contacting the artist directly. (Sorry to say, I have tried this with a band that I found online recently, with no response as of yet, and their album is not availiable to me within regular means.)



The theory that 'whatever one has illegally downloaded and liked has the possibility to have irreversibly changed his or her music interests' is very plausible. Trial and error in the current music market is NOT easily availiable in a legal form, and therefore SOMEONE is losing money because of illegal trial and error. It is most definately the music producers with an inferior product that are losing money because of file sharing, because trial and error in this respect becomes opinionated: each person has an individual opinion of inferiority; I am for one the proof of all this.

Taking my aforementioned definion of inferior:
In the current legal boundaries of music availiability and awareness to the US consumer (average consumer or not), an inferior product's change in inferiority would only decrease more slowly when compared to the change in inferiority that occurs when a consumer is exposed to illegally availiable music. This all given and to further prove the point, the availiability of music on p2p in comparison to the legally availiable music as a whole is considerably less. The time threshold is much larger and the probability is much smaller that when one is only exposed to music legally (without illegal file sharing) that his interests will be changed.
I guess there is no comparison to this effect of the internet, because it is so exponentially larger than the norm. The only arguement I have against this theory's possible moral byproducts is that the inferior products would eventually be the losers (through returns and distastes), regardless of the great magnitude. Yes, survival of the fittest would (and does) still occur.

Edit: Some continuity errors fixed.

Edit: Oh the horror! Off-topic threads are not displayed on the main portal's Latest Threads. I was missing SO MUCH! I guess the "Show More . . . " link will be used by me much more in the future.