What if you would like to try a game before you buy it and none of your friends has it and there is no demo? Instead of wasting 50-70 dollars on a game that is completely sucky (I did that with a sucky interplay game for the xbox a while ago and i really regret it...I could have instead paid for a real good game which i would have enjoyed a lot) With PC games I only get to try some games because some of the games i would like to try doesn't have a demo and none of my friends has the game. The world is unfair, shouldn't you be able to have much fun even if you are poor or have to spend your money on more important things? And if you save up money for a game and then it's crappy then you don't feel too good about it... And i buy music if it is 1:something i really like and 2: If i find it at my local music retailer...
Dark times are coming
- Thread starter KQX
- Start date
Two things:
1: I'm not arguing again downloading to try something out, but if you download and like it, you should feel obliged to buy it, no matter what. I downloaded Shichinin no Samurai to view it, but afterwards I had the DVD imported from England for 34 EU.
2: Renting games. It's not impossible.
1: I'm not arguing again downloading to try something out, but if you download and like it, you should feel obliged to buy it, no matter what. I downloaded Shichinin no Samurai to view it, but afterwards I had the DVD imported from England for 34 EU.
2: Renting games. It's not impossible.
welsh
Junkmaster
I think Sonr raises a reasonable beef about this. Honestly, I don't see much of a problem in lending a friend software or a CD. Is it legal? Well there is that licensing agreement. But the idea of sharing a file between friends is far different from downloading hundreds of dollars worth of music from a stranger just because its there. Admittedly, the idea of showing a video in a bar becomes more suspect.
How will the consumer be able to sample the product before buying it. Much of the answer comes from the way things are sold at retail. If you can take a car for a test drive or walk around a house you are thinking about buying, why not borrow a cd with a game.
Not sure how things are going in Europe. In the US, most places that sell music have begun to allow you to listen to samples of the CD before you buy it. This way you can browse through and see if you like it. I bought a Beau Jocque and the Zydeco High Rollers CD just because I liked the way it sounded never having listened to Beau Jocque before.
Similarly, in most places were you can buy books, you can sit down and peer through it or start it and see if you like it. Many game retailers will let you try out a console game or even the software if you ask (although this is usually tougher).
But I think you can probably draw a line between someone selling you or even giving you their copy of Fallout because he thinks its great and the guy who burns a CD with Fallout on it. In the first case the interest in the seller pretty much ends with the sale of the good. Title to the good has transferred to the buyer. But nowhere does that give you the right to make multiple copies and distribute. So the difference is between getting to try a friends Fallout and then buying a bootleg copy of the game.
In China this has been a problem for years and really causes some problems for developing high tech products in the country. Where you can buy the latest version of Windows for $10 from a street vendor, you take a chance with quality, but the company takes a beating in the distribution.
And who picks up the difference? The consumer.
Think about it. If half the people who use a system don't pay for it what is a company to do. Either two things.
(1) they either raise the price on purchasers. So maybe the loses in China on Windows is made up for in price in Japan or the US or Europe (where copyrights are more rigorously enforced).
or
(2) the company takes the hit. They figure that some profits will never be reaped and they can't increase the price on the good more because demand will suffer. So instead, they figure they have to out do the pirates by selling at a cheaper price. They probably aren't going to take a cut in profits (because you can kiss off shareholders if you do that) so they cut in costs of the software. And so the product becomes inferior. Ok, but then the company will take a hit because of inferior products and lose out, right. Maybe, but what if this is an industry wide phenomena.
Net result, the consumer gets screwed.
How will the consumer be able to sample the product before buying it. Much of the answer comes from the way things are sold at retail. If you can take a car for a test drive or walk around a house you are thinking about buying, why not borrow a cd with a game.
Not sure how things are going in Europe. In the US, most places that sell music have begun to allow you to listen to samples of the CD before you buy it. This way you can browse through and see if you like it. I bought a Beau Jocque and the Zydeco High Rollers CD just because I liked the way it sounded never having listened to Beau Jocque before.
Similarly, in most places were you can buy books, you can sit down and peer through it or start it and see if you like it. Many game retailers will let you try out a console game or even the software if you ask (although this is usually tougher).
But I think you can probably draw a line between someone selling you or even giving you their copy of Fallout because he thinks its great and the guy who burns a CD with Fallout on it. In the first case the interest in the seller pretty much ends with the sale of the good. Title to the good has transferred to the buyer. But nowhere does that give you the right to make multiple copies and distribute. So the difference is between getting to try a friends Fallout and then buying a bootleg copy of the game.
In China this has been a problem for years and really causes some problems for developing high tech products in the country. Where you can buy the latest version of Windows for $10 from a street vendor, you take a chance with quality, but the company takes a beating in the distribution.
And who picks up the difference? The consumer.
Think about it. If half the people who use a system don't pay for it what is a company to do. Either two things.
(1) they either raise the price on purchasers. So maybe the loses in China on Windows is made up for in price in Japan or the US or Europe (where copyrights are more rigorously enforced).
or
(2) the company takes the hit. They figure that some profits will never be reaped and they can't increase the price on the good more because demand will suffer. So instead, they figure they have to out do the pirates by selling at a cheaper price. They probably aren't going to take a cut in profits (because you can kiss off shareholders if you do that) so they cut in costs of the software. And so the product becomes inferior. Ok, but then the company will take a hit because of inferior products and lose out, right. Maybe, but what if this is an industry wide phenomena.
Net result, the consumer gets screwed.
welsh said:
Every major CD selling place in Holland has a spot with headphones where you can listen to whatever CD you like. It's an old practice here, it's been around for at least a decade. In fact, it's considered strange if yuo don't have any listening equipment in your store.
Aye, but this is a slow and hard-hitting process. We're not feeling it now, not yet, but if you ask me, the whole industry is a tower of card and the whole piracy-business is tapping one of the bottom cards, seeing how far it can push it until it falls. If the card folds, the whole tower falls.
Actually Kharn, I'm seriously doubting all that. While it may seem a bad thing, if bands are actually appreciated they will still sell, since a lot of people will buy it when they really like it. Because, admit it, it's "cooler" to actually own it legally.
I, for one, usually download songs, and if they are so good that I would buy them anyway, I will(I've done this multiple times, same with games, videos and other things. I consider more of a testing way). However, if I don't like them enough to buy them, that doesn't mean I delete the file(although I wil anyway after a while, since it's not good enough). So in the way I do it, the industry is not even losing money, but probably even gaining some, since I'm not one who goes into a shop and pulls a bunch of cds from a rack to listen to them, I like it simple, so I get them off the net, and listen to them here.
Also, piracy is actually going down, or so I've heard, it was worse a while back, and now it's going down, and partly because of that, I think the music industry is making too much of it, instead, if they partly supported it(Say, a condoning policy for a song for a couple of days), I think their sales might actually go up. And they wouldn't spend money on suits against Napster for instance..
I, for one, usually download songs, and if they are so good that I would buy them anyway, I will(I've done this multiple times, same with games, videos and other things. I consider more of a testing way). However, if I don't like them enough to buy them, that doesn't mean I delete the file(although I wil anyway after a while, since it's not good enough). So in the way I do it, the industry is not even losing money, but probably even gaining some, since I'm not one who goes into a shop and pulls a bunch of cds from a rack to listen to them, I like it simple, so I get them off the net, and listen to them here.
Also, piracy is actually going down, or so I've heard, it was worse a while back, and now it's going down, and partly because of that, I think the music industry is making too much of it, instead, if they partly supported it(Say, a condoning policy for a song for a couple of days), I think their sales might actually go up. And they wouldn't spend money on suits against Napster for instance..
Sander said:
Economy is a fragile thing. If the companies fail to make the proper amount of profit increase (that's right, not even a proper amount of profit or just a bit of profit, but a certain INCREASE) things are considered to go bad. Companies go down over silly things like these, look at Virgin Europe.
As for the whole "the companies make more money because we buy more"...I don't believe in that. The music fans that buy the music would've found out about the music in the olden days (before ripping) as well, by ways of listening to the music at their friend's or renting the CD or listening to the radio.
I don't believe there's any real increase in profit by people trying music and then deciding to buy it, that's just the same as it always been. So we're left with people downloading and not buying, and there are A LOT of those people.
welsh
Junkmaster
Indeed, a lot of people. I have been talking to my students about this for awhile and virtually all of them download and many were quite convinced of their right to download music from the net.
That said, if you would go to BMG's web site, many of their albums have sections of songs on the net that you can listen to. So advertising music by offering a sample is not necessarily a bad thing. Downloading and distributing movies without the right to distribute is.
That said, if you would go to BMG's web site, many of their albums have sections of songs on the net that you can listen to. So advertising music by offering a sample is not necessarily a bad thing. Downloading and distributing movies without the right to distribute is.
After skimming this, I'd like to add my thoughts:
You guys who say musicians shouldn't be in it for the money and are rich enough, you're right. All musicians should beg for money on the streets, try to scrape up thousands of dollars to pay for equipment, and should not be reimbursed for their time and efforts.
So, next time you go to work, why don't you tell your boss, "Don't worry about it sir/ma'am, I shouldn't be rewarded for my efforts, so you can keep my paycheck."
Just think, if you make a small income you aren't losing much, if you make a large income, you're rich enough to afford it.
Being rewarded for your investment (time, monetary, creative, etc...) is a motivator to continue doing what you are doing. Stealing from someone because they are successful does not make it right. There is someone out there who is worse off than you, so in their eyes, anyone reading this board would be successful, therefore that arguement gives them the right to steal from you (or justifies it in your eyes).
Music, games, software, it is someone else's property. Pirating it is stealing, no matter how you justify it. If you are afraid you may lose money on something you don't like, don't take that chance until you know for certain that you'll like it by obtaining it in a moral and legal way. I bought Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel and I think the game sucks. I pre-ordered it and took that risk. No one forced me to buy it, I decided to forego the opportunity to hear other people review it, to play it at a friend's house, or to buy it off the "Previously Owned" software rack for $5 (which is still more than it is worth).
Justifying theft because you are poor or someone is rich is like justifying rape because you are ugly and the woman you rape is very pretty. Sure it is a different crime, and I would consider rape a much more serious crime, but the premise of justification is the same.
You guys who say musicians shouldn't be in it for the money and are rich enough, you're right. All musicians should beg for money on the streets, try to scrape up thousands of dollars to pay for equipment, and should not be reimbursed for their time and efforts.
So, next time you go to work, why don't you tell your boss, "Don't worry about it sir/ma'am, I shouldn't be rewarded for my efforts, so you can keep my paycheck."
Just think, if you make a small income you aren't losing much, if you make a large income, you're rich enough to afford it.
Being rewarded for your investment (time, monetary, creative, etc...) is a motivator to continue doing what you are doing. Stealing from someone because they are successful does not make it right. There is someone out there who is worse off than you, so in their eyes, anyone reading this board would be successful, therefore that arguement gives them the right to steal from you (or justifies it in your eyes).
Music, games, software, it is someone else's property. Pirating it is stealing, no matter how you justify it. If you are afraid you may lose money on something you don't like, don't take that chance until you know for certain that you'll like it by obtaining it in a moral and legal way. I bought Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel and I think the game sucks. I pre-ordered it and took that risk. No one forced me to buy it, I decided to forego the opportunity to hear other people review it, to play it at a friend's house, or to buy it off the "Previously Owned" software rack for $5 (which is still more than it is worth).
Justifying theft because you are poor or someone is rich is like justifying rape because you are ugly and the woman you rape is very pretty. Sure it is a different crime, and I would consider rape a much more serious crime, but the premise of justification is the same.
Kharn said:
When I lived in El Paso (back in the mid 90's), every major CD store had an area with headphones and CD players. You could bring up any CD to that place, and an attendent would either find an unwrapped copy of the same CD up there, or unwrap it and allow you to listen to it. I used to shop there and before I bought a CD I thought would be questionable, I'd go there, get the CD, listen to a few minutes of each song, browse for a bit to ponder it, and either purchase or not purchase that CD.
As an added thought:
Has anyone read the history of Metallica or many other bands/musical artists? From this you might learn that while Metallica is rolling in the dough right now, they didn't "inherit" their fame/wealth from the start. Perhaps none of you have stopped to consider that, caught up as you are in your own greed and immorality.
Has anyone read the history of Metallica or many other bands/musical artists? From this you might learn that while Metallica is rolling in the dough right now, they didn't "inherit" their fame/wealth from the start. Perhaps none of you have stopped to consider that, caught up as you are in your own greed and immorality.
it is my firm belief that p2p file sharing is a good thing and i entirely support it. mp3 exchange over the internet has many advantages, not only for the p2p users, but also for the discographic industry. there are several reasons for this:
1) try before you buy
let's say an average citizen who can afford to buy a CD every now and then downloads an MP3 and really likes it - he will be motivated into buying the CD, because owning a legal CD carries benefits such as higher sound quality, rich content (singles have B-Sides and albums often even have multimedia content) and feeling of coolness when you put a CD with original cover on your shelf.
2) accessibility
many people (myself included) listen to music CDs on their computers (because my surround speakers with subwoofer are a lot better than those i have on my stereo). on the other hand, many of the new commercial CDs are locked and therefore impossible to listen to (or grab music from) on PC CD-ROM. locking the CD to keep people from grabbing music is an incredibly stupid move, because people are then even more likely to download the MP3 and avoid purchasing the CD altogether.
in addition to this, MP3 is really the only way to make sure the song is worth your money. sometimes it's not even easy to hear the track that you might potentially like. take me for example: i listen to a lot of commercial German techno. there is not a single radio or TV station in Croatia that plays techno. i bought a satellite antenna only to learn that german VIVA (the only television i know that regularly shows techno videos) is coded. my only choice is to pay 30$ a month for cable TV (which doesn't even work yet in my building!) and pray to God that VIVA plays the track i want to hear. with help of KaZaA i can obtain the song i'm interested in within ten minutes.
3) advertising
p2p sharing software is a great way for discographic industry to advertise its products. by "advertising" i don't mean annoying pop-ups and spyware, i mean visible banners and discreet messages in webform, advertising new releases, tours, concerts etc. p2p services usually have massive user base, so these advertisements would surely be viewed by a lot of people.
the problem is that discographic industry, like any capitalist industry, is slow to change and fails to see the benefits of Internet as means of promoting and exchanging music. mp3 sharing is not piracy. it is no more piracy than listening to radio. when listening to radio or watching a music channel, you can always record the track or video and therefore own it without paying for it. everybody knows that having a song recorded from a radio station doesn't provide the same level of satisfaction as owning the actual CD, much like seeing a reproduction of Mona Lisa cannot compare to visiting Louvre and seeing the real thing.
but, instead of accepting the new ways, RIAA and other music organisations are desperately fighting a war they can't win. and they fight it using some very questionable methods. scanning the hard drives of unsuspecting users and blocking their computers if mp3s are found is not only a serious invasion of privacy, but also a very inefficient method that will cause a lot of problems and a lot of anger. having mp3s is completely legitimate if you own the original CD, and RIAA's method has no way of determining whether or not a person purchased a song. furthermore, blocking a computer just because someone has mp3s on it is a very extreme method. it's like police raiding your house without a warrant, trashing it and throwing you in jail just because they think your washing powder looks a lot like cocaine! not to mention that mp3s are present on so many computers, both public and private, that application of this method will probably cause a malfunction of about 70% of the world's computer systems. imagine the face on NASA or Pentagon employees when they learn their precious rocket will hit the Euro Mir station just because they all downloaded Eminem's new single! don't agree with me? i know that almost ALL assistents and professors in my college download mp3 music. if RIAA blocks all of their computers at the same time, all 11 LANs (altogether about 400 computers) will go down. furthermore, CARNet servers, located in the college, will crash, and CARNet is the ISP for every college and every student in Croatia! to sum up, RIAA simply has no right to use such extreme methods against people who have no means of protecting themselves. it is completely unjustifiable, morally, legally and even economically. it is a violation of basic civil rights and something must be done about it!
1) try before you buy
let's say an average citizen who can afford to buy a CD every now and then downloads an MP3 and really likes it - he will be motivated into buying the CD, because owning a legal CD carries benefits such as higher sound quality, rich content (singles have B-Sides and albums often even have multimedia content) and feeling of coolness when you put a CD with original cover on your shelf.
2) accessibility
many people (myself included) listen to music CDs on their computers (because my surround speakers with subwoofer are a lot better than those i have on my stereo). on the other hand, many of the new commercial CDs are locked and therefore impossible to listen to (or grab music from) on PC CD-ROM. locking the CD to keep people from grabbing music is an incredibly stupid move, because people are then even more likely to download the MP3 and avoid purchasing the CD altogether.
in addition to this, MP3 is really the only way to make sure the song is worth your money. sometimes it's not even easy to hear the track that you might potentially like. take me for example: i listen to a lot of commercial German techno. there is not a single radio or TV station in Croatia that plays techno. i bought a satellite antenna only to learn that german VIVA (the only television i know that regularly shows techno videos) is coded. my only choice is to pay 30$ a month for cable TV (which doesn't even work yet in my building!) and pray to God that VIVA plays the track i want to hear. with help of KaZaA i can obtain the song i'm interested in within ten minutes.
3) advertising
p2p sharing software is a great way for discographic industry to advertise its products. by "advertising" i don't mean annoying pop-ups and spyware, i mean visible banners and discreet messages in webform, advertising new releases, tours, concerts etc. p2p services usually have massive user base, so these advertisements would surely be viewed by a lot of people.
the problem is that discographic industry, like any capitalist industry, is slow to change and fails to see the benefits of Internet as means of promoting and exchanging music. mp3 sharing is not piracy. it is no more piracy than listening to radio. when listening to radio or watching a music channel, you can always record the track or video and therefore own it without paying for it. everybody knows that having a song recorded from a radio station doesn't provide the same level of satisfaction as owning the actual CD, much like seeing a reproduction of Mona Lisa cannot compare to visiting Louvre and seeing the real thing.
but, instead of accepting the new ways, RIAA and other music organisations are desperately fighting a war they can't win. and they fight it using some very questionable methods. scanning the hard drives of unsuspecting users and blocking their computers if mp3s are found is not only a serious invasion of privacy, but also a very inefficient method that will cause a lot of problems and a lot of anger. having mp3s is completely legitimate if you own the original CD, and RIAA's method has no way of determining whether or not a person purchased a song. furthermore, blocking a computer just because someone has mp3s on it is a very extreme method. it's like police raiding your house without a warrant, trashing it and throwing you in jail just because they think your washing powder looks a lot like cocaine! not to mention that mp3s are present on so many computers, both public and private, that application of this method will probably cause a malfunction of about 70% of the world's computer systems. imagine the face on NASA or Pentagon employees when they learn their precious rocket will hit the Euro Mir station just because they all downloaded Eminem's new single! don't agree with me? i know that almost ALL assistents and professors in my college download mp3 music. if RIAA blocks all of their computers at the same time, all 11 LANs (altogether about 400 computers) will go down. furthermore, CARNet servers, located in the college, will crash, and CARNet is the ISP for every college and every student in Croatia! to sum up, RIAA simply has no right to use such extreme methods against people who have no means of protecting themselves. it is completely unjustifiable, morally, legally and even economically. it is a violation of basic civil rights and something must be done about it!
Why not let the band decide how to distribute their material. It is *their* material.
Many band sites have songs available for download. A simple search will lead you to the band site. For example, the group, The Project Hate has a few full MP3 files and several shorter MP3 files to listen to. This is a band I had never heard of but told I might like. I downloaded everything from the site, and now I'll buy their albums (the same with Children of Bodom). Unrestricted P2P sharing makes it too easy for people to abuse that.
In many cases the difference in sound quality is negligable.
I listen to all my music on my computer. All of it is taken from the CDs I own, which I've copied onto my computer. I don't share these files, and if I sell or give away the CD, I erase them. If you own the CD, great, then copy the music onto your PC.
"the problem is that discographic industry, like any capitalist industry, is slow to change and fails to see the benefits of Internet as means of promoting and exchanging music"
Capitalism tends to be on the cutting edge of technology. In some cases, changes may be so great that they have to be introduced gradually. One reason I can see the music industry not embracing the Internet for music exchange is the abuse they face from it. I know a lot of people who have downloaded songs from the Internet, from groups and/or albums they didn't own, and made their CDs from that. Never purchasing any CD from that artist, or that specific album.
Many band sites have songs available for download. A simple search will lead you to the band site. For example, the group, The Project Hate has a few full MP3 files and several shorter MP3 files to listen to. This is a band I had never heard of but told I might like. I downloaded everything from the site, and now I'll buy their albums (the same with Children of Bodom). Unrestricted P2P sharing makes it too easy for people to abuse that.
In many cases the difference in sound quality is negligable.
I listen to all my music on my computer. All of it is taken from the CDs I own, which I've copied onto my computer. I don't share these files, and if I sell or give away the CD, I erase them. If you own the CD, great, then copy the music onto your PC.
"the problem is that discographic industry, like any capitalist industry, is slow to change and fails to see the benefits of Internet as means of promoting and exchanging music"
Capitalism tends to be on the cutting edge of technology. In some cases, changes may be so great that they have to be introduced gradually. One reason I can see the music industry not embracing the Internet for music exchange is the abuse they face from it. I know a lot of people who have downloaded songs from the Internet, from groups and/or albums they didn't own, and made their CDs from that. Never purchasing any CD from that artist, or that specific album.
Old School Role-Player
First time out of the vault
Wow, what an interesting thread. First off, I have to say that I am in no way, shape or form advocating mass music piracy like in China (lack of copyright laws is one of the reasons China is--and shall forever remain--a cesspool of the business world).
One thing I've noticed is the similarities of the arguments that the RIAA is using right now and the arguments the motion picture industry made when VCR's first came out. As we can see year after year, more and more movies are shattering old records for box office incomes. The same holds true for mp3's. During the height of the Napster days, the music industry was seeing record sales (no pun intended). The only problem is--was that the economic boost from the 90's or was it due to the increased interest in recorded music? I honestly don't know.
The methods that the RIAA is going about this, however, is *definitely* a very poor decision on somebody's part. I for one would be at the head of a list for a class-action lawsuit if I found out that the RIAA was hacking into my home system to check to see if I had any mp3's or not. Besides, the majority of my mp3's were ripped from my own CD collection anyway. I like the idea of a master list without having to buy a 10 gazillion CD changer.
I would also pirate any Metallica CD's just for pure spite. Metallica was faced with decreasing sales, and they blamed that on Napster (again, while the rest of the industry was experiencing it's best boom in many many years), and their music quality was considered much lower than the quality of their music during their pinnacle. Basically, they blamed the fans, Napster, and pirates for their poor quality of music. This is the same band that, in 1992, flat-out admitted that they were unconcerned about their hardcore fans because they needed to make more money in the mainstream. Ugh! So--for purely personal reasons, I will *totally* pirate any Metallica software I can.
One thing I've noticed is the similarities of the arguments that the RIAA is using right now and the arguments the motion picture industry made when VCR's first came out. As we can see year after year, more and more movies are shattering old records for box office incomes. The same holds true for mp3's. During the height of the Napster days, the music industry was seeing record sales (no pun intended). The only problem is--was that the economic boost from the 90's or was it due to the increased interest in recorded music? I honestly don't know.
The methods that the RIAA is going about this, however, is *definitely* a very poor decision on somebody's part. I for one would be at the head of a list for a class-action lawsuit if I found out that the RIAA was hacking into my home system to check to see if I had any mp3's or not. Besides, the majority of my mp3's were ripped from my own CD collection anyway. I like the idea of a master list without having to buy a 10 gazillion CD changer.
I would also pirate any Metallica CD's just for pure spite. Metallica was faced with decreasing sales, and they blamed that on Napster (again, while the rest of the industry was experiencing it's best boom in many many years), and their music quality was considered much lower than the quality of their music during their pinnacle. Basically, they blamed the fans, Napster, and pirates for their poor quality of music. This is the same band that, in 1992, flat-out admitted that they were unconcerned about their hardcore fans because they needed to make more money in the mainstream. Ugh! So--for purely personal reasons, I will *totally* pirate any Metallica software I can.
Pirating Metallica is still wrong, but a little voice in my head tells me it isn't too bad 
Still, I have not pirated any of their music, or anyone else's. In fact, having listened to Reload and St. Anger, I would say the music is worth less than the disc to burn it onto (and I buy them cheap and in big packs). The last album I bought is Load, I have no idea why I haven't sold it... I think so that when someone tries to tell me how good they still are/were, I can listen to that album and say, "I don't know what you're smoking, but you might also like Millie Vanillie and Vanilla Ice too."
I don't really pay attention to the RIAA all that much. However, the hacking idea you mentioned is definitely not a good idea, for the reasons you mentioned. I have about 300 CDs, and most of them are also stored on my computer. I like it this way, because if I want total random music, I don't need a CD changer. Then, if I'm in the mood for all Rush, or maybe all Country music, I don't have to swap out, just select by artist or genre (I use Real Player and find it pretty cool for something offered for free).
I also burn CDs to listen to in my car and SUV. I don't sell or give these away.
I look at it this way. If you buy an album, you buy the right to use those songs in a way that does not violate copyright laws and is convenient to you, but you have to buy that right.
Still, I have not pirated any of their music, or anyone else's. In fact, having listened to Reload and St. Anger, I would say the music is worth less than the disc to burn it onto (and I buy them cheap and in big packs). The last album I bought is Load, I have no idea why I haven't sold it... I think so that when someone tries to tell me how good they still are/were, I can listen to that album and say, "I don't know what you're smoking, but you might also like Millie Vanillie and Vanilla Ice too."
I don't really pay attention to the RIAA all that much. However, the hacking idea you mentioned is definitely not a good idea, for the reasons you mentioned. I have about 300 CDs, and most of them are also stored on my computer. I like it this way, because if I want total random music, I don't need a CD changer. Then, if I'm in the mood for all Rush, or maybe all Country music, I don't have to swap out, just select by artist or genre (I use Real Player and find it pretty cool for something offered for free).
I also burn CDs to listen to in my car and SUV. I don't sell or give these away.
I look at it this way. If you buy an album, you buy the right to use those songs in a way that does not violate copyright laws and is convenient to you, but you have to buy that right.
welsh
Junkmaster
I just wanted to comment on movie earnings for the purpose of comparison.
First, while movie earnings have increased over the past 20 or so years, so have ticket prices. Saying a film was "the biggest earner ever" may have less to do with the number of viewers but the cost of tickets. That said, I would venture that the number of movie houses has also increased substantially over the last 20 or so years.
Secondly, regarding video sales, when VCRs first came out there were lots and lots of video stores renting videos all over the US. Most of them are gone now, destroyed by the market and unable to compete with the chain stores (blockbuster and Hollywood video). But the concentration of stores from which to rent has also made market regulation much more easier. While people still tape off HBO or Turner Classic Movies, its the pirates who sell Video copies of the recent releases that cause problems, but this only in major cities where they are more difficult to regulate but still act in violation of law. You can go to jail for selling bootleg videos in NY.
Not sure how closely this relates to the music industry, but I am not sure that you can make a fair comparison between VCRs and downloads.
First, while movie earnings have increased over the past 20 or so years, so have ticket prices. Saying a film was "the biggest earner ever" may have less to do with the number of viewers but the cost of tickets. That said, I would venture that the number of movie houses has also increased substantially over the last 20 or so years.
Secondly, regarding video sales, when VCRs first came out there were lots and lots of video stores renting videos all over the US. Most of them are gone now, destroyed by the market and unable to compete with the chain stores (blockbuster and Hollywood video). But the concentration of stores from which to rent has also made market regulation much more easier. While people still tape off HBO or Turner Classic Movies, its the pirates who sell Video copies of the recent releases that cause problems, but this only in major cities where they are more difficult to regulate but still act in violation of law. You can go to jail for selling bootleg videos in NY.
Not sure how closely this relates to the music industry, but I am not sure that you can make a fair comparison between VCRs and downloads.
Hello, I'm kinda neutral on this issue, even though I do download the occasional mp3. What I have found rather surprising is that no one has mentioned the settlement announced just a couple weeks ago. I don't know the exact details, but a judge told recording companies to pay back millions of consumers about $12 each, and donate about $50 million in CDs to schools and libraries. It was a class action lawsuit charging unfair business practices by the 6 or however many companies because they conspired to raise the prices of CDs. I'm not saying that it makes downloading music right, but maybe these recording companies should be a little more introspective when trying to place the blame somewhere. Their greedy scheme seems to have backfired.
I don't know what a fair price for a CD is, but $18 for a CD with 11 tracks (only two of which are worth listening to, and the other 9 hastily written as cheap filler so that they could sell a full CD) is a damn ripoff.
I think Apple is on the right track, and as soon as they expand their services, I will join.
I don't know what a fair price for a CD is, but $18 for a CD with 11 tracks (only two of which are worth listening to, and the other 9 hastily written as cheap filler so that they could sell a full CD) is a damn ripoff.
I think Apple is on the right track, and as soon as they expand their services, I will join.
Demostrike
Still Mildly Glowing
I really dont want to take sides in this but to be truthfull piracy is wrong and should (if it could 
) be stopped. I think esecially in games you should not copy them unless they are older games such a Prince of Persia etc.
) be stopped. I think esecially in games you should not copy them unless they are older games such a Prince of Persia etc.Piracy of any sort is wrong, but it *can* be stopped.
If the software/record companies are so concerned about it, then they should stop selling me trash at 19-60 bucks a pop! I mean, think about it...the only reason I pirate some software, and some music, is because it's too damn expensive!
The prices for both software and music are rediculous. This is why I burn CDs from mainstream artists, and save my money so I can buy CDs from artists that actually *need* my support.
-Malky
If the software/record companies are so concerned about it, then they should stop selling me trash at 19-60 bucks a pop! I mean, think about it...the only reason I pirate some software, and some music, is because it's too damn expensive!
The prices for both software and music are rediculous. This is why I burn CDs from mainstream artists, and save my money so I can buy CDs from artists that actually *need* my support.
-Malky
Ratty said:
Right on!
I believe cross-ways are ineffective and old-fashioned when compared to a circle-formed "rotonde" (as we call it, dunno the English word).
Because of that, I never brake for stop-lights on a cross-road. Sure, I hit the odd pedestrian every now and again, but that's not my fault, it's the fault of the government being too slow in realising the potential of completely rebuilding the cross-roads.
Come on, Ratty, THINK!
pi·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-s)
n. pl. pi·ra·cies
Robbery committed at sea.
A similar act of robbery, as the hijacking of an airplane.
The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material: software piracy.
The operation of an unlicensed, illegal radio or television station.
Aye, recording a song from the radio or taping from tv is also known as piracy.
However, though as it may be, that's actually a better form of piracy. Here in Holland we usually receive tv and radio over the cable, for which you pay. This money goes to the tv channels (that and advertisment money) and guess what; the tv/radio channels PAY the labels/companies for the movies/songs.
Listening to the radio is not piracy because the radio pays a smackload of money for the broadcasting rights.
This in no way excuses the crime of piracy.