quote:In defending the "Pirate Act", Hatch said the operators of P2P networks are running a conspiracy in which they lure children and young people with free music, movies and pornography. With these "human shields," the P2P companies are trying to ransom the entertainment industries into accepting their networks as a distribution channel and source of revenue
Wow. These out of touch congressmen are making the insane leap between sharing files and child victimization. And assuming that networks like Kazaa are somehow extorting money from the RIAA, no less.
Sure hope those campaign checks from the RIAA keep rolling in.
quote:So far in 2004, Leahy has received $178,000 in campaign contributions from the entertainment industries -- the second-biggest source of donations to Leahy behind lawyers. Hatch has received $152,360.
Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :
Oh fun...I just hope that it's grandfathered...Otherwise a lot of people are gonna go to jail.
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
Looks like the U.S. Postal service is going to be illeagal next, since you can do the same thing in the mail.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Mabye they'll make burnable music CD's and audio tapes illeagal while they're at it....naaa. Sony's made millions on those, so they cant be part of their problem with music sharing.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
I think these congressmen are running a conspiracy in which they lure gullible people with covert civil rights restrictions and other puritan crap.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Or they're trying to stop people from stealing music. Maybe.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Yeah, and they're doing that by criminalizing a perfectly legal MEANS of information exchange, which is NOT the same as criminalizing the information BEING exchanged. Should cars be banned because they can be used to mow someone down? Should hammers be banned because they can be used to bash someone's skull in? Should VHS tapes be banned because they can be used to record child porn, hmm?
Think about what you say next time. If you can spare the effort.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Yes, I know that file sharing can be used for legitimate reasons. And I'm sure you (like everyone else around here) use them for legitimate reasons all the time.
Don't you?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Hate the game: not the playazz. Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Of course. And I'm just as sure there isn't a single piece of illegal software anywhere on your harddrive, and that you have never downloaded mp3s of some band's songs before buying their CD EVAR. No, I'm sure you're a regular boy scout. So...
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
"Or they're trying to stop people from stealing music. Maybe."
"Yeah, and they're doing that by criminalizing a perfectly legal MEANS of information exchange, which is NOT the same as criminalizing the information BEING exchanged."
This is awesome, I just finished watching "West Wing" on the tv and I tune into..."West wing".
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I have lots of downloaded music. I know it's against the law, but I do it anyway. I have no right to complain if I get caught, in the same way that someone given a speeding ticket has no right to complain.
quote:Should cars be banned because they can be used to mow someone down? Should hammers be banned because they can be used to bash someone's skull in? Should VHS tapes be banned because they can be used to record child porn, hmm?
It's interesting that you've lept straight to the traditional right-wing "Why guns are good and should never, ever, be banned" argument there.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Yes, I know that file sharing can be used for legitimate reasons. And I'm sure you (like everyone else around here) use them for legitimate reasons all the time.
Actually, the vast majority of my KaZaa use is for sharing episodes recorded off a television, which is perfectly legal. If anyone wants any good Andromeda I'm sharing it right this second.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
I have lots of downloaded music. I know it's against the law, but I do it anyway. I have no right to complain if I get caught, in the same way that someone given a speeding ticket has no right to complain.
Right, IF you get caught doing something that's against the law. Which using a file-share program (in and of itself) is NOT.
It's interesting that you've lept straight to the traditional right-wing "Why guns are good and should never, ever, be banned" argument there.
I would say why I think an exception should be made for guns, if I weren't so skittish about dragging out THAT whole debate again. So, I won't.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
And the rest of the time, you use it for what?
And are you sure it's legal to pass around episodes you've taped off of a TV?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Quite. They had the same question come up when VCRs were new, and the ruling was that so long as no profit is made by the distributers, it's perfectly legal.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: Right, IF you get caught doing something that's against the law. Which using a file-share program (in and of itself) is NOT.
Not at the moment.
Using them to download illegal music is, however. Which is what they are mainly used for. Look how people deserted Napster after it became impossible to use it to get copyrighted works. People aren't complaining about this because of the valuable service to society that P2P programmes provide...they're complaining because they won't be able to get the tunes they want.
And the TV programmes, to be fair.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Not at the moment."
Nor should it ever be.
Look, I won't deny that P2P networks are about the most wretched hives of scum and villainy you can find on the internet. But that's not the issue here. Encroachment on personal liberties is. When you ban software because of a specific function (a function that, again, isn't intrinsically illegal) built into it, when you (well, not you, but the juridical arm of a government that happens to be sponsored by organizations with an interest in regulating the flow of information such that it flows THEIR way) dictate what I can and cannot run on MY computer because I MIGHT use that software for criminal activities, you open the door to gross violations of due process and privacy. THAT is what is wrong about these tries "to stop people from stealing music", NOT that people will no longer be able to get the tunes they want. I could not care less about the latter, but the former has me VERY concerned.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
The thing is - file sharing of music also allows music that is NOT available to BE available... old records, discontinued cds etc. Is THAT illegal?
Should people be denied music that is only available to a handful of people around the world?
Personally, I have discovered more artists BECAUSE of things like p2p and mp3s than I would have if I just relied on going to the record store and buying random artists. Radio doesn't cater to my musical tastes.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Downloading is not illegal in my country. So I can download all I want.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: "Not at the moment."
Nor should it ever be.
Look, I won't deny that P2P networks are about the most wretched hives of scum and villainy you can find on the internet.
Well, I can see that someone has'nt been trying to find online scum very hard.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grokca: Downloading is not illegal in my country. So I can download all I want.
But isn't Canada an fancy name for "Northern USA"?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
*shrug* Stepping aside from whether taking part in P2P networks should be criminal, the better question might be whether or not this is the best crime to be assigning prison terms of up to 10 years. Prison in the US isn't exactly the a low cost proposition. I mean really, doesn't your justice department have better things to do?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"They had the same question come up when VCRs were new, and the ruling was that so long as no profit is made by the distributers, it's perfectly legal."
That was long before the DMCA existed, though. Are you sure it's still true? If it is, then how would that differ from distributing music for free? Either way, you're freely distributing something that people would normally have to pay for (even if that "payment" is merely having to sit through TV commercials).
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Well, I can see that someone has'nt been trying to find online scum very hard.
Nevertheless, you must be careful. And you're interrupting a dramatic moment. Quiet. B)
What was that about a conspiracy?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN:
"They had the same question come up when VCRs were new, and the ruling was that so long as no profit is made by the distributers, it's perfectly legal."
That was long before the DMCA existed, though. Are you sure it's still true?
Point.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grokca: Downloading is not illegal in my country. So I can download all I want.
Unless Canada truelly is the craziest place in the world, I'm going to suggest that downloading copyrighted music is just as illegal over there as it is everywhere else.
And I'll also say that I do largely agree with you, Cartman. I'm just not keen on the ever so slight hypocricy that comes up on stuff like this, eg "I never download illegal music, ever!". But yeah, 10 year prison sentences are stupid, music is vastly overpriced, etc etc.
Andrew: Such as what? Exactly how many songs are available on Kazaa that are impossible to buy anywhere, ever? And if your TV is anything like ours, it'll be almost impossible to not find a music channel that caters to you.
Regardless, do you really just type random words into Kazaa and download everything that comes up?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Actually, the vast majority of my KaZaa use is for sharing episodes recorded off a television, which is perfectly legal. If anyone wants any good Andromeda I'm sharing it right this second.
Sharing TV eps isn't illegal? But surely by watching Enterprise and 24 online and then not watching them when they appear on Sky, I'm depriving them of ratings, which means that the advertisers who ultimately provide the capital that makes the show are losing out? And we all know how important the advertisers are. . .
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...I'm depriving them of ratings..."
Well, ratings are based upon how many people they know are watching a show. Do they actually have any way of telling whether you, personally, are watching it? If not, you aren't really affecting the ratings.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
A loop hole does exist....
The club I belonged to here in IL, nothing but a private bar really, pays royalty fee's, as anyone must that runs a juke box or has bands come in. The cost of which can't be that expensive, for the club anyway, or the cheap bastards there wouldn't have any music except CMT, VH-1, etc....
So, CC turns Flare in to a non-profit group, which can be nothing more that a place for a meeting of disimilar minds, we pay the dues, and have royalty rights...
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Andrew: Such as what? Exactly how many songs are available on Kazaa that are impossible to buy anywhere, ever? And if your TV is anything like ours, it'll be almost impossible to not find a music channel that caters to you.
Not going to get too far into examples but I'll give one:
deleted albums/beesides
Tori Amos' first album "Y Kant Tori Read" - only a handful of copies made and she has explicitly stated that it will NEVER EVER be re-released. So downloading it for free is the only way to get it unless you'd want to buy it off some "cd-collector" for 1500x the original price.
Beesides are often released on a few singles not available in all countries and then deleted after a few months.
And basically - Australian Television while there is a new digital service for paytv now - NO there is NO radiostation that caters to my or a lot of my friends musical taste - and then when are you going to be able to listen to it when you want?
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:Unless Canada truelly is the craziest place in the world, I'm going to suggest that downloading copyrighted music is just as illegal over there as it is everywhere else
Well I guess we are the craziest place in the world.
It comes from a levy place on recording material, which was pushed for by the Canadian recording industry. We now pay a certain amount, depends on the media, in taxes which go to the Canadian recording industry. They pushed for this originally on cassette tapes because they thought they were losing money to people who record music for there personal use. Now they have found that they have screwed themselves because the measly pennies on a cd are being far outstripped by the loses from people not buying overpriced recorded cd's. It's a case of an industry shooting themselves in the foot.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: And I'll also say that I do largely agree with you, Cartman. I'm just not keen on the ever so slight hypocricy that comes up on stuff like this, eg "I never download illegal music, ever!". But yeah, 10 year prison sentences are stupid, music is vastly overpriced, etc etc.
I have no special love for hypocrisy myself. So when I read something like this, knowing that the congressmen pushing for the legislation on P2P programs are on the RIAA's payroll and that said RIAA likes to feed people false and misleading information, including artificially deflated sales figures (because it really isn't about music theft or intellectual property violations, but about the profit margins of an industry that has been relying on obsolete, pre-internet business models for 15 years and is now shifting the blame for its conservatism to consumers), I get aggravated. And when I then think of the double standard employed by companies like Sony (one of the loudest members of the RIAA) that on the one hand condemn piracy and on the other collect millions with their CDRs, VHS tapes, and DVD-R/DVD-RW/DVD+R/DVD+RW/DVD+whatevers, which I have to pay a COPYING TAX for (see Grokca's post), I get REALLY aggravated. Yes I do. And a simplistic argument like "they're trying to stop people from stealing music" doesn't go over too well with me when I'm aggravated. As you've no doubt noticed by now.
A new ruling out today, we're still the craziest.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
So what happens if I join a Canadian P2P network?
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: A loop hole does exist....
The club I belonged to here in IL, nothing but a private bar really, pays royalty fee's, as anyone must that runs a juke box or has bands come in. The cost of which can't be that expensive, for the club anyway, or the cheap bastards there wouldn't have any music except CMT, VH-1, etc....
So, CC turns Flare in to a non-profit group, which can be nothing more that a place for a meeting of disimilar minds, we pay the dues, and have royalty rights...
Cool - Flare, LLC ... it could rule the world and/or get bought out by Viacom.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Psyliam: "Exactly how many songs are available on Kazaa that are impossible to buy anywhere, ever?"
I love downloading movie/TV-show soundtracks. Clint Eastwood's "Kelly's Heroes" , Kevin Dillon's "Private Eye" (man was that a great show), the "Brunnen-G song", the "Dune" soundtrack, the "Tropical Heat" theme (Nick Slaughter is my go-to man), "Smokey & the bandit", "Foist Blood", ooh! ooh! Clannad's "Robin of Sherwood" songs ("My money's on the templars"), that is some great stough.
Also, most of Basil Polidouris' splatter-movie soundtracks seem to obscure to find here in Stockholm. RoboCop, Conan, Total Recall, zip, nada, pesto.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
If only there was some sort of online store that sold CDs...
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
And that didn't charge exorbitant shipping costs, and customs didn't levy import taxes...
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Where do you buy your CDs?
Look, I'm not disagreeing that singles are massively overpriced. But neither do I think that everyone has some sort of divine right to all music ever made, for free.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Which is okay, because I don't like all music, just some of it....
Posted by Obi Juan (Member # 90) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: Of course. And I'm just as sure there isn't a single piece of illegal software anywhere on your harddrive, and that you have never downloaded mp3s of some band's songs before buying their CD EVAR.
Before buying the CD? I'd say without buying the CD. If you download a band's songs and then buy the CD a couple of weeks later, then it seems to me that P2P has just assisted the record company in making that sale instead of costing them money.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I bought Interpol's CD only after downloading several songs...so what's the harm to the RIAA?
Simple: bands that have only ONE good song will suffer because buyers wont want to buy shit like Crazytown if only one song is worth lidtening to (and even that got really old- really fast).
So: either the RIAA will pay off whoever they can to criminalize P2P networks or bands or they'll have to feature bands with more substance.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...buyers wont want to buy shit like Crazytown if only one song is worth lidtening to (and even that got really old- really fast)."
Weren't they the ones who made a whole song just by looping three seconds of a Red Hot Chili Peppers song about a hundred times, and singing some insipid drivel over it? And then the song was fucking everywhere?
[ April 03, 2004, 02:14 AM: Message edited by: TSN ]
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
They sure were: I saw an interview (some time back) with the singer and he was rolling in dough!
Just imagine what his producer made off one song!
I'm gonna go download everything I own just for spite's sake!
[Kahn voice] From Hell's heart, I download thee.... [/Kahn voice]
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Limp Bizkit: Behin Blue Eyes. It's not like it says "we're out of material".
And of course they only kept the chorus, not the cool parts with "When my fist clenches, crack it open / before I use it and lose my cool when I smile, tell me some bad news / before I laugh and act like a fool".
*sigh*
[Picard Voice]..And if his crotch had been a cannon, he'd have harpooned his prick upon it.[/Picard Voice]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Best. Copytight laws. Ever.
They make sure that the heirs to the heirs to the heirs of Walt Disney will still be earning billions of dollars off every passing mention of Mickey Mouse for centuries to come.
They try their damnedest to make sure I have to pay out the ass for the privilege of hearing even a part of a song before deciding whether it was worth paying for.
And yet, if you want to make tons upon tons of money by defecating on someone else's creation and packaging it in a shiny wrapper, go for it. It's the American way.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Well, to be fair, you can only do that if the makers of the original song(s) give you permission to rape their work, which I guess says more about them than it says about you.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: And yet, if you want to make tons upon tons of money by defecating on someone else's creation and packaging it in a shiny wrapper, go for it. It's the American way.
That's the EXACT feeling I have for the horrid "I Robot" movie coming out.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I am constantly depressed whenever the "we've sampled a U2 song" monstrosity comes on the radio. Despressed, and angry.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Could be worse: I've heard a rap song sample the version of Jonny Cash's "I Walk The Line" that he performed with U2.
Kinda ripping off 2 songs at once.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Ah, that renowned destroyer of cultures, the free and open exchange of ideas.
Warning, hyperbole:
I can't wait till we do something about this open source software, too. Did you know that anybody can write this stuff? There could be terrorists hiding right inside your Linux kernel and you'd never know it. Your neighborhood school crossing signals could be controlled by software written by Osama himself. Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Red Turban?
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: If only there was some sort of online store that sold CDs...
The point is a LOT of music is NOT available to purchase... anywhere.
Acreed, I like TV themes etc.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Red Turban: coming soon to a suicide drive near you. B)
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Yes, I can't find Wall of Voodoo any where, since they stopped producing any of it I am shit out of luck....
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Or, alternatively, very lucky indeed.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: There could be terrorists hiding right inside your Linux kernel and you'd never know it.
Since when have you ever used Linux? Eh?
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
quote: the ruling was that so long as no profit is made by the distributers, it's perfectly legal.
Well. I'm distributing Mp3 files from my computer. Am I making profit from it? Not that I can see.
quote: So far in 2004, Leahy has received $178,000 in campaign contributions from the entertainment industries -- the second-biggest source of donations to Leahy behind lawyers.
Oh. And it's so nice to know that the "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours" analogy still works...
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I'm distributing Mp3 files from my computer. Am I making profit from it? Not that I can see.
But the vast majority of those files were ripped from CDs, which would be equivalent to making copies of purchased tapes and distributing them. The only legal audio equivalent to the videotape ruling would be if you'd recorded those songs off the radio and distributed them.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Aside from the quality, there's no diffrence.
What's next? Mabye the publishing industry should sue to have libraries closed....after all, why buy the book when you can read it anytime for free? Surely, they must be on the very edge of bankruptcy.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
What's next?
Well if my countryman and namesake, the Kazaa-creator Niklas Zennstr�m will get his wish through, soon I won't have a telephone bill.
Telephone calls (any calls, local or international) are routed through the broadband connection, and are free! The software is called "Skype", you might wanna search it up, the Beta's already out. Skype.com.
He wants the transition to be similar to that of when e-mails turned cost-free, years ago.
We live in interesting times.
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
It call already be done with various services - nobody yet has it packaged as neatly as "regular" phone lines.
Moving back to the states last month I noticed how hard the phone companies are pushing their "flat rate" plans - I think their CEO's are seeing this coming too. If they're going to survive they'll have to repackage themselves....
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Mabye the publishing industry should sue to have libraries closed....after all, why buy the book when you can read it anytime for free?
Because you can't read it anytime for free. You have to go out and hire it. And you have to return it. And you can only hire it out if it's in stock at that time.
Besides, you can hire CDs from libraries.
Do libraries have to pay some sort of fee to the publisher to stock books?
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
I don't think so - because it alright to loan someone your book, or your CD, they just can't make copies of either one.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam:
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Mabye the publishing industry should sue to have libraries closed....after all, why buy the book when you can read it anytime for free?
Because you can't read it anytime for free. You have to go out and hire it. And you have to return it. And you can only hire it out if it's in stock at that time.
Besides, you can hire CDs from libraries.
Do libraries have to pay some sort of fee to the publisher to stock books?
Of course not: that's my point. Use of library services is paid for by the state (via taxes to some degree) and the money is used to buy a limited number of books for widespread public consumption.
Despite the obvious ease wich anyone could read a book or download a song. both industries are reporting record sales.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Because you can't read it anytime for free. You have to go out and hire it. And you have to return it. And you can only hire it out if it's in stock at that time."
Except, after you check it out once, you can just make a copy of it. Which is really all people are doing when they download music. They aren't stealing actual physical CDs. They're just making copies.
"Do libraries have to pay some sort of fee to the publisher to stock books?"
They just have to pay to buy the books, like anyone. And, typically, there's actually a discount.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
And mp3s aren't 1:1 copies of CD tracks. At most they're very good approximations. So the stealing argument doesn't hold water anyway.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: And mp3s aren't 1:1 copies of CD tracks. At most they're very good approximations. So the stealing argument doesn't hold water anyway.
If you're recording at anything over 160 kbps, then they're pretty much indistinguishable from CD tracks. It's not like taking a photocopy of the Mona Lisa...people can't tell if they're listening to the original or a good quality mp3.
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Except, after you check it out once, you can just make a copy of it. Which is really all people are doing when they download music. They aren't stealing actual physical CDs. They're just making copies.
Well then, do you think there's anything wrong with getting CDs out of the library, and making copies of them?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: If you're recording at anything over 160 kbps, then they're pretty much indistinguishable from CD tracks. It's not like taking a photocopy of the Mona Lisa...people can't tell if they're listening to the original or a good quality mp3.
Depends, I suppose. I have NEVER heard an MP3 that I couldn't tell was an MP3. There's ALWAYS some loss of quality.
But then again, at the risk of sounding vain, I doubt that many people are as attent as I am. I have also always ALWAYS been able to tell CGI from physical models as well. Essentially without exception.
-MMoM Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Well then, do you think there's anything wrong with getting CDs out of the library, and making copies of them?"
I've ripped MP3s from library CDs, sure. I don't think that's particularly wrong to do occasionally. To use it as an alternative to ever paying for music again is bad, of course. But not if you're just getting a song here and there. Just like it isn't wrong to copy a couple pages from a book.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
No. But a couple of pages of a book is fairly useless by itself, whereas a single track from an album works fine as a self-contained entity.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
A single tracy only make you want to hear more (if it's good) and hence more copies of the original are sold. If the entire album is readily available online, and everyone loves it enough to download it, sales of the album will still increase as people will want the better quality version or at the very least, the demand for the band's next album will be greater and the band's concert sales will increase.
Bad for the RIAA in the shortterm, but good publicity for the band (particularly bands with no radio coverage).
If the RIAA would just resume releasing singles from newand popular bands for a cheap price (say .25 per song), they'd make money and still increase awareness of their artists. They'd rather not release singles though as theyt think it somehow de-values the entire album's sales (mostly for sucky bands with only one decent song).
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: A single tracy only make you want to hear more (if it's good) and hence more copies of the original are sold. If the entire album is readily available online, and everyone loves it enough to download it, sales of the album will still increase as people will want the better quality version or at the very least,
That's the crux of the argument. I don't think it's necessarily true that people will go out and buy albums of songs they've downloaded for the increased quality, because 99% of people can't tell the difference.
I've bought some albums based on songs I've downloded, but I'm not kidding myself that it's anywhere near the number I haven't bought, even from artists I've liked. And judging by the size of most people's mp3 collections, I'd say that holds true for a lot of people.
It is nice and noble, saying "I only download songs to test them, and then I immedietly rush out and buy all those that I've liked, while deleting those that I haven't". But I doubt it's true.
Quick check: How many commercially available songs do people have on their computers? And how many albums have they bought since they've started those collections?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Very few, none, they are rarities....
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"But a couple of pages of a book is fairly useless by itself, whereas a single track from an album works fine as a self-contained entity."
Perhaps, in the case of a novel. But, what about a book of short stories, or a non-fiction/reference book? A handful of pages might contain all the information you need.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well, I bought Puddle of Mud's new album after downloading about half of their first one. Then I had a friend burn me a copy of the first album.
So although I was enticed into buying an album based on songs I'd downloaded, I also made a copy (protected here under fair use laws, as long as it's not for profit) for just the cost of the CD wich, of course, the RIAA made zero money.
It's not as if by (somehow) outlawing P2P networks, the RIAA will prevent anyone with a friend and a computer from duplicating music.
Their petty little crusade is giving themselves a black eye and their sales are at record highs so why are they pushing the issue?
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
You deserve to be:
Prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law.
and
Prohibited from ever touching a computer again.
For such Godawful taste in music.
Puddle Of Mudd is like a self-given enema with spiked metal shards in a molten liquid base.
Good Lord.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Although it is mildly amusing, the enema anyway.....
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Hey: it's GREAT breakup driving music. I never equated it to Vivaldi or anything.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"A handful of pages might contain all the information you need."
And even if they don't, what you read on them might persuade you to buy the full story after all.
"I don't think it's necessarily true that people will go out and buy albums of songs they've downloaded for the increased quality, because 99% of people can't tell the difference."
No, people don't just buy albums for the increased quality. They buy them because they like owning the originals instead of blank CDRs with no extras. And, again, the industry is actually scoring record sales, so it's a moot point wether people can tell the difference or not.
"I've bought some albums based on songs I've downloded, but I'm not kidding myself that it's anywhere near the number I haven't bought, even from artists I've liked."
But would you have bought more albums if you hadn't downloaded those mp3s first?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Puddle Of Mudd is like a self-given enema..."
Thus, their name.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: "A handful of pages might contain all the information you need."
And even if they don't, what you read on them might persuade you to buy the full story after all.
Yes, but it might not. They might decide that those pages are all that they need, therefore they don't need to purchase the book. Can't you photocopy a certain number of pages from books for certain reasons (universities presumably put photocopiers in their libraries for a reason). And how strained is this metaphor getting, anyway?
quote:No, people don't just buy albums for the increased quality. They buy them because they like owning the originals instead of blank CDRs with no extras. And, again, the industry is actually scoring record sales, so it's a moot point wether people can tell the difference or not.
Ahh, now see, this is a more persuasive argument. Despite the ever increasing number of films being downloaded on the internet (at DVD quality in many cases), sales of DVDs are actually higher than they've ever been. The large number of extras available on a DVD could be one of the reasons.
Of course, there's also the fact that movie/TV show downloading isn't quite the same as song downloading. No-one's going to just get 5 minutes of a film.
"I've bought some albums based on songs I've downloded, but I'm not kidding myself that it's anywhere near the number I haven't bought, even from artists I've liked."But would you have bought more albums if you hadn't downloaded those mp3s first? [/QB][/QUOTE]
No. But there's also a few albums that I meant to buy, never got around to, and eventually just downloaded. In fact, in the last 4 months I've bought *checks* an Oasis album, a Darkness album, and two Coldplay albums. The Oasis one I'd have bought anyway, the Coldplay ones I'd been meaning to get for ages, and the Darkness one came from TV and radio listens.
But then again (to counter argument myself), I never really bought albums before I started downloading music.
Basically, I know I'm stealing stuff. I do try and buy albums if I like them, but I don't always. I'm just mainly annoyed with the fact that EVERYONE seems to say that the only mp3s that they have on their computers are ones that are impossible to buy, or rarities, or that they've bought the albums. I've seen peoples mp3 collections in real life, and it doesn't really bear those arguments out. Buy anyway...
The music industry quite plainly cannot continue in the current fashion. But it also can't continue with everyone in the world downloading music for free. In the 70s, movie makers were adamant that they'd never release their stuff on video. They thought that the existence of home recording would damage cinema ticket sales irreporably.
So, what's the solution? Songs available for 5p a download? Custom making of your own albums, paying a certain amount per track and a bit extra for coverart and stuff? The first minute of songs being available free to download, with you having to pay for the rest? A flat charge payed to a record company every month, with unlimited downloads?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: I also made a copy (protected here under fair use laws, as long as it's not for profit) for just the cost of the CD wich, of course, the RIAA made zero money.
Er, while it's fair use to make a copy of something you own, I'm pretty sure that "making a copy and then giving that copy to someone else" doesn't count as fair use.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)