Proof that record companies are stealing from us

[smp]

I agree whole heartedely (sp?) with Red dawn on this one. I like the tea analogy and I think it's accurate.
Let the dinasours die.
We don't need distributors anymore, WTF is the internet for?
One technology is taking out an outdated one .. isn't that a condition of the market as well?
Record companies are trying to FORCE sticking around, when their time is up.

 

[Linflas]

One technology is taking out an outdated one .. isn't that a condition of the market as well?

Just imagine how it felt to be a farrier when the Model T was released or a railroad fireman when diesel electric locomotives began to proliferate. In the latter case the firemen were in unions that refused to let the jobs die and gave us the wonderful term "featherbedding" to describe a worker on contract with no useful purpose. This seems to be the approach the RIAA/MPAA is taking with their refusal to come to grips with the new realities being imposed on their industry by the advance of technology.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
There is no comparison. No matter what sort of policy governs the cost of a CD, it is purely luxury. When you walk into a store and walk out with a CD, nobody forced you to, you didn't 'have to have to it'. We aren't talking about food or medicine.

Well, you could say that most foods are "luxury". We would survice just fine with simpler food, yet we buy foodstuff that enable us to make more complex food and we buy pre-made foods. Aren't those "luxury" as well? Aren't cars "luxury"? We don't REALLY need them to survive. And since cars are a luxury, so is gasoline. By your logic, it would be perfectly OK for oil-companies to decide that they will triple the price of gasoline, since it's a "luxury"

Need I go on?

When you looked at the price tag and paid the price, you did so because you freely decided the product WAS WORTH THE ASKING PRICE. If you didn't believe it was worth the asking price, you wouldn't have purchased it, period.

And that's what people have been doing, sales of CD's are down by 11%. But, according to RIAA, that's not because over-inflated prices and illegal price-fixing (not to mention economic slowdown, crappy music, copyprotected discs that won't play on legal CD-players...), it's because P2P. Yeah right....

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: tm37
Please don't try and compare STEALING MUSIC for your only pleasure to a patriotic act, it is laziness at best and theivery at worst.

Downloading music is not "stealing". It's copyright infringment.

EDIT: I actually posted about this here. I have few additional links there. Quote from one of my links:

Former FTC chairman Robert Pitofsky said at the time that consumers had been overcharged by $480 million since 1997 and that CD prices would soon drop by as much as $5 a CD as a result.

 

[tcsenter]

What a bunch of crap. Music is a staple entertainment of modern society. Do you need it to live? No. But is it a highly desired product of everyday life? Yes.

Correct. But there are plenty of other ways to entertain or enhance your life, many of them perfectly free. The music industry hasn't managed to corner the market on personal enjoyment...yet. Further, within the universe of for-cost music, there exists a wide range to appeal to every budget and taste. I hunt through the big pile of $3.99 - $6.99 CDs, you can, too. That's where the real music is, anyhoo, not that N'Suck and 'I wanna be a thug' garbage.

To say that nobody forced you to buy is justification for price fixing is absurd. What the music industry has done is collaborating to remove market options for the consumer, deliberately narrowing the possibilities of obtaining music from anyone but themselves at high prices they have conspired to set with retailers.

First, nobody argued the non-essential nature of music 'justifies' price-fixing. What it does, however, is preclude the argument advanced by the thread creator that one 'theft' justifies another. Because the relationship between music producers and music consumers is a free and voluntary one, the consumer has free reign to decide whether the music (i.e. product or service) is worth parting with his money over. It is a fundamental underpinning of the free market.

Because of the free and voluntary nature of the relationship, each and every consumer has the ULTIMATE power in such a system, the freedom to buy or not to buy, to vote with his dollars or his feet. Since the consumer in this case cannot possibly claim 'duress' by 'need', he has no excuse at all for parting with his money except that HE WANTED TO DO SO, because he found the product to be worth the asking price. Why would anyone buy a single thing they did not believe was a fair exchange for their money? They wouldn't.

Oh, and they deny any wrongdoing? There's a surprise. The courts will allow this settlement and the music industry will never have to own up to any wrongdoing. And the settlement itself is the cheap way out for them. They avoid further legal costs and quite possibly a much higher court mandated fine.

Like it or not, this is a reality of our litigous society. It costs a lot of money to stand up for your principles. Until you've actually been sued and had to face the choice of spending $50,000 to defend yourself or settling for $10,000, you cannot know how frequently or easily this happens.

So you say, 'I'm not going to settle anything because I've done nothing wrong', and you decide to defend yourself, 'its a matter of principle'. How much principle can you afford? You go to court and you "win", but in the process you've lost your home and are financially ruined. Wow, that's some "win".

Personally, I don't know enough about the lawsuit or the details to come to the defense of either side, but the fact that 1. the music industry has a profit interest; and 2. CD's seem to cost a lot, are NOT prima fascia proof of wrong-doing.

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: smp
I agree whole heartedely (sp?) with Red dawn on this one. I like the tea analogy and I think it's accurate.
Let the dinasours die.
We don't need distributors anymore, WTF is the internet for?
One technology is taking out an outdated one .. isn't that a condition of the market as well?
Record companies are trying to FORCE sticking around, when their time is up.

You have really bought into a rotten bag of apples there skippy.

While you may condemn the RIAA and the BIG RECORD COMPANIES because of the way that they conduct bussiness when in fact by stealing the product you insure that this will remain the same.

DO you understand what all the record companies do to support there artists?

DO you understand that without record companies the vast majority or you would never here anything but local garage bands?

Do you understand that when you download music NO ONE that spent the time and money to write, produce, and record that music see's a dime?

You are being being oppressed by a private company that provides a non-essential service. The record companies don't just sue napster and kazza they also promote new bands, sign unknows that will never make a dime for the company, mass distribute the CD's to retailers around the country.

The price of Cd's has remained constant over the last ten years while the price of books, magizines, and other IP has steadly increased with the rate of inflation. Why? well the cost of PRODUCING THE CD has gone down BUT the legal costs and cost to scout and sign has continued to rise with inflation. They have a good price point 13-17 bucks is the point where the most profit is made when people aren't stealing music.

Music like many other IP is not a lowest price compition market. Are you going to buy the newest Britney CD because it is cheaper that the new metalica CD? Of course not you are going to buy the music YOU like and you will buy from the RETAILER that gives you the best value.

 

[FeathersMcGraw]

Originally posted by: jjones

What a bunch of crap. Music is a staple entertainment of modern society. Do you need it to live? No. But is it a highly desired product of everyday life? Yes. To say that nobody forced you to buy is justification for price fixing is absurd. What the music industry has done is collaborating to remove market options for the consumer, deliberately narrowing the possibilities of obtaining music from anyone but themselves at high prices they have conspired to set with retailers.

The point being, there is a huge gulf between the viewpoints "The record companies are cheating me" and "I'm making copies of music because it's a fundamental right". Folks who advocate the latter love to use the former as justification for their activities, but it's not.

How many people who claim that they pirate music as a blow to the corporate greed of the recording industry would be willing to walk into their favorite store and try to smuggle out the same album they just downloaded from Napster/Kazaa/Limewire/Audiogalaxy/Whatever without paying for it? Precious few, I'll wager. The only difference being that when there's a chance of being caught and prosecuted for their activities, the "moral high ground" of raging against the corporate machine gets abandoned pretty quickly.

Edit: persecuted != prosecuted. How Freudian.

 

[tcsenter]

Well, you could say that most foods are "luxury". We would survice just fine with simpler food, yet we buy foodstuff that enable us to make more complex food and we buy pre-made foods. Aren't those "luxury" as well? Aren't cars "luxury"? We don't REALLY need them to survive. And since cars are a luxury, so is gasoline. Need I go on?

No, you've made a fool of yourself quite enough already.

The necessity of food = the necessity of music. Wow!

And that's what people have been doing, sales of CD's are down by 11%. But, according to RIAA, that's not because over-inflated prices and illegal price-fixing (not to mention economic slowdown, crappy music, copyprotected discs that won't play on legal CD-players...), it's because P2P. Yeah right....

I think the position is that file-sharing has added insult to injury and its the only non-legitimate and indefensible factor which has contributed to decreased sales.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: tm37
DO you understand what all the record companies do to support there artists?

Why yes, yes I do

DO you understand that without record companies the vast majority or you would never here anything but local garage bands?

Yep, thanks to big record-companies we now have such musical geniuses as Backstreet Boys, Britney Spears, Limp Bizkit... No, wait....

Do you understand that when you download music NO ONE that spent the time and money to write, produce, and record that music see's a dime?

Do you realize that when I buy the CD, VERY LITTLE of the money goes to the artists, while most of it goes to the record-company? If I want to support an artist financially, I go to their concert.

You are being being oppressed by a private company that provides a non-essential service. The record companies don't just sue napster and kazza they also promote new bands, sign unknows that will never make a dime for the company, mass distribute the CD's to retailers around the country.

When Napster was operational, they signed on more new bands than majord record-companies did and distributed their music worldwide.

The price of Cd's has remained constant over the last ten years while the price of books, magizines, and other IP has steadly increased with the rate of inflation.

Actually, the price of CD has gone up faster than inflation, regardless of the fact that production-costs have crashed through the roof. Why is it that a CD containing a soundtrack (and nothing more) of a movie is almost as expensive as the DVD of that movie, even thought the DVD has ALOT more content?

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: kazeakuma

Originally posted by: tm37

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

There is no comparison. No matter what sort of policy governs the cost of a CD, it is purely luxury. When you walk into a store and walk out with a CD, nobody forced you to, you didn't 'have to have to it'. We aren't talking about food or medicine.

Just like tea was back in 1763. It wasn't a necessity, it was a luxury too.

big difference BUT nice try Red,

First the tea was TAXED by the governement BEcause they knew people would continue to buy it regardless, the correct analogy would be cigerettes.

Second these are PRIVATE COMPANIES that are SELLING A NON essential product. NO one needs CD's and unless they can prove that these record companies all got together and planned this there is NOTHING illegal about making deals with retailer to keep the prices of products UP.


Please don't try and compare STEALING MUSIC for your only pleasure to a patriotic act, it is laziness at best and theivery at worst.

Um, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that price fixing which IS illegal?

Retailers can enter into agreements to sell products at set prices and it perfectly legal. I have a product and in an efford to insure that EVERY RETAILER gets a fair shot you WILL sell it at a 20% mark-up or not sell it.

If you think that this practice is wrong you should immeadiatly stop purchasing products that use this pracice in marketing. these products include-

COKE
PESPI
FAST FOOD MCdonalds and Burger King and any franchised food asablishment for that matter
GASOLINE
SATURN CARS
GENERAL MILLS CEARAL
KELLOGS CEARAL
CIGERETTES
DVD's
SOFTWARE
HEARING AIDS
PERCRIPTION DRUGS

The list goes on and On.


These price agreements ensure that the rpoduct will get the most EXPOSURE and the most amount of people will be able to purchase them. They are PERFECTLY LEGAL, and while you may pay a slightly higher Price today the price will be STABLE in the LONG HAUL.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Well, you could say that most foods are "luxury". We would survice just fine with simpler food, yet we buy foodstuff that enable us to make more complex food and we buy pre-made foods. Aren't those "luxury" as well? Aren't cars "luxury"? We don't REALLY need them to survive. And since cars are a luxury, so is gasoline. Need I go on?

No, you've made a fool of yourself quite enough already.

The necessity of food = the necessity of music. Wow!

Did you even bother to read what I wrote? What I said was that we can survive just fine on simple food (for example potatoes and vegetables), then why do we spend our money of beef, chicken, caviar, coca-cola, Mountain Dew etc. etc. We don't NEED those to live, therefore they are a luxury. And since they are a luxury, companies that make them are free to decide between themselves how much they cost. I mean that is according to your logic.

 

[tcsenter]

How many people who claim that they pirate music as a blow to the corporate greed of the recording industry would be willing to walk into their favorite store and try to smuggle out the same album they just downloaded from Napster/Kazaa/Limewire/Audiogalaxy/Whatever without paying for it? Precious few, I'll wager. The only difference being that when there's a chance of being caught and persecuted for their activities, the "moral high ground" of raging against the corporate machine gets abandoned pretty quickly.

lmao! Bravo, bravo. You have just uprooted Dvorak's entire argument, among a few others.

When I heard this crap about 'its only an economic decision, not a legal or moral one, file sharers are more economically conscious' I almost choked on my coffee. Yeah, robbing banks is a PURELY economic decision, too. At least bank robbers have the balls to take the risk of getting blown away.

15 year-old pimple nosed Slim Jim eaters hiding behind the absolute safety and comfort of their computers talking about the principle of their behavior. OH BROTHER!

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: FeathersMcGraw

Originally posted by: jjones

What a bunch of crap. Music is a staple entertainment of modern society. Do you need it to live? No. But is it a highly desired product of everyday life? Yes. To say that nobody forced you to buy is justification for price fixing is absurd. What the music industry has done is collaborating to remove market options for the consumer, deliberately narrowing the possibilities of obtaining music from anyone but themselves at high prices they have conspired to set with retailers.

The point being, there is a huge gulf between the viewpoints "The record companies are cheating me" and "I'm making copies of music because it's a fundamental right". Folks who advocate the latter love to use the former as justification for their activities, but it's not.

How many people who claim that they pirate music as a blow to the corporate greed of the recording industry would be willing to walk into their favorite store and try to smuggle out the same album they just downloaded from Napster/Kazaa/Limewire/Audiogalaxy/Whatever without paying for it? Precious few, I'll wager. The only difference being that when there's a chance of being caught and persecuted for their activities, the "moral high ground" of raging against the corporate machine gets abandoned pretty quickly.

There is a vast difference in the example you cited above. If I walk into a store and "try to smuggle out the same album" I will be charged with shoplifiting which is theft. In that case I was attempting to steal a product for sale in a place of business. If instead I go into the same store and buy an album, take it home, and rip it onto my PC I have done nothing wrong or illegal. If I then put the ripped songs into a shared directory for others to download in theory I am now guilty of copyright infringement which is a totally different thing than the shoplifting example you used in your original scenario.

 

[LostHiWay]

How are record companies stealing from us?? They have price they charge for CDs..if we don't like the price then we shouldn't buy it. If enough people don't buy they lower prices. Simple supply and demand. This is what business is all about.

Also, how can be say they should only charge around $2.00 for a CD? Sure it may only cost a buck to make a CD but what about ALL THE OTHER COSTS??

Packaging
Wages
Overhead
Money paid to the bands
Advertising costs
Distribution
Clear Channel payoff money for them to play CD.

Plus 100's of other small costs.

$14-$17 bucks for just released CD seems fair to me. Usually after a year or so you can find older released for $10-14 bucks at places like Best Buy. Plus you'll always have used CD shops.

Business should be allowed to charge whatever price they want. If people don't like the price they shouldn't buy.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: LostHiWay
Business should be allowed to charge whatever price they want. If people don't like the price they shouldn't buy.

Of course company can decide that at what price they will sell their product. What is illegal is for that company to get together with it's competitors and decide with 'em what prices they will sell their products at. That's known as price-fixing and that's what RIAA-members are guilty of. And, like I said before, consumers are voting with their wallets: sales of CD's are going down. But instead of blaming the real cause (overinflated prices along with crappy and un-original music, copyprotection and economic slowdown), they blame P2P.

 

[FeathersMcGraw]

Originally posted by: Linflas
There is a vast difference in the example you cited above. If I walk into a store and "try to smuggle out the same album" I will be charged with shoplifiting which is theft. In that case I was attempting to steal a product for sale in a place of business. If instead I go into the same store and buy an album, take it home, and rip it onto my PC I have done nothing wrong or illegal. If I then put the ripped songs into a shared directory for others to download in theory I am now guilty of copyright infringement which is a totally different thing than the shoplifting example you used in your original scenario.

The actual charge that would get read in front of a court in cases of conviction for the two scenarios is irrelevant. The point I'm trying to establish is that the "Robin Hood" mentality of mass filesharers is a rationalization for illegal activity. People do it because it's easy to do and there's a low probability of either being caught or legally prosecuted; it's like speeding (although I speed regularly, so I've also just abandoned the moral high ground). The notion that what they're doing somehow isn't illegal or that it's justified due to corporate practices is ridiculous.

Ripping MP3s that you purchased and sharing them on a LAN is a legally grey area, but likely protected to an extent via fair use protections (which themselves are a legally grey area). Doing so on the Internet anonymously with people you do not directly know is an unauthorized distribution channel for content you do not own or license. Do we agree that this is wrong? What if you were to buy a book, photocopy it page by page, and give copies to anyone who wanted one? Should you be allowed to do so?

 

[tcsenter]

There is a vast difference in the example you cited above. If I walk into a store and "try to smuggle out the same album" I will be charged with shoplifiting which is theft. In that case I was attempting to steal a product for sale in a place of business. If instead I go into the same store and buy an album, take it home, and rip it onto my PC I have done nothing wrong or illegal. If I then put the ripped songs into a shared directory for others to download in theory I am now guilty of copyright infringement which is a totally different thing than the shoplifting example you used in your original scenario.

You totally missed his point, which was rather eloquently put, I might add.

Contrast the 'civil disobedience' of tax-protesting Tea Party participants, who took GREAT RISK TO THEMSELVES (death and imprisonment) in order to take a stand against what they believed to be an injustice, with file-sharers who parrot much of the same sentiment and rhetoric of 'injustice' or 'evil' and advocate file-sharing as a form of protest or 'punishing' the evil corporations, yet who are willing to take zero personal risk for their 'cause'.

Its called 'fair weather patriotism', your indignance and objection (i.e. your principled position) exists only to the extent that doing so means that you get all of the benefits without taking any risks or enduring any hardships.

What he is saying is, people file-share largely because its getting something for nothing and NO OTHER REASON. When people are able to take something for nothing without risk, many will do so. But they're not honest enough to admit it, because doing so would require a level of personal integrity and character they don't possess (or they wouldn't be stealing in the first place). They will not stand up and say "Yep, I'm stealing music because I'm a selfish sap who would steal you blind if I were certain of getting away with it scott free."

Instead of admitting that rather unflattering truth about themselves, they rationalize to others that their behavior is righteous, not wrongful. Its classic.

To prove this, why do they not go into the stores and try to smuggle out a CD? Because it involves personal risk, and in the face of personal risk, their 'principled cause' goes swirling down the toilet with the other turds.

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: LostHiWay
Business should be allowed to charge whatever price they want. If people don't like the price they shouldn't buy.

Of course company can decide that at what price they will sell their product. What is illegal is for that company to get together with it's competitors and decide with 'em what prices they will sell their products at. That's known as price-fixing and that's what RIAA-members are guilty of. And, like I said before, consumers are voting with their wallets: sales of CD's are going down. But instead of blaming the real cause (overinflated prices along with crappy and un-original music, copyprotection and economic slowdown), they blame P2P.

The Record companies were not found guilty of anything THEY SETTLED and IN DOING SO ADMITTED TO NO WRONGDOING The reasons could be they either thought they were going to lose OR it was cheaper. Givin the amount being spent andthe number of cases it was at best a finacial wash to settle as opposed to denfend themselves.

In order to prove that they did anything wrong you have to prove that they conspired and met and made a pact to keep prices high when in fact it could be that record companies KNOW that lowering there prices by a few bucks will not drive sales up it will however cut profits which is the driving force behind the bussiness(as it should be).

Music is competive however it is CONTENT competiticve not nessisarly PRICE compeditive.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: FeathersMcGraw

Originally posted by: Linflas
There is a vast difference in the example you cited above. If I walk into a store and "try to smuggle out the same album" I will be charged with shoplifiting which is theft. In that case I was attempting to steal a product for sale in a place of business. If instead I go into the same store and buy an album, take it home, and rip it onto my PC I have done nothing wrong or illegal. If I then put the ripped songs into a shared directory for others to download in theory I am now guilty of copyright infringement which is a totally different thing than the shoplifting example you used in your original scenario.

The actual charge that would get read in front of a court in cases of conviction for the two scenarios is irrelevant. The point I'm trying to establish is that the "Robin Hood" mentality of mass filesharers is a rationalization for illegal activity. People do it because it's easy to do and there's a low probability of either being caught or legally prosecuted; it's like speeding (although I speed regularly, so I've also just abandoned the moral high ground). The notion that what they're doing somehow isn't illegal or that it's justified due to corporate practices is ridiculous.

Ripping MP3s that you purchased and sharing them on a LAN is a legally grey area, but likely protected to an extent via fair use protections (which themselves are a legally grey area). Doing so on the Internet anonymously with people you do not directly know is an unauthorized distribution channel for content you do not own or license. Do we agree that this is wrong? What if you were to buy a book, photocopy it page by page, and give copies to anyone who wanted one? Should you be allowed to do so?

Personally I don't worry about rationalizing downloading mp3s. You will never see the greedy record company argument from me irregardless of any shady behavior on their part. I am dealing with reality as it is now and has been for my entire life. Starting in my teens I purchased albums and 45s and within my group of friends traded and recorded each others onto cassette. Over my lifetime I have purchased countless albums, 45s, and since around 1986 CDs. Further like a lot of other folks I have checked out record albums from my local library and in some cases recorded them before returning them. Judging from posts in every thread I have ever seen on this topic I am not alone in this behavior. I do note that during my lifetime the recording industry has enjoyed huge profits and growth so it seems that this activity on the part of average citizens had little effect on their bottom line. Some of the above activity was understood to be fair use some not and it was always a gray area. The RIAA has a long and unsuccessful history of trying to prevent most of what I describe above and from what I see they will be no more successful with the fight against mp3s than they were against cassette tape or the MPAA was against VCRs. All of that said there is a difference between the activities outlined above and stealing a CD from a music store. As I and others have repeatedly pointed out it is infringement, not stealing, and the jury is still out on what will ultimately be determined to be covered by fair use vs copyright.
As for your book example we as a society have accepted something similar to what you describe above since Xerox machines first appeared in libraries. Every copy of an encylopaedia article, magazine article etc a person makes on those machines is technically a copyright infringement. In fact I am willing to bet that under some folks viewpoints libraries themselves are vast resevoirs of copyright infringement since thousands benefit from the use of an authors IP without paying him or his publisher a red cent. I doubt they would ever follow their arguments to this logical conclusion though since libraries were established long before the more restrictive views of fair use became popular.

 

[tcsenter]

Instead of admitting that rather unflattering truth about themselves, they rationalize to others that their behavior is righteous, not wrongful. Its classic.

To add:

Compare this with an HONEST person, like myself, who has file-shared and doesn't concoct some moralistic excuse for it. I have done it in the past, though not very much, and the reason I haven't done it much is BECAUSE my own honesty about my motive causes me to confront my own dishonesty. When you confront your own dishonesty, you realize its not a pretty thing, and if you have any conscience at all, you try not to engage in things that will give your conscience trouble.

This BS about 'the evil corporations' and 'its okay because they charge too much' is in fact nothing more than way to avoid having to confront one's own dishonesty and motives. Or, in other words, rationalization.

 

[FeathersMcGraw]

Originally posted by: Linflas
Personally I don't worry about rationalizing downloading mp3s.

Then we're probably done here, except...

I do note that during my lifetime the recording industry has enjoyed huge profits and growth so it seems that this activity on the part of average citizens had little effect on their bottom line.

I think the RIAA is the only one who claims that it does.

As for your book example we as a society have accepted something similar to what you describe above since Xerox machines first appeared in libraries. Every copy of an encylopaedia article, magazine article etc a person makes on those machines is technically a copyright infringement.

The point that you seem intent on ignoring is the extent of distribution of a copied material. I drew the distinction that file sharing on a LAN is of a different scale than putting something out for anonymous consumption on the Internet. Photocopying an article for personal use is covered under fair use rights. Photocopying it for everyone is not.

In fact I am willing to bet that under some folks viewpoints libraries themselves are vast resevoirs of copyright infringement since thousands benefit from the use of an authors IP without paying him or his publisher a red cent. I doubt they would ever follow their arguments to this logical conclusion though since libraries were established long before the more restrictive views of fair use became popular.

Use of material by viewing is not a violation of copyright. Redistributing it in replicated form to other parties for viewing without prior authorization from the copyright holder is.

 

[Linflas]

The point that you seem intent on ignoring is the extent of distribution of a copied material. I drew the distinction that file sharing on a LAN is of a different scale than putting something out for anonymous consumption on the Internet. Photocopying an article for personal use is covered under fair use rights. Photocopying it for everyone is not.

I actually understand that they are rightly concerned with the extent however during the heyday of Napster which was the easiest to use of all the P2P programs to date CD sales were up. For a forward thinking record company executive I would think that would be an eye opening bit of information. I hate to keep harping about 45s but I think the comparisson between them and mp3s is very valid given the quality differences between 45s and LP records and mp3s and CD quality wav files. If I were them I would be much more concerned about factories turning out copies of their CDs rather than P2P users trading mp3s on the internet. That is a true threat to their bottom line whereas mp3s used properly could actually enhance their sales.

 

[tcsenter]

Surely, I don't lay awake at night agonizing over having file-traded. It doesn't bother my consience THAT much, because any rational proportionate scale of 'harm' dictates that it isn't a 'severe' offense. I recognize it is not a 'severe' offense and I certainly don't advocate throwing people in prison for file-trading, unless they have a bootlegging operation where they are financially profiting from it.

So within the realm of possible wrongs, file trading is pretty damned small, but its STILL a wrong, and if you're a half-way decent human being, you try not to do things you know are wrong. Notice that I did NOT say you must always succeed in not doing wrong, only that you must care enough to try. None of us are perfect, I fall victim to temptation and selfishness like anyone else, but I try not to, and that matters more than perfection.

Moreover, what I despise more, is the fundamental dishonesty involved in attempting to justify or rationalize one's wrong-doing. I find that to be a more despicable offense than the act itself.

When you do wrong and you get caught or confronted, you admit it and take your medicine. What separates a fundamentally honest person from a fundamentally dishonest person, is not that the fundamentally honest person is perfect and does no wrong, far from it. Its that he admits when he is wrong, and makes no silly ass excuses to justify it.

So I find the attempts to RATIONALIZE and JUSTIFY file-sharing to be FAR more offensive than file-sharing itself. File sharing is merely a small wrong, pretty insignificant as far as wrongs go, whereas trying to justify it is 'wrong' to some exponential factor.

Have the goddamned honesty and balls to admit the TRUE reasons why you file share, that's all I ask. I would at least respect that a lot more, I have no respect for liars.

 

[BooneRebel]

Does anyone recall when CDs first came out? Cassette tapes averaged $6-8 and the same artist/album cost $14-16 for the CD. At the time the justification was the high cost of CD production. However, 10 years down the road production costs have declined. Bought a 50 CD spindle lately?

The music companies have continued to charge the higher price because they can. You might say that $14-16 is reasonable, but if you can get a tape for nearly half the amount then where is the justification for the higher price? All of the other costs (licensing, advertising, distribution, etc.) are the same. And we all know how cheap the plastic is these days. You can buy blank CDs for far less than blank cassette tapes. So why are CD albums still so expensive?

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: tm37
The Record companies were not found guilty of anything THEY SETTLED and IN DOING SO ADMITTED TO NO WRONGDOING The reasons could be they either thought they were going to lose OR it was cheaper. Givin the amount being spent andthe number of cases it was at best a finacial wash to settle as opposed to denfend themselves.

So because the record-companies say that they haven't done anything wrong, it proves that they did nothing wrong? There is evidence which say that they agreed on the pricing, they admit in themselves. What they claim is that it's not wrong nor illegal for them to decide on the price.

Music is competive however it is CONTENT competiticve not nessisarly PRICE compeditive.

If only the content was good, but it isn't. Just one lame band after another. They get their 10 seconds of fame, only to disappear in to obscurity.