<< But, in a sense they are the same. It is stealing what someone else is marketing and developing. The same way a car designer builds a car, software manufacturer and artsists build their product. It's different as far as being tangible but both are properties of other people. >>
Perhaps, but I don't want to get old and gray before what I want becomes a reality. If I trod on laws until then, I don't feel like a criminal. MP3 is a just a half-baked substitute, anyway. You don't have the original packaging, you don't get that satisfaction of opening the jewel case and placing a stamped (rather than burned) CD into your player's tray and you don't get the same, original 16-bit 44.1KHz quality. With broadband connections on the rise, MP3 is a great way to sample, explore and learn. I consider it a promotional tool, except that the RIAA has no control over it. It's also a way to acquire music that is OOP or available only on import.
The music industry has a big challenge because so many of us don't consider ourselves scofflaws. For instance, my mother needed two songs for a nursery school lesson and she felt it was poor use of school funds to purchase two CDs for one lesson. So I downloaded the two tracks, burned the CD-R and gave it to her. She used it once for the lesson and that was that. I hear the legal beagles saying "if you can't afford to buy the discs, then don't teach that lesson." But that just sounds too goody-goody. The law has various interpretations and I don't believe in living to the letter. Sometimes civil strife brings progress that is otherwise too slow or too seemingly insignificant to occur on its own.
<< However, your point of since I have so much I'm not going to enjoy it as much is not very valid. If you aren't going to enjoy it as much, then it's you the consumer that shouldn't buy it. Back to the abusrd, but that is like a Jag collector saying he shouldn't have to pay for his 45th Jag because someone without a Jag would enjoy it so much more so he should pay for it. But, as you mentioned its intangible vs. tangible. >>
One thing the Jag collector cannot defend against in any argument for stealing is that his Jags are worth quite a bit on resale, so even if he bought that 45th without being able to enjoy it, it still has significant value, perhaps appreciating value. But I can't sell my downloaded MP3s. They have no wholesale monetary value. I paid nothing for them and I can't get anything for them. They simply exist. I guess everything can be assessed some value, but the point is that a lossy copy is not nearly as valuable as the genuine article.
My biggest complaint is definitely the fixed cost of music. In an ideal market, I would pay only the marginal worth of each additional disc. But CD #5001 will cost the same as CD #1, #46 and #357. Downloading music is appealing because the cost is much less (OK, so it's free) and more in touch with its marginal worth to me. If I could download albums 600-1000 for $5 each and 1000-2000 for $4 each and 2000-3000 for $3 each, etc., I'd do it because it doesn't make sense to otherwise pay full retail on each additional album. The legal beagle argument is, again, "if you can't afford to buy the discs, then don't buy or listen to them." Well, tough noogies. The world's imperfect. I love music, I want as much of it as I have the time to enjoy, but I'm not going to suffer with a smaller collection by virtue of an inefficent price structure. Bending the law to fit my devices? Maybe, but the industry gives me no other choice. They need to satisfy my needs as a consumer or I will fill my own, as I have.
<< Do any of you all buy a FEW cd's for those few artists you would like to support? >>
Yes, because again, a MP3 is just a short-term substitute. I want the original disc for the quality and the packaging, but only if the material justifies the fixed cost. Many times it does because $12 isn't extravagant. But there is MUCH mediocre material out there that's worth a bit less to me.
"So if a DVD is only worth $2 to you, is that all you should pay?"
A DVD is physical product. It has higher variable costs. There is a clear minimum price floor that the producer must exceed.
"OK, so if a music download is only worth 5 cents to you, is that all you should pay?"
Depends! A music download has a tiny variable cost, so a sale is a sale. If I paid 5 cents for every download I've made, it's 5 cents more than the industry has now on a product which cost them nothing marginally for me to have.
I'm not being a radical. I've read in various business publications that fixed pricing policies are possibly on the way out as technology allows dynamic pricing. If getting a sale means pricing a product equivalent to what each individual customer is willing to pay (meaning different prices for different consumers), then as long as that sale generates a profit, it's a good deal for both parties.
<< No, that's illegal as well. Possession of any recorded, copyrighted material that you did not purchase is against the law. Mixing a bunch of illegal items together doesn't make it legal. >>
Rigid. And it's pretty irrelevant. A old friend of mine has a mailing list where he puts together a mix disc every so often and mails it out to a bunch of people, all at his expense. It's enjoyable because it's a personal gift, a reflection of his tastes and whims. But should he have to buy and mail out the 15 original CDs that the songs came from to each recipient just to keep it legal? Pfft. Hey, if this is the WORST thing you do in your life, you are doing OK.
its not a legal or moral thing for me.... thats just how i do it
Facebook
Twitter