how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
1 edit | reply to vzw emp
Re: Justification? I think you're missing the point. The RIAA did miss the market, and they're still missing the market. The price of songs is still too high.
I just finished playing Star Ocean: The Last Hope, which took me 78 hours to complete and cost $60. For a price of 76 cents per hour, I got interactivity, video, and music. Instead, I could have watched The Dark Knight, which cost around $30 on blu-ray, which provides 10 hrs (movie + special features) of video and music (but no interactivity) at $3/hr. Or, I could listen to RIAA hit singles, which provide new entertainment at 99 cents for a four minute song, at a total price of $15/hr.
Why would I ever want to buy music, or even movies, for that matter, when games provide a far better deal? With each level of entertainment, you're paying more and getting less. Star Ocean even includes hours worth of music performed by a symphony orchestra - whereas I could instead have spent my money on similar quality music that has no visuals or interactivity and costs 20 times more.
I don't buy music because I don't value it at 99 cents per song, and they will have to lower the price considerably before I reconsider. | |
 NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
·Comcast
 ·Callcentric
| said by quintin3265:I think you're missing the point. The RIAA did miss the market, and they're still missing the market. The price of songs is still too high.I just finished playing Star Ocean: The Last Hope, which took me 78 hours to complete and cost $60. For a price of 76 cents per hour, I got interactivity, video, and music. Instead, I could have watched The Dark Knight, which cost around $30 on blu-ray, which provides 10 hrs (movie + special features) of video and music (but no interactivity) at $3/hr. Or, I could listen to RIAA hit singles, which provide new entertainment at 99 cents for a four minute song, at a total price of $15/hr. Why would I ever want to buy music, or even movies, for that matter, when games provide a far better deal? With each level of entertainment, you're paying more and getting less. Star Ocean even includes hours worth of music performed by a symphony orchestra - whereas I could instead have spent my money on similar quality music that has no visuals or interactivity and costs 20 times more. I don't buy music because I don't value it at 99 cents per song, and they will have to lower the price considerably before I reconsider. Choosing not to buy is fine by me.
Choosing not to buy but download anyway is not.
Boycotting has been around for a long time, and in this case, the people who are speaking out with their wallets are not doing so with their downloading activities. Imagine how much REAL progress would have been made if people stopped buying, but also downloading at the same time. The RIAA and MPAA would have caved. Instead, you have people who believe they can (and will) save money by not spending on these products and downloading at will. | |
Reviews:
·Comcast
| It seems to me that, if you buy the RIAA's argument, boycotting without downloading is the same as boycotting with downloading, because either way the RIAA receives no money (according to them). I'm confused as to why you say there would be any difference in effect if people stopped downloading.
Anyway, this argument over how much damage is actually caused by downloading has been hashed out enough here and everywhere. I don't really care about what happens to the RIAA because their prices are still too high. Maybe other people value music at $15/hr, but I certainly won't pay that much. | |
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI Reviews:
·Site5.com
·Comcast
·Callcentric
| said by quintin3265:It seems to me that, if you buy the RIAA's argument, boycotting without downloading is the same as boycotting with downloading, because either way the RIAA receives no money (according to them). I'm confused as to why you say there would be any difference in effect if people stopped downloading. Anyway, this argument over how much damage is actually caused by downloading has been hashed out enough here and everywhere. I don't really care about what happens to the RIAA because their prices are still too high. Maybe other people value music at $15/hr, but I certainly won't pay that much. Its very simple.
If no one is buying or downloading, the RIAA would have seen that there is no activity going on with their products. As it is today, the RIAA can claim copyright infringement due to the fact that a lot of their product is being distributed illegally over P2P networks. Their product does have a demand attached to it and as it stands, if the product is free, its in heavy demand.
I suppose the whole argument that the music industry hasn't put anything out that is worth a damn in the last year really isn't accurate. If that was the case, no one would be downloading at all.
As it stands today, the RIAA sees the demand and is willing to do what it takes to squash that free delivery method. Its obvious that there is a pretty good amount of monetary damage going on here. As you said, it has been hashed out enough here and everywhere.
The point is simply this. Consumers should be boycotting the RIAA. They shouldn't be saying they are boycotting them, but downloading freely. A boycott the right way means to be not purchasing or using any of their products at all. The whole "Robin Hood" mentality really doesn't help matters. | |
| reply to quintin3265
Too high? $1 is too high for a song?
What do you think is a good price? Or perhaps they should pay you to download a song?
Head for the soup kitchen. Maybe they'll play the song while you get some free grub. | | |
|
|
