| I will ALWAYS rip you off Mr. Michael Greene You know why people rip music off the internet? Because they charge $23 a cd. Stop RIPPING US OFF and we'll stop RIPPING YOU OFF. I am proud of my 2,300 mp3s and will continue to STEAL from the music industry. |
|
 ArchAngel21xWaiting For iPhone 5Premium
join:2001-10-28
Lincoln, NE
 ·Internet Nebraska
| Umm...2 wrongs don't make a right here buddy. If the CD costs too much then buy a used copy or don't get it at all. The whole, stop cheating me first and I will stop cheating you attitude will get us nowhere. While I support Morpheus for it's legal uses, I also believe that the music industry needs to provide a way to buy just one or several songs.
Granted I am not saying it is ok for the music industry to force the government into perverting technology so we can't make copies for ourselves. Just remember it is not illegal for the music industry to charge $23 or even $50 for a CD. It is illegal for you to rip off music.
--
Arch Angel - "Death is irrelevant" |
|
 andunn
join:2001-09-06
Linn Creek, MO | reply to CitizenX9
CD companies continue to blame rising costs of their products due to piracy, but as I remember it CD's were always highly priced. Sure they lose money, but it's also an excuse for CD companies to raise their prices. Before CD burners were available to the public at an affordable price CD's were expensive. What a shocker  |
|
ArchAngel21xWaiting For iPhone 5Premium
join:2001-10-28
Lincoln, NE | True true. Yet another reason not to pirate. It just gives the music companies an excuse to raise prices again. Good post.
--
Arch Angel - "Death is irrelevant" |
|
| They can raise prices all they want now, BECAUSE I'M NOT BUYING THEIR CD'S HA HA. |
|
dbarc
join:2000-01-22
Fort Wayne, IN
| reply to andunn
said by andunn:
CD companies continue to blame rising costs of their products due to piracy, but as I remember it CD's were always highly priced. Sure they lose money, but it's also an excuse for CD companies to raise their prices. Before CD burners were available to the public at an affordable price CD's were expensive. What a shocker
You're absolutely correct. When CD's were first released, there were many complaints that they were overpriced. The response at the time was that there were only a few CD manufacturing facilities and that as soon as more were online the prices would be down and more inline with vinyl. I believe it went so far as Congressional hearings on it at the time. Of course, the prices never did come down. The critics of the time were pointing more to effectively the monopoly status of the few record companies controlling the industry and market. It seems that it's possibly time to review that situation more as the Napster lawyers are attempting to do in their case. At least this time, for the internet version of their exercise in control, it's in the courts looking at it and not simply being a contribution money hungry Congressional committee that can be lobbied with $$$$.
I'll add that I didn't use Napster or whatever is new these days, and think copyrights are valid, but the labels are treading on thin water hopefully. I personally think they should go back and look at the old payola thing as well. It seems, from what I've read, that's no different now than it was before other than they pay middlemen to do their work to pay the stations for play time.
[text was edited by author 2002-02-28 16:16:08] |
|
 jhudson2Copyright Martyr
join:2000-11-07
San Marcos, CA | reply to ArchAngel21x
I went to a friend's house the other day and listened to a CD he burned of copyright protected music downloaded using Morpheus. I listened to the music knowing full well that my friend had not "purchased" the music. He keeps the CD only for personal use and will not sell it.
Did I break the law? |
|
|
|
ArchAngel21xWaiting For iPhone 5Premium
join:2001-10-28
Lincoln, NE Reviews:
·Internet Nebraska
| Let's not go there I am not a legal expert and am therefore not going to try to tell people which case is ok and which is not. I just know that 2 wrongs do not make a right, and this case pirating music is not the right way to handle the prices being put on CDs. Do I care if you pirate music? No. I am not police.
It's just I felt compelled to response to a childish post. Pirating music because you think it costs too much? Come on. Grow up. If you can't afford a CD where you are looking, try www.cdnow.com. Try buying a used copy at a store or on eBay. There are legal alternative to just downloading a pirated copy.
No I am no RIAA lover. I think CDs could be priced less too. But good grief. Going on that logic then we might as well steal cars because they cost too much.
--
Arch Angel - "Death is irrelevant" |
|
| reply to CitizenX9
Re: I will ALWAYS rip you off Mr. Michael Greene That is the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard..."stopping the pirating will make them lower prices on cds." Give me a break, the record companies are BLOOD suckers, some artists get f*cked over by their own record companies, like the goo goo dolls did. They could care less about the people that buy the music, they just want the $$$. |
|
ArchAngel21xWaiting For iPhone 5Premium
join:2001-10-28
Lincoln, NE Reviews:
·Internet Nebraska
| said by CitizenX:
That is the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard..."stopping the pirating will make them lower prices on cds." Give me a break
Just in case you are responding to me, I never said that. I am saying pirating music is wrong. "Because the CDs cost too much" is just a poor excuse to pirate music. If you feel so strongly about this then start a movement to boycott CDs form labels that are as you say "bloodsuckers".
You realize the main reason CDs are high in price is because of demand. People will keep buying them at a certain price. You want to hurt these "bloodsuckers"? Get an effective boycott campaign going and hurt their bottom line. Don't just complain on dslreports with justifications to do something illegal.
One more thing CitizenX. People like you are the reason Morpheus and Kazaa are in danger of being shut down, despite their legal uses....
--
Arch Angel - "Death is irrelevant"
[text was edited by author 2002-02-28 17:51:43]
[text was edited by author 2002-02-28 17:54:38] |
|
| Oh, I do believe it's beginning elsewhere as well... Too many average people are beginning to ask why they're spending upwards of almost $20 for crap music. A large part of the drop in sales isn't piracy as they're whining it is- it's because the economy just can't sustain the model they've shifted to (Whereas before it was akin to mass logging the money from the population, it's more akin to strip-mining now...). |
|
 Kid A
join:2000-09-21
Nashville, TN | reply to CitizenX9
lemme add some fuel to the fire... »www.negativland.com/minidis.html |
|
| reply to ArchAngel21x
Re: I will ALWAYS rip you off Mr. Michael Greene You realize morpheus is 99.9% made up of people like me? I guess not...and I'd rather STEAL from the music companies (or atleast that's what they call it)than boycott. Pirating music has nothing to do with them losing money, statistics actually prove that after naspter was created the record industry was making more profit. Oh and something else....a LARGE number of bands said they would like their music to float around the internet for free, big bands, not just small local groups that want to be heard. The record company owns those certain bands' music so it's not even the bands music anymore, it's the record companies. It's to the point where if you want to be a BIG SHOT band you have to sell everything you work hard to create to a record company that gives you 3% of the total income you make for them. That's pathetic. The record companies use the fact that they lose money to justify shutting down napster, and just like them, i will use the fact that they are overpricing to an extreme to pirate. |
|
ArchAngel21xWaiting For iPhone 5Premium
join:2001-10-28
Lincoln, NE Reviews:
·Internet Nebraska
| My final thought on this I think the record companies don't pay the artists enough. I also think CDs could cost less. The bottom line is stealing is stealing is stealing. Pirating by any other name with any excuse is still pirating. Pirating, instead of simply going without, or buying the music, is not the legal, moral, or mature way to handle this. That is my story and I am sticking to it. Have a nice day.
--
Arch Angel - "Death is irrelevant" |
|
jhudson2Copyright Martyr
join:2000-11-07
San Marcos, CA | reply to ArchAngel21x
Re: Let's not go there I'm no legal expert either, and I'm not trying to pin you down on some arcane legal argument. It just seems to me that the RIAA's argument against burning songs is mental gymnastics at best. And to call it "illegal" is way beyond wishful thinking.
The price of CD's is (was?) artificially high because only the record companies had the equipment to produce high-quality physical recordings. It certainly didn't cost them anywhere near $23 to do so, but they could charge that much and pocket the huge profits. Now virtually anyone can create these same recordings and the record company model doesn't work anymore. They can't charge $23 per CD anymore. Sorry, get a new business model or go into a new business. Capitalism marches on.
As far as your argument about stealing: I PAY for all my CD's. They're just blank when when I get them. And as it relates to your car argument, if I could make my own Surburban by purchasing the raw materials, what value does GM add to that process? |
|
| reply to CitizenX9
Re: I will ALWAYS rip you off Mr. Michael Greene What a idiot mr green is....Nothing like advertising the joys of filesharing to millions of people who might not of ever considered it before. I want that connection he used to get 6k songs in two days...Took me two years to get that many and one of them was with a 56k modem...HA...but now im shootin for 50k....Peace... |
|
| reply to CitizenX9
I "rip off" the RIAA for a number of reasons... the fact they charge too much for CDs is just one of many. Heres a few:
1. They charge too much for CDs. They have a HUGE profit margin on these things and as costs have decreased... the prices have not. There is a concerted effort to rip the consumer off. SO F EM!
2. Artists see very small percentages of the sales. Not my fault the artist signed a lame deal but unless youre already big EVERY artist goes through this phase of being ripped off by record companies. Thats twice now that the RIAA is making people bend over and take it. If you would like to feel less guilty about having mp3s and hurting the artist then use www.fairtunes.com and donate directly to the artist! Skip the corporate middle man who gets the biggest cut.
3. RIAA actively attacked Napster and other file sharing utilities. Their arrogance is so enormous (from years of unchecked raping of consumers and artists) that they feel morally justified in stopping technology just because it has the ability to distribute copyrighted material... well so does the internet, the routers that serve it, the operating system that holds the files, and the mp3 player that plays them.
4. Contrary to what the RIAA will say... record sales have increased since mp3s popularity. There is a nice analogy here when it comes to radio. Initially radio airplay of songs was thought to hurt record sales... it didn't. Wake up RIAA... people like to try before they buy.
Im guilty of still supporting the RIAA however.. Ever since I've had mp3s I have purchased CDs for groups that I never would have otherwise done if I hadn't been exposed to the mp3 first.
The RIAA can compete with mp3s by making CDs have value added. Put in a booklet with some pictures and lyrics. Maybe then people will feel compelled to pay the extra amount (over free) if theres a value add.
Time for the RIAA to start _competing_ and not _dictating_
Ph*ing the RIAA every day,
Me
[text was edited by moderator] |
|
| reply to CitizenX9
I believe the bands you are referring to must have signed agreements with these record companies. Those agreements specify the terms and conditions of the business relationship.
No one forced the bands to sign. They signed because they saw a benefit to them for doing so. If they didn't see a benefit they would not have signed. There are certainly places they could have gone to have their music published without willingly entering into an agreement with a major label.
I also agree that stealing is stealing is stealing.
There are other ways to change the system if you don't like it. |
|
| reply to CitizenX9
I do remember a case where the RIAA was found to have overcharged for CD's for years. They kept the prices artificially high and now they are paying for it.
As for the artists hurting, please. They hurt cause the record companies control it all. Amy Mann (formerly of the band Til Tuesday) has her own website and distribution for her music on the net. Why? Cause Sam Goody, Tower Records, Best Buy, etc. will not sell her stuff. The reason is because the RIAA pressures these stores not to sell music they don't have a hand in. This of course is all back door and very illegal but no one is going to say anything for fear of being cut off (not able to sell the latest Britney Spears money maker) or being out of the "special pricing" tier. The RIAA has been playing dirty for years.
As for the 2 wrongs don't wake a right, well true but consider this an act of protest. Ganhdi made salt in India (which was illegal because the British taxed all salt production to make themselves rich.)
What Napster did (and what Kazaa and Morpheus do) was to make people aware of music they wouldn't normally hear. MTV used to do that. Because of MTV, many bands of the 80's started selling records. Because of Napster, many people bought Metallica that normally wouldn't have a chance to hear it on POP radio.
Play fair and others will follow. |
|
jhudson2Copyright Martyr
join:2000-11-07
San Marcos, CA | reply to JustInit
said by JustInit:
I also agree that stealing is stealing is stealing.
It really isn't quite as simple as that, is it? The RIAA has defined "stealing" quite broadly and, not surprisingly, defined the term in their favor. I don't accept their definition because it's not in MY favor. Who has the moral high ground?
As for your assertion that there are other places to get music published aside from record company dominated ones I would suggest that if that were true the bands themselves would keep the $18 or so profit on each CD and use these venues. They do benefit by being on a major label ONLY because the market is rigged by those same labels the bands "voluntarily" signed with.
Clearly there are "other ways to change the system" but why bother? The system has already changed by pure capitalistic means and the record companies lost. Who has a problem with that, except the record companies? |
|
