 ArchAngel21xWaiting For iPhone 5Premium
join:2001-10-28
Lincoln, NE
 ·Internet Nebraska
| reply to jhudson2
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" |
 jhudson2Copyright Martyr
join:2000-11-07
San Marcos, CA | 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? |
