|reply to ITALIAN926 |
Re: Can she pay $222,000? And what if she can't?
This was in 2005.... the legal music download scene wasn't really well established, nor was the concept of "I really don't own the music I purchased on this CD" a generally accepted concept.
Not to drag this out, but the music industry has successfully changed public thought to believe it's better to lease monthly access to a wealth of music, store music files purchased online and have legal access to them as long as you remain a customer of "said" service (unless you knowingly download to back them up).
Boy, how times have changed...
Napster was shut down in 2001, and legal means of downloading like Itunes were released and widespread shortly after.
Wow, Im getting all these songs for free !!
Now was her opinion " The best things in life are free" , "if its Free it for Me", or was it " if its too good to be true, it probably is"
1700 downloaded songs illegally, give me a break
1700 songs should never equal $222k
Mullica Hill, NJ
it should equal $1700 because a song is only worth that if based off iTunes.
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports
|reply to ITALIAN926 |
iTunes may have been available in 2001, but it wasn't until DRM free mp3 files were sold that things started to change. This is less about the woman in question, as it is the mindset change for everyone...
"At the 2009 Macworld Conference & Expo, it was announced that the iTunes Music Store would be DRM-free, with all songs DRM-free by April 2009."
TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
|reply to ITALIAN926 | said by ITALIAN926:
Napster was shut down in 2001, and legal means of downloading like Itunes were released and widespread shortly after. Wow, Im getting all these songs for free !! Now was her opinion " The best things in life are free" , "if its Free it for Me", or was it " if its too good to be true, it probably is" 1700 downloaded songs illegally, give me a break
This is all find and dandy and I do use iTunes and Amazon but what about a recording that has not been available for 50 or 60 years and because of the ridiculous copyright laws is still has a maintained copyright, and will have one for at least another 50 or 60 years and the copyright holder has no intention of ever publishing it but since is costs little or nothing to maintain can sit on it forever, and is not available anywhere to purchase not even on a place such as Discogs. This is the problem I have with this whole issue I always purchase what I listen to but what about something that is not available for purchase anywhere. I have been looking for a show put on by Kay Kyser at Ft Lewis, Washington in 1941 He was performing for the 115th Cavalry, Wyoming Army National Guard. It was recorded and I have never been able to find it. If I run into it on a bit-torrent site I will download it period, I am not holding my breath. They way I see it the copyright laws on music need to be reformed. I believe that a copyright holder should be obligated to publish what they hold in a meaningful release every so many years and if they fail do so the copyright is canceled and the rights are transferred to the National Archives. Where a person on demand can purchase this music. I resent a speculator sitting on a copyright who's "studio" is nothing more then a post office box.--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption