| |
Atomic Fro to N3OGH
Anon
2005-Aug-8 4:13 pm
to N3OGH
Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music piratingNever mind the tax on the blank CDs the RIAA gets to compensate for music piracy.
They already got their dues from that. If the RIAA wants to take students and old ladies to court over a hand full of songs the market deems as only worth .99, then the tax on the blank CDs needs to go. |
|
| |
to N3OGH
said by N3OGH:Way to Troll.. I'm so goddamn sick of how everything here deteriorates into partisan political bullshit. When Napster first came out, did I download songs? Sure I did. My reasoning? 1: A lot of the songs I wanted (obscure 70's stuff) was not available in stores. 2: A lot of the stuff I wanted was on $20 CD's, and all I wanted was 1 song. Let's face it, if you're not willing to pay .99 for a song you want, you're noting but a 2 bit thief. I've downloaded a lot of songs for .99 that I thought were crap, and ended up deleting. It's .99! people, GET A GRIP. A short list of things that cost more than a buck... A 16oz cup of coffee: $1.15 A 22oz Coca Cola $1.39 A gallon of gas $2.35 A lays "grab bag" of Doritos is a buck and a quarter around here for chirssake. Let's face it, if you can afford 1: a broadband connection, 2: a computer that will facilitate the use of today's P2P networks, and 3: the CD burner to burn the CD's to export your illegally downloaded music to your CD player, you sure as HELL can afford to blow a dollar (a BUCK, .99C!!!!) on a song you might want... Just because you see fit to waste a dollar on a song you don't like, don't label all of creation a thief just because everyone else doesn't comply with your personal morals. 1) Computers are relatively cheap nowadays. You don't need the latest and greatest. My mom's PII 266 will download and burn songs quite fine. Something that you pick up for $100, then purchase a cheap DVD burner (DVD burners can be had for ~$40 today) will service you for that exact purpose perfectly. You just need to make sure you have ample RAM. 2) A BUCK as you call it isnt cheap. Maybe, just maybe a person feels they have something better to do with a buck than to waste it on a lossy formatted song. For this "BUCK," I want a lossless copy of the song, as there are lossless codecs out there. |
|
| |
If a buck's worth nothing to you, how about sending everyone regsitered on this site a buck just to prove it? |
|
 rds24aTeach Your Children
Premium Member
join:2000-12-13
Newton Upper Falls, MA |
rds24a
Premium Member
2005-Aug-8 6:01 pm
There's two points of view on the whole $0.99 deal:
1. The parts cost more than the whole. Common practice...ever price out buying a car piece-by-piece from NAPA? Way more than the whole. However, It currently costs more to buy the whole online than a CD in the store.
2. The lack of distribution. No CD's, no shipping, etc. etc. There should be a price break for that, I agree. However, there is a premium on convenience and I'm not willing to argue that it should be $0.50 or $0.75 or $5.00 an album. I think $0.99 a song is OK...not great, but OK.
As for the file size/quality issue. I'm sure it's more a matter of Dances with Focus Groups trying to find some one file size that provides sufficient quality while reaching out to those lowly dialup users who still have to wait 20 minutes to download one 3 Mb song file. Perhaps the solution there is to offer a hi-fi and a not-so-hi-fi version, but I guarantee you there will be a price difference (for not much reason other than they can). |
|
 skipon11
Premium Member
join:2005-06-09
Pittsburgh, PA |
to N3OGH
Whew! Wacoyle. They sure have Braineashed you! |
|
| |
to DRM is legalized the
I think it's most important to remember that, originally, copyrights were designed to keep someone from PROFITING from the use of someone else's intellectual property. The protection was designed to stop illegal use by another business entity.
Now it's about trying to control the uses of the CONSUMER. Make no mistake, ultimately these initiatives are leading up to attempts by media giants to ram through per-use types of fees. Sound ridiculous? The Phone Company (I'm talking the AT&T monopoly here) tried for years to get measured-service rates (fortunately without success). The agenda of the media-interest groups are much larger than what is being talked about in the present. |
|
| Slaphappy1279 |
Slaphappy1279 to G_Poobah
Anon
2005-Aug-9 11:01 am
to G_Poobah
Re: You Can Still Put the Album on Your iPod LegalWell....Yes, so you have to buy it again. And again, and again, if you can be induced to. As I said in a different thread: This is what DRM and lawsuits are all about. Per use charging for the same content. If you can make people pay not just for the same item, but also for each unique usage of that item. Mo' money!
These media groups and their high-priced lawyers greed will ultimately kill any sympathy they are likely to get from the public in regards to profits lost by pirating. They will not be content to simply eliminate the illegal acquisition of copyrighted material. Their agenda goes much deeper, I'm afraid. |
|
 tapeloopNot bad at all, really.
Premium Member
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One |
to rds24a
Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music piratingsaid by rds24a:There's two points of view on the whole $0.99 deal: 1. The parts cost more than the whole. Common practice...ever price out buying a car piece-by-piece from NAPA? Way more than the whole. However, It currently costs more to buy the whole online than a CD in the store. 2. The lack of distribution. No CD's, no shipping, etc. etc. There should be a price break for that, I agree. However, there is a premium on convenience and I'm not willing to argue that it should be $0.50 or $0.75 or $5.00 an album. I think $0.99 a song is OK...not great, but OK. As for the file size/quality issue. I'm sure it's more a matter of Dances with Focus Groups trying to find some one file size that provides sufficient quality while reaching out to those lowly dialup users who still have to wait 20 minutes to download one 3 Mb song file. Perhaps the solution there is to offer a hi-fi and a not-so-hi-fi version, but I guarantee you there will be a price difference (for not much reason other than they can). Good points you make. You should check out the price breakdown that Wired had in a recent article. Reading that makes the cost of 75 cents a track sound more appropriate. Full article is here:» www.wired.com/wired/arch ··· pic_set=Still, I would personally rather buy whole (used) CD's rather than paying 99 cents a track. The sound quality and DRM are big issues to me, but if I find a one-hit-wonder that I simply don't want to buy the album of, I'll bite and cough up the buck. In that case I would be paying the unit cost of buying that one track as opposed to buying the whole album...but I'd still rather have the higher bitrate. |
|
|
 thender2Glamour Profession
Premium Member
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY |
to vinnie97
None of those sites had Dream Theater. Easily available off usenet, IRC, P2P, and local CD stores.
I'm right on the mark.. online buy services are complete trash. |
|
|
| |
to jeffmacosx
Re: These discs are not incompatible with iPodsI think that the music industry needs to just wake up and see that even though it is illegal, it is probably the ONLY reason that a lot of artist are becoming big. If it wasn't for P2P networks, I would never have known about most of the artists I listen to. And yes, I do still buy music, I just choose to download music becuase it is a lot easier than hunting down some record. |
|
