How does your friend feel about one person buying his CD and then letting 10 other people copy it? How about 100 people? How about 1000? How about 10000?
I would assume it is exellent. The next time he holds a concert, 10000 more people would have heart his stuff.
LOL@SaFe You took the words out of my mouth. I ain't trying to convert those die-hard RIAA defenders. I let my wallet do the talking
So, you honestly think that your friend would not care if 1 person bought his music and 10000 people illegally copied it?
LOL. This is getting funnier by minute. Ok, what makes you think 10000 people would copy it? Go back to my earlier posts, you'd see I am arguing musicians ain't getting their FAIR SHARE of EXORBITANT price of CDs Please DO NOT SHIFT GOAL POSTS.
When I was a kid in Junior High and High School, I had a group of about 3 good friends that shared similar music interests... so that means 4 friends. When new tapes (back then) came out, we took turns being the goat that would pony up and spend full price to buy it. Then, we'd all buy some blank tapes. So we'd bought as a group at least one ORIGINAL tape, and four BLANKS for each ORIGINAL purchased. Then the dubbing would ensue (sometimes even before we left the store on the highspeed dubbing machines on display!!). Of course, there were no tape returns, or buy backs or resales then, so we'd all be stuck with at least one ORIGINAL that stunk if we didn't like it, and may or may not re-use the BLANKS. Now, if we all ended up liking the ORIGINAL that was copied to BLANKS, then since the sound quality was poorer than intended on a duplicate, we would all fork up the money and end up buying a total of 4 ORIGINALS. Thus, if the BLANKS were Sony (which was what we all used usually) and the ORIGINAL was any artist on any one of several of the labels owned by Sony (as in Columbia, RuffHouse, etc.), then they (Sony) just got the profit from 7 SALES, not 1. 4 ORIGINALS plus 3 BLANKS... Now, the main reason they're all so much stricter on duplicates is the quality issue. You take some good software for burning CD's and copy an ORIGINAL to a BLANK... and it still sounds like an ORIGINAL... take an mp3, do the same, sounds like an ORIGINAL. So we're all stuck finding a new trial run, hear it first method... They created the technology. Those ahead of the curve realized and utilized it for their good. There may of may not have been a direct connection in $ drop off for the RIAA due to P2P or similar file sharing... but I'd almost bet you that if the quality was a shade off on CD-R's or the like, people would still buy the ORIGINAL if they liked it. And actually, I bet a poll would show that most of us would buy the ORIGINAL even if we'd heard a copy of a CD or some burned mp3's just for the lyrics, or cover, or the "collectible" side of it. I for one have purchased the ORIGINAL so I could get the "whole package" that I couldn't get from a simple burned song, or even whole CD for that matter. If your band is that good, and I'm impressed enough, my money will prove it. If your junk is not worth more than my .39 cents per BLANK disc, and whatever percentage I pay for the amount of time it took to download the junk, then you'll not hear from me again, and I'll by no means distribute it, or sell it, or make more copies. The point is, the industry is flooded with too many COPYCAT acts, and far too few ORIGINAL acts are out there. That's what accounts for the drop of in revenue... Not enough genuine talent to keep the money machine rolling. If there was, then why all the issues, re-issues, special limited edition issues, box sets, and anthologies of old music?? I almost feel the ORIGINALS are all gone. And this why I stopped buying ORIGINALS. All the music I consider worth it, I pretty much already own, or I can get used. And hey if your music is decent I'll buy it, after I hear it. I don't have time to sit at the music bar at Wherehouse and listen to 73 minutes of crap trying to decide if you're worthy. And no, one hit don't make you worthy. Attention RIAA... stop promoting one hit wonders and pop puke and maybe we'll buy the ORIGINALS again. Until then, feel good about yourselves, sleep well at night on your new pillow top mattress, wake up in your suburb, drive your european mid-sized sports sedan or suv to your high-rise modern offices and keep going after old folks and kids for "sharing." Something all toddler-minded folks need to learn to do. btw-everyone can get dial-up by phone and share files for about 2 hours' wages a month (in addition to phone charges), but not everyone can go every Tuesday to "A-1 Top Price CD Shack" and spend two or more hours' wages on music and not be expected to find a cheaper way to get the music. Seriously... put out quality, ORIGINAL content, and the consumers will pay for it.
Although I have no first hand knowledge of the situation, from what I've read and heard, I would agree that artists aren't getting their fair share (especially those artists that are not famous) HOWEVER, I am still curious. Since you have a friend in the business how does he feel about people stealing his music? Where is his cutoff point? 10 people? 100? 1000? 10000? In another of your posts your agreement with another poster implied he would be happy because 10000 more people at his concert would have heard his music had they stolen it. I am not 'shifting goal posts' (whatever that means), I would truly like to know your friends feelings and at what point he would become upset when his music gets stolen. I am AGREEING with you that artists don't get their fair share of music sales. I am simply looking for additional information.
If your band is that good, and I'm impressed enough, my money will prove it. If your junk is not worth more than my .39 cents per BLANK disc, and whatever percentage I pay for the amount of time it took to download the junk, then you'll not hear from me again, and I'll by no means distribute it, or sell it, or make more copies. Blah blah blah .... translated out of your self-justifying rationale: "If I don't think the music is worth the price you're charging, instead of not buying it, I'm just going to steal it."
LOL, you don't give up. Or you can't back out now?? OK, 1) My musician friends have never complained about file-swappers. In fact, they themselves use it all the time. Kazza & Galaxy are their favorite. One of them was very shocked to realize how little money he got from record deals. He felt like “ … being bend over & screwed from behind ” ha, big surprise. 2) The "..... In another of your posts your agreement with another poster implied he would be happy because 10000 more people at his concert would have heard his music had they stolen ... Where is his cutoff point? 10 people? 100? 1000? 10000?" scenario is entirely made up by you. It has not happened and will not happen. Don't argue with fable figures. 3) Perhaps you have never heard this piece of news: major music labels HAVE BEEN convicted of price fixing and subsequently fined $67.4 million in cash and offering $75.7 million in CDs. 4) Now RIAA is suing file sharers for mega bucks. Co-incidence? You tell me.
I cant speak for IROCit, but I feel almost the same way. And When I check out an album by downloading it and it is crap I would not buy...IT GETS DELETED. If I like the music, I GO BUY IT. Understand the difference?
I would not buy...IT GETS DELETED. If I like the music, I GO BUY IT. Yes. You have illegally decided you have some type of "right-to-try" music without the permission in the owner. It's no different than stealing some shoes and then wearing them around for a day and putting them back in the store if you don't like them, or going back and paying for them if you do like them. Justify it however you want, you're violating the rights of the owners of the copyright.
It is no different than going to Blockbuster or Wherehouse and standing there at their stations for an hour checking it out and then deciding not to buy it. Except I dont waste an hour of my time checking out somthing that sucks. I can check it out in the privacy and comfort of my home instead. How is it different than doing that? (listening in the store) Just for a frame of reference, I have been a part of a album release, and while we dont necessarily agree with p2p networks...We would gladly put our material on the net for preview if we could put a timebomb mechanism on the files so that they could only be listened to for a certain length of time unless you buy them. Previewing of songs on the internet are a great way to get exposure to the public...if only people would be ethical enough to actually buy what they like.
Hopefully if your friends ever make it really big, they will continue to not complain and distribute their music freely to all those people since they themselves think it is O.K. to "swap" music. Of course the scenario is made up by me. I would like to know if your friend cares if 10 people steal his music, I assume he doesn't. I then would like to know if he cares if 100 people steal his music, again, perhaps not. Does he care if 1000 people steal his music, hmmmm, perhaps so. Does he care if 10000 people steal his music? I would think so. The whole point is that at some point artists WILL care if people steal their music. Regardless of how much the artist makes from CD sales, AT SOME POINT, it definitely affects their pocketbook. Incidentally what does "don't argue with fable figures mean"? I have heard that bit of news and am anxiously awaiting my $15.00 check which I will probably use to buy a couple of lunches or a new CD. Those file sharers should not have been breaking the law regarding copyright infringement. Had they not broken the law, they would not be getting sued.
Blah blah blah ... translated out of your self-delusional rationale: "Intellectualy property is the same as physical property. Copyright infringement is the same as stealing and is dealt with equally in a court of law. Copying something and deleting (which results in no loss to the copyright holder) is no different from taking a pair of sneakers and returning them (which does result in a loss of value to the owner)" So who here being disingenuous and who isn't again? I always get so confused with these sorts of things...
"Intellectualy property is the same as physical property. Copyright infringement is the same as stealing and is dealt with equally in a court of law. Copying something and deleting (which results in no loss to the copyright holder) is no different from taking a pair of sneakers and returning them (which does result in a loss of value to the owner)" It does result in a loss to the copyright holder. His music has been distributed to more people without with permission and with no benefit to him. Whether you liked it or not isn't really an issue. So who here being disingenuous and who isn't again? I always get so confused with these sorts of things... You are. You're the one deciding certain types of theft is illegal because it's "harmless" (from your perspective). Unfortunately for you, that's the copyright holder's decision, not yours.
They should convert the money to the smallest denomination of Nuevos Pesos coins and pay the full amount with this. I can't stand the RIAA. I haven't bought a CD in I don't know how many years...not with the oultlandish prices they are asking. Greedy MF's. Now, DVD's and PS2 games is a different story.
I also recently ate breakfast, and previously to that I had a good night's sleep. All copyright holders across the world received no benefit from my actions. Does this mean they all suffered a loss? Assuming you meant to say legal in the above statement, I am saying no such thing. I have never once said that it is legal to infringe copyrights. I have repeatedly stated that infrigement is not theft while you repeatedly claim it is. Unfortunately for your argument I have US law on my side on this one. I have also claimed numerous times (and I still claim now) that many copyright laws are unethical and that many acts of copyright infrigemnt are not unethical.
