|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
Music industry... whooboy
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Atlas4
So, do you illegally Download songs? thinkin bout quittin? i would.
RIAA, crazy crazy crazy
Posted by: Gerbilo
meh....
RIAA CAN EAT MY ASS
Posted by: chaosisreality
But they'd have to spit out the fur....
Posted by: SKYHN
I in no way agree with p2p music sharing. But I have to say, the RIAA is really wasting their time and going about this the wrong way. Not only are they abusing the whole system of suing someone, but its not doing anything. They have filed something like over 2000 lawsuits now(or is it higher?) and what has it done? Filesharing is at a higher usage now than it was before. Until the RIAA actually sits down and tries to come up with something other than "Lets sue the universe", nothing is going to change.
They are acting like their some kind of above the law police and it seems that the real authorities dont care.
Posted by: N.W.A_Kid
I've said this millions of times before, and I'm going to say my part again. CD's are too f***ing expensive brand new. And even used for $5, I am not paying that much money for one song. "So buy the single then." NO WAY. I'm not paying $7-$9 either! If I'm a diehard fan of the artist, or I've heard more than 3 good songs on the album, I'll buy it. Why should I pay all of that money for a song that I could probably go to a bar and hear somebody sing it just as good, if not better? Until albums come down to about $10 on a regular basis, I won't pay for the album. Suing tons of people won't stop it. People will just borrow it from their friend and burn it, and I know several other ways to go about it, which will remain undiscussed here, out of respect for the rules of OTS. RIAA can go to Hell. 
Posted by: AK47
Do you even like music?
Posted by: Null Actor
 Quote:
Originally posted by N.W.A_Kid
Why should I pay all of that money for a song that I could probably go to a bar and hear somebody sing it just as good, if not better?
|
Because otherwise, you are stealing?
Posted by: AltronHGX
600 down, another 300 million to go 
edit: If you live in a country other than the USA, are you free from the RIAA's sinister grasp?
Posted by: Outlaw
Yeah, we're safe for now. They don't sue people here for using p2p yet.
Posted by: elhior_manwe
Quote:
Originally posted by Null Actor
Because otherwise, you are stealing?
|
stealing from sony, time-warner, columbia...and the rest.
yes we are. and for some of us there is no ethical dilema. we still go see our music live when we can, most of us still buy cd's. until the major record labels realize there gouging of the market is untenible i will keep dl'ing. if it so sinister why do most indie labels have no problem with file sharing. why do some bands advocate it even. this is a conversation that will go on and on, and some of us will never agree. but the blanket statement that stealing is wrong therefore one should not steal is much to black and white for this issue, in my humble opinion.
Posted by: chaosisreality
Name one band that openly advocates filesharing of their song. (Mainstream, not garage bands. Or hippies.)
Posted by: N.W.A_Kid
Quote:
Originally posted by elhior_manwe
stealing from sony, time-warner, columbia...and the rest.
yes we are. and for some of us there is no ethical dilema. we still go see our music live when we can, most of us still buy cd's. until the major record labels realize there gouging of the market is untenible i will keep dl'ing. if it so sinister why do most indie labels have no problem with file sharing. why do some bands advocate it even. this is a conversation that will go on and on, and some of us will never agree. but the blanket statement that stealing is wrong therefore one should not steal is much to black and white for this issue, in my humble opinion.
|
couldn't have said it better myself. I've noticed some artists have brought their prices on their new albums down, but nobody I like other than DMX. Like I said, if the artist is actually good, IMO, then I'll pick up the album. It's just like gas prices. They gouge us on those too, and I don't need to hear the government's bulls**t excuses. If the RIAA doesn't like the fact that people are stealing music, then they shoudl have all record labels lower the prices on the albums. 50 Cent got dled out the ass on his Get Rich Or Die Tryin album, and the man has got more money than I'll ever see in my life, so the RIAA and all record labels need to quit complaining, and get over it.
Posted by: AK47
Quote:
Originally posted by N.W.A_Kid
It's just like gas prices
|
You steal gas if it gets too expensive?
And I'm sorry, but the old "they've got enough money" argument is just ridiculous. That is the absolute worst attempt to rationalize theft.
Ditto for the "if albums were cheaper" line. That's bullshit. Drop the prices in half and people will still choose free over paying.
The bottom line is that if you're a true music fan, spending $15 on some music that you really enjoy is more than reasonable. If you can't justify that $15- then you're not listening to the right music.
Posted by: Atlas4
Yea, you people who advocate this dling should be happy that the police still haven't considered it true stealing yet and all you might get is a subpeona. I wonder what you would think if police slapped a 5 year penalty on it?
Posted by: SKYHN
Quote:
Originally posted by chaosisreality
Name one band that openly advocates filesharing of their song. (Mainstream, not garage bands. Or hippies.)
|
Linkin Park.
Posted by: SpecOpsHoov
Quote:
Originally posted by Atlas4
Yea, you people who advocate this dling should be happy that the police still haven't considered it true stealing yet and all you might get is a subpeona. I wonder what you would think if police slapped a 5 year penalty on it?
|
Are you kidding me? The day the police put the hassle of finding out who's file sharing over a crackhead selling drugs on the street is the day Bush finds Osama.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
While the RIAA has gone overboard several times, we do have to admit that they have been used as a scapegoat by so many cheapskates and closet thieves... doesn't really matter if the CDs are too expensive or if the bands/artists are crappy.
People who download the songs obviously like to listen to it, but don't want to pay for it. This mentality evolved with the Internet, where instant gratification at minimum expense has become the norm. Why buy something if you can get it for free, right? Doesn't matter if the CDs costs $15, $10 or even just a dollar, if someone doesn't want to dole out the cash, they'll download it. The same goes for games and movies, nowadays.
Now, whatever someone does in their free time is fine with me. They can download all the seasons of Dynasty in divx format or all the Beatles songs in mP3, for all I care. Most of them just have to learn to admit that they like free stuff instead of rationalizing the theft by blaming the RIAA for everything while they fire up Kazaa...
Boycotting CDs is one thing, but downloading the CDs while pointing fingers is another thing entirely...
Posted by: Canis Lupus
I mean, if a $15 CD went down in price to $10 or even $5, would you suddenly go out and buy it, when you can just fire up a P2P and download it free of charge without obligation?
Posted by: N.W.A_Kid
Hey, I paid $10 for the new DMX CD. I'm sure most people on OTS don't like rap, but I'm a diehard fan, and even when his CD's were more expensive, I went out and bought them for the $15. I don't agree to $15 for one lousy song. I don't try to justify theft, or justify P2P because of the prices of CD's. If all singles were $1, I'd be taking my ass to the store and buying everything I saw. I can say that with honesty. I wouldn't pay anymore than $4 for a single. Those of you that don't support P2P at all, I understand how you feel, but you're telling me if you only wanted one song, you'll go pay that much money for it? Even if you had heard the album through a friend and realized that the rest of the album was terrible? Buying them used does save money, and that's what I do. And no, I don't steal gas, I drive out to the cheapest gas station around. If blaming the RIAA and if CD's were cheaper is ridiculous, then I'll get even more ridiculous and blame the economy for people dling music because people are losing their jobs left and right, and can't afford to pay for them. 
edit: Also, they have those little CD stands at stores where you can listen. I've done that first, before buying anything. I'll scan the tracks, and if I like 3 or more, then no, 15 dollars is more than reasonable, and I walk out happy.
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
Originally posted by N.W.A_Kid
If all singles were $1, I'd be taking my ass to the store and buying everything I saw. I can say that with honesty.
|
So put your money where your mouth is. You can buy songs for 1$ a piece on the apple itunes music store.
Posted by: redwench
well, when i get a song from someone, p2p or personally, i listen to it a couple times. if i dont like it, it goes in the trash. if i do like it, i generally buy the cd. other than a handful that arent available, i dont think i have any that i dont also have on cd. there are bands cds that i never would have heard of, much less purchased, without p2p. theyve made a lot more money off me since p2p came around
Posted by: Erekose
yeah, i'm just a cheap bastard, but i do buy many more cd's and of bands i never would have even heard of before since p2ps. even download songs from iTunes on occasion as well
Posted by: chaosisreality
Quote:
Originally posted by SKYHN
Linkin Park.
|
Quote:
Originally posted by chaosisreality
Or hippies.
|
Posted by: redwench
they are a mainstream, successful, and highly commercial band. hardly hippies.
Posted by: Cheese
Didn't Linking Park move up the release of their album because it had leaked onto the internet? I can't remember who or when it was, but I remember a story along those lines...
*edit*
Basically what I'm trying to get at is unless Linkin Park actually puts downloadable mp3 or wmv files on their website, I'm skeptical of them claiming they encourage the piracy of their music.
Posted by: Xoncide
you people who blame the music industry for stealing are fools. It is thier right to over charge for something. They produced, they put the money behind it, they advertised it. It's thier property. If you own a grocery store, and i think a head of letuce should cost on 2cents because it cost the farmer only 1cent to grow it, should i be able to say screw you and walk out with it?
This is a free market system. If they really were over priced, another producer would come along and produce/sell cd's for cheaper, that hasn't happened yet, becusae people are still willing to pay 15$ for a cd. Therefore a cd is worth 15$. If you want to blame the producers over charging for your theft, you should steal gass (OPEC over charges), food (subdides), cloths (cheap labor in forgien countries), cars (oglopolies) and just aobut everything else.
The only reason you steal this overcharged product is because you are 99.99% sure you can get away with it, and no one will know. Unlike anything else.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
I am totally against overpriced CDs though ... that's what I hate the RIAA for - unreasonably hiking up the prices. One cannot always attribute this to capitalism. Some people are not willing to pay more than what a CD is worth, but they do so anyway coz they like the music and support the artist(s).
I have not bought a single CD since Alice in Chains' In the Box compilation and a couple Final Fantasy compilations. It's my stance against what I perceive to be RIAA's overpricing. I do fire up Kazaalite once in a blue moon to download obscure songs that are either out of stock or unavailable (i.e. I was looking for the Gothic Power trailer music used in LOTR and they didn't have it on CD). But I never download any songs by new artists. I'm actually pretty out of touch with the new bands because of this, but hey, that's my stance
Posted by: Phate
I like people like Phil Hendrie, who runs a radio show in LA (very funny one, I might add) and allows people to file share as much of his audio as they want, on the condition that someone buys it off his website at least once. After that, he doesn't give a flying **** what you do with it.
Phil, I might add, is about as against the RIAA as the majority of the people on this site (myself included) are against the Iraq war.
Posted by: TotalRecall
Quote:
Originally posted by N.W.A_Kid
Until albums come down to about $10 on a regular basis, I won't pay for the album.
|
Quote:
Originally posted by N.W.A_Kid
I don't try to justify theft, or justify P2P because of the prices of CD's.
...I wouldn't pay anymore than $4 for a single.
...but you're telling me if you only wanted one song, you'll go pay that much money for it?
|
Posted by: Xoncide
you people who keep justifing your theft by saying some people alow you to down load for free so everyone should need to try thinking about what you type.
They are giving you soemthing. If some random person gives you 20 bucks, that mean you should be able to go and take 20 bucks from me with out asking? No that is stealing.
"Some people are not willing to pay more than what a CD is worth"
a cd is worth what people are paying for it.
Posted by: elhior_manwe
Quote:
Originally posted by chaosisreality
Name one band that openly advocates filesharing of their song. (Mainstream, not garage bands. Or hippies.)
|
Radiohead...Mathew Dear...Richie Hawton...Spiritulized...Pavement...Modest Mouse...i could go on.
First lets be clear, most of us who continue to dl songs just plain don't care we are stealing. All the justifications aside I know what I am doing is stealing and I do it anyway. I will continue until the riaa takes my computer away. I use p2p to discover new music, I use it to find live and rare stuff that is hard to find, and I use it so I don't have to buy certain stuff. Eventually the recording industry will have to move on and adapt to the changing times. They have with things like i-tunes. Xon you are right when you say they have a right to charge whatever they like, the could charge 1000 dollars for a cd if they wanted. I don't use p2p because of some misguided fantasy that I am robin hood, I just don't like paying the inflated prices so I do not. My cd collection is over 1000 cd's though I have only bought maybe 10 or so in the last year. I don't know what the future will bring in regards to this interesting problem we shall have to what an see.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Quote:
Originally posted by Xoncide
a cd is worth what people are paying for it.
|
That's circular reasoning, and I won't waste my time justifying it with a rebuttal
Posted by: Xoncide
Quote:
Originally posted by elhior_manwe
Xon you are right when you say they have a right to charge whatever they like, the could charge 1000 dollars for a cd if they wanted. I don't use p2p because of some misguided fantasy that I am robin hood, I just don't like paying the inflated prices so I do not. My cd collection is over 1000 cd's though I have only bought maybe 10 or so in the last year. I don't know what the future will bring in regards to this interesting problem we shall have to what an see.
|
Bingo, they own the song. you don't like what they are doing with. so you steal it. As long as we are both clear on that i have respect for you. It's these kids who don't think they are stealing, and think they are on the last crussade for justice against the music industry that piss me off. Me and you just have differing morals.
Laggy, that is no circular reasoning.
Worth is value. The value of a good is what people will pay for it, with minumal surpluss.
To you the cd is not worth $15. But to alot of people it is. That is why a cd cost $15. If you don't like it being $15 dollars, don't buy it then, if enough people do that demand will shift, and the equlibrum will move. Not likeing how much other will pay for sometihng is no reason to steal it though.
Posted by: Null Actor
The problem is that the music industry for the most part participates in price fixing. There is no real free market rules applicable, because they are all working together to keep the prices high.
While I don't agree with their pricing, I still buy the cds I like and want. I do wish there were a better alternative.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Quote:
Originally posted by Xoncide
Laggy, that is no circular reasoning.
Worth is value. The value of a good is what people will pay for it, with minumal surpluss.
|
Yes it is circular ... what determines a CD's worth? You imply that it's what the market can bear, and that's erroneous, maybe even a tad ignorant. By saying that a CD is worth what people are willing to pay for it, you ignore the manufacturing costs of the CD, the royalties that artists are entitled to, and the fees and licensing paid to recording companies and distributors.
This is not a case of "Hey, I have something to sell, how much are you willing to pay for it? Do I hear any bids?" That is not how the market functions. If a CD costs $10 today, there has to be justification if it suddenly becomes $15 tomorrow. You can't just say "Well, that's how much you'll be willing to pay for it today, so that's my price."
If I want to buy something, I wanna know what it's worth so I can dole the sum. Isn't the price tag one of the first things you look when you wanna buy something? By your statement, you say that it's gonna be worth the sum I'm willing to pay for. This is a subjective way of looking at things and doesn't really answer the question of worth. Even the statement "if I don't like it being $15, then I should just not buy it" doesn't answer the question of worth.
How can someone pay for something if they don't know what it's worth? How can it's worth be what the people are willing to pay for if the people don't know what amount to pay for it? We can go on and on until we're cross-eyed...
Posted by: chaosisreality
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.ph...003-09-12&res=l
Posted by: SKYHN
Theres only 2 alternatives: p2p pirating OR stop buying CD's. But for the 2nd to work, almost everybody would have to do it and p2p would have to stop as well, so the RIAA wouldnt have it to blame. Imagine if everyone really did stop buying CD's.
It probably wouldnt work anyways. There was a story just a few weeks ago that had to do with artists that had a certain number of tracks on a album or something like that, and they were supposed to get paid more money per album. The RIAA hasnt allowed it to be paid EVER. Its something like $0.04 per album. So if they are that uptight about that much money, imagine trying to get CD's lowered by $5.
Posted by: Blackknight
What is the actual price of production for one CD, jewel case, and a cover? Not the cost to the artist or the publisher, but just the CD itself.
Posted by: redwench
generally minimal. like drug companies, most of the cost goes to funding "discoveries". the actual manufacturing cost is small potatos.
Posted by: SKYHN
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
generally minimal. like drug companies, most of the cost goes to funding "discoveries". the actual manufacturing cost is small potatos.
|
No no no, all their money goes to fighting Piracy!
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
Originally posted by Blackknight
What is the actual price of production for one CD, jewel case, and a cover? Not the cost to the artist or the publisher, but just the CD itself.
|
About two dollars.
Posted by: elhior_manwe
Quote:
Originally posted by Null Actor
About two dollars.
|
not even. 2 bucks for what, i would guess it is closer to 25 cents. though red is right the money goes to marketing, production, and to pay the inflated wages of the men in suits. 2 dollars is about as much as the actual artist gets. if anyone is stealing from someone the artists will all get screwed.
Posted by: Xoncide
Quote:
Originally posted by Canis Lupus
This is not a case of "Hey, I have something to sell, how much are you willing to pay for it? Do I hear any bids?" That is not how the market functions. If a CD costs $10 today, there has to be justification if it suddenly becomes $15 tomorrow. You can't just say "Well, that's how much you'll be willing to pay for it today, so that's my price."
If I want to buy something, I wanna know what it's worth so I can dole the sum.
|
you're wrong. That is the foundation of how modern economics work. Supply wants to sell alot for alot, and demand wants to buy alot for a little. They meet at an equliburm. Where suppy can sell their product with minimul surpluss at the highest prices. Or if you want to look at it backwards where the demand will still buy thier product with out leaveing a large surpluss. Right now that equlibrum is at $15.
Posted by: elhior_manwe
Quote:
Originally posted by Xoncide
you're wrong. That is the foundation of how modern economics work. Supply wants to sell alot for alot, and demand wants to buy alot for a little. They meet at an equliburm. Where suppy can sell their product with minimul surpluss at the highest prices. Or if you want to look at it backwards where the demand will still buy thier product with out leaveing a large surpluss. Right now that equlibrum is at $15.
|
But isn't that the issue we are talking about. People don't wish to pay the 15 dollars and now they are not. So the record labels are scrambling with ways to fix this that have nothing to do with free market economics. As much as I agree with you that file sharing is stealing, until police start coming for people or the riaa figures out a more efficent way of punishing people, normal law abiding citizens will keep using p2p software to get music.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Quote:
Originally posted by Xoncide
you're wrong. That is the foundation of how modern economics work. Supply wants to sell alot for alot, and demand wants to buy alot for a little. They meet at an equliburm. Where suppy can sell their product with minimul surpluss at the highest prices. Or if you want to look at it backwards where the demand will still buy thier product with out leaveing a large surpluss. Right now that equlibrum is at $15.
|
You know, that's all fine and dandy if it is actually relevant to the discussion at hand ... still doesn't answer the question of worth ... how do they determine if they should sell it for $15? Or $20? Or $25? Do they toss a coin?
Strangely, I don't think supply and demand is a factor in RIAA's hiked pricing. Do you?
Posted by: redwench
Quote:
Originally posted by Canis Lupus
Strangely, I don't think supply and demand is a factor in RIAA's hiked pricing. Do you?
|
of course it is. you dont think the $5 drop in cd prices last year was because the cost dropped by 1/3, now do you?
Posted by: Xoncide
the whole point is, they charge so much because people are willing to pay it. The RIAA isn't stupid. They know selling for their current prices are the way they can make the most money. The RIAA is out to make money, like everything else, they arn;t out to make you happy. The could care less what you want to pay for a cd, they just want to know what you will pay for a cd. And right now the averge person will pay 15$ for a cd they really like, so they will sell cds for 15$.
Wench brings up a good point. Cd prices dropped last year. Why? Because the market got smaller (less demamnd) with file shareing. If you don't the isue with prices of retail is supply/demmand then you need to read a few econ books.
Posted by: Atlas4
I personally think that the piracy issue hasn't gotten so bad, that no one will get rich off of it yet. There are still enough people out there who don't agree with piracy in anyway shape or form, and probably some out there who hate it so much they would probably buy a $30 dollar cd just to "protest" the piracy. If new CD's still bring in about 11 million dollars, like Eminem's, or Britney Spears', then I say the CD industry is still doing better than they want us to believe.
Posted by: Outlaw
Quote:
Originally posted by Atlas4
If new CD's still bring in about 11 million dollars, like Eminem's, or Britney Spears', then I say the CD industry is still doing better than they want us to believe.
|
What if your name isn't Eminem or Britney Spears? Most artists don't sell nearly as much as them.
Posted by: N.W.A_Kid
Hey, I know for a fact that I'm stealing music, and I understand that. And If I would've known about the Itunes thing before, I would've been there. Considering I only dl one song about every month, it would only cost me $12 a year.
My CD collection isn't 1,000...but it's about 1/2 of that, and that's not counting and compiled CD's I made myself, so artists still get their money's worth from me. It's made up of all artists I've been listening to for years. And also, anyone who agrees with me that CD's are overpriced, and whether you participate in P2P or not, thank you for at least agreeing that CD's are a little too expensive brand new. I'm not out to battle the RIAA or any record label out there.
Posted by: Atlas4
Well, if one is very successful, they will still bring in 1-5 million, which still isnt a bad amount. Deducting everyone involved in the CD, and the person will still get more than a couple hundred thou.
Posted by: Outlaw
And where exactly are those numbers coming from?
Posted by: Xoncide
Quote:
Originally posted by Atlas4
Well, if one is very successful, they will still bring in 1-5 million, which still isnt a bad amount. Deducting everyone involved in the CD, and the person will still get more than a couple hundred thou.
|
you have the right to make as much profiite as you want off any non nescicity here. So that is irelevent.
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
Originally posted by elhior_manwe
not even. 2 bucks for what, i would guess it is closer to 25 cents. though red is right the money goes to marketing, production, and to pay the inflated wages of the men in suits. 2 dollars is about as much as the actual artist gets. if anyone is stealing from someone the artists will all get screwed.
|
No, it's about two dollars. A game's exact physical cost is about 3 dollars, and there are only a little more materials. Usually it breaks down about this:
0.50$ for the cd and case, 0.50$ for the printing of the cd (averaged out based on cost for the factory vs how many are printed, so it can vary upwards or downwards), 0.50$ for the printed materials (cover, booklet), and about 0.50$ for the labour and machinery that goes in to putting it all together.
Games go slightly higher because of the added box, the fact that it's usually multiple cds, and more included paper materials.
Posted by: Atlas4
Here's one Another... But wait, there's more! OMG, will they ever stop coming?
Here are some numbers that shape our world.
Posted by: NightMage
I tend to download songs, but I don't perceive it entirely as stealing... I hear a song I like it I'll download it rather than go out and try to find a single of it, because where I live trying to find cds and singles of very little known artists is as hard as trying to find a needle in the haystack. Also if I see an album by an artist I like but it's been ages since their last album and their more recent one I'll download a couple of songs of it and see what they are like. Examples of this are: Limp Bizkit, Linkin Park, Metallica. Limp Bizkit and Metallica because they have changed their line up and Linkin Park because this is only their second album, which is where things tend to get stuffed up or better.
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
Originally posted by NightMage
I tend to download songs, but I don't perceive it entirely as stealing... I hear a song I like it I'll download it rather than go out and try to find a single of it, because where I live trying to find cds and singles of very little known artists is as hard as trying to find a needle in the haystack.
|
Well, it's still stealing, however you've highlighted an issue that the RIAA needs to do something about. In this day and age, there is no reason for poor distribution. Not with the internet. They need a truly viable alternative that works for everyone, without being constricting, or messing with people's freedoms.
Until they learn that, they aren't going to come even close to solving the piracy issue. NightMage's issue isn't even relegated to small towns or remote places... even living in Toronto, there are often albums that I can find easier on the net than in the store, even though I'd gladly pay for them.
Something is wrong when a person wants to give someone their money, but can't find anyone to take it.
Posted by: elhior_manwe
Artists that tour make more money from playing live then they ever would from cd sales. Back to my old point of why some artists openly advocate p2p. Not that this makes any real difference to the topic at hand, just thought I would bring it up.
Posted by: cellicalover14
this whole thing is crap leave ppl alone why is it a big deal i dont see any rock stars gettn poor or john does gettn rich so what the heck leave everyone alone it fine
Posted by: Xoncide
You both miss the point entierly. The artist doesn't own the song. The artist can say what ever they like and it doesnt matter. It would be like sarah lee telling you that she doesn't care if you steal twinkies. Nova doesn't own the video games that he made. Authors (usualy) don't own thier books. Scientist who work in the private sector don't own what they descover. And main stream musicians don't own thier songs. All of these people sold thier rights to thier work to some one can publish it. In the case of music a label.
Cellicalover DING DING DING YOU GET IT! people are rich. Welcome to america. People are alowed to make as much money as they like here with out other people stealing it. If you really can't see the fallicies in the logic: "Hey they got money, so that makes it ok to steal." something is wrong.
Posted by: N.W.A_Kid
Quote:
Originally posted by cellicalover14
this whole thing is crap leave ppl alone why is it a big deal i dont see any rock stars gettn poor or john does gettn rich so what the heck leave everyone alone it fine
|
As much as I like P2P, the point is those of us who download songs are stealing music, and the RIAA doesn't like that because:
1)Stealing is a crime
2)The RIAA doesn't get their money
3)The artists don't get their money either
Doesn't matter if anyone is going broke or not. It's true that an artist could make one album, tour for awhile, and if he invests his money wisely and doesn't blow it all like certain rap artists...then he would have more money than he would know what to do with the rest of his life, but that doesn't justify downloading music. It probably makes me look like a hyprocrite, considering I'm one of the P2P people, but I can understand the other side of the fence. Basically it's a never-ending battle between hot blooded youngsters and the RIAA.
Posted by: elhior_manwe
Quote:
Originally posted by Xoncide
You both miss the point entierly. The artist doesn't own the song. The artist can say what ever they like and it doesnt matter. It would be like sarah lee telling you that she doesn't care if you steal twinkies. Nova doesn't own the video games that he made. Authors (usualy) don't own thier books. Scientist who work in the private sector don't own what they descover. And main stream musicians don't own thier songs. All of these people sold thier rights to thier work to some one can publish it. In the case of music a label.
Cellicalover DING DING DING YOU GET IT! people are rich. Welcome to america. People are alowed to make as much money as they like here with out other people stealing it. If you really can't see the fallicies in the logic: "Hey they got money, so that makes it ok to steal." something is wrong.
|
lol someone is missing the point but it isnt me xon. the muscians i quote as having said they don't care if ppl dl there music have every right to do so, they own it. and as well if you don't think the american way is pretty much founded on breaking laws and stealing then you are much more naive then i thought. ask the native americans(ie. all the treaties broken, ask rockafeller(hmm sp), ask the kennedys, or how about ken lay, or the many other billionares that spend more of there time trying to side step the law then they do working. i know how vauge these statements are but are you really serious in insuating that america is founded on the golden rule. that if we don't follow your code of ethics we are swimming agaisnt the stream. thou shall not steal? don't you see the flaws in your argument. record companies such as columbia made millions by stealing the rights to many public domain songs from the 50's-70's. i am not saying that this justifies anything i do but i think you need to get down off your high horse.
Posted by: Atlas4
Also fo Cellica. Welcome to OTS. Think before you speak, or you are likely to get killed for your moronic ways. A sentence "opinion" will not stop us from arguing.
Also, Rockefeller, and Ken Lay should burn in hell for what he did to our economy. Nova makes a valid point. If they can't supply the demand, then there is nothing wrong with file sharing. It is their own fault for not meeting the demand's requirements. If I were a person who did that, countersue.
Posted by: Xoncide
Quote:
Originally posted by elhior_manwe
the muscians i quote as having said they don't care if ppl dl there music have every right to do so, they own it.
|
didn't i just make a post about how they indeedy don't own the song, the label does? At least read what i write if you are going to try and rebuttal it.
Quote:
Originally posted by elhior_manwe
and as well if you don't think the american way is pretty much founded on breaking laws and stealing
|
The American way is founded on freedom from political oppression, and exile for one thing, not breaking laws.
The American way over the past few hundred years has turned into breaking laws. But what that has to do with this i have no clue. We are talking about what people should do not what they are doing. It's a bad thing that the American way is breaking laws, not a good thing. You stealing your music only adds to the pile of crap.
Also, if you did bother to read my post you would have read one a few post back where i address this issue. I told you then, as im going to tell you again, that i respect you alot more if you just admit that you are stealing. And you admit the reason you are stealing is #1 because you can get away with, #2 because it's private, not public, and #3 you do not see any direct effects of your theft.
If you could steal groceries, cars, or houses online, no one would know about it, and you were free from consequences you probably would.
Can't you see how stupid of an argument this is? Or should i win it by breaking the law and murdering you, and justifying that after the fact by "that’s how the mafia got ahead"
Quote:
Originally posted by elhior_manwe
then you are much more naive then i thought.
|
I am in no way naive. Don't insult my intelligence. I know what the world is like. That doesn't mean i have to buy into the hypocrisy of it. I'm stubborn, not naive.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by elhior_manwe ask the native americans(ie. all the treaties broken, ask rockafeller(hmm sp), ask the kennedys, or how about ken lay, or the many other billionares that spend more of there time trying to side step the law then they do working.
|
#1 side stepping the law isn't breaking law. There is no law against hireing lawyers
#2 how does their moral failure justify yours?
#3 There are also successful millionaires who didn't cheat, steal, or unjustly come by their wealth. Pointing out extremes proves little.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by elhior_manwe that if we don't follow your code of ethics we are swimming agaisnt the stream. thou shall not steal?
|
Not my code of ethics, but the one the majority of the people have established as the basic principles of our government. Which would indeed include "though shal not steal" Are you really going to try and argue that it is ok to steal luxuries?
Quote:
Originally posted by elhior_manwe
record companies such as Columbia made millions by stealing the rights to many public domain songs from the 50's-70's.
|
If by steal you mean bought for a great price you might have something there...
Quote:
Originally posted by elhior_manwe
i am not saying that this justifies anything i do but i think you need to get down off your high horse.
|
If what you call a "high horse" is basic moral principles like not stealing, i think im fine where i am.
Quote:
Atlas4
If they can't supply the demand, then there is nothing wrong with file sharing. It is their own fault for not meeting the demand's requirements. If I were a person who did that, countersue.
|
That is so stupid. That is only valid if they arn't trying to meet the demand, and give you permission to file share. They still have the right to sell, even if there are more people who want the product then the supplier can supply. You file sharing (even if it is just to the people wouldn't be able to buy the cd) cost the supplier money. It takes away to demand of retail, shifting the whole S&D Equilibrium to the left. I.e. less profits. Quit trying to justify stealing. Stealing is stealing. Especially in cases of luxury.
Posted by: AK47
Holy multiple quotes 
Posted by: NightMage
Quote:
|
the muscians i quote as having said they don't care if ppl dl there music have every right to do so, they own it.
|
You're right there many bands and solo artists are starting up their own labels Eminem has "Shady Records" OffSpring have their own, Linkin Park have their own. It is the more mainstream labels like Universal, etc who don't support it, whereas for a lot of the more hardcore bands or alternative bands (excluding metallica) that support it it's a way of getting their music listened to, a way to get there msg across, they view that being more important than the imposing dollar bill/coin whatever
just a bit more.... I'll justify where I come from... if I went to a site like amazon etc I get a 30 sec sample of a song, now for most songs these days that's like the intro music and that's it. So by downloading a full song I can hear the entirety and make up my mind based on everything rather than just a small fraction. Isn't it theft if I pay about $25 for a cd and then find out that it isn't as great as I thought it would be, haven't the record labels then stolen that money from myself?
Posted by: Outlaw
Quote:
Originally posted by NightMage
You're right there many bands and solo artists are starting up their own labels Eminem has "Shady Records" OffSpring have their own, Linkin Park have their own. It is the more mainstream labels like Universal, etc who don't support it
|
Shady is a subcompany of Interscope, just like alot of those other smaller labels.
Posted by: Xoncide
Quote:
Originally posted by NightMage
You're right there many bands and solo artists are starting up their own labels Eminem has "Shady Records" OffSpring have their own, Linkin Park have their own.
|
then dling thier songs isn't stealing, its takeing a gift
Quote:
|
Originally posted by NightMage It is the more mainstream labels like Universal, etc who don't support it, whereas for a lot of the more hardcore bands or alternative bands (excluding metallica) that support it it's a way of getting their music listened to, a way to get there msg across, they view that being more important than the imposing dollar bill/coin whatever
|
That is their right, they own the song
Quote:
|
Originally posted by NightMage if I went to a site like amazon etc I get a 30 sec sample of a song, now for most songs these days that's like the intro music and that's it.
|
It's 5 seconds, and the labels are ok with that, they give amazon.com permision
Quote:
|
Originally posted by NightMage Isn't it theft if I pay about $25 for a cd and then find out that it isn't as great as I thought it would be, haven't the record labels then stolen that money from myself?
|
Um no. That's you makeing a bad purchase
Posted by: Tomcat-
Remember where you were when Tomcat dug up this thread. Oh my god, the poster above me is Xoncide! That's amazing! Hey, guys, isn't this cool? It's almost like the time Altron told 9er about that thing Bishop did to Taco!
|
|
|
|
|
