!
Posted on 08/19/2004 1:59:49 PM PDT by expat_panama
!
I.e. we're gonna let the legislatures legislate about this. Stunning idea.
Maybe the RIAA can try to make money by, hmmm... I don't know, maybe by MAKING DECENT MUSIC for a change?!
Wow. Finally a reasonable ruling out of these clowns. I am shocked.
I personally have not bought one CD since the RIAA went on its turbo-fascist rampage and killed Napster. The MPAA gets equally little sympathy.
Just damn.
If you want on the list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...
If the music is so bad, then why do file sharers steal so much of it?
guess Metallica will have to go back to working at the
car wash.
That's a good question and the answer is that the music industry sells overpriced albums filled mostly with filler while the file sharers "steal" (your characterization) "A" sides of (nonexistent) singles. "85% of everything is crap", once said Theodore Sturgeon.
The only thing I have seen was an article stating that the Academy won't bar the film from competition because the broadcast was "not" authorized. I have my doubts; the director reportedly was okay with people downloading this film and getting it out to the masses.
If ISP's were liable for file sharing, then they'd have to be also liable for html and email enclosures. Truly bonkers.
Feel free to substitute whichever term you want for the word "steal". But I've always considered it to be an accurate description of what occurs when somebody acquires a product or service for their own use without paying an agreed-upon price to the producer and/or rights-holder for it.
IOW, technology changes faster than new laws can be Hatched.
I used Kazaa lite to download farenheit 911. No way I'm paying moore.
The movie was not funny, btw. At least not if you've matured beyond middleschool.
>>If the music is so bad, then why do file sharers steal so much of it?<<
Because they can. I sample maybe 10% of what I download, and keep only a fraction of that. Plus, being an old guy, most of what I keep has been out of print for some time. When I DID buy stuff, it was from the used record stores. The only reason I download any more is to learn songs for my cover band, which already pays fees to play the covers.
Most people download just for the thrill of it and then tire of it eventually.
Who said they're necessarily stealing. People who have paid for content on CD or cassette will logon to a service and download digital copies of stuff they already have and burn them to cds, etc. The industry wants to be able to resell to people in most cases, something they've already paid for once. Screw 'em.
Because they can.
Bingo. I myself have always been a member of that "just because I CAN do something doesn't necessarily mean that I WILL do it" camp. Since I find it hard to shave without looking at myself in a mirror to get the nooks and crannies, I guess I'll just keep writing checks when it comes to filling up my hard drive with music.
Did you know that the only individuals the RIAA has pursued legally are those that allow uploading from their hard drive?
If I ever download a piece of music that I would have bought, I will send a check. For example, I have downloaded several videos from Pink Floyd's Pulse. I have alse checked the video store every month for two years for dvd availability. I also used to own it on laserdisc before it got thrown in the trash over a divorce.
I feel no guilt downloading any of those videos or the mp3's. None whatsoever.
I did. But that's just me.
People who have paid for content on CD or cassette will logon to a service and download digital copies of stuff they already have and burn them to cds, etc.
Why would anyone download content they already have on a CD? Were I so inclined to do so, my plain-vanilla computer could easily rip any track on a CD and put said track onto my hard drive for my private use. My CD player holds (and has) 300 disks, and that's pretty much what I use as far as music at home.
And as for tracks on cassette, do you also feel that Ford should be legally obligated to give you a brand-new 2005 pickup for free if the engine blows up in your primer-colored 1971 F-100?
The industry wants to be able to resell to people in most cases, something they've already paid for once.
Which, in my opinion, is something that they're entitled to do since they're the copyright holder. Those who don't agree or can't meet the copyright holder's terms for use of their product shouldn't be consuming the copyright holder's product.
Screw 'em.
No thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.