Posted on 06/17/2003 2:54:06 PM PDT by Jean S
ROTFLMAO!
So you actually think they should be able to do whatever they please, including control what I listen to? Have you forgotten what country you are living in, pal? Let me give you a hint: It's not China.
I guess you're cool with Hatch's idea, huh? Download a song, somebody hacks into your computer and puts in a virus designed to wipe out the hard drive, or otherwise make it inoperable.
(And did you even bother looking at those links? $10 says you did not.)
It must be wonderful living in freedom.
If we are going to talk about the law, and since the law goes back to our Constitution (usually), in some shape or form, please point out where it is legal for a private company to destroy the private property of a private individual.
Then just don't listen to music.
It's real simple.. No one is forcing people to steal.
Do you realize how dumb you just made yourself look?
How about answering my question instead of offering non-sequiturs?
Then we will be able to see who is dumb.
1) This is America.
2) You control what you do or do not listen to. Period. No one is forcing you to steal music.
Actually, no.. From a technical standpoint I think it's unworkable.
I would support jailing offenders however.
Why bother? I don't steal music and I don't covet.
Yeah, it is.. actually.. Except for all the thieves and such.
Overall though, it's pretty nice.
I can't speak for Jhoffa_, but I was able to read the post where he wrote that he was against Hatch's proposal. Weren't you able to read it too?
Did you even bother looking at the rest of this thread? $10 says you did not.
Unless you want to listen to a song they never play on the radio anymore and it is long since out of print. (Example: The Inexhaustible Quest For The Cosmic Cabbage by the Amboy Dukes) Then who is controlling it, smart guy?
When the RIAA deliberately sets exhorbitant fees designed to shut down internet-only radio stations, who is controlling it?
Why bother?
Yeah, why bother opening your mind to other points of view on this subject? Don't want to break that tunnel vision, for God's sake.
Bottom line: You are completely full of crap if you think it is the American way for record companies to restrict what you can and cannot listen to, which is exactly what is going on.
It is much much more than that my friend.
RIAA is afraid of the internet and MP3s for a much larger reason than people downloading MP3s.
RIAA is afraid. Afraid of the "garage band" types. If you, I, and a few other Freepers of musical talent got together and made good music, and wanted to sell it, well...we don't need to get a large multi-record deal with a RIAA member. We don't need agents, we don't need distributors, we can do it all ourselves through the internet.
I think that is what scares RIAA the most. A few $100 of acoustic material in your garage, a $1000 computer, a website, and a paypal account, and a decent internet connection and you and I and a mythical Freeper band can make, record, edit, and sell our music, and nobody but us will get a share of the proceeds.
We don't have to be bound to any contracts to get our music distributed. We don't have to pay a lot of middle-people to get our music distributed. We don't have to pay the costs associated with print advertising, and with CD duplication and distribution. A large corporation is not getting its hands on our music, we aren't having to pay a bunch of union workers to setup the eqipment, record, edit, and then process for sale our music. The music stores and distributors aren't needed by us because we distribute it online, ready to e-mail somebody as soon as they make a payment.
Your seeing a two-pronged assault here, one against online music, and one against bands playing live. Look at the consolidation of the theaters/venues. We are getting close to a vertical monopoly. Clear Channel and the others can force theater/venue owners to not play certain acts and only book what they want, or else they'll send the bigwigs down the road to another venue. This way they can keep the indie bands (such as our mythical Freeper band) from getting too big and too noticed, to where we are just selling locally and only hitting the clubs with less than 100 seats.
What if you had a Pink Floyd or a Led Zeppelin or a Jethro Tull or a Rolling Stones, and they are just starting out, and they go the way of the MP3, and they handle their own production through computers, and their own distribution through MP3s. Word of mouth keeps spreading and spreading. They play larger and larger venues and make more and more money. RIAA would not like most of that money going to the people who created the music. RIAA and the big companies would have a harder and harder time of bringing in new blood, because who the heck would want to have to give up so much money and profit when they can do it on a smaller scale but retain control of their music and where the money is going.
just my $0.02. Based on conversations with a friend who is on the fringe of the music industry.
Then don't, and answer the question I asked you.
Just try to explain that to the close-minded loggerheads in this thread.
LOL!
You are!
Believe it not, Matt, You are an adult and you can decide if you are going to listen to a particular song. If you don't own the song, then you can go and buy it.. Or not. The choice is yours.
It's THEIR property... Now, if you don't like that then perhaps you should form a band and make your own music. Then tell the RIAA to go get screwed.
Physician, heal thyself.
LOL! LOL!
It IS the American way and they aren't "restricting" anything that's not theirs to 'restrict" in the first place.
Now stealing, that's "Un-American" You rationalize it, but the bottom line is that you are in the wrong.
....nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The actual creators of the music have been beefing for years about how tiny their cut of the CD price is after the gross has been filtered through the kidneys of innumerable Hollywood middlemen. They have found that the only creative thing in Tinseltown is the accounting. They're going to be first to support any online sales scheme that gives them a larger percentage of a lower price. Look at the runaway success of Apple Music Store, which is just the first attempt at such a scheme.
I don't know that I would call it all that close-minded (well yeah I would) as much as it was old fashioned.
Technology is making it so that RIAA and the music companies are becoming obsolete...It is why they are so hostile and so urgent and so willing to do anything to stop it (MP3s/Online music) and to scare people.
Sure it is..
There's a means to distribute books, music, products and nearly everything else you wish right at your fingertips.. Just use the internet.
So, I don't see what's so bad about the "big, bad RIAA boogeyman"
I could start a band tomorrow and bypass them completely.
I am honestly feeling sorry for you, because I don't think you're aware of the ignorance you're displaying in front of hordes of people. I don't mean that as a personal attack -- I'm being quite sincere when I say that I am starting to feel bad for you.
If there's a song "you want to listen to," and "they never play it on the radio anymore" and "it is long since out of print" ... well, you may just be out of luck. Unless the song has entered the public domain -- and the work of the Amboy Dukes has not -- them someone owns the copyright. You don't. And without that copyright holder's authorization, it's not yours to download or steal by any other means.
Perhaps the copyright holder is withholding the material to build demand for a future release. Perhaps the copyright holder is selfish and wants the music all for himself. Perhaps the copyright holder is just stupid, or bad at business.
Ultimately, the reasons aren't relevant. The bottom line is that it belongs to him, just like things you own belong to you.
You seem to view the world in terms of what YOU want, what YOU want, what YOU want. YOU want that song, or YOU want that album, and apparently it's YOUR RIGHT to have it.
I would suggest you brush up first on the basics of copyright law, learn a little about capitalism and our system of rights, and then return with a more informed argument.
You hit the nail right on the head, he obviously isn't.
You know, I can't just walk into a store and buy Snapon® tools, I have to go to a tool truck and pay allot!
Those guy's are controlling the tools! I think I am entitled to just steal them.
I think that's absolutely wonderful. Makes you proud to be an American, yes? A place where individuals are enterprising, and where individuals are free to take a risk at making money with their talents and ingenuity. It's a beautiful thing.
What's not beautiful are people who voluntarily sign contracts and then "beef for years" about the terms of the contracts they signed. That's the yucky old victim mentality that we conservatives are supposed to be decrying all the time, 'member?
It's all pretty simple: If you don't like what's being offered, don't sign the contract. Additionally, if you later believe the terms of your contract have been violated, well, there's a reason they invented civil court.
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.