Posted on 09/09/2003 8:04:18 AM PDT by jgrubbs
Excellent points. In fact, when tens of millions of people disobey a law, you have to ask, in a democratic society (Pace - I know we are a republic) whether it even has any legitimacy as a law.
The problem is that the publishers terms and conditions do not create a right that the publisher did not have in law, i.e. he cannot override fair use provisions that are created in statute and by common law.
First, as has been pointed out, it is not theft. It is copy right violation.
The market analysis of something that has no intrinsic protection and no intrinsic cost, and whose entire value is determined by a monopoly established by copyright is very complicated. For instance, normally, if someone is unable to get his price for a good, he drops his price or reduces the quantity of production. In this instance they appeal to the government.
But doesn't that apply to MP3's as well? Everyone recognizes that it would be illegal to download MP3s, burn them to a CD, set up a kiosk at the mall, and sell the resultant product. But what about simple file trading where I download some copies for my own personal use? RIAA says this thwarts a sale. But is it any different from when I check out a book from the library? Would I have bought the book instead? Probably not. Would I have bought the music CD instead? Probably not. RIAA's problem is that they have seen the sales of CDs skyrocket in the time period when people were updating their collections from vinyl to CD. RIAA thisnks that level of sales should continue even after most people have converted. It is a natural lessening of sales. Take that coupled with the recession where people are buying less and less $24.99 CDs and sales are off, sure, but it is not due to file trading. When I was young, music was the main form of expression for youth. That is not true today. Youth have lots of new ways to express themselves in the digital age. Remember when every Saturday moring cartoon had songs in it? Even the Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids broke into song at least once per episode for goodness' sakes. Youth are less music oriented. People are not buying back stock to replace vinyl. The recession has hit music sales. You can't buy singles anymore (CD singles are a joke). The only way to get a hit song is to buy a whole CD. All these have converged to slow music sales. RIAA see none of this. All they see is file trading and claiming that it is SOLELY responsible for the lessening in the upward march of CD sales. I don't think there is even a a decline in CD sales. The last time RIAA came out with a statistic indicating a decline in CD sales, it was a decline in sales of CD singles. So their statistics are not even to be trusted.
Excellent point. A very good post all around.
And since recidivist sales on CD purchases are almost nil (compared to vinyl, 8-track and cassette, which wore out after a few dozen plays), sales of older CDs have predictably bottomed out. This has certainly hurt the RIAA bottom line. From 1977 - 1983, I bought at least 5 copies of Dark Side of the Moon on album, cassette and 8-track. If CDs had been around back then, I would have purchased one and been done with it.
My opinion is that this whole "file swapping is killing the recording industry" is a red herring. For every dope who downloads the latest Eminem CD to save $17.95, there are dozens of people who use file sharing to sample new music and purchase CDs from artists they have thus discovered. Who has the money to lay down that kind of money for a CD by someone they've never heard?
Why? Your bizarre ideas could provide high comedy for thousands. You shouldn't need a laugh being the author of such ridiculous comedy. You surely live up to your slapstick screenname. Tell me you were just doing satire and I'll admit to being duped by a professional comedian.
Totally. And despite denial, almost everyone knows it.
It is both.
That's like saying stealing a car isn't auto theft, it's violation of the statute forbidding it. Absolutely bizarre what lengths people will go to to justify their personal sins.
Totally. And despite denial, almost everyone knows it.
I don't know it. Explain the difference. RIAA's premise has always been that when you download a song, you are taking a retail sale away from publisher. Well, when I check out the latest bestseller from the library to read rather than purchasing it from the bookstore, aren't I also taking a retail sale away from the book publisher?
By the way, did you know that I can check out CDs, DVDs, and VHS tapes from my local library?
You can get sued for stealing my car. You can go to jail for stealing copyrighted material.
We need fewer moral relavitists and more prosecutors willing to send theives to jail.
Hint, don't focus on some side issue like "taking a retail sale away" because it is irrelevant. Stealing isn't wrong because of the things that result from it, it is wrong all by itself.
Then you are arguing that the "fair use" doctrine no longer exists and you are overturning the Supreme Court's ruling in Universal Vs. Sony. Cities can no longer have free lending libraries. My home VCR is illegal. My CDR is illegal. I'm stealing when I read a magazine at the bookstore rather than buy it. I'm stealing when I listen to music at a friend's house. In your world everybody's a thief.
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.