First of all, so what if only the copies are defective? I like to copy all my CDs to use in my car, which is completely legal to do.
Also, many people like to back up their music. If I scratch a CD, why should I have to pay $20 for a new one? I don't see any service offered by any record company to replace scratched discs for new ones at minimal cost. Until they offer such a service, they cannot expect people to stop backing up their stuff.
And the original discs are defective anyway. Error correction is built into CDs for a purpose. I don't know the technical details, (so I might be wrong here), but let's say error correction can allow a CD to play with 10 scratches on it. Now, if that error correction is being taxes by artificial defects, that disc may not play corrcetly with more than 2 or 3 scratches.
And just one more comment (a bit off the topic of this particular thread)... I hear these record companies saying that CDs are so expensive due to piracy. Do you think if they ever developed some magical copy protection that actually worked that CD prices would fall since piracy would be extinct? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I mean, it's not every day that you see a webpage defacement... OH WAIT YES IT IS!
And this did cause a big financial loss to the target... OH WAIT - IT DIDN'T!
And a large database with financial info was compromised... OH WAIT - IT WASN'T!
And the target was a major national site like Yahoo, Amazon and CNN... OH WAIT - IT WASN'T
And there's no significant servers hacked into on a daily basis... OH WAIT - THERE ARE!
Can we please spend my tax money on solving REAL crimes that actually impact some taxpayers? Like - go hunt down some pot smokers. We've wasted 3 TRILLION on the war on drugs why not waste another 3 TRILLION on busting website defacing script kiddies!
I'm not saying what goes on with Napster is 100% legal. What I'm saying is that the people who are performing those illegal activities are the individuals themselves who download copyrighted songs they don't own.
The guilty party is not the person supplying the pipeline, it's the person who uses that pipeline for illegal purposes.
The RIAA should be individually suing every Napster user who downloads these copyrighted songs. Not Napster themselves.
If Napster is found guilty, which seems to be the way it is heading, then everyone who has had a car stolen should use this case as a precedent to sue their state Department of Transportation!
Napster provides no copyrighted material themselves (as apposed to MP3.com). All they supply is a connection... the transportation medium.
In a similar way, the DOT doesn't steal cars, but they do provide the roads upon which car theives transport a stolen car.
The actual lawbreaker in this Napster case is not Napster itself, but every single user who downloads a copyrighted song from an album they do not own. Just like when your car is stolen - the car theif is the lawbreaker... not the DOT.
I can't believe how much it upsets them to get ripped off a little bit. But, yet they don't seem concerned that their fans get ripped off by having to fork over $20 for a CD that costs $0.20 to duplicate. Napster may be growing, but it's still very small. Even if a thousand people download Metallica songs from Napster and subsequently DON'T buy the album, would Metallica's accountant even notice? I mean, what is 1000 lost sales out of 2-3 million? The band has their own jet, Lars has 4 cars and they are all millionaires several times over. Proportionately, Metallica suing for loosing a few album sales is like the average Joe suing for loosing a nickle in a pay phone. F-Metallica!
Slashdot Mirror
I think I remember the RIAA saying CDs cost so much because they have to account for piracy.
So, I guess if we tax CD-Rs, the extra three or four dollars added to the cost of a CD to make up for piracy will no longer be needed, right?
So everyone who doesn't pirate music will stand to gain from a CD-R tax since your store-bought CDs will fall to a reasonable price - like $12.
Muhahahahahaha!
Also, many people like to back up their music. If I scratch a CD, why should I have to pay $20 for a new one? I don't see any service offered by any record company to replace scratched discs for new ones at minimal cost. Until they offer such a service, they cannot expect people to stop backing up their stuff.
And the original discs are defective anyway. Error correction is built into CDs for a purpose. I don't know the technical details, (so I might be wrong here), but let's say error correction can allow a CD to play with 10 scratches on it. Now, if that error correction is being taxes by artificial defects, that disc may not play corrcetly with more than 2 or 3 scratches.
And just one more comment (a bit off the topic of this particular thread)... I hear these record companies saying that CDs are so expensive due to piracy. Do you think if they ever developed some magical copy protection that actually worked that CD prices would fall since piracy would be extinct? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I'd love to play both these series but refuse to pay an extra $300 to play them. What's wrong with the console I already own?
I mean, it's not every day that you see a webpage defacement... OH WAIT YES IT IS!
And this did cause a big financial loss to the target... OH WAIT - IT DIDN'T!
And a large database with financial info was compromised... OH WAIT - IT WASN'T!
And the target was a major national site like Yahoo, Amazon and CNN... OH WAIT - IT WASN'T
And there's no significant servers hacked into on a daily basis... OH WAIT - THERE ARE!
Can we please spend my tax money on solving REAL crimes that actually impact some taxpayers? Like - go hunt down some pot smokers. We've wasted 3 TRILLION on the war on drugs why not waste another 3 TRILLION on busting website defacing script kiddies!
I'm not saying what goes on with Napster is 100% legal. What I'm saying is that the people who are performing those illegal activities are the individuals themselves who download copyrighted songs they don't own.
The guilty party is not the person supplying the pipeline, it's the person who uses that pipeline for illegal purposes.
The RIAA should be individually suing every Napster user who downloads these copyrighted songs. Not Napster themselves.
If Napster is found guilty, which seems to be the way it is heading, then everyone who has had a car stolen should use this case as a precedent to sue their state Department of Transportation!
Napster provides no copyrighted material themselves (as apposed to MP3.com). All they supply is a connection... the transportation medium.
In a similar way, the DOT doesn't steal cars, but they do provide the roads upon which car theives transport a stolen car.
The actual lawbreaker in this Napster case is not Napster itself, but every single user who downloads a copyrighted song from an album they do not own. Just like when your car is stolen - the car theif is the lawbreaker... not the DOT.
I can't believe how much it upsets them to get ripped off a little bit. But, yet they don't seem concerned that their fans get ripped off by having to fork over $20 for a CD that costs $0.20 to duplicate. Napster may be growing, but it's still very small. Even if a thousand people download Metallica songs from Napster and subsequently DON'T buy the album, would Metallica's accountant even notice? I mean, what is 1000 lost sales out of 2-3 million? The band has their own jet, Lars has 4 cars and they are all millionaires several times over. Proportionately, Metallica suing for loosing a few album sales is like the average Joe suing for loosing a nickle in a pay phone. F-Metallica!