Well, first, because the RIAA has to know what acts to pay. What should they do, pay every act equally even though some of these people's music doesn't bring in money at all? They would need all new programs to handle the subscription service. I know! A new version of Napster that lets you download all you want for a subscription fee. Wouldn't THAT be great?
Besides that, ISPs are NOT going to get involved, they have no reason to, and it would be almost impossible for them to deal with.
About a third of all CDs (everything from Universal Music and the companies they own) are 10USD (about 5UKP), and all albums are 10USD on legit online music stores, but that doesn't seem to change people's habits. I don't blame people who simply don't have the money.
It's their music, you don't have the right to say what you can do with it. Especially when you haven't payed for it.
Listening to people like you is like walking into a jail, everyone's an innocent criminal.
First, I would like to thank you for insulting me. Second, they once had the money they put into the song, that everyone who gets to have their own copy pays them back, but it seems you get to have one free because you're special. They lose the money that you are supposed to pay them back if you want a copy. It's labor fee. You don't get a house built and then just pay the workers for the material. That would be stealing.
Let me geuss, you download the music of and pay lots of independant artists? No? You don't? You use iTunes? Well, how do you figure anybody is going to get onto the iTunes music store if it isn't for the record lables? Also, if you just take the music, how do you figure anyone will have the time to record much of quality when they have to work all day?
No longer giving you the money they used to is not stealing because they also stop working. If they had to continue working with no wage, that would be stealing. That's what stealing intelectual property is, you take advantage of their work without compensation. Also, I'd like to ask you not to argue ad hominem, it doesn't help anybody.
Once again, the one band that does well has to finance the ones that bomb, that's why they get such a small percentage. Most of it goes into what the company owes. As for one or two investors owning the whole company, this is simply not true. Besides, if a billionare is responsible they put a ton of their money into cherity. Bill Gates once said that he plans to give 90% of his money to cherity before he dies. Responsible billionares finance wonderful things.
Well, ones who tutor on the side or get allowence do. Trust me, a lot of students have enough cash for at least a good portion of the CDs they want, without completely depleting their money.
Many, many DRM scemes let you burn to CD. Once you have that you can just rip it and do whatever you like. It's a bit of work, but it's not a huge deal.
Well, I do agree that copywrite law needs to be changed so that things enter the public domain more readily. Your issue here, though acts like the companies are one big guy just gobbling money. They are many many people and create jobs. They are thousands of people. Sure, the big executives make a lot. Is that really wrong? If you want to support communism, fine, but don't act like you're not. Before the printing press most couldn't read. Authors and artists were rich people with time or poor people who starved to death because they weren't farming. Industry supports artists so they can continue to work on what they love.
People who simply don't have the money are an exception. Many people do have the money, though. Especially when they don't have to pay for rent or food (being high school students), but refuse to pay for anything.
The strategy wouldn't work as well, now that the internet is where most people get movie listings, but it worked then. The L.A. Times has the worst ads in the world, aswell. I don't see how they could be doing anything but hurting sales.
We can argue about how it's immoral for the Russians to be stealing, but my point was that when YOU download it here you're stealing and we do have those laws. Them not having the laws is irrelevant.
Re:Files they've just taken and not bought or dele
on
The File Sharing Report
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
No tangable loss my ass. The recording and production cost a LOT of money. Studios, equiptment fees, producers and engineers salaries, insturments. Actually, the biggest part of what you pay for a CD goes to all the acts that fail miserably. Big hits have to pay for all the big flops.
They decide they wouldn't have bought it, but continue to listen to it. I said that sevral times. If you listen to it, decide not to buy it, then never listen again it's different.
The problem with DVD-As and SACDs is that there aren't any players that aren't also DVD video players. You can't play them in the computer, or your car, or in a portable player. They have DVD music out, lots of good stuff, too. SACDs even cost the same as CDs from certain labels, but we need the hardware.
Man, people have a hard time with this. Allofmp3.com is selling you stolen music. It's like saying that you bought it off the shifty guy on a New York street corner. Plus, you got a sweet deal on this Rolex.
Actually, the first ads (besides trailers) were from the L.A. Times. What happened is that the L.A. Times said that the theaters either run ads or they'd stop listing them. This opened the flood gate.
Re:Files they've just taken and not bought or dele
on
The File Sharing Report
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Well, I do think the music industry needs to find the online equivalant to the listening station at the record store. Find a way that people can listen to a an album once, so they can see if they like it. This is dificult to impliment, obviously. I don't have a technical solution myself, but I know it needs to be done because the market demands it.
First of all, I said not buying the CD didn't hurt anybody if you weren't going to buy it in the first place, BUT I think many people claim that after the fact, and continue to listen to the music.
If information should be free we should eliminate patents, too, right? I mean, they simply safegaurd one person's idea, which is just information. Also, you should be able to sell a cola, claiming it's Coke and use the same logo and bottle and everything. If you spend your life writing a book anyone should be able to reprint it. Are you a communist, because that's what it sounds like. Everything is everyone's and no one has incentive to work for anything but creativity.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, first, because the RIAA has to know what acts to pay. What should they do, pay every act equally even though some of these people's music doesn't bring in money at all? They would need all new programs to handle the subscription service. I know! A new version of Napster that lets you download all you want for a subscription fee. Wouldn't THAT be great? Besides that, ISPs are NOT going to get involved, they have no reason to, and it would be almost impossible for them to deal with.
Actually, I do know how to spell it, but I hit submit before I realized what I wrote. Your spelling argument is spurious, anyway.
They could buy used or older albums which are much cheaper. They don't, though, they buy almost no albums.
About a third of all CDs (everything from Universal Music and the companies they own) are 10USD (about 5UKP), and all albums are 10USD on legit online music stores, but that doesn't seem to change people's habits. I don't blame people who simply don't have the money.
"They" would be the copywrite holders.
It's their music, you don't have the right to say what you can do with it. Especially when you haven't payed for it. Listening to people like you is like walking into a jail, everyone's an innocent criminal.
They ruled that ISPs and the program creators are not responsible, same as the US.
First, I would like to thank you for insulting me. Second, they once had the money they put into the song, that everyone who gets to have their own copy pays them back, but it seems you get to have one free because you're special. They lose the money that you are supposed to pay them back if you want a copy. It's labor fee. You don't get a house built and then just pay the workers for the material. That would be stealing.
Let me geuss, you download the music of and pay lots of independant artists? No? You don't? You use iTunes? Well, how do you figure anybody is going to get onto the iTunes music store if it isn't for the record lables? Also, if you just take the music, how do you figure anyone will have the time to record much of quality when they have to work all day?
No longer giving you the money they used to is not stealing because they also stop working. If they had to continue working with no wage, that would be stealing. That's what stealing intelectual property is, you take advantage of their work without compensation. Also, I'd like to ask you not to argue ad hominem, it doesn't help anybody.
Once again, the one band that does well has to finance the ones that bomb, that's why they get such a small percentage. Most of it goes into what the company owes. As for one or two investors owning the whole company, this is simply not true. Besides, if a billionare is responsible they put a ton of their money into cherity. Bill Gates once said that he plans to give 90% of his money to cherity before he dies. Responsible billionares finance wonderful things.
Well, ones who tutor on the side or get allowence do. Trust me, a lot of students have enough cash for at least a good portion of the CDs they want, without completely depleting their money.
Many, many DRM scemes let you burn to CD. Once you have that you can just rip it and do whatever you like. It's a bit of work, but it's not a huge deal.
Well, I do agree that copywrite law needs to be changed so that things enter the public domain more readily. Your issue here, though acts like the companies are one big guy just gobbling money. They are many many people and create jobs. They are thousands of people. Sure, the big executives make a lot. Is that really wrong? If you want to support communism, fine, but don't act like you're not. Before the printing press most couldn't read. Authors and artists were rich people with time or poor people who starved to death because they weren't farming. Industry supports artists so they can continue to work on what they love.
People who simply don't have the money are an exception. Many people do have the money, though. Especially when they don't have to pay for rent or food (being high school students), but refuse to pay for anything.
The strategy wouldn't work as well, now that the internet is where most people get movie listings, but it worked then. The L.A. Times has the worst ads in the world, aswell. I don't see how they could be doing anything but hurting sales.
We can argue about how it's immoral for the Russians to be stealing, but my point was that when YOU download it here you're stealing and we do have those laws. Them not having the laws is irrelevant.
No tangable loss my ass. The recording and production cost a LOT of money. Studios, equiptment fees, producers and engineers salaries, insturments. Actually, the biggest part of what you pay for a CD goes to all the acts that fail miserably. Big hits have to pay for all the big flops. They decide they wouldn't have bought it, but continue to listen to it. I said that sevral times. If you listen to it, decide not to buy it, then never listen again it's different.
The problem with DVD-As and SACDs is that there aren't any players that aren't also DVD video players. You can't play them in the computer, or your car, or in a portable player. They have DVD music out, lots of good stuff, too. SACDs even cost the same as CDs from certain labels, but we need the hardware.
Man, people have a hard time with this. Allofmp3.com is selling you stolen music. It's like saying that you bought it off the shifty guy on a New York street corner. Plus, you got a sweet deal on this Rolex.
He implied that he purchased from Allofmp3.com.
Besides not being legal in the US the artist and record company get no money. You're just paying to steal.
Actually, the first ads (besides trailers) were from the L.A. Times. What happened is that the L.A. Times said that the theaters either run ads or they'd stop listing them. This opened the flood gate.
Well, I do think the music industry needs to find the online equivalant to the listening station at the record store. Find a way that people can listen to a an album once, so they can see if they like it. This is dificult to impliment, obviously. I don't have a technical solution myself, but I know it needs to be done because the market demands it.
First of all, I said not buying the CD didn't hurt anybody if you weren't going to buy it in the first place, BUT I think many people claim that after the fact, and continue to listen to the music. If information should be free we should eliminate patents, too, right? I mean, they simply safegaurd one person's idea, which is just information. Also, you should be able to sell a cola, claiming it's Coke and use the same logo and bottle and everything. If you spend your life writing a book anyone should be able to reprint it. Are you a communist, because that's what it sounds like. Everything is everyone's and no one has incentive to work for anything but creativity.