there's a big difference between shoplifting and copyright infringement,
I'm sure there is but not in the sense of - I pay for a CD and I can hear it any time, or I don't pay for a CD and I can hear it anytime. In the sense of not paying then filesharing and shoplifting are the same. The piece of plastic means nothing anymore.
And yes you can do all those things, such as copying and making mp3s, and you're still just using your right to listen to it when you want.
I'm not going to attempt to defend the RIAA. But it's obvious that the whole original Napster thing really scared them all - it could really make a dent and even put them out of business. Now there are cases of record companies not playing fair etc. but think what we would lose without them. And at the end of the day they really are music fans like us, especially the small labels. It's just their job to maximise revenue from an Artist (and they need someone to do this). It's irrelevent how much the CD costs, the whole ship is funded by lots of people paying a certain amount. I used to work in a recording studio. The equipment and acoustics are expensive, and you have to keep replacing it. These are peoples jobs, mortgages etc we are talking about, and it's all funded from CD sales. Yes you can set it up in a bedroom, but there will be no hardware to actually buy without CD sales.
And at the end of the day - why should some people pay and not others. It's not fair, not sustainable and it's ethically wrong.
And also - believe me, the record companies want to make it as easy as possible for you to buy their stuff - no filesharing and DRM would definitely be out of the window - an easy, playable on anything solution is far better for them. But you are right, with the possibility of mass sharing, they'd never do it.
There's a lot of strange people here who seem to think they "own" what's on a CD and have every right to do what ever they want with it. Well sorry, but you have the right to listen to it, whenever you want, as often as you want. And that's it. What's on it is not yours.
Picture this. One copy of a CD or DVD is sold. It is shared on a filesharing network. No other copies are sold. How much would you have to charge for that CD or DVD? It would be quite expensive. This scenario is what frightened record and film companies into backing DRM. If everyone stopped filesharing tomorrow there's be no more DRM within a year.
You may think filesharing is OK, but I don't see any difference at all between it and stealing CDs from Tower Records. What is the difference?
If people weren't copying music, not just for their friends, not hundreds or thousands but millions of people, then the RIAA wouldn't be so overprotective perhaps. What else are they supposed to do exactly? Lots of people I know don't even know it's illegal and perhaps if the police did come knocking then it would make people think before they acted. What we need is less privacy - "this is me, I am sharing these files and they're mine (or free or whatever)". If the illegal sharing can be stopped then it will give the rest of us the FREEDOM to make backups, copy in any format we want for our own use etc. and the RIAA won't take any notice. If the stealing continues (and it is really no different to stealing shirts in a shop) then we will more and more stupid limitations, and the record companies will have even fewer challenging acts, and only those "which will do well" or those out of the file sharing demographic. There will be no tours by interesting bands anymore (too expensive to put on without record company backing).
And just why do people spend 2 or 3 on a RINGTONE and won't spend this amount on the actual single? You couldn't make it up.
Slashdot Mirror
there's a big difference between shoplifting and copyright infringement, I'm sure there is but not in the sense of - I pay for a CD and I can hear it any time, or I don't pay for a CD and I can hear it anytime. In the sense of not paying then filesharing and shoplifting are the same. The piece of plastic means nothing anymore. And yes you can do all those things, such as copying and making mp3s, and you're still just using your right to listen to it when you want. I'm not going to attempt to defend the RIAA. But it's obvious that the whole original Napster thing really scared them all - it could really make a dent and even put them out of business. Now there are cases of record companies not playing fair etc. but think what we would lose without them. And at the end of the day they really are music fans like us, especially the small labels. It's just their job to maximise revenue from an Artist (and they need someone to do this). It's irrelevent how much the CD costs, the whole ship is funded by lots of people paying a certain amount. I used to work in a recording studio. The equipment and acoustics are expensive, and you have to keep replacing it. These are peoples jobs, mortgages etc we are talking about, and it's all funded from CD sales. Yes you can set it up in a bedroom, but there will be no hardware to actually buy without CD sales. And at the end of the day - why should some people pay and not others. It's not fair, not sustainable and it's ethically wrong. And also - believe me, the record companies want to make it as easy as possible for you to buy their stuff - no filesharing and DRM would definitely be out of the window - an easy, playable on anything solution is far better for them. But you are right, with the possibility of mass sharing, they'd never do it.
There's a lot of strange people here who seem to think they "own" what's on a CD and have every right to do what ever they want with it. Well sorry, but you have the right to listen to it, whenever you want, as often as you want. And that's it. What's on it is not yours. Picture this. One copy of a CD or DVD is sold. It is shared on a filesharing network. No other copies are sold. How much would you have to charge for that CD or DVD? It would be quite expensive. This scenario is what frightened record and film companies into backing DRM. If everyone stopped filesharing tomorrow there's be no more DRM within a year. You may think filesharing is OK, but I don't see any difference at all between it and stealing CDs from Tower Records. What is the difference?
If people weren't copying music, not just for their friends, not hundreds or thousands but millions of people, then the RIAA wouldn't be so overprotective perhaps. What else are they supposed to do exactly? Lots of people I know don't even know it's illegal and perhaps if the police did come knocking then it would make people think before they acted. What we need is less privacy - "this is me, I am sharing these files and they're mine (or free or whatever)". If the illegal sharing can be stopped then it will give the rest of us the FREEDOM to make backups, copy in any format we want for our own use etc. and the RIAA won't take any notice. If the stealing continues (and it is really no different to stealing shirts in a shop) then we will more and more stupid limitations, and the record companies will have even fewer challenging acts, and only those "which will do well" or those out of the file sharing demographic. There will be no tours by interesting bands anymore (too expensive to put on without record company backing). And just why do people spend 2 or 3 on a RINGTONE and won't spend this amount on the actual single? You couldn't make it up.