Would a starving child turn down a piece of bread because they 'should have' gotten more?
Wow, you need EMI's music that much? I sure they must be delighted your brand loyalty is so entrenched, like your life depends on it. They should put up the price.
Lower prices mean more sales, does not necessarily mean more profit. You don't realize because you don't understand economics, as has been clear from the start. But now you've fallen back on the tactic of misrepresenting what I'm saying, this discussion is over. Believe what you wish.
So please tell me my choices in buying the Beatles CD?
Buy a CD from some other band on some other label. And if you don't think they're as good, well that's your brand loyalty showing. If you simply must have Beatles music, you're going to have to deal with the Beatles' company. Sorry, that's the way it is.
If you want a particular band, you have a single source for it.
Indeed you do. And if you want a particular cereal, you have a single source for it. Want a particular make of car, only one company makes it. Want a particular make of clothes, again, no choice. Particular author, only one publisher. So if you don't like the price, go buy some other band's music. The Beatles are not the only source of music and do not have a monopoly on anything except their product. Just like you have a monopoly on whatever you produce.
They asked the RIAA in the USA, mind you for pricing, which did not even get a response.
Well I don't know the facts on that one, but what I do know is no-one is obliged to sell their product to anyone if they do not wish to. Maybe they didn't like the deal that was being offered. What response do you expect to get if you walk into a shop and tell the shop-keeper "negotiate on the price of this chocolate bar, or I will steal it and blame you for not negotiating".
So if they have been falling they must have been really high to begin with.
The first personal computers in the 1980s were very expensive. They've fallen since then in real terms (if you don't know what this means, look it up), but the actual asked for price isn't that much different. Were purchasers of the first PCs being ripped off? Or has the price fallen in real terms since then due to mass-production and greater competition?
It's as much a property crime as copyright infringement.
Yes... I think that was the point being made; a comparison between the two and their supposed cost to society. No-one said they were the same, and no-one mentioned rape. That's what makes its introduction to the thread a strawman construction.
Was someone holding a gun to your head while you bought that CD?
All the production costs... yeah, they need to charge $17 to cover all that.
Yeah, you see, you're still making the same mistake I addressed previously. The cost to produce the CD is only the starting point. The price of the CD is determined by the market value. It is $17 not because that's what it costs, because that's what enough people are prepared to pay. Look, I wrote it out in bold again for you. It wouldn't matter if the cost was only 1 cent, the price would still be $17 if the industry determined that's where they could maximize their profits. If you can't follow this I don't know how to make it any clearer. Go learn something of economic theory.
allofmp3.com approached them on several occasions to try and work something out
AllofMP3 approached them with effectively an ultimatum. "We're already selling your product, you don't get any say in that. We've decided that we're 'licencing' this using an agreement that was written years ago for broadcasting, you don't get a say in that. We've decided to use this pricing method, you don't get any say in that. So we've decided that we're going to pay you this amount of money. Want it? No? Please yourself, we're going to keep selling your product anyway."
Any industry would be mad to enter into an agreement like that.
So you are say they raelly fucked people 20 years ago
I didn't say that, and what I meant that as the cost of production has fallen, and the market become more competitive, prices have fallen. What's your problem with that?
Prices are still too high!!!
If the prices were too high then the market would drive them down. That's how it works. What you really mean is in your opinion prices are too high. That's fine. Your opinion is as valid as any other individual. Don't like the price, don't buy it. If enough people feel the same and the industry wants your custom then the price will eventually fall.
I dont want to pay for a no-talent marketing boy band.
Fine. Don't buy the CD. I do, however, note that you believe that all new music is a boy band. You're very misinformed for someone so confident.
people pirate because they do not have a reasonable means of getting the music or software.
Any particular music (or software) is not a requirement for life. You do not have a right to any one musician's work. You can get software for free (as a slashdot reader you should be aware of this). You do not have a right to any one software company's product. What is unreasonable about asking that if you want their product you pay the price they wish to be paid? You don't like the price, don't buy it.
And they offer no modern way of getting music except DRM laiden low bit rate crap formats.
For 'modern' I'm guessing you mean 'the way I like it'. The industry can offer their product any way they please. If you don't like it, don't buy it. And wasn't there an article just the other week that showed people actually like those 'low bit rate crap formats' and couldn't tell the difference anyway. I guess you, again, mean 'formats I don't like'.
Sorry if you have problem following this, but an argument that's based on 'its wrong because I don't like it' isn't much of an argument. I also think that as long as you continue comparing industry prices to piracy on some kind of equal legal and moral footing then the music industry is always going to lose. Any price for a CD is 'too high' if the only experience and comparison you have is with pirated for free.
Get back to your astro-turfing
Hmmm, nothing in my argument relies on any degree of what popular support it has. It's based on the facts of how a free-market economy operates. Your argument, however, seems to be all about what you don't like, and people pira
I don't see anyone getting robbed here. The film or music is still part of human culture.
btw, what exactly am I making up and what exactly am I misrepresenting?
Well clearly I didn't mean you personally and specifically. I meant the whole thrust of these slashdot articles. What's been misrepresented here; the idea that some ignorant judge (at the 'MAFIAA's request) actually asked for the RAM chips out of a server. What's been made up? Well here's a brand new example of the usual; http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=238719&cid =19539997. Comment by MPAA member about property crime gets turned into one about rape. See, it wasn't enough to address what he actually said, further stuff had to be made up. You don't have to agree with the MPAA to see that this is a unfair and stupid way to argue a counterpoint.
Totally a strawman argument. What the quote specifically says is "all the various kinds of property crimes", and you've started on about rape. Care to explain what makes rape a property crime?
Because enough people will pay for it at that price. It still amazes me how many people are confused about this. In a free-market economy the cost to produce an item is only the starting point. The ultimate price of the item is determined by the market, i.e. how much people are willing to pay. The fact that the music was produced 40 years ago is totally irrelevant. And the music industry is no different from any other in this regard. Why are branded clothes priced so high when they're dirt cheap to produce? Because enough people will pay for them at that price.
A reasonable model...not perfect...but reasonable.
Why do people keep quoting AllofMP3 as some kind of reproducible business model to follow? The business model of AllofMP3 is based on having zero production costs. They don't pay the musicians, they don't pay the production staff, they don't pay the marketing, they don't pay the studios, they don't invest in any further music, they don't care about any of the profit margins or economics of any other part of the industry. This is not a business model. It's free-loading off someone else's business model. I wouldn't call that 'reasonable'.
The main driver of piracy is the ridiculously high prices charged by the MAFFIA and software producers.
The price of music in real terms has fallen year on year for at least the last 20 years (See, that's the market economy in action). Yet piracy has increased dramatically in the same time. So your argument fails twice over. What has driven this? Simple; firstly people like something for nothing. Always have, always will. Secondly; digital technology has increasingly made it easier for people to take something for nothing. So basically, people pirate music because they can. Your argument is essentially a 'blame the victim' one. "They had it coming, serves them right, they spend it all on drugs and hookers anyway." All makes you feel better about pirating, doesn't it?
Hmmm, I would think that one of the first steps in being informed and seeing issues clearly would be avoiding dumb made-up names, and referring to the organisations by their proper titles. Does calling them "MAFIAA" help your argument? Perhaps a name like 'Baby-Eaters-of-Satan' would work better with the whole vilification process? No one likes people who eat babies, and it certainly makes it easier to attack them rather than those issues you were talking about, doesn't it?
You see, all you're doing is falling into line with the process of deliberately misrepresenting the MPAA's actions (as this slashdot article does) in order to ridicule and justify arguments against them. Scores a few cheap points, but we've lost sight of the real facts and those issues again, haven't we?
If what the MPAA is doing is wrong, and if the courts have the wrong idea of the issues, then they should be attacked for what they are. But most of the articles and subsequent comments of slashdot are transparent exercises in strawman construction followed by a pile-on. All this would suggest is that you believe the arguments against the actual facts are insufficient to convince anyone. So lets just make stuff up instead.
Quit contributing facts and logic to the usual slashdot pile-on! We want more uninformed comment and overblown outrage! The MPAA is evil and the courts don't understand!! Don't make me RTFA!!!
It goes toward Arab oil interests because it penalizes the consumer for using anything but gasoline, therefore shuttling more dollars toward the big oil machine.
I would have thought that the majority of that big oil machine was American. But don't let me stand in the way of further scapegoating of Arabs. I guess they're behind most of the USA's problems, aren't they?
You have a fair point. But I have a question in that case;
What have concerns about legislative time got to do with slashdot? Will we be seeing similar fuss & bother about other Canadian laws that don't address the primary concern of "health & safety"?
The concern here is not about legislation, or even health or safety. It's about the slashdot fixation on the great evil film industry, wicked sister of the music industry, who want to stop people infringing copyright on their work. This worries some slashdotters, so a fuss must be made about their every move. All they do is wrong, so relax, it's ok to pirate that DVD!
I'm not Canadian, so it doesn't really affect me. But I can't see why Canadians, or anyone else, should worry or be bothered about this. It was illegal before, it's still illegal. No-one's health & safety has been compromised. Industries lobby Governments all the time, some have far greater influence and impact on our lives than Hollywood. Governments produce legislation like this all the time.
This entire commentary from 'Anonymous Reader' (who somehow has lost his 'Coward' label) is based on a fallacy known as Ignoratio elenchi (or irrelevant conclusion). The basis of it is; matters of "health and safety" are more important than camcorder piracy, therefore nothing should be done about camcorder piracy. Wikipedia explains it here.
Clearly 'Anonymous Reader' and editor Zonk have failed to present any credible justification to support why camcorder piracy should be legal and why we should be concerned about this law.
If what you say is true, then you're attacking the wrong target. The problem is not copyright law, but that some companies are colluding in an illegal cartel. There are laws against that and removing (or ignoring) copyright doesn't solve anything. Apply the anti-cartel laws.
forcing through ever more restrictive copyright laws
What more restrictive laws? All I see is them attempting to enforce the ones there's always been. Just because it's easier to break them doesn't mean the laws have become more restrictive.
The music industry has already paid the costs of production,
And where does the money come to pay the next recording's costs? It doesn't matter how you slice up your frames of time, the same basic fact remains. Pirate Bay makes money because it has practically no costs, it is supported by leaching the product off another industry without payment. It is therefore ridiculous to expect any legitimate industry to be able to work to the same financial model or profit margins. It just wouldn't be possible.
The first is your personal email address you give to friends and people who you actually want to communicate with.
The second is your 'account' address you give to companies, organisations, websites that you either have a financial arrangement with or some other connection that you actually care about.
The third is your 'trash & spam' address you give to websites/organisations that demand it, but you don't care about and never read.
I do this, and no person or organisation knows of the other. Not because it's a massive secret, but simply because they've no need to know. So in the scenario given here; my signup at Match would either be on my 'account' or 'trash & spam' email address and my girlfriend would only know my personal address.
Anyways, if I was the lying, cheating type, all I'd need to do would be tell the girlfriend that it was a ancient account I signed up to years ago and never use now.
If it is so profitable, why can't the music industry put up an ad-supported free download site?
Dumb question. It's so profitable because Pirate Bay has zero production costs. The music industry doesn't because it actually pays the producers of the music and invests in its production.
And Phil Spector may have used his legitimate music money to purchase a weapon that he allegedly used to shoot Lana Clarkson
Dumb analogy. Phil Spector legitimately purchased a weapon using legitimate money. Organized criminal gangs use illegitimate money to achieve illegal acts. Where's the similarity?
According to the last item in the list they actually do care, expressing a preference for major labels.
There's a difference between caring and preferring. The point is that while p2pers may prefer mainstream acts on large labels, they don't care if they're not. This is to address the usual argument that p2pers are some kind of principled copyright Robin Hoods, striking out in the name of freedom against the man. They're just freeloaders. They don't care where the music comes from, they just won't pay for it.
If unpopular music were traded most frequently would it still be unpopular? or would it then be popular? I've just gone cross-eyed.
You're missing the point (deliberately, I think). What's being addressed here is again a usual argument that p2p file sharing is good because it lets people discover exotic new music they wouldn't otherwise hear. Everyone is supposed to agree that this is a good thing. (We'll side step the argument about whether that makes it ok to take it without payment for the moment.) But the point being made is that this is not evident when you examine the music being shared. The vast majority of it are mainstream acts that can be heard anywhere and most filesharing is not about discovering new acts at all.
Naturally, everyone can produce anecdotal cases of discovering new acts. But do they outweigh all the other file sharing? I doubt it.
And the point of copyright is to promote the progress of science and useful arts.
And indeed it does. These things take time, investment, effort and talent to produce. Without owning the rights to exploit whatever money can be made from it, would anyone bother?
Besides, it sounds like you've added a value judgement into it. Who decides what is a 'useful' art, and what is not 'useful'? Copyright law as it stands doesn't have worry about that. The market decides. If you don't think it's 'useful', or don't like the way the copyright owner is enforcing their rights then don't buy from them. It's that simple. You don't have a right to their work, and they can't force you to buy it.
Seems to me that if a corporation is using the rights we grant it to perform in a way that abuses and undermines the reason we grant them their rights, revoke their copyrights.
You're going to have to explain how asking to people to pay for things is an abuse or undermines anything. Just because some people would prefer to pay nothing doesn't make them right and the music industry wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
It took me about 6 attempts at that before I worked out you meant to type "but you". And the proximity of eating and bread just made it harder.
But you're spot on. The day GPL becomes common place is the day that these guys convert to the right of the oppressed developer to determine what happens with the fruits of their hard labour. (You know, something like ©**yr**ht.)
It's not so much the value of the idea that attracts them, its the value of being part of the cult that knows best.
And what's a work of fiction starring an Australian and filmed in Ireland got to do with anything?
Wow, you need EMI's music that much? I sure they must be delighted your brand loyalty is so entrenched, like your life depends on it. They should put up the price.
Lower prices mean more sales, does not necessarily mean more profit. You don't realize because you don't understand economics, as has been clear from the start. But now you've fallen back on the tactic of misrepresenting what I'm saying, this discussion is over. Believe what you wish.
Buy a CD from some other band on some other label. And if you don't think they're as good, well that's your brand loyalty showing. If you simply must have Beatles music, you're going to have to deal with the Beatles' company. Sorry, that's the way it is.
If you want a particular band, you have a single source for it.
Indeed you do. And if you want a particular cereal, you have a single source for it. Want a particular make of car, only one company makes it. Want a particular make of clothes, again, no choice. Particular author, only one publisher. So if you don't like the price, go buy some other band's music. The Beatles are not the only source of music and do not have a monopoly on anything except their product. Just like you have a monopoly on whatever you produce.
They asked the RIAA in the USA, mind you for pricing, which did not even get a response.
Well I don't know the facts on that one, but what I do know is no-one is obliged to sell their product to anyone if they do not wish to. Maybe they didn't like the deal that was being offered. What response do you expect to get if you walk into a shop and tell the shop-keeper "negotiate on the price of this chocolate bar, or I will steal it and blame you for not negotiating".
So if they have been falling they must have been really high to begin with.
The first personal computers in the 1980s were very expensive. They've fallen since then in real terms (if you don't know what this means, look it up), but the actual asked for price isn't that much different. Were purchasers of the first PCs being ripped off? Or has the price fallen in real terms since then due to mass-production and greater competition?
CD pricing is much the same.
Yes... I think that was the point being made; a comparison between the two and their supposed cost to society. No-one said they were the same, and no-one mentioned rape. That's what makes its introduction to the thread a strawman construction.
Was someone holding a gun to your head while you bought that CD?
All the production costs... yeah, they need to charge $17 to cover all that.
Yeah, you see, you're still making the same mistake I addressed previously. The cost to produce the CD is only the starting point. The price of the CD is determined by the market value. It is $17 not because that's what it costs, because that's what enough people are prepared to pay. Look, I wrote it out in bold again for you. It wouldn't matter if the cost was only 1 cent, the price would still be $17 if the industry determined that's where they could maximize their profits. If you can't follow this I don't know how to make it any clearer. Go learn something of economic theory.
allofmp3.com approached them on several occasions to try and work something out
AllofMP3 approached them with effectively an ultimatum. "We're already selling your product, you don't get any say in that. We've decided that we're 'licencing' this using an agreement that was written years ago for broadcasting, you don't get a say in that. We've decided to use this pricing method, you don't get any say in that. So we've decided that we're going to pay you this amount of money. Want it? No? Please yourself, we're going to keep selling your product anyway."
Any industry would be mad to enter into an agreement like that.
So you are say they raelly fucked people 20 years ago
I didn't say that, and what I meant that as the cost of production has fallen, and the market become more competitive, prices have fallen. What's your problem with that?
Prices are still too high!!!
If the prices were too high then the market would drive them down. That's how it works. What you really mean is in your opinion prices are too high. That's fine. Your opinion is as valid as any other individual. Don't like the price, don't buy it. If enough people feel the same and the industry wants your custom then the price will eventually fall.
I dont want to pay for a no-talent marketing boy band.
Fine. Don't buy the CD. I do, however, note that you believe that all new music is a boy band. You're very misinformed for someone so confident.
people pirate because they do not have a reasonable means of getting the music or software.
Any particular music (or software) is not a requirement for life. You do not have a right to any one musician's work. You can get software for free (as a slashdot reader you should be aware of this). You do not have a right to any one software company's product. What is unreasonable about asking that if you want their product you pay the price they wish to be paid? You don't like the price, don't buy it.
And they offer no modern way of getting music except DRM laiden low bit rate crap formats.
For 'modern' I'm guessing you mean 'the way I like it'. The industry can offer their product any way they please. If you don't like it, don't buy it. And wasn't there an article just the other week that showed people actually like those 'low bit rate crap formats' and couldn't tell the difference anyway. I guess you, again, mean 'formats I don't like'.
Sorry if you have problem following this, but an argument that's based on 'its wrong because I don't like it' isn't much of an argument. I also think that as long as you continue comparing industry prices to piracy on some kind of equal legal and moral footing then the music industry is always going to lose. Any price for a CD is 'too high' if the only experience and comparison you have is with pirated for free.
Get back to your astro-turfing
Hmmm, nothing in my argument relies on any degree of what popular support it has. It's based on the facts of how a free-market economy operates. Your argument, however, seems to be all about what you don't like, and people pira
I don't see anyone getting robbed here. The film or music is still part of human culture.
btw, what exactly am I making up and what exactly am I misrepresenting?
Well clearly I didn't mean you personally and specifically. I meant the whole thrust of these slashdot articles. What's been misrepresented here; the idea that some ignorant judge (at the 'MAFIAA's request) actually asked for the RAM chips out of a server. What's been made up? Well here's a brand new example of the usual; http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=238719&cid =19539997. Comment by MPAA member about property crime gets turned into one about rape. See, it wasn't enough to address what he actually said, further stuff had to be made up. You don't have to agree with the MPAA to see that this is a unfair and stupid way to argue a counterpoint.
Totally a strawman argument. What the quote specifically says is "all the various kinds of property crimes", and you've started on about rape. Care to explain what makes rape a property crime?
Because enough people will pay for it at that price. It still amazes me how many people are confused about this. In a free-market economy the cost to produce an item is only the starting point. The ultimate price of the item is determined by the market, i.e. how much people are willing to pay. The fact that the music was produced 40 years ago is totally irrelevant. And the music industry is no different from any other in this regard. Why are branded clothes priced so high when they're dirt cheap to produce? Because enough people will pay for them at that price.
A reasonable model...not perfect...but reasonable.
Why do people keep quoting AllofMP3 as some kind of reproducible business model to follow? The business model of AllofMP3 is based on having zero production costs. They don't pay the musicians, they don't pay the production staff, they don't pay the marketing, they don't pay the studios, they don't invest in any further music, they don't care about any of the profit margins or economics of any other part of the industry. This is not a business model. It's free-loading off someone else's business model. I wouldn't call that 'reasonable'.
The main driver of piracy is the ridiculously high prices charged by the MAFFIA and software producers.
The price of music in real terms has fallen year on year for at least the last 20 years (See, that's the market economy in action). Yet piracy has increased dramatically in the same time. So your argument fails twice over. What has driven this? Simple; firstly people like something for nothing. Always have, always will. Secondly; digital technology has increasingly made it easier for people to take something for nothing. So basically, people pirate music because they can. Your argument is essentially a 'blame the victim' one. "They had it coming, serves them right, they spend it all on drugs and hookers anyway." All makes you feel better about pirating, doesn't it?
It depends at what speed they're travelling at at the time.
Ahhh, I slay myself.
You see, all you're doing is falling into line with the process of deliberately misrepresenting the MPAA's actions (as this slashdot article does) in order to ridicule and justify arguments against them. Scores a few cheap points, but we've lost sight of the real facts and those issues again, haven't we?
If what the MPAA is doing is wrong, and if the courts have the wrong idea of the issues, then they should be attacked for what they are. But most of the articles and subsequent comments of slashdot are transparent exercises in strawman construction followed by a pile-on. All this would suggest is that you believe the arguments against the actual facts are insufficient to convince anyone. So lets just make stuff up instead.
Quit contributing facts and logic to the usual slashdot pile-on! We want more uninformed comment and overblown outrage! The MPAA is evil and the courts don't understand!! Don't make me RTFA!!!
I would have thought that the majority of that big oil machine was American. But don't let me stand in the way of further scapegoating of Arabs. I guess they're behind most of the USA's problems, aren't they?
So why do potholes only appear on roads?
What have concerns about legislative time got to do with slashdot? Will we be seeing similar fuss & bother about other Canadian laws that don't address the primary concern of "health & safety"?
The concern here is not about legislation, or even health or safety. It's about the slashdot fixation on the great evil film industry, wicked sister of the music industry, who want to stop people infringing copyright on their work. This worries some slashdotters, so a fuss must be made about their every move. All they do is wrong, so relax, it's ok to pirate that DVD!
I'm not Canadian, so it doesn't really affect me. But I can't see why Canadians, or anyone else, should worry or be bothered about this. It was illegal before, it's still illegal. No-one's health & safety has been compromised. Industries lobby Governments all the time, some have far greater influence and impact on our lives than Hollywood. Governments produce legislation like this all the time.
OK, I'll bite. Whose music was it, if it wasn't his? And after all those millions of people bought it, who should have got the money?
Clearly 'Anonymous Reader' and editor Zonk have failed to present any credible justification to support why camcorder piracy should be legal and why we should be concerned about this law.
What more restrictive laws? All I see is them attempting to enforce the ones there's always been. Just because it's easier to break them doesn't mean the laws have become more restrictive.
And where does the money come to pay the next recording's costs? It doesn't matter how you slice up your frames of time, the same basic fact remains. Pirate Bay makes money because it has practically no costs, it is supported by leaching the product off another industry without payment. It is therefore ridiculous to expect any legitimate industry to be able to work to the same financial model or profit margins. It just wouldn't be possible.
It's simple really. Maintain 3 email addresses.
The first is your personal email address you give to friends and people who you actually want to communicate with.
The second is your 'account' address you give to companies, organisations, websites that you either have a financial arrangement with or some other connection that you actually care about.
The third is your 'trash & spam' address you give to websites/organisations that demand it, but you don't care about and never read.
I do this, and no person or organisation knows of the other. Not because it's a massive secret, but simply because they've no need to know. So in the scenario given here; my signup at Match would either be on my 'account' or 'trash & spam' email address and my girlfriend would only know my personal address.
Anyways, if I was the lying, cheating type, all I'd need to do would be tell the girlfriend that it was a ancient account I signed up to years ago and never use now.
Dumb question. It's so profitable because Pirate Bay has zero production costs. The music industry doesn't because it actually pays the producers of the music and invests in its production.
And Phil Spector may have used his legitimate music money to purchase a weapon that he allegedly used to shoot Lana Clarkson
Dumb analogy. Phil Spector legitimately purchased a weapon using legitimate money. Organized criminal gangs use illegitimate money to achieve illegal acts. Where's the similarity?
According to the last item in the list they actually do care, expressing a preference for major labels.
There's a difference between caring and preferring. The point is that while p2pers may prefer mainstream acts on large labels, they don't care if they're not. This is to address the usual argument that p2pers are some kind of principled copyright Robin Hoods, striking out in the name of freedom against the man. They're just freeloaders. They don't care where the music comes from, they just won't pay for it.
If unpopular music were traded most frequently would it still be unpopular? or would it then be popular? I've just gone cross-eyed.
You're missing the point (deliberately, I think). What's being addressed here is again a usual argument that p2p file sharing is good because it lets people discover exotic new music they wouldn't otherwise hear. Everyone is supposed to agree that this is a good thing. (We'll side step the argument about whether that makes it ok to take it without payment for the moment.) But the point being made is that this is not evident when you examine the music being shared. The vast majority of it are mainstream acts that can be heard anywhere and most filesharing is not about discovering new acts at all.
Naturally, everyone can produce anecdotal cases of discovering new acts. But do they outweigh all the other file sharing? I doubt it.
And the point of copyright is to promote the progress of science and useful arts.
And indeed it does. These things take time, investment, effort and talent to produce. Without owning the rights to exploit whatever money can be made from it, would anyone bother?
Besides, it sounds like you've added a value judgement into it. Who decides what is a 'useful' art, and what is not 'useful'? Copyright law as it stands doesn't have worry about that. The market decides. If you don't think it's 'useful', or don't like the way the copyright owner is enforcing their rights then don't buy from them. It's that simple. You don't have a right to their work, and they can't force you to buy it.
Seems to me that if a corporation is using the rights we grant it to perform in a way that abuses and undermines the reason we grant them their rights, revoke their copyrights.
You're going to have to explain how asking to people to pay for things is an abuse or undermines anything. Just because some people would prefer to pay nothing doesn't make them right and the music industry wrong.
Every single person who read your post is now older. You calling that a coincidence?
Unbelievable! And all the same time everything else has become cheaper! Hasn't it? Wait...
and the experience has gone down.
In your opinion.