Who's morally bankrupt? I assume you mean the people who won't stop taking what isn't theirs, ie: those downloading copyrighted material. The RIAA has every right to do what they are doing. It's not their responsibility to make sure someone can get a college education. She screwed up and she should have to pay for it, even if that means going to a less expensive college. BTW, it's also not the governments responsibility to decide how someone runs their business (or it shouldn't be, anyway). The RIAA are not doing anything illegal, the people downloading copyrighted music are.
I appreciate your long and thoughtful response, but I don't follow. What is your point? That they can afford to give away a lot of free merchandise? So that means that everyone should be able to get their product for free? Tell me, how then are they supposed to make a profit? You don't have to be a DJ or a musician to know that the reason they do this is - well, you said it yourself - broadcast promotions, marketing. Don't you think that they do these promotions with the hope of increasing CD sales and concert ticket sales?
I really am trying to understand the point of view of those who try to justify continuing to download copyrighted materials. But it's a clear case of conflicting interests. Those doing the downloading have something to gain, namely free music. And honestly, people who try to justify it should not make the claim that CD's are too expensive, or that the musician get's a small percentage. That's a deal that is worked out by the record company and the musician and does not concern the consumer. So it does not matter how much they charge or who's getting that money.
And concerning Fake Books: I'm not sure, but I'd be willing to bet that the musician and/or record company is getting a cut of the profits of the books, and if they aren't, well, I think they should.
Look, I'm not against downloading music, I'm against copyright infringement and taking something that you didn't pay for. You already see trends toward legal downloads that you pay for. There's nothing wrong with that. That's the way it's supposed to work.
Cheers,
Tim
I don't like to resort to name-calling, but I just thought it was kinda funny that this post was from an 'Anonymous Coward', because that's really what you are. I see many posts on/. talking about how to hide your IP address (and it's usually for the purposes of hiding from the RIAA, or whomever).
Look, let me stipulate for the purposes of argument that copyright infringement is not the same thing as theft. But if they aren't, their effect is the same, namely keeping the seller from getting money that they would otherwise have gotten. You can split hairs and give it a different name, but at the end of the day it's still theft. If you think it is right to download copyrighted material, maybe you could identify yourself while doing it and make a stand for what you believe.
I don't understand any of you can seriously justify illegally downloading of copyrighted material. Don't you think that the creators of this material have the right to protect their own interests? And the excuses that you use to try to justify it.
1. The music that they sell is crap - then why are you downloading it? 2. They charge too much - then go without. You don't steal something simply because you can't afford it! Besides, a product is worth exactly what people are willing to pay for it; no more, no less. This is Capitalism at its best. You should be voting with you dollars.
The only reason why you all think there's nothing wrong with it is because you can typically do it anonymously and it's easy. Would you be willing to walk into a music store and steal a CD? I doubt it, but it IS the same thing. You are not entitled to this stuff you download. And I think the RIAA and the IFPI are doing exactly the right thing. If you download copyrighted material, you're breaking the law and should be prosecuted. So get a sense of responsibility and get your music the right way - pay for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Who's morally bankrupt? I assume you mean the people who won't stop taking what isn't theirs, ie: those downloading copyrighted material. The RIAA has every right to do what they are doing. It's not their responsibility to make sure someone can get a college education. She screwed up and she should have to pay for it, even if that means going to a less expensive college. BTW, it's also not the governments responsibility to decide how someone runs their business (or it shouldn't be, anyway). The RIAA are not doing anything illegal, the people downloading copyrighted music are.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time (or pay the fine!). I bet you all think she's a victim.
I appreciate your long and thoughtful response, but I don't follow. What is your point? That they can afford to give away a lot of free merchandise? So that means that everyone should be able to get their product for free? Tell me, how then are they supposed to make a profit? You don't have to be a DJ or a musician to know that the reason they do this is - well, you said it yourself - broadcast promotions, marketing. Don't you think that they do these promotions with the hope of increasing CD sales and concert ticket sales? I really am trying to understand the point of view of those who try to justify continuing to download copyrighted materials. But it's a clear case of conflicting interests. Those doing the downloading have something to gain, namely free music. And honestly, people who try to justify it should not make the claim that CD's are too expensive, or that the musician get's a small percentage. That's a deal that is worked out by the record company and the musician and does not concern the consumer. So it does not matter how much they charge or who's getting that money. And concerning Fake Books: I'm not sure, but I'd be willing to bet that the musician and/or record company is getting a cut of the profits of the books, and if they aren't, well, I think they should. Look, I'm not against downloading music, I'm against copyright infringement and taking something that you didn't pay for. You already see trends toward legal downloads that you pay for. There's nothing wrong with that. That's the way it's supposed to work. Cheers, Tim
I don't like to resort to name-calling, but I just thought it was kinda funny that this post was from an 'Anonymous Coward', because that's really what you are. I see many posts on /. talking about how to hide your IP address (and it's usually for the purposes of hiding from the RIAA, or whomever).
Look, let me stipulate for the purposes of argument that copyright infringement is not the same thing as theft. But if they aren't, their effect is the same, namely keeping the seller from getting money that they would otherwise have gotten. You can split hairs and give it a different name, but at the end of the day it's still theft. If you think it is right to download copyrighted material, maybe you could identify yourself while doing it and make a stand for what you believe.
I don't understand any of you can seriously justify illegally downloading of copyrighted material. Don't you think that the creators of this material have the right to protect their own interests? And the excuses that you use to try to justify it.
1. The music that they sell is crap - then why are you downloading it?
2. They charge too much - then go without. You don't steal something simply because you can't afford it! Besides, a product is worth exactly what people are willing to pay for it; no more, no less. This is Capitalism at its best. You should be voting with you dollars.
The only reason why you all think there's nothing wrong with it is because you can typically do it anonymously and it's easy. Would you be willing to walk into a music store and steal a CD? I doubt it, but it IS the same thing. You are not entitled to this stuff you download. And I think the RIAA and the IFPI are doing exactly the right thing. If you download copyrighted material, you're breaking the law and should be prosecuted. So get a sense of responsibility and get your music the right way - pay for it.