PDA

View Full Version : Canadian Judge rules online file-sharing LEGAL



mabudonicus
04-03-2004, 11:47 AM
It's true, the decision came down thursday, under Canadian Law online music-sharing has been found to be legal.... I didn't grab a particular link, check it out... it's bound to cause quite a stink, I figure
There have been lots of things said on both sides of the argument, What do you think?????

:beard: :beard: :beard: :D

jjreason
04-03-2004, 02:12 PM
I'm surprised by this. I have partaken in file sharing numerous times, and always felt like I was getting away with something. The allure is grand, no doubts there, but the thought that we're keeping money from the rightful recipient in these cases (the music artist, software designer, whoever) isn't my favorite. I kind of thought the jury was back on this issue, after the whole Napster debacle of a couple of years ago, and that the verdict was "guilty".

sith_killer_99
04-03-2004, 06:31 PM
Hmmm, I read somewhere on another forum that the music industry gets a small percentage from the sale of blank CDs, in Canada, this was done to off set the loss to the industry and as such file sharing was legal.

Though admittedly I never followed up, since I live in the States.

2-1B
04-04-2004, 12:46 AM
does Canadian Law allow online porn-sharing ?

DarthBrandon
04-04-2004, 05:01 AM
does Canadian Law allow online porn-sharing ?

Don't know enough about that one Caesar, I'll research that a little and get back to you. :D As for the percentage from the sale of blank CDs, in Canada, this is true sith_killer_99, we are already taxed for that. I don't feel bad about music sharing because it's no different than taking a blank tape back in the days without online sharing and filling it up with songs off the radio or from a friendís collection. Music I'm all for that, but movies are a whole different ballgame IMO, especially when they are still playing in the theatres and showing up on Kazza at the same time. I think after something has had it's chance to make money at the box office, and it goes DVD or VHS, if people want to copy it or trade it, let them. For me I'd rather have an original copy of S.W. any day over a burnt copy, but hey that's just me. People listen to music everyday on the radio, they watch movies at their friendís houses, so what's the difference if they share online, nothing IMO. What's next you can't listen to the radio or watch a movie at your buddy's house without paying someone? These artists who are crying hard times are the ones we watch on lifestyles of the rich and famous, and it sure doesn't look like their having hard times at all. (i.e. buying 50 pairs of underwear at $500.00 a pop, $100,000.00 dollar shopping sprees or driving the most sought after car around) One thing comes to mind and it's greed, they do not care for the general public and if you think they do then you've been duped. Any money they give to charities (ones they are told to by the P.R. guy) is a tax right off and it makes them look good in the public eye, nothing more. We are just mere mortals while they toil in things that only gods can imagine. They are there to make money and if they feel anyone is cutting their grass they want a piece whatever way they can get it. Sorry after a certain point enough is enough, I buy it if like and leave it if I donít, if my friend gives me a copy of something Iíll listen to it or watch it and if I like it enough Iíll buy my own. File sharing has been around for years in one form or another and it wonít be stopped so they need to get over it. End of rant.

Peace

mabudonicus
04-04-2004, 09:59 AM
Howdy Brandon :beard:, haven't crossed threads in a while...
I would echo your thoughts in a :beard:-ed voice :D
JJ- I thought of you first when I heard this, seeing as you actually are the law up here :)
And Caesar- sure, you just need a valid e-mail address and a credit card (to verify your age, of course;)) I'll mail you the links :D

Anyways, yeah, back to Brandon's post... it is hard to care too much about the industry and it's woes when the "pinnacle" of pop (thus "big money", both in sales and promotion) keeps sticking the bar in the mud with junk like American Idol....
Actual, bona-fide musical talent is now the domain of the shadowy "session musicians", many of the "names" which command the big money (I'm thinking specifically of say Britney Spears, sorry guys :D) are just that; names, with images attached, with all of the work being done in promotion... Britney could be anyone, and ironically stuff like American Idol makes that clear.... I've seen bits of the show where people are told that "they are great but just don't have it", clearly the industry trying to indicate that certain people just are "pop stars" and it has nothing to do with their talents, which is made all too clear when you turn on the radio

When the show "Big Brother" was big, a guy on the German version was topping the German pop charts with stuff that his "character" was making on ths show...
There are tons of people doing what the guy was doing, but he was a "real" artist and was making real industry dollars... was he exceptionally skilled? not really, but he was "famous".... and since he was, he could sell stuff he cooked up on his PC at the going industry rate for new music...

Another reason for the high price of "entertainment" is to make a buffer against unsold units, especially if the only merit of agiven CD is based on how successful the marketing is.. I've noticed that actual "music sharing" is nowhere near like it used to be when I was younger, all of my friends and I (and we're mostly musicians, so I guess that could be a factor) were always trying to find the GREATEST ALBUM EVER, always grabbing new stuff and laying it on others (whether they liked it or not, gotta try it at least)
Nowadays I meet folks who purportedly like music, but only by one (usually real gimmicky) band.... sorta sad, it shows how good the industry has gotten with what it does (hint- it ain't selling great music)

Man, I was going to try and counter Brandon's rant, win some ya lose some
:beard: out

Kidhuman
04-04-2004, 10:01 AM
Canada just got that much better. Free health care and free music.

Exhaust Port
04-04-2004, 10:44 AM
Check this link out:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/36655.html

Two Harvard professors studied the file sharing issue and claim that it has no effect on CD sales. It takes about 5000 downloads to equal one less CD sold according to their research. That would account for 2 Million less CD's in 2002 sold BUT CD sales fell by 139 Million between 2000-2002. That just doesn't add up.

Perhaps the music industry has to start admitting that the economic downturn has slowed their sales. The first to go in tough times is entertainment $$ for the average consumer. I know that my CD/DVD purchases have slowed to a trickle over the last few years. I use to buy about 20-30 CD's a year but now I'm lucky to purchase 2.

Kidhuman
04-04-2004, 10:46 AM
Bottom line is that music is not all that great nowadays. It is aimed at young kids who dont have the money to buy them.

scruffziller
04-04-2004, 12:10 PM
Check this link out:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/36655.html

Two Harvard professors studied the file sharing issue and claim that it has no effect on CD sales. It takes about 5000 downloads to equal one less CD sold according to their research.So basically the research indicates that most of the people downloading music for free instead of buying the CDs, would not have bought the CDs in the first place?

And........that file sharing has actually helped limit the fall of the business in that frame of time.

Kidhuman
04-04-2004, 12:20 PM
I dont buy CD's with or with out online sharing. Think about it this way. When we were younger, we had cassettes. They sold blank ones and we bought them. A friend would buy a tape and everyone would record it. Idid it, you did it, everyone did it. There was no mention of this stuff then, so why now?

Exhaust Port
04-04-2004, 12:52 PM
Sounds about right. Now it can be argued that it would be impossible to prove that those folks would have purchased the CD if the downloading wasn't available. I just think that the music industry can in no way prove that downloading is the reason their sales have sunk. They're just looking for a scapegoat. It's not like that 14 year old girl who downloaded 5000 songs was planning on buying 500 CD but opted to download them to save money.

I can copy a CD and give it to a friend to listen to or copy a song off the radio or even internet radio for that matter but downloading is illegal? They tried to stop the sale of used CD's back in the early 90's stating that it was hurting the record industry. That didn't work so they're going after music downloading.

I think the music industry has many other factors that are impacting the situtation that they are choosing to ignore. Outlandish concert prices, destruction of basic morals from even the most "wholesome" artists, increases in CD prices and this new Big Brother additude they've taken to "protect their domain" to name a few. I think the consumers are starting to voice their displeasure with their pocketbook.

Going to a concert will cost you $40 or more to sit on a piece of grass a few hundred yards away from the stage. No thanks. I know my concert attandance has stopped completely starting 3 years ago. I use to average about 6 concerts a year but after blowing $400-500 in my last year just to get in the door I said enough is enough. Even for tickets at smaller venues for second tier bands tickets were running close to $30. I use to discover a few new bands that were opening for the main act each year but that opportunity is long gone as I stay home.

Plus, has anyone noticed the trend to hold these major festival concerts on weekdays? Years ago concerts were always on the weekend. A Thursday night concert was rare. I remember OzFest coming through here a few years ago and it was on a Tuesday? Us average Joes were working at 2:00 when the first band took the stage.

Has anyone else noticed a steady increase in CD prices? I distinctly remember being able to purchase a brand new CD in 1991 for 10.99 to 11.99 and for the first month of release it would be available for 9.99. Now I'm seeing the same discs for 14.99 to 15.99 if not more. The materials in the CD cost only a few cents so that can't be responsible. These increases started well before the online downloading trend.


When I was a kid and there was a band that I liked, all I knew about them was what I imagined from looking at the cassette, album, or CD sleave and from the occasional news from the radio. That was it. Now, I know more about every artist out there even if I don't care for the music. Perhaps I would have bought an album for a band I heard on the radio but nowadays I know all about the band even before I heard the song. Here they are on MTV Cribs talking about their new Bentley or showing their newest trophey wife. The biggest bands of my childhood probably had all those things as well but I never remember them showing up on TV to tell me about it. If I ever saw a band on TV it was them performing on a TV show and that was it.

I hate to sound old but it use to be about the music, now it's about the image. I only buy music not into some diamond encrusted, luxury car fleet, 3 girlfriends lifestyle. Looking at my CD collection, I know absolutely nothing about the personal lives of 99% of the artists in there. I guess there is such a thing as bad publicity. Too much is not a good thing.

Stuff like this is probably what has erroded the CD sales away. Music isn't the only outlet available to us in our modern age.

Lowly Bantha Cleaner
04-04-2004, 01:11 PM
Hmmmm, file sharing legal in Canada. Free healthcare for it's citizens. Marijuana legal in certain provinces. Gay marriages recognized. Land of hockey and Tim Horton's Donut Chains.

Sounds like I'm moving to Canada!

Exhaust Port
04-04-2004, 02:03 PM
Well Healthcare isn't really "free" when the government uses tax money to subsidize it. A lot of stuff could be "free" in the US too if we raised our taxes.

2-1B
04-04-2004, 02:07 PM
Exhaust Port, where do you shop ?

All the big chains seem to keep the new CD prices down around 11.99 or 12.99 - hell, Best Buy just had the new Aerosmith disc for 9.99

Every Ozzfest in my area has always been on a Saturday or Sunday but we've just been lucky in that regard. :)

James Boba Fettfield
04-04-2004, 03:01 PM
Music I'm all for that, but movies are a whole different ballgame IMO, especially when they are still playing in the theatres and showing up on Kazza at the same time.

I don't quite understand why movies should be given different copyright protection over music. If a person thinks its alright to share music online than the same should apply to movies. Maybe I am missing something, but I do not see a difference between the two. What about books? Or software? They are all given copyright protection, so why the distinction? A person's property is a person's property.


People listen to music everyday on the radio, they watch movies at their friendís houses, so what's the difference if they share online, nothing IMO.

When you share online you receive a copy of the song for as long as you want. Going to a friend's house to watch movie isn't the same. The same thing can be said listening to the radio. File sharing gives you a perfect lasting digital copy of the song. Now if maybe you went to your friend's house and ripped a DVD copy of his movie and then started handing that out to friends and then they made copies and handed those out to friends, well . . .


These artists who are crying hard times are the ones we watch on lifestyles of the rich and famous, and it sure doesn't look like their having hard times at all. One thing comes to mind and it's greed, they do not care for the general public and if you think they do then you've been duped. They are there to make money and if they feel anyone is cutting their grass they want a piece whatever way they can get it.

Greed or not, that does not matter. The owners of these copyrights have them for a reason. Copyrights exist to to protect their creations from being used or taken without compensation. If that copyright holder has a billion dollars or only a few hundred dollars, they are both afforded the same protection under the law.

I believe in copyrights because I hope to be under their protection with some of my works. I think copyright protection is a great thing. I just hope copyright protection does not come out hindered because of the recent explosion in file sharing. I guess I just look at this argument differently than the CRIAA or the RIAA.

Exhaust Port
04-04-2004, 03:47 PM
Exhaust Port, where do you shop ?

All the big chains seem to keep the new CD prices down around 11.99 or 12.99 - hell, Best Buy just had the new Aerosmith disc for 9.99
Over the last 5 years all the mom-and-pop music stores have closed up leaving only the largest mega-stores around here. So I'm left with Coconuts, Best Buy, Walmart and the like. Yes, Best Buy does throw sales for select new releases but other than the sale prices a CD will run $14. Heck just looking at their website for soundtracks shows most at $14.99.

I remember when Best Buy first came to this part of the country back in '93-94 there were running a pretty aggressive advertisement for their music selection and low prices. I remember being blown away by what they had. I walked out of there the first time with a few Black Sabbath albums for $8 each. Now their music selection is halved and isn't nearly as well stocked as it had been. Plus the prices are similar to the music store chains which blows.

CDNow use to have that rewards program for making purchases through their website. That drew me to online purchasing for my CD needs but they killed that program and then were soon bought by Amazon. Amazon's prices aren't anything to praise either in my opinion. Now more than ever, I'll only make a purchase if I can get it on sale.

Exhaust Port
04-04-2004, 04:16 PM
Greed or not, that does not matter. The owners of these copyrights have them for a reason. Copyrights exist to to protect their creations from being used or taken without compensation.
You go to a concert, tape it and give it to your friends. How are they compensated for that? Some bands are very open to recording their performances.

You copy a song off the radio and make a CD of your favorite songs that you got that way. How are they compensated for that?

You make a copy of your CD to use for secondary purchases like the radio at work. Others listen to the album while your play your air drums at your desk. How are they compensated for that?

You buy a used CD at a store. How are they compensated for that?



The problem as I see it is that when purchasing music your are not buying a unique item you are buying a single recording of several songs that everyone can buy. Once I have that item in my possession I'm free to do what ever I want to with it as long as I don't use it for commerical applications. Your buying a copy, that's it.

It seems the music industry is claiming that we are buying a music license to have those songs in our possession. We aren't as much buying a piece of plastic but we are buying the right to listen to those specific songs on that specific format. Fine. But if that's how they see it then will they give me a replacement when that disc gets scratched or my harddrive crashes and I lose those files? If I'm purchasing the right to the song then why do my rights end when I lose the song?

If they don't want to have that responsibility then so be it but they have to expect music owners to copy, alter and even share those songs.

It boils down to transfer of ownership per the copyright. I bought the CD, am I transfering ownership by giving a copy of a song to my brother? I'm not giving him the artwork or packaging that is apart of the CD, I still have ownership.

sith_killer_99
04-04-2004, 05:16 PM
WEll, first of all, let me say that I never really got into the whole "file-sharing" thing. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I am a member of the new Napster and listen to unlimited streaming audio for $9.99 a month, the same cost for most file sharing network subscriptions as I understand it, though I could be wrong.

IMO, some artists should be grateful for file-sharing, it gets their music recognized! This in turn leads to increased ticket sales at concerts, where most musicians make the real dough! When it comes to CD sales, the recording industry makes most of the money, since they were the ones who produced and distributed the CD's to begin with.

I'm telling you, file sharing can be an incredible marketing resource, if it is used correctly.

If I were an upcoming musician I would produce my own songs and distribute them via the internet for free. Then, once my stuff caught on I would look at hitting the tour circuit and distribute my own stuff with the bank roll. Who says the current model of music (ie. Radio Play, then CD sales, then tour, etc) is the best way to do business!?!?

To the music industry:

It's the internet idiot, it's a tool, use it. Remember, you can't put Pandora back in her box so just accept it and find an new way to do business. It's called innovation, adapt and grow, or die.

The 'Xir
04-04-2004, 07:25 PM
First Off, All those things that you guys talk about that we used to do when we were growing up, like taping songs off the radio and copying friends albums, were just as illegal, as file sharing is today!!! There just was no way for the government to enforce it. It's the same reasons why you see those FCC notices in front of video or dvd movies and the same reason why you see those stealing cable commercials! It's just that now with the internet it's easier for the government to enforce file sharing violators, so they do!!!

The trick is(as far as I know), It is not illegal for you to download the song, because you are not the one who originally copied/stole it, but once you share it with somone else then you've broken the law! And that's why I like Kazza even though it bogs down your system, because once you download a song from somone else you can choose to stop sharing it, which I do!

But, it does sound like it would just be easier to move to Canada! Anyone got a parka?!! :crazed:

scruffziller
04-04-2004, 07:59 PM
A friend would buy a tape and everyone would record it. I did it, you did it, everyone did it. There was no mention of this stuff then, so why now?Because Lars Ulrich put it on everyone's lips with the Napster case. We were file sharing way, way before ol' Larsy got involved and forced everyone to be aware of it. Like I've said before, THE MEDIA IS THE FOURTH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT AND IS THE MOST POWERFUL BRANCH.

The media tells us how and what to think.
Example. It is a proven fact that flying is a safer mode of transportation than driving by far. It would take a the occurance of a "9/11" disaster to happen every month to equal the danger of driving. But the general public as whole doesn't feel that way. They don't give it a second thought like the breaths they take. When a plane crash happens, they sensationalize it to sell their network making it appear worse than car crashes by comparison to how the public feels. If car crash stats were reported like plane crashes, people would be doing alot more walking.:D


You go to a concert, tape it and give it to your friends. How are they compensated for that? Some bands are very open to recording their performances.


Because a concert ticket was bought by you.




You copy a song off the radio and make a CD of your favorite songs that you got that way. How are they compensated for that?

Because you heard the advertisement on the radio sponsoring the station that pays the air time for that song.




You buy a used CD at a store. How are they compensated for that?


Because it was purchased at one time and the money for that single CD went to the artist when it was originally bought.


You don't do things because you "think" they are right.
You do things right according to how the law has spelled them out and operate as such. Because that is what holds up in court.

I don't know if I proved or smashed your point there EP, all I know is that it is the truth.:D

sith_killer_99
04-04-2004, 08:16 PM
Because Lars Ulrich put it on everyone's lips with the Napster case. We were file sharing way, way before ol' Larsy got involved and forced everyone to be aware of it.

Yep, all from a member of a band that used to allow fans to record and even video tape their concerts! They used to be as open to the fans as the Greatful Dead! How's that for hypocricy!


It is a proven fact that flying is a safer mode of transportation than driving by far. It would take a the occurance of a "9/11" disaster to happen every month to equal the danger of driving. But the general public as whole doesn't feel that way.

Yep, I hear them state that all the time on Fox News. It is a fact that despite everything, flying is still the safest mode of transportation. Steve Doocie says it all the time.

Kidhuman
04-04-2004, 08:19 PM
Metallica can go suck-a-tash. I would love to see their hard drives, and see all the dl'd music they have.

scruffziller
04-04-2004, 08:24 PM
And that's why I like Kazza even though it bogs down your system, because once you download a song from somone else you can choose to stop sharing it, which I do!

:crazed:
Yea its cool because you can download the stuff internationally from people overseas where the RIAA has no jurisdiction for them to worry about file sharing.

Exhaust Port
04-05-2004, 12:26 AM
Because a concert ticket was bought by you.
Well I purchased the CD so I can share it too right?



Because you heard the advertisement on the radio sponsoring the station that pays the air time for that song.
By buddy paid for the CD so I can copy the songs off of it right?



Because it was purchased at one time and the money for that single CD went to the artist when it was originally bought.
Same thing when I bought my CD, the artist got the money. How is it different if I turn around and sell the CD used or share the songs with a friend? Either way they aren't getting $$ for the transaction.

stillakid
04-05-2004, 01:06 AM
Same thing when I bought my CD, the artist got the money. How is it different if I turn around and sell the CD used or share the songs with a friend? Either way they aren't getting $$ for the transaction.


This is a confusing issue for certain, but the best way I've found to argue that point above is that when a person buys a CD (or movie), they're not really buying the material itself even though it seems like it. What you're really buying is the ability to access it anytime you choose. You're paying for the right to hear or see it anytime you wish. So by selling that CD or DVD later on (assuming you haven't copied it for yourself), you're transferring that right of access to someone else. No, the original author doesn't receive any more money for it no matter how many times that single copy is bought/sold because what they released into the marketplace is a single copy that you bought from them which was meant for a single user to use for that right of access.

My basis for this argument is radio. Record companies willfully release material into the public airwaves via radio for free. You are able to copy that broadcast at will if you choose. If you do that, you lose some quality and fidelity from the substandard FM signal. If you choose to just listen to your favorite station in hopes of hearing your favorite music, you still eventually get what you're after (the music) but you haven't purchased the right to hear it anytime you wish at your convenience. Therefore, going to the record store and laying down the cash buys you that access. That's what you're paying for.

So, when you randomly make copies and hand them out, or make copies and sell them, or offer the material on a file-sharing mechanism so that it can be randomly copied by others, you are in effect giving away the license of access that you paid for to others who haven't paid. They too could listen to the radio and hope to randomly hear the music they want, but instead they get that access for free that you paid for. They could go to the record store and buy that access for themselves, but if it is offered for free via a burned disk or an MP3 file on the net, the tempation is too great. Why pay for access when you don't have to? Is that fair?

2-1B
04-05-2004, 03:12 AM
Well stated, stillakid.

Exhaust Port - since I mentioned the new Aerosmith disc and since you noted that only the new ones are priced low, I checked the prices on all of their old discs from the reissues in 1993 through JPP in 2001 and Best Buy sells them all for around 11.99

I'm not saying that they don't charge a few dollars more for many discs because they often do. I just think there is some variety in pricing there. And it's not ALWAYS based on new release status even though it sometimes is.

As far as my personal stance on downloading / copying music, personally I don't care about it and I do have some "illegal" items in my possession . . . then again, if an artist comes around claiming that their copyrights are being violated, well I can't argue against them and I do see their point.

scruffziller
04-05-2004, 09:39 AM
Same thing when I bought my CD, the artist got the money. How is it different if I turn around and sell the CD used or share the songs with a friend? Either way they aren't getting $$ for the transaction.That would also be like saying that Ford corperation does not get a cut from the sale you made when you turned around and sold you Ford vehicle again to a friend after since buying it from the dealer. I have heard rumors though that they are trying push a law so dealers can get a cut everytime that vehicle is sold. So yes Exhaust Port and stillakid you are correct. It is okay because people have been selling and reselling since the dawn of time. When the original party does not get a cut evertime it is sold that is the nature of the beast. Plausible loss.
Enough money is made with the ways that you make money but the way you may lose/not gain money do not affect the business for it to matter. Thus file sharing. And as the article above explained, file sharing actually helped artists make more money.

Exhaust Port
04-05-2004, 11:23 AM
Comparision between music and the automobile industry are a bit unrealistic. I thought about them earlier to make a point but realized that they are apples and oranges.

Trading of music has been going on forever but the industry only started squawking about it when CD's hit the market. For some reason they didn't care about the swapping of tapes but they did about swapping of CD's It's an issue now because people can swap "perfect copies" of songs, no loss of quality. Now digitally those same songs can be swapped over a great distance instantly. Why does the quality of the copy matter to the industry? If it's an issue now, it should have been an issue for the last 40 years of cheap home recording. My dad use to put LP's onto reel to reel tapes back in the 60's. How's that for old school. :)

Stilla, you hit on the same issue I'd made before. It's like we aren't buying a piece of art or even truly a copy of that art, we are buying a license to listen to that art ON THAT FORMAT. The problem is that the music industry has never really listened to the fan base. They give us what they think we want instead of going with the trends. How many audio mediums have we seen even in the last 10 years? DCC, DAT, MiniDisc? All failures. Time changed and everyone is going to electronic music storage. Well the industry didn't sell electronic versions of their catalog.

If the music industry is going to limit buyers to listening to a particular piece in a particular format, what happens when the music industry doesn't provide a format? Everyone has digital media players but no one sold digital media? In fact, the industry leaders were against the whole thing; the selling of digital albums or songs. Times changed but the industry didn't so others filled the void. They can only blame themselves.

stillakid
04-05-2004, 11:27 AM
So yes Exhaust Port and stillakid you are correct. It is okay because people have been selling and reselling since the dawn of time. When the original party does not get a cut evertime it is sold that is the nature of the beast. Plausible loss.


I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that's a correct statement. The difference is that something like a car is an actual tangible item. When we talk about music, movies, or literature it's called "intellectual property." I can't really "share" my car in the same way you "share" a song. I can make a digital copy of a song so that the end result is that I retain a pristine copy of the original and you now also have a pristine copy of the original. I can't "burn" a copy of a car. But if you figure out how, then Detroit will undoubtedly have something to say about it. :eek:

sith_killer_99
04-05-2004, 12:31 PM
Exhaust Port - since I mentioned the new Aerosmith disc and since you noted that only the new ones are priced low, I checked the prices on all of their old discs from the reissues in 1993 through JPP in 2001 and Best Buy sells them all for around 11.99

If you think that's bad, I couldn't find a single copy of NIN's Pretty Hate Machine for less than $15.00!!! Not to mention I had to go to more than a half a dozen store to even find the thing! Best Buy didn't have it, FYE didn't have it, Sam Goodie didn't have it, my PX didn't have it. I found a brand new copy at a local independant shop!

scruffziller
04-05-2004, 01:47 PM
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that's a correct statement. The difference is that something like a car is an actual tangible item. When we talk about music, movies, or literature it's called "intellectual property." I can't really "share" my car in the same way you "share" a song. I can make a digital copy of a song so that the end result is that I retain a pristine copy of the original and you now also have a pristine copy of the original. I can't "burn" a copy of a car. But if you figure out how, then Detroit will undoubtedly have something to say about it. :eek:
True, I was merely referring to the aspect of the reselling of the CDs, albums etc. in regards to actual physical property of the CD plastic that holds the intellectual property.

2-1B
04-05-2004, 01:51 PM
SithKiller99 - I DON'T think that's bad, not at all. I think $12 is quite reasonable for those CDs.

JediTricks
04-05-2004, 03:44 PM
Let me ask you folks this, if CDs were around $7-8 new instead of $12-16, do you think this issue would be such a big deal as it is now? There is what I feel is the true center of the problem, the music industry wants a lot of money from their customers for the product but doesn't really give enough care to whether the customer's cost is a reasonable value for the customer's money. Look at CDs, even though their sound quality is very good, it's not "perfect", it's a 20-year-old format and as such is no longer "new" enough to garner the big customer bucks as it once did, and most CDs are priced more than many DVD movies. How does the music industry expect to truly conquer the issue of file-sharing if they are seen as money-grubbing execs who want to loot the pockets of their customers? Certainly playing this "lawyer ball" they've been at hasn't cut it, and the industry's public image has gone down the toilet due to that, which hurts not just the execs, but the actual artists.

scruffziller
04-05-2004, 03:56 PM
Let me ask you folks this, if CDs were around $7-8 new instead of $12-16, do you think this issue would be such a big deal as it is now? There is what I feel is the true center of the problem, the music industry wants a lot of money from their customers for the product but doesn't really give enough care to whether the customer's cost is a reasonable value for the customer's money. Look at CDs, even though their sound quality is very good, it's not "perfect", it's a 20-year-old format and as such is no longer "new" enough to garner the big customer bucks as it once did, and most CDs are priced more than many DVD movies. How does the music industry expect to truly conquer the issue of file-sharing if they are seen as money-grubbing execs who want to loot the pockets of their customers? Certainly playing this "lawyer ball" they've been at hasn't cut it, and the industry's public image has gone down the toilet due to that, which hurts not just the execs, but the actual artists.
Yes, the industry must grow and adapt with the times or the industry will die

Reefer Shark
04-05-2004, 09:10 PM
Yes, the industry must grow and adapt with the times or the industry will dieHeh... that's basically what it boils down to. The music industry is full of some of the most money hungry people around, and they're fighting the current pricing for optical disk media 'till their dying breaths :rolleyes:.

I mean really, it's just assinine to think that people will happily pay as much for an audio CD as they would for a DVD. Of course.... file sharing and other pirating is bound to happen.....

Sad thing is: Now the pirating is so easy and widely used, it'll probably never stop ......no matter how much they drop prices on CD's. I'm thinking that the greedy music companies have shot themselves in their feet by hanging on to the high SRP's. :)

sith_killer_99
04-05-2004, 09:45 PM
Sad thing is: Now the pirating is so easy and widely used, it'll probably never stop ......no matter how much they drop prices on CD's.

That's what I'm saying:


Remember, you can't put Pandora back in her box so just accept it and find an new way to do business.

Hehehe, that's the first time I've ever quoted myself in a post. lol

Hear is the way I see it.

1. I can buy DVD's as low as $5.50 and most new releases are $15.99 out of the starting gate, then they go up to $19.99 and drop to $15.00 or less after 12-24 months, many go for less than $9.99!

2. Most CD's sell for $9.99 and up with many starting out around $15.00-$20.00!

3. There are better alternatives to buying CD's, such as online services that sell just the songs you want for 99 cents or less. Why buy a whole album for 2-3 songs? Better yet, online subscription services allow unlimited streaming audio for the cost of a CD (or less) per month.

stillakid
04-05-2004, 09:52 PM
True, I was merely referring to the aspect of the reselling of the CDs, albums etc. in regards to actual physical property of the CD plastic that holds the intellectual property.


Right, and if it stopped there, I don't think anyone would say anything about it. Why? Because the moment you sell or give away your copy of the CD, you hand over your right of access to someone else. The problem occurs the moment you copy the property so that now that physical entity isn't merely transferring ownership but the intellectual property is being shared amongst people who haven't paid for the right to have unlimited access like that.

That issue of access rights and ownership is pretty cut and dried. There really isn't any good argument against it.

But as mentioned, I think that it's a rather moot point. The technological cat is out of the bag. If people can take things that aren't nailed down, they will. Pricing has nothing to do with it.