The download issue

Remove all ads!

I download so many things, I'm thinking about buying an eyepatch and a parrot.

I can borrow a DVD from a friend, watch it, and then return it. I see no difference from downloading an .avi from someone who could be a friend, watching it, and then deleting it.

Edit:

I equate it to the good old days when people would record songs off the radio or albums and make mix tapes.

I especially see nothing wrong with downloading television shows that were broadcast over the airwaves. Just because I wasn't home to watch "Lost" doesn't mean I should have to wait until the network decides to rebroadcast that episode. Especially, when each episode builds on each other.

[ December 05, 2005, 15:21: Message edited by: The Great Snook ]

 

@Snook: Hehe, would you then, by chance, agree with my concept that copyrights are no "intellectual property" stemming from natural law, but more of a social construct proportional in rise to the influence of middlemen corporations?

@Gnarff: Same what I say. In fact, I believe middlemen would earn more if they were less short-sighted enough to notice that lowering the price makes more people buy the product and their costs mostly come down to CDs, manuals (two bucks together or something), shipment etc which are a fraction of the product's final price. But raising prices, putting bucks in copy protection and pressuring the lawmakers is easier and requires much less effort. Especially cerebral effort.

[ December 05, 2005, 18:46: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

@Chevalier

Yes, I do agree with that concept.

 

@TGS:
Ah, but there's the rub. TV shows have commercials in them, which is how the artists (in this case, writers, actors, et al.) get the money. It goes right back to my inserting ads into the songs idea. Sure you could just fast-forward past the ad in either situation, but at least then they'd be getting something. As it is, it's still something for nothing without consent.

 

Well if record companies actually released more good albums rather than one hit wonders with fillers...

The internet is actually awesome for smaller bands to spread their music around. Most of these bands are more interested in creating music rather than making money. It's always the big name bands or record companies that start up a fuss about downloading.

I buy all my CDs, BTW. I will definitely support bands worthy of my money.

 

Commercials are partly good, partly crap we all have to watch. Decimate middlemen, cut their profit, give more to artists and they will earn money on their work rather than commercials. We can't really say that middlemen create artists who profit from it by being famous enough to star in commercials. After all, artists themselves are the reason why middlemen exist in the first place.

 

@felinoid

I don't buy the commercial argument. There are plenty of devices that enable people to not watch commercials (TIVO, VCRs, DVRs, etc.). They may want you to watch commercials, but they can't force you to. Besides who actually watches them, I'm too busy changing the channel.

 

Precisely! If you don't have those damn greedy middlemen, artists might actually get more than 1 dollar per CD, and there wouldn't be a problem with commercials. Plus, if there is no middlemen, and say, a CD now costs 7 dollars (3 to producer/company, 4 to artist, or something), I would buy all my CDs, as would many other people. Middlemen force us to pirate their expensive music.

 

Rationalization and nothing more. You could also refuse to buy (or steal) the music until they lowered their prices. You do not need the music; it is a luxury, pure and simple. If you really feel the need to steal it, then you've got to re-examine your priorities.

I do not acquire music because the cost is not worth it. It's not worth the money, and it is most certainly not worth stealing (a much higher price IMHO). If you really can't be without the latest CD, then the middlemen have done their jobs to make you want it that much, and deserve their piece of the pie.

 

The point is that illegal downloading is anonymous, and hard to track and harder to prosecute. For that reason, many people will opt for that as opposed to plunking down 20 bucks a pop for a CD when they can put a little effort into it and find the songs on the internet for free. It does not make it right, but most people don't care about that...

 

BLASPHEMY!!! Music is my life! Without music, i'd be a mindless drone living life without excitement, passion, or love! Well, maybe not to that extreme, but I do need my music. I can't imagine the dull existence it would be to live without music.

 

Me either, but you don't have to acquire music to listen to music. I hum little diddies all the time (free speech), and sometimes even make up my own (though those are so disjointed they would make your brain bleed ). I've got a radio in the shower to keep up with any new songs, and that's all I need. Naturally there will be songs I don't like, and of course commercials and jabber, but that's the price you pay for free music.

 

Yes, but with the music I listen to, no radio will ever play it. Have you ever heard throwdown blaring over the radiowaves? Not from where I come from, at least...

Well, TD is a bad example, because I paid for their music, but still, with my genre, it is difficult to find free and legal music of... (not saying I only like Hardcore, but I like listening to specific music, so I would prefer if I had it in my own library).

 

Well, then that's fine with me; as I said, nobody's making them distribute their music, and I don't really expect anything from them . However, if I am on some website and I come up on a song which I heard 15 hundred times on the radio before, I won't have many qualms downloading it.

It's kind of stupid trying to restrict access, though. I don't really buy/listen to music, but take books, for example. I spend a reasonable amount on these; however, I pretty much never buy something new from an unknown author. Spending almost 10$ for something which might be crap is too much. So when looking for something new, I generally buy used, or borrow from friends. OTOH, I'll buy a new book if it's from an author I know and like, and I would do so even if it would be available for download through internet. So that means that in order to get me to spend more money, I should be given more occasions to get exposed to new stuff.

And I would say that most people, after they get a job and grow up, would do the same. College-age people are a different matter, I agree but one you get past that stage, it simply becomes too bothersome to shift through too much free garbage, and you are okay with paying a reasonable amount for something you like. And companies should appreciate young people getting hooked on their stuff, even if it's `free', since these will be their future customers. After all, Microsoft did not become a monopoly by charging $200 for every installed copy of Windows

 

Saber does have a point. If you have more unusual tastes, it is less likely that you will be able to legally acquire what you want. This is a failing of capitalism. If you only cater to the masses, there will flourish a counter culture that will get their fix in other ways.

The point is that the consumer has certain expectations for the money they are asked for. Where these expectations are perceived to be unmet, the customers will seek other means to pay the price they consider fair for it. Since reduced prices is not always an option, then they instead steal or pirate the works in question.

 

Well if it was not for kazaa-lite or similar programmes, my CD collection would be much smaller and not as diverse. I think its excellent tool for promoting smaller or even large foreign artists.

If I like an album, I buy it, and if I don't like, then its sent straight to the 'recycle bin'.

As for programmes like Dreamweaver or Qbase, I will purchase these when I make my fortune as a webdesigner or musician

 

Question: Is it illegal to go to a library and borrow their CDs? If you really liked the music, you could borrow them for extended periods of time, and you could keep checking them out. However, that would prevent other people from using the library's resources. Wouldn't it be more considerate to rip the CD onto your computer so you could keep listening to it without obstructing others' opportunites to?

 

Uh, nooooo.

Most libraries have rules against that sort of thing. (You can only check something out a couple times in a row before you have to give it back, or something like that.)

Now that's illegal. Also, see above.

 

Haha, my question was sarcastic: I know it isn't illegal, I was asking it rhetorically...

I think?

 

How is ripping library CD's illegal?

And oh, you failed at explaining that already.

(Perfectly legal around here, as it should be. Copyright laws should protect against companies, not individuals.)