The Picture Thread Mark III
- Thread starter Odin'Izm
- Start date
They sell the medium, not the music. Thus, it comes at no extra expense to the company.
Why should consumers have to take it up the ass from from recording industry cartels?? You wanna talk about theft? The RIAA has been extorting consumers for years, and the only difference is that the law is on their side.
Why should consumers have to take it up the ass from from recording industry cartels?? You wanna talk about theft? The RIAA has been extorting consumers for years, and the only difference is that the law is on their side.
Xerxes said:
The standard argument, and not altogether a bad one. Thus its popularity.
I agree with you. The music industry is skewed in favour of the producers and the music companies. It does discriminate against the artists themselves, and it does mean higher prices for the consumer.
However. You still, at the end of the day, take that which is not yours by right without paying. You still, at the end of the day, hurt the artists most of all by not paying for their product. Regardless of whether or not you believe the law is correct, or whether or not the music companies are rorting the system, you are taking that which is not yours.
If you believe a Ferrari is overpriced and that its manufacturers demand an unreasonable amount based more on the brand name than the car itself, does that then give you the right to steal one?
The answer is no.
Think - all this theft in the name of ideology, and who do you think ultimately pays for it? Not you. Not the record companies.
The artists do.
I don't take "it", I just copy information without worsening the original and without depriving the first party of the original.Harlequin said:
And as a law student I know the definition of theft good enough.
Also note that all those people are being sued for copyright infringement (civil case), not for theft (which is a criminal offence).
Copyright infringement is still against the law, just not the criminal one.
p.s. This discussion has no place in Picture Thread
Last edited:
Of course not, dummy.
If I made my own Ferarri from scratch, at no expense to them, I should not have to pay a dime. They can get my money by enticing me to buy something of lasting value.
In the case of the music industry, I would be willing to pay a nominal fee to get high quality, lossless digital music on demand. That is called a SERVICE. Not $1 a song (soon to go up) for some DRM protected crap.
This kind of reminds me of the SFU idea to privatize every square inch of land. Eventually you'll have to pay even to breath air. Because after all it costs money to keep clean.
The music industry is simply not growing with the times. They do not see the huge potential to capitalize by offering people a service instead of a product.
What you're seeing is evolution in play. Can the RIAA survive? Who cares. Moral arguments aren't going to stop me or anyone else from taking what we want freely. 0's and 1's are free for the taking!!
Some of my favourite bands, Weezer, Modest Mouse, The Pixies, etc wrote their best music BEFORE being signed. After a few years the record companies try to take creative control, causing music to turn into runny shit.
Fans were expecting Weezers comeback record, the 'Green Album' to be amazing, since the songs on the non-record-company-backed 'comeback' tour were so amazing. But Geffen of course didn't like the unpolished sound. So songs were replaced with others..
They did the same with the Beach Boys
Sure they sold well. But know who ended up paying? Not the Record Company. Not the artists. Art lovers.
If anything the new competitiveness will, for first time in decades, renew art.
Make no mistake-- I want my bands to struggle and suffer!
Last edited:
