RIAA Suggests MIT Student Drop Out Of School To Pay Fine

HelterSkelter · 06-04-2006 02:57PM

MorningStar wrote:

Not if you state that what is going on is unfair. YOu have to state what is fair by your judgement

I think that it should be less than a tenner. Maybe €5 - 8 per downloaded album.

MorningStar wrote:

Then use the service that allow you to sample rather than helping/supporting those that do steal. Amazon comes to mind. Do you get to sample everything you want to buy?

I was not aware of such a service.
How do you make out I'm helping anyone to steal? I download an album to see if it is any good. If I like it I buy it. I do not share the album so nobody is downloading it from me.

MorningStar wrote:

An over the top senario? Seems very reasonable to me. Are you are are you not defending the student that helped people steal?(as some do maybe not you this is important)

I am not defending the student. I am defending my own position as stated in my first post. And comparing someone stealing a house to me (who downloads an album just to sample it, and then buy the CD if I do like it or delete the mp3s if I don't like) it is over the top.

MorningStar wrote:

But it is also been proven that a high price or limited supply protects things. If music were to be devalued it would not be appriciated. ALl the free cds with papers are n example.

So keep it expensive and keep it away from the masses? I couldn't give a shít if there are people who buy music but don't appreciate it. I don't see artists refusing to sell concert tickets to people who only come to their concerts because they jumped on the latest bandwagon and don't have a clue about the songs.

MorningStar wrote:

Well you said the costs were practicly nill in the new way of distribution

I did not say that, I said "With sales of downloadable music there are no costs associated with production & copying of the CD, no costs of printing artwork, no costs of rentiing/buying property for warehouses, no distribution costs and probably other cost savings I haven't thought of." I did not refer at all to the costs of downloadable music distribution, I only stated the costs that are associated with a CD and that they don't apply to downloadable music. I will now however talk about the costs of a download music site...

If you look at a site like www.allofmp3.com they sell albums for approx €2.50. Now I know they are suspect as regards paying royalties to artists but just disregard that for a minute. They are able to sell an album for €2.50 and presumeably make a profit. That includes all the costs associated with a download music store. Add the royalties that they should be paying to the artist on top, I don't know how much it should be, say €3 an album??? That brings the selling cost of a downloadable album to €5.50. That sounds like a fair price to me.

MorningStar · 06-04-2006 03:17PM

HelterSkelter wrote:

I think that it should be less than a tenner. Maybe €5 - 8 per downloaded al

In some countries that is a months salary that doesn't sound fair to me!:p
Fiarness is a point of view and nothing to do with cost

HelterSkelter wrote:

I was not aware of such a service.
How do you make out I'm helping anyone to steal? I download an album to see if it is any good. If I like it I buy it. I do not share the album so nobody is downloading it from me.

Did you ever look. By supposrting peer to tpeer netwroks you support those who would steal. Intresting that you wouldn't do something yourself but you would act like a paracite on such a service

HelterSkelter wrote:

I am not defending the student. I am defending my own position as stated in my first post. And comparing someone stealing a house to me downloading an album just to sample it, and then buying the CD if I do like it or deleting the mp3s if I don't like, it is over the top.

I quoted again the last question you made your statement aginst. Tempory theft is theft. You never answered the question about do you get to sample everything you buy? Why should cds have this special try before you buy?

HelterSkelter wrote:

So keep it expensive and keep it away from the masses? I couldn't give a shít if there are people who buy music but don't appreciate it. I don't see artists refusing to sell concert tickets to people who only come to their concerts because they jumped on the latest bandwagon and don't have a clue about the songs.

I never suggested keeping it away from the masses. To clarify it devalues the appreciation and interest and can destroy the business/industry.

HelterSkelter wrote:

I did not say that, I said "With sales of downloadable music there are no costs associated with production & copying of the CD, no costs of printing artwork, no costs of rentiing/buying property for warehouses, no distribution costs and probably other cost savings I haven't thought of." I did not refer at all to the costs of downloadable music distribution, I only stated the costs that are associated with a CD and that they don't apply to downloadable music. I will now however talk about the costs of a download music site...

Suggesting the cost associated with downloads. CD distribution is mostly bore by the shops which get mass discounts.

HelterSkelter wrote:

If you look at a site like www.allofmp3.com they sell albums for approx €2.50. Now I know they are suspect as regards paying royalties to artists but just disregard that for a minute. They are able to sell an album for €2.50 and presumeably make a profit. That includes all the costs associated with a download music store. Add the royalties that they should be paying to the artist on top, I don't know how much it should be, say €3 an album??? That brings the selling cost of a downloadable album to €5.50. That sounds like a fair price to me.

You can't disregard the fact the company isn't paying royalties or the record companies. If my production costs are close to zero anything I sell it for is profit. They also don't have to advertise the artists pay for the recording etc...
SO as an example to means nothing as it is basically buying stolen goods. I can go down the pub and buy stolen good for a lot less than they cost to produce no surprise. this is the same thing. ANd if yo buy off them you are supporting theft.
CASUE AND EFFECT

HelterSkelter · 06-04-2006 03:34PM

MorningStar wrote:

In some countries that is a months salary that doesn't sound fair to me!:p
Fiarness is a point of view and nothing to do with cost

You asked what I thought is fair, that is my answer

MorningStar wrote:

Did you ever look. By supposrting peer to tpeer netwroks you support those who would steal.

How? These networks are not run on a profit basis. They are just a bunch of computers linked together by the software. Downloading from someone connected to the network is not supporting "those who would steal"

MorningStar wrote:

Intresting that you wouldn't do something yourself but you would act like a paracite on such a service

I share live tracks by a band I like that have no objection once you don't share their official releases.

MorningStar wrote:

I quoted again the last question you made your statement aginst. Tempory theft is theft. You never answered the question about do you get to sample everything you buy? Why should cds have this special try before you buy?

Lots of products have this try before you buy, cars, hi-fi equipment, computers, even food companies offer samples of their food in supermarkets.

MorningStar wrote:

I never suggested keeping it away from the masses. To clarify it devalues the appreciation and interest and can destroy the business/industry.

With respect, but that argument is bullshít. You are basically saying prices should be kept artifically high otherwise too many people will have it too easily and they won't appreciate it. That's the same argument Levi's use to try to stop Tescos, etc from selling their jeans. The same reason big perfume brands try to stop supermarkets selling their products at knock down prices.

MorningStar wrote:

Suggesting the cost associated with downloads. CD distribution is mostly bore by the shops which get mass discounts.

I find that hard to believe. Can you back that up?

MorningStar wrote:

You can't disregard the fact the company isn't paying royalties or the record companies.

I didn't disregard it, I assumed they get €3 for each album (which is probably generous as I remember reports that say they only get about £1 for each CD sold). That brings the selling price of the album to €5.50. That is including ALL costs associated with an online store including royalties. That is a fair price.

Boggle · 06-04-2006 03:50PM

I did you haven't gone back and read mine about copyright. I didn't say you said it was legal so why are you saying I did?

Yes I read it - read it before and thought nothing of it... All you have done is demonstrated the effects of copyright infringement - not that it is theft. (Copyright infringement can be just as bad as theft but they are not the same thing - oversimplifying things does not help the matter) And in the example you give someone takes credit for what you have created for profit thus removing you from the equation - in this case no one is taking credit, and you may find that you will gain a following resulting in record sales... (Believe it or not - I do download alot but I buy what I like and I find I do so normally when I'm in a country that sells them at a more reasonable price or when its on special offer) Like I said - this is a complicated topic...

So the answer is no you don't know and have no idea of what is fair yet claim you want a fair price that you have no bases for. I think you will find many record companies will let you know how much it cost to at least record an album. Have you even looked?

Yes I've looked. Couldn't find definite numbers - just general breakdowns... Have you access to any??

Ask a question after you read what I have said

BAsically I asked you to provide definitive proof (or good reason why - hate playing link tennis!!) that downloads have an effect on sales... I provided a link that (rightly or wrongly) stated otherwise.
Also I asked if you think that the prices, at current levels, are justified.

And if I could ask another (that I forgot to ask): What to make of the surging popularity of iTunes? Does this not prove, that at a reasonable (ish!!) price that people WILL download music AND pay?? Don't forget each person who bought a song could have gotten it for free even easier than by paying for it...

And finally, will MP3's ever replace actually having the cd on your shelf? Like I said - I buy the music I like (eventually)...

MorningStar · 06-04-2006 04:04PM

HelterSkelter wrote:

How? These networks are not run on a profit basis. They are just a bunch of computers linked together by the software. Downloading from someone connected to the network is not supporting "those who would steal"

People would not upload music if people did not download it. Support doesn't need to be money

HelterSkelter wrote:

I share live tracks by a band I like that have no objection once you don't share their official releases.

Why do you not do it with the other tracks? Is it becasue it is wrong or becasue you are afraid of what might happen?

HelterSkelter wrote:

Lots of products have this try before you buy, cars, hi-fi equipment, computers, even food companies offer samples of their food in supermarkets.

Books don't nor movies which are comparable to music. It is obvious music is not the same as a car so after your compliants about a realistic comparison you just decide you would lower your own standrads?

HelterSkelter wrote:

With respect, but that argument is bullshít. You are basically saying prices should be kept artifically high otherwise too many people will have it too easily and they won't appreciate it. That's the same argument Levi's use to try to stop Tescos, etc from selling their jeans. The same reason big perfume brands try to stop supermarkets selling their products at knock down prices.

I suggest you stop cursing first off. THe argument was proved in the EU courts for perfume and Levis so it has valid points. I again point to how people feel about the music they get free with newspapers. I know from friends who have "copied" music they don't value it the same. I think you should have looked into your example before posting it

HelterSkelter wrote:

I find that hard to believe. Can you back that up?

No because pricing information is very hush hush. I am guessing you don't have any retail knowledge on purcahsing for a big company

HelterSkelter wrote:

I didn't disregard it, I assumed they get €3 for each album (which is probably generous as I remember reports that say they only get about £1 for each CD sold). That brings the selling price of the album to €5.50. That is including ALL costs associated with an online store including royalties. That is a fair price.

You disreagarded the company and still are
Well you didn't consider pure theft making their costs limited. I can decide to sell any product, I get close to free, for a small price. It proves nothing other than this company sells stuff cheap while ripping musicians and companies off. Not fair. Considering Boyzone for example masses of money was spent discounting their singles to get them to number one based on future album sales. If the company and artists sold no albums the record company would have lost. Do you get the idea? SOme other company taking the sales would be unfair as they never invested any money or paid the people who invested in the band. They stole from that company.

Record companies are guilty of many things but two wrongs still don't make a right

the_syco · 06-04-2006 04:13PM

pyramuid man wrote:

They knowingly broke the law by accessing file sharing programmes.

You can't download what you don't already own. The RIAA owned the songs.

You can't upload if they don't own it. Stop any uploads.

And bingo, you see their IP's. You trace them, and find out their ISP. Then the address of the person. Then send them a letter.

=-=

In the last number of years, since napster and the like have started up, CD prices have risen. What used to be 10 is now 20 to 25. If your product is not selling, you reduce the price, not increase it.

HelterSkelter · 06-04-2006 04:23PM

MorningStar wrote:

People would not upload music if people did not download it. Support doesn't need to be money

Ok, fair point. But you said I am supporting it. I am not uploading therefore I am not supporting.

MorningStar wrote:

Why do you not do it with the other tracks? Is it becasue it is wrong or becasue you are afraid of what might happen?

Both

MorningStar wrote:

Books don't nor movies which are comparable to music.

You can read a book without buying it. You can watch a movie in cinema/on TV and decide to buy the DVD based on that.

MorningStar wrote:

It is obvious music is not the same as a car so after your compliants about a realistic comparison you just decide you would lower your own standrads?

I don't get you, what do you mean?

MorningStar wrote:

I suggest you stop cursing first off. THe argument was proved in the EU courts for perfume and Levis so it has valid points. I again point to how people feel about the music they get free with newspapers. I know from friends who have "copied" music they don't value it the same. I think you should have looked into your example before posting it

And I don't give a rats arsé that some people won't value the music if it is cheaper. Do you think the price of Nissan Micras shoud be put up as there are so many people driving them and don't appreciate them? As I said the artists selling concert tickets will gladly sell to people there who don't appreciate the music.

MorningStar wrote:

No because pricing information is very hush hush. I am guessing you don't have any retail knowledge on purcahsing for a big company

Yup, you're right, I don't have retail knowledge like that

MorningStar wrote:

You disreagarded the company and still are
Well you didn't consider pure theft making their costs limited.

I took the price they sell an album at (2.50) added on what they should be paying in royalties (€3). It comes to €5.50 per album. I am not justifing their site for a minute, I am saying it is possible to run an online music store and sell at 5.50 per CD while making a profit.

MorningStar wrote:

I can decide to sell any product, I get close to free, for a small price.It proves nothing other than this company sells stuff cheap while ripping musicians and companies off. Not fair.

Not the same thing, read above

ressem · 06-04-2006 04:42PM

Boggle.

>>I think you will find many record companies will let you know how much it cost to at least record an album.

Yes I've looked. Couldn't find definite numbers - just general breakdowns... Have you access to any??

According to a producer:

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
close to the end of the page.

Boggle · 06-04-2006 04:56PM

Ouch!!

JC 2K3 · 06-04-2006 07:26PM

Morning Star, I appreciate that the law is the law but since when has change happened without infringing certain laws? Downloading music is a peaceful protest against the greed of the music industry and the way society is going as a whole IMO, even if by downloading you don't mean to make a statement and just want free music. The RIAA's action against downloaders/uploders is more wrong than music downloading, THEY'RE STILL MAKING SHÍTLOADS OF MONEY. They refuse to change with the times, if you're beginning to lose money because of a new technology you don't go suing everyone who you catch using it to obtain music, you think of a solution that can embrace the new technology and still make a profit for you. iTunes doesn't work, they have to target the ISPs and think of ideas such as licences to download music that are included as part of a broadband package for example.
But why won't something like this happen?
Because there's no need for record labels to remain so exclusive with bands. Because distribution costs with the internet are now practically nothing, with P2P clients you don't need massive servers with big running costs, and there's no need for CD making factories, case making, assembly etc. Bands don't actually need a record label anymore although not many have actually realised this yet, yes that's right, THERE'S NO NEED FOR BIG RECORD LABELS ANYMORE!

I look forward to the day when the music industry as it is now collapses, when I can go home, log on to a music website run by a union of bands with no unreasonable exclusion and download as much music as I want knowing it's perfectly legal since I'm paying about €5 a month, that gets distributed amongst musicians according to download charts, on top of my ISP's bill for a licence to do so.

MorningStar · 06-04-2006 09:17PM

Boggle wrote:

Yes I read it - read it before and thought nothing of it... All you have done is demonstrated the effects of copyright infringement - not that it is theft. (Copyright infringement can be just as bad as theft but they are not the same thing - oversimplifying things does not help the matter) And in the example you give someone takes credit for what you have created for profit thus removing you from the equation - in this case no one is taking credit, and you may find that you will gain a following resulting in record sales... (Believe it or not - I do download alot but I buy what I like and I find I do so normally when I'm in a country that sells them at a more reasonable price or when its on special offer) Like I said - this is a complicated topic...

Well great for you. If it walks like a duck etc... Non-payment to a copyright owner is theft. I can point to the law but you dismiss that. Explain why the law exists and what the purpose of laws is then. AS far as I am concerned it is to be just. You want this to be a complicated issue but it isn't.Your arguement seems to be
1)That it is too expensive so it is right to steal
2)I buy products after stealing (short period) so it is OK
3)The right price is determined by the tax applied in the country I am in and I am happy with
4) When they are on sale that is the correct price

Just to be clear if you spent 10 years of your life writing a book and somebody took that story and made a film of the story and paid you nothing you wouldn't think that as theft?

Boggle wrote:

Yes I've looked. Couldn't find definite numbers - just general breakdowns... Have you access to any??

You have seen it now so does that effect yor judgemnet? You seemed shocked

Boggle wrote:

BAsically I asked you to provide definitive proof (or good reason why - hate playing link tennis!!) that downloads have an effect on sales... I provided a link that (rightly or wrongly) stated otherwise.

Also I asked if you think that the prices, at current levels, are justified.
ROFL the weakest argumnent I have ever heard you can't prove your argument about increased sales.There is none and you didn't provide any proof. It is theft and to support that it is theft there are laws around the world. You show a old report from a bias source that suggests that it may increase sales. There is enough proof in drop sales that illegal downloads can at least be accused of being responsible and whether you like it or not it is illegal. That point will remain
Prices are justified becasue people pay for it supply and demand.
SO your mass of questions I ignored were one I already asnwered and one you can't prove either.

Boggle wrote:

And if I could ask another (that I forgot to ask): What to make of the surging popularity of iTunes? Does this not prove, that at a reasonable (ish!!) price that people WILL download music AND pay?? Don't forget each person who bought a song could have gotten it for free even easier than by paying for it...

Using that logic would mean that CDs were better value than records when they took over the market. Would that not counter another arguemnet here about cds always being a rip off.The new format is popular and I would guess the fear of prosecution makes people go to leagal sources rather than illegal one. Helterskelter there doesn''t up load at least partially due to fear.

Boggle wrote:

And finally, will MP3's ever replace actually having the cd on your shelf? Like I said - I buy the music I like (eventually)...

All projection suggest yes MP3 will replace the majority of CDs much the same way cd did to the record. They will co-exist for a while but the vast majorit of teenagers don't own/buy record albums. Maybe you aren't old enough to remeber the introduction of CDs I am and have friends who work in the recording industy, music shops and on the supply chain. What do you base your massive insight into the future on?

MorningStar · 06-04-2006 09:31PM

HelterSkelter wrote:

Ok, fair point. But you said I am supporting it. I am not uploading therefore I am not supporting.

You encourage them by using what they do hence support

HelterSkelter wrote:

Both

Yet you support others doing it

HelterSkelter wrote:

You can read a book without buying it. You can watch a movie in cinema/on TV and decide to buy the DVD based on that.

A library pays special rights and firend pays the right for the book
The movie on the telly pays the rights holders and the adverts are used to pay for that. You pay for the cinema which partially goes to the rights holders .
You pay the rights holder whan you buy a DVD.
Why do you think music should not be paid for? I know you do but you are defneding theft

HelterSkelter wrote:

And I don't give a rats arsé that some people won't value the music if it is cheaper. Do you think the price of Nissan Micras shoud be put up as there are so many people driving them and don't appreciate them? As I said the artists selling concert tickets will gladly sell to people there who don't appreciate the music.

Well as you don't own the rights to music it doesn't matter they care and have control. If you don't care why should they care about you? They can sell to others and sue you!
Again not the same thing. VRT isn't being removed straight away becasue to devalue the entire car market in Ireland isn't seen fair. A more accurate description. Most artist loose money on concerts at the lower end of the range

HelterSkelter wrote:

I took the price they sell an album at (2.50) added on what they should be paying in royalties (€3). It comes to €5.50 per album. I am not justifing their site for a minute, I am saying it is possible to run an online music store and sell at 5.50 per CD while making a profit.

Who pays for the advertisement of the artist and album? You seem to think the only people who put anything into musicis the artist and retailer? I got you basic math and lack of knowledge on how it works. No mention of any tax for a vague example.

HelterSkelter wrote:

Not the same thing, read above

I gave a real world example any reason you ignored it?
I can only think it is becasue it proves the other money involved and the other people who invest money deserve a return. MP£.com sell stolen good at close to 90% profit! How do you not get that

MorningStar · 06-04-2006 09:50PM

JC 2K3 wrote:

Morning Star, I appreciate that the law is the law but since when has change happened without infringing certain laws?

All the time how do think laws get changed? A revolution doesn't happen every time. There is democratic way to do things breaking the laws isn't a neccesity. Don't even suggest stealing music is close to a revolution.

JC 2K3 wrote:

Downloading music is a peaceful protest against the greed of the music industry and the way society is going as a whole IMO, even if by downloading you don't mean to make a statement and just want free music.

It is non violent theft but so are white collar crimes that steal peoples' pensionsas I pointed out is what people are doing. Want to contact Gene Pitneys wife and tell her you plan to steal from her

JC 2K3 wrote:

The RIAA's action against downloaders/uploders is more wrong than music downloading, THEY'RE STILL MAKING SHÍTLOADS OF MONEY.

If i make 1% profit an sell enough I make big profits does that make it OK to steal. Explain the profit percentage they make and how much you think they should make. OH for the love of God explain why it is wrong to make profit.

JC 2K3 wrote:

They refuse to change with the times, etc...i

Now you have made your right on speach about what you think will happen or hope will happen.
Music would not exist and does not esxist as you know it if not for the industry you hate.
Any band you like is a product of this industry.
All this free and easy to access un signed bands is not producing greats, just more crap to filter out. Look at Prince to see what can happen with out a proper label. I know of one former succesful artist that manged to keep going succesfully after being dropped. Name an artist that really is very succesful without a major label.
The record labels are going nowhere and they are changing and using technology hence they catch and sue people stealing.
I have heard the slow witted points you made many times and it is wishful thinking.

The best you can hope for is a change to the industry similar to that of the old studio system. Read your history and you might have a clue what might happen.

I will go you were born in the 80s and have no memory of the record shops only having records:D

homah_7ft · 06-04-2006 09:51PM

Yawn :rolleyes:

HelterSkelter · 06-04-2006 10:02PM

Well MorningStar, your opinion is yours, mine is mine. We should just both agree to disagree here. As usual you are arguing to the death and don't give an inch. It's a good thing you are not involved in the negotiations in the North!

BTW, I am interested, do you constantly argue with people like this in real life and never ever back down? How do they react? Or do you get all your build up anger and frustration out on boards folk??!!

*Edit:
Oh yeah, one more question, have you ever downloaded music illegaly or made an illegal copy of a cd/tape/vinal record?

astrofool · 06-04-2006 10:32PM

I think this thread has been morningstarred (the boards.ie equivelent of godwinned

)

In all seriousness though, there have been points from both sides of the argument, but I would notice that there has been alot less proof of anything from the side supporting the labels, it is all presented as opinion without any fact (and thus I choose not to believe any of it

)

ressem · 06-04-2006 10:36PM

Morningstar:
Non-payment to a copyright owner is not always theft.

There are music companies that practice roughly what helterskelter is on about with free trial downloads, and go further with variable pricing & CD quality unencrypted downloads.
http://magnatune.com/ or http://www.weedshare.com/

Whether it succeeds or not is to be seen. Seems idealistic.
But it gives an idea of the lower range at which a music service can be provided.

Gives the RIAA protesters somewhere to put their money.

MorningStar · 07-04-2006 08:47AM

HelterSkelter wrote:

Well MorningStar, your opinion is yours, mine is mine. We should just both agree to disagree here. As usual you are arguing to the death and don't give an inch. It's a good thing you are not involved in the negotiations in the North!

I don't agree to that. You are a hypocrite. YOu know it is wrong yet you support it. Before you go on about how you are not look up the definition because it involves doing opposite to what you know
I conceeded points just none of yours:p . It is your arguements that are weak and often off topic. I don't tollerate fools in my real life to answer your question.

astrofool wrote:

In all seriousness though, there have been points from both sides of the argument, but I would notice that there has been alot less proof of anything from the side supporting the labels, it is all presented as opinion without any fact (and thus I choose not to believe any of it )

Actually there is no proof on the side for illegal downloads
The facts are
1) It is illegal
2) Taking something created by another person without their consent is theft.
3) Profiting from handling stolen goods is both illegal and morally wrong. Money paid for napster was profit based on handling stolen goods
4) THe music you like is a product of the industry without it you wouldn't have the artists you like either directly or non directly

on the other side for stealing we have
1) They think is may increase sales
2) People like it
If you can point out where you have proof in bullet point it might be clear. I saw haven't seen any here.

ressem wrote:

Morningstar:
Non-payment to a copyright owner is not always theft.

I didn't say it was, a copyright owner can do what they like with what they own and have the rights to. I did mention the number of terrible sites with unsigned bands several times (some are signed but to minor terrible labels). If somebody was to take what you were offering for free and selling it that is theft as far as I am concerened.

Personally I like www.oddmusic.com

For those defending the right to do what they like with music how do you feel about somebody taking your favorite song and sticking it on an ad agaisnt the ideal of the artist or you say? The KKK satart using Dana "All Kinds of Everthing". I know leaglly it can be bad enough, Janis Joplin would have gone crazy over the Merc ad. Copyright and publish rights are very very important for music.

I don't love the labels in anyway but I don't think they do nothing unlike people here. There is this vague idea here that the record labels abduct a band take there music and then extort the public. I again point to Prince to prove that artist need nurturing and direction. I also suggest you tell Rick Rubens he does nothing and tell Gene Pitneys widow you are going to steal from her now her husband is dead along with her primary source of income.

HelterSkelter · 07-04-2006 09:13AM

MorningStar wrote:

I don't agree to that. You are a hypocrite. YOu know it is wrong yet you support it. Before you go on about how you are not look up the definition because it involves doing opposite to what you know
I conceeded points just none of yours:p . It is your arguements that are weak and often off topic. I don't tollerate fools in my real life to answer your question.

Ha, you are the one with weak arguments. You have yet to provide a convicing argument as to why legal download music is not overpriced.

And are you calling me a fool?

I know people like you in real life who constantly argue and won't back down one inch. They don't have many friends.

MorningStar · 07-04-2006 09:35AM

HelterSkelter wrote:

Ha, you are the one with weak arguments. You have yet to provide a convicing argument as to why legal download music is not overpriced.

You see this is where you keep getting it wrong. That is your argument about pricing. You provided no evidence to say it was overpriced other than a company that sells stolen material. The onis on you to prove the point. You haven't as you never broke down the profit made by record labels. I argue it is both wrong and illegal to upload and download copyright material. You said it was wrong too and you were afraid of the consequnces. The thread is about what RIAA did. Your own answers prove that they are doing the right thing to protect themselves and the various people they represent. :rolleyes:

HelterSkelter wrote:

And are you calling me a fool?

You asked me about how i deal with people in the real world I said nothing about you nor infered.

HelterSkelter wrote:

I know people like you in real life who constantly argue and won't back down one inch. They don't have many friends.

Oh you hurt my feeling I soooooo sad bo hoo bo hoo! I am going to suddenly change my way so I have idiots who know nothing for friends so I can talk stupid to them. I have friends we laugh at people who know nothing and talk about things we know and learn from each other. Life is a challenge not a place where you find people to agree with you so you feel right and safe.
Personal insult are not allowed remember that!

HelterSkelter · 07-04-2006 10:17AM

Yeah,you're right, I'm wrong :rolleyes:

BTW, I spend thousands of euro on CD's and concerts (and DVD's) every year. I am a big music fan. I have bought so many albums over the years on recommendation that turned out to be utter shíte. I don't see why I should hand my hard earned cash over for a CD with one or two good songs and the rest of it is crap. I will continue to download CD's and if I like them I will buy them.

HelterSkelter · 07-04-2006 10:22AM

MorningStar wrote:

There is this vague idea here that the record labels abduct a band take there music and then extort the public.

Not according to Steve Albini in the link ressem posted above.

Boggle · 07-04-2006 10:40AM

You want this to be a complicated issue but it isn't.

It is not such a black and white issue as you suggest as I have attempted to explain... The fact that the record companies want you to think so does not sway my opinions.

Your arguement seems to be

1)That it is too expensive so it is right to steal

Never even remotely said that. What I did is explain why it happens...

2)I buy products after stealing (short period) so it is OK

No. I said that I will buy what I like. The end result is that I now buy more music than I did before as I had given up buying music as there was too often than not only one or two decent tracks and the rest was just stuffing. Could this have caused alot of people to stop buying records?

3)The right price is determined by the tax applied in the country I am in and I am happy with

Unsure what you mean by this - not lobbying for a reduction in taxes at all.

4) When they are on sale that is the correct price

I believe that the curent prices are too high, yes. So basically when they are on sale for a more realistic price then I am happy to buy.

Just to be clear if you spent 10 years of your life writing a book and somebody took that story and made a film of the story and paid you nothing you wouldn't think that as theft?

That has absolutely no relevence to what I am saying. I reckon you are getting mixed up with all the people your discussing with (Don't think your deliberately skewing my points anyway!!)

What I have said is this:
- Piracy is a natural progression in an instance where an easily transferred item is sold at a price perceived to be too high.
- While piracy is claimed to be the sole cause of the decline in the industry that there are studies showing it may not be so black and white.
- Piracy may actually do more to promote music as I believe most people will go out and get an album they really like.(please note the "I believe" bit)
- That albums should be sold for less as they are currently overpriced (in the opinion of most people - and its this opinion that breeds piracy)

ROFL the weakest argumnent I have ever heard you can't prove your argument about increased sales.There is none and you didn't provide any proof. It is theft and to support that it is theft there are laws around the world. You show a old report from a bias source that suggests that it may increase sales. There is enough proof in drop sales that illegal downloads can at least be accused of being responsible and

- The article may have been a bias source but the group who conducted the study is not.
- There is no shortage of articles stating similar cases.
- Your assuming no external factors other than downloads as the sole reason for a drop in sales
- And that is your sole argument... is it not??

Oh, and....

and whether you like it or not it is illegal.

Never once contested the fact lad so please... those same keys must be wearing out on your keyboard:p

By the way is downloading effecting sales?

So far this year, album sales have declined about 3 percent from a year ago. But if every 10 singles sold so far were bundled together and counted as albums, sales would be up about 2 percent, according to Nielsen SoundScan.

taken from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/09/arts/music/09sing.html?ei=5088&en=4e0f0a53d1f3564f&ex=1299560400&pagewanted=print

MorningStar · 07-04-2006 10:56AM

HelterSkelter wrote:

Yeah,you're right, I'm wrong :rolleyes:

You said that earlier when you stated it was wrong to upload music but still don't understand. The law say you are wrong too. YOu ask for proof and provide none. Again I point out the topic is RIAAs actions not yours

HelterSkelter wrote:

BTW, I spend thousands of euro on CD's and concerts (and DVD's) every year. I am a big music fan. I have bought so many albums over the years on recommendation that turned out to be utter shíte. I don't see why I should hand my hard earned cash over for a CD with one or two good songs and the rest of it is crap. I will continue to download CD's and if I like them I will buy them.

So what being a customer does not give you the right to steal or encourage others to steal. As I sated you are a hypocrite becasue you don't admit you are saying one thing and doing another. When you admit what you are doing is wrong and stop doing you stop being a hypocrite.

HelterSkelter wrote:

Not according to Steve Albini in the link ressem posted above.

You mean when the band sign a contract they have to honour it. Imagine your word being your bond. Steve Albini has a view on this and considering his background that is no surprise. Stupid poeple sign stupid deals and you blame the guy who wrote the contract? What way do you think is fair then?

HelterSkelter · 07-04-2006 11:11AM

MorningStar wrote:

You said that earlier when you stated it was wrong to upload music but still don't understand. The law say you are wrong too. YOu ask for proof and provide none. Again I point out the topic is RIAAs actions not yours

Yup, you're right, I was wrong all along. Sorry for wasting your time and making you write all those comprehensive replies :rolleyes:

MorningStar wrote:

So what being a customer does not give you the right to steal or encourage others to steal. As I sated you are a hypocrite becasue you don't admit you are saying one thing and doing another. When you admit what you are doing is wrong and stop doing you stop being a hypocrite.

I am not stealing and not encouraging anybody else to steal.

MorningStar wrote:

You mean when the band sign a contract they have to honour it. Imagine your word being your bond. Steve Albini has a view on this and considering his background that is no surprise. Stupid poeple sign stupid deals and you blame the guy who wrote the contract? What way do you think is fair then?

I didn't state any opinion on this. I just pointed you to an article that contained the view of someone who knows a lot more about the music industry than you do.

MorningStar · 07-04-2006 11:24AM

Boggle wrote:

It is not such a black and white issue as you suggest as I have attempted to explain... The fact that the record companies want you to think so does not sway my opinions.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theft

It is black and white.

Explain why the law is in place if not to protect those in the right? How theft of an idea, perfomance or rights to intellectual property is fair. It doesn't matter if you don't do it personally. What gives anybody the right to say how I sell my product?

While you feel morally justified doing what you THINK is fair it is obvious that other user of uploaded material are stealing or will you deny that happens.

Boggle wrote:

That has absolutely no relevence to what I am saying. I reckon you are getting mixed up with all the people your discussing with (Don't think your deliberately skewing my points anyway!!)

Well if you want to expand the arguement to how you use something somebody is doing illegally you must consider the rights of the people the uploading is effecting.
Answer the question and explain how it is not theft.
You haven't explained how it is not theft you are trying to justify it. It is theft morallly and legally, your personal ability to download and then pay doesn't excuse you support.

Your news report is about a marketing strategy so what. Thier proeprty they can do what they like with it what is hard to understand about that?

On my points and your answers
1) Explining why it happens was a justification of it
2) YOur answer is yes you just think you are justified doing so
3) It was point made =by another person claiming the price is fair elsewher as you were jumping on things I said to others I was listing all the reason claimed it was OK
4) YOu can't explain how you know what is fair. Would you suggest the prices should vary more market to market to insure prices are fair dependent on the average wage? Or do you think it should be the production costs? Or maybe what the market can bear? Who made you decide what is fair what is you basis for fair?

MorningStar · 07-04-2006 11:29AM

HelterSkelter wrote:

Yup, you're right, I was wrong all along. Sorry for wasting your time and making you write all those comprehensive replies :rolleyes:

You can stop admitting you were wtrong I knew you were the entire time and you have said it enough now. YOur smiley doesn't change the fact

HelterSkelter wrote:

I am not stealing and not encouraging anybody else to steal.

You already admitted the point

HelterSkelter wrote:

I didn't state any opinion on this. I just pointed you to an article that contained the view of someone who knows a lot more about the music industry than you do.

You don't know me so how do you know? You can list reasons for your assumptions but you don't know.
I asked you questions and didn't say it was your opinion or mine pay attention! You avoid many questions I ask which I guess is becasue you can't.

HelterSkelter · 07-04-2006 11:40AM

MorningStar wrote:

You don't know me so how do you know? You can list reasons for your assumptions but you don't know.
I asked you questions and didn't say it was your opinion or mine pay attention! You avoid many questions I ask which I guess is becasue you can't.

Ok, I'll ask you then. Do you think you know more about the music industry than Steve Albini?

You said "You mean when the band sign a contract they have to honour it. Imagine your word being your bond. Steve Albini has a view on this and considering his background that is no surprise. Stupid poeple sign stupid deals and you blame the guy who wrote the contract? What way do you think is fair then?"...

you are suggesting that I said a band should not honour a contract when they sign it - I did not say that

you are suggesting I blame the guy who wrote the contract - I did not say that

MorningStar · 07-04-2006 11:57AM

HelterSkelter wrote:

Ok, I'll ask you then. Do you think you know more about the music industry than Steve Albini?

You said "You mean when the band sign a contract they have to honour it. Imagine your word being your bond. Steve Albini has a view on this and considering his background that is no surprise. Stupid poeple sign stupid deals and you blame the guy who wrote the contract? What way do you think is fair then?"...

you are suggesting that I said a band should not honour a contract when they sign it - I did not say that

you are suggesting I blame the guy who wrote the contract - I did not say that

See the question marks that means they are questions. When stating "you" in a question I am asking is that what "you" think. I missed one question mark in the first question I was asking sorry for the mistake it caused you a lot of confusion. ONe question there is dependent on the answer to the previous one in case that causes you any further problems.

THere is a great book called "Eats Shoots and leaves" I suggest you read it it might help you to understand.

To answer your question I have never sat down with Steve Albin and did a music industry test so I don't know. You claimed he knew more than me how did you know this?

HelterSkelter · 07-04-2006 12:08PM

MorningStar wrote:

See the question marks that means they are questions. When stating "you" in a question I am asking is that what "you" think. I missed one question mark in the first question I was asking sorry for the mistake it caused you a lot of confusion. ONe question there is dependent on the answer to the previous one in case that causes you any further problems.

There is no need to be a smart arse about it. I understood that they were questions. What I don't understand is why are you suggesting that what Steve Albini said in his article is my opinion (by asking the questions in the way you did it suggests it is my opinion). You said "There is this vague idea here that the record labels abduct a band take there music and then extort the public." and I pointed you to his article and said he has a different opinion.

MorningStar wrote:

THere is a great book called "Eats Shoots and leaves" I suggest you read it it might help you to understand.

I know that book. Well well well,if you have to resort to this there is obviously no point in continuing this discussion with you

MorningStar wrote:

To answer your question I have never sat down with Steve Albin and did a music industry test so I don't know. You claimed he knew more than me how did you know this?

Being a smart arse again - and avoiding the question. I'll ask again. Do you think you know more than Steve Albini about the music industry. If you do then I'll take your word and disregard his article as utter tosh.

RIAA Suggests MIT Student Drop Out Of School To Pay Fine

Comments