Z
.z.
Guest
- Thread starter
- #31
Unfortuantely, the big corporations that produce the CDs are only motivated by profit.
So there is no chance of them reducing the prices to fall in line with production costs.
Unfortuantely, the big corporations that produce the CDs are only motivated by profit.
So there is no chance of them reducing the prices to fall in line with production costs.
A
Any
Guest
- Thread starter
- #32
Why? I really dont see this.
They own the music, they make the cd's and they can charge whatever they like.
E
Embattle
Guest
- Thread starter
- #33
I posted this link in the Music section some time a go:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/32690.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/32690.html
K
Krazeh
Guest
- Thread starter
- #34
Yes and while they continue to charge artificially high prices for the music they'll find that file sharing will continue, people are no longer willing to pay ridiculous prices for a cd containing only a few tracks they actually want.
A
Any
Guest
- Thread starter
- #35
So because you dont want to pay the asking price it is ok to steal?
M
mank!
Guest
- Thread starter
- #36
I couldn't give a shit if I was stealing or not, if I like it I'll buy it and not waste my money on some overpriced rubbish that I might listen to once or twice. If music was cheaper, I'd be happier to take the risk of buying a CD knowing that I may not like it.
But it's a waste of time telling you that, because you're always going to use the same repetitive boring argument.
E
Embattle
Guest
- Thread starter
- #37
Here comes Concorde again......there she goes 
M
mank!
Guest
- Thread starter
- #38
Originally posted by Embattle
Here comes Concorde again......there she goes
What are you talking about?
T
Tom
Guest
- Thread starter
- #40
There is the more general question of 'When is it ok to break the law?'
For instance, the poll tax. Now if everybody was law-abiding, they would have all paid the tax. It wouldn't matter if it was unfair, it would be paid. At the time, many people didn't pay the tax, because it was seen by many as being unfair and discriminatory, therefore these people had a strong moral case for not paying. The result was, the system was changed, and made slightly fairer.
Another example is cannabis use. People who used cannabis on a regular basis had a moral belief that what they were doing was not harming themselves or others, and that the law was wrong. Flouting the law on such a scale would have been the only way to change it, since informed debate on the matter was unlikely. The result? So many people ignored the laws, that they were eventually relaxed in line with popular opinion, and the focus was shifted to more important drugs.
Sunday trading. Not something I'm happy about, mainly because I want my sundays to be peaceful, without having to contend with millions of shoppers. It was only a few years ago that trading on sunday was illegal. The major stores (B&Q etc) started ignoring the law, and even with punitive measures taken against them, they stuck fast. The general consensus among the population was that they preferred having the option to trade on a sunday. The law was eventually changed.
There are many other cases, but these are the ones I can remember right now. When there is no moral case for a law being in existence, when the law becomes irrelevant, the law needs changing. What is at stake here, is how that change is effected. The recording industry has already stated that it is not prepared to change the way it sells its products, therefore consumers are taking matters into their own hands, and forcing the situation. They are stealing.
Now at first glance, this theft is wrong. The law tells us that it is so. We all know this, so why do so many people do it?
The case for the consumer is quite compelling; that so many people are simply flouting the law, not because it is easy, but because they sense an injustice in the way that music is sold to them, is surely evidence enough that eventually, changes will be made. They hold a moral belief that what they are doing, although illegal, is the only way to voice their opinion.
The RIAA, arguably, is doing the only thing it can faced with this; it is using the legal system to defend its rights, and will continue to do so, until it becomes clear that such actions have no overall benefit. At that point, things will change.
We all know that without some kind of order, we would have anarchy. This is why most p2p users, when asked, admit to downloading songs, and purchasing them if they like them enough. You only have to look at the success of iTunes to see that. The RIAA should consider doing the same.
Maybe, in the end, the law won't be changed, but certainly the way we buy media will.
For instance, the poll tax. Now if everybody was law-abiding, they would have all paid the tax. It wouldn't matter if it was unfair, it would be paid. At the time, many people didn't pay the tax, because it was seen by many as being unfair and discriminatory, therefore these people had a strong moral case for not paying. The result was, the system was changed, and made slightly fairer.
Another example is cannabis use. People who used cannabis on a regular basis had a moral belief that what they were doing was not harming themselves or others, and that the law was wrong. Flouting the law on such a scale would have been the only way to change it, since informed debate on the matter was unlikely. The result? So many people ignored the laws, that they were eventually relaxed in line with popular opinion, and the focus was shifted to more important drugs.
Sunday trading. Not something I'm happy about, mainly because I want my sundays to be peaceful, without having to contend with millions of shoppers. It was only a few years ago that trading on sunday was illegal. The major stores (B&Q etc) started ignoring the law, and even with punitive measures taken against them, they stuck fast. The general consensus among the population was that they preferred having the option to trade on a sunday. The law was eventually changed.
There are many other cases, but these are the ones I can remember right now. When there is no moral case for a law being in existence, when the law becomes irrelevant, the law needs changing. What is at stake here, is how that change is effected. The recording industry has already stated that it is not prepared to change the way it sells its products, therefore consumers are taking matters into their own hands, and forcing the situation. They are stealing.
Now at first glance, this theft is wrong. The law tells us that it is so. We all know this, so why do so many people do it?
The case for the consumer is quite compelling; that so many people are simply flouting the law, not because it is easy, but because they sense an injustice in the way that music is sold to them, is surely evidence enough that eventually, changes will be made. They hold a moral belief that what they are doing, although illegal, is the only way to voice their opinion.
The RIAA, arguably, is doing the only thing it can faced with this; it is using the legal system to defend its rights, and will continue to do so, until it becomes clear that such actions have no overall benefit. At that point, things will change.
We all know that without some kind of order, we would have anarchy. This is why most p2p users, when asked, admit to downloading songs, and purchasing them if they like them enough. You only have to look at the success of iTunes to see that. The RIAA should consider doing the same.
Maybe, in the end, the law won't be changed, but certainly the way we buy media will.
A
Any
Guest
- Thread starter
- #41
I do understand where you are coming from Tom but i dont agree that downloading music is the only way for people to voice their opinion. They could simply not buy anymore music.
I dont know anything about the poll tax but in the other two examples nobody was getting hurt by breaking the law. In the case of Sunday opening im sure a lot of companies made money. I have no problem with this as such.
But it can be argued that when you download music you are costing everyone involved in its production money. It doesnt matter how much they allready have or how much they make. That is why i think it is wrong to download music.
I dont know anything about the poll tax but in the other two examples nobody was getting hurt by breaking the law. In the case of Sunday opening im sure a lot of companies made money. I have no problem with this as such.
But it can be argued that when you download music you are costing everyone involved in its production money. It doesnt matter how much they allready have or how much they make. That is why i think it is wrong to download music.
D
Darkov
Guest
- Thread starter
- #42
I would argue that it isn't costing them enough. Sure they lost out on billions worldwide, but at the end of the day no record company has gone into administration over pirated music... no artist has failed to eat because of pirated music...
It's more a case of these companies are making less profit.. not no profit, or a loss, but just less profit.
If EMI can afford sign Robbie Williams on a five album £80 million contract, then hell.. they ain't losing anywhere near enough to make an impact on them yet!
The problem is, sports companies just got stung for price fixing, if anyone ever has the guts to push this infront of record companies, there would be hell to pay cause they sure are price fixing, just on a much larger scale. I dunno, we'll see, I'd be quite happy paying the current prices if I could pick the songs I wanted on the album, but unfortunately they insist on shipping crap with the good stuff.
It's more a case of these companies are making less profit.. not no profit, or a loss, but just less profit.
If EMI can afford sign Robbie Williams on a five album £80 million contract, then hell.. they ain't losing anywhere near enough to make an impact on them yet!
The problem is, sports companies just got stung for price fixing, if anyone ever has the guts to push this infront of record companies, there would be hell to pay cause they sure are price fixing, just on a much larger scale. I dunno, we'll see, I'd be quite happy paying the current prices if I could pick the songs I wanted on the album, but unfortunately they insist on shipping crap with the good stuff.
K
Krazeh
Guest
- Thread starter
- #43
I think that's exactly the point, when they can afford to throw money around like that it's inevitable that people are gonna get pissed off with the prices they're charging and are gonna take to other means to get hold of the music they want.
U
Uncle Sick(tm)
Guest
- Thread starter
- #44
It is called human nature. fyi