Harry wrote:
> thing2 wrote:
>
>
>>Harry wrote:
>>
>>>thingy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Harry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Evil Bastard wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I wouldn't mind paying a little extra for blank CDs/DVDs in exchange
>>>>>>for the rights to:
>>>>>>- freely and legally download copyrighted audio/video files (*) under
>>>>>> a 'compulsory licensing' scheme
>>>>>>- burn these to disk for my and my friends' personal use
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Maybe you should also be allowed to steal freely provided you pay some
>>>>>taxes?
>>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps you should try stealing from some *friends* and sharing the
>>>>>proceeds with some other *friends*. With friends like you we can
>>>>>all have everything for free! Whoopdedoo!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not quite the same argument. The cost of distribution, & re-production
>>>>is just about zero, the artists get their % from the % put on CD-rs, so
>>>>there is no stealing.
>>>
>>>
>>>If you are implying that such a scheme would fairly reward the artists
>>>then what could possibly be wrong with just charging an amount directly?
>>
>>None, and the best way IMHO, by that I mean really directly ie avoiding
>>the record labels, just straight to the artist(s).
>
>
> That is a ridiculous expectation in the real world.
> Most people are totally incapable of effectively promoting
> themselves, or marketing their product. And those things have
> to be done to get the product effectively distributed.
>
> You are living in crazy fantasy land.
Lots of companies sell products by direct download, and some artists
are. Lots af artists cannot cannot get recording contracts so are trying
to sell direct as they have no choice. Record labels only want to sell
what they can sell a lot of, on their terms ie artists get screwed.
A singer/band promotes themselves by touring, so in effect that is
exactly what they do.....their fans see them and can go download tracks,
not that hard.
The Internet is the distribution model it is effective.
Not in fantasy land, future land, if you want to carry on believing the
record labels are the answer, fair enough, I dont think so. This is
because the next generation will be even more wired than the last and
the record labels by taking on less and less artists force the rejected
artists to use the medium of the Internet, so the weight of artists
doing so will drive acceptance.
>>>Or are you implying that there needs to be a mechanism for people to
>>>steal works without paying, and of passing the cost onto others.
>>
>>I believe we were discussing ways of recovering / alternatives to buying
>>CDs, and here you go claiming its stealing, a very emotive word and not
>>needed, so back off.
>
>
> Theft is theft. The *emotion* is not mine, but yours only.
> There is nothing emotional about the work theft, for goodness sake!
No we are discussing alternative ways of paying for the music, you are
the one claiming it is stealing.
>>>>The argument is you pay a lot more for CD-r blanks instead of paying
>>>>directly for a "real" CD. I have issues with that, but Canada etc does
>>>>this sort of thing on a smaller scale.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why not just pay money for the product that you want?
>>>Isn't that really simple and fair?
>>
>>Yes, but there is no reason not to look at alternatives, I certainly
>>think bypassing the record labels and established sales channels should
>>be the way to go. (also see below).
>
>
> Ok, so I suppose you bypass the local supermarket and get all your
> food from your own backyard?
Now this is plain silly, People do this by shopping on-line, at road
side farm/factory outlets, supermarkets and shops get bypassed right now.
>>>If you don't want it, then don't pay for it and don't have it.
>>>If you really want it, then shouldn't you be prepared to pay for it?
>>
>>Yes, we are discussing different forms of how to do it. By raising the
>>issue/alternatives of "add a cost to CDrs" we hi-light how unfair that
>>would be for OSS and backup users. In effect we create a government
>>enforced monopoly were none is needed. Now the music industry would love
>>a tax on each cdr, they would then have zero civil enforcement costs and
>>collection costs are done by/through the Government, a win-win for
>>them......so in effect businesses are looking for handouts from the
>>government.....so much for let business do the business.
>
>
> The music industry doesn't have a problem that they aren't capable
> of solving. Downloading of music is *not* a problem for the music
> industry. They just use it as an excuse for a slight decline in sales.
> But the decline is actually caused by people finding the current crop
> of music wanting.
This I agree on, and the record labels stranglehold on the distribution
means peoples only choice is going around (form both sides) and an
effective method is the Internet.
> The music industry should drop the price of their product.
> A CD should cost around $5. After all, it doesn't exactly take a team
> of rocket scientists to record some trite collection of exciting notes
> and get them transcribed onto a CD.
they have a monopoly, so why should they drop it to $5? are you going to
force them? that is just stealing by another name.
>>The problem is without doubt many people dont seem to want to pay for
>>films and music, they illegally download and burn to blank CDs, so in
>>effect legit users are paying for others music, also unfair.
>
>
> The ball is in the court of the music/movie producers.
> They need to price their product so that it isn't worth copying
> for your average person.
I totally agree, but, they can see they have a monopoly, so want to
charge accordingly, because they think they can.
>>I see this as sorta balanced though by the huge margins the music and
>>film companies make due to their monopoly so I dont feel that sorry for
>>them.
regards
Thing
