IF WE DL ILLEGAL FILES FROM FREE OR So CALLED DONATION SITES...

>Just one, where customers who were not
>themselves sharing files have been sued for downloading from such
>sites.


"O/Siris"
Of all the people posting on this board I am shoked that you would be one
taking the posistion
that could cause people to be damaged.

You have been to long in this forum, while you were in here time marched on
and many people where sued for sharing.
First the record companies went after napster
Last week they raided kazza's offices and for the last 6 months they have
targeted users.

Look at it this wau Ringtone sales accounted for 10 percent of total music
sales last year
3.5 billion dollars worth. There not just going to lay down for you here on
this because it's only 30 seconds worth of the Pretty Woman Guitar intro.

They feel they own the complete recording and that when you buy a copy your
just buying a license for your personal use.

It will be very easy for the pubs and the RIAA to go after the poor people
your advising here.
Just remember that as you decide to send someone to a so called
free/donation site that gets hurt in this as it unfolds.


I would think that I coulsd at least gain agreement from you on this one
point:
The best policy here is to advise peeps not to give their telephone numbers
to the FREE/DONATION sites Right

Franklin





"O/Siris" <0siris@sprîntpcs.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Again, I would caution anyone who is giving their phone numbers to these
so
> called free/donation sites to reconsider
> With file sharing your not as exposed as you might be if they have your
> phone numbers .That's my concern
> What do you think?
>

Franklin, show me one case. Just one, where customers who were not
themselves sharing files have been sued for downloading from such
sites.

I've found not one single example. Those sites you're harping about
like Chicken Little aren't Kazaa or anything even approximating them.

--
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them

---

› See More: IF WE DL ILLEGAL FILES FROM FREE OR So CALLED DONATION SITES...

>Just one, where customers who were not
>themselves sharing files have been sued for downloading from such
>sites.


"O/Siris"
Of all the people posting on this board I am shocked that you would be one
taking the posistion especially one that could eventually cause people to be
damaged.

You may have been to long in this forum, while you were in here time marched
on
and many people where sued for sharing.
First the record companies went after napster
Last week they raided kazza's offices and for the last 6 months they have
targeted users.

Look at it this way Ringtone sales accounted for 10 percent of total music
sales last year
3.5 billion dollars worth. There not just going to lay down for you here on
this, because it's only 30 seconds worth of the Pretty Woman Guitar intro.
We're talking 10 per cent of all music sales

They feel they own the complete recording and that when you buy a copy your
just buying a license for your personal use not to make a copy and
distribute that copy to the world for FREE!.

It will be very easy for the pubs and the RIAA to go after the poor people
your advising here.
Just remember that, as you decide to send someone to a so called
FREE/DONATION site, that gets hurt in this as it unfolds.


I would think that I could at least gain an agreement from you on this one
point: The best policy here is to advise peeps not to give their telephone
numbers
to the FREE/DONATION sites

What say ye?

Franklin

"O/Siris" <0siris@sprîntpcs.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Again, I would caution anyone who is giving their phone numbers to these
so
> called free/donation sites to reconsider
> With file sharing your not as exposed as you might be if they have your
> phone numbers .That's my concern
> What do you think?
>

Franklin, show me one case. Just one, where customers who were not
themselves sharing files have been sued for downloading from such
sites.

I've found not one single example. Those sites you're harping about
like Chicken Little aren't Kazaa or anything even approximating them.

--
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them

Franklin,

As I posted in another thread, WHY DO YOU EVEN CARE??????? Unless you're just jealous that others are making money on ringtones and you are not. So now you're just venting some built up frustration.

If others are making money off of ringtones as you suggest.. How is it thry
call their sites FREE.

How can you make money off of someone elses work and not be considered a
copyright infringer
Doesn't make sense

Why do I care

You're right I shouldn't care I should be like you and ask why should I
care but I do, because I don't want the bad guys to win.

I'm rooting for the good guys and trying to educate people so that don't
get hurt when the bad guys go down.

Kind of like a Super Hero he doesn't have to kick the bad guys bootie he
just does.

Franklin

"Mastec" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Franklin,
>
> As I posted in another thread, WHY DO YOU EVEN CARE??????? Unless
> you're just jealous that others are making money on ringtones and you
> are not. So now you're just venting some built up frustration.
>
>
> --
> Mastec
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://cellphoneforums.netView this thread:
http://cellphoneforums.net/t110470.html
>

No matter how much you go on and on people are still going to download even threatened with fines and prison. RIAA has not stopped it and you as one person is not going to stop it. You seem to be making this a crusade, at least thats what it comes across as.

Nothing will ever stop it. but one thing will reduce it. RIAA playing fair.

They do not want to play fair though.

Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/



"Mastec" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> No matter how much you go on and on people are still going to download
> even threatened with fines and prison. RIAA has not stopped it and
> you as one person is not going to stop it. You seem to be making this
> a crusade, at least thats what it comes across as.
>

In article <[email protected]>,=20
[email protected] says...
> You have been to long in this forum, while you were in here time marched =
on
> and many people where sued for sharing.
> First the record companies went after napster
> Last week they raided kazza's offices and for the last 6 months they have
> targeted users.
>=20


You even quoted me, Franklin, and still didn't respond to what I=20
said. Show me one example. Just one. One user who is or was sued=20
for downloading from a site or service that wasn't also sharing files=20
via that service.

There isn't one. 3GUpload (the only site with which I have some=20
familiarity) approves downloads before allowing them for public=20
consumption. And they are quick to obey cease and desist letters=20
from confirmed owners and/or their legal representatives/agents.

From a site like 3GUpload, there is no such danger to the end users.

If there is, show me where it has happened: where a user NOT sharing=20
files via a service has been sued for downloading from said service.

There are no such cases.

--=20
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them

Chris -

> Your twisting things. let me untwist them for you.

>

> First I do not make much money on photography. I deal almost exclusively

> with end users (infact I Can not recall dealing with a commercial entity)

> Hunt down commercial users.

> their is a difference between using my work for your own person wants or

> needs and taking my work and PROFITING on it (THAT is what I mean by

> commercial use)

> so do I care if some user uses one of my pictures whether he bought it or

> not as a background for his desktop (good analogy) NO

> Now if he made a BOOK and used my picture IN THAT BOOK and was SELLING
that

> book without my permission IE now he is "making" money on my work.

> THAT is commercial to me.

> AGAIN the law does not have a problem with users listening to radio's.
they

> are not paying for it.

> AGAIN the law does not have a problem with users RECORDING their songs off

> the radio they are not paying for it.

> mp3 is the same thing. Digitally swapping my photos is the same thing.

> If I sell someone a picture I could really care less if they run to a copy

> machine or their scanner and make copies of it. SO LONG as they do not try

> to PROFIT from it.

> You reply was extremely sarcastic and does not appear to be benevolent or

> HONEST in any way but I will reply as if it was See below I mixed it in.

Sorry it didn't seem HONEST; I was apparently viewing your position as
simply, "if I can get it without paying, I should get it." I understand your
complaint about the RIAA; as I mentioned, I agree on some level. But artists
would NOT continue to produce if they did not sell their product - they
couldn't afford to do so.

I'll try to keep things brief, but I'm sure I won't; there's so much to get
across. Here are a couple of points I either apparently didn't get across
clearly, or that need to be addressed based on your response:

> My viewpoint was quite logical to me. saying it is illogical does not make

> it so. back your claims up. I backed mine up.

The logic I posed was based on stating premises that are in fact true.
Combining issues such as the RIAA's activity with the end goals of musicians
makes the water too muddy. They might be inextricably tangled now, but in
order to use logic, we need to sepearate the components to address each
individually. Not an easy task, but simply stating that they're intertwined
implies a causal relationship, not simply an association (which, in my
opinion is what is happening; most musicians are just people who have a
talent that they enjoy sharing and want to continue to share).

> I do not charge a fee for my work. I charge "nothing" for taking the

> picture. I charge to GIVE you the picture whatever you decide to buy from

> me. I sell 4x6's for $1 and 8x10's for $4 ($6 framed)

I understand, but please understand that "taking" the picture is akin to
"playing the music" while it's being recorded. You are NOT purchasing the
"playing the music while it's being recorded," you're purchasing the music
itself. Just as you sell your 4x6's and 8x10's, musicians (let's leave the
RIAA out of this for now) WANT to sell their product. The product is not the
service, it's the end result - music. The service is the physical action of
strumming guitars, vibrating vocal cords, tapping drums, setting F-stops and
shutter speeds, taking the picture. You're not selling that, nor did I think
you were. You're selling a physical product. So are the musicians. Again,
the RIAA is involved, but I am speaking about musicians, since I want to get
across the point that they deserve to be compensated for products that are
valuable (good music).

> I create my photographs for INDIVIDUALS with NO commercial concerns in
mine.

> to CONSUME. (LOOK AT and enjoy as you would LISTEN to and enjoy)

> so whats your problem ? I said the same thing. Replace Music with Picture.

> Same thing exactly.

> my problem would be if they tried to PROFIT off my work without my ok.

> Now lets take the analogy further.

> My images are 5mp and higher (soon to be 8mp) I sometimes put zvga copies
of

> the images on my website. Equivalent to an "mp3"

> I do not care and have no problem with people taking and sharing these. I

> have no problem with them putting them in an album or on their site (as
long

> as they actually copy it and do not just leech it using my bandwidth
another

> issue all together)

> I do not care if they share it. I do not care if they PRINT IT OUT. its
not

> nearly enough resolution to equal the original. ITs a sample. if they are

> happy with the sample so be it. thats their problem.

> I charge a reasonable rate most have NO issues at all with paying me.

> If I had some on display and someone walked up with their digicam etc..
and

> took a snapshot. (that is analogous to someone ripping a CD to mp3) again
no

> problem. what do I care. its not hurting me and they are not getting the

> "real thing"

> Now if no one is buying and everyone is just copying low res stuff I would

> simply stop selling it. it would be clear their is no "market" for it.

Chris -

That is such an invalid statement! I hate to sound condescending, because
I'm not trying to be, but that's purely conjecture, not based at all in
fact, and is probably incorrect! To say that it is "clear" that there is no
market for it is absolutely unfounded! Do you really think that everyone in
the world would reject TAKING something without paying, simply because it's
"the right thing to do?" Sorry to sound so jaded, but experience has taught
me that there are plenty of people who follow the herd mentality of, "well,
everyone else is doing it, so it must be OK." The fact that people are
potentially more willing to take things for FREE (without paying) versus
offering to pay for them, does NOT mean that there is not a market.

I shudder to think of the amount of talent and creativity that exists
untapped in the world based on such attitudes. Of course, defining the word,
"market" is critical to this discussion. If by the word, "market" you are
referring to "a venue by which I can acquire some compensation for my
products," you might be right, but only if your "products" are able to be
"taken" without physical changes occurring to them. But if "market" means,
"a venue by which individuals are willing to enjoy or experience my
products," that puts an entirely different spin on things. Which is the
point of my rebuttal of your initial assertions.

As technology has advanced, it has allowed us to have "copies" of audible,
visual and tactile "products" at almost no cost. But if everyone took
advantage of technology to get "copies" of everything, what would be the end
result? In a capitalistic society, the result would be that producers would
be paid much less, and/or production would be diverted to places that do not
honor the individuals responsible for the concept of the products (in this
case, musicians).

How long do you think you could continue to perform photography if EVERYONE,
and I mean EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO EVER SAW YOUR WORK, simply needed a
"rough approximation" of your photos, so they simply copied them without
compensating you? You'd spend money on proofs, electricity to recharge your
digital camera's battery, power your PC and printer, and heat your domicile;
yet you'd never get compensated. Does that sound attractive, or even viable
financially? It doesn't to me!

> now where can casual copying become a problem for me. lets make the music

> industry analogy. Lets say I sell someone an 8x10 and he scans it into his

> computer. no big deal its his he paid for it. he can use it however he

> wishes. if he wanted I would hav given him an electronic copy no big deal.

> but now he starts trading that image around. their is a lot more work that

> goes into a print than just hitting print. and a print of a scan of a
print

> is going to get pretty nasty pretty fast.

> now what would cause people to use this method to get my pictures instead
of

> using the proper method (buying from me)

> 2 things. one they are really not all that interested in the image (its
not

> their rocket it just looks neat etc..) this is casual copying. its of no

> concern to me. those people are NOT going to become my costumer regardless

> of whether they CAN copy the image or not. its just not important enough
to

> them. so they are irrelevant to me.

Why?

What do you think is the purpose of art? To satiate an intense inner desire?
To satisfy a primal need? To fulfill an empirical requirement for survival?
NO! It provides people with satisfaction; whether or not they are willing to
pay for it. Why should anyone continue to produce if nobody is willing to
pay? If everyone is willing to disrespect the producers/creators of products
by engaging in an inequitable transaction (no compensation for an exchange),
who will continue to produce? Will there simply be nobody out there
practicing their art, since everyone can get knock-offs for free, or
cheaply?

> 2 I am screwing up (way overcharging or have a strangle hold on the market

> limiting their means to aquire from alternative sources)

> How ? what if i got so good and powerful that I could pay Launch

> Coordinators to limit personal camera use and or keep put other pro

> photographers. IE I have locked out the competition so you have to deal
with

> me or not at all since their is no one else.

> Now if I am really good and prices are fair this "might" work out but

> probably not.

> but now imagine. I now have this total "effective" monopoly and I can not

> give out whatever crap I want and charge whatever I want for it. so I take

> random snapshots do not put anymore work into editing them and charge $10
a

> print.

> suddenly I am no longer their friend. but they still want their pictures.
so

> they will PIRATE THEM. sneak a pro photographer into the launch or start

> pirating my pictures.

> this is called free society at work. the consumers are getting screwed so

> they retaliate in any way they can. some will pirate. some may sue for
anti

> trust practices (assuming I am not so big that they would have no chance
in

> succeeding.

Let's stick with the lawsuits for anti-Trust practices and not stoop to
their (RIAA?) level by taking advantage. Bottom line is that the musician is
the one who loses here.

> is all this sounding familiar? let me clarify for you RIAA come to mind ?

> Artists come first when it comes to their works. they can do what they
want

> with it.

> UNTIL they try to SELL IT. now the tables are changed.

> now the artists is LAST and the CONSUMER IS FIRST. PERIOD.

> that is how a free capatalistic society works.

> when you decide to PROFIT from your work you are not in MY (consumer's)

> service.

> you are working for ME. because you want MY MONEY.

> why do people not understand this.

We DO understand this, but please explain the venues available to artists to
ensure that people won't simply take their "work" and never receive
compensation for it. If there was a way to AUTOMATICALLY deduct money from
your bank account if you ENJOYED (benefited from) a product, would you be
amenable to that? Then, you could download all of the works you wanted for
FREE; just pay after you get the benefit. But if you enjoyed the product at
all, you'd be REQUIRED to pay. Sounds like the honor system, huh? And with
people downloading songs without paying, can we trust them to use the honor
system? I think maybe the answer is, "no."

> it is MY JOB to give my consumers what they want or they will not PAY.

With the technology available now, consumers can get a very close
approximation to your actual product and STILL not pay.

> the RIAA is twisting this to the point where they are the ONLY SOURCE and

> control all aspects. THIS is called a monopoly and is NOT GOOD for our
type

> of society.

> consumers rebel. instead of doing what most companies would do. either go

> out of buisness OR FIX their bad practicies the RIAA is use legal strong

> arming and their massive POWER to FORCE their crap down people's throats.

Again, my discussion revolves around protecting the musicians (producers)
not the RIAA. Although you hear about the multi-million dollar deals
musicians acquire, there are plenty who don't see a penny. Maybe the RIAA's
fault, maybe not; I don't know enough about the hierarchy and business.



> NO its not a SEPERATE ISSUE. its the main freaking holy crail CENTRAL
ISSUE

> to this ENTIRE DISCUSSION.

> its the KING. the TOP of the TOTEM POLE. its GOD. it IS the entire
STINKING

> POINT of all of this.

> I do not sell photo's for pleasure. I TAKE photo's for pleasure.

> I SELL photo's for PROFIT. PERIOD. if your enjoyment was all that mattered

> it would be better to just GIVE you the damned photo's

> the WHOLE STINKING POINT is I want to take the MONEY from your pocket and

> put it into MY POCKET

> MONEY IS THE POINT. do you not GET THAT.



Yes, of course I do, silly. And that's why I mentioned musicians getting
properly compensated for their product. They, too, enjoy their craft. Most
of them are making music (your analogy: taking photos) for pleasure. They
sell their music for profit (your analogy: sell photos for profit). Again, I
think you're a very passionate individual who should take up the cause
against the RIAA (or whomever is the culprit in this situation), because
you're apparently tireless. But please spend a little time looking at the
entire situation before the wrong parties get "hurt." Since you're so
energetic, maybe you can come up with another format that will work, besides
having a monopoly control everything. I would think that a service online
that allows you to download songs for $0.79 - $0.99 each might be a good
thing. Maybe someone could come up with that product. As long as musicians
get their fair share.



> My analogy was SPOT ON PERFECT. You would be HARD PRESSED to find a more

> PERFECTLY FITTING analogy.

> > If a commercial entity uses one of your creations (like a photo) and
they

> > don't pay for it, you stated that you will "hunt them down." But why?

> Because now they are PROFITING from my work.

My point is that commercial entities have a different agenda - they are
supposed to make money. That is their goal. Individuals who listen to music
have a different agenda - they want to enjoy themselves. And if your product
does that for them, why shouldn't you be compensated? Because they're not
making money on it? What if you make lemonade and someone drinks a gallon of
it and doesn't pay? Is it OK because they're not PROFITING from your work?
That's not a good analogy, either, because lemonade is tangible, but I hope
you see my point.



> I BUY all my music. I have only a few mp3's that I listen to that I do not

> own on CD etc.. and that is because I have YET to FIND them on CD etc..

> Would you BUY a photograph I took of you SITE UNSEEN.

> ALSO on top of this you CAN NOT return it. you can not EXCHANGE IT.

> once you pay me your are STUCK with whatever it is I am going to hand you

> and at that time you have NO IDEA what I am going to hand you. you have NO

> RECOURSE as a consumer.

> Now what ? are you going to BUY that Picture from me ? 99.999999% of

> consumers would say HELL NO.

> yet that is what the music industry is FORCING down out throats every day.

> I could sell you a picture of a pile of dog **** and you would have no

> choice but to SUCK IT UP and LIKE IT because you did not get to see it

> first. you can not return it no refunds no exchanges NO RECOURSE.

> you could compalin but I am a HUGE conglomerate with nearly unlimited

> resources what are YOU going to do you little worm (that is how they see
us)

> THINK ABOUT THAT.

I understand, but don't you think that the media stores with headphones; the
downloadable snippets of music online; the radio's coverage of artists are
all opportunities for you to make your music choice NOT a "SITE UNSEEN"
situation?

> Your graphic illustration is inaccurate. lets rearrange it to mroe closely

> resemble what we call reality.

>

> > Musicians --------Music---------->Individual Consumers

> > Musicians <-------Money----------Individual Consumers

> > (Another typical arrangement between a producer and a consumer)

>

> Musicias ----- Individual Consumer (no music in this equation yet)

> Muscisians --->Music---->RIAA (or any label etc..)

> Individual Consumer --->Money---->RIAA

>

> Notice music to consumer has NOT OCCURED YET.

> in almost all cases the above is factual. AFTER the above has occured and
in

> most cases ONLY after the above has occured does this happen.



But what about the radio, music stores, online 'teasers,' etc? I don't see
the above modification as being accurate because of them.



> Consumer<-----Music

> What you described in your graph is the way is should be the with addition

> of this part.

> Consumer<----Recourse if Screwed

> Except that is NOT how real life works.



Well, technically, you'd have to define "Screwed." If it means that you
can't return a defective product, it is erroneous. I have returned CD's and
DVD's that were either burned incorrectly or otherwise damaged, and had NO
PROBLEM getting a working copy. If you mean that if you don't like the
product, that you can't return it; I agree somewhat, but you should probably
test the product BEFORE you buy it (i.e., listen to it in the store), so you
won't make a bad purchase decision.

The "Screwed" part above disturbs me, because if it's being used in the
sense that you are saying, "the music was horrible," it's not valid. What is
empirically "good" music? George Strait? The Beatles? Beethoven? Van Halen?
Johnny Cash? ZZ Top? Although I listen to all of them, most people wouldn't.
Musical taste is an individual choice, so why should it be incumbent upon
the artist to do the impossible (make music that EVERYONE IN THE WORLD would
enjoy)? Styles are different, tastes are different.

That is unfortunately, the nature of the product. As an experiential
product, the 'benefit' of the product does not diminish with use, so a
'checks and balances' system is difficult to envision. I think that
listening to samples of music before purchasing it is a reasonable solution
to avoid the "screwed" scenario.



> > You can't legitimately - simply because YOU WANT TO - change the rules
of

> > the game just because you don't like them. You can't simply say, "I
don't

> > think the musicians need to be compensated because I'm not compensated
for

> > non-commercial use of my work." Actually, you CAN SAY that, it's just
not

> a

> > legitimate assertion or comment.

>

> Yes I can and I WILL - Its called RECOURSE. its called consumer lash back.

> its called consumers saying STOP SCREWING US.

> I DO NOT think musicisans need to be compensated UNLESS they give me

> something WORTHY of that compensation. THAT IS HOW OUR SOCIETY IS SUPPOSED

> TO WORK. That is HOW it works when it is properly functioning.

> You give me something WORTHY of compensation and I therfore GIVE YOU

> compensation.

> that is how its supposed to work.



Fine; I agree. But your explanation makes me think of this as an analogy: I
walk into a grocery store where all of the shelves are lined with exactly
the same sized boxes with pretty pictures on them. The cereal that I select
LOOKS nice, and I enjoyed the LAST cereal I had from that company. So I buy
it. I taste it. I hate it. Whose fault is it? The company, because THEY
SHOULD HAVE MADE SOMETHING THAT I PERSONALLY LIKE? Well, maybe it becomes
their best selling cereal of all time, outperforming the next best cereal by
200%. Are they still at fault, because I didn't like it?

I understand your frustration and I hope you can put your energy into
solving the problem (after dissecting it a bit more).

> Same here. it drives me NUTS. maybe you just misread or I mistyped to
cause

> confusion. maybe this post will clear things up. THIS part of your post is

> the only reason I replied at all. It implies you actually ARE interesting
in

> a logical discussion. When I make heated posts I can be a bit unclear. I

> hope this clears thinhgs up even though it too is a bit heated. :-)

> the riaa has TWISTED the system to where they want you to give your MONEY

> FIRST and then if and or when you find out you have been JIPPED their is

> NOTHING you can do about it.

> and they have grown powerful enough to where you do not have much CHOICE
but

> to EAT their crap hoping every once in a while one mouthfull of **** will

> have some fruit in it and not taste so bad.

> Imagine if I had you taste something. you have to taste it your hungry.
you

> do and it tastes like dog **** (and maybe it is dog ****)

> now you are NOT you MUST SWALLOW IT. you ALREADY PAID for it and CAN NOT

> return it and CAN NOT get your money back. your STUCK WITH IT. you can
spit

> it out but you still have to pay for it. your STUCK with it PERIOD. no

> discussion no recourse.

> THAT is today;s music industry.

> when alternatives TRY to manifest themselves they are sued out of
existance

> etc.. or shut out of any meaningful part of the market (power and
monopoly)

> I am sorry but that is NOW how its supposed to work.

> I AM YOUR BOSS. you work FOR ME since I HAVE the money that you desire.

> YOU GIVE me what I want and I GIVE you my money. You don't and you get

> squat.

> that is how its supposed to work. that is NOT how the music industry
works.

I agree. But online services and music stores are helping to make it less of
an unknown quantity when we purchase products now, wouldn't you agree? It's
a step in the right direction. I also think that many MORE steps need to be
taken, but it's a way to START to address some of the problems.

> Movies are getting just as bad. for most people its $8 to see a movie.
used

> to be $3 and i am only 27 years old !!!! so we are not talking LONG ago
!!!

> So if two of you go see a movie you just PAID the price of the DVD that
will

> come out later. something is wrong with that. thankfully its partially

> balancing. DVD prices are WAY down. closer to where they SHOULD be.

> CD prices are the same if not HIGHER than they were when they came out

> decades ago.

> yet its cheaper to make and produce and manufacture them at all levels.

> DRAMATICALLY cheaper. they are artificially inflating the prices and

> PREVENTING any consumer recourse.

> THIS is a broken system and needs to be fixed.

> the RIAA does not want it fixed because they are making a boatload off of

> it.

> Piracy as they explain is it is NOT real. they claim billions lost yet
fail

> to mention that 99.999999% of those BILLIONS are from overseas operations

> that mass produce "knock offs" the amount lost to internet piracy is
ZILCH.

> nothing. its casual sharing like we did with audio casettes which by the
way

> is still legal.

> in fact it is a fact that File Sharing mp3's initially INCREASED CD sales

> BIT TIME. first increase in over 10 years IIRC.

> the latest DECREASE is consumer lash back for being screwed and burned.

> I personally have purchased more CD's in my first 2 years of file sharing

> than I did in my entire life previous to that. (I have strange odd musical

> tastes so I got sick of blowing $18 for one or NO songs that I liked)

> Mp3 solved that. I could listen and know I liked it and buy with
confidence.

> Lately I do not buy many cd's I listen to what I have. I do not download

> more (no time) which also reduces what I buy since i will not buy an

> "unknown"

> I also will not be told HOW to listen to my music. EVERY CD I buy is first

> RIPPED to mp3 (128kbit for the player and 320kbit for archiving)

Fair use, in my opinion (but then again, I'm not an attorney). I do the
same. Hey, the darned things cost so much, for another $0.30 (cost of a CD)
+ $0.02 (cost of electricity to run my CD burner & PC for a CD-burn), I'll
make an archived copy.

> I then put away that VERY expensive CD someplace nice and safe. I put my

> music on my Zodiac. On my Rio. On my CD player . My computer. Laptop. On
my

> Minidisc player.

Ditto for me, with the Rio, CD player and PC.

> I WILL NOT be restricted by the RIAA as to what and how I listen to my
music

> on. thats my buisness NOT theirs. I paid them for their CD. that is where

> THEIR concern in the matter ends.

> So long as I do not profit from or infringe on their ability to profit
from

> (let people copy my cd;s etc..) they have NO SAY in what I do with my cd's

> otherwise for my own personal use. period.

I agree within reason. Letting others copy your CD's, etc. sounds on the
surface like clearly diluting the value of the CD. If you shared your CD
with two friends, and they shared with two friends, etc., theoretically,
only one CD would ever need to be purchased for everyone to enjoy the
musician's hard work. That doesn't sound equitable to me. However, for
your own personal use, I agree. You've compensated the musician indirectly
(hopefully; that's the RIAA's responsibility once you pay for the CD/music),
so you should be able to enjoy it for your own personal use. My biggest
gripe is people who never pay for the music; that can potentially cause
musicians to stop producing. It's supply-demand. In this case, demand is
demonstrated NOT BY USE, but by PURCHASE of product. The demand for FREE
stuff will probably always be there, but it doesn't support the musicians. I
don't much care if the RIAA gets paid, as long as the producers (musicians)
get compensated. If the RIAA is producing something (marketing services,
legal services to artists, etc.) they are producing and deserve some
compensation also, but it appears based on your writing that it's far too
much. I can't disagree, I don't know enough about the situation. But I
wanted to make the point that artists need to be compensated if people are
enjoying their work.

> I will NEVER buy a copyprotected CD. ever. When the day comes that you can

> not buy UNPROTECTED music that day is the LAST day I will ever buy music

> again sadly. I WILL NOT be told how to listen to my music.

At least you're willing to make a stand.

Have a great day!

Below

>
> I understand, but please understand that "taking" the picture is akin to
> "playing the music" while it's being recorded. You are NOT purchasing the
> "playing the music while it's being recorded," you're purchasing the music
> itself. Just as you sell your 4x6's and 8x10's, musicians (let's leave the
> RIAA out of this for now) WANT to sell their product. The product is not
the
> service, it's the end result - music. The service is the physical action
of
> strumming guitars, vibrating vocal cords, tapping drums, setting F-stops
and
> shutter speeds, taking the picture. You're not selling that, nor did I
think
> you were. You're selling a physical product. So are the musicians. Again,
> the RIAA is involved, but I am speaking about musicians, since I want to
get
> across the point that they deserve to be compensated for products that are
> valuable (good music).

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. if you want to get real
technical they do not want to sell their product (music or picture) they
want to make money and have decided that they could GET money by offering
their music for sale. or in my case offering my pictures for sale.

why is this distinction important. well because I can take pictures and make
music with NO intention of making any money. I do it daily. most of my
pictures are for me. nothing else.

yes its nitpicking but I think it is an important distinction. not sure what
the point your trying to get across to me though ? can you clarify.?

> > Now if no one is buying and everyone is just copying low res stuff I
would
>
> > simply stop selling it. it would be clear their is no "market" for it.
>
> Chris -
>
> That is such an invalid statement! I hate to sound condescending, because
> I'm not trying to be, but that's purely conjecture, not based at all in
> fact, and is probably incorrect! To say that it is "clear" that there is
no
> market for it is absolutely unfounded!

Let me clarify. if I desire to get X dollars for X picture and NO ONE
(almost no one) is paying and many are taking (without paying) clearly their
is some demand for my picture (their taking it) but NO DESIRE to "pay me for
it" either because they do not like me (not likely) or they do not deem it
WORTH the asking price.

if I am unwilling to budge on the price then it very much IS logical to say
that under those conditons their is NO MARKET for it. (I did not say no
demand since if they are taking it clearly their is demand) but their is
also likely no market under the listed conditions.

> Do you really think that everyone in
> the world would reject TAKING something without paying, simply because
it's
> "the right thing to do?" Sorry to sound so jaded, but experience has
taught
> me that there are plenty of people who follow the herd mentality of,
"well,
> everyone else is doing it, so it must be OK." The fact that people are
> potentially more willing to take things for FREE (without paying) versus
> offering to pay for them, does NOT mean that there is not a market.

If the asking price is fair and their is a difference in product (IE mp3 is
FAR INFERIOR to CD and not as nice etc.. and its a bit of WORK to get that
mp3) people will have no inclination to waste their time with the mp3's

off course their will always be x numbers who will take for the sake of
taking or desire for the simple act of collecting etc.. but they are
exceptions not norms.

until recently morals were important to most families and YES simply because
its the right thing to do USED to mean something and still does to me and
hopefully many others.

any idea how many of my cd's that I have purchased in the last 5 years that
I have where I ALREADY had the mp3's downloaded off the net.

let me tell you. EVERY SINGLE ONE of them. OK one exception. my tae cd but
that is only because its not in english and hard to find as mp3 (tae is a
common character combination so you get a lot of "flak" when you search by
that name)

>
> I shudder to think of the amount of talent and creativity that exists
> untapped in the world based on such attitudes. Of course, defining the
word,
> "market" is critical to this discussion. If by the word, "market" you are
> referring to "a venue by which I can acquire some compensation for my
> products," you might be right, but only if your "products" are able to be
> "taken" without physical changes occurring to them. But if "market" means,
> "a venue by which individuals are willing to enjoy or experience my
> products," that puts an entirely different spin on things. Which is the
> point of my rebuttal of your initial assertions.

negative your second defination is closer to defining the word "demand" not
market. your first definition is close to the word market (at least to my
understanding) demand and market do NOT have to coincide.

>
> As technology has advanced, it has allowed us to have "copies" of audible,
> visual and tactile "products" at almost no cost. But if everyone took
> advantage of technology to get "copies" of everything, what would be the
end
> result? In a capitalistic society, the result would be that producers
would
> be paid much less, and/or production would be diverted to places that do
not
> honor the individuals responsible for the concept of the products (in this
> case, musicians).
>
> How long do you think you could continue to perform photography if
EVERYONE,
> and I mean EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO EVER SAW YOUR WORK, simply needed a
> "rough approximation" of your photos, so they simply copied them without
> compensating you? You'd spend money on proofs, electricity to recharge
your
> digital camera's battery, power your PC and printer, and heat your
domicile;
> yet you'd never get compensated. Does that sound attractive, or even
viable
> financially? It doesn't to me!

yes and no. to me a "close approximation" (ie mp3) is not sufficient. any
more than a vga print out of my photo would be sufficient.

like I said I would crack down on hard infringers (IE is someone was making
perfect replica's of my photos at full quality) now they qualify under one
or both of the 2 conditions that I feel are NOT fair use.

1 they are profiting or 2 they are directly and difinitvely impact MY
ability to profit (hence why its illegal to make perfect copies of movies
even if you give them away for free)


> What do you think is the purpose of art? To satiate an intense inner
desire?
> To satisfy a primal need? To fulfill an empirical requirement for
survival?
> NO! It provides people with satisfaction; whether or not they are willing
to
> pay for it. Why should anyone continue to produce if nobody is willing to
> pay? If everyone is willing to disrespect the producers/creators of
products
> by engaging in an inequitable transaction (no compensation for an
exchange),
> who will continue to produce? Will there simply be nobody out there
> practicing their art, since everyone can get knock-offs for free, or
> cheaply?

Sorry in this case you are way way off base. most artists (and I mean almost
ALL OF THEM) were paid SQUAT for their work. they did it for the sake of
doing it. do you think vangou got millions for his work ? hell no.

the purpose of art is whatever purpose you make of it.

I do not take pictures for profit. I take pictures because I LIKE taking
pictures I ENJOY DOING IT.

as a SIDE EFFECT I discovered that I could also profit from doing what I
like to do anyway.

this distinction is important. !!

Most musicians do NOT get into music because they want to make money
(especially since almost all musicians will never seem much of a DIME from
it)

the musicians you see in the CD stores are a VERY VERY VERY small SLIVER of
all the musicians out their. that is a fact of life.

When a musicians stops making music because they LOVE it and simply to make
money that is usually when they also stop making money since their music
changes and it is no longer desired by most.

same with my pictures. if I no longer had the "desire" to take the pictures
think about what would HAPPEN to my pictures since I would not be putting
the same EFFORT into the picture taking.

>
> Let's stick with the lawsuits for anti-Trust practices and not stoop to
> their (RIAA?) level by taking advantage. Bottom line is that the musician
is
> the one who loses here.

Negative. you are taking the same incorrect path that the RIAA desires you
to take.

the musician has already won or lost at the whim of the RIAA. they are the
ones that decide that

Again this is NOT about the artist. ONCE you put it up for SALE the artists
becomes less relevant.

NOW its about the money.

PLEASE remember this important distinction. when you are trying to make a
profit you are NOT trying to PLEASE ME.

you are trying to take my MONEY and lucky for us it just so happen that
PLEASING ME is a very effective way to take my money.

the distinction is minor but VERY important.

If they will not give me something that is WORTH the money they want they
will not get my money.

if the ARTIST wanted $15 for a CD I would pay it. but you see I KNOW that
the artists is only going to get about a NICKEL for that CD whether I pay
$10 for it or $22 for it.

thats right. did you know that. that the MAJORITY of artists get LESS THAN a
nickel PER CD SOLD.

the RIAA as inextricably connected THEM with the ARTIST. therefore to have
an effect on the RIAA I WILL as a side effect have an effect on the artists
as well (no matter how minor a one)

sadly that is called casualties of war. I have a batter against the RIAA. I
WILL NOT let down on this battle if this means musicians get caught in the
cross fire so be it. remember the RIAA is the one using them as human
shields not me.

> We DO understand this, but please explain the venues available to artists
to
> ensure that people won't simply take their "work" and never receive
> compensation for it. If there was a way to AUTOMATICALLY deduct money from
> your bank account if you ENJOYED (benefited from) a product, would you be
> amenable to that? Then, you could download all of the works you wanted for
> FREE; just pay after you get the benefit. But if you enjoyed the product
at
> all, you'd be REQUIRED to pay. Sounds like the honor system, huh? And with
> people downloading songs without paying, can we trust them to use the
honor
> system? I think maybe the answer is, "no."

Wrong I think the answer is YES. remember as Napster gained in popularity
something that had not happened in TEN YEARS happened. CD SALE WENT UP.

the only way an artists can prevent the taking of their work is to not make
it public.

MOST PEOPLE have GOOD MORALS. if you are fair they will HONOR that trade of
fairness. if you BURN them they will BURN you back. the RIAA is trying to
legally ENFORCE their BURNING of ocnsumers.

THAT is why CD sales are dropping. Consumer Backlash.

>
> > it is MY JOB to give my consumers what they want or they will not PAY.
>
> With the technology available now, consumers can get a very close
> approximation to your actual product and STILL not pay.

Yes they possibly can. and if they choose to do that then that means their
is NO MARKET for my product. I stop selling it and move onto something where
their is a market. simple as that. at that point they no longer have
something to COPY now do they. the problem is self correcting. the morals
will change when they desire and can no longer get.

a bigger question why is their no market ? is it because I am being greedy
and overcharging or is it lack of morals and honor among consumers.

that is the big question. if its the latter their is nothing you can do
about it. that is a SOCIETAL change and you can not legislate societal
changes no matter how big and rich and powerful you are.

in this case the GREEDY CORPS are CAUSING the morality change in the people
as the people are tired of being SCREWED.

> Again, my discussion revolves around protecting the musicians (producers)
> not the RIAA. Although you hear about the multi-million dollar deals
> musicians acquire, there are plenty who don't see a penny. Maybe the
RIAA's
> fault, maybe not; I don't know enough about the hierarchy and business.

I just solved a problem with my palm pilot (tapwave zodiac) I made an error
in my trouble shooting that CAUSED me not to solve the problem.

normally when you try to solve a problem you do what YOU are trying to
incorrectly do. what I incorrectly did with the zodiac without realizing it.

you see my zodiac has a Bluetooth radio in it. I wanted to put a bluetooth
radio on my PC and then wireless browse the internet with the zodiac over
the bluetooth.

so I spent $40 and got a bluetooth radio (usb dongle) for the pc. installed
it everything was great. I hotsync it works great.

now I try to browse (same thing as hotsycn except instead of using hotsync
now I want to use the internet)

it fails. ppp timeout. ?? I am tearing my hair out for MONTHS trying to make
this work.

well here is the solution and problem. I did what you are trying to do.
something that USUALLY is the right solution. remove as many variables as
possible (seperate riaa and other issues to logicall discuss and derive
solutions for each)

so on the Bluetooth issue I removed all variables EXCEPT the bluetooth. I
figured OK get the zodiac to talk to the PC and then worry about getting it
to talk to the internet. one step at a time.

well unbeknownst to me at the time the two in INSEPERABLY connected (like
the RIAA musician and piracy issue is)

you can NOT logical work on one without the other.

what do I mean ? well NORMAL issue mean that a connection that I want
requires 2 things but they are SEPEARTE

FIRST a link between zodiac and pc.

Second. UTILIZE that link with a service (internet)

well little did I know that the PALM OS CONNECTS these 2 things. the palm os
WILL NOT "accept" a connection over bluetooth unless it ALSO finds a usable
SERVICE on the other end something that is normally SEPERATE and hence my
logical sepeartion of the systems CAUSED the problem.

that is why hotsync worked and internet did not. you see when it hotsycnd it
conencted and then said where is my service. hotsync spoke up and said here
I am. everything works.

when I went to use internet same thing. bluetooth connection and now zodiac
is waiting for a service but finding none because I did not know it NEEDED
one to even establish a connection.

once I put a service into the loop it worked the very first time I tried.

IE I HAD to have both in order for ANY part to work.

what is my point ? the RIAA issue is the same thing.

BECAUSE the RIAA has a complet stranglehold on the music industry and is in
every phase of the loop in a commanding position etc.. (IE totall dominating
monopoly) you CAN NOT logically SEPERATE the RIAA from this issue.

they are CENTRAL to this issue. INSEPERABLE. just like the internet service
was to the bluetooth connection. without BOTH it did not work.

without talking about the artists/piracy AND the RIAA together this
discussion falls apart. since all the CLAIMS people who argue against me
make WORK in their argumens BECAUSE they are removing the most important
FACTOR of the discussion the RIAA.

off course their arguments all FLOUNDER the moment you put the RIAA back
into the equation. hence why people go around in circles trying to argue
these issue out.

see what I mean ??


>
> Yes, of course I do, silly. And that's why I mentioned musicians getting
> properly compensated for their product.

I am sorry but once again you have it backwards. I am not interested in
musicians being compensated for their product.

I am interested in ME being compensated for MY product (MY product being MY
MONEY)

if you want to be compensated for your non monetary product them do
something you enjoy. it has worked for thousands of years.

if you want my MONEY now you need to compensate ME for giving YOU my MONEY.

see what I mean. artists SELL their work because they desire MY product
(money)

this distinction is CRITICAL.

> They, too, enjoy their craft. Most
> of them are making music (your analogy: taking photos) for pleasure. They
> sell their music for profit (your analogy: sell photos for profit).

DING DING DING !!! (I am not trying to make fun) you almost hit the NAIL ON
THE HEAD !! you ALMOST HAVE IT if you will just complete the link.

PLEASURE if their compensation for making music. THATS IT. DONE. is STOP
THEIR> their is NOTHING MORE. NO more compensation is relevant. if they do
not derive pleasure they should not be making music. period.

NOW to your second thing. they desire PROFIT. that means they want MY
product (money) they got this great idea (and it is a great idea) I can
trade what gives me pleasure for money to other people who will get pleasure
from it and are willing to PAY to get that pleasure.

see what I mean. now the artists wants MY money (my product) now its
reversed. I am not creating my pleasure I am BUYING IT.

if I do not GET pleasure from my purchase I am going to be miffed about it.
THAT is now a society like our functions. RIAA is trying to break those
rules.



> Again, I
> think you're a very passionate individual who should take up the cause
> against the RIAA (or whomever is the culprit in this situation), because
> you're apparently tireless. But please spend a little time looking at the
> entire situation before the wrong parties get "hurt." Since you're so
> energetic, maybe you can come up with another format that will work,
besides
> having a monopoly control everything. I would think that a service online
> that allows you to download songs for $0.79 - $0.99 each might be a good
> thing. Maybe someone could come up with that product. As long as musicians
> get their fair share.

No beause the monopolistic control is still their you are just changing
mediums. the problem is that the only solution is the elimination of the
riaa.

I WILL NEVER buy music online at current prices. 99 cents even 50 cents is a
total RIP OFF.

THINK about this. when you buy a CD you get a nice poly carb disc. nice
jewel case. Covers. Booklets FULL QUALITY RAW QUALITY FILES with NO
RESTRICTIONS on what you can do with and how you can USE them files. I can
recompile a new compilation cd. put on my pc. play in my car. put on my
minidisc player on my mp3 playuer on my palm pilot etc. etc..

all this for roughly 99 cents a song (divide cd price by numer of songs on
disc)

now online you pay SAME stinking 99 cents. you get NO full quality (FAR
INFERIOR quality) you cd case. NO disc NO booklets NOTHING.

you also get HUGE RESTRICTIONS on what you can do with that file HUGE
restrictions on HOW you can listen to your music.

My minidisc player ? garbage. although I know how to put itunes music on my
MD I am breaking the law if I do.

My Mp3 player ? unless its a VERY expensive ipod again useless. illegal for
me to put it on my mp3 player. my palm pilot. same thing. you see that
digital download has DRM digital rights manageament and the RESTRICTIONS are
extremely draconian EVEN at itunes (which has the least draconian of the
bunch)

if you want to see me that how about 10 cents a song. I MIGHT be willing to
pay that.

HOW do we fix this ? we RESTORE BALANCE. the BALANCE between consumer rights
and corporate (artists etc..) rights.

alas this would mean the elimination of the RIAA as we know them.

they need to play fair. this will never happen since they would make far
less money. (keep in mind if we were able to force the riaa to "play fair"
the ONLY losers would be the RIAA. consumers would get better prices and
artists would get a larger cut)

>
> My point is that commercial entities have a different agenda - they are
> supposed to make money. That is their goal. Individuals who listen to
music
> have a different agenda - they want to enjoy themselves. And if your
product
> does that for them, why shouldn't you be compensated? Because they're not
> making money on it? What if you make lemonade and someone drinks a gallon
of
> it and doesn't pay? Is it OK because they're not PROFITING from your work?
> That's not a good analogy, either, because lemonade is tangible, but I
hope
> you see my point.

that is stealing and is completely different.

Let me make an analogy for you. I claim to have taken a picture of your
rocket. I have a photographer who takes my pictures for me. many of them in
fact. some are good some are not. some like to be funny and take picturs of
piles of dog ****.

you want a picture of your rocket flying. I say OK here an 8x10 for $20 WAY
overpriced. but because I am a monopoly I am the only game in town so pay up
sucker.

AHH but their is more. you are not allowed to see the photo you will buy.
its an unknown. it is a good photo or a bad photo or worse the pile of dog
****. you dont know and I am going to make it VERY difficult for you to find
out sure you can look at FEW of my photos maybe just a PEEK at a part of a
photo but not all of them their are thousands.

you have to pay me first and their are NO refunds or exchanges. your stuck
with WHATEVER I GIVE YOU.


> I understand, but don't you think that the media stores with headphones;
the
> downloadable snippets of music online; the radio's coverage of artists are
> all opportunities for you to make your music choice NOT a "SITE UNSEEN"
> situation?

Plese show me a LEGALLY downloadable snippit for even 1% of all the major
artists out their. not even counting the non major artists.

radio. sorry man their are only 24 hours in a day. 8 of which I am sleeping
8 of which (minimum) that I am working and a few others that I am doing
other stuff. so how much time do you listen to the radio a day, wanna guess
how many millions of hours of MUSIC are out their.

if your entire LIFE 24 hours a day never sleeping doing NOTHING but
listening to music you would never even SCRATCH the surface of the amount of
music that is out their.

Now lets add something to this. radio only plays the HITS. NEVER the entire
CD. usually only ONE SINGLE SONG from whatever CD.

Most shops will not let you spend all day listening to CD to find the one
you like. most shops nowadays anyway have digital systems. you get to listen
to CLIPS at best and NEVER the entire CD all the tracks etc.. just the
"popular" tracks many of the CD are not even IN the "demo system" at the
store. just the popular stuff.

sometimes even what you hear in the demo unit is not even what is on the
disc you are holding (system screw up been nailed by that a few times)

guess what. when you buy it thats it your STUCK WITH IT. if its the wrong CD
its a TOO BAD for you as you have NO RECOURSE. NO refunds NO exchanges.
PERIOD.


>
> But what about the radio, music stores, online 'teasers,' etc? I don't see
> the above modification as being accurate because of them.

See above.

Please by all means show me a single radio station in my area playing Kelly
Chen. Ayumi Hamasaki, Move. China Dolls. Arashi.

How about enigma. how often do you hear their stuff. How about Zamphir. ever
here him on the radio. ?? I could probably find ZILLIONS of cd's that your
NEVER gonna hear on the radio with any probably chance of regularity if ever
at all.

remember the problem is that you have NO RECOURSE if you get screwed. if I
could RETURN a cd I did not like then I would not have issue with this. if I
could TRY the ENTIRE cd anyway I want (any track any length) like we used to
be able to again this would not be an issue.

I used to walk into sam goody (now fye) and bring up a stack of CD's they
would open them for me and I would sit in front (ok stand) in front of one
of their many CD stations and PLAY CD's. I would return (they would
reshrinkwrap) the ones I did not like and BUY the ones I liked.

you CAN NOT do this anymore (at least no where withing a thousand miles of
me that I am aware of)

>
> Well, technically, you'd have to define "Screwed." If it means that you
> can't return a defective product, it is erroneous. I have returned CD's
and
> DVD's that were either burned incorrectly or otherwise damaged, and had NO
> PROBLEM getting a working copy. If you mean that if you don't like the
> product, that you can't return it; I agree somewhat, but you should
probably
> test the product BEFORE you buy it (i.e., listen to it in the store), so
you
> won't make a bad purchase decision.

YOU CAN"T TEST IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THATS MY PROBLEM MAN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THATS WHY I LIKE MP3 SHARING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! that they are trying to make
ILLEGAL !!!

so I can TEST BEFORE I BUY. they are doing their DAMNDEST to make TRYING
before you BUY IMPOSSIBLE.

HOW CAN I MAKE A SMART PURCHASE decision if I can not try and for something
where its IMPRACTICAL to try (go ahead try and TEST a candy bar or a washing
machine) BOTH OF WHICH ARE REFUNDABLE by the way. their is a good RETURN
policy in place if not you shop elsewhere.

if I buy a snickers and it sucks I can return it for refund.
I can test drive a car.
I can try on clothes.
I can return a toaster that turns out to be garbage.
I can return a washer that does a lousy job of washing.
I can return a CD player that sucks at playing CD or is easily whatever ANY
REASON I WANT.

if I do not like it I can RETURN IT.

you CAN NOT do so with MUSIC. the ONLY way most of the time to TRY it is to
BUY IT and once you do that you are legally STUCK with it.

Go to the store pick out ANY current popular CD. now please show me ANY
radio station that plays more than 1 or 2 of the songs on that entire disc.
please go ahead. find one.

>
> The "Screwed" part above disturbs me, because if it's being used in the
> sense that you are saying, "the music was horrible," it's not valid. What
is
> empirically "good" music? George Strait? The Beatles? Beethoven? Van
Halen?
> Johnny Cash? ZZ Top? Although I listen to all of them, most people
wouldn't.
> Musical taste is an individual choice, so why should it be incumbent upon
> the artist to do the impossible (make music that EVERYONE IN THE WORLD
would
> enjoy)? Styles are different, tastes are different.

ITS MY MONEY. I decide what is good and what sucks. that is my RIGHT. its MY
MONEY. why do people have a hard time understanding that.

that is why people should either have a good return policy OR have a
practical means to TRY before they buy. for exactly that reason.

the riaa has REMOVED this ability in almost 100% of instances available to
us.

we can NOT try before we buy (hearing one song from the CD on the radio does
not count)
we can not LISTEN to it fully first.
we can NOT return it if is sucks.
short of being LUCKY and having a friend who has the CD you desire (for me
yeah right !! I listen to some STRANGE ****) I am probably the only english
speaking american with a Kelly Chen CD in a thousand miles !! **** I had to
order it from hong kong !!!)

its MY MONEY. I am not interested in compensating YOU. I am interested in
YOU compensating ME for my MONEY that I am giving to you !!!

remember YOUR trying to sell to me. this is not a case of me ASKING you for
something and then not being satisfied with what I get that I asked for.

this is YOU made something and now you want ME to buy it from you. well I
WANT MY MONIES WORTH. is that asking so much ???

>
> That is unfortunately, the nature of the product. As an experiential
> product, the 'benefit' of the product does not diminish with use, so a
> 'checks and balances' system is difficult to envision. I think that
> listening to samples of music before purchasing it is a reasonable
solution
> to avoid the "screwed" scenario.

samples is NOT acceptable. the biggest complaint people have is paying $18
for a cd with one song (maybe 2) and then a bunch of filler sucky crap. that
is one of the biggest complaints CD buyers have. that is what promted the
creation of SINGLES (which are vanishing by the way) the RIAA HATES singles.
they want to rape you ont eh $18 sucky cd with 2 one hit wonders on it)

since the RIAA has made a practice of burning people this way people want to
know FULLY what they are going to get.

hell I can walk into a MOVIE and if it sucks I can walk out of the middle of
it demand and GET a refund !!!

MP3 allows people to KNOW what they are going to buy ( it has other nice
effects too for later and those effects are actually why the riaa is
attacking it so hard IE mp3 could potentially EMPOWER artists)

that is why CD sales WENT UP for the first time substantially in TEN YEARS
of stagnation (at the time the average cd purchase was 6 cd per year per
person and it was a shockingly consistant average for over 10 years)

>
> Fine; I agree. But your explanation makes me think of this as an analogy:
I
> walk into a grocery store where all of the shelves are lined with exactly
> the same sized boxes with pretty pictures on them. The cereal that I
select
> LOOKS nice, and I enjoyed the LAST cereal I had from that company. So I
buy
> it. I taste it. I hate it. Whose fault is it? The company, because THEY
> SHOULD HAVE MADE SOMETHING THAT I PERSONALLY LIKE? Well, maybe it becomes
> their best selling cereal of all time, outperforming the next best cereal
by
> 200%. Are they still at fault, because I didn't like it?

HEY you forgot one thing. YOU CAN RETURN THAT SUCKY SERIAL AND GET A REFUND.
its not only legal but its NORMAL and "expected"

remember their objective is to get your money. so is it their fault you
don't like it no. is it their PROBLEM. your damned right it is.

your damned right they should make somethig I personally like cause if they
don't I WON't BUY their cereal. I will buy form the one who DOES make
something I like.

is this confusing or something ?? THIS IS HOW OUR SOCIETY WORKS MAN !!

what you just described if exacly my point. THATS HOW THINGS WORK.

WHY the hell do you think chrysler spent 3.5 MILLION dollars to build a one
off concept car (the kahunna) for the sake of it ??

HELL KNOW. they need to find out what people LIKE. and then SHOW IT TO THEM.
and get them WANTING to buy their product.

you keep forgetting the POINT man. in a MONETARY society like out IE a
society based on MONEY. MONEY IS THE PRODUCT.

everything else is the service. that CAR is the service to get your product
(your money)

lets put it this way.

if you hired someone to CLEAN you car

if it came out as dirty as it went in would you pay them ??

OFF COURSE NOT.

but WAIT. they did the work. should they not be compensated. just because
you do not like their work is that their fault ??

but last week they cleaned the car well.

see where I am getting at here. the PRODUCT is the money. you get SERVICE
for Money.

we are just not using "other products" as a replacement for the service. as
another way to get the "money"

>
> I agree. But online services and music stores are helping to make it less
of
> an unknown quantity when we purchase products now, wouldn't you agree?
It's
> a step in the right direction. I also think that many MORE steps need to
be
> taken, but it's a way to START to address some of the problems.

NO its not. the problem is the RIAA. online music is just another outlet for
them to screw you even more. nothing more nothing less. less an unknown
quantity will not help me.

I would love to have you find me a single song I listen to regularly on
itunes. PLUS I don't want that crap DRM laiden restrictive low quality
downloaded crap. I WANT THE CD.

>
> Fair use, in my opinion (but then again, I'm not an attorney). I do the
> same. Hey, the darned things cost so much, for another $0.30 (cost of a
CD)
> + $0.02 (cost of electricity to run my CD burner & PC for a CD-burn), I'll
> make an archived copy.

ahh but the RIAA wants to make that illegal.(copy protected cd's to STOP you
from enacting your fair use rights) someone said that about DVD;s to. The
kids tend to reck them. so parents want to make a backup and use that and
keep the expensive original safe locked away.

when this was brought up to the mpaa you know what they had the gal to say.
too bad. you want a backup go buy a second copy. you believe that ????

>
> Ditto for me, with the Rio, CD player and PC.
>

Not for long. copy protected cd's will stop you from using your PC and your
RIO and compiling a custom CD. well unless you pay extra for a licence to
download to an approved music. see where this is headed.

>
> I agree within reason. Letting others copy your CD's, etc. sounds on the
> surface like clearly diluting the value of the CD. If you shared your CD
> with two friends, and they shared with two friends, etc., theoretically,
> only one CD would ever need to be purchased for everyone to enjoy the
> musician's hard work. That doesn't sound equitable to me.


NOOOOOO !!! letting friends copy your CD is CLEARLY infringement and NOT
FAIR USE !!! no question about that from me.

> However, for
> your own personal use, I agree. You've compensated the musician indirectly
> (hopefully; that's the RIAA's responsibility once you pay for the
CD/music),
> so you should be able to enjoy it for your own personal use. My biggest
> gripe is people who never pay for the music; that can potentially cause
> musicians to stop producing. It's supply-demand. In this case, demand is
> demonstrated NOT BY USE, but by PURCHASE of product. The demand for FREE
> stuff will probably always be there, but it doesn't support the musicians.
I
> don't much care if the RIAA gets paid, as long as the producers
(musicians)
> get compensated. If the RIAA is producing something (marketing services,
> legal services to artists, etc.) they are producing and deserve some
> compensation also, but it appears based on your writing that it's far too
> much. I can't disagree, I don't know enough about the situation. But I
> wanted to make the point that artists need to be compensated if people are
> enjoying their work.


their will always be those that demand free. but the problem here is not the
consumers and or the artists. its the seeming all powerful MIDDLEMAN we are
both (artists and consumers) so far STUCK WITH.

the RIAA

> At least you're willing to make a stand.
>
> Have a great day!

if things continue the way they are going my "stand" will simply result in
me being morally forbidded for every getting any NEW music the day they
copyprotect all cd's

they are even working on ways to inject noise into the sound itself so you
can nor even record with a microphone.

NO more recording off the radio even if they get their way.

see the long dark road this is creating ? this NOT the artists doing. its
the RIAA. the artists are as much a victum here as the consumer is.

the enemy is not the artist. its the RIAA (I use the term RIAA to mean
LABELS in general not ONLY the RIAA) but I think you realized that.

Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/