OT RIAA (WAS:Ringers and Pictures on Sanyo phones)

snippets don't tell me squat. especially if its a bad part of the song
snippet.

and it still does not resolve my primary complaint. 99cents is WAY WAY
overpriced.

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

"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <3y9Wb.8385$%[email protected]>,
> "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Many downloaders are collectors, i.e., packrats. They want a big
collection
> > of songs but rarely have time to listen to but a few. Others delete the
song
> > after listening to it once and deciding they don't like it. Should they
have
> > bought the song first?
>
> iTunes allows you to listen to a snippet before investing your 99 cents.

---

› See More: OT RIAA (WAS:Ringers and Pictures on Sanyo phones)

I have made FM recordings that sound better than many of the 128kbit mp3's I
download.

try again

the only bonus mp3 has over fm is on demand and convenience. NO quality
difference for the most part.

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


>
> Not to mention a recording off the radio is analog to digitally
> converted, and of lesser quality than one that is digital all the way.

EXACTLY !!! NO THEFT EVER OCCURS WITH MP3 DOWNLOADING

the industry has TWISTED IT to make it sound like stealing.

YES you are breaking the law. YES you are infringing on someone elses rights
NO you are not STEALING ANYTHING at all intellectual or physical period.

this does not make it RIGHT. NO its wrong. (but wrong actions CAN be
justified)

the american revoultion was ILLEGAL. it was WRONG. it was VERY WRONG. but
most will agree (ME included) that it was JUSTIFIED.

and in that case we DID steal. we STOLE their colonies. PHYSICAL property
they (britain) OWNED.

Copyright infringement is NOT theft. it is just that. Copyright
Infringement. Nothing mre nothing less.

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


> Sorry, that analogy doesn't work. If I steal a car, I deprive the actual
> owner/buyer of the use of it. If I copy a CD, it doesn't deprive the
> owner/buyer of the CD.
> It's not stealing, it's copyright infringement.
>
> --
> John Richards
>
>

Illegal yes but not wrong. Right and wrong are not decided by law. laws are
sociatal or political or POWER based majority rules.

simple as that.

it is wrong to make me PAY a portion of my LIFE for an UNKNOWN with
absolutely ZERO RECOURSE to the one paying.

I do not care about the artist at purchase time. I AM THE ONE pulling green
backs out of my pocket.

the artists job is to GET my dollars. MY job is to get something WORTHY of
my dollars.

Capatalism like we are supposed to have it has a FINE balance between
protecting the consumer and appeasing the seller. the laws we have are
supposed to keep the pendulm relatively close to the middle.

the Powers that be are working very hard and succeeding at PULLING and
HOLDING that pendulm well on the other side of the consumer.

Keep this in mind. if a car is sold under false pretentions or it just plain
SUCKS I can return it. their are lemon laws in place.

I can test drive it for gods sake and it if sucks I can say screw this.

HELL many will even let you "take it home" for a day or two.

My dad does this evertime he buys his $50,000 town cars (wish I could afford
todo that :-)

If I buy a candy bar and it sucks I can return it.

If I buy pretty much anything else I can think of I HAVE RECORUSE. I can
return it.

IF enough people return it the manufacturer gets the picture. DON'T Push
GARBAGE on us. they FIX the issues or they DIE.

that is not so in most software and the entire music industry. you have to
buy sight unseen and HOPE you like it since you are STUCK with it no matter
what.

ONCE you walk out of that store its YOUR permanently with absolutely NO
RECOURSE if you got SCREWED or just plain think it sucks.

Legally or otherwise this is WRONG. $18 is nothing to smurk at. I can do an
awful lot for $18. I can nearly feed myself for a week with $18 if I really
really wanted to.

I could have a Very nice meal at a restaurant for $18

I can take several people out to the MOVIES or 2 with popcorn AND I CAN GET
MY MONEY BACK IF THAT MOVIE SUCKED !!!

Yet when I spent that heafty $18 for that few pennies worth of polycarb and
paper I have the potential of getting nothing.

people say your not buying a cd and case (bull**** thats exactly what I am
buying) your buy music.

NO I am buying a CD and case until such time as I decide I am pleased with
that music. if I am not pleased then it is nothing but an $18 Plastic CD and
paper covers. simple as that.

MP3 allows us to KNOW before we buy since we can not legally know any other
way in most cases.

I even tried to listen to a CD at a store once. (they USED to allow you to
open any CD and LISTEN to it as much as you wanted to. not anymore.) they
would open it pop it in a player you did not have access to off course. you
could then play skip whatever you wanted. I spent 30 minutes listening to a
cd once. (I bought that CD too) and they just reshrink wrap it if you do not
buy it. no biggie to them.

Now they have these automated system. you only get a few songs from each cd
usually (pointless since they will obviously play the "hits" on that cd) or
only a short portion of it. usually in way degraded quality AND sometimes
outright wrong.

I listened to one CD liked it bought it (this is recently on the automated
systems) when I got into the car the CD I had was not REMOTELY similar to
the CD I heard. I went back in. tough break I am stuck with this $22 CD (YES
it cost me $22!!!) and it SUCKED I did not like not ONE SINGLE SONG ON THAT
DISC. I was STUCK with it.

I will never buy another cd without first downloading it to make sure its
worth it to me unless I am certain I will like it. Simple as that.

Also to your comments I will repeat this (please lookup the data yourself
you can google for it)

CD SALES WENT UP WHEN NAPSTER HIT ITS STRIDE AND CONTINUED TO RISE AS MORE
PEOPLE USED IT AND SERVICES LIKE IT.

If I could make that a type set 10 times larger to express how LOUDLY I am
yelling it I would but I HATE html formatted messages. so lucky you :-)

MP3 HELPS CD sales. but it does not help RIAA and their ilk.

sounds like a conflict their ? no not really. RIAA does not have much to do
with CD except that it is the format they use for distribution.

RIAA controls artists (with draconian lock and key own your soul contracts
too)

Artists can not make CD's. its expensive although THIS is changing. artists
can not do DISTRIBUTIONS and Exposure. its way way to expensive.

but with compact effecient good sounding OPEN FORMAT (that is KEY more
later) digital formats and the INTERNET they CAN do both production and
distribution. at least enough to possibly get them going on their way to
bigger and better.

THIS Is what so SCARES the riaa. if the artists today does not like the
contract placed in front of them then tough. the RIAA and their ilk are for
the most part the only game in town and if you say screw you anyway they CAN
easily make it VERY hard for you to get anywhere.

They control radio. distribution. sales etc.. they control all the OUTS for
you EXCEPT ONE. the internet.

it has the potential to FREE artists. an artists can sell you a CD for $5
HELL an artists can sell you a cd for $2 and still make MORE money on each
disc than they do with the RIAA (quantity becomes a problem you get the
idea) eventually those issue would be solved. the riaa will not let it get
to that point if it can help it.

because when that happens the RIAA is no more. that is why they are fighting
this so hard. now they can not FIGHT THAT. so they need a scapegoat. Piracy.
for years they have been working to change copyright infringement from being
an infringement (which is what it is) to THEFT. to STEALING something
tangible.

I have seen murderes get lighter sentences than people who have Potential
DMCA or copyright infringement in the coming years. is that insane or what.

all this to protect their STRANGLEHOLD on the industry and artists. they
want to keep their monopoly. simple as that.

The issue is artist control. NOT piracy. piracy is a convenient legalized
scapegoat.

CD sales started to fall recently because of both the economy. continued
high CD prices and backlash against the music industry by its consumers.

no other reason. NOTHING to do with piracy.

their LOSS figures have nothing to do with file sharing. that's all big
asian etc.. operations MASS DISTRUBUTING bootleg copies of their stuff on
the scale of millions of copies.

we do not hurt sales we increase them.

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


> The "try before buying" examples are just as illegal, but a lot more
> defensible on moral/ethical grounds. But, if that's what most
> downloaders were actually doing, the record companies wouldn't be taking
> a big enough hit to get any sympathy. Especially since most people would
> consider it more-or-less "fair use".
>
> Unfortunately, that's not what's happening, so you're pretty much in the
> same position as Lot trying to save Sodom and Gomorrah ;-)
>
> Ran
>

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:26:15 +0000, John Richards wrote:

> If I copy a CD, it doesn't deprive the
> owner/buyer of the CD.

No, you've deprived the author of the royalty due for getting the right
to play the contents at your convenience. The CD is merely a "tool" that
enables you to exercise that right, roughly equivalent to the keys to a
car.

Your argument is equivalent to saying that if I hack a bank's computer to
redirect someone's direct deposits to my account, I haven't "stolen" from
him, because there were no physical coins and dollar bills involved.

> It's not stealing, it's copyright infringement.

If a horse were that lame, you'd have to shoot it.

Ran

In article <[email protected]>,
"Chris Taylor Jr" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> the only bonus mp3 has over fm is on demand and convenience. NO quality
> difference for the most part.


Sounds very much like your subjective opinion after paying too much for
an FM Receiver.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Chris Taylor Jr" <[email protected]> wrote:

> snippets don't tell me squat. especially if its a bad part of the song
> snippet.
>
> and it still does not resolve my primary complaint. 99cents is WAY WAY
> overpriced.
>
> Chris Taylor
> http://www.nerys.com/


You'd prefer to pay $1.50 for 3 months as a ringtone?

or 99 cents from iTunes, and then make your own RingTune with
SnapMedia

Ran Talbott wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:26:15 +0000, John Richards wrote:
>
>> If I copy a CD, it doesn't deprive the
>> owner/buyer of the CD.
>
> No, you've deprived the author of the royalty due for getting the right
> to play the contents at your convenience.

Fact is, very little depriving "the author of royalties" is going on.
The major reason that CD sales are in a slump right now is because of
the lousy economy, and because people consider CDs to be over-
priced. For example, the call-center I worked at as a customer support
specialist was closed down two years ago, the work was sent over to India.
I haven't been able to find similar employment since. Do you think
I can afford to pay $18 per CD? Many people are in the same boat,
or fear being laid off.

--
John Richards

ON Tue, 10 Feb 2004 09:58:58 GMT, O/Siris <Osiris@sprîntpcs.com>
WROTE:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> I am pretty sure that if you were a performer (or any line of work)
>> and someone was acquiring your end result, the end result of months of
>> work and thousands of dollars, for free and giving it to everyone for
>> free, cutting deeply into your own sales, and out of your own pocket,
>> I am pretty sure you'd side with the RIAA very quickly.
>>
>
>The problem, though, is that the big music labels don't care about the
>artists any more than the Kazaa downloaders. I can remember watching
>one of those MTV "Behind the Music" specials about TLC, and Lisa Lopez,
>"Left Eye", went through the entire $15 or so per album and they got
>something like 7 *cents*.
>
>Sorry, but when that much goes to the "infrastructure" the music
>industry has built for itself, it's time to STOP thinking this is about
>the artists. No matter who's doing the screwing, it's still the artist
>getting it in the end.

Pete Towhshend wrote on his web site that he has to pay a performance
royalty to the RIAA every time he performs Baba O'Riley, but that he
hasn't seen a penny of it coming back to him (as it should, as he's
the composer).

take care,
Paul

"Chris Taylor Jr" <[email protected]> wrote in

> I have made FM recordings that sound better than many of the 128kbit
> mp3's I download.
> ..
> the only bonus mp3 has over fm is on demand and convenience. NO
> quality difference for the most part.
> ..
>> Not to mention a recording off the radio is analog to digitally
>> converted, and of lesser quality than one that is digital all the
>> way.

The entire discussion of CD vs. mp3 is going the way LP vs CD from a few
decades ago. MP3 supports very high fidelity. There is no way an FM
recording will have the dynamic range of even a 128 kbit file. You just
need to upgrade your stereo system or codec to hear the difference.

The few people who can appreciate the difference between a CD and say
160 kbit MP3 file can always go to higher bit rates. The reality of the
situation though is that:

1. Younger people can hear the difference but they do not care and usually
do not have the money to buy a decent stereo system.

2. Older people (>25) can't hear the difference for the most part

3. There are always the few exceptions who generate the greatest amount of
usenet posts. The rest of us just enjoy the music!

Vincent

actually I paid very little for my FM reciever. got quite a nice deal.

a dal CD FM reciever for $119 that has aux in for my minidisc and even plays
mp3 cd's

tought to be for the meager $119 asking price.

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

"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Chris Taylor Jr" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > the only bonus mp3 has over fm is on demand and convenience. NO quality
> > difference for the most part.
>
>
> Sounds very much like your subjective opinion after paying too much for
> an FM Receiver.

For how long though.

how long before your CD's will only work in one approved device.

not in your home stereo not in your car etc. only in the riaa approved
players.

now you have to go out an buy all new players etc..

Oh you want to play in your walkman? you need the portable license it costs
this much. but I already paid for the CD but that only covers use of the CD.

OH you also want to listen in your car ? you need the automotive licese too.
more money.

no sharing with friends either. it won't work in their player anyway ?

got that fm transmitter so you can listen in your car without paying. sorry
the dark noise technology in the CD will make sure you hear garage when you
do that.

so the "rest of you" how long WILL you be able to just "enjoy the music"

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


> 3. There are always the few exceptions who generate the greatest amount of
> usenet posts. The rest of us just enjoy the music!
>
> Vincent

bad analogy. I can copy my car keys legally.

incorrect again. MONEY is not intellectual. the electronic numbers ARE quite
literally linked to PHYSICAL FUNDS. they represent physical funds.
intellectual rights do not represent anything physical. they are not linked
to anything physical except for the media on which they are recorded.

you are that lame. please shoot yourself.

COpyright infringement is wrong. copyright infringement is justifyably
illegal.

copyright infringement is not theft. its not stealing.

thats like saying if I steal a candy bar I should be put on trial for
kidnapping or something other than stealing.

they are different.

the riaa is trying to put a "stealing" twist on copyright infringement
because it carries more mental weight and can levy harsher punishment
because see stealing as being more severe.

Remember this country was founded illegally. sometimes something that is
normally illegal is justified.

I DO NOT YET. "steal" mp3s' (love someone to show me how since by my
definition its so far impossible) because I can still legally buy CD's
without DRM.

once all CD's have DRM I will have no other acceptable choice but to
"pirate" my music since I will NEVER buy a DRM protected CD.

So as I said and as you suggested in your implied statement. please go shoot
yourself.

I respect artists. I DO NOT respect the RIAA. they are filth and are raping
both you and the artist.

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


> No, you've deprived the author of the royalty due for getting the right
> to play the contents at your convenience. The CD is merely a "tool" that
> enables you to exercise that right, roughly equivalent to the keys to a
> car.
>
> Your argument is equivalent to saying that if I hack a bank's computer to
> redirect someone's direct deposits to my account, I haven't "stolen" from
> him, because there were no physical coins and dollar bills involved.
>
> > It's not stealing, it's copyright infringement.
>
> If a horse were that lame, you'd have to shoot it.
>
> Ran
>

I make my ringtones from my own CD's or I use midi files with permission
from their authors for free.

I do not PAY for ringtones.

you can not LEGALLY make your ringtone from your 99cent download. READ your
license.

YOU are breaking the law when you do that. when I rip my CD to a ringtone I
am NOT breaking the law.

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

>
> You'd prefer to pay $1.50 for 3 months as a ringtone?
>
> or 99 cents from iTunes, and then make your own RingTune with
> SnapMedia