Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury

[ThaSaltCracka]

I haven't read any of this thread, but I wanted to add my 2 cents.

My main, and massive, problem with new music is:
1. The price
2. The format

I find it rediculous that I have to pay 10-15 dollars for a new CD. There is no way in hell this [censored] should be this much.

Second, the CD format is also rediculous. I download music and play it one of three places:
1. My computer
2. My iPod
3. My MP3 Car deck

I have no need for a CD copy. I want it all digital, available to play it on whatever format I choose.

Music companies should figure this [censored] out and charge around $5 for complete digital copies of albums, for legit downloads. People would buy this and it saves money for because the logistics of copying, printing, shipping, and selling CD's dissapears.

[Freakin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once you admit that you arent against all IP laws, then you (implicitly) imply that you agree that IP can exist. So, this debate isnt about whether IP exists, but about whether or not music should be considered IP.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, like I said I don't really have a knowledgable opinion on ALL IP so I can't really give an informed answer on this. Based on what I know now if patents weren't allowed for things such as drugs I think perhaps that would cheapen drug prices (since a patent is essentially a monopoly on making that particular product), however I understand the counter to that is that getting rid of patents may create a situation where funding the creation of other drugs may become unprofitable. But I think companies could adjust and save costs/advertise effectively and other such methods. I mean it's not like the only reason life saving drugs are attempted to be created is for profit. There's a lot of people out there that care for the health of the rest of the world.

Just my 2 cents though, like I said I haven't investigated the issue enough to feel that this is a solid opinion on this.
[ QUOTE ]
So, essentially: then what is the difference between someone who writes a song and someone who invents a process to make a drug (or whatever aspect of IP you agree with)?

[/ QUOTE ]
Consequentialism (assuming patents/IP is needed).

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason someone funds the progress is because of expected greater profits. If that was not there, there would not be the same funding for it (despite whether or not scientist would want to research drugs or whether musicians would want to record music). There is a reason why drug companies want to produce quality drugs and why labels want to produce music with wide distribution (not necessarily quality music)--TO GET PAID. If all the drugs companies could instantly produce a drug that someone else discovered, why would you want to spend money to research any drugs? Everyone would invest in manufacturing plants to sell drugs that someone else is (apparently) still going to invent.

I'm sure that if drug patents were not allowed it would cheapen drug prices, but it would also cheapen drug quality. The same is likely true for music at this point. Until the equipment and training required to produce quality recorded music is so common that any band can afford it, recorded music quality will suffer without proper funding.

[Freakin]

[ QUOTE ]

We don't need those anymore.


[/ QUOTE ]

Um, a website is distrubution. Posters and word of mouth are sales. Unless they post their homemade music video on youtube and let it be distributed virally, they still have to deal with sales & distribution. Ditching CDs and record stores doesn't change that.

[ QUOTE ]
And I know 100s of artists who handled recording as tons of my friends are in bands that aren't on a label and have recorded their music in a studio at some point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know many companies who had their teenage sons produce their website, or used some random team in India or Turkey--not the same as a properly produced website. You can go through the motions and produce an inferior product; just because you don't know it's inferior doesn't change the fact.

I don't deny that there are people making it in the music industry ON THEIR OWN, but they are a SERIOUS minority. I have the utmost respect for a musician who is able to produce a proper master and retain all rights to it.

To play devil's advocate a little bit more, what if your friend produced an incredibly high-quality record by themselves in a studio that they paid their own hard-earned money for. What if they released it on the internet and it started gaining popularity, even being picked up on the best radio stations. Then I take the music they are freely distributing (but asking for donations for) and create my OWN website posing as them that is freely distributing their music and asking for donations. I word the website in such a way that I am not infringing on any IP that you think should still exist (such as their trademarked band name, etc). I am taking their work and making money off it. There is no protection for music anymore so no one else can stop me. I do SEO on the website and take out ads on all the major search engines & radio stations so that people looking for your friend's band will find my website and donate to me. It's farfetched, but a lot of people in this thread (certainly not singling you out) don't think there should be protection over the music like that...

[DrewDevil]

Freakin is pretty much expressing how I feel on the subject. I never said that if music were not property there would be no music, only that production and distribution would seriously fall off, both in quality and quantity.

What I really don't understand is how so-called 'music lovers' would think it would be a better world if musicians did not get paid for producing music.

[hiho]

They need to start sending messages like this to everyone that illegally downloads stuff, this includes music and movies.

I don't understand how people can convince themselves that there is nothing wrong with it because everyone else does it. So if everyone just shoplifted a CD from a store would you do it too? Maybe people would do it less if they thougt that they would go in a pound it in your ass prison.

[aislephive]

[ QUOTE ]
They need to start sending messages like this to everyone that illegally downloads stuff, this includes music and movies.

I don't understand how people can convince themselves that there is nothing wrong with it because everyone else does it. So if everyone just shoplifted a CD from a store would you do it too? Maybe people would do it less if they thougt that they would go in a pound it in your ass prison.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the internet, how are they going to force people to not download free music when it's right there in front of them for anybody to download?

I was using Napster for the past few months ($10 month) and they didn't have a lot of songs I wanted, and some others I couldn't download with my subscription, I had to buy the track for 99 cents or whatever. Not to mention I tried using WMP and another program and neither would let me burn tracks I had downloaded from Napster onto a blank cd.

I have since cancelled my subscription and have been downloading songs from limewire. Does that make me a bad person? Also your analogy sucks because shoplifting is something that is actually enforced, of course people aren't going to do it if they think there is a good chance of being caught. But how many people have been charged for downloading and sharing music illegaly compared to the total amount of people that do it?

If there was a proper service that had basically every song ever made including tons of artists that aren't well known, and was also affordable, I would be the first to sign up. But AFAIK no such service exists, short of paying 99 cents per song which is absurd.

And get off your moral high horse already.

[hiho]

[ QUOTE ]

Also your analogy sucks because shoplifting is something that is actually enforced, of course people aren't going to do it if they think there is a good chance of being caught. But how many people have been charged for downloading and sharing music freely compared to the total amount of people that do it?


[/ QUOTE ]

Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding, correct and thanks! Thats my point. People feel that because they can get away with it that it is ok. That is why this case is so great. Thankfully there are alot of people that got in trouble for downloading music but not very many cases of such thing for downloading movies. I'm sure that we'll see more soon. Downloading copyrighted material without paying for it is theft and its about time that people start realizing it. The entertainment industry is taking aggresive steps to detect and punish online video piracy.

[daryn]

[ QUOTE ]
If there was a proper service that had basically every song ever made including tons of artists that aren't well known, and was also affordable, I would be the first to sign up. But AFAIK no such service exists, short of paying 99 cents per song which is absurd.


[/ QUOTE ]

this is such BS. come on man. you're basically saying IF there was a service that had every song ever, easy to access, at a price you were happy with, you'd happily use it, but until then you'll be happy to steal.

like i would love to have a service where i could order gourmet food to be delivered to my house within 15 minutes for only $5 a meal, and until that happens i will just have to go steal my food.

[aislephive]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there was a proper service that had basically every song ever made including tons of artists that aren't well known, and was also affordable, I would be the first to sign up. But AFAIK no such service exists, short of paying 99 cents per song which is absurd.


[/ QUOTE ]

this is such BS. come on man. you're basically saying IF there was a service that had every song ever, easy to access, at a price you were happy with, you'd happily use it, but until then you'll be happy to steal.

like i would love to have a service where i could order gourmet food to be delivered to my house within 15 minutes for only $5 a meal, and until that happens i will just have to go steal my food.

[/ QUOTE ]

How hard is it to ask for a service that has a wide selection of songs at an affordable price? I didn't say a service that has every song ever made at a dirt cheap price, although that would obviously be ideal.

And your analogy fails on so many levels I'm not even going to bother disecting it.

[aislephive]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Also your analogy sucks because shoplifting is something that is actually enforced, of course people aren't going to do it if they think there is a good chance of being caught. But how many people have been charged for downloading and sharing music freely compared to the total amount of people that do it?


[/ QUOTE ]

Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding, correct and thanks! Thats my point. People feel that because they can get away with it that it is ok. That is why this case is so great. Thankfully there are alot of people that got in trouble for downloading music but not very many cases of such thing for downloading movies. I'm sure that we'll see more soon. Downloading copyrighted material without paying for it is theft and its about time that people start realizing it. The entertainment industry is taking aggresive steps to detect and punish online video piracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

A tiny percentage of people have been caught and charged for downloading music compared to the amount of people that do it, that is my point. The only reason anybody would stop would be to make themselves feel better that they're not "stealing" anything. The term "steal" is far too harsh for this kind of thing anyways, people don't profit monetarily from downloading music like how people profit from stealing tangible items of monetary value. It's not like you can steal songs off of a p2p software and sell them, at least not under typical circumstances.

I just don't think the term "steal" is appropriate in this instance. It is nothing like stealing cds from a record store, it just isn't.