Ed Hansberry

Janak Parekh

Sven Johannsen

I sure hate seeing that rationalization. Just because you wouldn't pay for it, doesn't make taking it OK. Just because I wouldn't buy a copy of Photoshop at the price they charge, and therefore Adobe isn't losing any money on me personnally, that doesn't make my copying the CD right. It is still wrong, whether it is a $700 software package or a $2 song.

Ed Hansberry

Lets work though that for a second.

Photoshop is a single package. There are cheaper alternatives (I personally use PaintShip Pro 7 for $99 from www.jasc.com ) to do what you want. Photoshop is not unreasonably priced compared to its competition for what it does.

Now, lets look at a song. A CD can be broken up. It in fact is broken up for a few select singles that are sold via those mini-CD's or cassingles (do they still sell those? :? ) The technology clearly exists to sell single songs or even entire CDs via a download. The record companies don't want that though. They like their model they came up with when albums started that for the most part, you pay for 15 songs whether you want them or not.

Now, for the first time in the history of music, we have an alternative. If they won't sell us the music, we can get it from somewhere else. And you know what? That is forcing them to rethink their model. "Hmmm... maybe we should sell the consumer what they want?" As I said, the first one that does it gets a check for ~$300 from me. I am watching PressPlay, but I don't like their subscription model. Do I subscribe to Wal-Mart? Do I subscribe to Amazon? Why should I have to pay $20/mo to buy a song? That is like the original video stores that used to charge $50/year for membership before you could rent back in the early 80's. That died out quick. PressPlay's model will to in favor of a single purchase model. Is it $1, $2 or $3 per song? I don't know. Would $3 upset me? Sure. I think that is too much. But I will for darn sure pay $3 before downloading a song from a file sharing service.

It is a very gray area Sven. Is it stealing? Probably. I won't deny it. Is it forcing the music industry to rethink their 50 year old model? Yes. It is about the only form of protest possible. Emailing or writing letters to execs at Sony isn't going to cut it is it?

pt

heov

Ok... So you think just because you have to buy an entire album over one song for a price that you think is expensive, it's OK for you to just steal that one song? So tell me this, if these albums only costed about 3 bucks (you can't buy a single song though), would you still steal one song? If so, then you are just complaining about the price of CDs.

And if so, I personally think the 3975 is WAY over priced for what they give you. Since emailing or writing letters to execs at HP isn't going to cut it, I am just going to go steal the products in the hope that one day they will lower their prices.

However, if you don't want to buy an entire album, and just want one song, how much are you will to pay. If the Music industry began selling downloadable songs in whatever format you desire, and sell them for 5 bucks each, would you still steal the songs? (UPDATE: from reading yoru posts again, you said you would pay for it, i think).

Maybe when you steal a song, you could think of it as Civil Disobedience

Sven Johannsen

So? You are still not getting Photoshop. You could buy one of those $1.99 or $2.99 CDs I see at the discout stores. Sure they don't have what you wanted, but they are an alternative. My point was that you are getting something that has a price (though bundled in what you consider an unattractive package) for nothing.

You could just as easily justify acquiring Windows XP for free because you use Music Match as a media player, Netscape as a browser, etc., etc. and darn it, MS won't sell you just the OS portion you wanted.

How about books. If the publisher choose to only offer the title you wanted in a $20 hardback and not in a $5 paperback, would you feel justified in getting that pirated .pdf or .lit off the internet.

How about mapping software. Would you get a copy of MapPoint from you friend because you only wanted the southern states and MS made you buy the whole US?

Oh yea, you could get a tape of a song or a whole album from your friends for a long time. You just don't have to know anyone who got a legit copy anymore.

I see it forcing the industry to re-think things, but I see more tendancy to think about copy protection than unbundling albums into singles. That direction will be bad for us all. Those of us who buy our music will no longer have the ability to copy them to our hard drives or MP3 portables, without resorting to illegal tactics.

At least you allow that it is probably wrong. I am a child of the 60's, so the civil disobedience angle is more palatable than the 'I wouldn't have bought it anyway, so it is OK to steal it' ploy.

Paul P

The industry doesn't have a problem with people like you. As a matter of fact, they probably want more customers such as yourself; customers that will not distribute the track to thousands of people within hours of getting a hold of it. The problem is that most people lack the good intentions of simply ripping the song to a computer or a PDA and enjoying it just for themselves.

Also, not long ago, we discussed the issue of software warez. The main concern revolved around the negative effects of software piracy on the people who created it. Why are you leaving out the artists who made the music you are taking? Should they be okay with what you are doing? If I was a musician, I would be angered to see someone stealing from me. I would agree with you that the music industry is taking advantage of and is being unfair to the consumers, but that's life. The music industry is a business like any other and it is there to make money. Their obligations to you do not extend beyond anything other than to make sure that the CD you purchase plays music.

Ed Hansberry

And you have never gone over the speed limit have you?

jrappold