What are your questions on downloading & copying music legally?

charleyhellfire

sugarcoma101 wrote: »

Again, you're not making sense and not making any clear points.

What 'wedge of cash' are you talking about!?

So you buy a vinyl 20 years ago, and therefore you have the right to recieve it on CD, MP3, USB, and every other available format even though you only paid a tenner for the vinyl in the fist place?

Yes sir, that makes fantastic economic sense.

By that logic, you buy a BMW 20 years ago, and every subsequent upgrade on that car, you have the god given right to recieve free of charge.

Excellent logic.

:rotfl:

My logic?

I could rip that vinyl to CD and MP3 if I wanted, clean up the sound and in effect have fresh copies - only that would be illegal. Instead you want me to pay £10 for a CD...and again another £8 for a 'legal' downloaded MP3 - I'm not going to do that!

A BMW actually exists in reality...a digital copy of a recording made 20 years ago is just ones and zeroes.
:rotfl:

Anything which can be heard can be easily copied and will continue to be easily copied, even by five year olds, no matter what you corporate Nazis propose.
:cool:

adouglasmhor

charleyhellfire wrote: »

:rotfl:

My logic?

I could rip that vinyl to CD and MP3 if I wanted, clean up the sound and in effect have fresh copies - only that would be illegal.no it would not Instead you want me to pay £10 for a CD...and again another £8 for a 'legal' downloaded MP3 - I'm not going to do that!

A BMW actually exists in reality...a digital copy of a recording made 20 years ago is just ones and zeroes.
:rotfl:

Anything which can be heard can be easily copied and will continue to be easily copied, even by five year olds, no matter what you corporate Nazis propose.
:cool:

post too short :A

sugarcoma101

charleyhellfire wrote: »

:rotfl:

I could rip that vinyl to CD and MP3 if I wanted, clean up the sound and in effect have fresh copies - only that would be illegal. Instead you want me to pay £10 for a CD...and again another £8 for a 'legal' downloaded MP3 - I'm not going to do that!

Once again your facts are totally flawed.

THAT IS NOT ILLEGAL.

Jeeez.

adouglasmhor

Something wrong here, sugarcoma101 on the same wavelength as me. The end of days is upon us.

thundachild

sugarcoma101 wrote: »

Again, you're not making sense and not making any clear points.

What 'wedge of cash' are you talking about!?

So you buy a vinyl 20 years ago, and therefore you have the right to recieve it on CD, MP3, USB, and every other available format even though you only paid a tenner for the vinyl in the fist place?

Yes sir, that makes fantastic economic sense.

By that logic, you buy a BMW 20 years ago, and every subsequent upgrade on that car, you have the god given right to recieve free of charge.

Excellent logic.

sugarcoma101, your logic here is flawed. Comparing data to something physical like a BMW makes no sense:

1. Only 1 person can drive the BMW at a time and the cost to replicate it is high. Data can be share with any amount of people at the same time and cost to replicate the date is zero. Only the storage cost money, and that is not the product being paid for.

2. Why should I pay for the data (The music) twice just because the storage media (Vinyl, Tape, CD, Flash drive) has changed or the encoding (Analog voltage, WAV, MP3 etc).

3. New media does not change the notes played and the lyrics sung, though the encoding may affect the reproduction. All encodings are taken ultimately from the original master tape.

4. The documentation that come with a CD states that I don't own the music, only a license to listen (But not broadcast it). The license should apply to the recording irrespective of storage media or encoding.

When the Music industry accepts that they may have a few customers willing to pay for reasonably priced recordings, though they may have lost most of thier paying customers to thier monopolistic practises.

I have no objection to artist earning money for thier work, but to expect to earn money for decades on just a few weeks work makes very little sense to anyone. Artists should make thier living from performing. They should be paid for thier time in the recording studio. Copy right only guarantees that no-one can claim a track you wrote as thier own. It is not a right to print money.

sugarcoma101

thundachild wrote: »

Why should I pay for the data (The music) twice just because the storage media (Vinyl, Tape, CD, Flash drive) has changed or the encoding (Analog voltage, WAV, MP3 etc).

Because it's taken skill, time, and money for it to be produced in those various formats. It's not been produced for free. If you want to own it, you legally have to pay for it to cover those costs.

It takes money to make a vinyl. It takes money to make a tape. it takes money to make a cd. it takes money to make a flash drive. Why should you get it for free when SOMEONE has to pay for produce it?

sugarcoma101

thundachild wrote: »

3. New media does not change the notes played and the lyrics sung, though the encoding may affect the reproduction. All encodings are taken ultimately from the original master tape.

Incorrect. Recordings that were once only available on vinyl will need to be remastered in order to bring them up to the sound spec that is expected on a CD. That takes studio time, engineers, mixers, as well as materials (cd, cover, slipcase, sleeve notes), as well as paying someone to physically manufacture the CD, as well as retailer and distribution costs.

You have no right whatsoever to recieve that new product for free, when you have only paid for the first version of it.

buzzablinio

sugarcoma101 wrote: »

You have no right whatsoever to recieve that new product for free, when you have only paid for the first version of it.

I'd argue the toss on this one - particularly with the early CD versions of back catalogue vinyl and cassettes that were very expensive and later remastered and resissued ... under any other consumer good this would be called product recall and we'd be entitled to return our substandard goods for the corrected product.

Providing music in digital download format is incredibly cheap for the music industry when compared to the manufacturing costs and distribution of a CD. (I am talking about the finished product here, not the initial creation which will cost as much or as little as you want - it will obviously cost more to market dross as something new and essential, while something that is new and essential will sell itself - on over simplification I know but basically true)

The music industry has simply failed to reflect lower download costs and seem puzzled that people would rather download for free than pay their over inflated prices. Downloads avoid the music industries pricing cartels so why pay UK prices (aka treasure island by many producers of consumer goods pre internet) when you can download from anywhere in the world at much cheaper prices or even free. The music industry is a dinosaur that is failing to grasp the opportunity to do the right thing.

sugarcoma101

buzzablinio wrote: »

The music industry has simply failed to reflect lower download costs and seem puzzled that people would rather download for free than pay their over inflated prices. Downloads avoid the music industries pricing cartels so why pay UK prices (aka treasure island by many producers of consumer goods pre internet) when you can download from anywhere in the world at much cheaper prices or even free. The music industry is a dinosaur that is failing to grasp the opportunity to do the right thing.

Wrong. Selling albums for 50p is not a feasible business model, when they cost a hell of a lot more than that to produce.

It doesnt make sense to do that. Not even a little bit.

Say you, as a record label, put a hundred thousand pounds into developing a new artist. Then you sell the end product for 50p a unit, which is FAR BELOW what it cost to actually produce. The album sells about 5000 copies, as happens, as perhaps not everyone liked the music (investing money in developing artists is a risk, but one which record labels and artists and everyone involved hope will deliver a return on their investment).

The loss the labels would make would be catastrophic. So where would be the incentive for labels to put hundreds of thousands of pounds into signing and developing new artists?

jimbo49

most people have openly stated that they are happy to pay SENSIBLE prices for downloading music. sugarcoma101, you are not happy with that. after telling you that i buy the music i like, you still falsely accused me of downloading music. more to the point, you accused me of downloading music I DONT LIKE! what sort of stupid statement is that? you will not listen to any common sense. insisting that everyone is downloading illegally and has to lose their internet connection. for someone that belongs to an industry that relies totally on people buying their products, regardless of what media it is on or the format it is in, you are shooting yourself in the foot. you reckon that the only thing people are going to understand is their disconnection from the internet! i think the only thing you are going to understand is when you get 'the finger' from the very people on which you wholly rely. do you honestly expect to retain customers after treating them in the manner you propose? do you expect people to go rushing to the nearest music store to buy an over-priced cd, that, as is common today, contains maybe 2 tracks that are worth listening to, simply because they now have no internet? i dont think so! i suggest you read the fable of the scorpion and the fox. when you can grasp what that is about, maybe you will grasp what is going to happen to your over-rated, stuck in the dark ages, backwards thinking industry. an industry that has cried 'wolf' every time there is a new invention to do with the playing and listening to music, watching films or doing any type of recording. i actually feel sorry for you and your like.