why do we allow public libraries, who clearly exist to give away he hard work of writers, to exist? think of all the money i have taken out of writer's hands, reading their books free of charge from the government. some forms of information are protected, others are not. i cant see any reason for this except better lobbying on the behalf of some people than others. a juggler or a dancer or surgeon or almost anyone else makes money through live performance. his or her skill is not really worth anything when digitized into ones and zeros. would it be so bad if musicians were like other professions?
Universal probably has dreams of opening its own online store. It's a free market. iTunes works and has worked big, so they don't have to take much pressure from recording companies. Still, it won't stay 99 cents forever. The media companies all have to learn how to price their product. When VHS tapes first came out they cost about $65 bucks and only rental stores bought them, because companies were afraid it would hurt movie attendence. Later they realized that there was a movie house market, and a rental market and a home market if they only priced them right. So prices came down for videos and people started buying them. The reverse worked when CD's came out. LP's and cassettes were selling for around $6 and when CD's came out they priced them at $16 even though they cost less to maufacture than LP's or cassettes. And the price remained high because the people were willing to pay extra for a media that didn't deteriorate over time. Now the companies are trying to determine how to price their digital online products. $10 an album seems low to them, even though they don't have to spend a dime on manufacturing. They don't like playlist-based purchasing either, because it hurts album sales, even as they make easy money selling singles that were not feasible to market before online sales. So, they monkey with prices. They can't afford to give away the music, nor can they afford to price it out of range of their consumers. As always they are seeking a balance point and that point can change over time.
What an absurd comparison. Libraries didn't steal the books--they paid for them and the writers were compensated. Patrons are permitted to borrow and read them, but not to copy them illegally because they are copyrighted. Nobody objects if you listen to music that was legally bought. You can check it out at the library, too, and play it as much as you want to anybody as long as you aren't charging people for the privilege. But you cannot make copies of the product and give it away or sell it. Just like books. Listening or reading legally purchased media is not stealing. Copying the product IS stealing.
How does satellite TV fit into this argument? Hypothetically speaking, what if I purchased equipment that captured and decoded their signals and transmitted them to my TV to view. Is that stealing? This may be an apples/oranges argument, but I think the same principles apply. If they do not want me viewing their broadcast, then strengthen your encryption or quit beaming your signals into my back yard.
Yes, if the equipment is illegal. And equipment that uses proprietary technology is illegal as is equipment designed to circumvent legitimate and trademarked protection schemes. Commercial on-the-air TV is free for the taking and is paid for through commercials. Cable and Satellite TV is proprietary.
and if i buy a cd, i want to share it with everyone. i am not trying to keep secrets for people. if i have some information, if i want to give it up, i will. i bought the cd, i want to let other people use it, like a library. lets say, for example, i borrow a book of jokes or poetry from the library. i memorize lots of the book. i return the book, but i have a copy in my brain. do i not own this? is someone else's property inside my head? if you say "tell me one of those poems you read". should i? should that be illegal? i am directly distributing a copy of the media, without permission. do i have to say "sorry, i am not licensed to distribute this information, or give you access to the copy in my head". for all i know you are gonna tell somebody else! should i say "go to hell, stop taking food out of the poet's mouth!"
Perhaps. But that is no reason to steal from the musicians, recording engineers, and other professionals involved in creating the product. Perhaps musicians will start working directly for online distributors, but they will also have costs to meet. What do you imagine it takes in the way of equipment, designers and technicians to keep the iTunes store working? I agree some obsolete middle-men may be cut out of the operation, but that doesn't mean it's OK for you to steal from the developers of the product. They were designed to be free and are paid for by advertising. But you are suggesting that it alright to steal from those who offer a proprietary product. You do not have this right. It is illegal. You do not own the music just like I don't own the gasoline. To use your on logic, you can either pay for it or leave it. Period. It's not necessary if they choose to forego profits and give their recordings away. The vast majority of professional artists choose to NOT do this and you have no right to steal from them. Most stuff on YouTube is not put up by the rightful owners and YouTube must take them down all of the time after the owners complain. Incidentally the Arctic Monkeys SELL their CD's online and the SELL their downloads. Here is their website. They have songs and albums available on iTunes, too. Six teaser tunes out of 80 are free downloads. Another poor analogy. It's fine to repeat a comic's joke just like it's fine to sing a musician's song. That has NO RELATION WHATSOEVER to stealing the comic's proprietary recording or DVD or to stealing the musicians recording or video's. Well-paid professors do produce material that is public domain and they also produce material that is proprietary. They sometimes choose to contribute freely their knowledge to Wikipedia. They sometimes choose to do proprietary work for industry or classified work for the government. They do not and cannot freely distribute this information. You completely miss the central fact in all of this. The creators and owners of this material get to choose whether they will sell it in a free market or to give it away. YOU do not get this choice. If you steal material that is proprietary, you are a thief and a criminal and morally bankrupt to boot. Of course. But thieves are still thieves. You dont have the balls to steal a DVD from Blockbuster, but hiding behind your keyboard, you imagine you have the right to steal digitally. Cyberthieves are just as criminal.
Me want. Me want. Everybody in kindergarten feels that way. It's time to grow up. Listening and reading are fair use of copyrighted material. That's not the issue. You maintain that you have a right to steal the product itself and replicate it, depriving its legal owner of revenue. When did you become a communist? No, you aren't. Your argument is becoming patently ridiculous. You should have to say you're sorry for stealing the CD's that you illegally download. You can sing all you want to and recite poems 'till the cows come home. You need to learn the difference between copyrighted media and simple knowledge. You can read it freely, you can memorize it. You can sing it over and over. But you can't copy the product and distribute it. You can't make CD's, you can't copy sheet music, and you can't share digital copies online without authorization from the owner and compensating him.
