N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to gheezer
Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating
Way to Troll..
I'm so goddamn sick of how everything here deteriorates into partisan political bullshit.
When Napster first came out, did I download songs? Sure I did. My reasoning?
1: A lot of the songs I wanted (obscure 70's stuff) was not available in stores.
2: A lot of the stuff I wanted was on $20 CD's, and all I wanted was 1 song.
With the advent and proliferation of single song download services (not just iTunes, but a myriad of services), there is no legitimate reason not to go to a legal source to download the music you want.
Let's face it, if you're not willing to pay .99 for a song you want, you're noting but a 2 bit thief. I've downloaded a lot of songs for .99 that I thought were crap, and ended up deleting. It's .99! people, GET A GRIP.
I'm no friend of the RIAA, but since so many legal avenues to download music cheaply exist, it is getting harder and harder to fall on the side of folks who consistently bitch and moan about downloading music illegally on P2P services.
A short list of things that cost more than a buck...
A 16oz cup of coffee: $1.15
A 22oz Coca Cola $1.39
A gallon of gas $2.35
A lays "grab bag" of Doritos is a buck and a quarter around here for chirssake.
Let's face it, if you can afford 1: a broadband connection, 2: a computer that will facilitate the use of today's P2P networks, and 3: the CD burner to burn the CD's to export your illegally downloaded music to your CD player, you sure as HELL can afford to blow a dollar (a BUCK, .99C!!!!) on a song you might want...
Technology has caught up to this argument, and it has become totally moot. You can download almost any single song you might possibly want for a fair price, and the rights to it's use are, for the most part, pretty generous, as long as you're not trying to give it away for free.
I used to be a big advocate for the argument in favor of P2P, but not any more. If you're not willing to pay .99 for a song you might possibly want, I can't see where you were willing to pay anything for it in the first place... |
|
43193594
Chauncey Gardiner
join:2005-08-03
CX 747-400 | Just because one doesn't feel a price is justified by a product doesn't mean they are a thief.
That doesn't make trading songs right. It also doesn't make trading them wrong. |
|
Atomic Fro
@comcast.net
|  reply to N3OGH
Never mind the tax on the blank CDs the RIAA gets to compensate for music piracy.
They already got their dues from that. If the RIAA wants to take students and old ladies to court over a hand full of songs the market deems as only worth .99, then the tax on the blank CDs needs to go. |
|
WirelessMajr
Premium
join:2005-08-03
College Place, WA
| reply to N3OGH
said by N3OGH  :Way to Troll.. I'm so goddamn sick of how everything here deteriorates into partisan political bullshit. When Napster first came out, did I download songs? Sure I did. My reasoning? 1: A lot of the songs I wanted (obscure 70's stuff) was not available in stores. 2: A lot of the stuff I wanted was on $20 CD's, and all I wanted was 1 song. Let's face it, if you're not willing to pay .99 for a song you want, you're noting but a 2 bit thief. I've downloaded a lot of songs for .99 that I thought were crap, and ended up deleting. It's .99! people, GET A GRIP. A short list of things that cost more than a buck... A 16oz cup of coffee: $1.15 A 22oz Coca Cola $1.39 A gallon of gas $2.35 A lays "grab bag" of Doritos is a buck and a quarter around here for chirssake. Let's face it, if you can afford 1: a broadband connection, 2: a computer that will facilitate the use of today's P2P networks, and 3: the CD burner to burn the CD's to export your illegally downloaded music to your CD player, you sure as HELL can afford to blow a dollar (a BUCK, .99C!!!!) on a song you might want... Just because you see fit to waste a dollar on a song you don't like, don't label all of creation a thief just because everyone else doesn't comply with your personal morals.
1) Computers are relatively cheap nowadays. You don't need the latest and greatest. My mom's PII 266 will download and burn songs quite fine. Something that you pick up for $100, then purchase a cheap DVD burner (DVD burners can be had for ~$40 today) will service you for that exact purpose perfectly. You just need to make sure you have ample RAM.
2) A BUCK as you call it isnt cheap. Maybe, just maybe a person feels they have something better to do with a buck than to waste it on a lossy formatted song. For this "BUCK," I want a lossless copy of the song, as there are lossless codecs out there. |
|
voyager6868
join:2003-01-29
Lynnwood, WA | If a buck's worth nothing to you, how about sending everyone regsitered on this site a buck just to prove it? |
|
rds24a
Teach Your Children
Premium
join:2000-12-13
Springboro, OH
clubs:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| There's two points of view on the whole $0.99 deal:
1. The parts cost more than the whole. Common practice...ever price out buying a car piece-by-piece from NAPA? Way more than the whole. However, It currently costs more to buy the whole online than a CD in the store.
2. The lack of distribution. No CD's, no shipping, etc. etc. There should be a price break for that, I agree. However, there is a premium on convenience and I'm not willing to argue that it should be $0.50 or $0.75 or $5.00 an album. I think $0.99 a song is OK...not great, but OK.
As for the file size/quality issue. I'm sure it's more a matter of Dances with Focus Groups trying to find some one file size that provides sufficient quality while reaching out to those lowly dialup users who still have to wait 20 minutes to download one 3 Mb song file. Perhaps the solution there is to offer a hi-fi and a not-so-hi-fi version, but I guarantee you there will be a price difference (for not much reason other than they can).
--
All hail JoePa |
|
skipon11
Premium
join:2005-06-09
Pittsburgh, PA | reply to N3OGH
Whew! Wacoyle. They sure have Braineashed you! |
|
tapeloop
1959. I try to kick the ball. I miss.
Premium
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One
| reply to rds24a
said by rds24a :There's two points of view on the whole $0.99 deal: 1. The parts cost more than the whole. Common practice...ever price out buying a car piece-by-piece from NAPA? Way more than the whole. However, It currently costs more to buy the whole online than a CD in the store. 2. The lack of distribution. No CD's, no shipping, etc. etc. There should be a price break for that, I agree. However, there is a premium on convenience and I'm not willing to argue that it should be $0.50 or $0.75 or $5.00 an album. I think $0.99 a song is OK...not great, but OK. As for the file size/quality issue. I'm sure it's more a matter of Dances with Focus Groups trying to find some one file size that provides sufficient quality while reaching out to those lowly dialup users who still have to wait 20 minutes to download one 3 Mb song file. Perhaps the solution there is to offer a hi-fi and a not-so-hi-fi version, but I guarantee you there will be a price difference (for not much reason other than they can). Good points you make. You should check out the price breakdown that Wired had in a recent article. Reading that makes the cost of 75 cents a track sound more appropriate.
Full article is here:»www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.1···pic_set=
Still, I would personally rather buy whole (used) CD's rather than paying 99 cents a track. The sound quality and DRM are big issues to me, but if I find a one-hit-wonder that I simply don't want to buy the album of, I'll bite and cough up the buck. In that case I would be paying the unit cost of buying that one track as opposed to buying the whole album...but I'd still rather have the higher bitrate.
--
Copyright infringement is illegal. Murder is illegal. Therefore, file sharing is murder. |
|
