OH NO The Recording Industry is at it again.

[chomp_rock]

I've never known of people that greedy untill I moved to the USA.

[Paz]

Here's my opinions....

The reason why I don't have much music is because typical music cds range from 15-20+ dollars. Say there's a cd with only one song that you like, are you willing to pay $20 for it?

If there was a system where you can purchase individual songs, or if CDs didn't cost as much, more people would be able to afford it

 Depending on where you go (Walmart, etc.), most CD's are around $12.99 now for newer releases, most places put new CD's on sale the first week of release for even less, if you go to the mall they are around $20.00, it's like price gouging at the mall when you can go across the road and buy the same CD for $5.00-$8.00 less.

 If you want to download individual songs, I think most places (Napster, etc.) are charging around .99 cents now for each song downloaded, I'm not sure who gets this money, but if the artist is receiving a cut I think this is a fair way of handling the music downloading thing, if the artist is never seeing any of this money then what is the difference?

 In my opinion, each artist should allow downloading of their music from their website only (charging a small fee per song) with all of the $$ going straight into their pocket, and let CD sales pay the record companies and everyone else who gets a cut from that form of media, I'm pretty sure no one would go broke if they used that method of distribution because plenty of CD's would still get sold.

[Politically Incorrect]

 Depending on where you go (Walmart, etc.), most CD's are around $12.99 now for newer releases, most places put new CD's on sale the first week of release for even less, if you go to the mall they are around $20.00, it's like price gouging at the mall when you can go across the road and buy the same CD for $5.00-$8.00 less.

 If you want to download individual songs, I think most places (Napster, etc.) are charging around .99 cents now for each song downloaded, I'm not sure who gets this money, but if the artist is receiving a cut I think this is a fair way of handling the music downloading thing, if the artist is never seeing any of this money then what is the difference?

 In my opinion, each artist should allow downloading of their music from their website only (charging a small fee per song) with all of the $$ going straight into their pocket, and let CD sales pay the record companies and everyone else who gets a cut from that form of media, I'm pretty sure no one would go broke if they used that method of distribution because plenty of CD's would still get sold.

The thing with WalMart is that they only sell edited versions of cd's that might contain offensive lyrics. And also the WalMart I have close by sells thier's in the $15-20 range.
One thing that always ticked me off was the fact when they started adding multi-media to cds the price jumped by about $3. Which I didn't (don't) find fair since not everyone can access it!

I think the downloading of songs is a good thing for everyone because it will give expossure to artist that might not get the radio play, or the people that might not just go and buy the cd taking a chance that it is good!

The problem I see with charging the .99 cents or what ever is how do you pay? Allot of people (myself) won't use a credit card over the net, check or money order would have to be mailed before downloading adding to the cost.
And too most this is a major inconvienance. I can only see this hurting the artists.
How about the artist having a download at their site for free, then offering a incentive (coupon etc) for buying the cd? Something like that I see everyone winning.

[Politically Incorrect]

In your case, the "illegality" would be if you take your riupped mp3 and start making copies of it for friends, etc., whether they pay you for it or not.

Your selling the used CD to a store, and then purchasing another CD (even a used one) is a commercial transaction.  yes, the recording company only gets paid on the original sale, but since it is the *original*  cd from that original sale is being bought and resold, the recording company's rights are not being violated, as they would be if an improper copy was being resold and resold and resold.

Understood, But
What if I ripped the CD kept it for myself and then sold the original CD to someone else?
I made money off the original and still have a copy for myself. Wouldn't that be the same as me keeping the original and selling the copy?
Or if I copy the original and give (no money exchanged!) copies to friends?

It is things like this that get the court systems backed up with nonsense and prevents the courts from doing thier jobs and dealing with more important matters.
As far as I'm concerned after i purchase a CD it is mine, and i'm free to do what I want to with it. I'll copy it 1000 times if I want! I'll give those copies to friends if I want. The only thing I won't do is sell the copies for my own personal benifit. That is where I think the "stealing" comes in. If I'm not making a profit from it I don't see it as stealing.
And I know some of you might disagree but how many of you bought that DVD burner for your PC? Why did you buy it? To copy T.L.O.T.R. ? Or how many have went to the local video store and rented some movies and saw one you just had too have? Did you copy it for yourself? I can bet that there is not one of us here that hasn't copied something(music, photo, software etc) and gave it away.
I see all of that falling into the same catagory because for every copy (given away or sold) the "original owner of the rights" recives nothing.
So if you don't want someone downloading your music because you might lose a nickle get a different job!

[Hagar]

Understood, But
What if I ripped the CD kept it for myself and then sold the original CD to someone else?
I made money off the original and still have a copy for myself. Wouldn't that be the same as me keeping the original and selling the copy?
Or if I copy the original and give (no money exchanged!) copies to friends?

This has always seemed perfectly straightforward to me. In the case of a new CD, whether it be music or PC software, making a duplicate copy before selling it or even giving it away, is cheating somebody. This might be the recording/software company, the artist/author or a combination of both. Once you have purchased the CD I see nothing wrong with making a duplicate to use in your car or on another PC although this is technically illegal.

The position is not quite so clear regarding second-hand goods as the original authors do not benefit. The point I'm trying to make is that you can't have it both ways. You pay for the privilege of using it in whatever way you see fit. Use the CD for a beermat or nail it to the wall if you wish. You could also sell it or give it away in which case you would no longer have the right to use it. As I said before, you can't have your cake & eat it - although this seems to be the way so many otherwise honest people think these days.

[Katahu]

If the RIAA wants to put a lawsuit against people who are file-swapping music, then why ISN'T the RIAA putting lawsuits against the companies that make CD-burners and DVD-burners?

You're right, we all copied music and passed it on sometime in our lives. H377, I bet even George Bush's kids are doing this as well or I bet other music artists are doing the same thing to other music artists.

When you buy a music cd and open it, you are NOT signing a contract that says "you hereby understand that you will never copy this cd and hand it down to friends."

When we all buy a product, the only agreement we make is that we are just trading in some of money for a music or software cd and that's it. After that, the cd is OUR property. None of us are trading our rights on how to use it.

[Hagar]

Once something has been invented it's not possible to uninvent it. You can't ban the sale of something simply because it could possibly be misused. I could go to my local hardware shop, purchase a bread knife & use it to murder someone. This is hardly a valid reason for banning the sale of bread knives. Recording devices have been available for years & I admit to using my first reel-to-reel tape recorder to record music from the radio back in the late 50s. This was technically illegal but it was ignored by the record companies as it didn't affect anything seriously. The thought of selling the tape or making other copies never crossed my mind. The music was for my own use & if I liked it enough I would go out & purchase the album it was from.

The same thing happened when audio cassette recorders came along. Many people would buy a record & make a tape of it to use in the car. Nothing wrong with that, although again, it was technically illegal.

The big problems came with the CDRW & the Internet. Copying a CD is useful but is no longer confined to your own use. It's possible to purchase, hire or borrow a CD & make 100s of duplicate copies in a comparatively short time. I'm sure most people would agree that selling the copies would be piracy. Using the Internet it is possible to duplicate something once & share it with literally 1,000s of others, all this without costing one of them a single penny. It's also possible to download a file completely free from one source & share it on a completely different one. It seems to me that "file sharing" is nothing more than piracy on a vast scale. The thing that's always puzzled me is that normal law-abiding people see nothing wrong with it.

[Katahu]

Believe me, we law-abiding people know that some of the things we do are wrong and we tend to NOT MIND about it.

[Hagar]

Believe me, we law-abiding people know that some of the things we do are wrong and we tend to NOT MIND about it.

In that case I suggest you are not as law-abiding as you like to think you are.

I think you might feel somewhat differently if the position were to be reversed. I remember that not too long ago you were trying to find a foolproof way to prevent people ripping off your own software. I can see no difference between that & a record company trying to protect the rights to its products. As I've said several times before - you can't have your cake & eat it.

[Paz]

The thing with WalMart is that they only sell edited versions of cd's that might contain offensive lyrics. And also the WalMart I have close by sells thier's in the $15-20 range.

 Yeah, Walmart does suck in that way, even though you can go to the next aisle and buy as many R rated movies as you want.

 I can usually find any CD I want for $15.00 or less, I don't remember ever paying more than that, but I don't always find what I'm looking for at Walmart anyways, there are a lot of other places around here to shop for music.

[Politically Incorrect]

 Yeah, Walmart does suck in that way, even though you can go to the next aisle and buy as many R rated movies as you want.

 I can usually find any CD I want for $15.00 or less, I don't remember ever paying more than that, but I don't always find what I'm looking for at Walmart anyways, there are a lot of other places around here to shop for music.

You know what that didn't even cross my mind. Your right!!!
And with the movies you not only hear the language but you see the nudity and the violence!!!!
Makes you wonder what is WalMarts point?

[Hagar]

You know what that didn't even cross my mind. Your right!!!
And with the movies you not only hear the language but you see the nudity and the violence!!!!
Makes you wonder what is WalMarts point?

We don't have Walmart here as such but they recently bought out the ASDA supermarket chain. Think it's Asda/Walmart or something like that now. Not that I've been inside one to my knowledge as there isn't one around here, not yet anyway. There's a big hoo-hah going on as they want to build one on the local technical college playing field. All the residents are up in arms & I'm none too happy about it myself. We don't exactly need another supermarket & there aren't too many playing fields around here anyway.

I had no idea they messed around with recordings on CDs or that this would actually be possible. Makes me wonder what the recording companies think about that.

Maybe they edit the rude bits out so they can play them on the store musak gizmos.

[Craig.]

actually edited CD's are made by the same companys who make the un-edited. they are then sold to places where Youngsters are more likely to pick up the CD without checking whether or not its edited, such as supermarkets like walmart(how many times have you parents gone to the register only to find cd's or magazines suddenly appearing from no-where:) but arnt willing to go through the hassle of taking it back thus it could be a less than clean version for little jimmy)?. Usually if you hunt around or ask you can get the un-edited copy without to much hassle.

[BFMF]

If Walmart is so worried about young kids getting unedited cds, why don't they rate them and only allow people 18 and over to purchase them, much like R rated movies

[Craig.]

i believe music has its own ratings. But like i said, when it appears without warning in your shopping cart at the checkout. I have seen a number of parents just throw it on the pile to avoid a tantrum from their kid. And since its the parent paying for it,, how is the cashier to know. Very few have the commen sense to check it themselves, and then warn the parents