It has been said "Great minds may not think alike, but they abserve the same facts". Glad we see more things alike than not. My only thoughts as far as the CD issue is that the technology there is pretty solid. It has not really changed much in 15 years, and what you see is what you get. I do not see the technology behind music changing any time soon either.

Sure, it takes a lot of money to develop a CD. I would like to see two tiered pricing. Sell your CD for 15 dollars up to a point where the industry breaks even on costs and then up to a firm percentage point of profits. Once the profit point is reached, sell the CD at a lower price, say half. Profit is still being generated and the People gets a break. It would go a long way towards PR for the industry also, make us think they actually care (of course they do not....they do not even pay their music celebrites fairly, and MOST do not even have the rights to their on songs, because they sold their souls to the music industry).

Great Debate Lee, you stimulate thinking and I enjoyed your comments greatly. Hope my posts can inspire as much as yours.

Dennis

LeeWare
 

Dennis,

I'm glad you enjoyed the conversation. I think everyone here has made a good contribution to the subject. To stimulate thinking was exactly one of my intention in starting the thread it's a good way of understanding peoples prospectives on issues that effect us all.


So, I would like to thank you and everyone who took part in this conversation.

:)

Glad to see this actually ending civilly. Too often debates on the internet end up simply in flames.

Although I still hold that the RIAA and whatnot are artificially limiting resources, inflating the prices without increasing the technology, thereby making things worse for themselves while still trying to maintain the damsel in distress image.

I find it all too hypocritical to start a campaign calling people thieves while sucking up all money and creativity from their artists. The simple fact is that if CDs cost the correct price, or the RIAA went with technology to promote a solution that earned them money, much more would be accomplished not only for them, but also for society as a whole.

I agree
 

I agree with your comments on the root cause of the problem. I hope that someone within the Music and Entertainment Industry is thinking hard about how to capitalize on this tremendous opportunity. Which is what it is.


Thanks again for your many thoughtful contributions.

So If you are Z, how do you know X was infringed. When some Xs say its ok to download.

How is a person to know.

If I use a mp3 player that has digital music content protection, Should I assume if it plays it is ok.

Let me put it a differnt way. Closer to home.

I am a parent, my child 11 want to down load mp3 files, I do not want to not my child to infring on copy rights of others. My problem is I have no method to determin if a given mp3 file is ok to download or not.

How do I explain Its leagel to here a song played on the radio station. Its leagle to tape that song off the air and play it at some other time. But its not ok if I get the same song off the internect and play it.

Do not kid yourself. The RIAA is also condeming recording songs from the radio also. Seems they act as all everyone does who is consumed with greed. Give them a small victory, and they think they can take on the entire world.

As I stated in my earlier post, they want to stop all forms of duplication, and I believe if one looks at it from a right or wrong stand point we all know that WE did not write, produce, sing, or have any rights to that song at all. We certainly did not "pay" into the industry's pool for the rights to play and hear the song. Why then do we think its okay to duplicate the song in ANY way?

No, I am not going back on my previous stand earlier in this thread. I still think duplication spurs on profits and creates advertising for the industry. I still believe that duplicating does not HURT the profit system by duplication, however, I think a question like the one asked is pretty shallow. It is up to us to decide if we are doing wrong, up to each indivual to decide if we are taking food out of the celebrities mouths, hurting the industry by not paying for these songs. I think its obvious to most and the question becomes sort of mute once a individual sorts these things out for themselves.

Is it right or is it wrong? Moral or not? Read my earlier posts on other forms of duplication and I believe you can assume what my position is, however, I will not advocate a stance here. I think you need to figure out if its right on your own.

Dennis

Some Answers To Your Questions
 

It's actually simple: Think Distribution Channels! Let me put it a different way closer to home - In order to make this a fair comparison let's say you live in a world where by-in-large distribution channels have agreements with X to sell for a fee a product to Z let's call these distribution channels Y so (X -->Y -->Z) = X is the creator, Y is the authorized distributor and Z is the consumer.

Now, let's consider the economics of the same situation (money flow) (Z --pays-->Y ---pays-->X). Being that this is the defacto standard for distribution I think that you can answer this question for your self.

If stores sell meat and consumers buy meat for their families from stores. Would you except meat from a man who *freely offers it* from the trunk of his car? (I get the impression that this would make most people suspicious.)

How is a person to know.

Is it possible that the man selling the meat from his car is an authorized distributor of the content? (sure it's possible.)

Is it possible that this man is an unauthorized distributor of meat?
(highly-probable!)

Now, as a parent who I assume is concerned about your child violating the copyrights of some unknown entity. To use my previous example; "if your children are getting meat from the man who is *giving it away* from the trunk of his car.* I'll leave it up to you as a parent to make the value jugement in this.

There are established distribution channels for these things which include: (Purchasing CDs) from authorized sources for your children. (Signing up and paying a fee for services) which allows access to digital music.

"How do I expain that it is legal to hear a song played on a radio?"

Remember the formula (X ---> Y ---> Z) in the case of radio Y licenses the products from X for a fee Y = radio station attempts to build a subscriber base by offering Xs content. Y makes money from companies who wish to gain access to Ys subscriber base to pitch Ads.

a. X gets money from Y
b. Y broadcasts Xs content to Z
c. Y gets money from C = Companies wishing to push ads to Ys customer base.
d. C gets money from Z who purchases products and services based on those Ads

Don't you just love capitalism!

Hope this helps to clarify things.

http://www.leeware.com

I wish the it was as easy for a parent. In your meat vendor example right from wrong is an easy call to help teach a child right from wrong.

But some music vendors have granted permission for riping there songs and putting on the intenet many more have not.

Is there trusted web site one can use a reference to help determin right from wrong as it relates to downloading a given file?

The goal is still the same, not trample on others copy rights, but if there is a question , teach my child how to research the issue, and make a jugment call.

Right / Wrong
 

It's unfortunate that people consider this a right or wrong issue--As if it were a question of ethics--but it's not, it's a legal matter.

For example, if I'm late for work and the speed limit is 55 mph and I drive 70 mph. (In my mind what I'm doing is not wrong because I am trying to make it to work on time.) However, I am violating a law by driving 15 miles over the posted speed limit.

Back to our discussion on the legal aspects of file sharing. If you think CDs cost to much and you can't take the idea of paying for a subscription service then you have already decided that for you, downloading content (that you know you could have paid for)-is the right choice for you.

But is it legal?

People we know this story:

You double park your car in a no stopping, no standing zone, Violators will be towed!

You think to yourself (I'll just be a minute.) 15 seconds after you walk away the tow truck is there hooking up your car, 10 seconds later you turn around in shock! You spend the next 10 minutes debating with the tow truck driver over how unfair or wrong it is for him to tow away your car--all the while you are completely ignoring the action that got you in this mess in the first place.


So again -- All the hype and crying from the Entertainment Industry wouldn't exist if people were not sharing content these companies have legal rights over.

All the hype and crying from users over the industries effort to curtail such activies wouldn't be an issue if People didn't share content that do not have the rights to share.

These two items are intimately related.

Now, there is a simple solution to the whole issue and guess who has the most power to influence change?

The users! Why? Because users/consumers have the things these industries want and need access to in order to survive your money!

I'll start a new thread to talk about how to effectively change the climate of the digital commons.





http://www.leeware.com

The person wasn't asking about ethics, they were just asking for a reference source. Some artists do not give their souls to the RIAA, and thus allow people to freely download music. But, in the wonderful glory that is large corporations, the RIAA just ignores that fact.