Good Copy Bad Copy - What Constitutes Fair Use?

No, but they shouldn't fuck over their customers either. All they do is screw us over with Copy-Protection, over-priced media and trying to get our established rights taken away...

Hell, they get money on each back-up media sold to counter pirating and they still fuck us over this. Damn, found a site that went into how it might very well be illegal what they are doing, just as much than the whole pirating issue. Will see if I can find the link.

Here's at least a few:

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=40474
http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=200900640
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...practices.html
http://www.mp3.com/news/stories/9815.html

And even more stupid:

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/21...w-file-sharing

Sheesh, what a bunch of morons. This is all definitely a case of "the pot calling the kettle black".

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

They get money sold on each blank CD sold in Canada, not in the US.

Sorry, I don't know if it is true or not, but I have read otherwise online, IIRC. Will look into it some more...

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

"Over-priced media"?? I still see people buying CDs every time I walk into Best Buy, so, obviously, the price is set correctly for the market. I have a feeling the economists who work for these ginormous companies have an idea of what they are doing.

Just because some people are dumb enough to pay $20 a CD doesn't mean it's not over-priced. People are also dumb when it comes to gasoline too, doesn't make them equally "not all there" IMO though.

Either way, Best Buy isn't that over-priced, so, what's your point? Go to a local music store like Sam Goody to see over-priced CDs, or anywhere that is selling the albums at, near or over the MSRP. BB sells at about $10-15 each, the last time I was there, a reasonable price. Selling at $17-20+ is not. Hell, most of the CDs I have seen at $16-20 recently should have been closer to $7-10...

Overall, I remember reading an article on this issue, and yes, they are charging more than they should, even more than they said such media would cost when it first came out years ago. Sheesh, it's the reason why piracy is taking over and their so-called profits keep going down, even though the actual numbers show otherwise. Well, the industry likes to cook the books so to speak.

I will see if I can find some more links, but still, they are screwing over their customers way more than any one downloading online is. Hell, most of the people I know only download because the actions taking place against both legitimate and illegitimate users of their content.

Originally Posted by KrazyTaco

Basically sums up what I'm saying as far as the legality of obtaining the source in the first place. Even if the CD were "Over-priced" though, it's not an excuse to steal the copy.

Well, there is such a thing as price-gouging. If it was okay to go after the gougers during the Katrina hurricane aftermath for over-charging on Gas, it sure as well better be okay to do the same for gougers of CDs and anything else for that matter...

I know the market will determine the price, but at a certain point it's just greed, pure in simple. In the case of CDs, they lied, since the discs were supposed to come down in price, not up. It just goes to show how greedy they are and all the extra costs they put on to the CD to justify their price. It's BS, though I for one do pay it, I'll just screw them over by going to where it's the cheapest for the official CD and will occasionally buy used, if needed. Though, if it gets any worse I'll stop buying music altogether and just enjoy what I already own.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

An artist wants to sell it for $10 and people are willing to buy it for $10. But instead, people make their own copies and sell it for $8. People buy the pirated copies because they are cheaper, the artist makes nothing, despite having a viable market product.

Well, there's a problem with your logic here though. See, that's an actual "reasonable" price, and the people willing to pay $8 would most likely not mind paying the extra $2 to get the real deal. Now, there's some that might, but it's not nearly the amount you insinuate would do so. That, and most pirates seem to use CD-Rs to pirate the music these days, so I'd think that would be a factor for some as well. I don't buy CD-Rs for one! There's no point in doing so since they are less quality than a real CD and many people give out CD-R copies for free anyway...

The only way it might work is if the pirate gave away the music for free, and we know that true "evil" pirates would never do that. Regardless, I don't know many that wouldn't buy the official CD if it was worth buying. Really, if it isn't worth buying, they wouldn't bother with it to begin with. Maybe I just don't hang around pirates too much, since for everyone I know that does steal the music, I know more that don't. Maybe it's just me!

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I am just saying there's some industries that can get away with fucking people over while many other less powerful people, or businesses would get in trouble, if not getting sent straight to jail over the same type of shit. Basically, I am saying there needs to be some consistency. If it's wrong for the small guy to screw over people, so as well it should be for the cock suckers like the music and oil industry...

Hell, I recall a local contractor doing what the big guys do in their gouging on their prices, yet, who do you think was the one that got fucked over it. BS on all parts, but that is still wrong IMO!

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

You're wrong. What you are talking about is over-valued, not over-priced. Price is set where a company can make the most profits. They could sell CDs for less and more people would buy them but they'd make less profit. I mean, this is economics 101 and I'm pretty sure that some of the biggest media companies in the world would have some people on their staffs who know a thing or two about economics.

Same goes for the retailers.

Over-valued? Over-priced? It ends up coming out to about the same thing IMO. That said, I still think in this case they will keep losing profits either way. If they were smart they would sell them cheaper and make less profits than they want, but more than they are or will by keep on gouging/inflating the cost to the consumer. This isn't a piracy issue, it's "the consumer doesn't want to pay X amount for a CD" issue...

Overall, it might be economics 101, but if more and more people stop buying CDs because of the current pricing how's that going to keep making the most profits. The only way that will work is if they start charging even more, $30 a disc? That would just get more people to not even buy the stuff even more than they are already skipping doing so and finding another hobby or entertainment choice for their dollar.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

You assume too much.

1) We're in the first generation of people who steal all kinds of luxury items. Before pirated music, movies, TV shows, software, etc., you actually had to have physical copies. Sure, people bootlegged, but back then, it was also costly and time consuming.

Perhaps, but I still think you assume too much as well. Piracy isn't nearly the issue the entertainment industry and others claim it is, the numbers in more than one study have proven so. So, it's time to move on to find a way to get those that do pirate to move over to the legit item, another is to price the the legitimate item accordingly. It's doesn't have to be free or even even cheap, but to out price the item isn't smart either...

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

But a generation or two later, when everyone is accustomed to something other than the "real deal", almost no one would go for it. And those people would get snickered at, like the idiots who take their cars to the dealer after the warranty is up.

It's a product of an open-source culture.

2) If you cycle through a market where the price is always lower than what you can get from a manufacturer, and significantly lower...my example may not have been extreme enough. A person making a copy of a CD and selling it for $8 is almost all profit, while the record company has so many more costs. And, as I said, if one pirate sells them for $8, the next guy will sell them for $7. The record company wouldn't even have a chance to catch up to the market by the time the profit is barely pennies.

I can't argue with that, but from everything I hear the industry isn't hurting. So, they should stop crying and find a way to prevent piracy that doesn't screw over me, the legitimate consumer. That's all I am asking for! Maybe that's a pipe dream, but at this rate the industry won't have any consumers left within several years to decades if they don't at least work with people to find a compromise. All they want is the for us to have the "bend over and take it" mentality and buy their BS...

I guess that is big business for you, but, no thanks!

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Sheesh, you are all making me feel like an idiot for bothering to post to begin with! Oh well, let me try to explain my thoughts. As naive as they may be...

I don't know, but making billions in profits seems pretty much like not hurting to me. If the artists signs the contract and they don't get enough of that money, well, that's their fault for signing a bad contract along with those who were greedy enough to not give them a better deal to begin with. That said, I am not sure I understand the issue that you mean here. What, that they could make more? Well, everyone could make more money, but there's no way to prove that they lost X amount when their own numbers typically don't match those done by surveyors outside the industry. If anything, the numbers I have seen touted online show piracy has little effect if at all, but to piss them off for making billions less than the billions they already do. Not that I blame them, mind you. But, not everyone thinks making more is necessarily a good indicator because how can you say that Pirate A would have bought it and Pirate B wouldn't have? You can't, even though they try to put out numbers that make it appear that way. But, what do I know, I am naive and who knows whether either side is worth believing the numbers they spew forth. I am just saying there's contradictions all over the place on just how bad they have it.

As for economics 101, I never took that class, always thought it meant what's best for business, so to speak. I guess I am wrong, and am big enough to say so. Sorry!

I guess I figured, that if selling for less could (I'd assume) realistically earn more profits from having people who wouldn't have purchased otherwise do so (which it possibly could in today's marketplace, piracy or no piracy) well, how is that not good for the industry and all involved? Hell, the whole pay-to-download services could be utilized much better. Though, it seems they are against change, whether it's from piracy (which I am not even really taking into account to be honest) or just changing the medium to one that people would consider buying more than they currently do with CDs. Really, I don't get it, wouldn't that be a good thing? Maybe I am giving people too much credit to think they too would buy the music if the price was at the price point the industry said they would sell for or even slightly higher.

Either way, this is all opinion based from what I have read and having talked with other people over the years. I'll be the first to admit I am not fully aware of all the facts, but I do get tired of facts thrown around here and elsewhere just as blindly by both sides. Sorry if I came across as thinking I knew better than the rest, didn't mean it that way. Overall, there has already been links earlier that show some of what I was trying to get at, I guess some just can't get past the piracy issue. Since I am not even using that as my basis for my point and most seem to be, I might as well keep quite.

Oh and BTW, I don't know about anyone else, but I do think we "are" so-called, screwed over, by copy-protection and the other areas that the industry uses that make lawfully backing-up people's legitimately purchased CDs impossible. I don't buy protected discs, but many seem to have tried at least in the past to hide the fact if they have such protections. So, I think I and others have good reason to feel that way, the Sony Rootkit anyone?

Regardless though, I don't care if it's a luxury item or not, when I pay the manufacturer for their item, on sale or not, there should be no extra hassles to come along with it in my view. I bought it legitimately, that should be the only thing that matters. Some might disagree I guess, but money spent is still money spent. Basically, there's no need to alienate those who are the reason you make the money you do. Oh well, take that as you well...

I was speaking idiomatically.

That's not what I am saying, well, it's not what I meant at least!

I understand what you all are saying, but still, assuming people would buy more CDs if they were at a cheaper price, how's that taking a loss if you have way more sales? That's all I am asking and no one seems to want to answer that. Oh well, no point in continuing since I think selling at $10-13 would be fine and you don't.

Most amazing jew boots

Sorry for the late reply, but thanks for the info. I am generally interested in this topic and from everything I am told elsewhere, they seem to think differently. Regardless, I'll take your word for it...

Here's hoping a way can be found to bring prices down, yet not hurt anyone in the process!

FELIPE NO