Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
A New Take on Music Piracy (finally someone's thinking)
- Thread starter Ryan1524
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
we talked about this at my work and totally agree, th emian reason people are pirating music is because they don't want to buy a crappy CD for $19.00 that maybe has one good song on it. so cheers to cheaper CD's, now we just need to get record companies and radio to play actual good music!! 
You can get old DVDs at Wal-Mart for 5.88 and ones that you might actually watch frequently for 8.99!
Now I ask you...
Why would I spend 15-20 for one hour of music on a CD when I can either download the songs or buy the ones I want for .99 cents, when I can get 2+ hours of entertainment that can't be downloaded and used the same way for less tha 10 dollars.
Example: Tonight I bought "The Whole Nine Yards", "What about Bob?", and "Ernest: Scared Stupid" for 22 dollars. Maybe not the greastest blockbuster hits, but still very good cinema! And believe me, a lot more work goes into creating any movie/DVD then will ever go into any song/CD.
The record industry is gouging the public (if they can drop the price on all CDs by about 33 or more percent, you know their making WAAAY more than enough money), it's a simple supply and demand. Supply of music is great, and cheap to produce. Demand is shrinking because there are cheaper ways to get the songs we want to hear. It's time the record instury relizes that the only way to stop music piracy is to make their product more desirable. (They've been fighting this since before Napster and that was what four years ago?) As the staement goes "as soon as they make a fool-proof system, we'll make a better fool."
They'll never win the batlle. Even if they some how manage to kill the P2P system, which seems insanely unlikely, in a few weeks someone else will have developed a new file sharing system that they'll spend even more countless dollars suing. This is definetly a step in the right direction.
Now I ask you...
Why would I spend 15-20 for one hour of music on a CD when I can either download the songs or buy the ones I want for .99 cents, when I can get 2+ hours of entertainment that can't be downloaded and used the same way for less tha 10 dollars.
Example: Tonight I bought "The Whole Nine Yards", "What about Bob?", and "Ernest: Scared Stupid" for 22 dollars. Maybe not the greastest blockbuster hits, but still very good cinema! And believe me, a lot more work goes into creating any movie/DVD then will ever go into any song/CD.
The record industry is gouging the public (if they can drop the price on all CDs by about 33 or more percent, you know their making WAAAY more than enough money), it's a simple supply and demand. Supply of music is great, and cheap to produce. Demand is shrinking because there are cheaper ways to get the songs we want to hear. It's time the record instury relizes that the only way to stop music piracy is to make their product more desirable. (They've been fighting this since before Napster and that was what four years ago?) As the staement goes "as soon as they make a fool-proof system, we'll make a better fool."
They'll never win the batlle. Even if they some how manage to kill the P2P system, which seems insanely unlikely, in a few weeks someone else will have developed a new file sharing system that they'll spend even more countless dollars suing. This is definetly a step in the right direction.
$15CAN, $13US. CNN a few days ago (this is old news) said that the other m major record companies are to follow suit. So it seems we won. They fought hard, tried to arrest everyone, but in the end, they gave up and lowered their gouged prices.
I might but some CDs this weekend, is the price gouging on gas is over.
I might but some CDs this weekend, is the price gouging on gas is over.
I agree,
While I love films, I am a huge music fan and this has bothered me for a while. Then DVD's first came out, they were higher in price, but they have come down a lot and you can get many hits for under $15.
But CD's are still "overpriced" or the labels have not been with it, retailers are giving more ad space to movies than music, since people buy more films these days.
Still, it a bit of an apples/orange talk, while it cost more to put out a movie, it will probably take more effort from the labels to make the plublic aware of their new artists. Maybe the labels shouldn't put out 100.000 new bands and hope for the best but instead release fewer albums and focus on them.
The overpricing of CDs is not the reason for the frequent theft of music IMO. After all, diamonds are grossly overpriced (they're not that rare), but you don't see people stealing diamonds left and right. Stealing music is common because it has always been easy to get away with in the past. Long before MP3s (or CDs for that matter), kids were dubbing tapes off each other. There was and is no reasonable way to prosecute this practice; for example, who would even think to go after every individual who ever made a mix tape of copyrighted music for her boyfriend? The theft of music became a commonly accepted thing in our culture, and it has been translated to digital media. This also explains why so many more people pirate music than software (which, it can be argued, is equally easy to get away with and just as overpriced in some cases). I'm not saying it is right. I just think the basis is not price, but tradition (and ease).
no folks, you missed the point here.
They're cutting prices, and when they keep track of who is buying. If you're buying all of a sudden now and you haven't bought in a while, well, they're going to consider that hard and fast evidence that, well, you've been committing a felony offense. And why shouldn't they? After all, that's strong enough evidence for me.
So then it's off to the slammer with you.
"And the blue suits of the record industry spaketh. And the huddled masses, depraved children of the internet, listened to their holy words. And the word was heard down low in the valley and on high in the moutains, and rang clear, for he who wouldst download music, pilfering from the impoverished pockets of the poor and starving record executives, his soul it would be that wouldst be damned and spend eternity in the fires of an unforgiving Hell." RIAA 3:14
They're cutting prices, and when they keep track of who is buying. If you're buying all of a sudden now and you haven't bought in a while, well, they're going to consider that hard and fast evidence that, well, you've been committing a felony offense. And why shouldn't they? After all, that's strong enough evidence for me.
So then it's off to the slammer with you.
"And the blue suits of the record industry spaketh. And the huddled masses, depraved children of the internet, listened to their holy words. And the word was heard down low in the valley and on high in the moutains, and rang clear, for he who wouldst download music, pilfering from the impoverished pockets of the poor and starving record executives, his soul it would be that wouldst be damned and spend eternity in the fires of an unforgiving Hell." RIAA 3:14
it may be strong enough evidence for you and the RIAA, but not for the legal system. A sudden decision to obtain something legally can hardly be taken as *legal* proof that it was previously being obtained illegally.
with the drop in price, people who used to not being able to afford them might start to be able to. but thta is hardly proof that they were downloading before. on the otehr hand, i can see how this can be used as either something to persecute downloaders with or it can be a wake up call for people (and RIAA) that their CDs are overpriced. and it's their fault that people are downloading. although i highly doubt they would go that route.