|
|
Posted by iluvzlayur on 09/17/05 22:49
anthonyberet:
>ah, no, there certainly *is* denying that they lose money due to
>file-sharing.
There IS denying, eh? Ok, I stopped buying music cd's the same day I
first downloaded WinMx and started using it. Since that day I have
acquired at least 200 cd's worth of songs that I would have otherwise
paid money for in those following 2 years since that day.
With each cd averaging about $10 a pop, that's $2,000 the RIAA will
never see from me, because of WinMx. I wonder how many other WinMx
users, who have no problems finding and downloading songs they want,
yet continue to purchase full retail cd's at the same time. But if you
still aren't convinced, go ahead and give me your best argument to
refute the main RIAA position that peer-2-peer file-sharing has
resulted in sales drops.
There is no denying that people who will pay money for a store cd, most
people, would rather save the money if they can get the songs for free.
I'm not speaking from a personal point of view, but rather the POV of
business executives who look at graphs and charts and know perfectly
well that for every Christian soul who would scorn WinMx and continue
to purchase full retail cd's, there are 100 other people who will be
quick to take as many free songs as they can get. You should listen to
Shania Twain a little more closely, and don't be stupid. Do you
honestly think the RIAA's concern with p2p file-sharing is completely
irrational?
Make sure you distinguish "they are fat cats and have enough money"
from "it is illegal to copy copyrighted music". They fact that they
are rich doesn't suddenly mean that the law which protects their
investments will suddenly fail to operate. Let's hear your best
argument that downloading copyrighted music on WinMx is legal. How
exactly does the activity of downloading copyrighted music on WinMx,
HARMONISE with the copyright protection laws?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|