|
|
Posted by Dominic on 10/14/54 11:27
It's a mixture of hypocrisy and RIAA's fear of losing the control of the
market. It fears them the idea the buyers control the market. We are
experiencing a bastardised version of capitalism and file sharing is a
direct threat to it because it boosted the traditional way of sharing and
it's more of an open secret now. It's pity that they don't hav the brains to
see only way to stop file sharing is shut down WWW. Not shuting P2P clients.
And how they gona shut WWW?! Not possible, therefore only solution is to
change with times and find new ways of making their money.
"Morton Davis" <antikerry@home.com> wrote in message
news:a2pYe.395187$xm3.180141@attbi_s21...
>
> "FatKat" <robynari@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:1127355874.925156.176270@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> Hardly a justification. Being the owner of something means you can not
>> only set the price, but also decide whether to sell or not. If I
>> decide to steal a car, the fact that the owner hadn't put it on the
>> market doesn't change the fact that I've just taken a car that isn't
>> mine. There are many compelling arguments for distinguishing file
>> sharing from theft, but this is not one of them. Also, simply being
>> out of print (thought they had a different term) doens't mean out of
>> circulation - old record stores, individual collectors, E*bay offer a
>> few of the avenues for obtaining hard-to-find music.
>>
> However, none of the artists get a red cent from the sale of used music or
> videos. So what's the beef? Also, with sattelite radio and stations
> playing
> CD quality music, what's the diff if you record to a CD off of the radio
> or
> DL it?
>
> What does it matter if you record a movie off of HBO or DL it? Same thing
> happens.
>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|