However, when you take a piece of art, copy it, and give the copy away,
that's another copy in the world to be used by someone at the same time
you're using the original, or your copy.
In the case of small artists, labels, and other small media, taking that
copy litterally can take the food out of their family's mouth.
There are people, such as Cory Doctorow, who use creative commons. This
mean that, they put the material out there, and one may freely copy and
distribute it.
Here's an interesting thing that happens in this situation. When someone
says, hey, you can have this, and if it brings you value, pay me what you
think it's worth, then people tend to feel more personally connected to the
item. It's strange, but true. Because of this, they buy the work, most of
all if it's well crafted.
A lot of people who get into music as a living, or some form of creation,
tend to have a major shift of opinion once the shoe is on the other foot.
Granted, there are other ways of makig money, and the market will find it's
balance, but we're in growing pains. Thankfully, stores are starting to
learn from their mistakes. The book publishers are being luddites, as are
the MPAA, but the RIAA, has gotten a bit more with the pg with things such
as undrmed coppies of songs.
What really drives me nuts are the costs of imports! There's no reason I
should have to pay $30.00 for the latest Lacromosa or Tanzwut album!
Rick
twitter
http://twitter.com/elheme
msn
bellevue....@gmail.com
skype
lord_of_beer
last fm
http://www.last.fm/user/lord_of_beer
----- Original Message -----
From: "hank smith" <hanksmi...@gmail.com>
To: "PC Audio Discussion List" <pc-audio@pc-audio.org>
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: If it's stealing, then please explain...
you took the words write out of my mouth
as long as you aint celling to make a proffit then its cool
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Homuth" <ja...@the-jdh.com>
To: "'PC Audio Discussion List'" <pc-audio@pc-audio.org>
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 12:04 PM
Subject: If it's stealing, then please explain...
... Why it is sales and other revenue in every industry supposedly
effected
by this so-called theft continue to increase. Year over year, DVD sales,
music sales, and movie rentals have undergone a significant increase, so
says just about every independant study not in the pocket of the RIAA and
MPAA. Which, escentially, is just about everyone who isn't the RIAA and
MPAA. Even online methods that are considered legal (Netflicks, etc) have
seen increases to their rental and streaming revenue, in spite of the
fact
places like Blockbuster are establishing agreements with studios to
arange
it so that Netflicks doesn't see new releases from those studios until 28
days after Blockbuster receives those same new releases. Also, while
you're
at it, kindly explain why it is sales of books in just about every format
continue to increase, in spite of the fact industry lobbiests continue to
insist they're all taking a drastic nose dive the likes of which haven't
been seen since the Titanic sank.
Additionally, explain this to me. If getting your hands on a copy of a
book,
CD or movie you haven't paid for is so illegal/immoral/otherwise a sin on
the same level as breaking into a store and taking something, why is the
exchanging/giving away/otherwise distributing of actual, hard copy books
still so popular? It's far from uncommon for avid book readers to read
something, then pass it on to someone else to read, who will then pass it
on
to someone else while at the same time passing something they'd just
finished reading back the other way. That's not considered illegal, and
has
been going on arguably since the invention of books. But yet, the same
copy
of that book is being passed from one hand to another. It hasn't been
paid
for by these other people. It hasn't resulted in any compensation
whatsoever
to the author from these other people for the privelege of reading that
book. And no one's thrown a fit over billions upon billions of lost sales
dollars because each and every one of those people who dared crack that
book
didn't pony up the money for their own copy before doing so. Why is that
so
different from the digital era, in spite of the fact the only real change
is
now if someone else wants to read that book, the original buyer doesn't
have
to give up their copy? I'd really appreciate hearing the explanation for
that from some of these folks who seem to be under the impression we've
all
joined the rip off the author/musician/actor bandwagon here. Anyone?
To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank email to:
pc-audio-unsubscr...@pc-audio.org
To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank email to:
pc-audio-unsubscr...@pc-audio.org
To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank email to:
pc-audio-unsubscr...@pc-audio.org
