Message from the community

I just posted the article Message from the community.

Message from the community
At CDFreaks.com, we always care for your opinion. We appreciate the valuable input you provide us, and the thoughts you share with us. This is such one thought that was…

Read the full article here:  [http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/16023-Message-from-the-community.html](http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/16023-Message-from-the-community.html)

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

A very well written letter. I never gave it much thought on this subject till now.

All true! This reminds me of how many times I have bought Van Halen’s 1984 back in the day. I originally bought it on cassette tape and I misplaced it. Then I bought it on CD and it got stolen. Bought it again on CD and again got stolen. For some reason, this particular album and group had that appeal to thieves, go figure. Anyways, do I feel bad downloading the lossless version off the net? No, I bought the damn thing 3 freaking times. One time might of been my fault for losing it but the other 2 times it was stolen. How is that MY fault? Why should I have to buy it again? My belief is, once you buy it, you should own it for life not until the next “upgrade”.

I have lost, had stolen, or had it damaged in some form or fashion several hundred if not thousands of dollars of music in the past. Do I feel bad downloading that music I originally owned? Hell no, I could give a crap what the RIAA thinks.

So if you buy something, and it gets stolen - you say it is OK to obtain that item through other means than through official channels?

Good read and good points!

Well other then Mary missing the 8 track phase being she is 63 I have to agree with her plus I can up her a little. How bout this:
Vinyl LP Mono, Vinyl LP Stereo, Vinyl LP Digital, Vinyl 45 mono, Vinyl 45 stereo, Direct 2 Disc, 4 Track, 8 Track, Cassette, DAT, CD, HDA and I think I missed a few. Age 54

Here here… I absolutely agree 100%.

@Logitacer;
Yes, that is what he is saying and that is what many people believe regarding “intellectual property”. According to the original letter/post above, if you want to give something to someone because they are dying of cancer, it is OK to obtain that thing other than through official channels, as well.
It’s interesting that most people would not say that if their car got stolen, it would be OK to steal another one to replace it. However, many believe just the opposite when it comes to music or movies.
It is also interesting that the RIAA and MPAA subscribe to the “stolen car” way of looking at it.
When people say that comparing the two is not valid because a car costs a lot more than a song or a movie, I am reminded of the old joke about a man proposing to pay a woman a million dollars for sex, and she shyly says, “Well…OK.” and then
he says "Never mind, how about ten dollars?"
She replies, "No! What kind of girl do you think I am?"
He replies, "We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling over the price."
I’m not an advocate of thinking about songs and movies either way, but I can certainly see the MPAA and RIAA’s point, in some ways.

I do not buy the “car” theory. Why?
Because music and movies are not a physical object that I own. They are IP of the manufacturer (like the car’s design). I own the right to enjoy and use the IP and that is the basic argument against restricting my access by creating new formats and stupid laws made by ignorant senators (no surprise there). Now the industry has not come up with an effective manner of licensing said IP and can only come up with the car concept which is just a silly argument. Stealing a car and maintiaining my right to the music and videos I paid for is more like the industry stealing my car because they own the IP and that being legal (which seems to be the opinion of some very misguided legal experts). It has notthing to do with “money” and everything to do with licensing and then fair use of such license.

The question isn’t, “Did you buy a CD?” The question is, “Did you buy a license to listen to a song or album?” If it’s the latter, then as long as you have the medium the song came on, you should have access to the song/album in whatever form it’s made available to the public, wheither it be on vinyl, cassette, CD etc.

If all that isn’t enough to get your blood moving, check out this link.

http://news.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/10381/549087.html

They’ve finally decided that getting fans for free by allowing radio stations to broadcast music isn’t enough. Now they want to get paid by the stations. Screw 'em. The stations should charge to play an artist’s songs. It’s not like the artists shared the revenue they made in concerts that were attended by fans they garnered from radio play. It’s gotten too ridiculous. Lazy morons just want to get paid over and over for doing nothing. I hope the radio stations just say “up yours, we’ll broadcast talk radio and the songs of anyone who gives them to us for free, and the rest of you go to hell.” If artists were face with getting ZERO air time, I’m sure they would have a change of attitude.

It’s interesting how the lack of physical attributes for songs or movies makes it easier for people to justify what others might call stealing.
How’s this for a possible future scenario?:
You have a paperback book and it gets stolen. The library doesn’t have any copies.
You have an Amazon Kindle or some other e-book reader.
Someone invents some software to download and/or copy e-book files and store them on your reader without paying anything.
Your book that was stolen is available where it can be accessed by this new software.
Do you feel the same way about the e-book file that you do about music and movies?
If you do, is this because the book/e-book does not have any physical properties anymore?
Would you feel justified in getting a free copy of the e-book because you already paid for it once as a physical book?

What an idiotic screed.

Something? What ya mean something? Something could mean anything. I meant it in regards to music and what are the proper channels? Back in the 80’s, they didn’t have “proper” channels. And to answer your question, yes. Like I said, I bought the 1984 album several times and gave the record companies and artist all they are due thrice over. Do I feel bad about downloading it, hell no!

Exactly my thinking. Comparing downloading music and stealing a car is just a silly argument. So using Ferd’s logic, if I for instance lost some piece of software, on the physical medium that it once existed on, I couldn’t download the software even though I had the license for the software.

Yes it’s really a format war (me a strong advcate of Blu-ray). The ‘Industry’ does not want to go down the road of proper licensing like they do with radio stations Etc. We should have a license for personal use. Actually radio stations have always ‘paid’ for the music.
That was the argument about the Internet radio and it’s not free if you broadcast it. Even me putting my speakers out the window could (not saying it will) get me a bill from the Indusry. I remember Supermarkets getting in trouble for this (and where ‘Musak’ really came from)
I can do anything with my car, chop it up, put horns on it, feathers, part it out, sell you each part, why you could even make more money selling off again. I can put the car on YouTube, tape it’s sounds. But my CD, or worse my DVD, that I can not sell nor ‘piece out’ because ? Because the Industry has blocked fair use by creating a legal law that tells me I can not break the encryption. Let’s not argue about fair use let’s create a law that makes it ilegal for me to copy my own DVD because the Industry put a lock on it. This has nothing to do with pirating or ‘downloading’ but my right to the data on the bloody disc. The Industry is using the format to define ownership for me but for them they define their ownership by working around my right to fair use (for personal use). I would argue that if they want to go down this road then we all should get license numbers for every album and song so we each can prove ‘ownership/fair use’ It’s not the storage media. I would point out the fact that we are starting to see the Industry in it’s own spineless way by releasing Blu-ray/DVD/Digital copy that they are aware of the conflict. They just don’t like the possibilities of the consumers demanding proper licensing rights.
IMHO :wink:

The answer is to vote and vote wisely … with your dollar and in every election. Do not vote for people that are narrow minded and arrogantly pro business.

Welcome to Capitalism. Population: The World.
You’re only entitled to what you can afford. Sad, isn’t it?

This aticle is somewhat pointless. She argues that we have to buy the new format. what she fails to say, is that her record player didnt stop working the minute cds or tapes came out. If this lady wants, she can just keep them 45s spinning withot a problem.

She then says they stopped selling tape decks. Where? I can still go to an electronic store an buy some form of cassette player. Hmm, same goes for record player.

In one breath she says the old format (such as records) are obsolete, and in another says best buy is selling records.

Bottom line, nobody forced you to buy the new album again. What you think is obsolete, still seems to be around.

I think where the “theft” arguments fall apart is in the reality that real theft involves the denial of use of the item stolen, and the loss of the resources used to purchase/create it. If I steal your car, you can no longer drive it, sell it, enjoy it, and you’re out the money you paid. If I steal your money, you can no longer spend it, invest it, burn it. If I steal your favorite book you can no longer read it, share it with a friend, or prop up your dinner table with it. If I steal your ideas and beat you to market you can no longer profit from those ideas, or control how they are exploited. But if I “steal” a song or a movie, well, nothing happens; you can still sell it, play it, give it away, change it, etc. There is no real damage from a song or movie being “pirated” other than the person “pirating” may not buy what they have “stolen,” but there is also no certain way to know if that person would have purchased the item if it couldn’t have been “stolen.”

This is why the fines they’ve come up with for “stealing” music and movies are so out the world crazy. They don’t fit with the damage done in any sane manner. And they don’t take into account that there are myriad LEGAL means to get the same materials for free, though perhaps in differing formats and levels of quality. The whole thing just plain stinks, and I’m disgusted with our elected “representatives” for allowing fair use rights to die and for not protecting the people from these greedy corporations.