Posted on 06/18/2009 6:29:59 PM PDT by dayglored
You are correct; I've lived out in the boonies since 1978. Nearest "city" is Ithaca, NY, with a couple of small music stores, but no Virgin or Mega anything.
If the industry made a concerted effort to market singles, and it truly failed to catch the public's interest (as opposed to being phased out as not-as-profitable), I stand corrected. But my understanding is that the higher margin available (at that time) for album CDs led to concentration on that product model. I could be wrong, and am willing to be corrected if you have single vs. album sales statistics for the 80's and 90's.
>> 2. They put out crappier and crapper music
>Then why is it still being stolen so much?
The stuff that's being downloaded and copied around are the GOOD songs, duh. When people have the choice of tracks, they get the tracks they want. Of course lots of tracks are being downloaded. The GOOD ones. Look at the statistics for the not-so-hot tracks compared to the hits.
Of course, if the only way to get the hits is to get the whole album, the industry will rack up a "sale" for each of the songs on it, but that's bogus.
>> 3. When MP3 technology appeared out in the late 90's...
> Yeah well technology to rip DVD's is available now too but that doesn't mean it's not stealing to download a free movie from the internet rather than pay for a legal copy.
I'm not arguing for that, GE, you can put down the red herring. What I meant was, the industry ignored a new technology that clearly was going to alter their universe, and instead of embracing it and using it for their own profit, they let it run wild for years, and then tried to regain lost ground.
This pattern repeats itself with every new recording and distribution technology that has come along, except for the ones they succeed in squashing, like DAT tape (in the US).
>> But NOOOO-O-O-OOO, they can't change their business model, that's where their limos and coke comes from...
> You're off in left field on this, it's their product and they can sell it how they like.
Oh, they're welcome to, but if they ignore a tidal wave and drown, I'm not going to claim it was a good decision, which is what you seem to be doing.
> If you think you can create a better product and sell it for less you should go into business and compete and become the next millionaire,
I don't have that skill, or the necessary resources, but I can see a clear picture of what happened and what could have been done about it, even if I'm not the one to do it.
The point is, here we are a decade later and exactly what I'm saying should have been done, a decade ago, is now the business model. There were those saying it a decade ago, but the industry ignored them, and foolishly let the freetards define the new marketplace.
> ... but stealing their product (or supporting the thieves who have) because you don't like the terms is not a legitimate excuse.
I neither "steal", nor illegally download, nor share, their product, nor do I support those who do. Whom are you talking down to? Not me - I agree with your position there.
>> What I object to is the outlandish size of the fine.
> No you've already made it clear you don't think they should be able to charge what they want for their product, or distribute it how they want either.
Not true -- they can do whatever they want, it's a free country and a (mostly) free market. I'm not saying they can't or shouldn't do it, I'm only saying they were stupid for doing what they did.
> But regarding the fine, if they could recoup the losses from everyone who's been stealing the fines wouldn't be so heavy on those that are caught. But since that's not physically possible, the laws are setup to serve as a deterrent to keep others from stealing.
There is emotional appeal for that position, but the law does not say that if you steal a bicycle, that you will be sentenced for every other unsolved bicycle theft as well. That's equivalent to conviction for not only your own crime, but those of other people as well. That's utterly unsupported in any civilized body of law.
That is precisely my objection to this fine. The RIAA finally got one person over the barrel in court, and they intended to screw her so bad that they could feel good for all the ones they didn't get. That's uncivilized.
> Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
Well, yeah, of course. But why are you telling me this? I didn't do the crime.
As for Jammie Whatsherface, she's guilty as hell and asked for it. She should have copped to the initial settlement fine and disappeared. Don't waste time confusing me with the freetards or their supporters.
The cursing I'm doing about this sentence is not the guilty verdict. It's that the fine makes a mockery of the system, makes the legal process a laughingstock, and creates a martyr for the freetards.
With regard to downloading and so forth, you and I largely agree. Where we disagree is this: I claim the recording industry stupidly ignored an obvious sea change in the market due to new technology and unhappy customers, and that their market losses are mostly their own damn fault. You claim that they're just innocent well-meaning businessmen who were robbed by ungrateful customers who should have just continued to lie back and pay too much for increasingly lousy product forever.
Approximately. ;-)
I disagree with the amount but also with you. The punishment for a crime is not simple restitution lets say someone downloaded 100 songs that would have gotten one hundred dollars the less than an hour of good attorney fees..
20 times the value of the song, or a min of 20,000$ for all songs which ever is greater..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.