All I can say is that they should learn how wonderful the sharing experience is and why stop it when it makes so many people happy, isn't that the way the world should be? Sharing happily!

Sharing music or what have you is a way for artists to reach their fans and audiences. If the industry wants to stop this, it's like they're shooting them selves in the foot, and they will regret it.

Let me close up here by saying that sharing digital media online is a colossal issue and these anti-sharing industry moguls have no chance in hell in ever stopping, they may as well join us.


Kind Regards,

The Magic Monkey

Monkey... Yes.. they would be shooting themselves in the foot.. However.. downloading ANY copyrighten material is illegal in the USA.

Canada has posed a levy for people who wish to download music and movies.

What would you rather have?

DRM content vs. Free content but a tax levied on blank media. :)

This war is not going to sqelch anytime soon. I saw an article on "Campus Review" that stated that sharing is what we are taught to do in grade school. Are we training our children to horde and not share their wealth? The issues on copyright infringement are confusing to me too.

Personally, I don't feel strongly either way. I remember pre-napster when I just listened to radio. The consumption is just implemented in a different way.

So does Adobe. I just noticed I wasn't allowed to open a scanned picture of a 5 Euro bill here at work using Photoshop CS, new and shiny and slow, obviously checking every picture for signs of $ and ? in them.

And ok, it might be I'm not supposed to make nice copies of Euros or dollars at work... Pity though, it was a nice ideea for a collage. Had to put a bill from a Monopoly game there instead.

What's next?

This is the worst argument for piracy I ever heard. When I went to school we paid the beatles and stones for their works of art which took human endeavor and work to produce. What is commonly called "sharing" here is none other than what it really is. Teach your children if it aint theirs, dont steal it.


lmfao

>Monkey... Yes.. they would be shooting themselves in the foot.. However.. >downloading ANY copyrighten material is illegal in the USA.

>Canada has posed a levy for people who wish to download music and movies.

>What would you rather have?

>DRM content vs. Free content but a tax levied on blank media.

Think of it this way, Marijuana is llegal, and if you smoked, would you rather grow yours for free, or buy it from the government and pay a tax on it. That's what the governments want, Taxes imposed and tax revenues generated.


>This is the worst argument for piracy I ever heard. When I went to school we >paid the beatles and stones for their works of art which took human endeavor >and work to produce. What is commonly called "sharing" here is none other than >what it really is. Teach your children if it aint theirs, dont steal it.

We share what others don't want to share, simply reason being is that they're too darn greedy. CDs are tremendously over priced, and these so called "Artists" make way too much money while the poor hard working man struggles to feed his kids and buy music @ the same time. Would you deny him the right to enjoy free music which will lessen the burden that is placed upon him by these greedy world wide dominating companies?

The industry and the record companies won't even comprimise and produce cheaper CDs or even lower the sky rocketing prices. They won't have it any other way than that of ripping people off, so we rip their CDs back in return.

An eye for an eye, thats my War Cry! Lets do battle Music Moguls...

As unicorn has stated it is to the place that we buy software then can NOT use it to make a copy of a bill for a game. Yes there are right of others to consider as there are our rights.

Also as MonkeyMagic referrs to it is all about making MORE money for the BIG people while we HAVE got to abide by the SAME rules as they do.The big companies just have got lucky and make money for lots of people besides themselves. There just happens to be a big demand for MUSIC and the companies are in reality just doing buisness as we would if we were in their shoes for long enough.

There really is not a need for them to comprimise as long as they are making money, although that is one way.....reduce the quality of the music, get rid of the fancy lables, no nice containers...and you could buy more music it would not sound or look as nice.

So laws are laws and without them it would be havoc. Just remember things can get worse.

Thanks
Dudelive

>Also as MonkeyMagic referrs to it is all about making MORE money for the BIG >people while we HAVE got to abide by the SAME rules as they do.The big >companies just have got lucky and make money for lots of people besides >themselves. There just happens to be a big demand for MUSIC and the >companies are in reality just doing buisness as we would if we were in their >shoes for long enough.

That’s exactly my point, they don't care who they steam roll over, it's all in the pursuit of money and more of it. If I were in their shoes, it wouldn't be a business of "ripping" people off. That’s clear to me that's their only intention.

>>QUOTE
>>The industry and the record companies won't even compromise and produce >>cheaper CDs or even lower the skyrocketing prices. They won't have it any >>other way than that of ripping people off



>There really is not a need for them to comprimise as long as they are making >money, although that is one way...reduce the quality of the music, get rid of the >fancy lables, no nice containers...and you could buy more music it would not >sound or look as nice.

They have to compromise; if they don't we'll all continue our flourishing business of ripping and sharing Musika! It costs them so much to make a CD and they sell them for $40+/piece. The quality of the music won't dimished if the sell them cheaper. Just like the Nike sports shoes biz (Costs them in the few cents to make a shoe and sell it for $200+)...

>So laws are laws and without them it would be havoc. Just remember things can >get worse.

Yes it can get worse, musicos and moguls would feel the pinch and feel like the gutter just like how we feel when we're being hunted, they will regret it to the end.

The hunter becomes the hunted! The boomerang returns to chop their NEX off! (Sorry bout the violent decapitation scene)…

Hmmm. You know, reading these posts one thing comes to mind: the market demands what the market can bear. For example, if I make product X, and sell it for X amount of money, as soon people stop buying it you can bet my price will drop.

In other words, the PEOPLE is what drives prices to be what they are - stop paying high prices and they will drop or companies go out of existence. Supply and demand. Turn off your MTV and go read a book or something ;)

/JD

@JacKDynne....After reading your post....Are you into the stock market or are you just aware that that is the way real life is? Seems as though you said a whole lot in a few short lines if we really think it over.

Well said.


Thanks
Dudelive

@jackdyne


It sounds like fuzzy maths to me! What's driving people away from buying CDs are the high prices, not people sharing the music, the reason people share music and get music from sharing is that they can't afford the high prices for CDs.

The Word is Out My Friends!

Kind Regards,

The Magic Monkey!

@JD is absolutely correct; if you don't buy something that you feel is over priced, and your friends and neighbors don't buy it for the same reason, then eventually the price either comes down, or the company goes away..
Protest unfair pricing by boycotting those items; by "stealing" them, you just give support to the corporations complaints about why they HAVE to charge so much, to make up profits they lose by people "sharing" products..

Profits profits profits, that’s all we hear about.

I would like to boycott and also listen to the music @ the same time, I shouldn’t be denied the right to listen to my favourite music for free and also @ the same time boycott enormously priced CDs by not buying them. Listening to radio is not selective enough for me; neither is buying a CD with songs I don’t want on it. Being able to access music @ the touch of a finger tip is the way information sharing ought to be, being naturally selective is the way to go for music.

Also for the record, I’ll protest & boycott how I see fit.

The nature of Monkey was Irrepressible

@Dudelive - You are some what right as to the nature of the game but what ever happened to ethical standards or the morals intertwined with producing a product that derives its value not only from the utility that the end user gets; but also from the satisfaction that the supplier derives from providing that product at a reasonable price. I would not be gouging my customers while in the middle of this musical rebellion/revolution, but appeasing them with better prices. And yes, if that means getting rid of fancy lables and pretty covers that is fine with me...and hopefully all file sharers who never geta nice jewel case or the notes in the CD's, or the cool label on the disc realize that those things don't matter as much as the music itself.

As for the quality of the music, I don't think it will be any worse than the MP3's we are downloading. The same quality of music we have today was recorded in the 1950's when Elvis did his first recordings. Studios don't have to be totally state of the art to produce great music (I know as a close friend owns his own studio and independent label, which I helped to build). And as for as the cost of manufacturing CD's is concerned, AOL distributes millionsof FREE CD's with thier software on them, could they really cost that much to produce? - I doubt it.

@JackDynne - You are also very right, the market is the motivating force here and we are perpetuating the problem bu paying too much for these CD's. Regardless of how they got to be priced so high is really irrelevant, it is what we can do to lower the price that is important. And as the law of supply and demand will show, the market will determine the acceptable price of a product based upon the market's willingness to purchase said product at any guven price. Unfortunately inthe rocky times we have had, the proce elasticity of CD's is relatively high (people buy CD's when priced at varying levels, both high and low) and so as long as we keep paying the high prices, they will keep selling them for that. I want the music and I WILL pay for it AS WE ALL SHOULD, but only so long as it is reasonably priced. You would not pay $10.00 for a cheeseburger, why pay too much for music. Just like any other product, it gives 4 kinds of basic utility:

Time Utility: It is there WHEN you want it.

Place Utility: It is available at the PLACE you need it

Price Utility: It is priced so you can AFFORD it.

Transferability Utility: You can transfer it at YOUR OWN WILL

Forget these DRM issues, they are pa product of corporate greed! I say this despite my assertion that most business (including most big ones) are moral, ethical, socially responsible entities that serve us well; but not the music industry.

Let's prove these ignorant, aged fools wrong! I am not going to pay for thier trophy wives and luxuury automobiles anymore! I will not tollerate overinflated prices for already substandard music! I will pay what I demand for a product I like! The customer is (almost) always right! We should unite as customers and show them that they are wrong, and to attack us in the name of thier own protection is blasphemy and thier greed and control issues are thier own and will drive us away in perpetuity!

Thank you BetaONE for giving me the opportunity to rant.

With all respect,

Sigma Zeta 314
MBA Candidate - Fall 2004
Texas Wesleyan University

PS- Props to Professor Norwood for the insight into Utility.

sigmazeta314 With all that you said, I agree totally and in my previous post I was not trying to take sides with the companies as it may have seemed, only post in my opinion their way of looking at the situtation...well it sure seems as that is the way they look at it.

Now I am almost going to show my age here........This thing of swapping music or "stealing" as some might say is NOT new stuff here. The only things NEW are the BIG company lawyers. You mean to tell me that when there were LP albums and people traded or loaned them to their friends 40+ years ago copies were not made of the music on the album? If copies were not made then what were the reel to reel tape recorders used for and what did they sell 8 track recorders for, so you could listen to speeches that you made for yourself? Also please don't forget that all sorts of companies sold cassette recorders for CHILDREN to play with and....you guessed it...record things. So when it gets down to real facts here who really is guilty or at fault. Now I have NOT said that stealing is right because it is not. I also remember when musicians did not make more money in comparison to others, there were no big busses or large corporations started to sort out all the dividends.

As you can see this is NOTHING new, it has just became another way for someone to b*tch, gripe and complain and then get themselves in the spotlight for awhile.....Oh yeah and make more money.

Changing subjects here will tell you what ever happened to ethical standards or the morals intertwined with producing a product that derives its value not only from the utility that the end user gets; but also from the satisfaction that the supplier derives from providing that product at a reasonable price.
Remember when Walmart got started the slogan was sorta like this "Made in America, by Americans, for Americans" ? Now I am NOT trying to get anyone here all up in the air, I am using that as an example of the way it was then, but go in the stores and look now. Morals and ethical standards will almost always get tossed for the right buck.

Thanks
Dudelive

Don't forget these post are a result of HP's stand, as was stated in the first post.

I think you are getting copyright infringment mixed up with theft. Copying != Stealing, that is just a false claim perpetuated by the recording industries in an attempt to associate P2P networks with a much more serious crime.

I read about this a few days myself. (btw, workaround: Open the file in illustrator, and click import to photoshop). I'd certainly like to have a discussion with the guys who decided to implement such a measure. I can't see what the reasoning was behind it - "I'm sure this will stop the counterfeiters, who won't be smart enough to use an older version of our products"?.

When opening the image of a banknote, Adobe provides a link to a page, informing the user of guidelines for LEGALLY reproducing currency. For example, making the image 50% smaller or 150% larger, or overwriting parts with the text "SPECIMEN". Unfortunatly, users are not able to implement the required distortions because their image editing software turns against them! It's this principal which is important - I expect Photoshop CS to be an image editing tool, nothing more, nothing less - I do not believe that software should be making moral decisions on my behalf.

correct and nicely said Zone-MR