Downloading Flying Music?

In article gers.com, "Doug"
writes:


I hate to break it to you , but downloading music is 'not' stealing ,
regardless of what spin they put on it. No one has ever been charged with
theft by the RIAA. What it is , is copyright infringement, and that is what
people 'are' being charged with.

Doug



By any name you want to apply to it, it is stealing.

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

The guy that stole money from the bank down the street wasn't charged with
stealing either but he stole.




"Doug" wrote in message
e.rogers.com...
I hate to break it to you , but downloading music is 'not' stealing ,
regardless of what spin they put on it. No one has ever been charged with
theft by the RIAA. What it is , is copyright infringement, and that is
what
people 'are' being charged with.

Doug


"DBlumel" wrote

Sorry Jim, we live in a free market economy. If you don't want to buy
because
the price is too high in your estimation, that's your choice. But you
cannot
justify stealing because you think they charge too much. I suppose you
would
only mark your products up 10% before selling, If you had anything
someone
else
would want. So if you don't like a price in the store I guess you would
steal
that also. Or if you though they charged you too much last time you can
steal
it this time. With irrational thinking like that its no wonder our
country
is
going to hell in a hand basket.

(DBlumel) writes:

A buck per song is not bad? Are you nuts? That is as much or more than you
would pay for a factory made cd, even more, when you consider the cost of
the blank data disk.

The only fair thing to do is rip off the music industry as bad as you can,
for overcharging us for music all these years.
--
Jim in NC

Sorry Jim, we live in a free market economy. If you don't want to buy because
the price is too high in your estimation, that's your choice. But you cannot
justify stealing because you think they charge too much.

Sure you can. I justify it for this reason:

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries;" US Constitution, Article I,
Section 8, Clause 8.

The US Congress passed a law which Clinton signed which extends
copyright for some works to nearly 100 years! Does that sound like
"limited times to authors"? Hell no! Congress some time ago ruined
the original intent of copyright and patents, and electronic
reproduction of text, images, and sound has made the whole notion even
more meaningless. Why is it that the little guy is forced to follow
some law which big corporations forced upon the populace; but those
big corporations don't have to follow the Constitution?

I'm for the original intent of the Constitution: authors of works
should enjoy exclusive right to their works for a limited time; then
they're up for grabs. Especially in today's rapid-paced, instantly
connected world--far different than 200+ years ago--"limited time"
should be something between 5 to 10 years for most works, probably
only 3 to 5 years for software.

In article , Bob Fry
writes:


Sure you can. I justify it for this reason:


Yeah, yeah, yeah, everyone can find some justification for what they want to do
inspite of the moral and legal issues involved. Every bank robber is equally
justified in his own mind that its the only thing to do.

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries;" US Constitution, Article I,
Section 8, Clause 8.

The US Congress passed a law which Clinton signed which extends
copyright for some works to nearly 100 years! Does that sound like
"limited times to authors"? Hell no! Congress some time ago ruined
the original intent of copyright and patents, and electronic
reproduction of text, images, and sound has made the whole notion even
more meaningless. Why is it that the little guy is forced to follow
some law which big corporations forced upon the populace; but those
big corporations don't have to follow the Constitution?

I'm for the original intent of the Constitution: authors of works
should enjoy exclusive right to their works for a limited time; then
they're up for grabs. Especially in today's rapid-paced, instantly
connected world--far different than 200+ years ago--"limited time"
should be something between 5 to 10 years for most works, probably
only 3 to 5 years for software.



Spoken like someone who will never have to see the results of their work simply
taken because it can be done and justified because they think they have waited
long enough. Yet another example of situation ethics.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

Key words there are 'limited time'. Creativity in the USA is being stifled by folks trying to extend for an indefinite
time copyrights and patents. You cannot protect intellectual property.

--
Dan D.



..
"Bob Fry" wrote in message ...
(DBlumel) writes:

A buck per song is not bad? Are you nuts? That is as much or more than you
would pay for a factory made cd, even more, when you consider the cost of
the blank data disk.

The only fair thing to do is rip off the music industry as bad as you can,
for overcharging us for music all these years.
--
Jim in NC

Sorry Jim, we live in a free market economy. If you don't want to buy because
the price is too high in your estimation, that's your choice. But you cannot
justify stealing because you think they charge too much.

Sure you can. I justify it for this reason:

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries;" US Constitution, Article I,
Section 8, Clause 8.

The US Congress passed a law which Clinton signed which extends
copyright for some works to nearly 100 years! Does that sound like
"limited times to authors"? Hell no! Congress some time ago ruined
the original intent of copyright and patents, and electronic
reproduction of text, images, and sound has made the whole notion even
more meaningless. Why is it that the little guy is forced to follow
some law which big corporations forced upon the populace; but those
big corporations don't have to follow the Constitution?

I'm for the original intent of the Constitution: authors of works
should enjoy exclusive right to their works for a limited time; then
they're up for grabs. Especially in today's rapid-paced, instantly
connected world--far different than 200+ years ago--"limited time"
should be something between 5 to 10 years for most works, probably
only 3 to 5 years for software.

"Morgans" wrote:


A buck per song is not bad? Are you nuts? That is as much or more than you
would pay for a factory made cd, even more, when you consider the cost of
the blank data disk.

The only fair thing to do is rip off the music industry as bad as you can,
for overcharging us for music all these years.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A buck a song under these conditions is certainly an outrage.
Fifty cents would still be internet highway robbery.

However, since when did two wrongs make a right?


Barnyard BOb -
Curmudgeon with a conscience....
or just the devil's advocate?

"RU ok" wrote
A buck a song under these conditions is certainly an outrage.
Fifty cents would still be internet highway robbery.

However, since when did two wrongs make a right?


Barnyard BOb -

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
g I've got to admit to throwing this out, after I saw all of the kaazaa
and other suggestions. I do not use these services, but wanted to see the
reaction. It was about as I expected.

When someone gets a download fee of 2 or 3 bucks per record (ouch, my age is
showing), or a quarter per song, then I will consider using them. Until
then, the radio will have to do.
--
Jim in NC

Oh, look what I started. Shame on me.
--
Jim in NC

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 15:24:44 -0500, Morgans wrote:


A buck per song is not bad? Are you nuts? That is as much or more than
you
would pay for a factory made cd, even more, when you consider the cost of
the blank data disk.

It all depends on how many good songs there are on the album. If there
are only three or four good songs, then a buck a song to download them
looks pretty good to me.

--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
e-mail: khorton02(_at_)rogers(_dot_)com

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 15:24:44 -0500, "Morgans"
wrote:


"sean trost" wrote in message
. com...

as for downloading music. I used to be partial to Kazaa lite. but am
leaning towards napster again or Itunes. As these sites actually
support the music biz. and 99 cents per song aint bad.
all the best

A buck per song is not bad? Are you nuts? That is as much or more than you
would pay for a factory made cd, even more, when you consider the cost of
the blank data disk.

It's only overpriced if you assume all the songs on a CD are of equal
value. Most are not. If you just want two or three great songs, spending
$1 each makes more sense than shelling out $15 for the three good songs and
12 awful ones. Makes even more sense if the three good songs happen to be
on different albums.

Of course, picking and choosing just a couple of songs from an album can
make you miss out on some unexpected gems. Often, my favorite song on a CD
is not the one I bought the album for.

The cost of the blank data disk is trivial on a per-song basis. I casually
collect LPs and tapes of old flying songs from the wars of the past
century, and have been copying them to my hard disk and burning compilation
CDs (gotta have SOMETHING to sing along with, on the way to the airport).
I can generally cram at least twenty of these on a single CD.


Ron "Stand to your glasses" Wanttaja