MP3 downloading
- Thread starter Ljbonobo
- Start date
Zergplex Says
Sounds like a good deal to me, go for it Alyx ^_~
-Zergplex
Bobmi357 said:But but but.... only 5 more posts Alyx... FIVE BLIPPING POSTS.
I DARE YA! I DOUBLE DARE YA!!!
DO IT AND I'LL SPEND THE NEXT WEEK GIVING YOU ORAL ORGASMS!
Sounds like a good deal to me, go for it Alyx ^_~
-Zergplex
Re: Zergplex Says
Yes it does, Zergplex! But I’m trying not to hi-jack the thread. Now, if I can keep my posts on topic, and still break 100 (although that idea is somewhat frightening, since I’ve worked so hard to NOT break 100), I’ll have to hold Bob to his deal
Zergplex said:
Yes it does, Zergplex! But I’m trying not to hi-jack the thread. Now, if I can keep my posts on topic, and still break 100 (although that idea is somewhat frightening, since I’ve worked so hard to NOT break 100), I’ll have to hold Bob to his deal
Bobmi357
Knit one, Perl two...
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2003
- Posts
- 2,529
Re: Re: Zergplex Says
Geez that enough to make me want to take the opposite side of the argument just to rile you into posting again Alyx...
umm ok, Copying is ok... fug'em if they can't spend thier time making something for me to enjoy for free!
Alyx said:Yes it does, Zergplex! But I’m trying not to hi-jack the thread. Now, if I can keep my posts on topic, and still break 100 (although that idea is somewhat frightening, since I’ve worked so hard to NOT break 100), I’ll have to hold Bob to his deal
Geez that enough to make me want to take the opposite side of the argument just to rile you into posting again Alyx...
umm ok, Copying is ok... fug'em if they can't spend thier time making something for me to enjoy for free!
Miles_Cassidy
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2002
- Posts
- 1,678
Bobmi357 said:
I am a musician, music fan, and software junkie. I certainly do not condone stealing. But i must take issue with a couple points you have made. The whole "you forced the riaa to spend ungodly amounts..." is false. The major record labels and Tower Records were found guilty of price fixing well before napster or any other p2p service enabled trading over the internet. Copy-protection has been around for movies and various other media well before p2p trading became popular. It is the reponsibility of the artist/company to protect their own work. If they dont want their cd ripped to a .wav or mp3 then they should take measures to stop that copying. Just as you, as a software engineer, should take measures to copy-protect your work.
The argument "i shouldnt have to put in the extra time and money to have copy protection" is just as bogus as the excuses some people come up with for downloading music. In a perfect world that argument would hold water but we live in a non-perfect world where people dont always do what you or I may think is "right."
For instance, you buy a brand new hummer, go to a bad section of town and leave it unlocked with the keys in the ignition, its going to be stolen. I certainly blame the people who did the actual theft but i also blame the owner for not securing their property. It is why they sell car alarms, tracking devices, home security systems, security cams, etc. It is to bad we live in a society that we have to go to extreme measures to protect ourselves and belongings but that is the fact. You might have to spend more time and money on copy-protection for your software but the guy that owns quicky-mart has to spend more money on surveillance equipment. It sucks but thats how it is. I certainly sympathize with you but at the same time you have to take responibility for your own work and secure it in a manner which works for you and the end user.
I also want to say that many bands/musicians have benefited from free trading of their music. The Grateful Dead were pioneers of free trade and fostering a community. They never had a number 1 song or top-selling album, allowed their music to be traded freely, and yet are still one of the top grossing bands of all-time. Phish, Widespread panic, String Cheese Incident, Public Enemy, and many other bands subscribe to this theory and are doing quite nicely for themselves. While i dont think that people should be trading music of bands that dont want their stuff freely traded, I also dont agree with the "bottom line" principles of the RIAA which has nothing to do with music and everything to do with money. I personally do not want anything to do with an "artist" who is more concerned about selling a million albums then actually putting out good music, sales be damned. These companies use and abuse the artists and as soon as they release an album that doesnt meet their expectations they cut them loose. The companies represented by the RIAA have no integrity whatsoever. Which makes it quite hard to sympathize with their fight against p2p. I dont think that stealing is the answer either but it is obvious something needs to change in the music industry.
While i am not a big Phish fan i think they are the perfect model for budding musicans. Last year they sold less then 500,000 albums but still grossed over $20 million. They allowed the trading of their music from the beginning, did a great job of self promotion, and built up a following through touring and hard work over many years. All the while doing what they wanted to do and how they wanted to do it. No different then any other job. Go to school, study hard, get a job, work hard, and hopefully, over time, make some good money. The whole "get rich quick" mentality in the record industry does nothing to foster a community of fans for a particular band and does nothing for putting out truly artistic recordings. As a musician, my concern is trying to get as many people as possible to hear my music. Not making millions of dollars. The day i am more concerned with money then music will be the day i put down my guitar forever.
Miles_Cassidy
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2002
- Posts
- 1,678
Also, does anyone else think that its funny that sony, who produces and sells music, also makes cd burners, blank cd-r's, mp3 players, and various other devices that help continue the popularity of p2p trading? They seem to be saying "please stop trading mp3's, but please buy our mp3 players."
hmmm.
For anyone interested in non-riaa musicians i suggest you check out www.cdbaby.com ...great site for musicians and fans alike!
hmmm.
For anyone interested in non-riaa musicians i suggest you check out www.cdbaby.com ...great site for musicians and fans alike!
Bobmi357
Knit one, Perl two...
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2003
- Posts
- 2,529
Miles_Cassidy said:
Sure copy protection has been around in various forms for the software industry since the mid 80's. But even in that industry it isn't always applicable.
For the bulk of the software I market, they are targetted to a very specific market and run on web servers. They are open source because there isn't any easy way of copy protecting open source perl and php code. There are a few hacks out there that do provide alteration protection, but not copy protection. The bulk of the copy protection exists on the desktop, not at the server level.
Your excuses and examples make no sense. This isn't a case of my parking my hummer and having it stolen. It was a case of one registered purchase of software being passed from site to site to site. Oh I suppose I could have made people sign some sort of copy it and die contract, but I wanted people to buy the program, not scare them off. 99% of people blow though most ULA's without bothering to read them.
For some strange reason people seem to think this issue is solely about music when its merely the most visible tip of this legal iceberg. Personally I could care less about music, to me the issue isn't about music, its about protecting one's intellectual property, be it music, poetry, erotic literature or software. I support RIAA only because they are the only ones actively supporting the copyright laws, laws which I might add, protect me and my sources of income.
The Motion Picture association has also made noises about the illegal copying. And I'll support their efforts as well. Because if they fail, then I'll have no legal protection for my own work. If you invalid the law for one medium you risk invalidating it for all mediums.
And the day you start trying to feed your family using your music, like I feed my family with my software, will be the day you put down your guitar I reckon.
Miles_Cassidy
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2002
- Posts
- 1,678
Bobmi, i made no excuses and, sorry if you dont get the hummer analogy. But there is no need to be condescending. I pretty much agree with your side of the argument but was trying to bring something different to the conversation. Its to bad you see it as an attack and not just honest debating. I joined in the thread because it interested me...not to flame people for their opinions. I appreciate that you are quite emotionally tied to the subject but that does not justify you making assumptions about me and the general contempt you show for different points of view. If anything, your strong emotional attachment prevents you from being fully objective.
Anyhow...I do realize this is about intellectual property not just music. But the tactics of the riaa stand in stark contrast to those of the mpaa, the porn industry, software developers, and e-books. Therefore the conversations about p2p usually center around music.
Its not a matter of just the Hummer being stolen. The analogy related more to the owner leaving the keys in the car (read: no copy-protection in your software). We all know that people pirate software but yet you choose to not use any copy protection. The excuse that "Oh I suppose I could have made people sign some sort of copy it and die contract, but I wanted people to buy the program" is facetious at best because you didnt even try to sell the program with copy-protections in place and therefore have no idea what users might think of those anti-piracy measures. You said it didnt sell well but was pirated many times. Having no copy protection didnt seem to help either.
It seems that you dont want people to copy your work but dont want to do anything about it on your end. I certainly wish people wouldnt steal but we both know they do. Instead of having a lawyer track down individual thieves over $20 wouldnt the time and money be better spent on developing a protection scheme for your work. If you dont want people to copy it, the responsibilty falls on your shoulders. Just as it has fallen on the shoulders of the music and movie industries to protect their works. Then its up to the public to decide whether they can live with the particular anti-piracy measure.
Anyhow...I do realize this is about intellectual property not just music. But the tactics of the riaa stand in stark contrast to those of the mpaa, the porn industry, software developers, and e-books. Therefore the conversations about p2p usually center around music.
Its not a matter of just the Hummer being stolen. The analogy related more to the owner leaving the keys in the car (read: no copy-protection in your software). We all know that people pirate software but yet you choose to not use any copy protection. The excuse that "Oh I suppose I could have made people sign some sort of copy it and die contract, but I wanted people to buy the program" is facetious at best because you didnt even try to sell the program with copy-protections in place and therefore have no idea what users might think of those anti-piracy measures. You said it didnt sell well but was pirated many times. Having no copy protection didnt seem to help either.
It seems that you dont want people to copy your work but dont want to do anything about it on your end. I certainly wish people wouldnt steal but we both know they do. Instead of having a lawyer track down individual thieves over $20 wouldnt the time and money be better spent on developing a protection scheme for your work. If you dont want people to copy it, the responsibilty falls on your shoulders. Just as it has fallen on the shoulders of the music and movie industries to protect their works. Then its up to the public to decide whether they can live with the particular anti-piracy measure.
horny_boi
Loves Spam
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2003
- Posts
- 309
haha i wouldn't even use your software for one thing, if i had to i wouldn't be paying for it anyways. thats just my personal feelings.Bobmi357 said:
but professionally speaking their are quite a few loop holes bobmi and with a good lawyer you will loose money by trying to sue ( i don't know about in U.S. but in australia $10,000 upfront minimum for bringing an action against them) and if you loose. . . you have all the others fee's also. . . don't always think the law is fair because it is not.
Michelle-TV
Virgin
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2004
- Posts
- 5
Something that I've wondered about is this........ I've got quite a lot of albums on cassette that I'd like to transfer to my Nomad Jukebox. Now I could do this easily enough but the quality won't be great, so am I stealing if I download tracks from these albums of the 'net.
I have paid the artist/record company for the right to listen to the track by buying the cassette and it seems a waste of money to buy a CD just to transfer it at better quality.
Just curious to what people think.
I have paid the artist/record company for the right to listen to the track by buying the cassette and it seems a waste of money to buy a CD just to transfer it at better quality.
Just curious to what people think.
Bobmi357
Knit one, Perl two...
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2003
- Posts
- 2,529
Miles,
There are several computer languages which are heavily used today which are not copy protected. For example, vBulletin, the software which runs this literotica BBS is NOT copy protected. Its a mix of mySql and Php with zero copy protection.
Gossamer Threads makes links, a clone of the Yahoo directory system which is a hybrid of perl, sql and html. None of which are copy protected.
Perl and PHP are interpreted computer languages. And as such the source of all programs for those languages must be readable to the interperter, and editable by an editor. Even a compiled language such as C or C++ are delivered open sourced so that they may be compiled on the machine with the appropriate changes to reflect the hardware on that machine. AGAIN open sourced.
Very little, if any, of the unix server software has any form of copy protection. Thats the nature of the beast. Most even lack any form of alteration protection. Even if I were to offer the software in C rather than perl or php, it would still require compiling on the intended host platform. And would hence be open to copying as well as alteration.
Your comments concerning this topic reflect your musical background and your lack of your computer science background. Copy protection is common on desktop Windows and Mac systems because people are used to buying software on disk and installing from those disks. Software like vBulletin or our SpiderView are delivered electronically, either via downloading from the server or via email.
I've been in this business of making server software since 1994 and I know of NO company that sends you a floppy or a CD full of server secondary software like BBS's or what we make. Oh to be sure, there are a few companies out there that will sell you a CD with a collection on them to save you downloading time, but all of that software is open sourced and fully copyable.
Its all well and good to say that one should invent a copy protection scheme, but I defy someone to think of one when the files are delivered electronically. And we all know electronic delivery is becoming more and more common, not less.
Perhaps someday people will deliver encrypted software to the end user electronically, but I doubt that will happen. The problem lies in the delivery system. 99% of the webmasters out there aren't surfing the web via their own server, they are surfing via their desktop system and usually that desktop system acts as an intermediate step holding a copy of the software before its installed on the server. My system holds dozens of such copies of software I've installed for clients as well as original copies of the software I've written. The other option, which I'm sure you are cognizant of, would be to allow direct server to server transfer of said software. Of course this would be a potential security nightmare, and a possible backdoor for hacking so we won't bother talking about it.
This little problem isn't limited to the unix world either. DHTML and Javascripts are open source and can be found on unix as well as windows web servers. ASP is open sourced and found on millions of windows web servers. Java is not open sourced, but it rarely contains any copy protection if ever.
This is not an issue which one can simply wave a magic wand and state "Let there be copy protection". I didn't choose to sell my software without copy protection, I followed my industry in conforming to a standard and using standard languages and accepted practises. Unless you're a microsoft, breaking with the accepted standards in the IT industry is a bad idea. Its even a bad idea for microsoft, but they still continue to do it every chance they get.
So lets just chuck that "You opted to use no copy protection" comment out the window. Its neither an applicable nor a valid argument.
My apologies to everyone else on this thread, the last thing I wanted to do is spend the time educating people as to the ins and outs of software copy protection as it applies to web server software.
There are several computer languages which are heavily used today which are not copy protected. For example, vBulletin, the software which runs this literotica BBS is NOT copy protected. Its a mix of mySql and Php with zero copy protection.
Gossamer Threads makes links, a clone of the Yahoo directory system which is a hybrid of perl, sql and html. None of which are copy protected.
Perl and PHP are interpreted computer languages. And as such the source of all programs for those languages must be readable to the interperter, and editable by an editor. Even a compiled language such as C or C++ are delivered open sourced so that they may be compiled on the machine with the appropriate changes to reflect the hardware on that machine. AGAIN open sourced.
Very little, if any, of the unix server software has any form of copy protection. Thats the nature of the beast. Most even lack any form of alteration protection. Even if I were to offer the software in C rather than perl or php, it would still require compiling on the intended host platform. And would hence be open to copying as well as alteration.
Your comments concerning this topic reflect your musical background and your lack of your computer science background. Copy protection is common on desktop Windows and Mac systems because people are used to buying software on disk and installing from those disks. Software like vBulletin or our SpiderView are delivered electronically, either via downloading from the server or via email.
I've been in this business of making server software since 1994 and I know of NO company that sends you a floppy or a CD full of server secondary software like BBS's or what we make. Oh to be sure, there are a few companies out there that will sell you a CD with a collection on them to save you downloading time, but all of that software is open sourced and fully copyable.
Its all well and good to say that one should invent a copy protection scheme, but I defy someone to think of one when the files are delivered electronically. And we all know electronic delivery is becoming more and more common, not less.
Perhaps someday people will deliver encrypted software to the end user electronically, but I doubt that will happen. The problem lies in the delivery system. 99% of the webmasters out there aren't surfing the web via their own server, they are surfing via their desktop system and usually that desktop system acts as an intermediate step holding a copy of the software before its installed on the server. My system holds dozens of such copies of software I've installed for clients as well as original copies of the software I've written. The other option, which I'm sure you are cognizant of, would be to allow direct server to server transfer of said software. Of course this would be a potential security nightmare, and a possible backdoor for hacking so we won't bother talking about it.
This little problem isn't limited to the unix world either. DHTML and Javascripts are open source and can be found on unix as well as windows web servers. ASP is open sourced and found on millions of windows web servers. Java is not open sourced, but it rarely contains any copy protection if ever.
This is not an issue which one can simply wave a magic wand and state "Let there be copy protection". I didn't choose to sell my software without copy protection, I followed my industry in conforming to a standard and using standard languages and accepted practises. Unless you're a microsoft, breaking with the accepted standards in the IT industry is a bad idea. Its even a bad idea for microsoft, but they still continue to do it every chance they get.
So lets just chuck that "You opted to use no copy protection" comment out the window. Its neither an applicable nor a valid argument.
My apologies to everyone else on this thread, the last thing I wanted to do is spend the time educating people as to the ins and outs of software copy protection as it applies to web server software.
CottonSilk
Virgin
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Posts
- 9
I'm curious as to what people think about this. What about my one legal back-up copy I'm entitled to make of any software (maybe music?) by fair use law and the encryption/copy-protection that infringes on my right to do this.
I mean the provision that allows a copy as long as it's not in operation at the same time (as well as some other restrictions) that can't be taken away by little messeges that basically say no copying.
Should I be able to sue? Should companies be forced to provide a second copy for free? As of now the law in contradictory. In order to make the back-up I would need to break a copy -protection in some cases (illegal) , but I am entitled to the back-up under fair use law. I know this contradicts the newer DMCA, although the DMCA itself outlaws Sharpe Markers in it's current form since they bypass copy protection.
I'm curious of both the music as well as the software aspects. So what do people think? Should fair use law take a back seat to copyrights?
I mean the provision that allows a copy as long as it's not in operation at the same time (as well as some other restrictions) that can't be taken away by little messeges that basically say no copying.
Should I be able to sue? Should companies be forced to provide a second copy for free? As of now the law in contradictory. In order to make the back-up I would need to break a copy -protection in some cases (illegal) , but I am entitled to the back-up under fair use law. I know this contradicts the newer DMCA, although the DMCA itself outlaws Sharpe Markers in it's current form since they bypass copy protection.
I'm curious of both the music as well as the software aspects. So what do people think? Should fair use law take a back seat to copyrights?
Last edited:
horny_boi
Loves Spam
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2003
- Posts
- 309
CottonSilk said:
Your entitled to as many copies of the software cd as you like, But you have only payed for one license so it is only allowed to be installed/used on one computer at a time unless you purchase more? i think. . . i am not certain.
I think the tendency is to ignore things that don't affect us directly, ie, the non musicians, generally speaking, don' t have a problem w/ downloading music (but these same people probably wouldn't tap into a cable TV line to get service for free...jail time involved there, instead of the threat of a RIAA lawsuit).
It's a fairly simple premise, at least to me, that if someone creates something, and someone else wishes to enjoy that creation, if there is a fee associated with it, PAY IT.
I used to be neutral on the d/l music thing until I made a couple of friends that do heavy hitter sessions in Nashville. Do they need the money, most generally, not these guys, they lap me by 20 fold on the annual salary track. The point is, they work to produce this music which is SOLD (a process whereby goods and/or services are exchanged for money).
Download some groceries to your pocket sometime, or a nice new CD player at Wal Mart, hey, no harm, no foul, right? Those food conglomerates and electronics companies have all the money they need...
As far as country music "sucking", I do have my own musical likes and dislikes, but generally I avoid making such sweeping judgements on the quality thereof. I don't understand jazz, but as a musician, I appreciate the talent that went into making it. Thus, just because one doesn't appreciate it, doesn't mean it sucks.
Or more plainly put, pick up an instrument, any instrument, but let's say a guitar, or a "country" instrument like pedal steel (don't pick them up, they weigh 90 lb), then proceed to play me any three chord country song. Pick one, I don't care. If it sucks that badly, it ought to be easy, right? Right?
Be sure to catch that diminished chord in the first couple bars of I've Got Friends in Low Places...that song really *sucks* if you miss it.
It's a fairly simple premise, at least to me, that if someone creates something, and someone else wishes to enjoy that creation, if there is a fee associated with it, PAY IT.
I used to be neutral on the d/l music thing until I made a couple of friends that do heavy hitter sessions in Nashville. Do they need the money, most generally, not these guys, they lap me by 20 fold on the annual salary track. The point is, they work to produce this music which is SOLD (a process whereby goods and/or services are exchanged for money).
Download some groceries to your pocket sometime, or a nice new CD player at Wal Mart, hey, no harm, no foul, right? Those food conglomerates and electronics companies have all the money they need...
As far as country music "sucking", I do have my own musical likes and dislikes, but generally I avoid making such sweeping judgements on the quality thereof. I don't understand jazz, but as a musician, I appreciate the talent that went into making it. Thus, just because one doesn't appreciate it, doesn't mean it sucks.
Or more plainly put, pick up an instrument, any instrument, but let's say a guitar, or a "country" instrument like pedal steel (don't pick them up, they weigh 90 lb), then proceed to play me any three chord country song. Pick one, I don't care. If it sucks that badly, it ought to be easy, right? Right?
Be sure to catch that diminished chord in the first couple bars of I've Got Friends in Low Places...that song really *sucks* if you miss it.
Bobmi357
Knit one, Perl two...
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2003
- Posts
- 2,529
horny_boi said:
You may have multiple backup copies of software. Some software allows for multiple installations, some doesn't.
For example our software has two different licenses depending upon your needs. There is a single domain license and a host license. The single domain license allows the software to be installed in the cgi directory of one domain while a host license allows it to be installed on multiple host servers.
What you are not allowed to do is (a) give one of those backup copies to a friend to install on their machine, (b) put either the uninstalled or installed versions online for people to download.
Ljbonobo
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2002
- Posts
- 948
chemyst said:
Hmmmm.....
Let me make a list of all the ones I know of that are pretty easy to play (my guitar skills not being all that great)
Travis Tritt - Trouble, Here's a quarter (call someone who cares)
Allison Krause - When you say nothing at all
Johnny Cash - Wreck of the Old 97
I play all of those with just 3 chords, if you want to move to more chords then .....there's a bunch more
ReadyOne
Ready to Rock!
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2003
- Posts
- 2,112
License vs. Media
I've not seen the problem of license vs. media addressed.
The industry acts like you buy the media, and the content is free. In fact, the media is trivial and most of the fee is for a license for the content.
Software example first.
I have a customer that paid (someone else) about $300 x 9 computers a while back to get a a copy of Office installed on each. They received one set of CDs and 9 certificates with "magic numbers" on them which allowed them to install. Note they were honest in buying 9 licenses -- they could have bought 1 and installed it 9 times and M$ would not have know.
Roll the clock forward a few years and it's time for me to replace their computers. They want Office installed; they own 9 licenses. But .... they've lost a CD.
Microsoft and it's distributors would not sell them the one missing CD at any price. They would sell them a set at full price (about $300) and included a strong warning with the offer than it could be used on only one computer.
In other words, Microsoft insisted that this customer re-buy the 9 licenses he'd already purchased for an additional $2500. All he needed was replacement media, $10 in most cases.
Now about music. I have a bunch of vinyl records. I love some of the songs on them, but I can't get them onto CD. Even if I had a setup to play vinyls into a sound card, many have been damaged in storage over the years, and there's even people who will say I'm pirating by doing so.
Now I bought a license to the song. I had even, under "fair use", copied songs from them onto tape so I could listen to the songs on my car stereo, and the cost of the blank tape I copied them onto actually included a very small kickback to the industry in the name of "lost royalties".
Can I get replacement media? I bought the right to listen to the music years ago.
No -- some are "out of print" and I have to buy a license (pay $15-$20) a second time for those I can find to special order.
How about movies? I bought "Lord of the Rings" special edition DVD and the darn kids put a scratch on the movie DVD about a week after it got home.
Can I get replacement media?
Only if I pay another $30, the same price I paid originally. I'd gladly trade them the scratched DVD for an unscratched DVD and include a fair price for the media.
It's greedy and unmoral for industry to bitch about not getting license fees when those who have already paid the license fee can't get media.
I've not seen the problem of license vs. media addressed.
The industry acts like you buy the media, and the content is free. In fact, the media is trivial and most of the fee is for a license for the content.
Software example first.
I have a customer that paid (someone else) about $300 x 9 computers a while back to get a a copy of Office installed on each. They received one set of CDs and 9 certificates with "magic numbers" on them which allowed them to install. Note they were honest in buying 9 licenses -- they could have bought 1 and installed it 9 times and M$ would not have know.
Roll the clock forward a few years and it's time for me to replace their computers. They want Office installed; they own 9 licenses. But .... they've lost a CD.
Microsoft and it's distributors would not sell them the one missing CD at any price. They would sell them a set at full price (about $300) and included a strong warning with the offer than it could be used on only one computer.
In other words, Microsoft insisted that this customer re-buy the 9 licenses he'd already purchased for an additional $2500. All he needed was replacement media, $10 in most cases.
Now about music. I have a bunch of vinyl records. I love some of the songs on them, but I can't get them onto CD. Even if I had a setup to play vinyls into a sound card, many have been damaged in storage over the years, and there's even people who will say I'm pirating by doing so.
Now I bought a license to the song. I had even, under "fair use", copied songs from them onto tape so I could listen to the songs on my car stereo, and the cost of the blank tape I copied them onto actually included a very small kickback to the industry in the name of "lost royalties".
Can I get replacement media? I bought the right to listen to the music years ago.
No -- some are "out of print" and I have to buy a license (pay $15-$20) a second time for those I can find to special order.
How about movies? I bought "Lord of the Rings" special edition DVD and the darn kids put a scratch on the movie DVD about a week after it got home.
Can I get replacement media?
Only if I pay another $30, the same price I paid originally. I'd gladly trade them the scratched DVD for an unscratched DVD and include a fair price for the media.
It's greedy and unmoral for industry to bitch about not getting license fees when those who have already paid the license fee can't get media.
Last edited:
Similar threads
