 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And to stay on topic. Its just easier to purchase online. Can I find all my wish list purchases at one brick and mortar store? Probably not. Can I get all the latest releases on SAE? Yes. Will I find that bargain CD at my local used CD shop? Probably not. Will I find a bargain soundtrack I want on Amazon, more than likely yes. Shopping online, saves time, gas money, not to mention, traffic, waiting in line, among other things.
It's easier because it exists. In days of old, a whopping ten years ago, it wasn't like this and it was a lot more fun. As Josh said, part of the fun was going from store to store, seeing other people with your same interests. The Internet has yielded some wonderful benefits- closing down the wonderful mom and pop stores is not one of them. For me and others like me, it's a sadder world now. People would rather text than have an actual conversation face to face, and even when they're face to face, they spend all their time checking their phones to see if anyone's called. Anyone who thinks this is for the better is, I'm afraid, a true Internet baby.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, I almost forgot about Crown Books. I applied for a job there when I was in high school and had an interview, but didn't get hired. I really wanted to work there, too, since I've always loved books. Now I'm a librarian. I sure showed them!
A few days ago I went into a local Borders store, just to browse the shelves (and with the slight hope that I'd find a cool CD for a decent price), and although I saw a few interesting titles, the sticker price was over double that for which I could purchase the same exact CDs in the same condition through ebay or amazon marketplace. For example, the HARRY POTTER and STAR WARS (prequel) scores were marked at $18.99 apiece. Really?!? I love, love, love browsing the shelves in a "real" store, and support my local non-chain CD/LP shops (well, the ONE that still remains in San Diego County as of this posting, "Lou's Records") as much as possible, but I'm neither so stupid nor so rich that I don't care about throwing money away. I miss the days when I would hop from one used CD shop to another, all over San Diego, never knowing what I'd find each time and coming home with all sorts of surprises. C'est la vie.
This entire post just about made me cry. But I am on my period right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Mar 28, 2010 - 12:57 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
DJS
(Member)
|
It's easier because it exists. In days of old, a whopping ten years ago, it wasn't like this and it was a lot more fun. As Josh said, part of the fun was going from store to store, seeing other people with your same interests. The Internet has yielded some wonderful benefits- closing down the wonderful mom and pop stores is not one of them. For me and others like me, it's a sadder world now. People would rather text than have an actual conversation face to face, and even when they're face to face, they spend all their time checking their phones to see if anyone's called. Anyone who thinks this is for the better is, I'm afraid, a true Internet baby.
Very profound, man. I wish more people had your insight. People are changing (and not for the better) thanks to huge technological 'advances'. Kids would rather be on Facebook, watching blu-ray movies or playing PS3/Xbox than being outside and enjoying the world by READING, riding a bike, swimming, sports or just going to the local park. It is a fast food society where attention spans are so short and patience is not a virtue, it's a crime (where are my damn chicken McNuggets!!). Kids don't want albums, they just want the hit songs for free online. Long gone are the days of being interested in the cassette j-card or the CD inserts or the songs in-between the hits. Soon, DVDs and CDs will be like VHS, gone in favor of instant intangible downloads via companies like Netflix. All the Hollywood videos have closed here in the valley. The Blockbusters are all gone. Circuit City, kaput. They even recently closed the Winchell's that was here 40 years ago when my mom was a kid. Never seen anything like this before...but I understand it and I know where it's going.
The mom & pop stores are all dying. Here in Palm springs, the malls are turning into ghosts towns, the last decent CD shop closed (a Wherehouse turned into an FYE for 30 years...I bought my first actual TD album there). Comic shops? Forget it. If you listen to the trend forecasters it is not getting better and there are no signs of improvement (Peter Schiff, Gerald Celente...two brilliant guys with incredible track records foresee it getting far worse).
"There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."
It all seemed like a good idea to build Walmarts that had everything for much cheaper prices, Star Trek communicator-type cell phones with texting capabilities, RFID cards, MSG to make food taste better, moving manufacturing out of the country to save money, etc....but it's not going to change things the way we expected. Just examine this generations grammar, spelling, math and knowledge in general. The don't even know the basics of this country's history. We're in BIG trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 28, 2010 - 2:41 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
SchiffyM
(Member)
|
In those days, they didn't care if kids recorded the shows. John Peel's show in England was all the more popular because he played album tracks and not just singles, and didn't talk over the start and end of tracks, so they could be recorded off FM without banter. And artists and labels desperately wanted their music on that show and sold tons of lps because of it. They didn't call the kids crooks.
But I think there's a distinction to be made here. In those days, sure, with enough dedication and love for it, by sitting down in front of the radio at the right time and keeping the room quiet, you could get a decent copy of the show and it cultivated a love for the music. Most of those kids, when they got older, bought a lot of that music to have. The artists and labels wanted to be on there for that reason, and because a lot of people without the commitment or know-how to record the show would go out and buy the LPs. And if your friend wanted a copy, you could make one awkwardly if you had a second tape deck, and it sounded worse.
Now, with only the effort it takes to click a few times from the comfort of your laptop, any time of day that works in your schedule and without even spending the time to sit through it, you can get perfect copies of whole albums, with artwork and everything, that never need to be replaced by the real thing. A single upload can be had by an unlimited number of downloaders, at their convenience, for months or years. Your friend likes it? A perfect digital copy can be had in seconds. Are there any downloaders who replace the ill-gotten music with legitimately purchased CDs? I'm sure there are, but nobody will ever convince me that's anything but a small minority. If people were just looking for samples (which are plentifully offered by most labels, by the way), there wouldn't be the constant clamoring online for lossless copies to replace lower bit-rates.
And sure, you can point to some surveys that suggest heavy downloaders are heavy buyers, but I want to know how these surveys were conducted. Did they catch people downloading illegally and then check their CD collections? No, I'm sure they didn't. They took people at their word. So people who copped to downloading music might naturally say "But I also buy a lot of CDs, so I don't feel bad." Is it really true? I'm suspicious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well you have to consider one thing -- the music has to come from SOMEWHERE. For the most part (though I'll grant not always true) at least one person had to buy it to share it. When you get to the fact some communities require some sort of active sharing on the part of every user, it might at least allow you to think about that fact for a second (in fact, I know of one board where people are constantly taking about having bought this CD here, or those five CDs there, etc sometimes just for the sake of uploading)
Yes and no. While it is true that a poster would be purchasing a single disc to distribute it in their community, they're the only one in that community to do so with that particular disc. So while how ever many people are in the community that are interested in that album — let us say, for the sake of argument, fifty-two — may now have a copy of the music, that's only one disc purchased and fifty-one people who stole the music. That's fifty-one sales that could never be made. How does that not effect record sales?
Incidentally, I know some people whose primary means of getting music is illegally downloading it. And no, none of them buy music. This may be anecdotal, but it is nevertheless across the board as far as I've experienced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 28, 2010 - 8:10 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
Well you have to consider one thing -- the music has to come from SOMEWHERE. For the most part (though I'll grant not always true) at least one person had to buy it to share it. When you get to the fact some communities require some sort of active sharing on the part of every user, it might at least allow you to think about that fact for a second (in fact, I know of one board where people are constantly taking about having bought this CD here, or those five CDs there, etc sometimes just for the sake of uploading)
Yes and no. While it is true that a poster would be purchasing a single disc to distribute it in their community, they're the only one in that community to do so with that particular disc. So while how ever many people are in the community that are interested in that album — let us say, for the sake of argument, fifty-two — may now have a copy of the music, that's only one disc purchased and fifty-one people who stole the music. That's fifty-one sales that could never be made. How does that not effect record sales?
Incidentally, I know some people whose primary means of getting music is illegally downloading it. And no, none of them buy music. This may be anecdotal, but it is nevertheless across the board as far as I've experienced.
The flip side is how many of them would have never purchased the CD to begin with? Either because they don't have the finances or never knew the CD, Band, Singer, Soundtrack existed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not to shove a monkey wrench into this but what about the resale of used CD's (and books?) Corporations apparently have no problems with this? Why don't they complain about that? Why are they not shutting down used CD shops?
You might as well ask why people should be allowed to buy used cars - every time you buy a second hand car are you not denying money to the manufacturers by not buying new?
If 10,000 copies of a CD are sold by the label and I bought one, and then I sell it on eBay or wherever, there are still 10,000 copies of the CD out there owned by 10,000 people. I'm no longer one of them. If I copy it and sell the original there are, in effect, 10,001 copies out there but the label and musicians have only been paid for 10,000. If I upload it to the internet there may end up 500,000 copies out there, and the musicians and label have not been paid for 490,000 of them.
When you buy a CD you don't buy the copyright - the right to copy. Varese, Intrada, FSM, Warner - they have the right to copy. Because they own it, or they bought the license. You didn't. You bought the CD. If I sell it, someone else then owns the CD and I don't. The labels were paid when I bought the disc new.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 28, 2010 - 8:39 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
Not to shove a monkey wrench into this but what about the resale of used CD's (and books?) Corporations apparently have no problems with this? Why don't they complain about that? Why are they not shutting down used CD shops?
You might as well ask why people should be allowed to buy used cars - every time you buy a second hand car are you not denying money to the manufacturers by not buying new?
If 10,000 copies of a CD are sold by the label and I bought one, and then I sell it on eBay or wherever, there are still 10,000 copies of the CD out there owned by 10,000 people. I'm no longer one of them. If I copy it and sell the original there are, in effect, 10,001 copies out there but the label and musicians have only been paid for 10,000. If I upload it to the internet there may end up 500,000 copies out there, and the musicians and label have not been paid for 490,000 of them.
When you buy a CD you don't buy the copyright - the right to copy. Varese, Intrada, FSM, Warner - they have the right to copy. Because they own it, or they bought the license. You didn't. You bought the CD. If I sell it, someone else then owns the CD and I don't. The labels were paid when I bought the disc new.
Copyrights are not just about the right to "copy" or "distribute" , but the right to manage whom can "profit financially" from the product.
What the music industry is saying is, you can sell my copyrighted work and keep a hundred percent of the profits, (by reselling) but you can't share the music for free.
Makes no sense to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You might as well ask why people should be allowed to buy used cars - every time you buy a second hand car are you not denying money to the manufacturers by not buying new?
If 10,000 copies of a CD are sold by the label and I bought one, and then I sell it on eBay or wherever, there are still 10,000 copies of the CD out there owned by 10,000 people. I'm no longer one of them. If I copy it and sell the original there are, in effect, 10,001 copies out there but the label and musicians have only been paid for 10,000. If I upload it to the internet there may end up 500,000 copies out there, and the musicians and label have not been paid for 490,000 of them.
When you buy a CD you don't buy the copyright - the right to copy. Varese, Intrada, FSM, Warner - they have the right to copy. Because they own it, or they bought the license. You didn't. You bought the CD. If I sell it, someone else then owns the CD and I don't. The labels were paid when I bought the disc new.
Copyrights are not just about the right to "copy" or "distribute" , but the right to manage whom can "profit financially" from the product.
What the music industry is saying is, you can sell my copyrighted work and keep a hundred percent of the profits, (by reselling) but you can't share the music for free.
Makes no sense to me.
Obviously.
Let's say Varese Sarabande released a 1500-issue CD of, say, CHERRY 2000. The rights holders (let's say Columbia) have been paid by Varese, and the composer (let's say Basil Poledouris) has got a cut of that. For fifteen hundred copies.
[1] Let's say I bought one at the time, for $20, and played it again recently and decided I didn't like it. I put it on eBay and maybe sell it for $2000. Is anyone really entitled to a share of the $1980 profit? No. They were paid their agreed due at the time for 1,500 copies, and 1,500 people have the CD on their shelves.
[2] Let's say I bought one at the time, for $20, and played it again recently and decided I quite like it, but I could use some money so I make a CDR copy and sell the original for $2000 on eBay. There are now 1,501 copies in circulation. Varese have only been paid for 1,500 oif them.
[3] Let's say I bought one at the time, for $20, and played it again recently and decided it's so good that I should share it with the world. So I upload it onto a filesharing site and 500,000 people download it. There are now 501,500 copies in circulation. Varese have still only been paid for 1,500 of them.
The CD is yours to sell, whether at a profit or not. Or it's yours to give away. Uploading it for anyone to get for free - that right isn't yours. Copyrights ARE about the right to copy - that's what the word means. Varese, Columbia, whoever - they have the copyright. They have the right to copy. You don't. You have a CD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 28, 2010 - 9:20 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
You might as well ask why people should be allowed to buy used cars - every time you buy a second hand car are you not denying money to the manufacturers by not buying new?
If 10,000 copies of a CD are sold by the label and I bought one, and then I sell it on eBay or wherever, there are still 10,000 copies of the CD out there owned by 10,000 people. I'm no longer one of them. If I copy it and sell the original there are, in effect, 10,001 copies out there but the label and musicians have only been paid for 10,000. If I upload it to the internet there may end up 500,000 copies out there, and the musicians and label have not been paid for 490,000 of them.
When you buy a CD you don't buy the copyright - the right to copy. Varese, Intrada, FSM, Warner - they have the right to copy. Because they own it, or they bought the license. You didn't. You bought the CD. If I sell it, someone else then owns the CD and I don't. The labels were paid when I bought the disc new.
Copyrights are not just about the right to "copy" or "distribute" , but the right to manage whom can "profit financially" from the product.
What the music industry is saying is, you can sell my copyrighted work and keep a hundred percent of the profits, (by reselling) but you can't share the music for free.
Makes no sense to me.
Obviously.
Let's say Varese Sarabande released a 1500-issue CD of, say, CHERRY 2000. The rights holders (let's say Columbia) have been paid by Varese, and the composer (let's say Basil Poledouris) has got a cut of that. For fifteen hundred copies.
[1] Let's say I bought one at the time, for $20, and played it again recently and decided I didn't like it. I put it on eBay and maybe sell it for $2000. Is anyone really entitled to a share of the $1980 profit? No. They were paid their agreed due at the time for 1,500 copies, and 1,500 people have the CD on their shelves.
[2] Let's say I bought one at the time, for $20, and played it again recently and decided I quite like it, but I could use some money so I make a CDR copy and sell the original for $2000 on eBay. There are now 1,501 copies in circulation. Varese have only been paid for 1,500 oif them.
[3] Let's say I bought one at the time, for $20, and played it again recently and decided it's so good that I should share it with the world. So I upload it onto a filesharing site and 500,000 people download it. There are now 501,500 copies in circulation. Varese have still only been paid for 1,500 of them.
The CD is yours to sell, whether at a profit or not. Or it's yours to give away. Uploading it for anyone to get for free - that right isn't yours. Copyrights ARE about the right to copy - that's what the word means. Varese, Columbia, whoever - they have the copyright. They have the right to copy. You don't. You have a CD.
I understand what you are saying. Trust me. I own the disc not the rights to the music.
But, copyrights as I said means more than that. The copyright holder has the right to say how their product is used, distributed, re-used or sold and whom can profit from it.
They have a right to say you cannot resell that disc because we own the copyrights to the music on the disc. This is why so many movies and television shows take forever to get released on DVD for example. Some studio owns the television series but might have used music owned by another copyright owner. The music owner says, you cannot use my music on the DVD release because you only paid me for the television rights. Pay up again.
It dosent matter what the product is. The music industry may not have gotten paid for that one extra copy on the internet, but they are not getting paid for the resale value of the copyright music in the used CD shop either. Why are they not entitled to this and why are they not demanding a profit from resale profits?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 28, 2010 - 10:03 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
SchiffyM
(Member)
|
What the music industry is saying is, you can sell my copyrighted work and keep a hundred percent of the profits, (by reselling) but you can't share the music for free.
Makes no sense to me.
This one is very simple: It's not up to them.
Sure, they'd love it if you couldn't resell your CD, just like Toyota would love it if you couldn't resell your Camry. Every sale would go straight to them.
But the law is not in their favor. If you own something, you have the right to sell it. Nobody in any industry is in any position to "demand" that this practice stops.
But, as has been said here, your right to sell your CD does not include any right to make a copy to keep before you sell it.
The music industry has lobbied for, and sometimes won, certain concessions to copyright infringement. For instance, all CD-Rs are identical, but for years, some were labeled "music" and some "data." Standalone CD-recorders (i.e. not the ones in your computer) could only use the "music" ones, which were more expensive, because the RIAA received a payment for each one as the discs were being used to copy music.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I understand what you are saying. Trust me. I own the disc not the rights to the music.
But, copyrights as I said means more than that. The copyright holder has the right to say how their product is used, distributed, re-used or sold and whom can profit from it.
They have a right to say you cannot resell that disc because we own the copyrights to the music on the disc. This is why so many movies and television shows take forever to get released on DVD for example. Some studio owns the television series but might have used music owned by another copyright owner. The music owner says, you cannot use my music on the DVD release because you only paid me for the television rights. Pay up again.
It dosent matter what the product is. The music industry may not have gotten paid for that one extra copy on the internet, but they are not getting paid for the resale value of the copyright music in the used CD shop either. Why are they not entitled to this and why are they not demanding a profit from resale profits?
You clearly don't understand a thing.
The DVD company is buying a license to redistribute the material. They have to obtain the right to copy.
You are not buying a license to do anything. You are not buying a right to copy. You are buying a DVD.
The copyright holder (let's say Columbia) licenses the rights to their shows to a video company. Sometimes that license includes the music, sometimes it doesn't. If it doesn't, if the music is copyright-owned by someone else, they'll have to license that separately or edit the offending bits, track other music over them or whatever. But that's down to the copyright holders. They have a right to copy. They have the right to license that copyright out to someone else.
That someone else isn't you. You've bought a CD or a DVD. You can do what the hell you want with that CD or DVD but you don't have the right to copy it.
Once more for the dumbasses: You don't have the right to copy it.
Next you'll be saying you're not allowed to buy a Star Wars CD for cousin Becky because cousin Becky hasn't actually paid George Lucas for the right to listen to it.
Whether people sell used CDs is of no concern to Varese. They've been paid. They were paid when the first buyer bought the CD. You didn't buy any copyright, so you didn't sell any copyright when you sold it to the used CD shops and they don't sell any copyright when someone else buys it from them. All that's changed hands is the physical CD. The copyright on the music rests where it always did - with the label or the studios. Not with you.
If I sell my CD, why should Varese be paid 1,501 times when there are only 1,500 CDs out there?
This is actually assuming that there are profits to be had from selling to a used CD store, which there aren't. Or, if I sell a $15 copy of GOTHIKA to a used CD store for $5, do I get to bill Varese for my $10 negative profit?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hercule, in your two posts you have explained everything that need be explained. Those who will see, will see. Those who won't, won't. I'm afraid with all the other stuff the Internet has brought us, being stubborn and hard-headed is among the most prevalent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Am I missing something? What happened to the subject/title of this thread and the original post? Did someone go chicken shit all of a sudden?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
