Interesting Analyisis on the subject, however, I lean towards copyright infringment instead of theft. No one seems to mention the legalized theft which goes on daily for all peoples purchasing CDs. A CD cost probably less than a dollar to create, yet sells for 15.00 (out right robbery) of society as a whole (of course this is in my opinion).

True, the owner of any property weather it is real or intellectual has the right to sell said property for any amount he(she) sees fit and society as a whole certainly is not being forced to purchase CDs. Also, the owner has the right to recoupe initial funds spent on creating the product, but I do not ever see the price of CD's going down, once that CD has been deemed profitable within a certain percentage rate.

Since the advent of duplication technology someone has been whinning about being wronged. Cassette tapes were taking the bread and butter away from starving artists and from the industry itself, and Hollywood tried the same thing with video recorders. However one has to ask ones self just how much profit is enough? There will always be someone to purchase your work and generate royalities for you. Society as a whole does NOT do any damage to the profit system by duplicating and in my opinion the technology and sharing only generates more profits in the form of advertisments.

Hollywood certainly agrees. They found that their trojan horse has certainly been turned into a champion fighter for them instead of a defeat because they now earn as much on the Video rental sales as they do at box offices, yet in the 1980's it was nothing but a means to take the bread from their tables.

I also remember in the late 60's and very early 70's about how this EVIL machine called the Xerox copier was the Devil's own creation to infringe on copyrighted material and take money from the owners (not my analogy I assure you). What happened with that? Turned out to be businesses biggest asset in the office. What about the fax? I could go on, but the post is getting long.

This is not a moral post, nor is it a post to say that sharing files is right OR wrong. This post is to challenge the notion that file sharing in a detriment to industries. . . whether its evil incarnate, write or wrong is it is DAMAGING the industry, damaging the copyright holders, taking food out of the mouths of celebrities babies mouths. History records that every technology that has come along which delt with duplication was met with rabid, foaming at the mouth, critics who claimed that instead of making 10 million dollars they only made 9 million dollars.

In the end, in every case mentioned above, duplication has been proven to be a benefit not a harm and as I stated earlier, how much profit is enough? Does society really care about the difference of 9 or 10 million dollars when the average person comes up woefully short?

Dennis

" No one seems to mention the legalized theft which goes on daily for all peoples purchasing CDs. A CD cost probably less than a dollar to create, yet sells for 15.00 (out right robbery) of society as a whole (of course this is in my opinion)."

I would be hard pressed to challange any of your other statements as they gracefully highlight ligitimate aspects of the whole problem.

I would however expand on your above comments. The same thing happens in terms of computing technology. The myth about the prices of technology going down. They don't go down they stay the same. The technology changes.

Does anybody remember when a 486 cost around $2,200?

Consider the purchase history of a single pc buyer attempting to keep up with the latest and greatest pc technology.

This problem is exaggerated by a consumer that does not take advantage of the advanced features offered by the newest pc offering.

So let's say that for a five year period the latest and greatest pc of each respective year costs between $1000 - $1500. This customer upgrades his or her computing technology during each of these cycles. Now mind you that many people don't outgrow their computing needs they simply buy into the hype of new technology.

So the cost to this consumer is apx between $5,000 - $7,500 for the same computing functionality.

Now, your above average technology users tends to purchase technology based on the computing needs. So outgrowing technology occurs at a much slower pace if at all depending on the technology.

So that everyone's clear about what I'm suggesting. For people who use apx 20% of the technology available to them the cost of keeping up is painfully expensive.

So the story goes... Most people including myself have purchased music CDs for only one or two songs (The rest of the cd-I didn't like.) In cases such as these I paid a high price for a couple of tracks off of a twenty song CD. This is not a new problem for the music industry it goes all the way back to LPs and perhaps even beyond. (The industry needs to effectively address this.)

Alternatively, It would be unfair not to mention the times I've purchased a CD for a single song and discovered that I liked the whole CD. This was good because many of the tracks were not in circulation on the air-wave.

It has been said "Great minds may not think alike, but they abserve the same facts". Glad we see more things alike than not. My only thoughts as far as the CD issue is that the technology there is pretty solid. It has not really changed much in 15 years, and what you see is what you get. I do not see the technology behind music changing any time soon either.

Sure, it takes a lot of money to develop a CD. I would like to see two tiered pricing. Sell your CD for 15 dollars up to a point where the industry breaks even on costs and then up to a firm percentage point of profits. Once the profit point is reached, sell the CD at a lower price, say half. Profit is still being generated and the People gets a break. It would go a long way towards PR for the industry also, make us think they actually care (of course they do not....they do not even pay their music celebrites fairly, and MOST do not even have the rights to their on songs, because they sold their souls to the music industry).

Great Debate Lee, you stimulate thinking and I enjoyed your comments greatly. Hope my posts can inspire as much as yours.

Dennis

Dennis,

I'm glad you enjoyed the conversation. I think everyone here has made a good contribution to the subject. To stimulate thinking was exactly one of my intention in starting the thread it's a good way of understanding peoples prospectives on issues that effect us all.


So, I would like to thank you and everyone who took part in this conversation.

__________________
Lee Evans, President
LeeWare Development
http://www.leeware.com

Glad to see this actually ending civilly. Too often debates on the internet end up simply in flames.

Although I still hold that the RIAA and whatnot are artificially limiting resources, inflating the prices without increasing the technology, thereby making things worse for themselves while still trying to maintain the damsel in distress image.

I find it all too hypocritical to start a campaign calling people thieves while sucking up all money and creativity from their artists. The simple fact is that if CDs cost the correct price, or the RIAA went with technology to promote a solution that earned them money, much more would be accomplished not only for them, but also for society as a whole.

I agree with your comments on the root cause of the problem. I hope that someone within the Music and Entertainment Industry is thinking hard about how to capitalize on this tremendous opportunity. Which is what it is.


Thanks again for your many thoughtful contributions.

So If you are Z, how do you know X was infringed. When some Xs say its ok to download.

How is a person to know.

If I use a mp3 player that has digital music content protection, Should I assume if it plays it is ok.

Let me put it a differnt way. Closer to home.

I am a parent, my child 11 want to down load mp3 files, I do not want to not my child to infring on copy rights of others. My problem is I have no method to determin if a given mp3 file is ok to download or not.

How do I explain Its leagel to here a song played on the radio station. Its leagle to tape that song off the air and play it at some other time. But its not ok if I get the same song off the internect and play it.

Do not kid yourself. The RIAA is also condeming recording songs from the radio also. Seems they act as all everyone does who is consumed with greed. Give them a small victory, and they think they can take on the entire world.

As I stated in my earlier post, they want to stop all forms of duplication, and I believe if one looks at it from a right or wrong stand point we all know that WE did not write, produce, sing, or have any rights to that song at all. We certainly did not "pay" into the industry's pool for the rights to play and hear the song. Why then do we think its okay to duplicate the song in ANY way?

No, I am not going back on my previous stand earlier in this thread. I still think duplication spurs on profits and creates advertising for the industry. I still believe that duplicating does not HURT the profit system by duplication, however, I think a question like the one asked is pretty shallow. It is up to us to decide if we are doing wrong, up to each indivual to decide if we are taking food out of the celebrities mouths, hurting the industry by not paying for these songs. I think its obvious to most and the question becomes sort of mute once a individual sorts these things out for themselves.

Is it right or is it wrong? Moral or not? Read my earlier posts on other forms of duplication and I believe you can assume what my position is, however, I will not advocate a stance here. I think you need to figure out if its right on your own.

Dennis

It's actually simple: Think Distribution Channels! Let me put it a different way closer to home - In order to make this a fair comparison let's say you live in a world where by-in-large distribution channels have agreements with X to sell for a fee a product to Z let's call these distribution channels Y so (X -->Y -->Z) = X is the creator, Y is the authorized distributor and Z is the consumer.

Now, let's consider the economics of the same situation (money flow) (Z --pays-->Y ---pays-->X). Being that this is the defacto standard for distribution I think that you can answer this question for your self.

If stores sell meat and consumers buy meat for their families from stores. Would you except meat from a man who *freely offers it* from the trunk of his car? (I get the impression that this would make most people suspicious.)

How is a person to know.

Is it possible that the man selling the meat from his car is an authorized distributor of the content? (sure it's possible.)

Is it possible that this man is an unauthorized distributor of meat?
(highly-probable!)

Now, as a parent who I assume is concerned about your child violating the copyrights of some unknown entity. To use my previous example; "if your children are getting meat from the man who is *giving it away* from the trunk of his car.* I'll leave it up to you as a parent to make the value jugement in this.

There are established distribution channels for these things which include: (Purchasing CDs) from authorized sources for your children. (Signing up and paying a fee for services) which allows access to digital music.

"How do I expain that it is legal to hear a song played on a radio?"

Remember the formula (X ---> Y ---> Z) in the case of radio Y licenses the products from X for a fee Y = radio station attempts to build a subscriber base by offering Xs content. Y makes money from companies who wish to gain access to Ys subscriber base to pitch Ads.

a. X gets money from Y
b. Y broadcasts Xs content to Z
c. Y gets money from C = Companies wishing to push ads to Ys customer base.
d. C gets money from Z who purchases products and services based on those Ads

Don't you just love capitalism!

Hope this helps to clarify things.

http://www.leeware.com

I wish the it was as easy for a parent. In your meat vendor example right from wrong is an easy call to help teach a child right from wrong.

But some music vendors have granted permission for riping there songs and putting on the intenet many more have not.

Is there trusted web site one can use a reference to help determin right from wrong as it relates to downloading a given file?

The goal is still the same, not trample on others copy rights, but if there is a question , teach my child how to research the issue, and make a jugment call.