<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is p2p killing CD sales?</title>
	<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4354</link>
	<description>p2pnet.net offers not-your-lamescream news on movies music digital media P2P peer-to-peer TV television file sharing freedom of speech open source product news Wifi mobiles company</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 07 Sep 2008 08:05:45 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4354#comment-32646</link>
		<author>Reader's Write</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2006 13:33:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4354#comment-32646</guid>
		<description>I agree wholeheartedly, except that you shouldn't be able to sell the reproduced sounds for profit, or even your cost, if any. Sharing is sharing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree wholeheartedly, except that you shouldn&#8217;t be able to sell the reproduced sounds for profit, or even your cost, if any. Sharing is sharing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4354#comment-11742</link>
		<author>Reader's Write</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:11:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4354#comment-11742</guid>
		<description>&#62; if I give a reproduced vine away, it is perfectly legal.

Monsanto may beg to differ with you:

http://www.google.com/search?q=monsanto+abuse

(google search for "monsanto abuse", I can't get working link, sorry)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt; if I give a reproduced vine away, it is perfectly legal.</p>
<p>Monsanto may beg to differ with you:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=monsanto+abuse" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/search?q=monsanto+abuse</a></p>
<p>(google search for &#8220;monsanto abuse&#8221;, I can&#8217;t get working link, sorry)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4354#comment-11721</link>
		<author>Reader's Write</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Mar 2005 23:17:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4354#comment-11721</guid>
		<description>Last year, I went to the local nursery and bought 5 grape vines.  This spring, I have taken clippings from the best 2 and have rooted them.  I intend to give these new plants to 2 of my friends.  

Do you consider this stealing?  Most people do not.  Yet when it comes to music, computer programs and other like items, people are conditioned to say that copying and redistributing them is stealing.  If someone goes to the local music store and buys a cd, he or she is doing the same thing as if he or she is buying a vine from a local breeder.  

When a person takes a grapevine or a piece of music and reproduces it, it is the same act - reproduction.  Just as it costs money for rooting compound and potting medium, it costs money for a writable cd.  Now, if I give a reproduced vine away, it is perfectly legal.  However, if i do the same with the music that I bought, it is considered piracy.

What makes music different?  Is it the varying sounds? If that is the case, then what about the specific traits of the grapevine?  Just as each track is different, so is each grapevine.  Yet governemnt and cartel policy forbid the reproduction of specific sounds and not the reproduction of specific traits (at least not yet).  I don't listen to cartel music, but if I did, I would freely rip and copy a cd or DVD for any person who wishes to have a copy and do so with a clear conscience.  The same goes with movies.  

I believe in the 10 Commandments, and I do not steal.  I do not consider reproduction and redistribution stealing no matter what the cartels say.  However, if I said that it was I that wrote the song I bought, I would consider that a crime (of lying, and or fraud) just the same as it is if I stated that I originally bought the grapevine from Gallo vineyards when I actually bought it from the local plant nursery.  

If I copied and sold a piece of work and mistated the origin of the work (by claming I wrote it or claim it came from Gallo winery), then I would be committing theft by deception (fraud).  The buyer would not be getting something that he or she was expecting.  Music or movies are just like the grapevine.  I can choose to get a clipping from a friend or neighbor or I can buy it from a plant breeder.  Once the music or movie is mine, I can copy it and give it away or sell it just like I can with my grapevine cutting.  What is the differences besides government, court, or cartel policy?  THERE IS NONE!!!  Whether it is the uniqueness of a song, or the uniqueness of a plant, they both are reproduceable and transfereable as far as right or wrong is conscerned.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Last year, I went to the local nursery and bought 5 grape vines.  This spring, I have taken clippings from the best 2 and have rooted them.  I intend to give these new plants to 2 of my friends.  </p>
<p>Do you consider this stealing?  Most people do not.  Yet when it comes to music, computer programs and other like items, people are conditioned to say that copying and redistributing them is stealing.  If someone goes to the local music store and buys a cd, he or she is doing the same thing as if he or she is buying a vine from a local breeder.  </p>
<p>When a person takes a grapevine or a piece of music and reproduces it, it is the same act - reproduction.  Just as it costs money for rooting compound and potting medium, it costs money for a writable cd.  Now, if I give a reproduced vine away, it is perfectly legal.  However, if i do the same with the music that I bought, it is considered piracy.</p>
<p>What makes music different?  Is it the varying sounds? If that is the case, then what about the specific traits of the grapevine?  Just as each track is different, so is each grapevine.  Yet governemnt and cartel policy forbid the reproduction of specific sounds and not the reproduction of specific traits (at least not yet).  I don&#8217;t listen to cartel music, but if I did, I would freely rip and copy a cd or DVD for any person who wishes to have a copy and do so with a clear conscience.  The same goes with movies.  </p>
<p>I believe in the 10 Commandments, and I do not steal.  I do not consider reproduction and redistribution stealing no matter what the cartels say.  However, if I said that it was I that wrote the song I bought, I would consider that a crime (of lying, and or fraud) just the same as it is if I stated that I originally bought the grapevine from Gallo vineyards when I actually bought it from the local plant nursery.  </p>
<p>If I copied and sold a piece of work and mistated the origin of the work (by claming I wrote it or claim it came from Gallo winery), then I would be committing theft by deception (fraud).  The buyer would not be getting something that he or she was expecting.  Music or movies are just like the grapevine.  I can choose to get a clipping from a friend or neighbor or I can buy it from a plant breeder.  Once the music or movie is mine, I can copy it and give it away or sell it just like I can with my grapevine cutting.  What is the differences besides government, court, or cartel policy?  THERE IS NONE!!!  Whether it is the uniqueness of a song, or the uniqueness of a plant, they both are reproduceable and transfereable as far as right or wrong is conscerned.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4354#comment-11713</link>
		<author>Reader's Write</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Mar 2005 22:05:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4354#comment-11713</guid>
		<description>Now if only RIAA BPI and all those other big ass companies start accepting this instead of sueing everyone around them</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Now if only RIAA BPI and all those other big ass companies start accepting this instead of sueing everyone around them</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4354#comment-11692</link>
		<author>Reader's Write</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:55:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4354#comment-11692</guid>
		<description>This just agree's with other studies that have been on a independant level</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This just agree&#8217;s with other studies that have been on a independant level</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
