Comments on: Behind the Pepsi-iTunes parody

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 29 May 2005 17:57:02 +0000

“Now let fair competition do it’s thing!”
If you want fair competition, repeal the laws that shelter the RIAA and it’s ilk from competition. get rid of the laws that ensure they will own the music made from other people’s hard work long after the real artists are dead. laws are being bought and paid for that ensure protectionism for the industry… get rid of them, then start talking abotu “fair” competition.

“CD’s are the main source of revenue from music. ”
Artists make next to nothing from CD sales. SOme of them, end up losing money, because after having a hti album, thye owe more to the music industry then their royalties. That’s why half the artists could care less if you download their stuff. Some even encourage it. The artist make their money from tours and promotions.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 29 May 2005 17:51:29 +0000

ANd laws are still laws.. yeah. Even if those laws exist for the sole purpose of screwing over the artists and the consumer, for the benifit of the few wealthy and are pretty much paid for by what amounts to essentially as bribes? Sen Hatch and Leyhey, who are the two strongest supporters of the music lobby both recieved over $100,000 from the music industry. Look it up…

In the end, the government and the laws are supposed to be made to protect us. the DMCA, the extention of copyrights from 14 years to the life of the artist plus 70 years does nothing to proect the citizens of this coutry or promote society. They exist, so that the music industry adn try and control all the distribution channels.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 08 Jul 2004 09:26:59 +0000

Do what you want, the RIAA is picking it’s battle carefully, meaning you are more than likely to not be targeted.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 15:19:41 +0000

Please do tell me how sharing is “wrong in principle”.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 15:17:45 +0000

It’s not theft. Look up the “fair use” laws. Look up “sharing”. Then come back with a competent argument.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 15:15:58 +0000

Next time try to make it worth my click.

And P.S.: get a life. Why would you laugh at people going to jail for sharing music? How pathetic.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 15:12:51 +0000

It’s not theft. Look up “fair use” laws. Look up “sharing”. And then come back with a competent argument.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 15:08:04 +0000

“ideas belong to the person who thought them up” – Yep. They sure do. And as soon as you share (remember that word?) your idea with someone else you lose all control of it.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 21 Feb 2004 23:54:19 +0000

Your right, ideas belong to the person who thought them up. If an idea can be stolen, so can a song. Copyright Law is only the law used to protect the music. Who ever wrote that someone was, “falling for their propaganda”, needs to take an ethics class, or buisness law class. Evryone else too, I mean that in a good way, everyone should have to take an ethics class, buisness law class, or both before even becoming an adult consumer.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:29:59 +0000

Copyright infringement is a type of theft of intellectual property which involves violating the owners right to reproduce and redistribute the work in the manner that he/she sees fit and or passing off said work of the actual copyright owner to be yours. In the case of music sharing it involves the former. Regardless of what name you want to call free music sharing, who does it, or whether the “big corporations” are ripping consumers and artists off, it is still wrong in principle and still illegal.

Adam

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:16:42 +0000

yes

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:15:07 +0000

As user-unfriendly as some of the online pay distributors can be, they still have the right to dictate the terms of sale. If you don’t like it, you can use another service (or if you’re that passionate you can start your own). I recommend iTunes because it has less restrictions. In fact, I am planning on selling my own music on iTunes. In the sense that I am both the artist and the label, I expect that I will take a decent percent of the profits.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 19 Feb 2004 01:52:20 +0000

And beig perceived by others as cool is really all that is important

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 19 Feb 2004 01:48:25 +0000

SO when I buy a track from PRESSPLAY but I cant play it on my walkman because it’s an ARCHOS not an IPOD and I’m not allowed to make a CD of it, It makes me feel ike something has been taken from me.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 19 Feb 2004 00:45:38 +0000

Property is still property, even if it is intangible. Musicians own property in their songs, and sign a contract that gives the RIAA the right to sell that music. Even if it is unfair to the customer, it is still a contract, and it is still property. Therefore it will always be theft regardless of copyright. Look that up. Sincerly Paul.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 19 Feb 2004 00:45:14 +0000

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 19 Feb 2004 00:44:07 +0000

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 19 Feb 2004 00:40:57 +0000

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 15 Feb 2004 07:37:42 +0000

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 15 Feb 2004 07:35:08 +0000

>> stealing is stealing right?