Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 54102	2005-02-04 01:51:00	CD copying threats	rodb (1561)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
321372	2005-02-06 01:29:00	If the bloody scheizers in the recording industry had their way you'd be liable to pay a fee for simply humming a tune in the audible range of other people If not, they will find a way to sue you. Even if you are dead. (www.theregister.co.uk)	vinref (6194)
321373	2005-02-06 01:33:00	What is honestly the difference, if you download a copy of a song off the net, or record one on your computer using a tv/fm tuner card etc? Either way you have the song, yet one is legal and the other not. This also goes for recording to tape etc. I fail to see the difference :confused:Because it's illegal also. The way I understand it is that cassette recorders and VCR's can only be used to time-shift something to allow for later viewing. They are not supposed to be sued for archival purposes.	ninja (1671)
321374	2005-02-06 02:25:00	Vinref and Metla, I think your both barking up the same tree, just different branches. It's much cheaper and safer for a recording company to promote something it has created and controls completely than to nurture a creative talent. One will provide dollars on tap, a writing think tank, a few session muscians and away you go. The other is risky with expensive recording time often ending in loses, sketchy productivity and more often than not a creative will and timetable of their own. As mentioned this has been the way for a while now, but I believe it's more prevalent now than ever. Mass marketing is easier and cheaper than ever before, marketing and distribution of a few products rather than a diverse range is relatively economical. Why does the recording industry sue? Not to recover lost royalties, or to feed the artists, but to corner the market, keep it closed. The internet is anathema to the recording industry, they cannot, at the moment, have total control over it. It scares the crap out of them so they react instead of learning and embracing.	Murray P (44)
321375	2005-02-06 04:11:00	Which is easier: Going down to the shop, braving rush hour traffic and cut throat parking just to get a CD, or waiting a few minutes for it to download?	Edward (31)
321376	2005-02-06 04:39:00	So if I record a song once, then as I'm listening to it for the later viewing, recorded it off my recorded track, and did this everytime i wanted to listen to it, its legal? :thumbs: Personally I think the internet has made most of todays artists, without the promotion they would be no-bodys. Also I think they just charge too much for a CD. $25-$35 is just rediculous for the amount that they sell, and the amount of $$ they can produce them for. Say $5 for cd, case, book, printing etc...Thats 500-700% increase per cd.	hsv-b0y (5210)
321377	2005-02-06 10:57:00	Im happy to buy CD Singles, and have a stack of around ahundred of the suckers from the last year and a bit. There is _no_ way they will be able to stop every single pirate. Deter some of the smaller ones, yeah, sure.... But if its playable, its copy-able! DVD's.... CD's... Who cares, I can do the lot. They reakon that they've got their pricing at 'optimal levels', however I know that myself and _many_ other people would be far more willing to fork out if a DVD was only $15, or a CD Album also. I would honestly say there's a good 20 or so albums I would have purchased over the last year, and that many more DVD's at least were the price more appropriate. But for the amount of usage, I cant justify it and would rather Hire the DVD for the weekend and grab a Single of the songs I like. Just sucks when you get something like Eminem's Encore album where Mockingbird should have been the first single, yet they make one of Small Soldiers..... And I want singles of Ass Like That, Big Weenie, and Rain Man.... But I have to wait until my voice is heard, the radio starts playing it, every man and his dog likes those songs, and then the Single is released. Stupid!	Chilling_Silence (9)
1 2 3