Originally I was going to make this poll about the DMCA's constitutionality, but I think it goes much farther than that, instead I'll ask do the rich and large corproations have too much power over us and influence the government too much? I say it's a definite yes and it's getting worse. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is the law that a lot of the big recording companies and film studios are basically using as basis for taking your rights away. I think this law is unconstitutional because it gives too many rights to the big businesses and takes rights away from the consumer. They want to take away your rights to record whatever you want off television and archive it on a medium of your choice which you pay for (through watching ads or paying the cable bill). They want to take away your right to rip CDs you purchased to use on your iPod or other MP3 player. They want you to buy TV shows "on demand" even though you already pay for cable. The want you to buy DRMed music online which has numerous restrictions on what you can do with it and what you can listen to it on. The list goes on and on, basically they just want more and more of your money. I think this law, the DMCA, which allows them to do a lot of this stuff, goes way too far and violates your fair use rights. It seems in this country the big corporations and the rich people have the middle class and poorer people by the throats.

I personally don't like it...

But America is the land of free enterprise... so I suppose manufacturers have the right to sell their products in whatever form they choose... and we have the choice to buy or not buy them.

I personally don't like it...

But America is the land of free enterprise... so I suppose manufacturers have the right to sell their products in whatever form they choose... and we have the choice to buy or not buy them.


No business in this country has the right to unfair business practices. These don't just happen business-to-business; they definitely also happen on the business-to-customer level. Its the duty of the gov't. to insure fair enterprise. Taking away the rights of the paying consumer is unfair. It undermines the idea of ownership because if you do not have the right to listen to the music you paid for as you want, then you don't really own it. Its like you are leasing it from them. And thats wrong.

No business in this country has the right to unfair business practices. These don't just happen business-to-business; they definitely also happen on the business-to-customer level. Its the duty of the gov't. to insure fair enterprise. Taking away the rights of the paying consumer is unfair. It undermines the idea of ownership because if you do not have the right to listen to the music you paid for as you want, then you don't really own it. Its like you are leasing it from them. And thats wrong.


Yea I agree. I think the government is not its job protecting our rights as consumers, they are catering to their corporate friends like they always do and that's wrong.

No business in this country has the right to unfair business practices. These don't just happen business-to-business; they definitely also happen on the business-to-customer level. Its the duty of the gov't. to insure fair enterprise. Taking away the rights of the paying consumer is unfair. It undermines the idea of ownership because if you do not have the right to listen to the music you paid for as you want, then you don't really own it. Its like you are leasing it from them. And thats wrong.


That's true, in a moral sense... but if people don't want to have music that they can't share, and burn onto other CD's, etc, then they won't buy them.   There are still plenty of ways to download whatever music we want and not pay a penny...

When the artists are disappointed because their work isn't selling, maybe a light bulb will go off in their head, and they will realize that this copyright thing wasn't such a smart move after all.

It may be morally unfair to sell a product with copyright protection, but I don't see it as legally wrong.

That's true, in a moral sense... but if people don't want to have music that they can't share, and burn onto other CD's, etc, then they won't buy them.  There are still plenty of ways to download whatever music we want and not pay a penny...

When the artists are disappointed because their work isn't selling, maybe a light bulb will go off in their head, and they will realize that this copyright thing wasn't such a smart move after all.

It may be morally unfair to sell a product with copyright protection, but I don't see it as legally wrong.


Well I'd argue that its an unfair business practice, and in that case there would definitely legal justification for the feds to intervene.

It undermines the idea of ownership because if you do not have the right to listen to the music you paid for as you want, then you don't really own it. Its like you are leasing it from them. And thats wrong.


But when you buy a CD (or movie or video game), you do not own it.  You are basically paying for the right to use it.  And that use is limited.  You can listen to it wherever you want, and make any copies you want for personal use.

However, you are not allowed to broadcast it.  You are not allowed to charge people to listen to it.  You are not allowed to give copies of it away.  You only have a "limited right of use" agreement.  This is because you do not own the music, the artist and publisher do.

sho' nuff they do

When the artists are disappointed because their work isn't selling, maybe a light bulb will go off in their head, and they will realize that this copyright thing wasn't such a smart move after all.


The artists are already hurting.  And I know this first hand.

A friend of mine was a member of a well known "New Wave Band" in the mid 1980's.  They only had 2-3 songs that made it big before they faded into obscurity.

He now does sound engineering work, but the royalties from his songs is still a nice amount of money.  Or, at least it was.

In the early 1990's, his royalties (collected and paid by the RIAA) amounted to around $25,000 a year.  Around $18,000 of that was direct royalties (CD sales), and the rest was from Radio Station airplay, about $6,000 a year.

By 2000, the radio station airplay was increasing, since that era was now being played on "Classic Radio Stations".  That was the year he made the most, around $35,000.  $22,000 was direct sales, $12,000 from airplay.

But that is when Napster and other services took off.  He told me last year that his royalties from 2004 were $19,000.  His direct CD sales had dropped to $5,000, and $15,000 was from airplay.  2002 was the year that airplay passed sales for royalties.

This is the direct influence of illegal P2P trading.  With people stealing the music instead of buying it, it hurts the artists.  And this is only 1 artist.

Everybody copyrights their work.  Painters, authors, musicians, photographers, even TV and radio stations and newspapers.  This simply lets them collect money if others profit from their work.

Most people see things like the RIAA and record companies lawsuits, and only see the companies.  They do not see the people who the companies represent (and have to share the profits with).

The artists are already hurting.  And I know this first hand.

A friend of mine was a member of a well known "New Wave Band" in the mid 1980's.  They only had 2-3 songs that made it big before they faded into obscurity.

He now does sound engineering work, but the royalties from his songs is still a nice amount of money.  Or, at least it was.

In the early 1990's, his royalties (collected and paid by the RIAA) amounted to around $25,000 a year.  Around $18,000 of that was direct royalties (CD sales), and the rest was from Radio Station airplay, about $6,000 a year.

By 2000, the radio station airplay was increasing, since that era was now being played on "Classic Radio Stations".  That was the year he made the most, around $35,000.  $22,000 was direct sales, $12,000 from airplay.

But that is when Napster and other services took off.  He told me last year that his royalties from 2004 were $19,000.  His direct CD sales had dropped to $5,000, and $15,000 was from airplay.  2002 was the year that airplay passed sales for royalties.

This is the direct influence of illegal P2P trading.  With people stealing the music instead of buying it, it hurts the artists.  And this is only 1 artist.

Everybody copyrights their work.  Painters, authors, musicians, photographers, even TV and radio stations and newspapers.  This simply lets them collect money if others profit from their work.

Most people see things like the RIAA and record companies lawsuits, and only see the companies.  They do not see the people who the companies represent (and have to share the profits with).


There's a difference between "stealing" and copyright infringement. Stealing is a crime, copyright infringement is not. This is a civil matter and no one so far has been charged with any crime for downloading music. Now, I don't really advoate free downloading, on the other hand I don't believe copy protection on CDs is right and I will bypass it in order to put music I purchased on my iPod, sorry I'm not buying another copy of music I already own.

There's a difference between "stealing" and copyright infringement. Stealing is a crime, copyright infringement is not. This is a civil matter and no one so far has been charged with any crime for downloading music.


But it is a crime.  However, it is one that is rarely prosecuted.  About the only time it is prosecuted is when it is on a large scale, like the recent conviction of the founder of Kazaa.

Mostly, it is used as litigation by the owners of the copyright or their agents.  This is why the RIAA is sueing people.  If it was not illegal, then there would be no lawsuits, would there?

This is the direct influence of illegal P2P trading.  With people stealing the music instead of buying it, it hurts the artists.  And this is only 1 artist.

Everybody copyrights their work.  Painters, authors, musicians, photographers, even TV and radio stations and newspapers.  This simply lets them collect money if others profit from their work.

Most people see things like the RIAA and record companies lawsuits, and only see the companies.  They do not see the people who the companies represent (and have to share the profits with).


Well I'm a Deadhead and the Dead always encouraged their fans to bootleg as long as they weren't selling them for profit.

Everyone should be able to enjoy music. I know lots of people who can't afford to pay 15 dollars for CD after CD. If they didn't use P2P, the music they'd be able to listen to would be severely limited. Yeah, there is terrestrial radio. But its crap.

Also, there are alot of bands who would not have been able to survive and build their fanbases without P2P.

But it is a crime.  However, it is one that is rarely prosecuted.  About the only time it is prosecuted is when it is on a large scale, like the recent conviction of the founder of Kazaa.

Mostly, it is used as litigation by the owners of the copyright or their agents.  This is why the RIAA is sueing people.  If it was not illegal, then there would be no lawsuits, would there?


I download music because I am not paying $15-$20 for a CD when I only want one or two songs from it.  Also, I like to make my own compilation CD's of various artists.  I wouldn't have a problem paying for CD's if I could get them custom-made how I wanted them.

What I used to do back in the day, was buy a CD, tape the song or two I wanted, then resell the CD to a used record store so at least I wouldn't be out the full amount.  With what is being proposed, people wouldn't even be able to do that.  People wouldn't be able to listen to just the songs they wanted to, combined with other songs from other artists.  I don't think it will benefit anyone, especially when it is so easy to download for free.  I think the music industry will find that out soon enough, and hopefully change their minds.

Everyone should be able to enjoy music. I know lots of people who can't afford to pay 15 dollars for CD after CD. If they didn't use P2P, the music they'd be able to listen to would be severely limited. Yeah, there is terrestrial radio. But its crap.



I download music because I am not paying $15-$20 for a CD when I only want one or two songs from it.  Also, I like to make my own compilation CD's of various artists.   I wouldn't have a problem paying for CD's if I could get them custom-made how I wanted them.


That is why there are legal services like I-Tunes, Napster, E-Music, and dozens more.  You can get individual songs for around $1 each, or pay a monthly subscription of around $15-20.

Or is that to much also?

That is why there are legal services like I-Tunes, Napster, E-Music, and dozens more.  You can get individual songs for around $1 each, or pay a monthly subscription of around $15-20.

Or is that to much also?


No, that's not too much... but my cousin has the Napster Subscription and she said it will let you download the songs, but they are protected so they can't be burned.  The site I use, I think is legal, even though it's free.  There is an option to upgrade to a pay service which gives you more options and more sources to download from.  I think that those who pay are carrying those of us who use the basic free service... not positive, but the site claims to be legal.

No, that's not too much... but my cousin has the Napster Subscription and she said it will let you download the songs, but they are protected so they can't be burned.  The site I use, I think is legal, even though it's free.  There is an option to upgrade to a pay service which gives you more options and more sources to download from.  I think that those who pay are carrying those of us who use the basic free service... not positive, but the site claims to be legal.


If it is P2P, it is not legal, no matter what they say.  That is what got the founder of Kazaa in so much trouble.

If it is P2P, it is not legal, no matter what they say.  That is what got the founder of Kazaa in so much trouble.


I don't have any money so thats all I'll say.

My ex-wife and I were in a small indie band in LA during the mid-nineties. When approached by a larger corporation we declined because the "deal" they offered didn't seem fair to musicians. It wasn't about the money for us and fans could buy our tapes and 45s very reasonably.
We also allowed boot-legging our shows.
Any musician willing to bow to the huge corporations deserve what they get, good or bad.
I don't "steal" music anymore, but I have no problem with people who do.

Originally I was going to make this poll about the DMCA's constitutionality, but I think it goes much farther than that, instead I'll ask do the rich and large corproations have too much power over us and influence the government too much? I say it's a definite yes and it's getting worse. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is the law that a lot of the big recording companies and film studios are basically using as basis for taking your rights away. I think this law is unconstitutional because it gives too many rights to the big businesses and takes rights away from the consumer. They want to take away your rights to record whatever you want off television and archive it on a medium of your choice which you pay for (through watching ads or paying the cable bill). They want to take away your right to rip CDs you purchased to use on your iPod or other MP3 player. They want you to buy TV shows "on demand" even though you already pay for cable. The want you to buy DRMed music online which has numerous restrictions on what you can do with it and what you can listen to it on. The list goes on and on, basically they just want more and more of your money. I think this law, the DMCA, which allows them to do a lot of this stuff, goes way too far and violates your fair use rights. It seems in this country the big corporations and the rich people have the middle class and poorer people by the throats.


Mind you, I think that the DMCA is silly and in the end futile.  With every new "block" that they design, creative people will almost immediately get around it.  It is a colossal waste of time for the studios to push this.

However... For the most part I do not have a problem with the legal aspects of it.  The studios are manufacturing a product (in this case the music) and they set "Conditions of Sale" that go with it.  If you do not like those conditions, you don't have to buy the CD or whatever.

Where I DO get into a problem with some of the proposals by the studios are the ridiculous ones, like trying to ban VCR's (way back when they tried that), or the provision that makes it illegal to write code that can subvert the copy protection schemes. (Although I suppose the legal basis for the latter is similar to gun control...)  Or attemots to prevent manufacture of dual-VCR's and such.  THOSE provisions in my opinion are illegal, and usually they are struck down by the courts.

[quote author=Ły

I personally don't like it...

But America is the land of free enterprise... so I suppose manufacturers have the right to sell their products in whatever form they choose... and we have the choice to buy or not buy them.

"Free enterprise" my eye!  It's socialism for the rich, Spartanism for the rest of us.  Government bailouts for corporate tycoons who can't cut the mustard, and the shaft for unemployed workers.  Steal a thousand dollars and go to prison for a year.  Steal a billion dollars and get off with a slap on the wrist.
"Free enterprise" in which the government puts its thumb on the scale in favor of the already rich and powerful is fascism, not free enterprise!

"Free enterprise" my eye!  It's socialism for the rich, Spartanism for the rest of us.  Government bailouts for corporate tycoons who can't cut the mustard, and the shaft for unemployed workers.  Steal a thousand dollars and go to prison for a year.  Steal a billion dollars and get off with a slap on the wrist.
"Free enterprise" in which the government puts its thumb on the scale in favor of the already rich and powerful is fascism, not free enterprise!


Wait a minute... free enterprise is not about stealing $1000 or stealing $1,000,000... free enterprise is about creating a product of your choice and being able to market it.  If the public likes your product (along with its conditions, flaws, faults, etc) the product will sell and if the public doesn't like it (for whatever reason) they don't have any obligation to buy it.

Heck, I went to the dry cleaners yesterday and they wanted $96 to clean two of my jackets... I said "No way, I can buy new ones for that!" and I walked right out of the store... but they still have the right to charge that... and I have the right to say no.

Wait a minute... free enterprise is not about stealing $1000 or stealing $1,000,000... free enterprise is about creating a product of your choice and being able to market it.  If the public likes your product (along with its conditions, flaws, faults, etc) the product will sell and if the public doesn't like it (for whatever reason) they don't have any obligation to buy it.

Heck, I went to the dry cleaners yesterday and they wanted $96 to clean two of my jackets... I said "No way, I can buy new ones for that!" and I walked right out of the store... but they still have the right to charge that... and I have the right to say no.



All things working as they should in free enterprise, Smith's Cleaners would have to drop their price from $96 to $54 if they wanted to win customers over from Jones' Cleaners who charge $62.  Unfortunately, Smith's Service Station is not allowed to charge $1.50 for a gallon of gas to beat Jones' Service Station who charge $2.50 for a gallon of gas.  When it comes to giant commodities markets such as petroleum, things get much more complicated and "competition" at the retail level is precluded.  For instance, I can drive down Route 9 and look at all the gas prices, and they're all within ten cents of one another. 
We tend to have a "lemonade stand" attitude about free enterprise in America, which does not apply at the mega-corporate level!

All things working as they should in free enterprise, Smith's Cleaners would have to drop their price from $96 to $54 if they wanted to win customers over from Jones' Cleaners who charge $62.  Unfortunately, Smith's Service Station is not allowed to charge $1.50 for a gallon of gas to beat Jones' Service Station who charge $2.50 for a gallon of gas.  When it comes to giant commodities markets such as petroleum, things get much more complicated and "competition" at the retail level is precluded.  For instance, I can drive down Route 9 and look at all the gas prices, and they're all within ten cents of one another. 
We tend to have a "lemonade stand" attitude about free enterprise in America, which does not apply at the mega-corporate level!


I agree about the gasoline... although I didn't know that stations were restricted from lowering their prices.. I just thought that since the retail stations were having to pay a higher wholesale price, that all the stations were going as low as they can to still profit.  I figured that was why they are all pretty much the same.  But as I'm sure you've seen, if Jones gas station charged 1.50 while Smith gas station charged 2.00, the question facing many will be this:  Do I want to wait behind 20 other cars to get to a pump.... or do I want to pay an extra $20 and pump my gas with no wait.    I'm sure you've seen how the lower priced stations will have a huge line... but there are always a couple cars at the more expensive one.  But at least we would have a choice. :)

I agree about the gasoline... although I didn't know that stations were restricted from lowering their prices.. I just thought that since the retail stations were having to pay a higher wholesale price, that all the stations were going as low as they can to still profit.  I figured that was why they are all pretty much the same.   But as I'm sure you've seen, if Jones gas station charged 1.50 while Smith gas station charged 2.00, the question facing many will be this:  Do I want to wait behind 20 other cars to get to a pump.... or do I want to pay an extra $20 and pump my gas with no wait.    I'm sure you've seen how the lower priced stations will have a huge line... but there are always a couple cars at the more expensive one.   But at least we would have a choice. :)


Gas stations do not have enough MARGIN to drop their gas prices much anyway.

The typical Zip Mart type operation sells gasoline for about 4-6 cents above cost.  The REAL money to be made is selling munchies, beer, and ciggies in the store at 100% margins and more.  Thus the retail gasoline price is largely set by entities farther up the food chain.

Here in PA, the Giant Eagle grocery store chain operates its GetGo gas stations, and they offer a discount off the price of gasoline based on how much groceries you buy at their store.  But the INDEPENDENT GAS STATIONS have protested, saying that this is unfair and will force them into a loss.

Also... many gas sations buy their gasoline on consignment which means that they do not own the gasoline in their tanks, the gas distributor does.  So the gas distributor can raise and lower the price of the gasoline that is in the main holding tanks and the store owner kinda has to follow, because he has little margin to handle it.  Why do store owners do this?  Because a 10,000 gallon tank would require $20,000 or so of cash up front.

[quote author=Ły

I agree about the gasoline... although I didn't know that stations were restricted from lowering their prices


That is because of John Rockefeller and Standard Oil.

Back in the 1920's and 1930's, John was trying to gain a monopoly in US Oil.  He would approach a local company, and try to buy them out.  If they refused, he would open a station across the street, and sell gasoline for less.

If the smaller station lowered it's price, he would lower it even more.  With the number of stations he had, he could afford to loose money in some locations.  After a while, the smaller companies would go broke, and he would buy them up.

The checks were put in to prevent that from happening again.  And of course, some areas require special gasoline.  That is why gas costs more in California then in any other state.  State requirements there are unique, and not followed by any other states.

And of course the fact that formulas are changed according to climate as well.  Gas sold in the winter are different from that sold in the summer.