Manchester City Forums

but with buying second hand, they have already received payment from the original sale. if someone just downloads for free then there is no payment made at all.

Huh?

_________________
KYPU

I understand all that, particularly copyright law. I think you're missing the point though. Unless the only reason you don't illegally download is because of the word 'illegal' and you'd rather stay within the law, then what is the difference between second hand and file sharing to you.

Either way you have received the item and the music industry has received nothing from you. Not one penny. Forget the legal/illegal copyright stuff. How is that different.

Think slart me be referring to the fact that many bands offer free downloads, others put their stuff up on Myspace. On top of that their are many legit sites that offer downloads at a fraction of the cost of a CD.

_________________
Joeyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

it doesn't matter who has bought the original sale, so long as someone has.

Point missed. Doesn't matter. So it's okay for one person to buy and distribute to ten million. Well that's file sharing for you. Someone had to buy iy so it's okay. Yeah?

btw I'm not being holier than though here. I buy all my books from second hand shops and as a writer myself I get that this is not putting money in the pockets of authors. I just can't afford to buy full price. When I could, I did.

What kind of a writer are you?

_________________
And put on that wig I bought you. No, no, no, no. The reddish-brown one.

A writer Emigre? *eyes glaze over*

Oh tell me a story Emigre, take me someplace nice.

_________________
KYPU

With me, i tend to find the difference with music is, if it's a new album then you know you can get it on the high street, which i do. however, if it's a back catalogue album from say the 60's or sommat, or a minor release, very often the high street stores don't stock it, so you have to go second hand, or ebay to try and find a copy.

I found this example of Emigre's work Slart

Because the record label, the manufacturer, artist and the bloody inland revenue HAVE received income from the original sale of the CD. Buying second hand CD's cause the record industry hardly any pain. You buy a CD, sell it to me...big deal, end of the day it's YOUR property. File sharing is different, one purchased CD shared for free to potentially thousands of people is a lot of lost revenue, plus as you say you're breaking copyright laws.

Let's say you buy a second hand car, do you have to pay a percentage to the manufacturer or the VAT man? No....because it's yours.

_________________
Joeyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

Novelist. Forced in to design by poverty. Still, the best writers are. Apparently. Except JK Rowling. Damn. I'm doing this all wrong.

Yes. I get all that. That's not my point. That's very very far from my point.

And Jordan and Geri Halliwell.

_________________
And put on that wig I bought you. No, no, no, no. The reddish-brown one.

Well make your bloody point a tad clearer please!!

_________________
Joeyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

Okay, let's try it this way.

Person A buys an album, puts it on a file sharing site and 50 people download it.

Person B buys an album, sells it on ebay, that person then does the same until 50 people have bought it.

The record company, the tax man etc etc etc have all received the money from the first sale but nothing from anywhere else.

Again, how is that different.

Person A has bought one cd. 50 people now have copies. Person B has bought 50cds. 50 people now have copies.

_________________
And put on that wig I bought you. No, no, no, no. The reddish-brown one.

Now you're just winding me up because you know I'm in a bad mood.

Person B bought 1 CD. They circulated it to 50 people but there is still only 1 cd. One sale to the artist, one record sold in the charts. One.

He's got a point there you know?