Author Topic: Piracy is Killing them! (Read 3195 times)

Vulcan · « **Reply #60 on:** April 10, 2005, 06:40:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
You're basically arguing that as long as a shoplifter buys something, he shouldn't be punished for the things he stole.

No I am saying that I shouldn't have to pay for technology in my PC, MP3 player, and car that I don't want, nor deserve.

The RIAA and their croneys are using the piracy issue to drive limiting technology and laws down peoples throats. They are striving for an assume guilt until proven inncocent situation.

What will you say when they charge for each time you listen to a piece of music?

ASTAC · « **Reply #61 on:** April 10, 2005, 06:57:42 PM »

all i have to say is

HHHAAAAAAARRRRRRRRR!!

Mini D · « **Reply #62 on:** April 10, 2005, 06:59:43 PM »

What technology is being limited vulcan? really? Neither you nor gunslinger have answered that. Is it limited in that you cannot copy licensed material? Is that the limitation you refer to? You can still copy unlicensed material though, right?

The RIAA and their croneys have been provided every excuse necessary to "drive limiting technology and laws down people's throats." Or are you actually trying to tell me that Napster was used primarily to distribute legal copies of music? Or are you trying to tell me that Bittorent is not used to download pirated DvDs? You're preaching to an entire internet that knows better vulcan.

If you're only using the software/hardware for legitimate/legal uses, then you're not being limited at all. Everything else is simply pissing about something you have no right to ***** about anyways.

Suave · « **Reply #63 on:** April 10, 2005, 07:33:59 PM »

I'm an internet theif, like most people with a pc and an internet connection. I'm not going to try to rationalize it.

Although, when I find that I really like what I've stolen, I usually buy the product.

Actually most of the games and audio CD's that I've bought in the last 3 or 4 years I had stolen of the net first.

ASTAC · « **Reply #64 on:** April 10, 2005, 07:54:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Suave
I'm an internet theif, like most people with a pc and an internet connection. I'm not going to try to rationalize it.

Although, when I find that I really like what I've stolen, I usually buy the product.

Actually most of the games and audio CD's that I've bought in the last 3 or 4 years I had stolen of the net first.

Yeah...it's kinda like trying it out first..most people will agree that Demo's are a lame way to sell a product..and with music..most of em have flaws or are cut short..so yeah..i too end up buying the CD too.

Tumor · « **Reply #65 on:** April 10, 2005, 07:56:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Suave
I'm an internet theif, like most people with a pc and an internet connection. I'm not going to try to rationalize it.

Although, when I find that I really like what I've stolen, I usually buy the product.

Yep... me too! I'll buy it if it's good stuff, but if it's crap, at least I didn't get ripped off.

Glasses · « **Reply #66 on:** April 10, 2005, 09:26:31 PM »

I think the likes of the RIAA are making potential customers turn away from buying legitimate records and media content due to their fascist persecusion of people that seldom donwload any media content form p2p networks.

That's how the Likes of Lars Ulrich got so much animosity, instead of adapting to the new media types and ways of distribution available they decided to crack down on those same people that bought their records and put in a place where they became multi billionares.

What really angers records companies is that profts for them as a middle man are being cut and potential bands that might sign up with said record labels might distribute their music on a cheaper medium that allows them to gain all profits directly without having to pay a patron for distributing their music, it's a fact most bands make the big dough on the tours,and many new bands that are comuing out that are good gain recognition on the net before any other place .

Vulcan · « **Reply #67 on:** April 10, 2005, 11:05:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
What technology is being limited vulcan? really? Neither you nor gunslinger have answered that. Is it limited in that you cannot copy licensed material? Is that the limitation you refer to? You can still copy unlicensed material though, right?

MiniD you don't seem be to "up with the play" on what they are trying to get passed into the law in the USA, and subsquently forced through in other countries.

The first issue is they are trying to make any product whos "primary" use is illegal ... illegal. Very vague, it could end it up including photocopiers, vcr's, dvd burners, cd writers, tape decks.

The second issue is they are trying to enforce copy protection hardware into every electronic recording device. IE PC's, MP3 players, CD players.

The next one gets very dodgey. They are trying to enforce licensed software/multimedia only. Although they are calling it "authorised". Basically your DVD/MP3 player will not play any music/video that has got a certain type of security certificate. MS was very big into this one (I forget their codename). For example, if I was in a band and cut an MP3 track, you could not listen to my music unless I purchased an authentication "certificate" for my track.

Then theres the music licensing. One law they are pushing goes to the extent of requiring you to own a license for a music track on a per device basis. IE, if you want to play it on your stereo, MP3 player, and card cd player you need to buy 3 licenses.

The most extreme system being discussed is a per play license. Where you download a track and pay for each time you listen to it.

Notice how a lot of this stuff has gone beyond curing the piracy issue to the "lets secure a lifetime of money"?

Mini D · « **Reply #68 on:** April 10, 2005, 11:30:23 PM »

Actually... no I didn't notice.

What I did notice was about 482 million reasons why they are completely justified in their actions. The simple stupidity of thinking that downloading thousands of free mp3s would not bring reprocussions is amazing to say the least. What did you think would happen?

I had a discussion with someone at work about 5 years ago about "free music on the web". Nothing is free, but he wouldn't believe it. There is nothing that won't have some cost associated, but he wouldn't believe it. If I didn't know you lived in New Zealand, I'd swear it was you.

The music industry has never been more justified in their actions than they are right now. Napster, bittorent and whatever filesharing software is out there has ensured that. All those people you are slapping on the back for sticking it to the RIAA are ensuring that too.

Simple short sightedness. It reminds me of the poor souls that were gathering the free fish on the shore as the tidal wave came in.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #69 on:** April 10, 2005, 11:56:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
Actually... no I didn't notice.

What I did notice was about 482 million reasons why they are completely justified in their actions. The simple stupidity of thinking that downloading thousands of free mp3s would not bring reprocussions is amazing to say the least. What did you think would happen?

I had a discussion with someone at work about 5 years ago about "free music on the web". Nothing is free, but he wouldn't believe it. There is nothing that won't have some cost associated, but he wouldn't believe it. If I didn't know you lived in New Zealand, I'd swear it was you.

The music industry has never been more justified in their actions than they are right now. Napster, bittorent and whatever filesharing software is out there has ensured that. All those people you are slapping on the back for sticking it to the RIAA are ensuring that too.

Simple short sightedness. It reminds me of the poor souls that were gathering the free fish on the shore as the tidal wave came in.

SO basically your saying it is right for somone who has never downloaded somthing illegally to be forced to pay for eveyone elses wrong doings. AND that media giants have ultimate say in what new technology comes out.....

You set precidence in one court case and it can change the face of technology for decades.

EDIT:

In addition I can sue 3M if i am ever kidnapped and secured with duct tape?

Vulcan · « **Reply #70 on:** April 11, 2005, 12:09:37 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
Actually... no I didn't notice.

What I did notice was about 482 million reasons why they are completely justified in their actions. The simple stupidity of thinking that downloading thousands of free mp3s would not bring reprocussions is amazing to say the least. What did you think would happen?

I had a discussion with someone at work about 5 years ago about "free music on the web". Nothing is free, but he wouldn't believe it. There is nothing that won't have some cost associated, but he wouldn't believe it. If I didn't know you lived in New Zealand, I'd swear it was you.

The music industry has never been more justified in their actions than they are right now. Napster, bittorent and whatever filesharing software is out there has ensured that. All those people you are slapping on the back for sticking it to the RIAA are ensuring that too.

Simple short sightedness. It reminds me of the poor souls that were gathering the free fish on the shore as the tidal wave came in.

Short sightedness? The music industry ignored the consumer demand for digital music delivery. They said if you don't like our CD's don't buy them. They said if you don't like the price of our CD's don't buy them. So people stopped buying them.

Do you think piracy never existed before Mp3s and the internet?

Answer me this one question MiniD: what is one of greatest sources of lost income due to piracy for the music industry and what are they doing about it?

Mini D · « **Reply #71 on:** April 11, 2005, 12:29:27 AM »

Do I think piracy never existed? No. Do I think it was never as quantifiable as it is right now? Yep.

You could digitize music for some time vulcan. That was never the issue. It was the "grab it for free" mentality that pretty much sealed the consumers fate and gave the RIAA all the power they needed.

The RIAA is doing plenty about lost revenue, you just insist that they should be looking elsewhere... not at piracy. That is something you feel should be championed.

Stealing music instead of buying it is not the answer to the RIAA. That is simple short sightedness. Your failure to grasp that simple fact is astounding. The RIAA doesn't have to do anything about it because it empowers them to do other things.

The RIAA could bully all they wanted, there really wasn't anything tangeable enough to use as a weapon without risking "monopolistic" claims. Napster and 500 million ignoramus remedied that predicament. Well, at least they got some free tunes out of it.

Oh... and I seriously doubt you'll see something on hardware that only plays RIAA licensed music. More likely, you'll see something that requires that licensed software be used to generate the MP3. You see, Microsoft is reaping the same benifits as the RIAA right now. They've been empowered too.

NUKE · « **Reply #72 on:** April 11, 2005, 01:02:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Vulcan
Short sightedness? The music industry ignored the consumer demand for digital music delivery. They said if you don't like our CD's don't buy them. They said if you don't like the price of our CD's don't buy them. So people stopped buying them.

What's wrong with that? As long as people don't steal the product that the music industry creates, then there is no problem.

And the music industry created and launched digital media before any consumer even knew what that was.

Nobody has a right to steal media, peroid.

Fishu · « **Reply #73 on:** April 11, 2005, 01:23:03 AM »

steal.. sure.. items which can be cloned at no cost by the publishers, yet sold at the maximum price.
Funny thing is that many of the retail products contains copy protection systems, which might make it unplayable for some people to listen to it as they want to.
Like it is much easier to just take a portable MP3 player, than a portable CD player, which would also require the CD's to be carried. If the CD plays on the player.

Yet the music is copied just as easily as before, regardless of all the work on the copy protections.
Only thing they work at, is to prevent the paying customers from using the product.

Absolutely brilliant thinking... why do they insist to do it when its useless?
Thats a thing which I still haven't figured out even with the most bizarre logic.

Vulcan · « **Reply #74 on:** April 11, 2005, 07:43:50 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
Do I think piracy never existed? No. Do I think it was never as quantifiable as it is right now? Yep.

Still haven't answered me on the income lost due to piracy.... so I'll fill you in. Its estimated 1 in 3 CDs sold is a pirated copy. It gets worse... they are not pirated in the "copy and print your own cd" sense, many come out the back of factories.

That figure is included in all figures quoted by the likes of the RIAA when quoting piracy loses at the P2P networks.

Thats been going on for ohhh at least 10 years, I worked with someone in the media industry who told me the factory "failure" rates, especially in Asian CD presses.

What have the RIAA done about that?

Quote

You could digitize music for some time vulcan. That was never the issue. It was the "grab it for free" mentality that pretty much sealed the consumers fate and gave the RIAA all the power they needed.

That wasn't just the issue. The RIAA and the movie crowd had a stranglehold on many distribution channels. They still do. Distribution of music was and is monopolised with them hold the price strings. In areas where the music was not freely available the P2P network solves the demands and needs that the RIAA refused to supply. They made their bed now they have to lie in it.

Perfect example of this is in NZ: people here cottoned onto the fact that they could get the latest movies out of the USA on DVD. So the movie companies lobbied the government and got a law passed which prevents companies from importing DVDs within 6 months of their release - forcing people to watch the movies at a movie theatre.

Whats worse, if a movie doesn't get released in the movie theatres it still won't be on DVD on store shelves for 6 months.

So what happens? People download the movies off the net because they can't buy them off the shelves and our movie theatres over here are horrible (some towns don't have any).

Was the law a response to piracy? NO!. Was a predatory move? YES. What was the end result: it encourages piracy!

You get it minid? The RIAA encouraged piracy by ignored the market and the market turned around and bit it in the ass.