Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Vulcan on March 21, 2007, 05:26:52 PM
-
Mini D interesting article for you to read here: http://consumerist.com/consumer/drm/how-i-became-a-music-pirate-245644.php
It re-affirms my position that the more DRM the music and movie industries throw at us the more they drive average jane/joe's to become 'pirates'.
-
LOL!
Yeppers... there was no piracy before DRM, only because of it. DRM wasn't addressing anything, it only caused piracy.
When was napster created and when was DRM for MP3's created?
-
Let me give you a testimonial:
I really wanted these songs, but I didn't want to buy them. So, I downloaded them for free.
-Millions of other people
-
I bet most of these musicians and rappers were really anal at the start of their career over free air time right?
-
I'm sure instruments, recording studios and mixing is free, right?
If they want to give a song or two for free, they should have the right to control their intellectual property.
I mean would Vulcan want his flight sim to be...oh wait, nevermind.
-
brb....Gonna download every metallica song ever released on limewire....
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Mini D interesting article for you to read here: http://consumerist.com/consumer/drm/how-i-became-a-music-pirate-245644.php
It re-affirms my position that the more DRM the music and movie industries throw at us the more they drive average jane/joe's to become 'pirates'.
:huh
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Mini D interesting article for you to read here: http://consumerist.com/consumer/drm/how-i-became-a-music-pirate-245644.php
It re-affirms my position that the more DRM the music and movie industries throw at us the more they drive average jane/joe's to become 'pirates'.
Dress it up anyway you like, your still a theif if you download music you didn't pay for.
-
The RIAA isn't immaculate in its methods either, is it?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Dress it up anyway you like, your still a theif if you download music you didn't pay for.
And? So what? What is your point and how is that relevant to the statement I posted.
You can jump up and down scream "but you're stealing!" all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that as the RIAA moves towards more and more restrictive licensing models they will encourage people to source their music (and movies) illegally. (btw, fyi, it is not stealing, it is copyright infringement which is a licensing issue - not theft).
The problem has gone beyond the legitimising argument (ie piracy (copyright infringement) being justified by the illegal acts of the RIAA and its failure to provide content in form the market is demanding).
-
Originally posted by Mini D
LOL!
Yeppers... there was no piracy before DRM, only because of it. DRM wasn't addressing anything, it only caused piracy.
When was napster created and when was DRM for MP3's created?
Well Mini D when MP3's first appeared, what 10 years ago, piracy was minimal except for the back door factory stuff (which still occurs regardless). For many years formats such as MP3 lived only in the realms of geeks. The average public weren't that interested. Then Mp3 players started appearing, for a while they were a niche product as well.
If the RIAA had delivered music digitally, economically, and fairly, its fairly safe to say it would not have encouraged piracy as much as the route they did take.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
:huh
Rippy, in another thread about this I pointed out too Mini D that in our office the receptionist exchanges movies, tv programs, and music with the courier/delivery guy. My point was that piracy has become an accepted 'crime' in the eyes of joe public. What would happen to the courts in the USA if every person who ever licensed or possesed an unlicensed sound track, tv show or movie was prosecuted?
-
Originally posted by moot
The RIAA isn't immaculate in its methods either, is it?
Then dont use their product.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
And? So what? What is your point and how is that relevant to the statement I posted.
You can jump up and down scream "but you're stealing!" all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that as the RIAA moves towards more and more restrictive licensing models they will encourage people to source their music (and movies) illegally. (btw, fyi, it is not stealing, it is copyright infringement which is a licensing issue - not theft).
The problem has gone beyond the legitimising argument (ie piracy (copyright infringement) being justified by the illegal acts of the RIAA and its failure to provide content in form the market is demanding).
Music is not something you need to live, don't like their policies, dont buy the product.
The rest is just spin. Just because people do not care if your a theif, doesnt mean your a theif.
-
Downloading music is good and bad.
I've gotten into coutless bands that I never would have if I was not sent one of their songs of albums for free via MP3.
However, I do make a point of buying their **** after I have established that I like them. If they tour here, I go to their shows, buy their merch and buy their releases. (Shows and merch are where all the money for the band is anyway)
So, I'm happy to have people download my band's hard work so long as they buy some of our ****.
The sort of music I play is so niche anyway that downloading isn't really an issue. No one ****ing has the music to download from! haha. It has to be bought online and that's fine, because it's way cheaper.
6 CDs for $66(AUD) delivered within 3 days, anyone? **** yes.
-
I've downloaded every 1-hit wonder from the 60's and early 70's (Can't find most of them in stores anyhow, and 99% of them got screwed out of their royalties anyway) ....but I'm hard-pressed to find ANY modern artist whom I would even STEAL off internet, much less buy
-
we used to record albums tape to tape...
now its P2P...
wake up and smelly de flowers would ya...
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Let me give you a testimonial:
The Beastie Boys, Dr Dre, and MANY other artists PROMOTE and ENCOURAGE the use of P2P software.
MiniD, I have about 78GB of mp3's on my Home HD. About a quarter of them I have downloaded off of P2P. Of that 25%, I have bought about 50 CD's that I NEVER would have bought had I not been able to hear it first.
Prior to P2P's, my brother taped the entire Pink Floyd Catalog (to the Final Cut), alot of Queen, and other's. Back then "that was a no-no". I have both CD catalogs now. I'm sure that they'd "side with you" that they hate P2P's. :rofl
Your argument holds NO WATER. There are MILLIONS like me. Wait, you're Holier than thou. I got it now. In the meantime, set the watermelon shovel down, you look tired.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
I've downloaded every 1-hit wonder from the 60's and early 70's (Can't find most of them in stores anyhow, and 99% of them got screwed out of their royalties anyway) ....but I'm hard-pressed to find ANY modern artist whom I would even STEAL off internet, much less buy
Beej,
Supergrass
Oasis
and many other's
I'll talk to you on squad when I see you next.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
The Beastie Boys, Dr Dre, and MANY other artists PROMOTE and ENCOURAGE the use of P2P software.
Artists that promote and encourage P2P should abandon publishers and release their stuff only on the internet. That's putting your money where your mouth is. Look up "Harvey Danger" to find out what I'm talking about. Anyone that "promotes or encourages" but still uses major record labels is two faced.
MiniD, I have about 78GB of mp3's on my Home HD. About a quarter of them I have downloaded off of P2P. Of that 25%, I have bought about 50 CD's that I NEVER would have bought had I not been able to hear it first.
So? Did you need to download it and put it on your mp3 player to evaluate that? This does not seem to be what the "debate" is about. It's odd how everyone wants to try to make it about this instead of pointing out there's also alot of music they download, keep and don't buy because they don't like the rest of the album, don't like this or don't like that.... yet, they still keep the stolen product.
When you're speeding is it because the state is over controlling and you don't subscribe to the bs laws that govern you or is it just that you want to go faster and are willing to risk it? One is justifying breaking the law and the other is simply doing it.
Prior to P2P's, my brother taped the entire Pink Floyd Catalog (to the Final Cut), alot of Queen, and other's. Back then "that was a no-no". I have both CD catalogs now. I'm sure that they'd "side with you" that they hate P2P's. :rofl
Did you know that the RIAA made money off of that duplicate? Did you also know that the quality of that duplicate was greatly reduced from a record? The issue at hand seems to be that perfect duplicates are now readily available. Hell, most of Vista's new DRM applies to HD only yet it's the end of the world.
Your argument holds NO WATER. There are MILLIONS like me. Wait, you're Holier than thou. I got it now. In the meantime, set the watermelon shovel down, you look tired.
I'm holier than thou? No. I'm just not pretending that stealing isn't really stealing. I'm not pretending that attempts at DRM are purely a result of the evil RIAA and have nothing to do with piracy. I'm not pretending that there's so much good that comes from stolen software/music/movies that it should be allowed and even encouraged/promoted.
I find it odd that, lately, Steve Jobs has been championed as an opponent of DRM. This is the same steve jobs that has controled the very hardware used on his computer components before he left as CEO of apple and as soon as he came back. This is the same Steve Jobs that would be more than happy with DRM if every portable music device were apple and every song were sold by iTunes. This is the same Steve Jobs that is realizing that a proprietary DRM controlled by Apple will mean a different DRM is created that everyone else uses (or they succumb to apple's demands) that makes it apple vs the world (yet again) or they go with something non-proprietary and Apple risks their producer status and revenue by abandoning iTunes in favor of someone who specializes or controls the music rather than a computer company.
I also find it odd that when discussing DRM, piracy is always defended. Very odd, given that DRM is not about piracy but rather control.
-
You are tap dancing good. I rest my case.
There are millions like me. I am the RIAA's worst nightmare, I "illegally download" music and then turn around and buy CD's helping the record companies.
-
Tap dancing? You have not made a point other than to say "I steal music, but once in a while I buy an album too". How is that supporting anything?
The fact that you steal is all the RIAA needs to justify action. That is all that is needed to justify the existance of DRM. The rest is just petty excuses. This really isn't that complex.
I'm not championing the RIAA. That is a claim apologists constantly make. I am stating there is a very clear cause and effect that is completely being dismissed by the likes of you and vulcan. The innocent victims are not the people that attempt to justify theft.
-
I stoped downloading but I also stoped buying their products as a protest.
Going on for 3 years, they've already lost about $3000 on this single consumer. Many of my favourite artists I found through borrowed or copied media and later ended up purchasing their every single record ever made on cd's. Heck one of my favourite bands I found through hearing 1 song on the radio, searching with the song name and then loading their album through p2p. At that time the local music stores didn't have them available and without p2p I'd never even find out who was the artist.
Good riddens RIAA keep your stinking premium licensed crap.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I'm not championing the RIAA. That is a claim apologists constantly make. I am stating there is a very clear cause and effect that is completely being dismissed by the likes of you and vulcan. The innocent victims are not the people that attempt to justify theft.
Who's apologising? I'm not.
My point is DRM is only encouraging people to copy their music/movies from other sources. The article I linked to affirms that.
Answer honestly mini d, as DRM increases do you think piracy will decrease?
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
I stoped downloading but I also stoped buying their products as a protest.
Going on for 3 years, they've already lost about $3000 on this single consumer. .
Heh, I haven't bought a single piece of music for 13 years. During the years I've downloaded music only on one occasion.
I haven't bought music for one reason only: More money for other goodies that give more fun per buck. Music was and is too expensive. There's enough music in the radio and internet (legal sources!). Too bad that our greedy copyright organizations over here in Finland killed the local internet radios with their outrageous pricing.
-
The RIAA is no more defendable than P2Ping copyrighted stuff.
Middle men just milk anything they can.. the law is just a convenience.
-
Originally posted by moot
The RIAA is no more defendable than P2Ping copyrighted stuff.
Middle men just milk anything they can.. the law is just a convenience.
The industry digged this hole for itself when it failed to provide a digital market for music.
For most people the biggest thing about p2p has always been
A) Ease of use
B) Ability to search your favorite music online
C) Extended catalog of rare music items
For me p2p was like heaven. All of the sudden I could roam through thousands of titles at my own home and sample them for new artists. Almost whatever you typed on search, you found in an instant. No more 20 minute drive to a record store, manual searching through racks of records and then 30 minute line-up to the preview booths with the next customer already sweating you from behind.
The media being free is only a bonus. Honestly most of the music, especially on early days, were/are so low quality that no-one would want to pay for it anyway. Speaking from either artistic or audible quality.
-
P2P has no licensing at all.. It's like walking into a records shop and just shoplifting.
There's already website distributions set up, http://www.bleep.com etc. You can listen before buying.. It's like P2P, but legal.
What's still needed is a way for someone to put music that's out of print up to such a website or online service for anyone to see, listen and buy.
GTO - What product has the RIAA made? The RIAA is just a middleman.. at most you could say they deserve a share of the records' sale price for the music's packaging.
They're vultures.
-
Originally posted by moot
P2P has no licensing at all.. It's like walking into a records shop and just shoplifting.
Actually it is not. P2P is a breech licensing, not theft. When you steal something from a record shop you are actually taking property. When you download off P2P you are not taking property, just like a LEGITIMATE music download, the difference is a legitimate music download also includes a license from the copyright owner granting you the right to listen to said music.
It is important to note that the RIAA is using this definition itself to push for the ability to control how and when you listen to the music you buy.
Guys, back on topic. Regardless of whether piracy is justified or not, do you think DRM will push more people to pirate their music and movies?
-
Umm.. excuse me, but I can't remember ever seeing anyone accosted by the RIAA for DOWNLOADING music.
I think it's only "illegal" if you SHARE/DISTRIBUTE copyrighted material.(Making available for other users to download from you)
Anyone have a link showing where the RIAA filed against someone for DOWNLOADING only?
I could easily be mistaken on this point, if so I stand corrected ahead of time.
Regards,
Sun
-
Why play with words? P2P allows you to get for free what you're supposed to pay for.
I do think increasing DRMs will turn most people against the RIAA, whether they're concerned or not, just as Starforce and RealPlayer did before them.
DRM is a pain in the bellybutton tit for tat reply from the RIAA & Co to copyright infringement.
People will follow the path of least resistance and keep taking valuable media for free as long as they can.
-
Boy the way some folks split hairs......they should be hairdressers.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Sundowner
Umm.. excuse me, but I can't remember ever seeing anyone accosted by the RIAA for DOWNLOADING music.
I think it's only "illegal" if you SHARE/DISTRIBUTE copyrighted material.(Making available for other users to download from you)
Anyone have a link showing where the RIAA filed against someone for DOWNLOADING only?
I could easily be mistaken on this point, if so I stand corrected ahead of time.
Regards,
Sun
From what I remember, the RIAA has gone after people who did massive amounts of downloads.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Beej,
Supergrass
Oasis
and many other's
I'll talk to you on squad when I see you next.
Ackputh! Almost makes me miss...Asia:huh
-
Originally posted by moot
Why play with words? P2P allows you to get for free what you're supposed to pay for.
I do think increasing DRMs will turn most people against the RIAA, whether they're concerned or not, just as Starforce and RealPlayer did before them.
DRM is a pain in the bellybutton tit for tat reply from the RIAA & Co to copyright infringement.
People will follow the path of least resistance and keep taking valuable media for free as long as they can.
iTunes flies in the face of that theory though. For years people wanted downloadable music and iTunes Store was the first significant option (most others only offered very limited selections). iTunes Store sells millions and millions of tracks. What cripples itunes is that you are 'officially' limited with what and where you play the music.
The path of leasth resistance could be legal. P2P has its danger, legal and otherwise. If the RIAA made a legal option easy, flexible, and fair (ie not priced to support their drug habits) p2p would trickle off to all but a hardcore (who probably couldn't afford the music anyway).
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Ackputh! Almost makes me miss...Asia:huh
you're leaving now... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6GhodMhcik)
-
Originally posted by Vulcan My point is DRM is only encouraging people to copy their music/movies from other sources. The article I linked to affirms that.
You like this scenario because it affirms your belief. You dismiss the rest that don't. I understand. This is the act of an apologist, not someone seriously thinking things through.
This person was forced into thievery by evil DRM. He had no other options. This is the ONLY result of DRM.Answer honestly mini d, as DRM increases do you think piracy will decrease?
You cannot prevent piracy of anything that has already been released. I think DRM will go a great ways in preventing it for things that will be released with DRM encoding in place.
I liken it to the satellite TV industry and "black boxes". The encoding and frequent changes of keying went a great ways to reduce the praticality of buying a black box. Eventually, most digital media will be the same way. It's probably still capable of being "intercepted", but it's too damn hard for most to give it a shot.
-
I'd rather have ISPs tracking applications known to trade illegally then have to deal with DRMs. DRMs are more invasive.
Vulcan, I'm not sure what you mean.
Does iTunes really outweigh P2P in traffic?
-
Originally posted by moot
People will follow the path of least resistance and keep taking valuable media for free as long as they can.
Do you mean with the "valuable media" the bytes that can be copied at no cost?
A few studies have shown that P2P has actually acted as an advertising media and therefore increased the sales. The negative effects of P2P are grossly over estimated. It is not the end of the world or even the end of the sales.
There are three kinds of pirates: 1) Those who could hardly afford to buy music, 2) Those who download music to try and who spends alot of money in music otherwise, 3) Those who could afford to buy music, but pirates everything regardless.
The first group mostly consists of teenagers, who are probably the largest single group using P2P. The second group is the adults, the second largest group using P2P. The third group is a minority.
Do you think that the moneyless teenagers are causing a loss of profit with their use of P2P? What money was lost, when there was nothing to begin with? Where would they have got the money to buy the music they've downloaded? It doesn't make any difference in profit whether they've downloaded music or not, they wouldn't add to the profit eitherway.
Radio didn't kill the industry, TV didn't kill the industry, VHS didn't kill the industry. Each of the three technologies were widely resisted by the industries that were afraid of the technology bringing them down.
Radio broadcasts music for FREE to the listeners. Oh my god, that must've meant the end of music sales. Wait.. they're still selling music and quite well in fact. Radio actually boosted the sales as a source of marketing! People are actually buying music that they've heard for free?! Nuts!
TV was the dreaded doomsday for movie theaters. Instead a whole new branch of industry was created and even the movie theaters didn't dissapear for good. Even the music industry began to utilize TV.
VHS was the biggest satan of all. Who would buy a movie or go to movies when they could simply copy a movie from a friend? Wrong once again. The to-be-doomed movie industry increased their profits with the VHS sales. Good for them they didn't succeed in banning the technology.
The entertainment industry is time after time shooting at their own foot, but never learning from their mistakes. Too bad darwinism doesn't apply to the industry.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I liken it to the satellite TV industry and "black boxes". The encoding and frequent changes of keying went a great ways to reduce the praticality of buying a black box. Eventually, most digital media will be the same way. It's probably still capable of being "intercepted", but it's too damn hard for most to give it a shot.
If you look at Europe there is a reasonable base Satellite piracy. However competitive pricing and services ensure that has not gone mainstream.
As for digital media being 'intercepted'... well all it takes is one person to crack the code. Thats the whole thing with p2p, its a viral medium. HD DVDs already been broken. Making it harder to break only helps if you can isolate the spread of the broken copies, from my point of view p2p now envelopes more than digital networking (ie sneakernet via ipods).
Originally posted by moot
I'd rather have ISPs tracking applications known to trade illegally then have to deal with DRMs. DRMs are more invasive.
Vulcan, I'm not sure what you mean.
Does iTunes really outweigh P2P in traffic?
[/B]
moot tracking applications is fairly expensive and difficult to do. For a decent L7 box that will track encrypted torrents traffic you are looking at bout US$200k plus annuals per 5Gbps of traffic, not including reporting boxes to compile historical data, nor management or installation of said box.
No itunes doesn't outweight p2p. But it is popular, especially given its limited market (basically ipod users). If itunes were to push out to non-ipod players I'm sure there'd be a fairly sizeable increase in sales as well.
-
I don't argue that P2P and similar ploys will destroy the market, I'm saying once you give people something for free, they'll tend to keep expecting it for free, especially if it's something they are fond of.
What I would argue, is that P2P is illicit, and any way you spin it, it is in fact as illicit as contraband game copies in Russia, etc.
-
Originally posted by moot
I don't argue that P2P and similar ploys will destroy the market, I'm saying once you give people something for free, they'll tend to keep expecting it for free, especially if it's something they are fond of.
Those were the fears with radio and C- and VHS-casettes. People could have expected entertainment for free since the 70's, but they don't.
I see P2P as the future, like VHS was in the 80's. You can fight it with all your might, but resistance will be futile and the world will be assimilated. The world will go on and turn to oppose some other technology while today's opposed technology will be the standard of the day.
-
I'm not implying that. I'm saying P2P is stealing, and people will keep doing it despite that, because it's anonymous and unlikely they'll get caught.
P2P may be the future, but not in its present illicit flavor.
-
I disagree, with both of you. I hate p2p, and never use it. And have never used it (suck on that mini d :) ).
P2P is a strain on the network, its also a 'dirty' source.
I see more stuff being swapped via portable media devices than I do on P2P. And before you say it, a lot of that stuff being swapped was not sourced from p2p.
-
I said may, not is.. All I know for sure is that I want no DRM in my files. And that the RIAA should get a sock in it.
Vulcan, I only saw your previous reply now - I think iTunes' DRMs are already enough of a complication for any equal competitor minus the DRMs to easily take iTunes' place in the market.
I only once looked at their online store, and saw that many albums I was looking for weren't there, and that what was there could be had without DRMs, at lower compressions, and sometimes cheaper, elswhere.
It looked like they were milking the mainstream hits, and the users who just didn't know any better.
It's a shame about encrypted traffic being that expensive to monitor.. I didn't know it was like that. It does change the big picture of things, thanks for the info.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
You like this scenario because it affirms your belief. You dismiss the rest that don't. I understand. This is the act of an apologist, not someone seriously thinking things through.
This person was forced into thievery by evil DRM. He had no other options. This is the ONLY result of DRM.You cannot prevent piracy of anything that has already been released. I think DRM will go a great ways in preventing it for things that will be released with DRM encoding in place.
I liken it to the satellite TV industry and "black boxes". The encoding and frequent changes of keying went a great ways to reduce the praticality of buying a black box. Eventually, most digital media will be the same way. It's probably still capable of being "intercepted", but it's too damn hard for most to give it a shot.
As long as the music can be heard, it can be recopied through an analog source with minimal degradation of sound and recoded back to mp3.
So much for your effectiveness of DRM. :lol
If someone wants it, it will be shared. Without exceptions.
That leaves only the normal, paying customer biting the bullet.
-
Originally posted by moot
P2P may be the future, but not in its present illicit flavor.
Fortunately for us the people didn't give up on the radio, tv and casettes in the past based on what the industry told them. They achieved a compromise that couldn't have been achieved by other means. Without them the casettes could be still largely illegal.
-
Utopian worlds don't exist Mini...
one way or another things will get done without intervention from corp. or big brother...
DRM is just another way of controlling, that is just not gonna happen the way they or you yourself wish it to be, wishful thinking some might say...
have a look at the Prohibition law...control led to failure...Drug control leads to failure, the will to control everything will lead to failure...
psycho's like to control...
-
Originally posted by Catalyst
Utopian worlds don't exist Mini...
one way or another things will get done without intervention from corp. or big brother...
Read what you just typed here. I mean, really read it.
Who's looking for a utopian world again? Who's looking for a world free of coperations or big brother? Who's looking for a world where everything gets done by the collective without intervention?
Sheesh.
I'm simply saying there is cause and effect without championing one side or the other. The collective is just as likely to exploit as the corperation. There is no utopia.DRM is just another way of controlling, that is just not gonna happen the way they or you yourself wish it to be, wishful thinking some might say...
Once again, read through what you just typed very carefully.
I have not disputed that it is an attempt to control a product. I have not argued that it is fulproof. I have not said it will not change.have a look at the Prohibition law...control led to failure...Drug control leads to failure, the will to control everything will lead to failure...
psycho's like to control...
LOL! You're equating DRM to prohibition? LOL! Hard to argue with that kind of lunacy.
-
This is pretty funny.
There seems to be a lot of people who think that if a man drops his wallet in the street they have the god given right to all of the money.
-
Piracy is always going to be cheaper than buying music. If RIAA had any sense, they'd ensure buying music was easier and gave a superior product.
Instead, RIAA has insisted that legal music is harder to get, and of lower quality (because of the restrictions of DRM).
I think the whole focus of RIAA and the MPAA is stopping piracy, rather than increasing sales. They aren't the same thing at all.
You'd have thought they'd have learnt something from the battle over video recorders. In the early 80s, the Hollywood studios tried to get video recorders banned because they would kill the film industry. They failed, and within a few years a large part of Hollywood's profit was coming from video sales.
RIAA and the MPAA need to realise that they have to compete with pirates, rather than thinking they can legislate them out of existence.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
This is pretty funny.
There seems to be a lot of people who think that if a man drops his wallet in the street they have the god given right to all of the money.
Not exactly. But many people think that if a man drops a wallet on the street and they can make a perfect photocopy of his money, they'll do it. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Not exactly. But many people think that if a man drops a wallet on the street and they can make a perfect photocopy of his money, they'll do it. :rolleyes:
Except the use of counterfeit money is a felony. Also the punishment is much more severe than with any kind of piracy. The reasons are quite clear: Widespread usage of counterfeit money will destroy the value of currency.
The latter is just to say that your example can't be compared to piracy (in the case some genius makes the comparison) because the effects are much worse. The damages by counterfeit money are also proven facts, not just some figures made up by the lawyers of MPAA/RIAA.
The analogy by Target is the same old one based on existing material. The ownership of an item is permanently transfered to the new owner. The analogy would be fine if an artist or publisher dropped a case full of unique notes on the street and someone would pick it up.
-
OK then.
Let's say I dropped a CD on the street that was full of rare valuable one of a kind recordings. The mere act of copying the CD will reduce or eliminate its value. So pro-piracy people are saying it is OK to copy this found CD as long as you give it back to the owner.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Except the use of counterfeit money is a felony. Also the punishment is much more severe than with any kind of piracy. The reasons are quite clear: Widespread usage of counterfeit money will destroy the value of currency.
The latter is just to say that your example can't be compared to piracy (in the case some genius makes the comparison) because the effects are much worse. The damages by counterfeit money are also proven facts, not just some figures made up by the lawyers of MPAA/RIAA.
The analogy by Target is the same old one based on existing material. The ownership of an item is permanently transfered to the new owner. The analogy would be fine if an artist or publisher dropped a case full of unique notes on the street and someone would pick it up.
Your logic would work if the record sales would have droped through piracy. They do not.
At record level it works kind of like this: The person who picks up the wallet sees a hundred dollar bill for the first time. He likes it so much that he wants to get more of them. But this time he doesn't want to settle for a cheap copy, he wants the full original so he goes and 'buys' one from the bank.
But waitwait!! Once he gets the spanking new ceno he finds out the Bank RIAA'd himm off - he can't use his new note anywhere else except in a few selected shops. And even then he can get only notes as change, he loses all the coins in the process. But it gets only worse.. Next the Bank tells the man he doesn't own the money he holds, it's the property of the Government. The man only owns a license to use that money in a strictly limited way.
Allright, fair enough. The man rips the bill in two in anger and leaves. Later he starts to repent his actions and goes back to the Bank. He want's to replace the damaged note in order to be able to use the money again. The Bank laughs at his stupidity. He is forced to get a new note for a full price instead - even though he already purchased the right to use one.
-
Are the rank and file still holding to "the recording guys made me steal" or has it moved on?
All the Best,
hap
p.s. for any and all who floated that canard, "nature/enviroment/you/him/society" made me do it. You do have a large body of company. Strange bedfellows, eh?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
OK then.
Let's say I dropped a CD on the street that was full of rare valuable one of a kind recordings. The mere act of copying the CD will reduce or eliminate its value. So pro-piracy people are saying it is OK to copy this found CD as long as you give it back to the owner.
If you're going to use that sort of analogy at least get it right. It is more akin to you sitting on the street corner handing out copies of your cd freely.
Nice try no cigar mt :)
-
Artist makes song, copyrights it.
Joe gets copy of song for free, deminishes artists' due revenue.
This is supposed to be fair?
-
Originally posted by moot
Artist makes song, copyrights it.
Joe gets copy of song for free, deminishes artists' due revenue.
This is supposed to be fair?
In the traditional model it wouldn't be fair.
We are witnessing the beginning of the demise of this outdated model.
With the advent of digital media distribution the song becomes more of a vehicle of exposure for the artist. By getting the material in front of the customer other venues of revenue are bolstered...live performances, TV opportunities, merchandise sales etc.
Think of the TV commercial..you will see few if any commercials removed from YouTube in the current frenzy of vids being removed due to copyright holder objections.
Why?
Because, the companies WANT you to view the promotion of their product as many times as possible.
It would be silly to attempt to SELL the advertisement to you, so it's offered FREE.
It will become the same with the music track..a free commercial for the other wares the artist offers for sale.
When the winds of change arrive it's best to adjust your sails to account for the new direction instead of trying to change the wind.
Regards,
Sun
-
Originally posted by moot
Artist makes song, copyrights it.
Joe gets copy of song for free, deminishes artists' due revenue.
This is supposed to be fair?
It's not fair but the consumers are not being treated fair either.
Consumer wants digital distribution and search functions: Providers say no.
Consumer wants lower prices: Providers say no and raise prices. Then point declining sales growth figures being caused by piracy despite their own price raises caused them. Oh, and the fact that 50% less new titles were launched during the period. Duh..
Consumer complains about having to pay full album price for 1-2 songs: Providers say tough luck. Buy them in separate singles and pay full album price for the inconvenience.
Consumer wants to use the music he bought in all of his players: Provider says no and if you try we sue you.
Consumer wants to make a backup of his overpriced product: Provider lobbies restrictive laws to take away the right to back up media.
Cause and effect - relation folks.
Consumer wants digital distribution: Only way to get it hassle free is p2p
Consumer wants lower prices: Aint gonna happen, despite the fact that trials on lowered prices boosted sales over 100%.
Consumer complains on fill songs on albums: With failure of digital distribution, again p2p is the only way to go.
Consumer wants to use music in his players: The porked DRM digital media doesn't work in 90% of the existing playerbase. Consumer has the choice to buy a new player or download them DRM free. He chooses DRM free, he's not a fool.
Consumer wants to make a backup: Read above, no DRM no hassle.
-
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm talking about the fundamentals of economics.
The market's mechanics of distribution, promotion etc is another matter.. I'm not talking about that specific case, although what I am talking about rules that too.
You can't get things for sale at a cost for free under the pretense of fairness.
Why don't we split Aces High into a thousand modules worth a 1/1000th of the present 15$/mo, as a sort of teaser, distributed for free, and then share all those modules cracked to work together, effectively getting the 15$/mo content for free?
That's what you're doing with the P2P and "free bits and pieces for advertisement" stuff.
Two wrongs don't make a right - however much of a racket the MPAA & RIAA are running, it doesn't excuse shoplifting the pants off copyright holders.
Yes, DRMs are a ***** (I doubt there aren't ways available to remove DRMs already), yes the whole personal copy restrictions is utter BS (plenty of ways to bypass them IIRC), yes digital distribution and less middle man money sinks and all the more flexibility in buying and selling is something to strive for, yes I agree to all that, but that's no excuse to steal artists' revenue.
0 purchase price = 0 revenue. The author's rights to profit from his own work are voided.
It means your effort to produce something with the intention to get a reward for it is in vain, absurd, it means you've wasted your time making it.
And frankly I think it's effectively similar to communism.
-
actually Mini the prohibition comment is all well see, I said 'CONTROL', prohibition was 'CONTROL of ALCOHOL', alphabet soup(DRM, MPAA, RIAA) is the same, 'CONTROL'
and again, if you think i'll let the govr. control everything, you got another thing coming, it just won't happen...
P2P is just another medium for them to let folks hear there songs, don't like it, don't use it, or just plain don't make music...but you will not control my medium, try it, and another medium will appear, then more biatchin, as the wheels turns and turns and turns...
Hollywierd doesn't mind coming out with dumb stupid movies that just shouldn't get done, yet they will charge me 10$ to go see this movie...i'll find another medium to actually see if I should or shouldn't pay my 10$...
-
Originally posted by moot
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm talking about the fundamentals of economics.
The market's mechanics of distribution, promotion etc is another matter.. I'm not talking about that specific case, although what I am talking about rules that too.
You can't get things for sale at a cost for free under the pretense of fairness.
Why don't we split Aces High into a thousand modules worth a 1/1000th of the present 15$/mo, as a sort of teaser, distributed for free, and then share all those modules cracked to work together, effectively getting the 15$/mo content for free?
That's what you're doing with the P2P and "free bits and pieces for advertisement" stuff.
Two wrongs don't make a right - however much of a racket the MPAA & RIAA are running, it doesn't excuse shoplifting the pants off copyright holders.
Yes, DRMs are a ***** (I doubt there aren't ways available to remove DRMs already), yes the whole personal copy restrictions is utter BS (plenty of ways to bypass them IIRC), yes digital distribution and less middle man money sinks and all the more flexibility in buying and selling is something to strive for, yes I agree to all that, but that's no excuse to steal artists' revenue.
0 purchase price = 0 revenue. The author's rights to profit from his own work are voided.
It means your effort to produce something with the intention to get a reward for it is in vain, absurd, it means you've wasted your time making it.
And frankly I think it's effectively similar to communism.
You missed the part where I said that the experimental price cut boosted sales with 100%. Why do you think people did a stupidity to pay for the music they could download for free? Remind you that 95% of finns have broadband access today.
-
What pisses me off is that fact that any album (or cd) will have one or two decent songs, and a lot of filler crap songs.
-
Originally posted by Catalyst
actually Mini the prohibition comment is all well see, I said 'CONTROL', prohibition was 'CONTROL of ALCOHOL', alphabet soup(DRM, MPAA, RIAA) is the same, 'CONTROL'
It was the elimination of alchohol. Controling it was never a problem. If there were no music for sale anywhere, then you'd have a point. As it is, you're just being rediculous.
-
I did miss that Ripley, in fact I don't see where you mentionned it now either.
I would have agreed if I had seen you mention it.. in fact I said that the middle-man management costs too much, i.e. that records should cost less and benefit more to the authors.
That's been really obvious for a while now.
-
Originally posted by moot
I did miss that Ripley, in fact I don't see where you mentionned it now either.
I would have agreed if I had seen you mention it..
Shows you didn't read my post through ;)
Look up: 03-24-2007 01:23 PM
-
Is to be able to copy a cd or game or sofware and to be able to put it away for safety. Games that make you run the cd everytime you play irritate the stuffing out of me, over a period of time something allways happens to them the same with music cds. The musicians and game makers are entitled to thier rights but when I pay my money dont I have rights too?
-
Ripley I read all the posts quickly but carefully, and I sort of see one point where it could be read that way, but even now I'm not sure where you say so.
I see one part where you say the prices were raised in spite of consumers' complaint of high prices.
You'll have to quote it.. we don't have the same times.
Anyway, we agree on that.
Yep Hungry.. I'm not as computer tech savvy as some here, but I think a safe enough method is to make an image to at least one dedicated archive disk drive.
CDs and DVDs go bad after a few years.
-
who has seen the advert at the start of many DVD movies?
[dramatic music - scene of man stealing handbag]
DVD advert - "YOU WOULDNT STEAL A HANDBAG WOULD YOU"
viewer - "NO!"
[scene of man breaking into a car]
"YOU WOULDNT STEAL A CAR WOULD YOU"
"NO"
[Scene of man stealing a mobile phone]
"YOU WOULDNT STEAL A PHONE WOULD YOU!"
"NO!!!"
[dramatic pause]
[scene of two girls buying pirate DVDs off a street vender]
"YOU WOULDNT STEAL A MOVIE WOULD YOU!"
"....er.....n......wait....hel l yes, im only watching this DVD waiting for the rest of the Borat movie to download, suckers!"
VIDEO PIRACY IS A CRIME.
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
VIDEO PIRACY IS A CRIME.
Making bad movies and charging money is a crime, regulate that...
Making whole Albums and havin 1 or 2 good songs is pretty bad too...regulate that
and Mini, deciding WHAT i'm going to drink is 'Control', big brothers long arms out too reach...saying 'no alcohol for you'...now if that ain't 'Control' I must of missed the short bus.
-
you didn't miss the short bus... you're still on it.
Speak easies did not pop up because alchohol was bad or overpriced, they were actually bad and overpriced themselves. They popped up because there was no alchohol outside of 3.2 beer. This does not compare to piracy at all. The analogy is so lame that I'm rather disappointed you've tried to stick with it this long. Hell, I could come up with a 1000x better analogy with the alchohol industry itself.
-
Originally posted by Catalyst
Making bad movies and charging money is a crime, regulate that...
Making whole Albums and havin 1 or 2 good songs is pretty bad too...regulate that
Yep, you do that... squeeze the inspired artistry out of artists using "regulations" :lol
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
It's not fair but the consumers are not being treated fair either.
Consumer wants digital distribution and search functions: Providers say no.
Consumer wants lower prices: Providers say no and raise prices. Then point declining sales growth figures being caused by piracy despite their own price raises caused them. Oh, and the fact that 50% less new titles were launched during the period. Duh..
Consumer complains about having to pay full album price for 1-2 songs: Providers say tough luck. Buy them in separate singles and pay full album price for the inconvenience.
Consumer wants to use the music he bought in all of his players: Provider says no and if you try we sue you.
Consumer wants to make a backup of his overpriced product: Provider lobbies restrictive laws to take away the right to back up media.
Cause and effect - relation folks.
Consumer wants digital distribution: Only way to get it hassle free is p2p
Consumer wants lower prices: Aint gonna happen, despite the fact that trials on lowered prices boosted sales over 100%.
Consumer complains on fill songs on albums: With failure of digital distribution, again p2p is the only way to go.
Consumer wants to use music in his players: The porked DRM digital media doesn't work in 90% of the existing playerbase. Consumer has the choice to buy a new player or download them DRM free. He chooses DRM free, he's not a fool.
Consumer wants to make a backup: Read above, no DRM no hassle.
This post moot.
-
Ripley I don't see where I should understand that "[an] experimental price cut boosted sales with 100%."
Is this it?
"Consumer wants lower prices: Providers say no and raise prices. Then point declining sales growth figures being caused by piracy despite their own price raises caused them. Oh, and the fact that 50% less new titles were launched during the period. Duh..
Consumer complains about having to pay full album price for 1-2 songs: Providers say tough luck. Buy them in separate singles and pay full album price for the inconvenience."
Splitting hairs anyway :p
-
Originally posted by moot
Ripley I don't see where I should understand that "[an] experimental price cut boosted sales with 100%."
Is this it?
"Consumer wants lower prices: Providers say no and raise prices. Then point declining sales growth figures being caused by piracy despite their own price raises caused them. Oh, and the fact that 50% less new titles were launched during the period. Duh..
Consumer complains about having to pay full album price for 1-2 songs: Providers say tough luck. Buy them in separate singles and pay full album price for the inconvenience."
Splitting hairs anyway :p
No I mean this line:
Consumer wants lower prices: Aint gonna happen, despite the fact that trials on lowered prices boosted sales over 100%.
-
I need glasses.
-
Originally posted by moot
Yep, you do that... squeeze the inspired artistry out of artists using "regulations" :lol
inspired artistry... LMAO thats a good one :D