Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: beet1e on July 09, 2003, 08:00:07 AM
-
Been reading about the record companies doing IP lookups, and instructing people to remove items from their server...
I've had K-Lite for a month or two. I've been able to rediscover old songs from funked's favourite music era, the 70s. I've also downloaded movies, and even documentaries like Bowling For Columbine.
Of course, record companies are pissed off about all this, but how do you see it legally? What's the difference between downloading an old song or set of songs from Kazaa, and borrowing a CD from a friend?
It's technically illegal to record the radio - I remember King avacadohead himself (Simon Bates) of Radio 1 getting irate with someone who was doing that during a live phone in, and pointing out the law. The listener was a cop of all things. So is it illegal to record off the TV, what with all the VCRs and DVD recorders we now have? Is it illegal to record a movie from the TV, and then lend it to a friend?
None of what I have downloaded is to be used for commercial gain, and in each case, it's not as if I'm going to go out and BUY the recording if I can't find it on Kazaa. But if I'm going to have HMV or 20th Century Fox sniffing at my IP address, I'll need to rethink my Kazaa usage.
-
as of this moment it is still "legal".Tho they are trying to ban filesharing of music freely until Kazaa is persued then it is still your right to use it until it is shut down. "how did you know" ;)
so its legal, but illegal in a sense, hell i still use kazaa so carry on bro!
-
You can download as much as you like without getting "caught" as long as you do not share your files....
-
Originally posted by beet1e
... and even documentaries like Bowling For Columbine.
Point of order, Bowling for Columbine was NOT a documentary, despite winning in that category. Surely you remember the big stink that it caused.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.
-
The digital technology that allows us to share digital info might be simply be the leading edge of a new paradigm. It might be an evolution. Or a revolution. Or just deserts for the record companies. Or it might be the impetus for a new business model.
But its a copyright violation to violate a copyright! It could be considered theft.
No matter how convoluted the rationale, that is the bottom line...
I don't think you will go to hell for it, but you might get sued.
If one does it, one should just do it without trowling out all the happy horsesh*t. And if one is identified and sued, one should take thier lumps, and no crying about it. :p
-
it is legal now
question is - is it moral? ;)
I'm not using kaza.. but believe me i will start IF they say it's illegal...
what's going to eb next? will i have to be authorised to run an FTP server? will my e-mails have to be checked by someone (ok.. i know what every admin can do.. i'm an admin myself ;) )
i hope you don't believe in the "trustworthy computer" project or whatever they called it now...
-
So is it illegal to record off the TV, what with all the VCRs and DVD recorders we now have? Is it illegal to record a movie from the TV, and then lend it to a friend?
nope...as long as your not doing a direct copy of a movie...TV shows pay for themselves with commercials...
as for the original question...its not illegal yet but dont get to comfortable...
-
Kazaa basically is perfectly legal, but it is the users who uses it "wrongly".
Remember it is the users who are the ones sharing the files, Kazaa is only the tool.
If that would make Kazaa 'illegal', then we could just as well ban HTTP, FTP, IRC/DCC and so on, since those are used more or less for illegal transfers.
Difference just is that Kazaa is easily targetable, since it's only a program and it's only use is sharing of files, mostly by these pirates.
IRC/DCC, FTP, HTTP.... those are generally used communication protocols, so it's kind of hard to point out anyone or anything :>
Think of Kazaa, if it would be given an official protocols status and there would be n^100 programs to use it.
Then we'd be talking of Kazaa just like we're talking of FTP....
-
Originally posted by mjolnir
Point of order, Bowling for Columbine was NOT a documentary, despite winning in that category. Surely you remember the big stink that it caused.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.
And neither was Disney's 'Living Desert' the winner for best documentary of 1954. It also included scenes that were cut-in, staged footage and overdubbing of actual sounds.... that bastage Walt!
-
Originally posted by mjolnir
Point of order, Bowling for Columbine was NOT a documentary, despite winning in that category. Surely you remember the big stink that it caused.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.
Beetle's gettin good.
-
Its illegal if you have stuff in your shared folder.
Aka, you are OFFERING to share files.
If you download them and not sharing them there's no way they can touch you. Its no different from finding a CD or DVD on the street and picking it up.
Which is stupid really, those morons can only prosecute file-sharers in the USA.
In a year, if they are very successfull, no one in the US will be sharing files... but will be downloading them from servers in hong cong, russia, etc etc.
-
Plenty of other file sharing apps have been nailed by the courts. Many of those tried to argue the same thing - Judges didn't see it that way though.
The US Courts are essentially propping up the various entertainment industries attempts to keep their monopoly running. Either the entertainment guys will have to get competitive and respond to market demands (ie, buy music tracks - not entire cd's - online at reasonable prices and be able to chuck them on cd/mp3 players etc) or the courts will tie everyone down so badly that having a cd-burner makes you look like Hannibal Lecter.
-
The way I understand it, it's illegal to transmit files using file sharing programs because it's essentially a broadcast of whatever you're sharing. You don't have the right to broadcast this stuff.
As far as recording on tapes and VCRs, that was made legal in the US by Congress in the late 80's (I think). The logic was that broadcasts were public domain and therefore a person could do whatever they wanted with it in their private residence. Also, the drop in quality from recording justified ownership because you didn't get the "real thing". However, in the days of digital file sharing, that quality drop isn't exactly there.
My $.02
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
And neither was Disney's 'Living Desert' the winner for best documentary of 1954. It also included scenes that were cut-in, staged footage and overdubbing of actual sounds.... that bastage Walt!
Sheesh sure know how to bring a man down - I remember the LD from when I was about 7 - it was all faked?????????
-
This is an battle the record companys cant win... its that simple really...
They are screaming that they are loosing money due to piracy, but now they spending millions on hunting down the ones using file-sharing progs... Then what? the programs wont be going away, and even if they did manage to ban these types of programs we can go back to FTP´s and webpages etc etc...
They simple cant stop the piracy....
Welcome to the computer age...
-
Originally posted by mjolnir
Point of order, Bowling for Columbine was NOT a documentary, despite winning in that category. Surely you remember the big stink that it caused.
Oh well, I bagged one (;) at ra)
-
Originally posted by Maniac
This is an battle the record companys cant win... its that simple really...
They are screaming that they are loosing money due to piracy, but now they spending millions on hunting down the ones using file-sharing progs... Then what? the programs wont be going away, and even if they did manage to ban these types of programs we can go back to FTP´s and webpages etc etc...
They simple cant stop the piracy....
Welcome to the computer age...
Actually, I reckon the record companies can stop the piracy, but the only way they'll do it is by biting the bullet and dropping their prices to a level the market will actually bear. Nothing else will save them though: if you can play the music so you can hear it, you can copy it - it's as simple as that. The only foolproof copy protection is a disc you cannot listen to at all, and despite their triumphs with NSync, the Backstreet Boys and all the rest of that soul-less, ball-less mediocrity, I don't think even the record companies could market discs you can't listen to.
In Hong Kong the movie companies stamped out VCD piracy by dropping the price of a VCD movie from some $120-$200 (US $15-25) to about $20-$50 (US$2.50-$6). Pirates were selling VCDs at about $10-$25 (US$1.25-$3.20) and were making such huge profit margins that it was run by organized crime (Triads), and all the movie company backed legislation with its big fines and five year's jail time were no deterrent. But people don't mind paying a couple of dollars more for the genuine article, so the movie companies won out, once they dropped their pants. This stands as a somewhat contrary lesson to all those who claim piracy harms consumers. Not in this case: piracy forced the movie companies to lower their prices, and the fact that the pirates were selling sooo cheaply and still making sooo much money that the Triads took it over makes me wonder what sort of astronomical markup the movie companies still have selling the discs at the pants-dropped prices.
-
Actually, I reckon the record companies can stop the piracy, but the only way they'll do it is by biting the bullet and dropping their prices to a level the market will actually bear.
What price would the market bear for cars if they were available for free?
If the media industry doesn't develop technology to protect copyrights all media content will eventually deteriorate to amateur productions. Who will invest in a $200 million dollar movie production when it will be available for free download 1 week after it is released? If you think pop music sucks now, wait till there's no profit in it. Piracy may make music, movies, and books cheaper (free) for the consumer in the short run, but in the long run the consumer will get exactly what he's paying for. Lowering prices as a response to piracy only slows down the deterioration of the industry. They have to solve the problem technologically or they are hosed.
ra
-
If cars were available free, they would be free.
What you are arguing is for a maintaining the status quo. If 200 million dollar movie were available for free, there wouldn't be any 200 million dollar movies. If someone invented a way to get you from one point to another in 1/10th the time it used to take... the old way would be obsolete and no one would pay for it.
So should we protect those buggy factories?
-
NSync, the Backstreet Boys and all the rest of that soul-less, ball-less mediocrity, I don't think even the record companies could market discs you can't listen to.
LOL dead.
I'm surprised someone hasn't stepped in and created a digital lable for the 99.9 percent of talented artists who rock, but don't push the POP chart dollars - the undiscovered Janis Joplins who can't get a contract in today's Brittney Spears world. It's funny how the biggest supporters of the Music machine - Madonna and Metallic for example - have reached the rare point in the industry where they aren't getting screwed by the machine and in fact rely on the machine's marketing power to maintain relevance at their current level of stardom.
The new lable would have to take a smaller cut, and be an actual service provider, ruinning promotions, booking venues and helping support touring (where the artisits actually make their money, sometimes). The music would be cheap, or even free outside of the concert circuit.
However, I imagine the recording industry has touring and airplay so locked up that they could "lock out" the new lable(s) from most venues and corporate radio networks. It's anti-trust, but if you have enough dollars and influence the DOJ might take a long time to notice since the new lables wouldn't have much pull in Washington.
Charon
-
If cars were available free, they would be free.
If cars could be stolen from the manufacturer at no risk and no cost, they would be free, but soon they would no longer be manufactured.
What you are arguing is for a maintaining the status quo.
I'm not arguing, I'm stating the fact that those who create and market intellectual property have to protect it from piracy or their products will be worthless.
If 200 million dollar movie were available for free, there wouldn't be any 200 million dollar movies.
Yes, and some of us don't want to be stuck watching only PBS.
If someone invented a way to get you from one point to another in 1/10th the time it used to take... the old way would be obsolete and no one would pay for it.
And this relates to piracy how?
-
Does anyone know who the biggest money making band in the world was 10 years ago?
The Grateful Dead
This is a band that encouraged bootleg recordings, had a spot on the grounds of each concert designated as the best place to record.
There is money to be made by artists even if Kazaa lives on. Artists will always be in demand. Record companies will not.
-
as long as you aren't selling cd's or charging people to copy your files I see nothing wrong with it. I see little or no difference between this and recording songs off the radio or shows of the tv.
mostly I just d/l songs I can't seem to find in the stores. and I only share the hard to find albums. I won't take a new release cd I've just bought and put it up to share. and once the artist is dead I figure his music is fair game (he isn't making a dime off it anymore, just the exec who ownes his contract)
but these are just my personal limits on what I think is 'the right thing to do', I see nothing illegal in it. they broadcast these songs for free on radio and tv, it's perfectly legal to record them.
and as far as stealing, what did I steal? show me what I've taken. IMO for it to be stealing I'd have to take it away from them but they still have all their property. it's more like copying someones product. like I see a product, take mesurements reverse engineer it and make my own product that does the same thing. (that is what I'm doing after all my pc 'takes mesurements' of the sound produced, it doesn't exactly copy the cd, it even saves the 'mesurements in another laguage, then it builds a new cd, on a disc I own and pay for using the info I copied from the origanal) and as far as I know that is still legal as long as it's for personal use and you aren't using this copy of someone elses product for profit. you could even share the measurements of the copied product with your freinds, as long as you didn't charge for them. if you sold these reproductions, or charged for sharing of the digital info, or even if you played these at an event that you charged admission to, then I would see a legal problem. but free sharing of a mp3 based digital discription of the sound made when you play the original I see nothing wrong with.
-
Originally posted by ra
What price would the market bear for cars if they were available for free?
If you could copy a car on your computer and share it with hundreds of other people, then no one would be able to sell cars at their current price - but you can't copy a car digitally - so it's an irrelevant analogy.
And it's totally unanalogous economically - a car is mostly priced on raw materials and components used - a music CD is generic - you don't have to retool to produce a different one, and it probably costs about $0.50-$1.00 to make with a nice box and a printed book (depending on the number in the run). The band will typically get 10 - 20% royalties on the wholesale price of a CD out of which they pay the record company for the packaging (typically 25% of all royalties are withheld to cover this) the recording of the album, video production costs, tour support, radio promotion, sales and marketing costs, packaging costs and any other cost the record company can subtract from their royalties. Everything they can recoup from the band and the 80-90% of the wholesale price is record company profit. It's the reason that organized crime took such an interest in Hong Kong: it's silly money - a huge mark up and money for old rope.
If the media industry doesn't develop technology to protect copyrights all media content will eventually deteriorate to amateur productions. Who will invest in a $200 million dollar movie production when it will be available for free download 1 week after it is released? If you think pop music sucks now, wait till there's no profit in it. Piracy may make music, movies, and books cheaper (free) for the consumer in the short run, but in the long run the consumer will get exactly what he's paying for. Lowering prices as a response to piracy only slows down the deterioration of the industry.
Well if "The Hulk", "Chicago" and "Dumb and Dumberer" and N-Sync and Brittaney Spears are what we can expect from professional productions, I say kill all the professionals and bring on the amateurs right now! Seriously though - A large budget generally tends to bring out the mediocrity in a movie or a band - a lowest common denominator for widest possible appeal (to recoup all the cash lavished on the production). Yet almost every year there are "surprise" low budget movies that often beat the box-office orientated big budget stuff. Another example: which had the higher budget: Matrix or Matrix:Reloaded? Which one was better?
And get this: there were professional musicians before there were record companies. And there are many today who don't have a record contract but are in a band. There are lots of movie-makers out there that don't have fat studio contracts. These perverts are doing their thing because they enjoy it. They'd love to make money doing it too - but they're doing it firstly because they love it. And in the case of music, I fail to see exactly what the record companies do to enhance the band. They seem to me to be a useless middle man.
But I digress - you've missed the point of my posted example: the movie companies are still making loads of money in Hong Kong - if they weren't, real VCDs would have disappeared completely - they're just making less money per unit than before, but I'll bet they're selling a lot more units than before - there's certainly a lot more VCD stores around now.
And that is how the record companies will survive - by dropping their pants (whilst a car company couldn't because most of the cost of a car is it's components). Producing and promoting the music is quite expensive (although this is somewhat irrelevant as record companies get the band to pay for those costs out of their royalties) but the unit cost of actually manufacturing ANY music CD is pretty much the same for any company, and it's ridiculously low. You can sell 10 CDs at $100 and make $980 profit and whine about 1,499,990 pirates, or you can sell 10,000 CDs at $10 and make $80,000 profit and whine about 1,490,000 pirates or 1,000,000 CDs at $3 and make $1,000,000 profit and whine about 500,000 pirates: the choice is theirs.
At the moment they are choosing to waste billions on technologies that not only won't work, but by definition can't work; and by prosecuting their (potential) client base (grrrreat business move :rolleyes: ) - all to defend a monopoly which, although they seem unaware or unwilling to accept this fact, they can no longer effectively monopolize.
They have to solve the problem technologically or they are hosed.
You missed this in my last post too - here it is again for the visually impaired: THERE IS NO TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTION. None. As I said last post: if you can hear it, you can copy it. And you have to be able to hear it, so by definition - it has to be copyable. Furthermore - if you really can't copy it, you can't actually make the millions of copies of discs to sell to people.
They can make it harder - like the current copy protection just creeping in that doesn't allow you to play it on a computer - but that also makes it less attractive: the record company will find those CDs a hard sell to owners of MP3 walkmans and iPods, for example (I know 2 people who refused to buy CDs purely because you can't listen to them on a computer - they'll no doubt wait till you can download them for free). But let me say it again.... THERE IS NO TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTION AND, BY DEFINITION, THERE CANNOT BE ONE.
-
I'm just wondering how all that music was written by Chopin and Mozart and Beethoven and their cronies without a record company watching out for their rights?
I mean.... songs will go away if we can get them for free right?
The buggy whip analogy Mr. Ra relates to a change in the pardigm not piracy. Things aren't what they used to be. The record companies have created a world that they wish to protect. That does not mean that it is right, only that it exists. I say it will soon be gone and music will reach us in different ways. So be it.
I think it equates nicely to the elegant solution scientists eventually went to, to proclaim credit for a discovery. Instead of hording knowledge of something new, which may have benefitted one man, they decided that the first to publish is the one who gets credit and the resulting acclaim.
If it ain't worth sharing it ain't worth doing.
-
How much does a typical CD album cost in the US?
-
-dead-,
Rather than go through your whole post bit by bit I'll just post another followup.
I didn't miss your point, you seem to miss mine. Commercially published books, music, movies, and software are the property of the owners, whoever that may be. As long as they own property rights to their product, they are entitled to make as much money on its sale as they can. It is a monopoly, and deliberately so. Most commercially published items make little or no money, popular ones can make a fortune. How much it costs to produce one CD does not factor in. I have to wonder if the CD would have ever been developed were it not for the record industry.
The new technology is causing the owners of these commercially published goods to lose control over its sale. So, yes, things are changing. You assume that getting the Suits out of the picture will only improve things, but that is irrelevant even if true. The fact remains that without the ability to protect intellectual property rights the producers of these things, whether they go through Suits or not, will not be able to sell their products at market prices. The technology makes it too easy to steal. I have to laugh when I hear someone complain that they paid $15 for a CD when they only wanted one song from it. Apparently that song was worth $15 to them, at least before Kaazaa.
I don't share your belief that taking most of the profit out of creative endevors is a good thing. If the Beatles hadn't started making money hand over fist they probably would have quit before most of us had ever heard of them. Those boys were fond of money, like just about all Rock stars are. If the last Harry Potter book had been widely distributed over the Net before the publisher could put it on the market, it may well have turned out to be the final Harry Potter book.
Some artists may have a workaround, like live performances which people go to for the experience. But authors, software developers, and film actors have to sell their products under tight controls in order to make the big bucks, which is what they want and which is their right. If their product is crass but it sells, who are we to judge? There is plenty of crass garbage available for free, so if people will pay to see Dumb and Dumberer, let them.
A technical solution does not have to be perfect, it only has to keep a majority of people honest. Anyone can download just about any software for free over Kaazaa, but most would not be able to figure out how to install it because of the simple blocks put in by the owners.
ra
-
Originally posted by ra
I don't share your belief that taking most of the profit out of creative endevors is a good thing. If the Beatles hadn't started making money hand over fist they probably would have quit before most of us had ever heard of them. Those boys were fond of money, like just about all Rock stars are. If the last Harry Potter book had been widely distributed over the Net before the publisher could put it on the market, it may well have turned out to be the final Harry Potter book.
There are many examples which blow this theory out of the water. The most recent I can think of would be Southpark. Had it not been for the netwide FREE distribution of the first episode Southpark probably wouldn't have made it to primetime (or lived passed the first episode).
En guarde!
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
There are many examples which blow this theory out of the water. The most recent I can think of would be Southpark. Had it not been for the netwide FREE distribution of the first episode Southpark probably wouldn't have made it to primetime (or lived passed the first episode).
En guarde!
Assuming they gave away the first episode free, do you think they would have made any more episodes if there was no money, or very little money, to be made for their efforts? The fact that cable can charge advertisers to see Southpark shows that there is still some control over its distribution. If every episode was widely available for free download as soon as it was created, the cable audience would dwindle as would the ad revenue.
ra
-
Originally posted by ra
I didn't miss your point, you seem to miss mine. Commercially published books, music, movies, and software are the property of the owners, whoever that may be. As long as they own property rights to their product, they are entitled to make as much money on its sale as they can. It is a monopoly, and deliberately so. Most commercially published items make little or no money, popular ones can make a fortune. How much it costs to produce one CD does not factor in.
OK so you're doing a really good impression of someone having missed my point then. ;) I concur with the above view - owners of copyrighted stuff are entitled to make as much money on its sale as they can. I have no beef with that. It doesn't contradict my point at all. Indeed, that little bit at the end - the "as they can" proviso is precisely the whole point: They can't sell it at the price they're charging, and they are merely encouraging more of their market to copy stuff for free. In short - charge whatever you damn well like, but don't whine about piracy if you charge too much. It's really up to you. People are prepared to pay for the stuff, but if you take the piss too much, they'll just copy it instead. I'm not arguing whether this is good or bad, I'm not saying it is or isn't morally reprehensible. Those are personal ethics, and up to the individual. I'm saying it is WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS. It is an observable reality of the post-internet economy. The unit cost of producing a CD is crucial - it gives the record & movie companies a way out. It means they can drop their pants much much more than a book publisher, a car manufacturer or any other bad analogy you can come up with. And therefore they can compete with file sharing.
I have to wonder if the CD would have ever been developed were it not for the record industry.
Actually if I recall the record industry moved to CDs mostly because they could not be copied to a similar level of fidelity. It was their foolproof system. So much for foolproof copy protection... The irony - if you enjoy a good twist of fate as much as I do - is that they have been hoisted by their own petard - they have facilitated their current loss of earnings by moving to CDs. As a side note: I also recall that they were considerably more expensive than LPs - which was odd because there was considerably less plastic involved and considerably less packaging and obviously less freight costs etc. However the record companies assured us that it was merely a question of the economy of scale - a temporary hike in prices and that later they would become much cheaper. The bit with CDs becoming much cheaper appears not to have come to pass however, which is curious to say the least. ;)
The new technology is causing the owners of these commercially published goods to lose control over its sale. So, yes, things are changing. You assume that getting the Suits out of the picture will only improve things, but that is irrelevant even if true. The fact remains that without the ability to protect intellectual property rights the producers of these things, whether they go through Suits or not, will not be able to sell their products at market prices. The technology makes it too easy to steal. I have to laugh when I hear someone complain that they paid $15 for a CD when they only wanted one song from it. Apparently that song was worth $15 to them, at least before Kaazaa.
Au contraire, people (suit-entangled or suit-free) can ALWAYS sell their products at market prices. The problem here is that the "market price" the record companies are selling at is no longer the true market price - it is much higher than the market price. Perhaps we should define market price: to me it means the price the market (CD buyers) is prepared to pay for a product (CDs) produced by a company (the record companies). So I'm simply stating a fact of capitalism: if you charge too much people won't buy it. And I'm adding a priviso: in the digital age, if your product is digital, they'll just pirate it. Companies are free to ignore these new game rules, but at their own peril.
I don't share your belief that taking most of the profit out of creative endevors is a good thing. If the Beatles hadn't started making money hand over fist they probably would have quit before most of us had ever heard of them. Those boys were fond of money, like just about all Rock stars are. If the last Harry Potter book had been widely distributed over the Net before the publisher could put it on the market, it may well have turned out to be the final Harry Potter book.
I'm all in favour of people getting pots of cash for being creative. I rely on this concept to make my living. In the case of rock stars as I said - there currently isn't actually much profit for their creative endeavours - they don't actually earn much from CDs and may have to rely on tours for their money. But again this whole line of reasoning is a bit of a straw man - I'd love to get paid $100 an hour to argue creatively on AH BBS, but I can't because.... no one will pay me that much to do it. And there's your answer - you can demand all you the money you like - it doesn't mean you'll get it. Only if the market thinks your product or service is worth it will you get it.
As to the book analogy - honestly, the best analogy for the record & movie industries are the record & movie industries. At least we're on a better footing than the car industry one - a book can be copied digitally - but again it's a product that basically is priced mostly on the cost of the materials. It also has little to fear from the internet yet, because a single book is more portable than every digital platform except the PDA, it's much higher resolution (2540 dpi as opposed to 72 or 96 dpi), and much easier to read without killing your eyes. The only things the ebook has over the book is storage space for several is much smaller and the search function. In other words the ebook is for the most part an inferior copy of the original - whereas MP3s are pretty much indistinguishable from the original.
Some artists may have a workaround, like live performances which people go to for the experience. But authors, software developers, and film actors have to sell their products under tight controls in order to make the big bucks, which is what they want and which is their right. If their product is crass but it sells, who are we to judge? There is plenty of crass garbage available for free, so if people will pay to see Dumb and Dumberer, let them.
I'm not stopping them at all - and as a fully paid-up, lifetime member of the Centre for the Easily Amused, I'll watch almost anything myself. I was merely poking fun at your assertion "If the media industry doesn't develop technology to protect copyrights all media content will eventually deteriorate to amateur productions." Again I should also reiterate - I don't deny the companies have a right to charge whatever they like - I'm merely observing that it doesn't matter what their rights are: the harsh economic reality of the digital age & the internet economy means that a hike in prices creates more piracy, a drop in prices reduces piracy.
A technical solution does not have to be perfect, it only has to keep a majority of people honest. Anyone can download just about any software for free over Kaazaa, but most would not be able to figure out how to install it because of the simple blocks put in by the owners.
Ten years ago, you'd have been absolutely right in that assumption. Nowadays, I'm afraid, you're completely wrong.
Digital copy protection has a life expectancy of about 3-6 months, and often less than that - if I recall the incdent with the billion dollar copy protection being defeated by the felt tip pen correctly. Any software will have a crack out to subvert it faster than the record companies could put the copy protection on to all their catalogue. And these copy protections seem to take much longer to develop than they do to crack, so practically speaking they record companies can't keep pace with the pirates - if they persue an arms race, for most of the time their music will be copyable. In short it's a useless waste of time, effort and money to even try.
"Aha! But not everyone can crack software protection - so most people will be kept legal", I hear you cry... Wrong. You need only a few people to crack the stuff and share the cracked files - in 3 days everyone has a copy - ah! the wonder and glory of the internet!
So my point is - it's time record companies realized that they already are hosed- not that they will be hosed unless... - but that they already are. They now have to stand up and take it on the chin and work out a new price that can compete with free. And the bottom line is that they can still compete with free, because a lot of people want to give money to rock stars - in return for cool music. But they don't want to pay $15-$20, especially in light of the fact that many bands are whining that the record companies don't let them see much of that at all.
-
it's time record companies realized that they already are hosed- not that they will be hosed unless... - but that they already are.
Amen!
-
Originally posted by ra
Assuming they gave away the first episode free, do you think they would have made any more episodes if there was no money, or very little money, to be made for their efforts? The fact that cable can charge advertisers to see Southpark shows that there is still some control over its distribution. If every episode was widely available for free download as soon as it was created, the cable audience would dwindle as would the ad revenue.
ra
I disagree entirely. The 'free' audience got those boys started. There has always been and always be plenty of sites for the people to download southpark episodes, they're relatively easy to find.
Yet the series still persists and makes money.
So here we have an example of the file sharing network promoting something from start to finish.
Southpark hasn't died due to piracy, it has flourished. Explain that?
-
You can record stuff that is broadcast into your home, but cannot distribute it.
Going out and actually grabbing bootleg copies is a copyright violation (I'm pretty sure - think of it as shoplifting) and SHARING them is definitely a copyright violation.
File sharers that see themselves as "stickin' it to the MAN" are just as lame as "hero hackers", IMO.
Non matter how you try to disguise yourself as some kind of robin hood, the reality is you're violating copyright laws to get free music and are lamely justifying it after the fact.
And the more you do to undermine intellectual property laws, the less incentive there is to actually work to produce anything.
Yeah, the record companies are greedy bastards - who isn't? But if its too expensive, DON'T BUY IT. Not buying it, then downloading it so you can have your cake and eat it too and then pretending to be some kind of anti-establishment hero is extremely weak.
BB <-- dons firesuit
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
I disagree entirely. The 'free' audience got those boys started. There has always been and always be plenty of sites for the people to download southpark episodes, they're relatively easy to find.
Yet the series still persists and makes money.
So here we have an example of the file sharing network promoting something from start to finish.
Southpark hasn't died due to piracy, it has flourished. Explain that?
Southpark flourishes BECAUSE of piracy? Southpark makes money because so far there are still a lot of people watching it through cable rather than stealing it. You seem to advocate stealing intellectual property as a way to lower the price, which is a redikqulis concept. It is the cable viewers who keep Southpark on the air, the downloaders are leeches.
The Beatles didn't give away their music, they were paid the market rate, which at first was almost nothing. But as they became successful the money flowed in and they started writing their own songs.
With the current technology the distribution of books, music, software, and films cannot be controlled by the owners. If new protections are not established, creative endeavors will dry up. It seems like a lot of people think that greed should not be a motivation for entertainers, but be real. Almost every successful entertainer is filthy rich, and they have earned it. Even CarrotTop. And most of the anti-commercial types like Zappa and Neil Young suck azz. They exist to give poseurs a sense of superiority over the common masses.
A copyright is like a patent, it allows the owner to make a boatload of money if his creation is in demand. This isn't greed, it's simply rewarding those who have unique abilities, like CarrotTop.
ra
-
Originally posted by ra
Southpark flourishes BECAUSE of piracy? Southpark makes money because so far there are still a lot of people watching it through cable rather than stealing it. You seem to advocate stealing intellectual property as a way to lower the price, which is a redikqulis concept. It is the cable viewers who keep Southpark on the air, the downloaders are leeches.
I didn't advocate anything. I just gave you a valid example that blow your theory : " The fact remains that without the ability to protect intellectual property rights the producers of these things, whether they go through Suits or not, will not be able to sell their products at market prices." completely out of the water.
1. Southpark would never had succeded had it not been for the 'illegal' distribution of the first episode. Its those 'leeches' that gave Southpark its life - this is undeniable.
2. South continues to flourish, even though it is one of the most 'pirated' series of video files (possibly due to the low video quality required for it).
This is in direct contradiction to your statement. And there are other examples out there.
-
THERE IS NO TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTION AND, BY DEFINITION, THERE CANNOT BE ONE.
there is one to stop it in future...
go back to putting all music on records and 8-tracks (sp)
even then i give it a week before someone figures out how to hack those
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
I didn't advocate anything. I just gave you a valid example that blow your theory : " The fact remains that without the ability to protect intellectual property rights the producers of these things, whether they go through Suits or not, will not be able to sell their products at market prices." completely out of the water.
1. Southpark would never had succeded had it not been for the 'illegal' distribution of the first episode. Its those 'leeches' that gave Southpark its life - this is undeniable.
2. South continues to flourish, even though it is one of the most 'pirated' series of video files (possibly due to the low video quality required for it).
This is in direct contradiction to your statement. And there are other examples out there.
You don't blow anything out of the water, my theory is not a theory, it is a fact. Intellectual property rights must be protected just as other property rights are. Creators create, customers pay, leeches leech.
How was the first episode of Southpark released? Was it stolen by hackers and put on the Web? Or released by its rightful owners deliberately? I'd be interested in some of these other examples. I'd like to know how piracy can help the victim.
With digital technology and telecommunications what they are, any property which can be digitized is now at risk of instant worldwide distribution. No amount of policing can stop this, so those in the business will have to come up with new technologies to protect their property, or new ways of selling their products.
ra
-
Thanks for the feedback, guys.
I have stopped sharing files, what with all the legal implications. I might still download an old song, but only because I can't buy it anywhere, and not doing this for commercial gain. I did recently download a movie that was recent, and since then felt bad about "stealing" it. Usually when I want a movie, I'll search for it on Amazon and buy a copy second hand. Often a movie can be bought for £5 - P&P might take that up to £8.
Yes, the record companies have been ripping us off on CD prices - especially in Britain. But we need to be paying something to ensure that good quality audio/video entertainment does not dry up. Maybe Kazaa has come head to head with those overpriced recordings, and will force the prices downwards. I'd be happy to pay those new sensible prices.
-
Originally posted by ra
You don't blow anything out of the water, my theory is not a theory, it is a fact. Intellectual property rights must be protected just as other property rights are. Creators create, customers pay, leeches leech.
Then explain the very existance of southpark today. According to your 'fact', it shouldn't exist. But the 'fact' is it does exist.
IIRC the first episode was 'leaked' and subsequently hit the FTP, newsgroups, and filesharing community big time.
You're in denial, just as the recording industry is. I remember many years ago, I met a guy from Sony NZ (the recording side of it) who told me MP3 was no threat because the quality was crap and who would be bothered downloaded files that size.
File sharing and internet distribution is here to stay - you just can't stop it by standing on a soapbox and screaming thieves at the top of your voice. There are those who will continue to fight it - they are pissing into the wind - and there are those who will ride it and use it to their advantage - they'll be the winners.
-
IIRC the first episode was 'leaked' and subsequently hit the FTP, newsgroups, and filesharing community big time.
Leaked by who, that is the question.
You're in denial, just as the recording industry is. I remember many years ago, I met a guy from Sony NZ (the recording side of it) who told me MP3 was no threat because the quality was crap and who would be bothered downloaded files that size.
Denial about what? I know technology threatens property rights, unlike your genius aquaintance from Sony.
Your whole diatribe is 'if you can't stop me from stealing it, it's mine'. That is completely true. But don't think this situation won't eventually affect the behavior of those who create that which you download. They will either come up with another distribution method, or they won't bother creating masterpieces like Dumb and Dumberer.
ra
-
It is the easyest way to get viruses/backdor trojans lol, I cant belive people still using that program for dw music and stuff.
Buy you own music/programs or take the risk of getting infected.
Some of the trojans there are so new that the best antivirus/firewalls still dont have a clue about them.
Personally I hate thos programs that steals both bandwith and does crappy things with my computer.
Another thing is even if you shut it down its still crapping your connection for hours and that also inflict your ping in a Internet game.
-
It is the easyest way to get viruses/backdor trojans lol, I cant belive people still using that program for dw music and stuff.
Buy you own music/programs or take the risk of getting infected.
Some of the trojans there are so new that the best antivirus/firewalls still dont have a clue about them.
Personally I hate thos programs that steals both bandwith and does crappy things with my computer.
Hello there sir.... You are way out of line...
You cant get infected by an MP3 files or movies (avi, mpeg etc) only executables, .pif .scr .com .bat .exe
If you stopped downloading music and movies due to virus infection risk, then you can start downloading again, whitout fear for infection....
Have an nice day :)
-
This Kazaa business is starting to turn ugly. The fine for illegal download could be £95,000 per song. :eek:
I have now expunged Kazaa from my system and have no files downloaded from it. It's turning ugly.
Newspaper story about girl facing prosecution (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$R45R5EY2QOAQNQFIQMGSFF4AVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2003/09/10/wdown10.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/09/10/ixportal.html)
-
Originally posted by OIO
Which is stupid really, those morons can only prosecute file-sharers in the USA.
In a year, if they are very successfull, no one in the US will be sharing files... but will be downloading them from servers in hong cong, russia, etc etc.
So please confirm - is it just americans that can be sued for filesharing?