| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting
In a major court decision the riaa can't have names of file sharers:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031219/D7VHI7400.html In a Dutch court, Kazaa found not liable for what it's users does with it. The music biz needs to face facts, the old technology on which monopoly and forced feeding of music product was standard practice, is no longer the reality. Apple showed that people will pay for the music people want, absent the "filler" on a cd. With downloading people pay exactly the going price for a music biz cd; nothing; people have voted with their mouse. The monoply standing greedily between artist and consumer has been broken. No more invented "talent" who are all image, no more doorkeepers who decide what music is recorded, no more fat bloated music biz structures that add not one note to the output of the artist but suck the profits only for having the monoply. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting
The music biz needs to face facts, the old technology on which monopoly
and forced feeding of music product was standard practice, is no longer the reality. Blah Blah. Meanwhile millions of people bought CDs this week. Go figure. --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting
"George" wrote in message ... In article , wrote: In a major court decision the riaa can't have names of file sharers: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031219/D7VHI7400.html In a Dutch court, Kazaa found not liable for what it's users does with it. The music biz needs to face facts, the old technology on which monopoly and forced feeding of music product was standard practice, is no longer the reality. Apple showed that people will pay for the music people want, absent the "filler" on a cd. With downloading people pay exactly the going price for a music biz cd; nothing; people have voted with their mouse. The monoply standing greedily between artist and consumer has been broken. No more invented "talent" who are all image, no more doorkeepers who decide what music is recorded, no more fat bloated music biz structures that add not one note to the output of the artist but suck the profits only for having the monoply. you truly can find feel your right on this? God, please save us from this mentality. next they will want free rent and food just beacuse a technology can accomadate the stealing of a artists work and income source, does not make it morally right to do so do you actually think people are going to pay for what they feel they are entitled to for free? and where does this feeling of entitlment stem from? the only root I cn see is the greed of the downloader coupled with a complete lack of American consumers will only pay for things they find value in. It is up to the record companies to make their products worth $16 more than a bunch of MP3s downloaded from the internet. As long as that value leans tilted towards illegally obtained discs, downloaded music will thrive. I personally have no problem downloading tracks to check out stuff I haven't heard. I'm the exeception, but if I like it, I'll end up buying records from that artist. Other products I can take back to the store if I don't like them, and while I still end up spending too much of my money on music, at least if I can download it I can check it out in the privacy in my own home (which is a big part of it for me, I don't have to hear my friends copy, I don't have to check it out on some listening station, etc, I can do it from the chair I sit in right now) before I make that commitment, and be happier with the product. The only money the industry loses from me is the cash I would have wasted on CDs I regretted buying, and that's something for which I'm just not going to feel guilty. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting
American consumers will only pay for things they find value in.
And steal what they don't? Who gives a **** if you want to buy the CDs or not. It's taking them without buying them that is the problem. It is up to the record companies to make their products worth $16 more than a bunch of MP3s downloaded from the internet. Make it worth more so what.... People then don't download anymore? How so? "Giev me better songs and I will buy them?" Bull****. As long as that value leans tilted towards illegally obtained discs, downloaded music will thrive. Value? of course free stolen good have "value". Someone paid to record and promite something you went to take for free. yes that has value to a person who just saved 10 bucks by stealing it. --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting
EggHd wrote: American consumers will only pay for things they find value in. And steal what they don't? Who gives a **** if you want to buy the CDs or not. It's taking them without buying them that is the problem. It is up to the record companies to make their products worth $16 more than a bunch of MP3s downloaded from the internet. Make it worth more so what.... People then don't download anymore? How so? "Giev me better songs and I will buy them?" Bull****. As long as that value leans tilted towards illegally obtained discs, downloaded music will thrive. Value? of course free stolen good have "value". Someone paid to record and promite something you went to take for free. yes that has value to a person who just saved 10 bucks by stealing it. --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" Now that the damage is done we need to stop trying to get back what was stolen and get on with making money again. The courts are not the place to solve this problem. We just need to move on before we are all completely out of work. I am working with a band right now and we aren't even going to release the new album on CD. It's going straight to DVD with tons of extra content. We are also going to provide mp3's of the stereo mixes and I am going to encode them as big as I can get them. We are going to make sure the files are so big that even if you want to share them you will need a really fast connection (or a hell of a lot of patience and time) and most people don't have those yet. Luckily most programs don't allow you to reencode mp3's to make them smaller(I am pretty sure anyway). It's not copy protection but it will be a hassle for most people out there to rip us off. We are just trying to motivate people to WANT to buy it because they can't get it like this anyplace online. You can't STOP people completely from doing it but there are ways to minimize it. Anyone have any clever ideas to thwart ripping and sharing without resorting to complex copy protection schemes? |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting
Anyone have any clever ideas to thwart ripping and sharing without resorting to complex copy protection schemes? yes on you down loadable copy place a 10 second 400hz tone in the middle or voice over some of it with "sample--sample--sample" "not to be shared or distributed" when I put together press packages for bands I tell them 45 seconds ea of 4 songs no whole songs not from a stealing pov more of a "who has time to listen to a 45 minute demo" POV George --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 12/11/2003 |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting
"Andrew M." wrote:
Anyone have any clever ideas to thwart ripping and sharing without resorting to complex copy protection schemes? People generally dislike stealing from poeple they like. Well, most do, anyway. Then there are people who like people but "steal" their music, simply because they could not have afforded to buy the CD to begin with. In the latter case, no harm is done. Quite the contrary, it helps with publicity. So let's focus on those people who _could_ have afforded buying the CD. We've got a psycholigical problem here. I would assume that most people falling into this category have a problem seeing art as made by human beings who they have sort of a relationship with. Music has become a product, a commodity. There are too many layers of abstraction, commonly referred to as "The Music Industry" between musicians and those wo enjoy listening to music. As far as I am concerned, I would assume that within the independent/small label scene the percentage of people buying CDs with stuff they could as well have ripped/downloaded is significantly higher than in the top 40 market. There still is a higher probability that people tend to _identify_ themselfs with the artists, they tend to _like_ the artists and, as pointed out above, people in general dislike stealing from people they like. I would assume that a band that _communicates_ with their fans has a far better chance of falling into the category of people people dislike stealing from. Communication is a two way process, though. Involves honesty, transparency and stuff like that to make people believe they're buying CD's from human beings after all. Best regards, Michael Tippach |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting
People generally dislike stealing from poeple they like.
So they steal what they don't like? Sure. In the latter case, no harm is done. Quite the contrary, it helps with publicity. How so? I would assume that most people falling into this category have a problem seeing art as made by human beings who they have sort of a relationship with. You assume? Nice. Music has become a product, a commodity. And when was this not so? There are too many layers of abstraction, commonly referred to as "The Music Industry" between musicians and those wo enjoy listening to music. So please tell who is this music industry? How do the people who steal the music even know to steal it? You may notice that nobody is steal Mrs Chinook's party favorites sing alongs. they are stealing the most well known tracks that caught on with the public. As far as I am concerned, I would assume that within the independent/small label scene the percentage of people buying CDs with stuff they could as well have ripped/downloaded is significantly higher than in the top 40 market. You are assuming again? There still is a higher probability that people tend to _identify_ themselfs with the artists, they tend to _like_ the artists and, as pointed out above, people in general dislike stealing from people they like If you don't like an artist why would you want their music? What a load of crap, by the way. --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting
EggHd wrote: There still is a higher probability that people tend to _identify_ themselfs with the artists, they tend to _like_ the artists and, as pointed out above, people in general dislike stealing from people they like If you don't like an artist why would you want their music? What a load of crap, by the way. A very large load. A thief is a thief. Makes no difference if you "like" the victim. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting
EggHd wrote:
People generally dislike stealing from poeple they like. So they steal what they don't like? Sure. They wouldn't have bought it anyway. And if, then not because they _need_ it or even _like_ it but because advertizing has made it clear to them that they they are going to die if they don't have it. In the latter case, no harm is done. Quite the contrary, it helps with publicity. How so? They spread the word. As I said, they wouldn't have bought the CD either way. I would assume that most people falling into this category have a problem seeing art as made by human beings who they have sort of a relationship with. You assume? Nice. Incidentally my opinion is based on... well... ...opinion. If you happen to have any hard evidence to the contrary you are welcome to put it on the table and I will stand corrected. Music has become a product, a commodity. And when was this not so? If you happen to believe human history began 100 years ago, you are right. There are too many layers of abstraction, commonly referred to as "The Music Industry" between musicians and those wo enjoy listening to music. So please tell who is this music industry? Thats the entity people believe they are "stealing" from. It's got no personality associated with it. Is that so hard to grasp? How do the people who steal the music even know to steal it? Doesn't compute. Please elaborate! You may notice that nobody is steal Mrs Chinook's party favorites sing alongs. they are stealing the most well known tracks that caught on with the public. .... top 40 stuff. Am I right or not? As far as I am concerned, I would assume that within the independent/small label scene the percentage of people buying CDs with stuff they could as well have ripped/downloaded is significantly higher than in the top 40 market. You are assuming again? You have any hard evidence to the contrary, again? There still is a higher probability that people tend to _identify_ themselfs with the artists, they tend to _like_ the artists and, as pointed out above, people in general dislike stealing from people they like If you don't like an artist why would you want their music? What a load of crap, by the way. It's simple. It costs almost nothing so why not have it? This is typical human behavior since the stone age, at least. Thanks for the judgemental statement, by the way. I "assume" ...not... I'm effing certain you do not understand the concept of communication I mentioned in the posting you were so kind to take your time responding to. Best regards, Michael Tippach |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting
"Michael Tippach" wrote in message ... EggHd wrote: People generally dislike stealing from poeple they like. So they steal what they don't like? Sure. They wouldn't have bought it anyway. And if, then not because they _need_ it or even _like_ it but because advertizing has made it clear to them that they they are going to die if they don't have it. In the latter case, no harm is done. Quite the contrary, it helps with publicity. How so? They spread the word. As I said, they wouldn't have bought the CD either way. yeah they spread the word alright, that word is, that stealing is OK and that here is where and how you can do it advretizing is telling me I would"die" without a SUV but I can't afford one and Iwould buy one so I guess it is ok to go steal one I would assume that most people falling into this category have a problem seeing art as made by human beings who they have sort of a relationship with. You assume? Nice. I thought that way , I would steal from stores but not people , then I turned 12 and finally understood STEALING IS WRONG Stealing is wrong I invite you to make your strongest argument why this is not so George --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 12/11/2003 |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting
They wouldn't have bought it anyway. And if, then not because they
_need_ it or even _like_ it but because advertizing has made it clear to them that they they are going to die if they don't have it. Right. I am going to look on P2P for something I hate like the Backstreet Boys because they are on a radio station that I don't listen to and in magazines I don't read. Right. They spread the word. As I said, they wouldn't have bought the CD either way. "Hey Bill, check this out. You can find all the tracks you want on Kazaa. Here, let me show you how to do it." Incidentally my opinion is based on... well... ...opinion. You didn't say "in my opinion".... You said "I assume." If you happen to believe human history began 100 years ago, you are right. When people stole sheet music becsue after all what was a piece of paper worth. In fact, "I'll steal the piano too as it's just some old wood and metal. Thats the entity people believe they are "stealing" from. It's got no personality associated with it. Is that so hard to grasp? You believe that people are thinking this deeply about it or it's right there in front of them on their computer so why not take it? How do the people who steal the music even know to steal it? Doesn't compute. Please elaborate! If it isn't "famous" they don't even know to go look for it. ... top 40 stuff. Am I right or not? There is plenty of Tom Waits being stolen as well. You have any hard evidence to the contrary, again? Meaning do I know if there has been 50K downloads of my nephews ****ty band and the downloader bypassed 3 Doors Down to get that? It's simple. It costs almost nothing so why not have it? This is typical human behavior since the stone age, at least. But people are stealing the "nice" stuff. The hit records. Those cost money even to make the theif aware of the product. How would you know to go steal a Gucci bag if it wasn't well marketed and made? Thanks for the judgemental statement, by the way. I "assume" ...not... Whatever I'm effing certain you do not understand the concept of communication A bit judgemental? --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting
George Gleason wrote:
"Michael Tippach" wrote in message ... EggHd wrote: People generally dislike stealing from poeple they like. So they steal what they don't like? Sure. They wouldn't have bought it anyway. And if, then not because they _need_ it or even _like_ it but because advertizing has made it clear to them that they they are going to die if they don't have it. In the latter case, no harm is done. Quite the contrary, it helps with publicity. How so? They spread the word. As I said, they wouldn't have bought the CD either way. yeah they spread the word alright, that word is, that stealing is OK and that here is where and how you can do it advretizing is telling me I would"die" without a SUV but I can't afford one and Iwould buy one so I guess it is ok to go steal one You are making a category error here. If someone who would under no circumstances have bought the CD is "stealing" the music, no harm is done. A SUV is a differnt matter. If I would just "clone" the SUV in your driveway, you probably wouldn't give a rat's rear end. I would assume that most people falling into this category have a problem seeing art as made by human beings who they have sort of a relationship with. You assume? Nice. I thought that way , I would steal from stores but not people , then I turned 12 and finally understood STEALING IS WRONG I'm not here to defend taking things without permission. The original question was whether there are any intelligent ways other than even more elaborate copy protection schemes to keep people from ripping/ downloading music instead of buying it. Moralizing isn't going to help, IMHO, you have to face reality. Stealing is wrong Sh*t happens, you know? I invite you to make your strongest argument why this is not so George Excellent straw man. I'm not here to defend "stealing". See above! I was making a suggestion in response to a specific question that was not particlurly soliciting a collective chanting of: Stealing is WRONG Stealing is WRONG Stealing is WRONG No, as far as _my_ reading comprehension, he was asking for opinions WRT what can be done to prevent "stealing". Believe me or not, just shouting "Stealing is wrong" does not answer that question! Best regards, Michael Tippach |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting
You are making a category error here. If someone who would under no
circumstances have bought the CD is "stealing" the music, no harm is done. That's not true. A SUV is a differnt matter. If I would just "clone" the SUV in your driveway, you probably wouldn't give a rat's rear end. A weak rationalization for theft. --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting
I hope to give lurkers and thieves a moments pause to reflect on the
crime they are about to commit, and that in my own way is helping stop theft to sit by in silence is equalivent to endorsing the act of stealing George |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting
|
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting
Michael Tippach wrote: Incidentally my opinion is based on... well... ...opinion. If you happen to have any hard evidence to the contrary you are welcome to put it on the table and I will stand corrected. He who states a thesis is traditionally burdened with its proof. Until then it has no more standing than the reputation of he who states it. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting
"EggHd" wrote in message ... American consumers will only pay for things they find value in. And steal what they don't? Who gives a **** if you want to buy the CDs or not. Couldn't an attitude like that be a problem in and of itself? The video game industry has just as much of a problem with 'pirating' as the music industry, and they have been dealing with it for far longer. They don't have problems with sales growth. jb It's taking them without buying them that is the problem. It is up to the record companies to make their products worth $16 more than a bunch of MP3s downloaded from the internet. Make it worth more so what.... People then don't download anymore? How so? "Giev me better songs and I will buy them?" Bull****. As long as that value leans tilted towards illegally obtained discs, downloaded music will thrive. Value? of course free stolen good have "value". Someone paid to record and promite something you went to take for free. yes that has value to a person who just saved 10 bucks by stealing it. --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting
Who gives a **** if you want to buy the CDs or not.
Couldn't an attitude like that be a problem in and of itself? Not in this case. If you don't like the music or an artist, don't buy it or go out and tell everyone it stinks. But to steal it under the bull**** of "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" is ****ed up. Even if you choose to steal the music that is such a bull**** excuse. The video game industry has just as much of a problem with 'pirating' as the music industry, and they have been dealing with it for far longer. They don't have problems with sales growth. So what? And stocks go up and down. Whoopie. --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting
"EggHd" wrote in message ... People generally dislike stealing from poeple they like. So they steal what they don't like? Sure. In the latter case, no harm is done. Quite the contrary, it helps with publicity. How so? I would assume that most people falling into this category have a problem seeing art as made by human beings who they have sort of a relationship with. You assume? Nice. Music has become a product, a commodity. And when was this not so? It depended on which side of the transaction you were on and/or how cynical you were. Popular music got as big as it did because of 'Rock', and 'Rock' got big because people invested ideas in it. They felt connected to it, they made it a part of their lives. As far as music being a commodity, it wasn't. It is starting to act like one, now that it is largely electronically distributed (legally or illegally). You may notice that nobody is steal Mrs Chinook's party favorites sing alongs. they are stealing the most well known tracks that caught on with the public. How do you know that, Egg? Not those 'consultants' the RIAA hired to type in the name of the top forty artists into Kazaa and see how many copies showed up! That's what they call multimillion dollar market research - the RIAA letting itself get ripped. Because nobody knows what is being downloaded, or listened to, it is essentially unknowable. Period. There still is a higher probability that people tend to _identify_ themselfs with the artists, they tend to _like_ the artists and, as pointed out above, people in general dislike stealing from people they like If you don't like an artist why would you want their music? What a load of crap, by the way. I think he means 'like and respect as people'. Sounds kind of Utopian, but I've heard it again and again. I went to a party at a law students house, who not only copied and downloaded music voraciously, she owned about 500 cd's. I asked why she bought those particular cd's and she said 'those are the ones by people I like and respect'. The fact that she didn't really know the people is irrelevant. She felt a connection. You can call the idea crap if you want, but it has gained a lot of currency. Speaking of currency, I wouldn't call anything 'crap' that generates sales. But I forgot, you don't care if people buy cd's or not. jb |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting
It depended on which side of the transaction you were on and/or how cynical
you were. Don't understand. Popular music got as big as it did because of 'Rock', and 'Rock' got big because people invested ideas in it. They felt connected to it, they made it a part of their lives. Popular music was big when Rudy Valee was a crooner too. many gernations before you. Don't believe that your generation or your personal view of pop music is the only one. As far as music being a commodity, it wasn't. It is starting to act like one, now that it is largely electronically distributed (legally or illegally). Music was never a commodity? When was this? When ever mersy beat bands from Liverpool and Blues bands from London were part of the British Invasion? When they made the Monkees? frankie and Annette? Fabian? Rick nelson? Elvis? How do you know that, Egg? How do I know that it's the "famous" songs being downloaded in the most % of downloads? Gee I don't know. You must know that there are titles being tracked and not 40 riaa people looking a shared drives. Because nobody knows what is being downloaded, or listened to, it is essentially unknowable. Period. the fact the noby gave a rats ass about the unsigned acts on MP3 or any of those sites should let you see a glimpse of what going on. Speaking of currency, I wouldn't call anything 'crap' that generates sales. But I forgot, you don't care if people buy cd's or not. That's not correct. I don't give rat's ass if that poster buys CDs or not. I believe it a bull**** excsue to say I don't like this CD enough to buy it, but I like it enough to take it. --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting
"Michael Tippach" wrote in message ... (Music Industry) Thats the entity people believe they are "stealing" from. It's got no personality associated with it. Is that so hard to grasp? See, the problem is that, what little money artists have managed to wrangle from those leeches is getting stolen also. So it goes. Best not to sign, ever. jb |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting
See, the problem is that, what little money artists have managed to wrangle
from those leeches is getting stolen also. So it goes. Best not to sign, ever. You don't know obivously. --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting
Michael Tippach wrote: They wouldn't have bought it anyway. And if, then not because they _need_ it or even _like_ it but because advertizing has made it clear Yawn... |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting
"EggHd" wrote in message ... It depended on which side of the transaction you were on and/or how cynical you were. Don't understand. Well, attitude. There were some in the industry that were idealistic about thier products. But a whole lot of customers invested ideas in music. Popular music got as big as it did because of 'Rock', and 'Rock' got big because people invested ideas in it. They felt connected to it, they made it a part of their lives. Popular music was big when Rudy Valee was a crooner too. many gernations before you. Don't believe that your generation or your personal view of pop music is the only one. Just look at sales growth, year over year, for the overall industry and for individual genres. The definition of a 'hit' in 1957 was far different than in 1997. As far as music being a commodity, it wasn't. It is starting to act like one, now that it is largely electronically distributed (legally or illegally). Music was never a commodity? When was this? When ever mersy beat bands from Liverpool and Blues bands from London were part of the British Invasion? When they made the Monkees? frankie and Annette? Fabian? Rick nelson? Elvis? Sorry, wrong group... yeah, it's a commodity in that sense, the general sense, and people have always made a profit off of it in one way or another (though for the longest time, it was only the musicians making money off music, they were poor then, too) what I was getting at is that music and other products that are distributed digitally start to resemble things like oil, grain, gold, etc., in the way they are bought and sold. We'll see. How do you know that, Egg? How do I know that it's the "famous" songs being downloaded in the most % of downloads? Gee I don't know. You must know that there are titles being tracked and not 40 riaa people looking a shared drives. So which ones are they tracking? The ones they want to publicize as 'most downloaded'? And there are plenty of the same files that they didn't put there for the purpose of tracking them later. As I said, essentially unknowable. Because nobody knows what is being downloaded, or listened to, it is essentially unknowable. Period. the fact the noby gave a rats ass about the unsigned acts on MP3 or any of those sites should let you see a glimpse of what going on. Sure, but what about back catalogue and indies? Nobody knows. Speaking of currency, I wouldn't call anything 'crap' that generates sales. But I forgot, you don't care if people buy cd's or not. That's not correct. I don't give rat's ass if that poster buys CDs or not. I believe it a bull**** excsue to say I don't like this CD enough to buy it, but I like it enough to take it. Fair enough, I see the logic there. But I find it telling that there was one guy in this thread who actually is looking for a way to sell product, asked for help, and everybody just kept yelling about morality, whether they are in the business or not. jb |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting
"EggHd" wrote in message ... The video game industry has just as much of a problem with 'pirating' as the music industry, and they have been dealing with it for far longer. They don't have problems with sales growth. So what? And stocks go up and down. Whoopie. You did NOT miss my point. They have a product that people still buy, even though they know they can get it free and can easily do so. So what is it about games that they would rather buy than steal? Or steal first, and then buy? The other thing in there is that piracy, in and of itself, is not an excuse for crappy sales. The product is not interesting enough to people, or doesn't come in a package that they want to own. To top it off, the music industry has a bigger PR problem than microsoft does, further contributing to the decline in sales. jb |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting
Bob Cain wrote: Michael Tippach wrote: Incidentally my opinion is based on... well... ...opinion. If you happen to have any hard evidence to the contrary you are welcome to put it on the table and I will stand corrected. He who states a thesis is traditionally burdened with its proof. Until then it has no more standing than the reputation of he who states it. Someone quoting Einstein should know that one never can prove anything beyond any doubt. A thesis has credibility if it is falsifyable, which mine is. http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ig.htm Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting
"Andrew M."
Luckily most programs don't allow you to reencode mp3's to make them smaller(I am pretty sure anyway). Save as .wav, no appreciable quality loss.. Re-encode the mp3. No big deal. -John Vice www.summertimestudios.com |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting
John wrote: "Andrew M." Luckily most programs don't allow you to reencode mp3's to make them smaller(I am pretty sure anyway). Save as .wav, no appreciable quality loss.. Re-encode the mp3. No big deal. -John Vice www.summertimestudios.com My point being that MOST people don't know how or ever care to kow how to do that. It will slow most people down. The more you slow them down the quicker you get to making back your money before it's available for free. |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting
In article ,
Michael Tippach wrote: EggHd wrote: They wouldn't have bought it anyway. And if, then not because they _need_ it or even _like_ it but because advertizing has made it clear to them that they they are going to die if they don't have it. Right. I am going to look on P2P for something I hate like the Backstreet Boys because they are on a radio station that I don't listen to and in magazines I don't read. Right. If I hate the Backstreet Boys's music frankly I do not listen to it. Most people do not hate it (except when force fed), they just don't like it. We are talking of groups like teenagers here with like 10000 songs on their hard drives each. That's like 1000 CDs at $16 each - by the logic of the RIAA. Since P2P isn't around for too long you can do the math, taking into account the average per capita income (not just in the United States) and then tell me how many percent of the population could have afforded 16k worth of CDs in a rather short time span and how does the fact they could not afford it justify stealing it?. maybe you should be a lawyer or a politician. If a president can say a blow job isn't sex then perhaps you could make a case that taking something that you do not own, nor have permission to take is not stealing you still have not resolved the core issue , the fact you are stealing this music you dance around it and try to rationalize it away but the fact remains copying copyrighted material with out expressed permission of the copyright owner is against the law it doesn't matter if it is downloaded or you copy a book on a copy machine it is stealing do you support plagerism as well? grow the frick up , you are old enough and civilized enough to know I am speaking the truth G |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting
|
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting
|
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting
EggHd wrote: You are making a category error here. If someone who would under no circumstances have bought the CD is "stealing" the music, no harm is done. That's not true. How so? A SUV is a differnt matter. If I would just "clone" the SUV in your driveway, you probably wouldn't give a rat's rear end. A weak rationalization for theft. Quite the contrary. A violation of copyright law is a violation of copyright law. Theft is theft and not the same thing as a violation of copyright law. Both share the property of an unlawful act. But they differ in at least as far as the amount of actual damage done. If A takes $16 out of B's pocket, the monetary damage to B is $16, while A now is unlawful possession of $16. OTOH, If A, who is in possession of $0, downloads the contents of a CD of B (assuming that this is an unlawful act under the juristdiction of A and B), what is the actual monetary damage to B? It is the amount A would otherwise have been prepared to give B in exchange for the CD. Which is exactly zero since A only is in possession of $0. Still, A is listening to a copy of B's music obtained by unlawful means. A's quality of life has improved while B's was not damaged at all. Admittedly this is a bit oversimplified but it might serve to point out what I originally thought would be obvious anyway. IMHO it would be more reasonable to use the model of an accumulated budget society would be spending on music if the only means of access to music would be buying it. Once this budget is spent, you cannot sell any more music because simply the budget has been depleted. This creates a situation where not everyone has access to the music sold, but no more money can be made from it. At that point you can have everyone have access to the music without losing anything but adding value to people's lives. The problem with this approach is that neither current legislation nor the concept of market place economy are prepared to handle this kind of scenario. Well, except maybe for the U.S. constitution which stipulates furtherment of art and science for the benfit of society as a whole. Profit motivation is seen as a means of achieving that goal, an incentive for people to make music, write software... stuff like that. But still it is assumed to be a secondary measure of achieving the primary goal of benefitting human society. If profit motivation gets in the way of achieving the primary goal OTHO, it could be argued that, as far as the, U.S. it would even be unconstitutional. So much about moralizing. The current model neither serves people who enjoy music nor does it serve musicians, producers... etc. It alienates artists from their audience and the other way around. It even serves to alienate artists from the very art they create by turning it into a commodity. (That the concept of alienation is from Marx does not automatically make it wrong just because it is from Marx. He might even have recycled it from someone else's ideas who knows) The only entity that would not benefit if the current model is being changed is the music industry, unless they re-prioritize their business towards adding value to music instead of acting as a barrier between artists and their audience like mere toll collectors. I have very little hope here. Best regards, Michael Tippach |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting
George wrote:
In article , Michael Tippach wrote: EggHd wrote: They wouldn't have bought it anyway. And if, then not because they _need_ it or even _like_ it but because advertizing has made it clear to them that they they are going to die if they don't have it. Right. I am going to look on P2P for something I hate like the Backstreet Boys because they are on a radio station that I don't listen to and in magazines I don't read. Right. If I hate the Backstreet Boys's music frankly I do not listen to it. Most people do not hate it (except when force fed), they just don't like it. We are talking of groups like teenagers here with like 10000 songs on their hard drives each. That's like 1000 CDs at $16 each - by the logic of the RIAA. Since P2P isn't around for too long you can do the math, taking into account the average per capita income (not just in the United States) and then tell me how many percent of the population could have afforded 16k worth of CDs in a rather short time span and how does the fact they could not afford it justify stealing it?. They do not 'steal'. They violate the artist's rights under the current copyright law in several countries. How often do I need to point out the difference? maybe you should be a lawyer or a politician. What do the court lottery and politics have in common with logic? What about adressing the message, instead of the messenger? If a president can say a blow job isn't sex then perhaps you could make a case that taking something that you do not own, nor have permission to take is not stealing Unlawfully copying music isn't taking something. It is getting _access_ to something in an unlawful way. Music is not 'things'. It is language as yours that creates a mindset to the contrary i.e. music seen as a commodity. It is exactly this mindset which makes it easy for people to not feel bad about what they are doing when ripping music, which brings us back to my first contribution to this thread. you still have not resolved the core issue , the fact you are stealing this music you dance around it and try to rationalize it away Now stuff is getting really interesting. What in the world supports your assertion that _I_ would be 'stealing' or even unlawfully getting access to music? Have I stated anything in this regard? So why the ad hominem? Attacking the messenger is not exactly the same as addressing the message, leave alone resolving any sort of a 'core issue'. Plus, since moralizing appears to so popular in this place, I shall rephrase: LIBEL is both UNLAWFUL and WRONG. but the fact remains copying copyrighted material with out expressed permission of the copyright owner is against the law Not everywhere. Fair use clauses vary from juristdiction to juristdiction. it doesn't matter if it is downloaded or you copy a book on a copy machine it is stealing No. It is a violation of copyright law if, and only if it violates applicable copyright law. (Remember Fair Use!) do you support plagerism as well? ....as well as what? grow the frick up , you are old enough and civilized enough to know I am speaking the truth While I agree with you as far as I think that I'm "old enough and civilized enough", I do not necessarily agree with other statements of yours. What's 'the truth' anyway? Quite a claim to be made by a faillable human being, methinks. |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting
Upon careful and thoughtful review of your response
I find your post full of self-serving bull**** and avoidence address the FACT that theft is takeing place, how do you justify stealing? Taking what is not yours is STEALING copying copyrighted material without expressed permission of the copyright holder is theft This is the collective "you" I have no idea if you personally are stealing but if you are I condem it if you are not I commend you Peace george --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 12/11/2003 |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting
Trond Ruud wrote: Probably, but that's mostly because CDs are losing out to .mp3s as music medium, I suspect If, instead, the price of paid .mp3 downloads dropped from $1 to 50 cents, I believe it would make a difference however - provided the supply of mp3s titles for paid download are increased to meet the demand. Same thing, if they can get the file for free vs: 5 cents, they will take the free one. And there are plenty of costs associated with the mp3 distribution. 50 cents is not enough to pay everyone involved and leave ANTHING for the artist. In fact even at 1 dollar there is not really enough. So, who should be working for free in the process? |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting
Mike Rivers wrote: In article writes: They wouldn't have bought it anyway. The classic argument for stealing something that doesn't cost anything to make - But you're not helping the artist either, so why not just get out out of his business? Do you **** whores without paying because you wouldn't pay for it anyway, and besides, they can always sell it to someone else? I hate repeating myself, but theft of goods and services is not the same as violating copyright laws. I shall repeat myself once mo If it _were_ the same there would be no need for copyright laws in the first place, because common property righs law would suffice. If you cool down a bit and re-read my article you may discover that at no point I did say that it was o.k. that things are the way they are. I was rather _describing_ things the way I think they are. He who describes stuff cannot be held responsible for stuff. He only can be held responsible for his _description_. Got that? They spread the word. As I said, they wouldn't have bought the CD either way. Depends on the word that they spread. If the word is "this is a cool band and you can get their music by downloading from ****** (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) how does that help? The RIAA is currently doing an excellent job in making sure everyone on the planet learns about the existence of P2P, if they didn't know already. Now if you had great credibility as a critic, and were respected as a trusted businessman, you could tell people that YOU think the music is good enough to buy, and that if they buy it from YOU (so you'll know that they're paying for it) you'll send 85% of the money to the artist, taking a modest 15% commission for your trouble. Just like an independent distributor. Now THAT would be helping the artist. But just downloading for free and spreading the word doesn't help anyone. Now that would be what I call adding value to music. Unfortunately, this does not describe the current state of affairs as far as the music industry in a particularly accurate fashion. Best regards, Michael Tippach |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting
"George Gleason" wrote in message
I thought that way , I would steal from stores but not people , then I turned 12 and finally understood STEALING IS WRONG Stealing is wrong I invite you to make your strongest argument why this is not so George I take it you have never recorded anything from TV onto your VCR. Unfortunately that doesn't hold true for most of us. So I have lots of movies on tape. But for the ones I really like I do go out and buy the DVD. Of course there is also the problem of taping my CDs onto cassette mixes. Technically I should go out and buy that artist's individually sold cassette. And wait for K-Tel to come out with a prefabricated mix maybe 10 years from now. We can't be sticklers in one area. We must re-examine all our illegal activities. I'm debating whether TIVO is a ripoff of the networks. I think it must be. They provide free television in exchange for running commercials. We zap the commercials. The networks lose money, and all because we've found a technological way around the system. (Of course the old fashioned way is hitting the bathroom or the refrigerator during commercials) It used to be that musicians made money touring and performing. Then technology came along -- you could record albums! And charge people for them! Cool. Then 8-tracks and cassettes came along. People wanted the new technology. They got charged again for the same music! Then came the CD. Charged again! Then came the MP3. Whoops. Now the consumer is getting for free what they were charged 2-3 times for already. Double whoops. What's a musician to do? Tour. Trish |
Linear Mode
