Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Study shows downloading helps cd sales
In article ,
EggHd wrote: 1. Please show where people are buying $20 Cds anymore. When I can bring myself to buy a CD at all, it's usually something *very* special, albeit rarely a single disc. Last CD I bought was harpsichord music, 2 discs, $35.00. 2. Please explain where the money goes from a $20 CD. I think all of it goes straight up the nose of some elected official, plus a lot more. |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Study shows downloading helps cd sales
Mike Rivers wrote:
As you repeat ad anusium I've wondered what his deal is. That does explain it. -- ha |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Study shows downloading helps cd sales
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... ryanm wrote: "Mike Rivers" wrote in message news:znr1080841276k@trad... Yeah, but he has to do more work than drag-and-drop, and most of today's music collectors won't put up with real time recording, fast-wind-and-search, the pause button, and most of all, not having a source list generated automatically. So it's about how difficult it is? I thought it was all "steeEEEEEeeeling!!!!" Why does how difficult or easy it is matter if it's a fundamental crime against humanity that deserves a prison sentence? It's all stealing. The point is that making it easier for people to steal things is a bad idea. People who are determined will steal things no matter what precautions you take, but the majority of people who steal things do so just because it's easy and they don't think they'll get caught. Putting a lock on your front door doesn't do anything to prevent a determined thief from getting in, but it will keep random kids from walking in and perhaps taking a souvenir. --scott Media and software companies have the right to protect thier software by whatever non-intrusive and non-destructive means they can come up with, including not selling non-secure media in the first place (cd's). They can put on a lock, they can change the lock as often as they want, they can change or move the door. They don't, or shouldn't, be allowed to attack, physically or legally, networks that belong to someone else and legislate themselves into a monopoly on distribution. Currently, the RIAA companies have been given the right by the US govt. to nefariously hack any public network that has no central server, in which there has been any instance of piracy. I can see how a lot of people might be interested in hindering p2p technology. jb |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
RealVirus (was: Study shows downloading helps cd sales)
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message news:znr1080915683k@trad... In article writes: Real Networks stuff Switch to Linux and try Helix https://helixcommunity.org/ I'm not about to switch to Linux just for this, but is there something other than a Real product that can play their format? I thought they pretty much had it locked up. If there's a Linux application not from Real that can play their streaming audio, why isnt' there a Windows application? That would be something to ask them, but given that it takes a lot of hours to port code from Linux to Windows, they probably just haven't done it yet. I'm not familiar with that project, but my guess is it began as a way to add functionality to Linux, and Windows would/will be an 'afterthought'. jb |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Study shows downloading helps cd sales
"ryanm" wrote in message ... An interesting book which has absolutely nothing to do with music or P2P downloading is called _The Cluetrain Manifesto: The End of Business as Usual_ by Chris Locke. You can find it, in its entirety, online he http://www.peak.org/~luomat/misc/clu...m/cluetrain/fo reword.html A great ****ing book! jb |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Study shows downloading helps cd sales
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1080914544k@trad... I wouldn't lump musicians in with audiophiles when it comes to enjoying playback from vinyl. Musicians, as a generalization, don't have audiophile-quality playback systems. (they have their money tied up in instruments or recording gear) True, but they're both out buying the cds. It's a little different. It's publicity that's paid for by the record companies (sometimes) - and at other times it's an invitation to steal. But in the days when a station played a whole side of an LP uninterrupted (and announced it beforehand) recording technology was at the point where it was pretty much one copy for one listener. If someone who taped an album from the radio played the tape for his friends, maybe some of them would go out to buy the album. But today, they'd just ask for a copy of the file. And what data do you base that assumption on? All the data I've seen suggests quite the opposite. I can think of at least 5 factors that *should* have contributed to lower cd sales in 2003 - 1) The release of DRM cds that don't work and **** off consumers 2) Less variety in the artists being publicized 3) Rising costs of cds 4) Severe drop in the economy 5) Bad publicity due to lawsuits causing many people to boycott RIAA labels - but by all the available data, the numbers are actually up. So how do they manage to show an *increase* in sales despite all of these factors? It certainly can't be that downloading is *hurting* sales. Worst case, downloading has no significant impact on cd sales. Best case, it is *responsible* for the rise in sales despite the other factors which should've contributed to a decline. ryanm |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Study shows downloading helps cd sales
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1080914930k@trad... As you repeat ad anusium, it's not worth prosicuting 100,000 individuals each for $2 worth of royalties so they need to take another approach. Even if the other approach is illegal (unconstitutional) or immoral? If the record companies see this as a loss of $200,000, that ain't hay, so they're looking for a way to stop the process so there won't be anyone to prosecute. It's not my problem how they see it, that's their problem. *I* don't get to change the law just because I think I could make more money if it weren't so damn hung up on people's rights and all that. Why do they? And why do you condone buying justice? ryanm |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Study shows downloading helps cd sales
"Sean Conolly" wrote in message
... Which is strangely valued more than profit. That's why the record companies are always the last ones to figure how to make money from something new. That's because control means long term profits, rather than just more profits right now. ryanm |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Study shows downloading helps cd sales
"DrBoom" wrote in message
m... The concept is pretty simple: the passage of contemptible laws leads to public contempt of all the laws. Anyone who cares about this issue should read the full text of his speeches. http://www.baen.com/library/palaver4.htm That's excellent, thanks. ryanm |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Study shows downloading helps cd sales
"EggHd" wrote in message
... Considering the portion that actually goes to the creators of the music and the retailers, $20 CDs are just outrageously priced. 1. Please show where people are buying $20 Cds anymore. 2. Please explain where the money goes from a $20 CD. If you post this kind of thing, please back it up. How about this, I'll retract the statement about $20 CDs since it's been quite a while since I've bought any, and I'll keep my *opinion* that there is a lot of money per CD that the labels can use more efficiently. I'll top it off by shutting up now and stepping out of this discussion. Sean |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Study shows downloading helps cd sales
Paul Rubin wrote:
(Mike Rivers) writes: Even to the extent that I agree there could be some damage done by the combination of copyable media and easy, cheap, effective distribution methods, I will not accept the abridgement of my own rights as an artist or as a citizen, as collatteral damage. That might be a short term bump in the road, and the sooner people stop doing the thing that causes that bump, the sooner it will go away. Nonsense, it's about control, not copying. So what if it is? All producers of services and goods wish to control the means of distributing them. Nothing new under the sun here. I just feel that an artist and his agents have the right to set the terms of aquisition of their work and can expect it to be honored. If it takes new law to make that absolutely explicit with criminal culpability, then bring it on. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Study shows downloading helps cd sales
ryanm wrote:
"Sean Conolly" wrote in message ... Which is strangely valued more than profit. That's why the record companies are always the last ones to figure how to make money from something new. That's because control means long term profits, rather than just more profits right now. Precisely. How nice it is to see that some can still think that way. 99% of what is wrong with our economy and job market now and in the future is the loss of this perspective at every level. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
RealVirus (was: Study shows downloading helps cd sales)
Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes: Real Networks stuff Switch to Linux and try Helix https://helixcommunity.org/ I'm not about to switch to Linux just for this, but is there something other than a Real product that can play their format? I thought they pretty much had it locked up. If there's a Linux application not from Real that can play their streaming audio, why isnt' there a Windows application? I've often wondered something similar Mike. As in a simple plug-in. Seems like the answer is no. I guess Real want to preserve their format and player as unique. This was actually a major part of the recent issue betwwen the EU and Microsoft. This time - instead of being berated for bundling their browser with the OS - to the detriment of Netscape at the time, Microsoft got clobbered for trying to dominate media content through Media Player. This time there are TWO other major players; Real and Apple they're head on with. It's a pain for us users though ! Graham |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Study shows downloading helps cd sales
Bob Cain writes:
I just feel that an artist and his agents have the right to set the terms of aquisition of their work and can expect it to be honored. If you really believe they have such a right, then the way to get it recognized is get two thirds of both houses of Congress and three quarters of the state legislatures to amend the Constitution to say so. Right now there is no such "right" anywhere in the law. Rather, copyright is an economic incentive to produce new works under the Constitution's Progress clause, similar to the tax credit for buying a low-emission car is an incentive to reduce air pollution under the Clean Air Act. Both incentives are simply public policy decisions made at the discretion of Congress. Neither one is a "right", and either one could be withdrawn tomorrow if enough people got Congress to vote that way (think of 60 million angry ex-Napster users). What we're seeing instead is a bunch of powerful corporate lobbyists corrupting Congress under the guise of helping creators, who pretty often don't want that kind of "help". |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Study shows downloading helps cd sales
"Bob Cain" wrote in message
... I just feel that an artist and his agents have the right to set the terms of aquisition of their work and can expect it to be honored. If it takes new law to make that absolutely explicit with criminal culpability, then bring it on. That doesn't make any sense, though. Where does criminal culpability come into play in civil matters of property? It's not stealing, that much is obvious (in order to be theft, the owner must be denied possession of it at least temporarily), it's not even property damage. This, and should be, a civil matter. There is no inalienable right to have a monopoly on property. I urge you to read the excellent reference someone else posted: http://www.baen.com/library/palaver4.htm It is a quote of some speeches given in Parliament in 1841 regarding copyright law, and it outlines some of the problems with copyright law as a whole, which puts these questions of criminal charges by 3rd party owners of copyrights in a completely different light if you can be bothered to understand his (Thomas Babington Macaulay's) point. ryanm |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
RealVirus (was: Study shows downloading helps cd sales)
"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
... This was actually a major part of the recent issue betwwen the EU and Microsoft. This time - instead of being berated for bundling their browser with the OS - to the detriment of Netscape at the time, Microsoft got clobbered for trying to dominate media content through Media Player. This time there are TWO other major players; Real and Apple they're head on with. It's a pain for us users though ! And this is the point. MS is trying to make things easier for the users, and is getting sued for it. They are not trying dominate media content, they are simply trying to provide a single player capable of playing back all media types, which comes with Windows so that no 3rd party downloads (especially of invasive, aggressive player software) is necessary to view online media. ryanm |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
RealVirus (was: Study shows downloading helps cd sales)
"reddred" wrote in message ... "Mike Rivers" wrote in message news:znr1080915683k@trad... In article writes: Real Networks stuff Switch to Linux and try Helix https://helixcommunity.org/ I'm not about to switch to Linux just for this, but is there something other than a Real product that can play their format? I thought they pretty much had it locked up. If there's a Linux application not from Real that can play their streaming audio, why isnt' there a Windows application? That would be something to ask them, but given that it takes a lot of hours to port code from Linux to Windows, they probably just haven't done it yet. I'm not familiar with that project, but my guess is it began as a way to add functionality to Linux, and Windows would/will be an 'afterthought'. jb Oh, I see. I misunderstood. I guess the reason Real doesn't allow their format to be used by others is because they want you to download their adware. jb |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Study shows downloading helps cd sales
"Bob Cain" wrote in message ... ryanm wrote: "Sean Conolly" wrote in message ... Which is strangely valued more than profit. That's why the record companies are always the last ones to figure how to make money from something new. That's because control means long term profits, rather than just more profits right now. Precisely. How nice it is to see that some can still think that way. 99% of what is wrong with our economy and job market now and in the future is the loss of this perspective at every level. Vertically integrated control is precisely the reason our economy sucks right now, jobs move overseas, and the free market doesn't work for 98 percent of the people on the planet. jb |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
RealVirus (was: Study shows downloading helps cd sales)
In article writes: Switch to Linux and try Helix https://helixcommunity.org/ given that it takes a lot of hours to port code from Linux to Windows, they probably just haven't done it yet. I'm not familiar with that project, but my guess is it began as a way to add functionality to Linux, and Windows would/will be an 'afterthought'. Oh, c'mon, you know what I meant. I wasn't asking why THAT program hadn't been ported to Windows. I was just expressing surprise that since nobody but Real has a product for Windows that plays their format, someone has built one for Linux. There are hundreds of WAV file players, and MP3 players. Why not RA? As unpopular as RealPlayer is with people who are computer-smart, a Windows "aftermarket" Real Player would have come out long ago. Hard to believe that the program code or data format is so difficult to reverse engineer that only a Linux programmer could (or would) do it. -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over, lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Study shows downloading helps cd sales
In article writes: Nonsense, it's about control, not copying. Forget copying, it's distribution that they want to control. They aren't quibbling about you buying a CD and making an MP3 copy of it to play on your iPod or even selecting tunes from it to put on a compilation disk for a road trip or party. There's a law that says you can do that. What they want to control is your distributing that material to others, and it seems that it's their right to exercise that control. We're really attacking the wrong people because they're easiest to identify. We're attacking the downloaders, when really we should be attacking those who make music available to the downloaders. However, those people tend not to be large buyers (SOMEBODY has to buy at least one CD) but tend to be large downloaders themselves. So before arresting someone who has a large number of music files on his computer, let them see the original CDs or at least purchase receipts for them. No got? Do not pass Go, do not collect $200. -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over, lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Study shows downloading helps cd sales
In article ,
Paul Rubin wrote: If you really believe they have such a right, then the way to get it recognized is get two thirds of both houses of Congress and three quarters of the state legislatures to amend the Constitution to say so. Right now there is no such "right" anywhere in the law. You have some serious misunderstandings about copyright in the USA, and I wouldn't know where to start! Copyright on your creative works is a Constitutional right to begin with. It would require an Act of Congress to take it away. But, you are free to bequeath that right. When you sign the instrument that does so, it's your choice. And that's the moment that the artist loses control of distribution. He does it because it's the only way his material is going to get produced, and it's the only way he's going to get to play on a stage with a sign advertising a beer company. Rather, copyright is an economic incentive to produce new works under the Constitution's Progress clause, similar to the tax credit for buying a low-emission car is an incentive to reduce air pollution under the Clean Air Act. Both incentives are simply public policy decisions made at the discretion of Congress. Neither one is a "right", and either one could be withdrawn tomorrow if enough people got Congress to vote that way (think of 60 million angry ex-Napster users). What we're seeing instead is a bunch of powerful corporate lobbyists corrupting Congress under the guise of helping creators, who pretty often don't want that kind of "help". Copyright is an essential right. It isn't justified solely by economic considerations. Your analysis is almost completely wrong, even though I tend to agree with your take on corporatism. If you don't assign your rights to another party, they are yours, period. If you do assign your rights to another party, well, you should read and understand anything you sign, ever. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Study shows downloading helps cd sales
In article ,
reddred wrote: They're already doing that stuff. Maybe not on a scale that is ideal, but these are BIG ASS companies we are talking about, not the biggest, but big enough to where change is really expensive and they inherently resist change anyway. The bigger they are, the harder they fall. If they manage to take over control of governments on the way, even harder do they fall. Hey, are you red dred the fantastic guitarist by any chance? |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Study shows downloading helps cd sales
"Bob Cain" wrote in message ... Paul Rubin wrote: (Mike Rivers) writes: Even to the extent that I agree there could be some damage done by the combination of copyable media and easy, cheap, effective distribution methods, I will not accept the abridgement of my own rights as an artist or as a citizen, as collatteral damage. That might be a short term bump in the road, and the sooner people stop doing the thing that causes that bump, the sooner it will go away. Nonsense, it's about control, not copying. So what if it is? All producers of services and goods wish to control the means of distributing them. Nothing new under the sun here. I just feel that an artist and his agents have the right to set the terms of aquisition of their work and can expect it to be honored. If it takes new law to make that absolutely explicit with criminal culpability, then bring it on. I think it's more a question of what needs to be done in order to enforce a new law. It could become a very dangerous and non-free world with the technology in place that would enforce the law, not to mention that deployment would cost more than the entire music and movie industry is worth. They don't need a new law, they need to stop selling a format that can be ripped off so easily - cd's and dvd's... Their problem, their solution. Then we can all bitch and moan about how our cd players are obsolete. jb |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Study shows downloading helps cd sales
"Sean Conolly" wrote in message ... "Mike Rivers" wrote in message news:znr1080853095k@trad... In article writes: I think what the music business leaders don't want to realize is that they're simply losing money through bad business practices So how do you suggest that they change? Do what they're doing now only drop the retail price by 50%? That's a good way to lose even more money. 1. Look around for way to tighten up operations. I've worked for a number of large companies and there were always plenty of ways to improve the efficiency of operations. 2. Set reasonable prices to increase volume. If you reduce prices by 30% but double your volume you will come out ahead. Considering the portion that actually goes to the creators of the music and the retailers, $20 CDs are just outrageously priced. They're already doing that stuff. Maybe not on a scale that is ideal, but these are BIG ASS companies we are talking about, not the biggest, but big enough to where change is really expensive and they inherently resist change anyway. jb No matter how large the profit margin may be, a company will tend to expand it's inefficiency to absorb those profits to the point of just breaking even. When demand is reduced (weren't we just in a recession?) they suddenly find themselves on the wrong side of the profit / loss equation trying to figure out what went wrong. Don't get me wrong, downloading is clearly harming the industry and is flat out illegal, no question about that IMO. On the other hand I firmly believe that the industry has made some of their own problems and need to figure out how to get CDs from artists to consumers for less money. I've worked for several companies that reduced their costs by 50% and actually expanded their gross revenue at the same time, they simply looked hard at where the money was really going. Usually there's no pressure to make that kind of hard assessment until you're already losing money. Sean |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Study shows downloading helps cd sales
"EggHd" wrote in message ... Considering the portion that actually goes to the creators of the music and the retailers, $20 CDs are just outrageously priced. 1. Please show where people are buying $20 Cds anymore. My local record shop! jb 2. Please explain where the money goes from a $20 CD. If you post this kind of thing, please back it up. --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Study shows downloading helps cd sales
"Bob Cain" wrote in message
... Precisely. How nice it is to see that some can still think that way. 99% of what is wrong with our economy and job market now and in the future is the loss of this perspective at every level. That doesn't mean it is good for consumers. In fact, quite the opposite. It is detrimental to the general publics interests to allow long-term monopoly control over IP. It creates artificial scarcity, which in turn artificially inflates the cost of that IP. And *not* to the benefit of the creator. Going back, again, to the purpose of copyright law, it was intended to foster creativity, not stifle it. It was meant to give the creators of IP an incentive to continue creating IP, because the true creators of IP are almost always the poor inventor, writer, musician, etc, rather than the publishing companies who end up owning the rights to their works. A few great quotes: On the necessary evil of copyright - "The advantages arising from a system of copyright are obvious. It is desirable that we should have a supply of good books; we cannot have such a supply unless men of letters are liberally remunerated; and the least objectionable way of remunerating them is by means of copyright... It is good that authors should be remunerated; and the least exceptionable way of remunerating them is by a monopoly. Yet monopoly is an evil. For the sake of the good we must submit to the evil; but the evil ought not to last a day longer than is necessary for the purpose of securing the good." And example of the purpose of copyright - "I will take an example. Dr Johnson died fifty-six years ago. If the law were what my honourable and learned friend wishes to make it, somebody would now have the monopoly of Dr Johnson's works. Who that somebody would be it is impossible to say; but we may venture to guess. I guess, then, that it would have been some bookseller, who was the assign of another bookseller, who was the grandson of a third bookseller, who had bought the copyright from Black Frank, the doctor's servant and residuary legatee, in 1785 or 1786. Now, would the knowledge that this copyright would exist in 1841 have been a source of gratification to Johnson? Would it have stimulated his exertions? Would it have once drawn him out of his bed before noon? Would it have once cheered him under a fit of the spleen? Would it have induced him to give us one more allegory, one more life of a poet, one more imitation of Juvenal? I firmly believe not. I firmly believe that a hundred years ago, when he was writing our debates for the Gentleman's Magazine, he would very much rather have had twopence to buy a plate of shin of beef at a cook's shop underground. Considered as a reward to him, the difference between a twenty years' and sixty years' term of posthumous copyright would have been nothing or next to nothing. But is the difference nothing to us? I can buy Rasselas for sixpence; I might have had to give five shillings for it. I can buy the Dictionary, the entire genuine Dictionary, for two guineas, perhaps for less; I might have had to give five or six guineas for it. Do I grudge this to a man like Dr Johnson? Not at all. Show me that the prospect of this boon roused him to any vigorous effort, or sustained his spirits under depressing circumstances, and I am quite willing to pay the price of such an object, heavy as that price is. But what I do complain of is that my circumstances are to be worse, and Johnson's none the better; that I am to give five pounds for what to him was not worth a farthing." On the inherent danger of copyright - "On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress?" ~Thomas Babington Macaulay to Parliament ins 1841 Does any of that sound familiar? Anything like the state of the music industry today? To summarize, the intention of copyright law is to maintain a monopoly on the IP during the creators life, so that he may make money with it, *not* to allow 3rd parties (publishing companies) to attain the rights and horde them into perpetuity. This benefits no one but the 3rd party who absconded with *our* (the public's) works. And they should rightly belong to the public when the author is dead or after a reasonable amount of time so that he may generate income from them. And the most telling quote, the one that sounds like it could've been written this year: "I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass, and should produce one-tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to produce, and which I fully expect it to produce, there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress? Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living." ryanm |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Study shows downloading helps cd sales
"james" wrote in message
news:btmbc.22164$Q45.8922@fed1read02... You have some serious misunderstandings about copyright in the USA, and I wouldn't know where to start! Copyright on your creative works is a Constitutional right to begin with. It would require an Act of Congress to take it away. No, it isn't. He just outlined it pretty accurately, especially considering how brief and concise he was. Copyright is an essential right. It isn't justified solely by economic considerations. Your analysis is almost completely wrong, even though I tend to agree with your take on corporatism. He is completely correct and accurate according to US law. ryanm |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Study shows downloading helps cd sales
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1080937935k@trad... We're really attacking the wrong people because they're easiest to identify. We're attacking the downloaders, when really we should be attacking those who make music available to the downloaders. However, those people tend not to be large buyers (SOMEBODY has to buy at least one CD) but tend to be large downloaders themselves. So before arresting someone who has a large number of music files on his computer, let them see the original CDs or at least purchase receipts for them. No got? Do not pass Go, do not collect $200. But possession of unlicensed IP is not a crime in and of itself (although recent bills may change that or may have already changed that). The offense is distribution. There isn't even an offense outlined for "receiving unlicensed IP", because it's not actually breaking the copyright. ryanm |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
RealVirus (was: Study shows downloading helps cd sales)
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1080938329k@trad... Oh, c'mon, you know what I meant. I wasn't asking why THAT program hadn't been ported to Windows. I was just expressing surprise that since nobody but Real has a product for Windows that plays their format, someone has built one for Linux. There are hundreds of WAV file players, and MP3 players. Why not RA? As unpopular as RealPlayer is with people who are computer-smart, a Windows "aftermarket" Real Player would have come out long ago. MS tried and got sued. Hard to believe that the program code or data format is so difficult to reverse engineer that only a Linux programmer could (or would) do it. The guys writing these Linux apps are often in countries that don't recognize US copyright law, so they can get away with it. And even if they were in the US, one guy writing an app for Linux doesn't constitute the same threat to the RealPlayer as MS releasing a media player that can play RA files. ryanm |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
RealVirus (was: Study shows downloading helps cd sales)
ryanm wrote:
They are not trying dominate media content, Wanna buy a bridge? They've said so, in more words. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Study shows downloading helps cd sales
"reddred" writes:
I think it's more a question of what needs to be done in order to enforce a new law. It could become a very dangerous and non-free world with the technology in place that would enforce the law, not to mention that deployment would cost more than the entire music and movie industry is worth. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html for where it goes. |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Study shows downloading helps cd sales
reddred wrote:
the free market doesn't work for 98 percent of the people on the planet. Sure it does. Those 98% are the engine that fuels the Stock Market. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
RealVirus (was: Study shows downloading helps cd sales)
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message news:znr1080938329k@trad... In article writes: Switch to Linux and try Helix https://helixcommunity.org/ given that it takes a lot of hours to port code from Linux to Windows, they probably just haven't done it yet. I'm not familiar with that project, but my guess is it began as a way to add functionality to Linux, and Windows would/will be an 'afterthought'. Oh, c'mon, you know what I meant. Um, actually, I keep getting it wrong... I think I'll blame the weather. I wasn't asking why THAT program hadn't been ported to Windows. I was just expressing surprise that since nobody but Real has a product for Windows that plays their format, someone has built one for Linux. Those guys with the Linux app could just be waiting for the cease and desist letters... could be Real is deliberately letting this one go under the radar, because it means .ra support for Linux, but they don't have to have an application and provide support, I think multimedia apps in Linux would be particularly hard to support right now. Hard to believe that the program code or data format is so difficult to reverse engineer that only a Linux programmer could (or would) do it. No question that lots of people could do it, but 'would' does seem to be an issue for some reason. jb -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over, lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
RealVirus (was: Study shows downloading helps cd sales)
"ryanm" wrote in message ... "Pooh Bear" wrote in message ... This was actually a major part of the recent issue betwwen the EU and Microsoft. This time - instead of being berated for bundling their browser with the OS - to the detriment of Netscape at the time, Microsoft got clobbered for trying to dominate media content through Media Player. This time there are TWO other major players; Real and Apple they're head on with. It's a pain for us users though ! And this is the point. MS is trying to make things easier for the users, and is getting sued for it. They are not trying dominate media content, they are simply trying to provide a single player capable of playing back all media types, which comes with Windows so that no 3rd party downloads (especially of invasive, aggressive player software) is necessary to view online media. ryanm They are trying to do both, and if they didn't have a monopoly, it would be OK. jb |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Study shows downloading helps cd sales
(james) writes:
Copyright on your creative works is a Constitutional right to begin with. It would require an Act of Congress to take it away. Sorry, but you're incorrect on both counts. First of all, a Constitutional right is by definition a right that an Act of Congress can NOT take away. For example, free speech is a Constitutional right, which is why the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law" restricting it. An Act of Congress can't take away your right of free speech. Only an amendment can do that. Second, there is currently NO constitutional right to copyright. If you read the actual Constitution, you will not find one. Rather, there's a clause (the "Progress Clause") giving Congress an enumerated power to "promote progress", similar to the enumerated powers to declare war or collect taxes. Copyright is one of the mechanisms through which congress is allowed to exercise the power to promote progress. That is, Congress has the authority to grant copyrights, but it doesn't have the -obligation- to do so. And so, you turn out to be correct that an Act of Congress could stop the issuance of new copyrights, for the precise reason that copyright is NOT a constitutional right. (Congress could only stop issuing new copyrights though; it can't invalidate already-existing ones, because of the Takings clause). There would actually also be some treaties to deal with too, but those are fairly recent and anyway we never should have signed them. Copyright is an essential right. It isn't justified solely by economic considerations. Your analysis is almost completely wrong, even though I tend to agree with your take on corporatism. That's your opinion, but you're completely ignorant about the legal history of copyright. I'm certainly no law expert but I do have some understanding of these basic things. See Prof. Malla Pollack's brief in Eldred vs. Ashcroft for some further analysis: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw...i/pollack.html Prof. Lawrence Lessig of Stanford Law School also has a new book out called "Free Culture", which can give you some more background. You can buy it in bookstores or read it online at http://free-culture.org. I highly recommend it no matter what views you have about how these things should work, because even if you disagree about how things should be, you'll get some better understanding of how things actually are. It's very readable, written for a popular audience and not in legalese. For a more technically oriented book, see "Digital Copyright" by Prof. Jessica Litman: http://digital-copyright.com. There's an online sample chapter about how we got to the current situation: http://www.msen.com/~litman/digital-copyright/ch2.html |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Study shows downloading helps cd sales
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Study shows downloading helps cd sales
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Study shows downloading helps cd sales
|
#120
|
|||
|
|||
RealVirus (was: Study shows downloading helps cd sales)
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction??? | Audio Opinions |