| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles at "Charles wrote on 7/18/04 7:46
PM: I for one am reasonably certain that record companies will eventually figure out a way to make money online, and that none will begrudge them their profit. I think we're in a transitional time where they came late to the party and are playing catchup. this has always bugged me no end, the 'industry' spent the last 10 years working through severe contract rewriting, marketting conversions, getting their not-insignificant catalogues converted, and trying to deal with runaway theft simultaneously. They were on the curve and what is the REAL issue is that the impatient children-of-all-ages decided that since there weren't any new Miatas being foisted on them for $2k at their local 7-11 then they'd just haul on over to the Dealership at 3am and drive one off the lot. IN this case the kiddies' perception that there's some 'catchup' happening is merely their immersion in Veruca Salt Syndrome. -- John I-22 (that's 'I' for Initial...) Recognising what's NOT worth your time, THAT'S the key. -- |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
J well, rather than (for the umpletyteenth time over the last 5 years) J AGAIN just whining about how the locks the owners are forced to place on J their wares are 'annoying' to customers... when, since these clueless J spoiled, self-indulgent self-deluded children ages 10-50+ are publicly J supported by ersatz lip-service from newspapers radio net and tv J 'journalists' who steadfastly refuse to use the word 'property theft' J instead of 'file sharing' every time it comes up, does the movement J start to make brain-dead blindered self-eviscerating theft uncool? Actually, there is a significant amount of non-trivial discussion as to whether intellectual property should be accorded the same treatment as, for example, land. There are credible arguments that it shouldn't. Download and read: http://www.free-culture.cc/freeculture.pdf Besides, "file sharing" is most certainly != "property theft" in general (the broader possibilities of accessible, efficient file sharing go way beyond IP theft). Attempts to obfuscate and denigrate the phrase are not helpful to anyone. Ryan |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:20:01 GMT, JoVee wrote:
U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles at "Charles wrote on 7/18/04 7:46 PM: I for one am reasonably certain that record companies will eventually figure out a way to make money online, and that none will begrudge them their profit. I think we're in a transitional time where they came late to the party and are playing catchup. this has always bugged me no end, the 'industry' spent the last 10 years working through severe contract rewriting, marketting conversions, getting their not-insignificant catalogues converted, and trying to deal with runaway theft simultaneously. They were on the curve and what is the REAL issue is that the impatient children-of-all-ages decided that since there weren't any new Miatas being foisted on them for $2k at their local 7-11 then they'd just haul on over to the Dealership at 3am and drive one off the lot. IN this case the kiddies' perception that there's some 'catchup' happening is merely their immersion in Veruca Salt Syndrome. Perhaps. Seems to me that the Majors stopped selling singles just in time to be burned by downloads. If they'd been there FIRST with inexpensive high-quality music--even if the downloads were locked, Napster wouldn't have happened--why bother with "low-quality free" when you can get "high quality cheap"? I'm also not certain that the numbers support the notion that CD sales ebbed and flowed in response to ANYTHING aside from the state of the economy and the amount of disposable income in the hands of the target markets, despite considerable spin from both ends. Back when I was choir directing, sheet music companies were having a similar problem. I'd call them: "Hey, I'd like to buy 25 copies." "I'm sorry, that's out of print." "How much for repro rights for 25 copies?" "I'm sorry, we don't sell reproduction rights. Perhaps if you call all our dealers, someone will have it in stock . . ." (no one did btw) I'm telling them, "I have $50 to spend in YOUR catalog" and they said "No thank you???" What kind of a business plan is THAT? Well, NOW they've FINALLY figured out that "shipping" a PDF costs them next to nothing and that most choir directors are happy to comply with a "30 copy license" just as we were happy to comply with 30 physical copies. We'll see what happens. I think at this point the majors are going to have to add more value--better quality, guaranteed up-compatibility to new devices, They're smart, they'll think of something--than people can get for free. The film companies, otoh, still seem to be married to the business plan of shipping 100lb crates of film around that encourages bootlegging in foreign countries. The gripping hand is that I'm not certain if digital distribution, local printing, and simultaneous rollout is ever going to be a substitute for "Tom Cruise at the Sydney Premier" |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
J They were on the curve and what is
J the REAL issue is that the impatient children-of-all-ages decided that J since there weren't any new Miatas being foisted on them for $2k at J their local 7-11 then they'd just haul on over to the Dealership at 3am J and drive one off the lot. Comparing sharing of music files to theft of tangible property is a tenuous, although understandable, simplification. It is not always so easy to prove consequential loss to the owner of the content in the case of easily copyable media. There are numerous gray areas. If I play one of my CD's to a friend, is that theft? What if he travels overseas and I email him a clip? What if I email him one complete song? What if he decides that he hates the song and would never buy the CD, anyway? What if he likes the song and decides to buy the CD? In which of these cases is the content owner deprived of income or property? Even if you think that you have non-fuzzy answers to these questions, realise that there are others who could probably come up with justifiably different answers. It really isn't as black & white as theft of tangible property. Emotionally biased simplifications do not help the debate at all. Ryan |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ryan Mitchley" wrote in message ... J They were on the curve and what is J the REAL issue is that the impatient children-of-all-ages decided that J since there weren't any new Miatas being foisted on them for $2k at J their local 7-11 then they'd just haul on over to the Dealership at 3am J and drive one off the lot. Comparing sharing of music files to theft of tangible property is a tenuous, although understandable, simplification. It is not always so easy to prove consequential loss to the owner of the content in the case of easily copyable media. There are numerous gray areas. If I play one of my CD's to a friend, is that theft? What if he travels overseas and I email him a clip? What if I email him one complete song? What if he decides that he hates the song and would never buy the CD, anyway? What if he likes the song and decides to buy the CD? In which of these cases is the content owner deprived of income or property? Even if you think that you have non-fuzzy answers to these questions, Some of us don't find the laws anywhere near as fuzzy as you seem to. Have you visited your optometrist lately? :-) realise that there are others who could probably come up with justifiably different answers. Hence the reason for published laws to which we consent as part of the price of living in a civilized society. It really isn't as black & white as theft of tangible property. Emotionally biased simplifications do not help the debate at all. Nor do fuzzy "free-love, flower-power, socialisim for the masses" arguments. Some of us have lived through the horrors of such anarchy and we will be suffering the aftereffects for several more generations. |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles wrote:
If they'd been there FIRST with inexpensive high-quality music--even if the downloads were locked, Napster wouldn't have happened--why bother with "low-quality free" when you can get "high quality cheap"? They had these things called "contracts" with the artists and until those were reconfigured the labels hadn't the right to offer music online. -- ha |
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
RC Some of us don't find the laws anywhere near as fuzzy as you seem to. RC Have you visited your optometrist lately? :-) Why do we need judges or juries at all, for that matter . . . Let's set up an AI expert system to rule. The legal system is, and will always be, subject to social pressure and change. Laws are of human origin and were not handed to us carved in stone (in contrast to the Ten Commandments, of course :-) ). If you believe otherwise, then we have too little common ground to continue this debate, really . . . Grossly simplifying my arguments does not give the impression of a well thought out opinion, by the way. Ryan |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 17:32:45 +0200, "Ryan Mitchley"
wrote: J well, rather than (for the umpletyteenth time over the last 5 years) J AGAIN just whining about how the locks the owners are forced to place on J their wares are 'annoying' to customers... when, since these clueless J spoiled, self-indulgent self-deluded children ages 10-50+ are publicly J supported by ersatz lip-service from newspapers radio net and tv J 'journalists' who steadfastly refuse to use the word 'property theft' J instead of 'file sharing' every time it comes up, does the movement J start to make brain-dead blindered self-eviscerating theft uncool? Actually, there is a significant amount of non-trivial discussion as to whether intellectual property should be accorded the same treatment as, for example, land. There are credible arguments that it shouldn't. Great. Take the arguments to the public and Congress, and get the laws changed. Download and read: http://www.free-culture.cc/freeculture.pdf I'll have to read that someday. Besides, "file sharing" is most certainly != "property theft" in general (the broader possibilities of accessible, efficient file sharing go way beyond IP theft). Attempts to obfuscate and denigrate the phrase are not helpful to anyone. I certainly see your point that p2p file sharing CAN BE used for legitimate sharing of files with the creators' permissions, but FTP and webpages are good, longer-established ways of doing the same thing, and these are usually the ways such files are put on the internet by their creators. I've heard of cases where musicians put their own mp3 recordings on p2p networks for promotion and they DO find new fans this way, but this surely is a small minority of the p2p traffic. File sharing programs were specifically designed so that those writing the programs don't have direct responsibility or knowledge of the files that users share wink wink nudge nudge, unlike a website host who might be held liable for illegal files, and thus has a strong incentive to keep such files off the host systems. It's not that p2p networks "just happen" to have their majority use being that of illegal file swapping, they were DESIGNED for that purpose. If you want a good system for bandwidth-sharing as well as file sharing, check out BitTorrent. It has, as far as I can see, all the advantages of distributed bandwidth that P2P has, with the single disadvantage (for illegal files) of the first copy of the file having to be hosted on an FTP or HTTP/website. Ryan |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi Ben
BB Great. Take the arguments to the public and Congress, and get the BB laws changed. Well, firstly, I'm in South Africa :-) Secondly, this is just fine *as long as* the general populace are well informed and aware of the broader implications in good time, care sufficiently to make the effort (again, in good time) and do not have any less motivating power than, for example, big businesses (who certainly *are* aware of the broader implications, think ahead and are sufficiently motivated and powerful to look after their own interests). I wouldn't like to come across as some kind of conspiracy theorist, but the fact is that any solution that is actually effective to curb piracy is hugely likely to impact on fundamental rights (whatever those are) and freedoms. There is also the danger of empowering and creating momentum for exploitative business models (from the point of view of the consumer/customer). I wish as much as anyone that there were well accepted and easy solutions. Alternative business models (especially) and consumer education, while possibly limp-wristed, are far less likely to cause long term damage. Ryan |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
JoVee wrote:
Geoff Wood at -nospam wrote on 7/17/04 7:36 PM: I have purchased both Nora Jones CDs that contain some sort of copy protection. I would have bought them is they hadn't been protected. I am ****ed off that I am prevented from excercised my FAIR USE of this product by making digital copies of selected tracks on my own private-use compilation CDs that I make for (primarily) in-car use. 'fair use'.. damn what a screwed-up term. SUPPPOSED to mean that you can use excerpts as quotes and references without being called a thief. Now it's a blunderbuss implying we all have some real 'right' to make as many different copies of something as we just wannagottahave. If I want a second hammer, or need 2 3/4" wrenches for a task, I gots to buy 'em y'know... Fair Use is a pretty well understood and legally definined. Sony / Sonic Foundry have a reasonable and rational approach to licensing of their media software. As legal holder of a user licence for several items of their software, I can install it (and register i) on several different computers, as loonmg as only one instance is being used at a time. If I have legally purchased a CD, I cannot see where the harm is in having access to the music in different formats an configurations, as long as I am only listening to it one instance at a time. Can you point out how a compilatiion CD of purchased music disadvantages an artist or record company, and how this is different to a cassette of the same ? geoff |
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
JoVee wrote:
Geoff Wood at -nospam wrote on 7/17/04 7:36 PM: I have purchased both Nora Jones CDs that contain some sort of copy protection. I would have bought them is they hadn't been protected. I am ****ed off that I am prevented from excercised my FAIR USE of this product by making digital copies of selected tracks on my own private-use compilation CDs that I make for (primarily) in-car use. 'fair use'.. damn what a screwed-up term. SUPPPOSED to mean that you can use excerpts as quotes and references without being called a thief. Now it's a blunderbuss implying we all have some real 'right' to make as many different copies of something as we just wannagottahave. If I want a second hammer, or need 2 3/4" wrenches for a task, I gots to buy 'em y'know... There's a difference. You actually buy the hammer. The thing is yours. The seller places no restrictions on its use what so ever. You buy the CD which is just the medium for what you pay, the music. You do not buy the music. You only pay for the right to use it. Some one else still owns the music (whoever holds the commercial part ot its copyright). So, music can not be compared to a hammer or any other physical thing that you will actually own. That said, I feell very much like GW above. If I paid for the right to listen to the music, then I should be able to do so through whatever equipment I choose. Connected in whatever kind of playback chain I prefer when listening. It could be today CD - cheap receiver - speakers or tomorrow CD - separate preamp - power amp - speakers or .... or ... or perhaps next week CD - hard disc - sound card - hifi - speakers or last week CD - hard disc - CDR - car audio or ... you get the idea. The channel is mine and I should be able to play music the CD carries and that I paid for through any of my channels whenever I so choose. Any restriction in this respect is something that reduces the value of the product and that of course makes me less inclined to buy the product. sincerely Lars -- lars farm // http://www.farm.se |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
Geoff Wood at -nospam wrote on 7/19/04 4:33 PM:
JoVee wrote: Geoff Wood at -nospam wrote on 7/17/04 7:36 PM: I have purchased both Nora Jones CDs that contain some sort of copy protection. I would have bought them is they hadn't been protected. I am ****ed off that I am prevented from excercised my FAIR USE of this product by making digital copies of selected tracks on my own private-use compilation CDs that I make for (primarily) in-car use. 'fair use'.. damn what a screwed-up term. SUPPPOSED to mean that you can use excerpts as quotes and references without being called a thief. Now it's a blunderbuss implying we all have some real 'right' to make as many different copies of something as we just wannagottahave. If I want a second hammer, or need 2 3/4" wrenches for a task, I gots to buy 'em y'know... Fair Use is a pretty well understood and legally definined. as long as you keep STRINGLY in mind at all times where the 'legally defined' walks completely out of the realm of sensibility due to the law trying lamely to put toothpaste back in a tube. Sony / Sonic Foundry have a reasonable and rational approach to licensing of their media software. As legal holder of a user licence for several items of their software, I can install it (and register i) on several different computers, as loonmg as only one instance is being used at a time. BINGO!!! keep that in mind If I have legally purchased a CD, I cannot see where the harm is in having access to the music in different formats an configurations, as long as I am only listening to it one instance at a time. and thereby we walk into the odd and amazing realm of TRUST... There isn't a law on the books that shouldn't be repealed if we use that logic. It's a wonderfull, optimistic pollyannaish approach. If only the world were thus. Can you point out how a compilatiion CD of purchased music disadvantages an artist or record company, and how this is different to a cassette of the same ? Don't follow you.. rephrase..? We're talking the dissolution of the idea of IP here. Not much out there for sale that isn;t IP at base... -- John I-22 (that's 'I' for Initial...) Recognising what's NOT worth your time, THAT'S the key. -- |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Mike Rivers) wrote in message
news:znr1090182132k@trad... In article 94 writes: [...] That's probably true, but with all those tiny USB equipped MP3 players, more and more ordinary consumers are copying their CDs in a computer. Hey! I've done that! Acutally that's probably legal under the provisions of the Home Recording Act. Format and time shifting are both fair use activities, despite the best efforts of the RIAA and MPAA. DVD encryption brought the DMCA into the equation, but that's another discussion. The trick here (and I have no idea how it could be accomplished) would be to create an MP3 that would only play in that player, or wouldn't go OUT the USB port as a file - sort of like that trick that the Sony Minidisk players do. Unfortunately that also prevents you from transferring an origianal recording out the USB port - small problem for the creative people, no big deal for most users. Any such effort is doomed to failure. Analog transfers will always be there as a last resort: others in this newsgroup have quite correctly pointed out that it only takes one or two people to record, encode, and post to the p2p networks for the cat to be out of the bag. The solution doesn't lie in crippling the hardware (like with the new MiniDisc) or in draconian legislation. All they have to do is make a product that _people_with_money_to_spend_ want to buy. Also, to answer your question a little further up this thread: if I wasn't boycotting members of the RIAA, I would absolutely care if there was copy protection on a CD that would prevent me from putting the music on my iPod or my jukebox. Millions of other MP3 player owners (like yourself, presumably) care, too. Cheers, -DrBoom |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
JoVee wrote:
So you're saying I can take a Makita, copy it and sell it or give copies away? I said no such thing. I said that once bought *I* can use it as I please without restrictions. This is not the same with music. I don't buy music. I buy the right to use it and the more restricted this licence is the less its value. English is a forreign language, so if you find my use of English language insufficient then perhaps you'd prefer to continue in Swedish? interesting. A single copy of something is of exactly equal value to you as a dozen different copies of something? It's still just one copy. It's not the CD, its' the music. The music is there when played. There is only one of me so there can at any given playback only be one copy. Lars -- lars farm // http://www.farm.se |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
MR I'm not estimating the difficulty at all. Some very difficult things MR have been accomplished in my lifetime, and if those who claim they are MR losing money can see a benefit to preventing that by making MR "unofficial" exchange of music difficult, they'll do it. If they MR don't, that means they've decided that it will cost them less to let MR it go than to fix it. Firstly, anything that actually is capable of producing audio at some point is *going* to be defeatable, and easily at that. Technical means are a waste of time and money, and the sooner we all wake up to that, the better. They really will only pass down a cost to the consumer without giving anything in return (because they *will* be defetable, I guarantee). Secondly, anything that would really able to guarantee proper "Digital Rights Management" is going to introduce a whole lot of other nasties to the consumer, on a variety of levels and in yet undreamed of ways. If you want examples, I'll be happy to provide, but I really don't have time right now. ?? But, fundamentally, I object to being the paying schmuck ending up ?? with an inferior product. MR If my intent is to put it in a CD player and listen to the music, the MR only way it could be "inferior" (excepting the crappy music or MR engineering of course) is if a protection scheme somehow changed the MR audio I was hearing. ?? Do you really feel happy that the CD's you buy are X times ?? more likely to fail from dust, scratches, etc....? MR X-times more than what (or when)? Has manufacturing gone down scale? Are you just playing at idiocy or what? The Macrovision scheme, amongst others, deliberately inserts errors into the data stream, and relies on the player to correct them. There is a limited amount of redundancy built into the digital audio data on the CD, and these schemes unquestionably reduce it. In a strict mathematical sense, these particular copy protection schemes make a CD with the protection X (where X is a real value greater than one) times more likely to play back with errors than one without. Ryan |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1090093257k@trad... Someone will probably actually even BUY the CD. Will it be you? Probably me. I don't download or otherwise illegally acquire the music I want. I buy CDs. Thing is, it's impractical for me to carry around dozens of CDs when I'm on the go (more than dozens if you apply the "only one or two 'hits' per disc" rule). To overcome that I rip them to my laptop, which I have to carry anyway. The courts have said it's okay for me to do that. I can still dub copy protected discs rather than rip them, but it bugs me that I'd have to. Setting levels and splitting files and editing in and out points and such -- I have to do that **** all day at work, I sure as hell don't want to spend my off time doing it! g After having to deal with a totally seized, locked-up Mac at work caused by trying to perform legitimate operations with insidiously "protected" discs, I've adopted a "just say no" policy on copy protected discs. -- "It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!" - Lorin David Schultz in the control room making even bad news sound good (Remove spamblock to reply) |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:11:25 GMT, JoVee wrote:
Geoff Wood at -nospam wrote on 7/19/04 4:26 PM: level of quality in the reproduction. If SEARS or MAC knew you could just pop a load of cow**** in the ol Transmogrifier and copy their precision tools, you KNOW they'd charge a WHOLE lot more for the first one off the Since when does Sears sell "Precision Tools?" |
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike Rivers wrote:
Sometimes in solving one problem, another one is caused. Every get a software upgrade that didn't do that to you? Yes, and sometimes the cure is worse than what it is supposed to cure. Every license restriction is also something that lessens the value of the license. Possibly so that it isn't worth paying for. There could be other reasons for the music industry crisis. It could have to do with content rather than package. If it becomes more industry than art then buyers might not find it worth buying. It becomes a comodity, worth little, rather than something important, worth much. And that line of thought has nothing to do with mpeg 1 layer 3 or music download... sincerely Lars -- lars farm // http://www.farm.se |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
MR You're imagining an iron-clad absoulutely undefeatable system. I'm MR thinking about something that will deter some people and swing them MR toward paying for what they should pay for. Again, I repeat, this is not feasible. The moment *one* person has cracked the scheme, the knowledge, tools and software will become available all over the world in a very short space of time. There will be no deterrent power. This deterrent argument is way past its usefulness . . . such systems are only going to provide (temporary) irritation and raise prices. The DVD region encoding scheme has only been a nuisance to me, since I *do* order DVD's from around the world, yet I have never struggled particularly to defeat it (living in a region 2 country). It usually raises its ugly head when changing or re-installing software . . . certainly no deterrent, but definitely an irritation. I would imagine that producing identical region-free discs all around the world could certainly have saved on costs. ?? Secondly, anything that would really able to guarantee proper "Digital ?? Rights Management" is going to introduce a whole lot of other nasties ?? to the consumer, on a variety of levels and in yet undreamed of ways. MR Those can be fixed if it's important enough to fix them in order for MR the system to be acceptable, or at least non-intrusive for the MR majority. While EVERYONE has the RIGHT to listen to music, that's the MR only right they have. If it's possible to listen to it in a proscribed MR way that's reasonable to most, that should be the only obligation of MR the provider. I don't believe that most people _only_ play CDs on MR their computers, and that if it was too inconvenient to transfer them MR to something they could play in the car or while jogging, they'd MR listen to the radio instead. You are missing the point that a combination of legislation (especially) and technical refinements (if feasible) are going to impact people's lives in way more areas than the music that they listen to. I will give a couple of examples that could be relevant to the media industry, but the applications across the board are staggering: Welcome to the DRM age, an age whe 1) Those pictures you took on your Nikon camera can't be uploaded to your MSN website, at least without paying a (small, of course) licensing fee to Microsoft. Sony cameras are not subject to the same limitation, since they have several agreements and "mutual understandings" in place with Microsoft. 2) The Cubase sessions you've just mixed can't be mastered by your favourite engineer using ProTools, since the mixes are encrypted and Steinberg have not yet provided the conversion software. You could, of course, import the mixes into Wavelab and master. 3) Every time you transfer data from your Panasonic camcorder to your Mac Adobe video editing suite, an automatic "codec licensing fee" is deducted electronically from your bank account. 4) The key mappings and program setup data from that patch you created on your sampler a year ago are encrypted, and you have no way of importing them into the (competitor's) sampler that you just bought. [This is actually what is *already* happening with one company's product - it could be Halion, but don't quote me on that] The combination of legislation and DRM technology will empower the dominant industry players to further their domination, notwithstanding minor considerations such as product quality and ethical business practices. You could hope that market forces would correct the situation, but there have been several instances in which the market forces have operated over hugely long time periods, and have basically been ineffective from the consumer's point of view. MR Not necessary. You'd only provide examples that support your point MR anyway. Yes, I usually provide examples that support my point. Other examples would be meaningless . . . no? MR I'm not playing the idiot. I don't know enough about eithe rthe MR Macrovision system or how error correction/concealment works to MR predict its effect on the robustness of the playback under normal MR conditions. Educate me with facts, not your conjectures. Parity and data redundancy have been around for decades, and the principles are not particularly hard. I would suggest that a professional engineer of any kind should really be quite familiar with the concepts. It doesn't take much thought, though, to realise that the data recoverability must be quite significantly compromised in this particular case to thwart the low level correction abilities of a typical PC CD-ROM. MR When proper listening tests are conducted, then and only then will you MR have evidence to support your claim. "Mr Rivers, we have put an el-cheapo Korean replacement part into your BMW. But don't worry - just take it for a drive, and I'm sure you won't notice the difference." Ryan |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
MR That's what we have always had, and the "potential customer" has MR abused it. Perhaps he doesn't really have all of those "personal MR rights and freedoms" when it comes to intellectual property after all. Again, download and read: http://www.free-culture.cc/freeculture.pdf And see my other reply, below. Ryan |
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ryan Mitchley" wrote in message m...
J well, rather than (for the umpletyteenth time over the last 5 years) J AGAIN just whining about how the locks the owners are forced to place on J their wares are 'annoying' to customers... when, since these clueless J spoiled, self-indulgent self-deluded children ages 10-50+ are publicly J supported by ersatz lip-service from newspapers radio net and tv J 'journalists' who steadfastly refuse to use the word 'property theft' J instead of 'file sharing' every time it comes up, does the movement J start to make brain-dead blindered self-eviscerating theft uncool? Actually, there is a significant amount of non-trivial discussion as to whether intellectual property should be accorded the same treatment as, for example, land. There are credible arguments that it shouldn't. Download and read: http://www.free-culture.cc/freeculture.pdf Besides, "file sharing" is most certainly != "property theft" in general (the broader possibilities of accessible, efficient file sharing go way beyond IP theft). Attempts to obfuscate and denigrate the phrase are not helpful to anyone. Ryan I wouldn't worry too much about if DRM works or it makes people mad, what everyone should really worry about are Submarine Claims to intellectual property by DRM companies. At what stage in the process is the DRM added to the recording? Is it on the delivered master? Is it on the materials sent and broadcast on radio,and TV,cleared to resample by other artists as a derrivative? In the future DRM companies could make claims to 50% of the royalties from the song recording and broadcast,even if it is just digital bits or white noise in the recording, even if they do not intend to act now, they can wait until a large number of companies have adopted thier DRM to the sound recording then pounce with a huge demand for royalties. Andrea |
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1090328863k@trad... What's the compelling reason to carry your own music wherever you go? Um, enjoyment/entertainment. The same reasons I am compelled to *purchase* said music in the first place. Is the concept peculiar somehow? -- "It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!" - Lorin David Schultz in the control room making even bad news sound good (Remove spamblock to reply) |
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike Rivers wrote: In article 1gh8ek7.1mzog4j1npfviuN%mail.addr.can.be.found@ww w.farm.se writes: There could be other reasons for the music industry crisis. It could have to do with content rather than package. This seems to be the general perception. Something that I've not heard suggested is the possibility that people are just less interested in music right now, independant of content or production. Pendula do swing. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lorin David Schultz wrote:
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message news:znr1090328863k@trad... What's the compelling reason to carry your own music wherever you go? Um, enjoyment/entertainment. The same reasons I am compelled to *purchase* said music in the first place. Is the concept peculiar somehow? See, I find it distracting. I want to _listen_ to music, and having music around that I can't listen to (because I have to do something else) is annoying. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| CD Copy Protection | General | |||
| CD won't play...copy will...what's up with that? | High End Audio | |||
| Audio CDs Digital Copy Protection | Pro Audio | |||
| CD Copy protection in AU #2 | Pro Audio | |||
| Shift key breaks CD copy protection | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
