FBI take action over illegal file-swaps

[Lord Raiden]

LOL!!  Looks like we opened up a real can of worms here.    

Quote
They fear a technology they should have embraced.

HAHAHA!!  And this is new?  Well, acutally, no, it isn't.  The media companies have been doing this for years.  When records came out they saw them as the evil of the world because suddenly they'd loose money on live performances.  Then came the tape and they said "But everyone will pirate our music and we'll go broke!"  Billions of dollars later comes the VCR.  Same crying story.  Then the CD.  Then the DVD.  Then Tivo.  It's the same stupid lame excuse over and over and over and over again.  "But it will cost us lots of money and we'll loose business!!"  Uh, hello?  If you've been saying that for 70 some odd years and NONE of it has come true, then get a clue.  These companies don't like to change.  They find one thing and want to milk it to death and beat it like a dead cow and get more money out of it.  It takes things like P2P and the Apple music store before the media companies will wake up.  What's funnier is that they'll do all they can to kill something new, then they'll try to block it, then they'll whine about it, then they'll accept it and suddenly start making big cash on it and then they'll take all the credit for it and try to horde the technology for themselves, then cry when they're left behind again when the media changes yet once more.

I see big media as a lumbering, lazy, greedy giant bent on robbing everyone blind and taking every dime they can.  I only support the ones who put the customer first.  I boycott the ones who put themselves first.

[Connor]

Vorlon,

I'm going to have to join the masses disagreeing with you, Legally theft is depriving someone of something and that doesnt cover copyright law.

Back in the eighties there were attempts to ban Video Recorders and Tape Recorders because they would destroy civilisation as we know it with breach of Copyright, but it never happened and file sharing is another manner of this.

The songs that people want are available to them free 24/7 through Radio and TV. They can then copy them to tape and play them back whenever they want.

The thing is that this isn't even about breach of Copyright, artists make very little from the sale of an album and they own the copyright:



What is lost is the costs of the distributor, the retailer, The Label and Advertising. Most of which arent required on Downloaded tracks. Let's say that value above is for a 10 track CD then per track downloaded the artists lose 13pence and to be honest that's what we should be paying for music rather than a rip-off 15-20ukp.

Where artists have always made their money is through concerts and merchandising, and that is also where they do most of the best promotion and get their loyal fans. They should ditch the Record Labels and sell the tracks to an Online distributor for the few thousand pounds they would make in sales anyway and then let them be distributed as they will.

The same applies to Software, the cost of software does not accurately represent the cost of development and this becomes obvious in the games industry when prices fade away to nothing and people (myself included) wait till they drop to this price before buying them. There should be the option of doing this for commercial software as well, MS should be selling Office 2000 at 10-20 ukp. Like most (including yourself) I can't afford MS software and havent purchased a piece of software from them since Office 97.

I do have a legal version of Office 2000 (corporate edition) which came from my fathers work, but everything else is mainly composed of free from MS 180 day trials with the expiry date removed. This limits me from installing SP1 or SP2 because they are Beta and not final releases, but I am happy with accepting that until I can afford a second hand copy of XP Pro. I'm not cheating anyone MS provided a version of XP free and it is the work of a moment in regedit to remove the time limit. MS know who I am and that I have this and it is activated in my name, yet they havent complained about it so that is their problem.

[Arrow]

While we're at it, lets toss around a business model for P2P distribution. If I was the RIAA or MPAA, I would develop an executable and an inhouse compression format that allows me to safely put media out over file sharing networks, and I would have a registration site. What would happen is that people would be able to download a song, album, TV show or movie without paying a thing - however, they're are commercials in the file and you can't burn the file to disk. Now, if people want to register their file (pay for it), then they get a code that allows to them to skip the commercials and burn a disk that plays in standard CD and DVD players (but not in computers). Obviously this requires some industry cooperation, but it can be done.

Will it elimate illegal sharing? No, but most people will stay legal if all they have to do is watch a few commercials or pay a buck or two (as opposed to 20USD for a CD or DVD).

[Lord Raiden]

The idea does have some merits Arrow.  As far as an unlock to play thing, that's been done and beaten down like a dead horse.  What the media companies could do is to distribute something similar to what you're suggesting, but in low quality.  Kinda like a radio broadcast, but with 50% samples rather than like 30 second samples so the listener gets half of the song and gets hooked rather than annoyed at only getting 30 seconds of the song.  A 50% distribution will hook more people than a 30 second sample will.  But on top of the low quality music sample and advertisements, I'd toss in something that says "Hi, I'm so and so from the RIAA.  (you can use the artist here too, or a spokesman for them, or even all or part of their group.)  This music has been placed onto you via the P2P network you are using.  While we don't condone this action of sharing music via these networks, we have offered you this file as a way to sample or music.  (add silly sales pitch about how great this album is)  If you would like a high quality recording of this music, just go to your local such and such music store and buy your copy today!  You will be supporting this wonderful artist and showing your love of this music.  (end with informational about how to give feedback on this music to xx studio or the riaa or the artist, or whoever.  Then more advertisements, then maybe more samples, another pitch, then you're done.)"

note, don't call the listener a thief when you're doing this or you'll simply p*** them off and make them download more music out of spite.  Instead, tickle their ego a bit.  Complement them.  Make them feel good so that they get this feeling of "Wow, this guy is cool.  I think I'll go buy that cd tomorrow!!"  Sure works better than statements like "You thieving imbisel!!  I'll sue you into oblivion!!  Don't steal!"  All that's gonna do is drive people to want to download more and more music.  It's like the saying "People will tend to do the opposite of what you tell them just for the fun of it."  IE you tell them not to fish off a balcony, they will do it.  You tell them not to swim in a pool, they will do it.  You tell them not to ride their bike on the sidewalk, they will do it.  Same idea with this.  The big media companies haven't learned yet that compliments go a LOT farther than threats and intimidations.  Oh well.  Their loss.

[Connor]

Quote
Originally posted by: Lord Raiden
You will be supporting this wonderful artist and showing your love of this music.

But buying their CD does very little to support that wonderful artist, $2 from a $16 CD?
I would prefer to buy the CD direct from the artist for $6-$8 or P2P for $3-$4 and give more money to the artist and less to the middlemen.

[Overkill]

Quote
But buying their CD does very little to support that wonderful artist, $2 from a $16 CD?

Quote
would prefer to buy the CD direct from the artist for $6-$8 or P2P for $3-$4 and give more money to the artist and less to the middlemen.

I agree. Sadly it's not going to happen. In fact connor, your Billboard breakdown was still propaganda, as it's cost were over egged. It costs next to nothing to produce, print, and case the disk. The distro costs are borne by the retailer. Hence the profit margins are even bigger than that breakdown makes out. My old mates from Sony and BMG (WB and EMI never bothered to turn up) used to laugh long and hard at the likes of Q making a case for the poor, hard done-by, CD producers..............  

[Lord Raiden]

Quote
Originally posted by: Connor

Quote
Originally posted by: Lord Raiden
You will be supporting this wonderful artist and showing your love of this music.

But buying their CD does very little to support that wonderful artist, $2 from a $16 CD?
I would prefer to buy the CD direct from the artist for $6-$8 or P2P for $3-$4 and give more money to the artist and less to the middlemen.

That's what I was trying to say, but I apparently failed at that endevor.  

Yeah, support the artist directly, avoid the riaa, buy right straight from the artist.

[sina3001]

I occationally go out and by CD's of the artistsI like. and When some CD's come out stores around here have them on sale for $9.99 (US Dollars). The last CD I bought was D12 Worldand the one before that was Linkin Park - Meteora. Most of my music come from P2P services, and I have no guilt. They are the same songs I hear on the radio, except I get to hear them when I want, not when the radio DJ desides to put them on.

[sina3001]

I occationally go out and by CD's of the artistsI like. and When some CD's come out stores around here have them on sale for $9.99 (US Dollars). The last CD I bought was D12 Worldand the one before that was Linkin Park - Meteora. Most of my music come from P2P services, and I have no guilt. They are the same songs I hear on the radio, except I get to hear them when I want, not when the radio DJ desides to put them on.

[fall-apart]

Let me chime in - Vorlon seems to be harping on Wrawrat's downloading of copyrighted music, which we have explained numerous times is legal in Canada because of a tariff we pay on our blank media.

As for legitimate uses of file-sharing, I can think of a couple.  I get most of my Linux live CD distros via BitTorrent, seeded primarily by the manufacturer.  Also, I use BT to get episodes of TV shows that won't air in Canada because of our dumb-ass CRTC regulations regarding content (RGH!).

With regards to using copied software, that is (it seems to me) a separate discussion from the viability of file-swapping services.  I agree that people using copied versions of software makes it more expensive for the rest of us, but I really don't think Adobe Acrobat is worth $300CDN or that Macromedia Studio MX should be priced at $700, especially when there are college students who need to be able to use these for class.  I am fortunate in that my school district has an agreement with Macromedia and Microsoft allowing staff to use their products at home, but I can certainly see the point of view of those who need these programs but can't afford them.

Finally, I thought you'd all get a chuckle out of the Google ads that I'm seeing at the bottom of the page...

[wdb1966]

Quote
Heh, I love being labelled as a thief.

First of all, it's not stealing but copyright infringement. There is a difference between both. Second, copyright laws are tolerated just because they are not strictly enforced. I feel the MPAA and the RIAA are going to their own demise unless they are corrupting the government even more. Unfortunately, the next government would probably be democrat, something that is not helping [y]our cause...

Hey, me too...but honestly, I do own legal copies of WinXP, but I don't use them as they need to be activated which I refuse to do, so I use something that doesn't need activation.

As for music, etc...yes I swap it sometimes  because I also refuse to purchase CDs anymore, not because I can download stuff, but because of the way the RIAA and MPAA are acting in using the DMCA to trample fair-use rights.

If the artists are caught in the middle, they can force the record companies to change their policies, if they don't then they are part of the problem and should lose revenue along with the record companies.

A point I have not seen here yet (but may have just missed it)...the record and movie companies get a subsidy from the sale of all blank media in the US...combine that with the improper use of the DMCA against fair-use and you have a very worthy cause for civil disobedience in the form of swapping copyrighted materials.

Unfortunately I don't feel any political party has any common sense in these matters and will continue to bend to the will of corporations and write bad legislation that will do nothing but cause more problems.

The bottom line is I refuse to buy music at all and most movies or software, and if it gets to the point that I can't get it otherwise then I'll do without...I could spend more time in my garden anyway.

[wdb1966]

Quote
A point I have not seen here yet (but may have just missed it)...the record and movie companies get a subsidy from the sale of all blank media in the US...

To expand on that some more...part of the Betamax agreement was that recording/backup is legal, and as long as the recording industry was paid a portion from the sales of all blank media in the US there could not be anti-copy mechanisms used...however with the advent of copy protection (analog or digital) the music and movie companies have BROKEN that part of the law and should no longer be alowed to collect any of those revenuse from blank media...and this goes way back to Macrovision on VHS tapes, long before digital technology and the DMCA.

What I want to know is why can the music and movie industry openly break the law with copy protection (and continue to get paid from blank media sales), while consumers who back up their own DVDs are considered criminals?

It isn't right, not at all.


EDIT...if the big media wants to prevent copying of retail/cable/sat media, then they should be required by law to relinquish the blank media subsidy and replace any and all purchased discs, tapes, records, etc at such time they become unusable by the consumer due to damage or wear of any kind without regard to the cause of said damage.  

[wdb1966]

"Starving" record company BMI posts record earnings!

Just goes to show how the consumer is getting gouged by the liars at the music and movie houses!