 |
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
I am convinced you have not the feintest idea of the truth of human nature. |
Do you know who Kevin Mitnick is?
Last edited by Urban Ranger on 27-06-2003 at 19:56
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Soul Survivor
|
|
UChicago
May 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
they can only hand out so many lawsuits, with 10+ million users in the US alone.... and only with a few hundred lawsuits being handed out it will be very difficult to stop without shutting down the servers. sure people in the US might be scared off from sharing files, but they'll just download files from users in other countries and move them to a non-shared folder.
if they lowered the prices of cd's to a reasonable level say $10 - $14 i would personally download significantly fewer MP3's..... right now the biggest problem i see with cds is cost, i'm not willing to pay $18 - $20 a cd if i'm not %100 sure i like it
they're fighting an uphill battle, the more of these things they try to shut down the more customers they alienate
|
|
| |
|
|
|
optimus2861
|
|
Halifax, NS
Nov 2000
time: 01:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Templar
Exactly. As I said earlier, there is rapidly becoming no practical way to defend property interests in music. Well, short of blowing up computers or ending technological improvement. Time for a new business model. iTunes is a decent idea, but the execution has some kinks to work out (including higher sampling rates on the songs!). |
Agreed. The RIAA business model, which regards CDs as the end product, is dying a slow death. If they don't come up with a new business model in the next 5-10 years, I think they'll be all but dead. Suing your potential customer base is a page right out of "Public Relations Disasters 101".
I'm surprised that we're not seeing a stronger move to DVD music sales, with 5.1 surround sound recordings, artist interviews, live performances, etc as an alternative. It seems like such a no-brainer with the explosion in DVD sales over the past 5 years or so. Consumers have shown they're willing to pay $19.99 for the DVD of a $75 million movie; when those same consumers see a music CD, which couldn't have cost 1/10 of the movie to make, going for that same price, they know damn well who's doing the gouging and who's offering a quality product.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
RIAA can't win the technology battle so they'll continue to work in the political realm.
All you music "sharers" *cough*thieves*cough* high-fiving each other for sticking it to the RIAA only work to give them more ammo in their fight to invade our privacy. The overt flaunting of music copying leads to successful lobbying for anonymous searches of our hard drives. Each major ISP will have to comply with what will eventually amount to an open-ended search warrant.
The penalties will stiffen too. Those of us who exceed the speed limit on a daily bass know that if we get caught, the worse thing that'll happen is a small fine and then we can be on our merrier way. So of course we all do it. If speeding carried a penalty of a $10,000 find plus 6 months in jail, there'd be a whole lot less of it. The RIAA will continue to lobby for greater and greater punishments.
Sure the uber-hackers will continue to get away with copying music back and forth, but Joe Sixpack will weigh the hassle vs. benefit vs. the potential penalties and realize that's it makes far more sense to shuck out $18 for a CD instead.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MosesPresley
|
|
I'm curious.
How is the downloading of music from the internet different from going to the library? At the library I have free access to all sorts of media and I am allowed to make copies. How is the downloading of music and the sharing of game copies different from recording films off of the pay channels on television? The US courts ruled that was permissible some time ago when the corporations tried to ban VCR home recording.
I have been playing games for many years. The multi-billion dollar gaming industry was built on games without copy protections. These games were distributed amongst friends and family for years with absolutely no detriment to the gaming industry as was Win95, 98, ME. In fact the gaming and computer industry thrived in spite of the lack of copy protections.
The only thing I see going on here are corporate greed and the curtailment of consumer rights.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
quote:
You know, if the record companies would just wake up to reality and realize that to stay in business they are going to take a revenue hit, they might actually survive. |
P2P has nothing to do with their revenue hit. They released something like 30% less albums IIRC.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
optimus2861
|
|
Halifax, NS
Nov 2000
time: 01:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MosesPresley
How is the downloading of music from the internet different from going to the library? |
The library has a statutory exemption from some copyright restrictions due to their non-profit academic nature (for the USA, see section 108 of the 1976 Copyright Act). See this paper for an overview of copyright law and libraries.
A person at their home PC offering music for download without the express consent of the copyright holder is engaging in unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works. There's no statutory exemption whatsoever. It's a pretty blatant case of direct copyright infringement, and the copyright holder is free to bring a civil suit agains the infringer to recoup damages, or if the case is severe enough, to press criminal charges.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-06-2003 13:07
. But if you really want, I can get something off kazaa or winmix too.
|