Does the Govt have anything else better to do? Feds going after piracy

[quote name='dmaul1114']Not saying shoplifting and piracy are one and the same at all. I was just saying that with the move to totally digital products will end shoplifting/theft as a way companies lose product/sales.

Before the digital era the only way to illegally get a true copy of a product was to go to the store and buy it (new or used--or a library etc.) or steal it. Could get a dub from a friend etc., but that's not the exact same product.

With the digital age you have stores selling the exact same digital product that people can download illegally elsewhere. It is NOT the same as shoplifting. But it is the new threat to losing products and having people get your exact product without paying for it or at least buying it second hand etc.

But as myself and others have said, it's really a pointless debate as neither side will give an inch. I have no respect for people who pirate stuff and want a crack down, while pirates and sympathetic folk will offer excuses and justifications for why it's not wrong to acquire content without paying for it.

So we might as well just drop this debate. Wish this forum had an ignore thread feature like some others....[/QUOTE]

It's not really that binary. I used to think copyright was great until I saw how it was abused. Things like suing a single mother for millions because their kid uploaded a handful of songs tends to radicalize people - on both sides.

Copyright doesn't need to be abolished but it does need to be massively streamlined, modernized, and reigned in.
 
Ahhhh fuck. I guess I have to go back to watching the episodes of the few shows I do watch WITH those shitty commercials again, huh?:bomb:

Oh well. I guess I need to invest in a Tivo so I can at least record those sob's and ffwd through the 2-2.5 minutes of commercials per segment of show.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']

With the digital age you have stores selling the exact same digital product that people can download illegally elsewhere. It is NOT the same as shoplifting. But it is the new threat to losing products and having people get your exact product without paying for it or at least buying it second hand etc.

[/QUOTE]

Well not to mention, the biggest part of the problem are the actual bootleggers. All over the world places like Korea , South America , India etc ,make an actual profit from these practices. In South America they have these big ass swap meets that look like the Farmers market where they sell all their bootlegged dvd's, cd's and even electronics with total impunity.


As for the part about this being a pointless debate, I hear that. I think we can all agree on one thing: On one end of the spectrum you have a group of individuals that you know are total crackheads ,and will start stuffing their pockets with candy as soon as the clerk turns his back.
And on the other hand you have a group of individuals who, if they thought there was a dime buried up your mothers ass, they'd try to fuck their way to it.
 
You know, I must say, I'm kinda happy to suddenly see so many people jump up and defend the concept of private property. It warms my heart.

Anywhoo - the people who download illegally don't bother me that much. I mean, they do, but I don't get all twisted up about it (although I do give them crap if it comes up in conversation). The ones who tick me off are the ones who do it and attempt to defend it. You know, if you're going to illegally download the intellectual property of others, fine, whatever, I can't stop you. You just don't have to be so smug about it and pretend like you aren't doing anything wrong.

You're taking what you want simply because you want it and you can. Dress it up as nice as you want, but, simply, you're just looking out for yourself and screw everyone who gets in your way. Congrats, you're awesome.
 
Christ, people, you're making me agree with UncleBob. That should tell you how far west of crazytown y'all are.

You can be anti-corporatism, but please don't lie to me and tell me that this is what you have in mind when you're downloading mp3s of whoever-it-is. You can be anti-corporate without having to commit copyright fraud to convey your point.

Your insatiable demand for instant gratification is not noble, so please don't try to tell me it is.
 
[quote name='camoor']It's not really that binary. I used to think copyright was great until I saw how it was abused. Things like suing a single mother for millions because their kid uploaded a handful of songs tends to radicalize people - on both sides.

Copyright doesn't need to be abolished but it does need to be massively streamlined, modernized, and reigned in.[/QUOTE]

Has there been a case where they pursued charges on someone who only downloaded a couple of songs? Ive only heard of the ones where they have downloaded thousands....
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You can be anti-corporatism, but please don't lie to me and tell me that this is what you have in mind when you're downloading mp3s of whoever-it-is. You can be anti-corporate without having to commit copyright fraud to convey your point.

Your insatiable demand for instant gratification is not noble, so please don't try to tell me it is.[/QUOTE]

Nobody in this thread has tried to make that argument?

[quote name='Knoell']Has there been a case where they pursued charges on someone who only downloaded a couple of songs? Ive only heard of the ones where they have downloaded thousands....[/QUOTE]

Yes.

A single-mother, downloaded 24 songs from Kazaa. RIAA tried to force her to settle, she refused and they sued. She lost and was ordered to pay $220,000 in damages. She was granted a retrial due to a jury error....lost again and was ordered to pay $1,920,000 ($80,000 per song) in damages. That insane number was brought down to $55,000. She is now trying to appeal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas

Fun fact, the statutory minimum is $750 per song :roll:
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Christ, people, you're making me agree with UncleBob. That should tell you how far west of crazytown y'all are.[/QUOTE]

Oh, just put me back on ignore and all will be okay. :p
 
[quote name='Sporadic']
A single-mother, downloaded 24 songs from Kazaa. RIAA tried to force her to settle, she refused and they sued. She lost and was ordered to pay $220,000 in damages. She was granted a retrial due to a jury error....lost again and was ordered to pay $1,920,000 ($80,000 per song) in damages. That insane number was brought down to $55,000. She is now trying to appeal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas

Fun fact, the statutory minimum is $750 per song :roll:[/QUOTE]
:lol::lol::lol: Most of the shit out now can barely be called music and is hardly worth even $.50 a track, let alone $80k or even $750 per song.:roll:

All those RIAA suits were were thinly veiled attempts to make examples of those people they went after. Yet people cry and whine about ambulance chasing lawyers? If anything, the amounts these people were ordered to pay were ridiculous and any reasonable judge in America should've seen that and thrown out the judgments.

The woman stole two CD's worth of music. Let her pay the RIAA the reasonable amount of $12 per cd worth of music(going by average CD's having about 12 tracks)and call it a day.

And for the record, Metallica(one of the biggest and loudest crybabies over this debacle of people stealing their shitty music)can go fuck themselves. They've sucked ever since the early '90's.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Christ, people, you're making me agree with UncleBob. That should tell you how far west of crazytown y'all are.

You can be anti-corporatism, but please don't lie to me and tell me that this is what you have in mind when you're downloading mp3s of whoever-it-is. You can be anti-corporate without having to commit copyright fraud to convey your point.

Your insatiable demand for instant gratification is not noble, so please don't try to tell me it is.[/QUOTE]

Myke, you're usually on-point, but in this discussion you always let your emotions get the better of you.

Maybe it's because you're a author/contributor to textbooks, or maybe it's because of your "High Fidelity" record store nostalgia, but you're never willing to accept that copyright is an artificial concept, a necessary evil, something with good intentions that has been perverted by those who run huge corporations.

You're always going to have the middle-America hayseed law-and-order crowd who doesn't understand the issue and thinks that fining a single mom a quarter million for uploading a handful of songs is just fine. Yet as long as Congress keeps enacting 100+ year copyright protection and outrageous penalties for uploading a handful of songs you're going to keep sending educated youth into the ranks of the 'copyright should be abolished' crowd.

Reason and mediation is what is needed, not an old-fashioned stern talking-to.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']


The woman stole two CD's worth of music. Let her pay the RIAA the reasonable amount of $12 per cd worth of music(going by average CD's having about 12 tracks)and call it a day.

.[/QUOTE]

I am trying to figure out how making someone pay the price of the cd for stealing the cd is going to direct people to not steal that cd. Your theory is like a store owner saying "hey you better not steal that or else ill make you pay for it!" There has to be some penalty in addition to the cost of the product in order to ensure people know the risk they are taking by stealing it. Granted 80K per song is too much, but $750 per song doesn't seem that out of whack.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']A single-mother, downloaded 24 songs from Kazaa. RIAA tried to force her to settle, she refused and they sued. She lost and was ordered to pay $220,000 in damages. She was granted a retrial due to a jury error....lost again and was ordered to pay $1,920,000 ($80,000 per song) in damages. That insane number was brought down to $55,000. She is now trying to appeal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas

Fun fact, the statutory minimum is $750 per song :roll:[/QUOTE]

All true. Even scarier is the way that the jury came up with the $220,000 amount. They figured it was halfway beteen the maximum and the minimum as allowed by Congress, so it must be right. It played out like a financial version of the Milgram experiment.
 
[quote name='camoor']Myke, you're usually on-point, but in this discussion you always let your emotions get the better of you.

Maybe it's because you're a author/contributor to textbooks, or maybe it's because of your "High Fidelity" record store nostalgia, but you're never willing to accept that copyright is an artificial concept, a necessary evil, something with good intentions that has been perverted by those who run huge corporations.

You're always going to have the middle-America hayseed law-and-order crowd who doesn't understand the issue and thinks that fining a single mom a quarter million for uploading a handful of songs is just fine. Yet as long as Congress keeps enacting 100+ year copyright protection and outrageous penalties for uploading a handful of songs you're going to keep sending educated youth into the ranks of the 'copyright should be abolished' crowd.

Reason and mediation is what is needed, not an old-fashioned stern talking-to.[/QUOTE]

Reason and mediation? whats your idea to protect peoples ideas, creations, and investments?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Reason and mediation? whats your idea to protect peoples ideas, creations, and investments?[/QUOTE]

Like I said, we can keep copyright until someone comes up with a better solution. But we can't let corporations write the laws.

The EFF has caught congressmen proposing legislation that was created by RIAA lobbyists. Verbatim. (it was done by viewing the 'change history' logs of the posted documents in Microsoft Word). That is an untenable situation.

And for every smoking gun, there's all sorts of circumstantial evidence. What was Tom Perrelli, third from the head in the DOJ, doing before he was appointed? Why do you think they call copyright extensions "the Mickey Mouse laws"? Who really wrote the DMCA, and what scandal did they use to pass it through? Look up the answers and you'll understand.
 
[quote name='camoor']..but you're never willing to accept that copyright is an artificial concept, a necessary evil, something with good intentions that has been perverted by those who run huge corporations. [/quote]

Again, don't think just of the corporations think of the authors, musicians, screen writers, directors etc.

How would you feel if you were one of those people and you saw people owning and enjoying your creations without paying for them? Everyone likes to beat up the corporations and forget about the talent behind the content in question.

You're always going to have the middle-America hayseed law-and-order crowd who doesn't understand the issue and thinks that fining a single mom a quarter million for uploading a handful of songs is just fine.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone thinks these fines are ok. Everyone thinks they're absurd outside of the publishers filing the suits. Whether copyright violation remains a civil matter or becomes a criminal one the punishments need to fit the crime. Fines should be MSRP of the content plus 5-10%.

Yet as long as Congress keeps enacting 100+ year copyright protection and outrageous penalties for uploading a handful of songs you're going to keep sending educated youth into the ranks of the 'copyright should be abolished' crowd.
Click to expand...

Copyright is necessary and needs to be at least until death of the creator plus 10-15 years. The current 70 after death is probably a bit extreme.

1. A person should have exclusive right to sell their creation during their lifetimes. Again, ask yourself how you'd feel if you created something, it was selling like hot cakes, yet after 25 years (or whatever) the copyright ran out and any company could print your book, record etc. and sell it and make money without you getting your cut.

2. It should go a bit past death to encourage late in life work, releasing work posthumously etc.



And again, all that stuff has to be coupled with expanded fair use laws as legitimate owners of digital content should be able to do what they want with it beyond reproducing and distributing it, broadcasting it etc.
 
Dmaul, this is the conversation I think is needed - and needed in congress. How many years is reasonable, should art be able to be copyrighted over a lifetime and then some, etc.

Also when I say corporation I am talking about the people who run the entertainment companies and make the decision to fund lobbyist groups like the RIAA. I think it's fine for everyone to make a reasonable profit, but it's the power in the hands of entertainment CEOs that I would like to curtail. I will be more specific going forward.

What I was just trying to say was that I've seen the binary "copyright should be abolished" vs "you just want everything for free" debate so many times it's wearing thin. Frankly I thought the debate would have matured by now.
 
Corporations get beat up because they profit from the artist's work more than the artists do. Musicians get cents on each CD sold, the music labels get the rest.
 
Sure, and it sucks but artists don't have to sign such crummy deals. They can hold out and self promote until they have more leverage.

Successful bands can go the Pearl Jam/Radiohead route and not sign contracts and put out stuff on their own etc.

So it's not always the corporations getting screwed by piracy. And books and other things have different arrangement. Typical publishing contract is 10% of MSRP in royalties for each book sold etc.

And we'll see a lot more self publishing as we move into the digital era. Already a ton more with e-books than there were before the rise of e-books.
 
I truly hope so, but record companies have created an environment where it's hard to succeed without them. There are exceptions, but for the most part you still have to sign with a big record label to really make it big. I'll be completely honest in saying that the record labels losing money doesn't bother me at all, I think music would be better off without them.

As for movies/tv, you always here about how it hurts the little people, camera operators, lighting people etc, but much of that is because the movie studios see them as disposable. Tom Cruise has to be paid his millions, but we're losing money to piracy so you have to go, Bob.

It's like everything else in the world, the most expensive people are the last ones to see any cut in pay, whereas the folks who are cheaper to employ are the first to get the axe. I'm not even saying this justifies piracy, but if they want to save money, why not start at the top? Once most movie studios start cutting actor pay, the actors will have no choice but to either take it or not work. Might actually be cheaper to do than spend money on fighting piracy, although it seems like they're using tax payer money rather than their own anyway.
 
That's a double edged sword though. Studios need the big name actors in their films to get people to show up. And most of them are set for life and would probably not work vs. take big pay cuts unless it's a movie they just really want to do for personal reasons etc.

Even then, we're focusing on the top, when I feel it better to think about the indie films, documentaries etc. that someone made on their own etc. Those are who really get stung by piracy. The studios are still making billions.
 
I often ask students what standards they have for downloading music for free and/or copy. They often have a litany of interesting reasons. There's often the rhetoric of buying music for artists they like or support, or downloading as a means of sampling an entire album before purchasing - but following up a little bit of questioning, many admit that they simply don't buy music at all. The intent is there, but not executed.

I can agree that copyright laws could be revised somewhat; as a huge Johnny Cash fan, it breaks my heart to see his estate selling his music to sell hotels and restaurants on TV. That's not the kind of stuff he did in his own lifetime. So I struggle to want to pay for the "American VI" album, which features the incredible tune "Ain't No Grave."

Neither side has matured, as camoor points out. But here's the fundamental political problem that leads to the Democrats earning their moniker of "wimps" (deservedly so). Who is the first to break this stalemate? The Dems concede all the time, and the Republicans do not break party line as we've seen for the past decade. The Dems then concede some more. So I'm not particularly willing to concede any points for debate. Why? Well, I've seen what making the first steps towards negotiation has done for the Democrats, and I frankly see nothing but dishonesty in the arguments made by those who are against crime-control in the form of policing piracy. I want to see honest arguments from that side first and foremost. Disarm yourselves of any false pretense of nobility. You're not the anarchist black bloc, you're just someone who wants to have stuff for free. Once you abandon the idea that your actions are noble, then we can start to begin moving this discussion in a direction we can mutually agree on.
 
Yeah it's just like music, the studios get most of the money in the end. Even with actors making millions per film, the studios are still making way more. Need more independent film studios.

Not using highly paid actors would give them a chance to find unknowns who would work for less.
 
dmaul1114's thought process

1) Corporations have to protect their profits.
2) Well, it isn't only the corporations, you are hurting the artists.
3) If the artist doesn't want to get raped by the corporations, they shouldn't have signed that deal.
4) The artist will only make art if they are getting cash money. It isn't a passion or a drive to create.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
One reason that the music/movie industry have been hit so hard by piracy is that people like me want media how and wherever we please. They've been slow to adapt to that, they still want strict control over how their product is enjoyed. If I want an episode of a TV show on my phone, I'll get it however I can, even if that means downloading it illegally. On the other hand, it could be made available to me from the networks (including advertising) but they don't want to do that. Can't watch Hulu anymore because they blocked mobile users for example, so I'll just get it elsewhere.

Also hate how it tramples all over one's ability to backup media. I'm careful with my discs, but I'm sure plenty of people have had to buy something again because it got too scratched to play, which makes the studios more money. Even if the piracy genie was put back in the bottle, I don't think any future media would be free of copy protection. It's just better for the studios to make people buy things again and again if it gets damaged.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']dmaul1114's thought process

1) Corporations have to protect their profits.
2) Well, it isn't only the corporations, you are hurting the artists.
3) If the artist doesn't want to get raped by the corporations, they shouldn't have signed that deal.
4) The artist will only make art if they are getting cash money. It isn't a drive or a passion to create.[/QUOTE]
Would certainly weed out the ones who basically only do it for the money.
 
[quote name='Clak']One reason that the music/movie industry have been hit so hard by piracy is that people like me want media how and wherever we please. They've been slow to adapt to that, they still want strict control over how their product is enjoyed. If I want an episode of a TV show on my phone, I'll get it however I can, even if that means downloading it illegally. On the other hand, it could be made available to me from the networks (including advertising) but they don't want to do that. Can't watch Hulu anymore because they blocked mobile users for example, so I'll just get it elsewhere.

Also hate how it tramples all over one's ability to backup media. I'm careful with my discs, but I'm sure plenty of people have had to buy something again because it got too scratched to play, which makes the studios more money. Even if the piracy genie was put back in the bottle, I don't think any future media would be free of copy protection. It's just better for the studios to make people buy things again and again if it gets damaged.[/QUOTE]

Hulu plus is available for consoles (soonish, yeah?) and iphone/ipad. I'd also expect to see it hit other mobile devices soon enough as well. They're giving you what you're asking for.
 
Don't have an iphone/ipad. Used to be able to use skyfire mobile browser, Hulu stopped that fairly quickly. The console thing has been going around for a while, I don't know if it's really going to happen. Either way I have netflix for that.
 
[quote name='Clak'][...]people like me want media how and wherever we please. [...] If I want an episode of a TV show on my phone, I'll get it however I can, even if that means downloading it illegally. [...] I'll just get it elsewhere.[/QUOTE]

mememe....
 
[quote name='Clak']Don't have an iphone/ipad. Used to be able to use skyfire mobile browser, Hulu stopped that fairly quickly. The console thing has been going around for a while, I don't know if it's really going to happen. Either way I have netflix for that.[/QUOTE]

http://www.psu.com/news/9329
 
[quote name='Sporadic']
4) The artist will only make art if they are getting cash money. It isn't a passion or a drive to create.[/QUOTE]

Never said that. Regardless of type of copyright (strict, lenient or non-existent) no artist is required to sign contracts nor attempt to sell their product.

Anyone can create things and give them away for free. Especially in this day and age with broad band nearly everywhere making it very easy for people to give away their creations to millions of people. And there are plenty who do.

However, if you take away copyright and you have commercial artists seeing their work sold buy others with them getting no cut of it, you can bet your ass you'd see people just saying fuck it and retiring and not making more work. Especially the super successful ones who already have made a fortune.

But at the end of the day, it just comes down to a person's right to control their own property, and a persons creation/intellectual property falls under that.

If someone creates something and chooses not to give it away, but rather to try and make money off it, they should have legal protections ensuring they are the only ones allowed to sell it during their lifetime. Those who just love art and want to share are free to create and give away freely as always.


And again, this doesn't mean I'm not for fair use. One should be able to buy a movie and then put it on every device they own etc. Those laws need updated too. The problem is illegal downloads and uploads for artists. The problem for us end users is restrictive DRM that doesn't stop pirates and keeps us from getting fair use out of our purchases. So both sides need to give some and meet in the middle.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='UncleBob']mememe....[/QUOTE]
Either you're about to sing or being an asshole, which one?
 
[quote name='Clak']Either you're about to sing or being an asshole, which one?[/QUOTE]

I believe he was saying its all about you, you, you. I wont put the words in his mouth but I found my interpretation of it fairly funny :D
 
[quote name='Knoell']I believe he was saying its all about you, you, you. I wont put the words in his mouth but I found my interpretation of it fairly funny :D[/QUOTE]
Because YOUR opinion and YOUR rationale is so self-centered.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I believe he was saying its all about you, you, you. I wont put the words in his mouth but I found my interpretation of it fairly funny :D[/QUOTE]
Oh i know exactly what he's saying. He's just being a jerk about it.
 
[quote name='Clak']Either you're about to sing or being an asshole, which one?[/QUOTE]

Just posting the tl;dr version for anyone interested. :)
 
[quote name='Knoell']I am trying to figure out how making someone pay the price of the cd for stealing the cd is going to direct people to not steal that cd. Your theory is like a store owner saying "hey you better not steal that or else ill make you pay for it!" There has to be some penalty in addition to the cost of the product in order to ensure people know the risk they are taking by stealing it. Granted 80K per song is too much, but $750 per song doesn't seem that out of whack.[/QUOTE]
Really? You think $750 per song isn't an insane amount? That comes out to $18,000 for 24 songs. That's insane.

I could understand if she had downloaded a couple THOUSAND songs, but 24 songs are worth nowhere near that much. At least to me they're not.

That's why I just wait till people break copyright law and I listen to whatever songs I wanna listen to on YouTube. That is until YouTube gets served and takes down those songs. Either that or I buy my cd's USED.

Although I've noticed that enough artists and labels seem to have their own official pages on YouTube anymore, though many of those include ads for either other products or whatever thrown in with the music anymore.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']Although I've noticed that enough artists and labels seem to have their own official pages on YouTube anymore, though many of those include ads for either other products or whatever thrown in with the music anymore.[/QUOTE]

I don't mind. My browser has multiple tabs.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I don't mind. My browser has multiple tabs.[/QUOTE]
I don't mind either, but it's a pain in the ass at times, since some of the ads take up half the window.
 
These days I dont understand why people pirate music, you can demo a whole lotta songs from itunes and buy them for a buck if you like them....I guess I just don't find it worth my time to torrent entire albums of someone in which I only listen to the only three good songs.
 
[quote name='Knoell']These days I dont understand why people pirate music, you can demo a whole lotta songs from itunes and buy them for a buck if you like them....I guess I just don't find it worth my time to torrent entire albums of someone in which I only listen to the only three good songs.[/QUOTE]
A lot of people listen to a lot of music, and would rather spend their money on weed. Again, it's a horrible rationale, but that's the explanation I can give you. I, personally, don't agree with it. But again, there's your explanation
 
It's easy, it's efficient, and the probability of being caught and prosecuted for it is incredibly low.

That's more or less why. I get why people do pirate.

What I am often shocked by are people's arguments of (1) entitlement to whatever product they want, whenever they want, and (2) that an area of high crime shouldn't be policed more.
 
[quote name='Knoell']These days I dont understand why people pirate music, you can demo a whole lotta songs from itunes and buy them for a buck if you like them....I guess I just don't find it worth my time to torrent entire albums of someone in which I only listen to the only three good songs.[/QUOTE]

Plus we have the virtual jukebox aka youtube. I think youtube is an important piece of the puzzle, it is the kind of service people have been looking for.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It's easy, it's efficient, and the probability of being caught and prosecuted for it is incredibly low.

That's more or less why. I get why people do pirate.

What I am often shocked by are people's arguments of (1) entitlement to whatever product they want, whenever they want, and (2) that an area of high crime shouldn't be policed more.[/QUOTE]

As much as you are shocked, I am more outraged by the irrationality, ruthlessness and tone-deaf attitude of record labels and their lobbies.

I am more outraged by how the outdated technology patent process unfairly benefits FUD-spreading big corporations and IP lawsuit factories while discouraging innovation and the kind of garage start-ups that made Silicon Valley great.

I am more outraged that more people don't know how antiquidated and backwards our current patent system is. As much as I acknowledge pirates are acting illegally, draconian punishments and clearly anti-innovation legislation is not going to bring them back into the fold.
 
Eh. That line of thinking disregards the way the music industry has changed, though.

Record companies were dragged kicking and screaming into the internet age, but to argue that they remain 'draconian' is inaccurate.

iTunes is Napster in monetized form. It's DD, something thought unthinkable when Napster was in vogue. People didn't think record companies would ever embrace DD. Moreover, iTunes eventually went DRM-free in response to people's claims that DRM were overly restrictive and, as you might say, 'draconian.'

To regard legislation and the record industry as rigid and inflexible is a highly inaccurate claim that speaks more to your unwillingness to confront the reality of how the market has changed in the past 10-15 years than it does, say, 'draconian punishments.' Similarly, to label anybody who desires to see crimes prosecuted as "corporatists," as you've done in many prior posts in this thread, is a red herring that shows your genuine unwillingness to truly discuss this issue on a broader scale.

Ultimately, your misframing of so much of this issue is more demonstrative of your own rigidity and inflexibility than it does that of the record industry.
 
Yeah, what more do we want form the music industry? If someone isn't not willing to pay a $1 a song and $10 an album you're either just not much into music, or are flat broke and shouldn't be wasting money on music anyway.

It used to suck with DRM etc., but now it's dirt cheap to buy DRM free songs, easy to preview before buying various places etc. etc.

The only gripe I have is the aburd lawsuit settlements, but that's on the courts and on the legal systen not updating laws to deal with piracy in criminal court where there are protections against cruel and unusual punishments.

Now other media industries are lagging behind for sure and deserve more ire. E-books are mostly DRM'd and tied to one account. Digital movies are DRM'd, and it's not legal to rip discs you own to create your own files etc. And all that needs to change as I've said before. Fair use laws need updated and clarified as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, what more do we want form the music industry? If you're not willing to pay a $1 a song and $10 an album you're either just not much into music, or just fail at life and are flat broke.[/QUOTE]

Don't forget the services where you get the all-you-can-listen-to on demand + downloads for one price. Isn't the Zune Marketplace set up for $15/month with unlimited DRM'd downloads (that expire if your subscription expires) and ten DRM-free downloads? That's a pretty good deal if you're a music fan.

[quote name='dorino']A lot of people listen to a lot of music, and would rather spend their money on weed. Again, it's a horrible rationale, but that's the explanation I can give you. I, personally, don't agree with it. But again, there's your explanation[/QUOTE]

Can anyone explain the "Download one of everything" people? Like the ones who talk about having every single NES/SNES/Genesis, etc... games downloaded? Seriously, do you ever really break out that downloaded copy of Fitness Fun for the NES, rig your Power Pad mat to your PC and play it?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Eh. That line of thinking disregards the way the music industry has changed, though.

Record companies were dragged kicking and screaming into the internet age, but to argue that they remain 'draconian' is inaccurate.

iTunes is Napster in monetized form. It's DD, something thought unthinkable when Napster was in vogue. People didn't think record companies would ever embrace DD. Moreover, iTunes eventually went DRM-free in response to people's claims that DRM were overly restrictive and, as you might say, 'draconian.'

To regard legislation and the record industry as rigid and inflexible is a highly inaccurate claim that speaks more to your unwillingness to confront the reality of how the market has changed in the past 10-15 years than it does, say, 'draconian punishments.' Similarly, to label anybody who desires to see crimes prosecuted as "corporatists," as you've done in many prior posts in this thread, is a red herring that shows your genuine unwillingness to truly discuss this issue on a broader scale.

Ultimately, your misframing of so much of this issue is more demonstrative of your own rigidity and inflexibility than it does that of the record industry.[/QUOTE]

They're still kicking and screaming as far as I can tell , all the while pissing on fair use. I can point out numerous examples, like Warners music group:Their approach to youtube and cover songs from their recording artists is downright laughable not to mention the fact they've decided to boycott their songs from streaming internet radio.
The label 'draconian' is accurate.
 
[quote name='EdRyder']They're still kicking and screaming as far as I can tell , all the while pissing on fair use. I can point out numerous examples, like Warners music group:Their approach to youtube and cover songs from their recording artists is downright laughable not to mention the fact they've decided to boycott their songs from streaming internet radio.
The label 'draconian' is accurate.[/QUOTE]

Let's not forget, it was only five years ago Sony was putting fucking rootkits on their cds in the hope that we wouldn't be able to rip them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_CD_copy_protection_scandal

What mykevermin is saying, is on par with the dummies that go "what racism? a black man is the president now". Yes, slight steps are being taken in the right direction but we are far away from where we need to be.

If iTunes is a legal Napster (a 11 year old program), where my legal equivalent of What.CD?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top