Drex_CS
join:2005-05-11
canada | WRONG
Piracy is ripping the hell out of iTunes, but it's all about the look. They LOOK like they're doing well so people trust them and give the MPAA more reason to be dumb@$$'s |
|
AbBaZaBbA
Premium
join:2002-07-10
Wildomar, CA | Enron also LOOKED like it was doing well.
Itunes _ONLY_ purpose for apple is a promotional tool for ipods. Apple (as well as the artists) make hardly anything (a couple cents) off of each download because of the greedy record companies. |
|
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| said by AbBaZaBbA  : because of the greedy record companies. As opposed to the greedy users, who think nothing of stealing every bit of music they can find?
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft Security MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site |
|
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-01
IA | Why don't you STFU?
If you got a problem with piracy go somewhere else and bitch.
Anonymous |
|
pianotech
Pianotech
Premium
join:2002-12-30
New Castle, PA
| reply to AbBaZaBbA
said by AbBaZaBbA :Enron also LOOKED like it was doing well. Apple (as well as the artists) make hardly anything (a couple cents) off of each download because of the greedy record companies. I don't disagree about the major labels being greedy, but remember that iTunes also sells a lot of indie label artists (and also unsigned artists throug CDBaby) too. I make 65 cents per download, which is more than a "couple cents." |
|
pianotech
Pianotech
Premium
join:2002-12-30
New Castle, PA
| reply to Steve
said by Steve :said by AbBaZaBbA : because of the greedy record companies. As opposed to the greedy users, who think nothing of stealing every bit of music they can find? Steve That's debatable, really, and I'm speaking as an artist. Copyright law is far too reaching any more, far more than the "limited time" of protection that the original founding fathers envisioned. The first copyright secured protection for the IP owner for a term of 14 years. Now it's the owner's life + 75 years.
Lawrence Lessig, founder of Creative Commons, wrote an excellent book called The Free Culture in which me makes some very compelling points. The book is available as a free download at his website: »lessig.org |
|
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| said by pianotech :That's debatable, really, and I'm speaking as an artist. Copyright law is far too reaching any more Oh, this is a perfectly fair postiion. Copyright should draw some sort of balance, and there are principled position on both sides that can aim for moving the "rights" dial one way or the other.
But I don't see any way that the guy who burns through 50G of his cable modem cap ever month (not sending a dime to any artist) can escape being called "greedy", even if he dances around being called "thief".
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft Security MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site |
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| reply to Steve
Ahh, that of course, is where you are wrong.
"Stealing Music", of course, is the newspeak/doublespeak of the 2000's. I love how they use the word 'theft', when they are not deprived of anything, and the word "Pirate", to conjure up bloodthirsy lawless rapist. The reality is completely different. By the corporation definition, I am both a thief and a pirate, since I cracked the DRM on the music I legally paid for, and transferred it to my server so I can listen to it on my slimdevices mp3 player.
Stand back and look at the big picture, you'll see that today's corporations and governments have a terrifying similarity to George Orwell's dystopia. The events of 9/11 added an entire new beuraucracy (homeland security) for our government, and it's purpose is to POLICE OUR OWN CITIZENS. I am very alarmed at the invasiveness of the Patriot Act, and even more alarmed at a possible Patriot Act II, which would further expand government surveillance. In his works, Orwell recognized that "trading freedom for security is a death trap," and the whole concept of "homeland security" is a very seductive temptation used to calm the nerves of the proles, convincing them that the govt will take care of them. Only idiots trust their government. Power corrupts, and 2 years in Washington will corrupt even the most moral of men.
--
Grand Poobah |
|
Tomek
Premium
join:2002-01-30
Brooklyn, NY | reply to Steve
Monopoly
RIAA has monopoly, so they do whatever they want.
Why CD price is comparable in price to DVD?
Greed.
At least with Video I know what I get.
--
Semper Fi |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
| reply to Steve
Re: WRONG
Way to crap the thread there, Steve . Nowhere in that response was "pirate", "thief" or even "P2P" mentioned. AbBaZaBbA makes a very valid point, which you evidently can't rebut so you trotted out the tired, lazy trick of off-topic distraction. Your love affair with Apple is clouding your vision. iTunes is mediocre at best.
--
Attitudes are contagious. Mine might kill you. |
|
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
·epix
| reply to Steve
said by Steve :said by AbBaZaBbA : because of the greedy record companies. As opposed to the greedy users, who think nothing of stealing every bit of music they can find? Steve The central economic distinction between information and physical property is that information can be transferred without leaving the possession of the original owner.
Unbounded intellectual property is very different from physical property and can no longer be protected as though these differences did not exist. For example, if we continue to assume that value is based on scarcity, as it is with regard to physical objects, we will create laws that are precisely contrary to the nature of information, which may, in many cases, increase in value with distribution.
Perhaps those who are part of the problem will simply quarantine themselves in court, while those who are part of the solution will create a new society based, at first, on piracy and freebooting. It may well be that when the current system of intellectual property law has collapsed, as seems inevitable, that no new legal structure will arise in its place.
The laws regarding unlicensed reproduction of commercial software are clear and stern...and rarely observed. Software piracy laws are so practically unenforceable and breaking them has become so socially acceptable that only a thin minority appears compelled, either by fear or conscience, to obey them.
Whenever there is such profound divergence between law and social practice, it is not society that adapts. Against the swift tide of custom, the software publishers' current practice of hanging a few visible scapegoats is so obviously capricious as to only further diminish respect for the law.
Part of the widespread disregard for commercial software copyrights stems from a legislative failure to understand the conditions into which it was inserted. To assume that systems of law based in the physical world will serve in an environment as fundamentally different as cyberspace is a folly for which everyone doing business in the future will pay.
When the primary articles of commerce in a society look so much like speech as to be indistinguishable from it, and when the traditional methods of protecting their ownership have become ineffectual, attempting to fix the problem with broader and more vigorous enforcement will inevitably threaten freedom of speech. The greatest constraint on your future liberties may come not from government but from corporate legal departments laboring to protect by force what can no longer be protected by practical efficiency or general social consent.
Furthermore, the increasing difficulty of enforcing existing copyright and patent laws is already placing in peril the ultimate source of intellectual property - the free exchange of ideas.
Can one explain how the sharing,(A copy) From an original
in this case a cd or song is stealing.? All I see is it's stealing.Your stealing,Your stealing.Money out of the mouths of the **AA's.When A.If that someone didn't buy the original
cd at this very moment.B.It's impossible to know after hearing the cd would one like it enough to purchase the disk..err contents.?. C.Most major art galleries will sell a reproduction of the original painting,at a fraction of the originals true value.Did the artist of the Mona Lisa get ripped off in that case.? No of course not.Suppose one hired a private artist to paint a picture from a book you borrowed.
Is that stealing from the original artist as well.? No of course not.Can some one please explain how one can label something theft,when the physical property,is in the hands of its owner.? |
|
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| reply to RadioDoc
said by RadioDoc :Way to crap the thread there, Steve . Nowhere in that response was "pirate", "thief" or even "P2P" mentioned. So discussing piracy and greed in a thread about piracy and greed is off topic? No wonder you're not a moderator anymoreYour love affair with Apple HUH?
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft Security MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site |
|
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| reply to guitarzan
said by guitarzan :The central economic distinction between information and physical property is that information can be transferred without leaving the possession of the original owner. Yes, both you and G_Poobah make the completely correct point that "theft" and "stealing" only apply if the original owner is deprived of the use of the item. If I take a CD from your desk, it's clearly stealing, but if I merely make a copy then it is not.
I, however, continue to use this term informally and pejoratively in reference the the disdain for the rights of artists by those who engage in wholesale piracy.
Fair use and "hey check out this cool song" is smalltime stuff that most people don't care about. I certainly don't. The amount of trading that qualifies for "fair use" varies widely in different people (especially in those who take a dim view of the whole notion of intellectual property).
But being exposed to those who do this notoriously and brazenly: "I don't ever pay for music/ software/ DVDs", bragging about the size of their collections, preparing cover stories in case they are caught, etc. This bothers me a lot, and I don't mind calling them names.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft Security MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site |
|
mrchris
We don't miss you Bush
Premium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Optimum Online
|  reply to Steve
Maybe you should clear that thick pro-RIAA head of yours and see the facts yourself:
»www.downhillbattle.org/reasons
Five major record labels have a monopoly that's bad for musicians and music culture, but now we have an opportunity to change that. We can use tools like filesharing to strengthen independent labels and end the major label monopoly.
How do musicians get paid for downloads? Simple: collective licensing lets people download unlimited music for a flat monthly fee ($5-$10) and the money goes to musicians and labels according to popularity. This solution preserves the cultural benefits of p2p, gets musicians way more money, and levels the playing field.
Our plan is to explain how the majors really work, develop software to make filesharing stronger, rally public support for a legal p2p compensation system, and connect independent music scenes with the free culture movement.
»www.negativland.com/albini.html
Read it and read it well, pro-RIAA boy...
»www.downhillbattle.org |
|
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| said by mrchris :Maybe you should clear that thick pro-RIAA head of yours and see the facts yourself: I only "support" the RIAA in the narrow sense that they have legal ownership of the property they're "protecting", but everything I know about them suggests they're thugs to everybody they deal with. It's hard to imagine a worse way they could have addressed the whole music trading issue than the ham-fisted way they are doing now.How do musicians get paid for downloads? Simple: collective licensing lets people download unlimited music for a flat monthly fee ($5-$10) and the money goes to musicians and labels according to popularity. This solution preserves the cultural benefits of p2p, gets musicians way more money, and levels the playing field. I think this is a fantastic idea. Creating a new market for artists benefits everybody: artists, users, and the culture in general. I'd participate in this.
But (1) it must include only willing particpants, and (2) this has nothing to do with those who have no intention of paying for music no matter what the business model is.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft Security MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site |
|
Doctor Four
My other vehicle is a TARDIS
Premium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to Steve
If you want to talk about piracy and greed, you need look
no further than the industry itself (or more precisely,
the Big Four). The current standard recording contract
scheme is by design exploitative of both artists and
ultimately, the consumer. Just visit Boycott-RIAA and
P2Pnet regularly, and you'll see beyond the industry's
doublespeak. Do major label artists get fairly compensated
for their work - CD sales or online downloads? Hardly. The
labels give them precious little of the profits (royalties)
from them. There have been numerous legal battles over this.
And speaking of lawsuits, not one penny of the $30 million
in settlement money has gone to any of the artists the
industry allegedly represents.
Indies and smaller label (non-RIAA affiliated)
artists do get better deals. But their music is
hardly ever played due to the RIAA marginalizing it
via Clear Channel and other means. They want to control
ALL music, not just their own. The real reason for stopping
filesharing is not any they've publicly claimed and that
much of the major media has parroted, but is control. For
most small and Indie labels, p2p is a godsend as there is
often no other way for listeners to get exposure to their
music. And that's what the RIAA is trying to stop.
--
"Kayura or Badamon, whichever you are, you should know that I will never give up this battle. By the will of the Ancient, I shall succeed!" - Shuten (Anubis) from the Ronin Warriors.To RIAA/MPAA - You can sue but you can't catch everyone! |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
 ·T-Mobile US
| reply to Steve
said by Steve :said by AbBaZaBbA : because of the greedy record companies. As opposed to the greedy users, who think nothing of stealing every bit of music they can find? Steve Oh yes. Let's talk about greedy corporations first, shall we?
When we finished, we can talk about user "greed". |
|
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| reply to Steve
said by Steve :said by RadioDoc :Way to crap the thread there, Steve . Nowhere in that response was "pirate", "thief" or even "P2P" mentioned. So discussing piracy and greed in a thread about piracy and greed is off topic? No wonder you're not a moderator anymore Your love affair with Apple HUH? Heh heh. Steve's just Apple-Curious.  |
|
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| reply to pianotech
said by pianotech :]I don't disagree about the major labels being greedy, but remember that iTunes also sells a lot of indie label artists (and also unsigned artists throug CDBaby) too. I make 65 cents per download, which is more than a "couple cents." Wow, this is the money you get per-song via iTunes? That's actually very good. Do they have a blanket policy of selling anyone hooked in to CDBaby? Does CDBaby take any of that? |
|
redhatnation
Premium
join:2005-06-02
Woodbridge, VA
·Comcast
| reply to RadioDoc
said by RadioDoc : iTunes is mediocre at best. Can you enlighten this iTunes user about why you think it is mediocre at best? Seriously.
--
My server has been up longer than your server. |
|
