'Three Strikes' Debate A Global Affair Is a severed broadband connection justified punishment for P2P piracy? The entertainment industry is on a global campaign to get laws passed that force ISPs to implement a "three strikes and you're out" policy, whereby a broadband user would be disconnected by the ISP after three piracy warnings. Such a law already exists in France, and the UK has been debating such a law for some time -- though passage now seems doubtful. Intellectual Property Minister David Lammy this week tells the London Times that ISPs don't want the added regulation, and a severed broadband line as punishment doesn't fit the crime: "We can't have a system where we're talking about arresting teenagers in their bedrooms," he said. "People can rent a room in an hotel and leave with a bar of soap--there's a big difference between leaving with a bar of soap and leaving with the television." Like most technology metaphors, the soap one is a stupid one, given we'd be talking about copies of soap with no soap actually missing -- and from a hotel that has a multitude of ways to still make money. Still, the music industry runs with the soap metaphor in their retort to the Times: "The relative cost of stealing a bar of soap from an hotel might be small, but if it came to seven million people nicking the soap each year, which is what we have in the music industry, I'm sure that hotel chain would do something about it." Here in the States, the entertainment industry so far hasn't had any luck getting lawmakers to pass three strikes bills, though the RIAA has had some success in convincing ISPs they should participate in a new plan where they terminate the connections of repeat offenders voluntarily. ISPs that have employed such a system don't like to admit it. We do know that Cox is one, though they insisted to us its not really "three strikes," as they give heavy P2P users countless warnings (via a walled garden system) to stop transferring pirated content before account termination. A voluntary system, particularly if implemented poorly, will likely only act to drive customers to ISPs who quietly allow P2P piracy to continue (Verizon has said they won't be participating). A mandatory three strikes system, required by law, hoists new regulation upon an industry that generally hates regulation. It also creates a whole new world of technical challenges and questions -- including who tracks repeat offenders across all ISPs.
|
 me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | What if a kids doing at the perents don't know? What then? You know other than telling the parents they suck as perents.
O well, I don't pirate, so I don't cre that much. | |
|  |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: What if a kids doing at the perents don't know? said by me1212:What then? You know other than telling the parents they suck as perents. O well, I don't pirate, so I don't cre that much. well it's called being parent and punishing the child. If you're a parent and your kid is selling drugs and you are unaware of that yeah it's kind of your fault. | |
|
| |  Uhh, who cares about the damn soap?
"The relative cost of stealing a bar of soap from an hotel might be small, but if it came to seven million people nicking the soap each year, which is what we have in the music industry, I'm sure that hotel chain would do something about it." Seriously, if someone nicks a bar of soap, it's no loss to the hotel chain, as they'd have to replace any bars of soap between check-in's anyways. Would you want to use some unknown person's bar of soap? Also, as far as the music industry goes, how do they even know that these people are customers to begin with, who says they'd buy their shitty music anyways? | |
| | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Uhh, who cares about the damn soap? said by whiteyonenh:"The relative cost of stealing a bar of soap from an hotel might be small, but if it came to seven million people nicking the soap each year, which is what we have in the music industry, I'm sure that hotel chain would do something about it." Seriously, if someone nicks a bar of soap, it's no loss to the hotel chain, as they'd have to replace any bars of soap between check-in's anyways. Would you want to use some unknown person's bar of soap? Also, as far as the music industry goes, how do they even know that these people are customers to begin with, who says they'd buy their shitty music anyways? So your logic is that if you wern't going to buy it you can steal it? Also if the music is so shitty why bother stealing it? Why would you want shitty music even if it's free? If I gave one a plate of dog crap would one eat it because it was free? I would hope not. If somehting is worth having it's worth paying for and if the 99 cetns is going to break one's wallet or one doean't feel it's worth 99 cetns then one doesn't deserve to have that music. it's as simple as that. | |
| | | | | Re: Uhh, who cares about the damn soap? said by BF69:So your logic is that if you wern't going to buy it you can steal it? No, his logic is that if you werent going to buy it, you can COPY IT.
Your logic seems to be that making a copy of something is the same thing as stealing even though stealing means no one else can buy the item you stole.
Here, let me show you the difference:
Say I steal an apple from a store, now no one can buy that apple because I have it.
Now say I buy an apple from a store, and I plant the seeds and grow an apple tree and give out free apples to my friends.
The point is, no one likes apples, so I'd just throw them at cars and children. | |
| | | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Uhh, who cares about the damn soap? said by james1:said by BF69:So your logic is that if you wern't going to buy it you can steal it? No, his logic is that if you werent going to buy it, you can COPY IT. Your logic seems to be that making a copy of something is the same thing as stealing even though stealing means no one else can buy the item you stole. Once again
I want song so I PAY for it.
You want a song. You don't want to pay for it so you "copy".
So it's fair that I paid for the song and you got it for free just because you did not want to pay for it? Once again people like you have yet to explain the fairness of that.
See here's how it's supposed to go.
I want a song. I pay for it. I have it.
You want a song. You don't want to pay for it. You DO NOT get to have that song.
I'm not sure why some of you fail to see the logic in that. Only a thief without any morals or ethics wouldn't understand. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Uhh, who cares about the damn soap? Well, in your scenario, you are the communist
1 person is smart
1 person is not!
We are all basically capitalist here. and the GOAL of capitalism is to get the MOST amount of goods, for the LEAST amount of cost. So, if you are PAYING for something you can get for free, by definition, you are not a capitalist, thus, you must be a commie!
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! | |
| | | | | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
1 edit | Re: Uhh, who cares about the damn soap? said by karlmarx:Well, in your scenario, you are the communist 1 person is smart 1 person is not! We are all basically capitalist here. and the GOAL of capitalism is to get the MOST amount of goods, for the LEAST amount of cost. So, if you are PAYING for something you can get for free, by definition, you are not a capitalist, thus, you must be a commie! I'm the communist? YOU people are the ones that expect everything handed out them for free. that's communism. | |
| | | | | | | | said by karlmarx:...if you are PAYING for something you can get for free, by definition, you are not a capitalist, thus, you must be a commie! Translation:
If you are not paying for something because you took it for free, by definition, you are still a thief.
But as far as I'm concerned, that's between you and your conscience. Word games don't change the facts. (And just to be clear, I'm extremely anti-RIAA; but I'm even more so pro-honesty. Barring a matter of actual survival, stealing anything just makes you a POS. Just because the RIAA is also a POS doesn't make the thief any less a POS. Stealing from a thief (such as the RIAA) may be fair, but it's not honest. Steal all you want to, but just "man up" and admit it... at least to yourself.) | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Uhh, who cares about the damn soap? said by mod_wastrel:If you are not paying for something because you took it for free, by definition, you are still a thief. And I say if you're exploiting artists, lying about statistics and manipulating the market you're a thief. Here's a tip: the internet has made the middle-men and producers absolutely useless, and they're the ones who have been exploiting artists and shoving crap like the spice girls and boy-bands down our throats. Bands don't make money from CD sales or radio-play, that's just publicity for them so they can sell merchandise and seats in stadiums. | |
| | | | | | | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Uhh, who cares about the damn soap? said by james1:said by mod_wastrel:If you are not paying for something because you took it for free, by definition, you are still a thief. And I say if you're exploiting artists, lying about statistics and manipulating the market you're a thief. Here's a tip: the internet has made the middle-men and producers absolutely useless, and they're the ones who have been exploiting artists and shoving crap like the spice girls and boy-bands down our throats. Bands don't make money from CD sales or radio-play, that's just publicity for them so they can sell merchandise and seats in stadiums. So you're stealing for the good of the poor maligned artists being screwed over by the evil record labels? How noble of you. Pardon me if I don't believe you steal out of philithropic motives.
I mean how dare the labels spend millions of their dollars producing and promoting these artists and giving them millions of $ in advance with only small % chance of that investment actually returning results then have the balls to asked to be reimbursed and perhaps take a profit too? Those devils! | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Uhh, who cares about the damn soap? said by BF69:I mean how dare the labels spend millions of their dollars producing and promoting these artists and giving them millions of $ in advance with only small % chance of that investment actually returning results then have the balls to asked to be reimbursed and perhaps take a profit too? Those devils! 99.9% of artists don't get "millions of $ in advance", and I guarantee the ones that do are a sure thing as far as the producers getting paid goes.
Piracy is as "bad" for artists as getting played on the radio. It's free and worldwide publicity (something the labels could never provide for the artists)! 90% of the bands I listen to I've heard of from being used in flash animations, internet radio and music download sites without the permission of the artist. But without that Piracy I wouldnt like or even know about any of those bands, so when they came to town I wouldn't buy tickets to their concert, I wouldnt order a tshirt from their website, I wouldn't order a CD from them even though I already have their songs on my computer because I want a better quality sound, I wouldn't buy posters... etc etc etc.
Bands used to have to PAY to get that kind of exposure, now they get it for free and the middle-men who did nothing but put up walls and act as gate-keepers and took the biggest cut of the pie are crying and trying to dig their way out of the grave they made for themselves by screwing artists and consumers for decades. GOOD F-ING RIDDANCE. | |
|
| | | |  wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | said by BF69:I want a song. I pay for it. I have it. You want a song. You don't want to pay for it. You DO NOT Well said! | |
| | | | | | | said by BF69:So it's fair that I paid for the song and you got it for free just because you did not want to pay for it? Once again people like you have yet to explain the fairness of that. So if I grow my own apples are you going to complain that I'm getting free apples?
Sure, the grocery store will suffer because I'm buying less apples, but it's their decision if they decide to raise their prices and make you pay them because I feel like "copying" the apple. | |
| | | | | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Uhh, who cares about the damn soap? said by james1:said by BF69:So it's fair that I paid for the song and you got it for free just because you did not want to pay for it? Once again people like you have yet to explain the fairness of that. So if I grow my own apples are you going to complain that I'm getting free apples? No because those are your apples. Unless you are producing those songs yourself your argument is stupid. | |
| | | | | | |
1 edit | Re: Uhh, who cares about the damn soap? said by BF69:No because those are your apples. It affects you in the exact same way, I'm copying something and getting it for free while you have to pay the normal price. Is that fair?
said by BF69:Unless you are producing those songs yourself your argument is stupid. So, now you know how I feel about your argument that compares copying to stealing. They're different, so stop comparing them to other things.
Copying art is the same as copying art. It's not the same as stealing a car, it's not the same as me planting apples, it's not the same as anything.
The only argument that isn't stupid is "I think copying music/movies/paintings is good/bad because XYZ". Everything else is just idiocy and trolling.
So lets try that:
I think copying music for personal use is good because it gives bands worldwide exposure and if people like them enough they will want to buy Tshirts, Posters and buy memorabilia such as personally signed CDs made by the band themselves. As it is most of the money from CDs goes to middle-men who are no longer necessary.
I am 100% against people charging for pirated music because they are deriving a profit from the works rather than acting as free promoters.
Your turn. | |
| | | | | | | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Uhh, who cares about the damn soap? said by james1:So, now you know how I feel about your argument that compares copying to stealing. They're different, so stop comparing them to other things. Appearntly you incapable of logical reasoning even when it's gift wrapped to you. Copying is stealing PERIOD. If you're that stupid to not see that there is ZERO point in further discussion with you. Do you understand what I just said or do I need to explain that as if you were a 5 year old with a mental handicap? | |
|
| | | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | said by BF69:Once again people like you have yet to explain the fairness of that. You're trying to change the argument. Is it fair you had to pay and they got to copy it? No, not really.
However, *just because* they copied it doesn't mean that anything was stolen. That's the point. You can't count a loss that you never suffered.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
| | | | | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Uhh, who cares about the damn soap? said by KrK:said by BF69:Once again people like you have yet to explain the fairness of that. You're trying to change the argument. Is it fair you had to pay and they got to copy it? No, not really. However, *just because* they copied it doesn't mean that anything was stolen. That's the point. You can't count a loss that you never suffered. No YOU are changing the arugment. Is stealing or copying or whatever the fuck you want to label it wrong? YES. Nuff said. | |
| | | | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: Uhh, who cares about the damn soap? Stealing is wrong.
Copying isn't always.
They aren't the same, but people try and make it like they are.
Taking an "unauthorized" picture of something isn't the same as actually taking the something.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | said by whiteyonenh:Seriously, if someone nicks a bar of soap, it's no loss to the hotel chain, as they'd have to replace any bars of soap between check-in's anyways. Would you want to use some unknown person's bar of soap? I think he is probably referring to the unopened bars of soap. I guarantee you that the ones you dont use (still wrapped in plastic/paper) are not replaced when you leave. I agree that the analogy isnt the best for the very reasons you describe however.
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
| |
| | | | | Re: Uhh, who cares about the damn soap? said by wifi4milez:I think he is probably referring to the unopened bars of soap. I guarantee you that the ones you dont use (still wrapped in plastic/paper) are not replaced when you leave. I agree that the analogy isnt the best for the very reasons you describe however. Yeah, I'm sure that the unused bars are not normally replaced, but for the open bars of soap, there's no reason to leave them there as they would be thrown out anyways.
And in response to the other poster, no I don't condone stealing, but at the same time, getting more people listening to music can be a good thing, because of the possibility that those people may buy stuff that they otherwise wouldn't have bought. I will admit that i regularly download music, i will also admit that some of the stuff I've downloaded I've later bought. I would not have bought it if I had not heard it beforehand though. | |
|
| | | Not to mention if seven million people are checking in to their hotels they make plenty to cover the soap. | |
| | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Yeah, stupid analogy. They replace the bar of soap between guests---- so the soap expense is paid in the room cost.
Doesn't matter if the customer takes the soap or leaves it. No difference. Very stupid choice of analogy.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | 7 million at no cost "The relative cost of stealing a bar of soap from an hotel might be small, but if it came to seven million people nicking the soap each year, which is what we have in the music industry, I'm sure that hotel chain would do something about it."
If I were to steal 7 million bars of soap it would cost someone alot! But if I steal 7 million mp3 files, what is missing? Nothing. No cost to anyone. No loss to anyone. | |
| |  Matt3All noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: 7 million at no cost said by AstroBoy:If I were to steal 7 million bars of soap it would cost someone alot! But if I steal 7 million mp3 files, what is missing? Nothing. No cost to anyone. No loss to anyone. I'm sorry, but this is not true. If you steal 7 million MP3 files (with the intention of listening to them) you have stolen 7 million songs that you would have had to otherwise purchase to listen to.
The only way that false analogy works is if you download the MP3 files and then immediately delete them without listening to them. | |
| | | | | Re: 7 million at no cost Not true. You assume I would have bought them if I did not download them. Bad assumption. | |
| | | | Matt3All noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: 7 million at no cost said by AstroBoy:Not true. You assume I would have bought them if I did not download them. Bad assumption. If you didn't buy a song, you have no right to listen to it. It's called copyright law. So by downloading it illegally, you have no right to listen to it. So therefore, if you want to listen to it, you must buy it.
It's really a simple concept. | |
| | | | | | | Re: 7 million at no cost You are missing the point. The article compared stealing soap to stealing mp3s. But I say stealing soap leaves missing soap that someone must replace. But stealing mp3s leaves nothing missing. No one looses anything. I never said it was or was not legal. | |
| | | | | jp10558Premium
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY | said by Matt3:If you didn't buy a song, you have no right to listen to it. It's called copyright law. This seems clearly wrong to me. What if you are walking down the street, and a restaruant is playing music via outside speakers? You're clearly not committing copyright infringement by listening to the song. Neither are you in listening to the radio, to net radio, to listening to a song from a CD you borrowed from a friend or the library, etc.
I see no reason I must buy a song to listen to it.
--
Opera 9.62(Build 10467); Windows XP Pro SP3;Intel C2Q6600; 3GB DDR2 1066; 1M/128k DSL; Antivir Personal; Comodo Firewall Pro 3;Proxomitron 4.5j Sidki 2008beta,GPG ID:0x0A1C6EE3 | |
| | | | | |  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: 7 million at no cost said by jp10558:said by Matt3:If you didn't buy a song, you have no right to listen to it. It's called copyright law. This seems clearly wrong to me. What if you are walking down the street, and a restaruant is playing music via outside speakers? You're clearly not committing copyright infringement by listening to the song. Neither are you in listening to the radio, to net radio, to listening to a song from a CD you borrowed from a friend or the library, etc. I see no reason I must buy a song to listen to it. But in all those cases, they(restaurant, radio station, net radio provider) PAID to broadcast that music.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|
| | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | If you did not intend to purchase the music, why would you download them? Obviously there's an interest, unless you knowingly wanted to violate the copyrights. So, there is a loss of revenue for the copyright holder. | |
| | | | | jp10558Premium
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY | Re: 7 million at no cost Well, there's lots of reasons. I will often watch a movie via netflix that I wouldn't pay to see in a theater. I might well watch a movie for free (via whatever method you want, download, friend rented it and I'm at their house, got free movie ticket at theater) that I wouldn't netflix.
I might well listen to a song on the radio that I'd never pay to hear. I might listen to a song at a friends house that I wouldn't buy. I might even record one off the radio I'd like to hear again (and this is legal as I understand it via the Audio Home Recording act), but I wouldn't purchase the CD.
So there is a well known slope of how much someone values something vs whether they'd buy it.
So it is really a false argument to say someone would pay for something because they have an interest in it and their interest is high enough to pay for it because they downloaded it. This is obviously not true in all, or even likely not true in most cases.
--
Opera 9.62(Build 10467); Windows XP Pro SP3;Intel C2Q6600; 3GB DDR2 1066; 1M/128k DSL; Antivir Personal; Comodo Firewall Pro 3;Proxomitron 4.5j Sidki 2008beta,GPG ID:0x0A1C6EE3 | |
| | | | | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: 7 million at no cost said by jp10558:I will often watch a movie via netflix that I wouldn't pay to see in a theater. A service that you pay for that properly compensates the copyright holders.said by jp10558:I might well listen to a song on the radio that I'd never pay to hear. Copyright holders compensated here as well. | |
|
| BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by AstroBoy:"The relative cost of stealing a bar of soap from an hotel might be small, but if it came to seven million people nicking the soap each year, which is what we have in the music industry, I'm sure that hotel chain would do something about it." If I were to steal 7 million bars of soap it would cost someone alot! But if I steal 7 million mp3 files, what is missing? Nothing. No cost to anyone. No loss to anyone. That logic is dumb. yes yes is just bits so who is losing anything? Ok so if I hack into your online checking account then I'm not actually stealing since I'm just moving bits around.
By the way you'd only steal 7 million MP3s if you though they had value. | |
| | |
See 15 replies to this post | |
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | the logic is dumb because hotels intend for people to take the soap. its why they are so small. part of it is health reasons.
here is the real issue, if you stole 7million of a product worth 1 dollar you have stolen 7mil in merchendise, but if that product is music the RIAA thinks it is worth 250k each.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | | | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | making copies isnt theft. its not moral its simply how it is seen by the true letter of the law.
the best comparison is if one had one of them startrek replicator things and started to make BMWs, they could not be charged with Grand Theft Auto.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
 pizzFiber pleasePremium
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Wasted resources On something the RIAA/ISP/Gov't will never be able to stop. Pirates do not use their own PC/ISPs. They use compromised PCs for which they upload said content. They use their Bot's ISP of some unknowning/un-educated PC user, to upload their content. They also use hacked modems, with pre-configured bin files, so its basically piggy backing on a cable network (don't know about DSL but i'll bet you can find one). All this crap is doing, is hurting the law-biding citizen, who basically doesn't pirate, download illegal files etc..
Sadly this pirating/caps thing is all the same. MSOs/ISPs complain about the 1% of it's users gobbling up all the bandwidth, but they allow them to stay on the network. Why? Because thats their reason to raise prices, and give out as little as possible in terms of services (caps) for the price.
The bottom line is, and will always be:
Aslong as there's a market for free/cracked/hacked - applications/games/movies/music. You'll have pirating. Turn the internet off for public view, and your problem will be solved.
--
Would you ever allow me to study the phislophy of your spirit.Masiela Luasha> | |
|  KilroyPremium,MVM
join:2002-11-21
Ann Arbor, MI | Give people a decent produce for a decent price That they actually own. What are you buying or stealing when you are talking a digital song? An orderly arrangement of a bunch of 1s and 0s.
Now, if that song has DRM, what are you buying? Nothing, you are renting as long as the person you got the file from wants you to and remains in business.
Explain to me why I should pay $.99 a song. The costs involved (overly simplified) are the creation, production, storage, bandwidth, and administration. Costs that no longer exist in a digital media are packaging, shipping, physical storage, and returns. The storage for a million physical copies, not to include shipping and handing, is much more expensive and extensive than a million copies of a digital copy. What are you getting to justify $.99 a song? Just because that is what it used to cost when you got a physical piece of media that you actually owned and could do what you wanted with is not a rational.
The RIAA needs to adjust their prices and get in line with the digital age. Then they may see purchases go up because people feel they are getting value for them money. Until they start looking within and stop blaming the rest of the world for their problems they will remain clueless.
--
When will the people realize that with DRM they aren't purchasing anything? | |
| | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Give people a decent produce for a decent price said by Kilroy:That they actually own. What are you buying or stealing when you are talking a digital song? An orderly arrangement of a bunch of 1s and 0s. As I said before if I hack into your online bank account I'm not really stealing then since I'm just moving 1s and 0s around. does that sound logical because that's YOUR logic
Now, if that song has DRM, what are you buying? Nothing, you are renting as long as the person you got the file from wants you to and remains in business. moot point since no one sells songs with DRM anymore.
Explain to me why I should pay $.99 a song. Because that's the price they want for it and if you think that's to much you don't have to buy it. That DOES NOT give you a right to steal it. And they don't have to justify anything to you. Those that think 99 cents is too much won't listen to any justification anyways so what's the point?
30 years ago I paid 99 cents for a 45 single. That's $2.50 in today's money and you could only play it on a record player. Now you can get a Mp3 for 99 cents and have it on your computer your Mp3 player and 100 other devices if you have that many. Yet 99 cents is to much a song you may listen to 1000 times which would be 1/10 of 1 cent every time you hear it is too much?
By the way Amazon sell many songs for 89 cents or even 79 cents. Apple just announced they were going to sell older songs for 69 cents. The fact is they could offer songs for 10 cents each and people would still steal music. Some people just think the world should offer them a free ride. | |
| | | KilroyPremium,MVM
join:2002-11-21
Ann Arbor, MI | Re: Give people a decent produce for a decent price said by BF69:said by Kilroy:That they actually own. What are you buying or stealing when you are talking a digital song? An orderly arrangement of a bunch of 1s and 0s. As I said before if I hack into your online bank account I'm not really stealing then since I'm just moving 1s and 0s around. does that sound logical because that's YOUR logic It isn't logic, it is fact. All a digital file is is 1s and 0s. Really all money is, is faith in the government. But by breaking into the bank account your doing a bit more than stealing my money. That all said, I'm not for stealing music, just for realistic pricing of a virtual product.
moot point since no one sells songs with DRM anymore. No one? I really doubt that, Rapsody, Napster, Yahoo? They may have DRM free music, but I doubt all of it is.
Explain to me why I should pay $.99 a song. Because that's the price they want for it and if you think that's to much you don't have to buy it. And that is the problem. They don't understand that a lot of people don't want to pay $.99 for nothing.
That DOES NOT give you a right to steal it. I never said that I stole music, you jumped to that conclusion all on your own. I purchase CDs for the most part as I can do what I want with them. For the most part I rip them immediately and then store them on the shelf to ensure my original is not damaged. I am stating why I don't purchase digital music, the price.
30 years ago I paid 99 cents for a 45 single. That's $2.50 in today's money and you could only play it on a record player. Now you can get a Mp3 for 99 cents and have it on your computer your Mp3 player and 100 other devices if you have that many. Yet 99 cents is to much a song you may listen to 1000 times which would be 1/10 of 1 cent every time you hear it is too much? Yes, but you could take your $.99 45 single and make a copy to your 8 Track and/or cassette tape. I don't think you can seriously argue playing a song 1000 times, maybe a 100, but the average song is three minutes long and no matter how much I might enjoy it, after 50 hours of it, and most likely considerably sooner, I would never want to hear it again.
By the way Amazon sell many songs for 89 cents or even 79 cents. Apple just announced they were going to sell older songs for 69 cents. The fact is they could offer songs for 10 cents each and people would still steal music. Some people just think the world should offer them a free ride. I agree, some people will never buy digital music, no matter what the price. But, those aren't lost sales no matter how you look at it. Those are the same people who would want to borrow your 45 single and put it on their cassette tape. It wasn't a lost sale then, and it isn't now.
--
When will the people realize that with DRM they aren't purchasing anything? | |
| | | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Give people a decent produce for a decent price said by Kilroy:It isn't logic, it is fact. All a digital file is is 1s and 0s. Really all money is, is faith in the government. But by breaking into the bank account your doing a bit more than stealing my money. That all said, I'm not for stealing music, just for realistic pricing of a virtual product. My analogy applies perfectly. 2+2=4 no matter how much you want it to equal 5. You can not logically say one one hand that taking a CD form wal-mart is wrong because it's "real" product" but downlaoding that same CD from a torrent is ok but it's just data and then say that me stealing your wallet with REAL money is the same thing as moving data from your bank account to mine. That is what your call a contridiction. And that's why YOUR argument falls apart.
No one? I really doubt that, Rapsody, Napster, Yahoo? They may have DRM free music, but I doubt all of it is. First of all yahoo doesn't sell music anymore. And yes Napster, Rhapsody, Amazon all see 100% DRM free songs. Even Apple has recently announced they are going DRM free.
And that is the problem. They don't understand that a lot of people don't want to pay $.99 for nothing. Then don't buy the song. When song aren't getting bought they'll lower the price. If you think stealing the song will make them lower the prcie you are wrong. All that proves to them is that thier product is something that is in demand. And Econ 101 say when demand is high so are prices. You want lower prices don't buy don't steal. Has stealing resulted in lower prices? Nope. All it got us was a decade of DRM and lawsuits. Thanks theifs!
I never said that I stole music, you jumped to that conclusion all on your own. I purchase CDs for the most part as I can do what I want with them. For the most part I rip them immediately and then store them on the shelf to ensure my original is not damaged. I am stating why I don't purchase digital music, the price. Good for you. You are speaking with your wallet. By the way buying the 3 good songs off a CD for 99 cents each is in fact cheaper than paying $12 for the whole CD. Also whoa re you to know what is a god price? Do you have some kind of insider knowledge to know what good price is that also allows the record company to recoup costs and make profit? Nope.
Yes, but you could take your $.99 45 single and make a copy to your 8 Track and/or cassette tape. I don't think you can seriously argue playing a song 1000 times, maybe a 100, but the average song is three minutes long and no matter how much I might enjoy it, after 50 hours of it, and most likely considerably sooner, I would never want to hear it again. A) to tape a song I have to purcahse the cassete tape which cost $$$ and have a tape rercorder. Which also costs money. And back then tape recorders were very expensive. Being a kid at the time not things I'd likely have. Also the copy I'd have would be FAR from a perfect copy and would not last forever unlike digital music.
B)50 hours of a 3 minute song is 1000 plays. Even it it's 100 times that still 1 cent per listen. That's pretty cheap. That's 20 cents an hour. What can you do for 20 cents an hour that you enjoy these days? You can't see movie or go to a ball game or go out to eat or go bowling or whatever. And if you going to get sick of a song after a few plays maybe you're better off going to subscription route and choose form MILLIONS of songs for a monthly rate.
I agree, some people will never buy digital music, no matter what the price. But, those aren't lost sales no matter how you look at it. Those are the same people who would want to borrow your 45 single and put it on their cassette tape. It wasn't a lost sale then, and it isn't now. So NOT wanting to pay for something means you should still be able to have it? How is it fair that if I want something I pay for it and somebody gets it for free simply because he doesn't want to pay for it? There is no logic in that. If something cost money and someone doesn't want to pay for it he doesn't deserve to have it. PERIOD. | |
| | | | | kpatzMY HEAD A SPLODEPremium
join:2003-06-13
Manchester, NH | Re: Give people a decent produce for a decent price said by BF69:Then don't buy the song. When song aren't getting bought they'll lower the price. If you think stealing the song will make them lower the prcie you are wrong. All that proves to them is that thier product is something that is in demand. And Econ 101 say when demand is high so are prices. You want lower prices don't buy don't steal. Has stealing resulted in lower prices? Econ 101 says when demand goes up relative to SUPPLY, the price goes up. When demand goes down, or supply goes up, the price goes down. With CDs, there's a limited supply, there is a cost in manufacturing them. With a digital file, there's an INFINITE supply. Buy or "steal", there will always be more. Therefore, by the basic rules of economics, music should be like air, free to all. Of course, copyright ensures that artists get their fair share for a limited period, but that's another thing where the **AAs have screwed the rest of us, by increasing the length of copyright indefinitely, so copyrighted property never enter the public domain. They're putting "value" on something that, after so many years, should not have value anymore, except to the public domain.
When we pay for a 20+ year old song, or movie, or anything else, the entertainment industry is stealing from US.
--
To ISPs: Leave our ports alone! If I want ports blocked, I'll do it myself, thank you. | |
|
| | |  DarkLogixTexan and ProudPremium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3 | DRM on audio is gone
Amazon, Apple, walmart, ect all removed their DRM
just try and find someone that still has DRM on audio
but I would still want the CD for the good music | |
|
baj475
join:2004-11-02
Chico, CA Reviews:
·Comcast
 ·Future Nine Corp..
1 edit | The music industry's soap metaphor is flawed It is not the ISPs who have lost the bar of soap so why should they do anything about it?
Why would any ISP willingly terminate a revenue generating customer because the customer took someone else's bar of soap? In fact, it would make sense to sell them a bigger suitcase (faster connection) so they could take even more soap. | |
| | | | Re: The music industry's soap metaphor is flawed said by baj475:It is not the ISPs who have lost the bar of soap so why should they do anything about it? Amen!
Let the 'soap makers' figure out a way to safeguard their product. The **AA's are like a spoiled child - always crying about things they can't control, then whining to 'mommy' when they can't have it.
--
... | |
| | | kpatzMY HEAD A SPLODEPremium
join:2003-06-13
Manchester, NH | Re: The music industry's soap metaphor is flawed Agreed... to carry the soap metaphor further, it would be like losing your driver's license if you're caught nicking soap from a hotel room three times. Take away someone's ability to drive to the hotel because they "pirate" the soap.
The **AAs need to deal with their own problems, and not get ISPs involved. Piracy is no more an ISP's problem than soap-nicking is the DMV's problem.
--
To ISPs: Leave our ports alone! If I want ports blocked, I'll do it myself, thank you. | |
|
 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1 | RIAA Soap Opera This ridiculous analogy is similar to the RIAA's wishes to have the ISP's charge each customer a general piracy fee each month. You're paying for the soap anyway, regardless if you decide to use it or not. Some people always take the soap and put them in a big fishbowl at home. Who cares, it's their soap?
The soap has already been paid for with the room. It's my soap and if I want to use it and smell like a tropical coconut, that's my choice.
If I take a bar of soap from my hotel room and nobody catches me, is that considered a clean getaway? | |
| | DarkLogixTexan and ProudPremium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3 | Re: RIAA Soap Opera LOL funny pun | |
|
| | . They continue to whine, and people will continue to do what they want. Yay. | |
| | | Dumbest business model ever! I don't think the RIAA/MPAA has thought their dastardly plan out very well. In most households there are multiple people. Lets say you have Mom, Dad, Sis, and little Bro all using the home broadband connection. Mom and Dad are upstanding citizens and use the web for reading online newspapers and ordering Netflix and Amazon stuff. Sis used the broadband to buy ridiculous amounts of itunes songs and uses Facebook like her life depended on it. Little Bro is the MMORPG gamer and resident MUSIC PIRATE! Oh teh noes! Little Bro is a content thief! Say it isn't so!
So Little Bro gets "three strikes" and he's out. So now just because the RIAA/MPAA doesn't get their pound of flesh from Little Bro who HAS NO MONEY to spend on RIAA/MPAA products anyway and was never going to buy anything from them in the first place. Now all the other people in the house and all the potential money companies could have made off of Mom, Dad, and Sis can now not happen because this families web has been cut off?
I think that Amazon, Netflix and all the potential sales recipients for this family might have something to say about this three strikes plan to the content cops and the ISP.
This three strikes plan is doomed from the start. | |
| | | how about 3 frivolous lawsuits and your out! Oh, Wait your way past 3. Fold the tent up already. | |
| | DarkLogixTexan and ProudPremium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3
1 edit | Re: how about 3 frivolous lawsuits and your out! Now thats a law we need
you get to have up to 3 Frivolous Lawsuits and then you pay 1000^n where n is the number of lawsuits total (your start paying with 1000^4)
and its upto 3 so 2 & 3 could have their own punishments
and the lawsuit count is based on the client not the lawyer(don't need the MAFIAA to cheat and just use a new lawyer everytime)
then the funds collected from the people with 3+ goes to setup IXP's (internet exchange points) and encourage peering as well as to schools to better educate kids in science (and other good things)
and no grandfathering in cases
so if this were to become a law the Riaa ows the US 1000^(um how many lawsuits was that)= I think the number is quite large possibily difficult to pronounce
(but lets say 1000 lawsuits = 1000^1000=1*10^3000) I think we'd be set and taxes could lower ALOT | |
| | | | | Re: how about 3 frivolous lawsuits and your out! ha ha? | |
|
| | Who Dropped the Soap? Sorry... I had to say it...
Thanks RIAA for making me laugh... | |
| | | Soap? The soap that's placed in a hotel room is actually paid for as part of the cost of the room, whether you use it or not--you've paid for it, so take it with you when you leave. The analogy is somewhat faulty (which is typical of analogies). The assumption that one would buy something of no worth to the "downloader" (aka "pirate") if "sharing" (aka "piracy") were halted is also faulty. Without the soap they'd just go dirty.
The music industry has lost more in sales by their attitude and behavior than by "piracy". Art is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. An artist deserves nothing more than what someone is willing to pay for that art. The only revenue "lost" by the music industry in sales is from their having produced nothing that people would want to buy. Lousy art = low sales. Insulting behavior = no sales.
I stopped buying music long ago because the RIAA and its members don't deserve my money. I ignore the music industry entirely--they produce nothing of interest to me, certainly nothing I have any desire to "own". | |
|
approval from:
swhx7 
| Stop arguing over the metaphors... and lets get down the vile implications of this. Cutting off a basic and increasingly necessary communications capability over accusations by private corporate bully boys, that do not have to pass muster in a court proceeding or prove guilt, is fundamentally contradictory to the entire direction of western legal development.
These bully boys were not successful in the courts so they want to move to private enforcement where corporate entities are police, judge, jury and executioner. Private corporate enforcement should not be tolerated. We are talking about cutting people off , and possibly blacklisting them, from access to basic infrastructure that is necessary to participate in the global economy and be politically aware.
Every time this industry takes a step forward, with drm removal or hints of new collective licensing arrangements they piss on the progress they just made, turn around and take 3 steps backward. | |
| | | haha i wiped the bar a soap in my undies haha i wiped the bar a soap in my undies , now you cna keep it and your music .... | |
| | | When has copyright benefited anyone but hollywood When has copyright benefited anyone but hollywood
in thought times we all need to give some and im gonna say this hard core like
you daft lil whiny lil actor musician corporate greedy buggers get lost your over paid for crap that's mass marketed on a scale that shoves sooo much garbage around how can they benefit me seriously copyrights were created to give a little benefit to the artist not these over paid wankers in a jet and some limo getting bjs from mariah carey as they go .
go on tell me how copyright benefits me the poor guy. GO ON tell me fact is NONE CAN. there is no benefit anymore its a massive drain on the economy and innovation and unless its stopped soon it will destroy mankind and all his culture | |
| | |  Soap infringement is not stealing
Soap is meant to be free. If you try to leave it there they throw it out.
Analogies just detract from the root cause. | |
| | | | Re: Soap infringement is not stealing said by CanadianIron:Analogies just detract from the root cause. Yes, you hit the nail...
Stealing mp3s is more like taking a picture of the Mona Lisa. Nothing has gone missing, but you now have an illegal copy. In many cases, no injured parties. After all, in most cases, the product would not have been purchased if it could not be copied. | |
| | | DarkLogixTexan and ProudPremium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3 | Re: Soap infringement is not stealing I think that photo analogy works much better than most people have given
would you buy a painting if you hadn't seen it first
no you wouldn't you would want to see it be sure you like it and if its the mona lisa check that its the real deal and not some scam | |
|
| | That's "Three *Accusations* and You're Out!" For someone who uses his connection to earn his living, and who also has received bogus DMCA complaints, I could have lots of fun suing the *AA-holes should my ability to work my trade be hindered by the work of their B-movie gumshoes.
Anyway, on the soap issue, who says I didn't use it as intended - in the shower! It's my body, and I can wash whatever I want, as fast as I want, with as much soap as I want! (What do they expect when PPV pr0n is available?) 
-NK | |
| | nitzanPremium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
kudos:2 | Over my dead body. Any politician that votes "yes" to this kind of law needs to be booted out of office.
There is no grey area here. It's black and white. These kind of laws are purely anti-consumer and voting yes for this is like saying "F*** YOU" to the taxpayers. | |
| | | hmm and ppl will be steal identies to get net back on BAD IDEA! | |
|
| |
|
|
·
·