AfterDawn: Tech news

RIAA vs. FAIR USE Act

Written by Dave Horvath @ 01 Mar 2007 6:11 User comments (31)

RIAA vs. FAIR USE Act Released yesterday by Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) and Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA), the FAIR USE Act has already received a great deal of criticism from everyone's favorite digital chaperone, the RIAA. The FAIR USE Act was submitted as a bill before US Congress in hopes of limiting the amount of control granted to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). RIAA representatives have stated that Representative Boucher's bill is a blatant attempt to undermine the securities of intellectual properties granted by the DMCA.
The RIAA released a statement saying "The DMCA has enabled consumers to enjoy creative works through popular new technologies. The DVD, iPod and the iTunes Music Store can all be traced to the DMCA. Online games, on-demand movies, e-books, online libraries, and many other services are coming to market because of a secure environment rooted in the DMCA's protections."

The term secure environment is the essential core of the DMCA. The meat of what the DMCA limits is the ways in which Digital Rights Management can be circumvented by making such tools to do so a taboo practice. This, in turn, gives content providers free reign to limit exactly how consumers can digest said content. The same can be said that without DMCA, content providers would be forced to make their product that much more appealing to consumers to assure public interest.

Gary Shapiro of the Consumer Electronics Associate (CEA) wasn't about to sit back without adding his words towards his arch-nemesis, the RIAA. In a statement Shapiro welcomed FAIR USE in saying it, "will reinforce the historical fair use protections of constitutionally-mandated copyright law that are reflected in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)." Shapiro and the CEA would stand to receive significant favor from the bill, should it be passed in that electronics manufacturers would be further sheilded from liability due to the infringment of others. The bill would make certain that these manufacturers are protected from being forced to pay royalties for statutory damages in cases of infringement.

The RIAA retalitated stating the bill, "would repeal the DMCA and legalize hacking. It would reverse the Supreme Court's decision in Grokster and allow electronics companies to induce others to break the law for their own profit."

The RIAA statement contiues with saying, "Proponents of H.R. 1201 claim it legalizes hacking only for 'noninfringing' uses, but as Congress recognized when it enacted the DMCA, the difference between hacking done for noninfringing purposes and hacking done to steal is impossible to determine and enforce. That's why Congress created a review process that takes place every three years to determine whether fair uses of copyrighted works are in peril—and why Congress gave the power to the Librarian of Congress to take away DMCA protections in cases where fair use is in danger."

Source:
ARS Technica

Previous Next  

31 user comments

11.3.2007 7:09
hughjars
Inactive

The sooner 'the people' take back control and tell these guys where to get off the better.

Non-commercial private copying does not entitle these turds to destroy 'regular' people's lives.

It seems they're having trouble getting the message, can 'we' not simply pass a law bluntly telling them to 'fuck off'?

21.3.2007 7:17

maybe RIAA lawsuit backlash will be what finay reunites the parties

31.3.2007 8:56
webe123
Inactive

I think since the Sony rootkit scandal, the RIAA suing grandmothers and children....as well as DEAD PEOPLE and a list of other questionable legal manuvers by the RIAA and MPAA.....this may finally be the last straw as far as the large corporations having THEIR way!

I think their "welcome" is worn out and people are getting tired of their nonsense. I hope this passes and gives rights BACK to where it belongs...THE PEOPLE!

41.3.2007 9:27

This is all very interesting.

A lot of people see this as the people vs. the corporations; but I don't see it that way at all. It's much different than that in this case.

What's really being argued here is this:

Does the government feel that they can TRUST us with the same kind of freedom that brought the original napster age about? I'm not saying that as any kind of a derivitave of our goverment, the RIAA, or us as a Country.

I'm saying that ultimately; this is about whether they feel they can trust us enough to force the reigns a little bit looser. It's about the fact that they would have to make legitimate product more appealling to keep people interested. It would require the entertainment industry to reinvent things. Now, anyone here can call them lazy, or criticize 'same old same old' releases all year long... But let's be honest with ourselves here. If you were the record labels or the film industry, you would see that you had a good thing, and that you're starting to lose it. If you think that using your money to influence a bill or law that might squeeze a few extra dollars by cracking down; you'd probably go for it too. Change is good; but more importantly, change is HARD.

It's HARD for companies to reinvent the way they bring in customers; it rarely works. It's not going to be easy for them to find better ways to attract consumers. You can say it till you're blue in the face; but doing 'better' is not an easy thing.

I'm not here to defend the labels, or the RIAA, or anyone for that matter. It seems that there are problems on all sides here. And they aren't going away, piracy, greed, and fear. And it's an ugly situation.

I hope that they decide that we're ready for more freedom in our media again; but I also hope that when they conclude that, that they'll be right. That would be quite a victory.

I applaud those who are in high places, taking a stand against the RIAA; who has clearly gone too far in many cases. Even if they are replaced by a similar entity, I hope that their disregardful activities are stopped; even if it's in favor of an similar group, who at least has the sense to check before they sue your dead grandma. But really; who knows.

51.3.2007 10:54

Originally posted by hughjars:
The sooner 'the people' take back control and tell these guys where to get off the better.
that's what filesharing is for most part, the people taking back control and telling these guys where to get off!

61.3.2007 13:33
webe123
Inactive

Originally posted by handsom:
This is all very interesting.

A lot of people see this as the people vs. the corporations; but I don't see it that way at all. It's much different than that in this case.

What's really being argued here is this:

Does the government feel that they can TRUST us with the same kind of freedom that brought the original napster age about? I'm not saying that as any kind of a derivitave of our goverment, the RIAA, or us as a Country.

I'm saying that ultimately; this is about whether they feel they can trust us enough to force the reigns a little bit looser. It's about the fact that they would have to make legitimate product more appealling to keep people interested. It would require the entertainment industry to reinvent things. Now, anyone here can call them lazy, or criticize 'same old same old' releases all year long... But let's be honest with ourselves here. If you were the record labels or the film industry, you would see that you had a good thing, and that you're starting to lose it. If you think that using your money to influence a bill or law that might squeeze a few extra dollars by cracking down; you'd probably go for it too. Change is good; but more importantly, change is HARD.

It's HARD for companies to reinvent the way they bring in customers; it rarely works. It's not going to be easy for them to find better ways to attract consumers. You can say it till you're blue in the face; but doing 'better' is not an easy thing.

I'm not here to defend the labels, or the RIAA, or anyone for that matter. It seems that there are problems on all sides here. And they aren't going away, piracy, greed, and fear. And it's an ugly situation.

I hope that they decide that we're ready for more freedom in our media again; but I also hope that when they conclude that, that they'll be right. That would be quite a victory.

I applaud those who are in high places, taking a stand against the RIAA; who has clearly gone too far in many cases. Even if they are replaced by a similar entity, I hope that their disregardful activities are stopped; even if it's in favor of an similar group, who at least has the sense to check before they sue your dead grandma. But really; who knows.
Well no matter WHAT you say, it is the MEDIA COMPANIES that are trying to squeeze the last dollar out of a dying business. WHY is it dying....because it was doomed to failure from the beginning! If media companies are going to lock down a product so that the only thing left to a consumer is to get it another way....that is what is going to happen and has already happened.

Why do you think filesharing has taken off like it has? They killed Napster in it's original state thinking that would solve the problem of people getting files for free, but it did NOT.They had a chance right then and there to have a whole community buying files legitimately,but they snubbed their greedy little noses at it and now they are paying the price!

Because killing Napster only created a bigger problem of giving birth to bigger and better filesharing networks that the media cops are now having trouble closing down. Let's face FACTS....filesharing is here to stay....no matter what kind of business plan they come up with.

And I certianly CAN blame them for not thinking up new ways to create business rather than just try to sue people into oblivion...which may I add has NOT WORKED! The had a chance with Napster and they lost it....now they are the ones playing catch up....I don't feel sorry for them one bit!

The only thing killing Napster and going after consumers with lawsuits has done is create a void between the consumers and the media companies themselves which in my opinion are just TOO DAMN LAZY...yeah, you heard me handsom, I said...TOO DAMN LAZY to find a solution to filesharing!

So why should the consumer pay for their follies, when they themselves cannot be bothered to come up with a solution to how to get new movies, games, music and the like in consumers hands WITHOUT calling them thieves? Quite frankly, I think your post is insulting to people and filesharing in general. Saying that they "cannot be trusted" is BULLSHIT, when it is the MEDIA companies that cannot be trusted!

Need I remind you of SONY and the rootkit scandal? There was a case of honest people being ripped off by Sony for trying to play by the rules! And what exactly did they get for it? Their computer comprimised by placing a rootkit on it WITHOUT the customers consent? And you want to say that it is the media companies that cannot "trust" their customers? How about the CUSTOMERS that CANNOT TRUST THE MEDIA COMPANIES??
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 01 Mar 2007 @ 13:44

71.3.2007 14:24

handsom

I can see your point but remember its thos making profit off the sale of copys not thos that are downloading the copies.

Also look at how non inventive the music industry is in how they sale and distro music,they are lsoing more money because of the war they have started with the consumer and the fact they refuse to slim down and sale music "better" they would be taking in money if they focued on online deals to sale music cheap and then sue anyone who's selling music without their consent,they have things backwards.

its true there should be a balance in the people vs the corporations however they the corporations have shown time and time again they do not deserve the power they have.

81.3.2007 17:32

Well, I half agree with you Zippy. But I don't think other people who responded are looking at the same picture... They're stuck in another picture, and I don't think they're getting this at all.

Yes. There is a battle going in courts over the RIAA vs the people.

Yes. The RIAA is a large part of what this article discusses.

No. It is NOT the same battle you are so used to seeing.

This one is different. This isn't 'Can the RIAA sue another corpse, non-computer owner, or six year olf kid?'. This is, does the government trust us enough to look at the RIAA and the music industries money and say "This is absolutely ridiculous, DRM methods must go."

I hope they do. This is much bigger than the RIAA, this is what the RIAA was allowed to found from; this is what many other similar groups have been founded from. If you think this is all about the RIAA, you are seeing a very small picture. This is about whether our government believes that by turning down donations (Because these corporations give lots of funding to politicians), and giving people more ability to handle their own media again, our economy will still strive.

Say what you will about the 'tired' state of the industry. But I dare you to come up with something they haven't already. Think your idea is great? I think you'll find it's either being made a reality, already is a reality, or failed in reality.

Wise men know there's nothing new under the sun. Period.

The trick isn't finding a "new" way to do things. That's a foolish presumption. These are multi billion dollar companies with tens of thousands of employees. That means that inevitable they have at least thirty intelligent people in each of these companies trying to work every angle. (Sorry, statisitcally I won't give them more credit.)

Webe123 makes it clear that he gets the small picture very clearly. Unfortunately, I never argued that the smaller picture doesn't exist, I said that there's a much bigger picture. If the government changes the DMCA restrictions, and lightens them, things like the RIAA and DRM might cease to exist... That's a much bigger picture.


Many corporations have much more power than their head entities deserve to control. I agree that they've taken the wrong path to discouraging piracy. Heck, I've heard people all over the net who actually seem to do it more, people now enjoy it, proclaiming themselves as vigilantes against the record industry. It's gotten really out of hand.

First - Downloading a cd from limewire, kazaa, bearshare, bittorrent, usenet, or any other source like those does not, and will not make you a vigilante, hero, or other heroic figure. It makes you a common thief. But let's remember, that a common thief, is just that; common. Have you ever stolen a pack of gum? Something meaningless? Shoplifted at some point in your life? Most of us have, that makes most people, at some point in their lives, thieves to some degree. And if so many people have done it; it's pretty common, isn't it? So, please don't be so ignorant as to take it as an insult. That would be tragically ignorant.

Second - If the RIAA tried to target 100 sellers. People who actually profit from pirated media. They could. They could find them, and put them away. And do you know what would happen? Some of the people that Pirated Media Distributor A sold to would turn into Distributor B, C, D, and probably at LEAST up through H, if not more. Not to mention the extra manpower that would be required for that kind of a hunt. It's a ridiculous proposition. So, the RIAA targets those sharing music online. It's the source of most illegal media, one way or another. That is where most of it happens. The RIAA doesn't target you for downloading. Why? Because they don't know that you might own the cd. If you hear that someone got caught downloading a cd, you were either misinformed or lied to. Quite frankly, going after those who share the music online, is much similar to the idea of going after those who actually SELL the illegal media. The difference is that online distributors tend to, knowingly or not, distributor vastly more illegal media than would be by a streetcorner bootlegger. It doesn't matter if physical cash is made off the action or not; it's still another copy of the media in circulation that wasn't paid for. Not to mention the likelihood that the people downloading from online distributor a are much more likely to become distributors a-zzzxy13aa to the fifth. It's much more rampant. So the argument that 'free' online sharers are less harmful seems downright ignorant in light of this.

Tired or not; this hurts. You can tell me until you're blue in the face that you wouldn't buy it anyway. But I'd like to point out that that attitude didn't exist a decade ago. A decade ago, you listened to the radio, and the radio made advertising bucks, or you bought the cd and the label made bucks. Either way, someone was profiting. This way, it's different, it's a clean cut 0 profit margin.

Companies like Napster are starting to wise up; taking free play seriously. They have put in a service for FREE that streams tracks to you, without storing them. It prevents you from outright stealing and distributing the tracks; and they make money off of ads. Unfortunately, that portion of their service is still highly experimental. Other faithful readers will recall another service that seems to have gotten the boot at the last minute (frog something was the name of it), it would have allowed full downloads, supported by ads, which would pay the music industry, and create a workable system; similar to the radio economy less than ten years ago.

Unfortunately, there are always one or two people high up who don't get it. They don't recognize a chance to return to their old friend the profit margin, when they see it. Ideas like this are criticized. Sony blasted the idea, saying that people shouldn't expect to hear music for free, so he didn't approve. Obviously, he's not familiar with the word 'broadcast'.

Hopefully, ideas like this will slowly creep further along into a genuine reality, but you can't say that forces within the industry aren't trying to improve the situation. Much like a free government, there are a lot of power players all chipping away at different angles of the debate; and this can't be helped. But it seems.... 'Off' to criticize the industry as a whole, especially with the 'same old' 'nothing new' argument... Because it's just not true. But like anything else, new ideas take time to really implement. And bigger forces aren't necessarily helping.

Other power players like the RIAA and Macrovision are in it for cash and cash alone, and will do anything they can to stay on top. And it will take another mighty force to topple them. Hopefully that will happen soon; because I am awaiting a return to a more normal state with general media.

I'm a LEGAL downloader; I found a pay setup that works well for me. And it's really not that hard to do. The trouble is that most people are used to the price of 'free' and want to excuse themselves for not wanting to cough up a little change for their entertainment. Honestly, in the field of music, you can get a monthly subscription to napster for a whopping TEN bucks a month. They'll even GIVE you a low-level portable player for them with three month's subscription. Services like gamefly take care of all but your pc gaming needs for $15 a month; and netflix has become much better about supplying movie rentals to your door to be enjoyed on your tv, rather than your computer for as little as $10 a month. Yeah, maybe you have better media needs than those prices offer; but odds are for a few bucks more, you'll get all the media you need from them for a FRACTION of what you paid for it five or six years ago.

Everyone wants to make it out as though there is no other option, that they 'have to' illegally download. And there's just no truth to that. If you can afford the computer and the internet to download on; you can afford these services. I pay less than fifty dollars a month, less than one game price, and all of my entertainment needs are met. I get one game at a time, with a two day turnaround in between(Boo-hoo), two DVDs at a time, and nearly every song I could ever want to put onto my pc and my mp3 player. 50/month may sound like a lot, but considering that it covers my games/movies/tv/music completely; it's more than affordable. We're talking the price of one game, three dvds, or a few music cds. Unless you're a minor living with your parents, or a student paying for your own school, you just can't convince me that's not manageable. I'm considered 'low income' and I can afford it without blinking.

It's weird for me to say this, but I can't honestly say there's a good reason to pirate media. The industry HAS made it accessible affordably, people have just been to busy ignoring it. The only things missing are streaming movies(Starting to appear, but needs a LOT of work), and DRM-free music options. And those are truthfully very minor complaints.

91.3.2007 18:55

I wouldn't get my hopes up. Boucher has never delivered on a single promise, which is almost ironic, considering the other guy -Doolittle- has been sort of solitary voice out there trying to remind people the Fair Use even exists. We'll see, I guess.

101.3.2007 19:08
duckNrun
Inactive

Handsom: I see where you are coming from. Your thoughts about the online music subscriptions, Netflix etc are right on point. For a relatively decent price people can 'rent' 'unlimited' amounts of music and as many DVD's as they can get shipped to their door within a month. I cannot attest to the gaming side, and you are 100% correct that streaming video has a long way to go which is mainly due to not only the media companies but bandwidth issues which are connected with the quality issues of the streaming video. I went to NBC.com last night and streamed Monday's episode of 'Heroes'. I found it wonderful to see the networks giving this sort of thing a go but the limited choice of what they offer up for streaming as well as not great quality when I went full screen definately shows you are correct and that there IS a LONG way to go.

The problem people get into is that they do not wish to truly RENT media. They really want to own it. In fact due to the connection people have with music they often times feel a sense of ownership with certain songs. This was pointed out in another article elsewhere. For instance a couple who says 'there playing our song'. While they do not mean that they own the song, the emotions tied up in the song are sometime hard to separate from ownership. Imagine what this couple would feel, or do, if they were only allowed to hear 'their' song if they paid 50 cents or a buck every time they wanted to hear it?

I personally have done the math and there is definately a lower cost of 'ownership' (and a more restricted use of the product) with subscription services. The question is: Are the added restricitons due to loss of ownership due to renting music offset by the benefit of, and cost of, renting the music instead of buying it. Even at $15 a month for music you can place on an mp3 player that equates out to $180 a year, $1800 for 10 tens. If one was to begin at the age of 15 and continue the subscription to the average lifespan of say 75 that means that over 60 years they paid $10,800 for 'unlimited' music (actually closer to 2 million songs that over time would get added to. Of course over time the cost would raise but we're keeping things in 2007 dollars lol). That cost, at $10 per album = 1080 CD's. I have a friend that has over 2500 CD that he bought. Had he just gone the subscription route he could have saved a ton of money. Of course he wouldn't have owned any of it either. So in the case of subscription music services YES DRM is an integral part of that business model. It insures that people continue paying that monthly fee because if they don't they lose the music they have on their PC and MP3 player. DRM cannot lock the person into this service however because under this business plan when a person swiches services they can still re-download all of the music they 'rented' from the other company. But there is a catch: ONLY AS LONG AS BOTH COMPANIES HAVE THE SAME MUSIC. Also at a certain point the DRM, or their choice of renting not buying, can be seen as locking them into continuing the subscription service instead of buying due to investment made in the service at some point reaching a financial 'point of no return'. At some point you have paid so much into the service that to just quit, loose all the music, and then begin buying it costs more than continuing with the service does. This places the consumer in the position of being able to taken advantage by the service and the industry as they deem fit. That does not however say that a person just couldnt say screw it and walk away though. But thats the great thing Apple has with iTunes. Once someone has spent a certain amount of money on media they just can't walk away from it. But even so, there are MANY SIMPLE WAYS that one can circumvent the DRM on subscription services as well as iTunes if one chooses to. So even for these services that 'require' DRM to provide a 'sustainable' business model they really do NOTHING to 'keep the customer honest'. THE CUSTOMER IS KEEPING THEMSELVES HONEST! It this this honesty that is REALLY providing the 'sustainable' business model that is making these companies money- not DRM!

Now about Netflix. Netflix has no connection to, or pre-existing requirement for, DRM. In fact it is probably the PUREST way to obtain media from the list you provided. Netflix requires DRM no more than your local movie rental store does. With Netflix (et. al.) you are provided 100% of your fair use rights. I can see the movie when I want (not only withn 24 hours of getting it), where I want (on my pc, on my tv, in my car, at home or a friend's home), how many times I want, with whom I want. I can lend the disc to a friend who can then do the same. In fact, I can even copy the disc to enable me to watch it at a later time (if I had to return it before I could enjoy it-- as in a rental from a box rental store-- since netflix has no return dates per se.) or even copy it to steal it and add it to my collection. In the later scenario, which is stealing, the DRM provided no safeguards to the media companies what so ever! Again it is the HONESTY of the customer that protects the media-- NOT THE DRM!

Now let me talk about HR 1201 (the House BIll that this article is about). It provides no rights for people to download OR upoload copyrighted content. It provides no relief to people who make illegal copies of the content to either sell OR give away. It does not allow someone to subscribe to a music rental service and copy the songs, remove the DRM, cancel the subscription and keep the rented music as their own. BTW: these acts of thievery ARE ALREADY TAKING PLACE DAILY without the law and WITH DRM. HR 1201 does not do away with copyright law, the DMCA, or DRM. It does not promote stealing of copyrighted works. So what DOES it do?

It allows someone who has PURCHASED the content, the media (DVD, CD, video game, song from iTunes or another online music store that provides purchase-type music) to use the way they wish to use it. It allows someone to buy a DVD/CD/Game for their kids, make a backup of the DVD for their kids to use while protecting the original DVD/CD/Game from becoming scratched or otherwise damaged rendering the product useless. It allows people who have PURCHASED music online to remove the DRM from it so that if their iPod, Zune, or whatever breaks, or if they no longer wish to support the company who made their player because they are discovered to be paying little children in China $5 to make a device they are selling to the US for $235 the ability to keep the music they purchased and insure that it is compatible with another device that they wish to use it on. This bill allows the consumer to pay for content ONCE and use it multiple times. For instance the Media companies would like you to buy a CD, and then when you want to put that music on your MP3 player to RE-BUY the CD as MP3's. Then later if you want to put a 30 second clip of a song off that CD on your cell phone as a ringtone (or the whole song to listen to) to again RE-BUY the same content once again! While this would be GREAT for the media companies to suddenly have consumers be provided (forced to support) 2,3,5 more revenue streams for the same product they already purchased this sort of business model IS NOT SUPPORTED BY CURRENT OR PAST LAWS! Therefore the media companies are trying to change the choices, the abilities, the laws, the market place to reflect what THEY DEEM AS RIGHT, GOOD, and ESSENTIAL TO THEM!

Simply put: HR 1201 removes from the DMCA those portions that INFRINGE UPON the PUBLIC'S RIGHTS to use a product they PURCHASED in a maaner that is consistent with LONG STANDING US COPYRIGHT LAW!

YES! You heard me right! This bill is simply an attempt to GIVE BACK the LEGAL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEDGES that HAVE ALWAYS, AND STILL DO EXIST UNDER US COPYRIGHT LAW!!

111.3.2007 19:20

handsom
the media mafia has far from tried hard enough,the media mafia dislikes people sharing age old out of print stuff again (diffrence in personal archive and distro there of and selling it),the media mafia dislikes you updating your media onto a new format(tape to CD,radio to tape,tape to DVD), there are levels of fair use of archival and private use stuff we need and will always need,the media mafia wants to make it a crime to get any media free this why them on top is a bad thing,at least with fair use the public can have a say in a position or 2.

BTW all current pay sites are legal because no IP/CP holder backs it the media mafia rules with a iron fist on this,so there is no "legal" downlaoder,it all comes down to thos who try and buy what they find and thos that don't,in the end downloading is very much like hunting on the kings land you can go to market if you have the "ability" or you can live off the wilds and hope no one catches you.

TO me Fair use balances the basics and makes older stuff legal to acquire via free digital means the sale of witch can bring HEAVY FINES.

The consumer has a right to free media/docu/programs as long as they are no longer sold.

The consumer has a right to back up his media in any way he choses fit,distro of newer media can involve limited fines the sale of witch can bring HEAVY FINES.

The consumer has the right to parody other works,as long as its distro is free

you see where I am going here?
this is in the coperations best interest,it protects them from wide spread pirating and helps them charge more for re released works (because if they don't put extras in it no one will buy it anyway)

this keeps data and information flowing helping the data service providers(youtube,any ISP,ect)

the way things are and where they are going its a bleak world for the consumer,because the consumer has one option because the other involves removing all media and tech devices from your surroundings..

121.3.2007 19:21

damanit guys its taking me an hour to read think and post ,stop with the monster posts already :P

I forgot to mention another important thing,downloading as right of pretest,if you pay for your net and the blank media you store shit on ,as long as you don't sell that data its your to manage as you see fit (this is not free or cheap you merely are changing who you pay)

any way you turn corporations are making money off the consumer and giving them less and less option in what to buy because of the rancor in quality and support.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 01 Mar 2007 @ 19:26

131.3.2007 19:44
duckNrun
Inactive

OK OK...short post :P

FAIR USE RULES... MEDIA MAFFIA DROOLS! lol

No seriously, anyone who wants to protect their rights PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE go to EFF.ORG and search for this bill and sign the e-letter stating you are behind it and EFF will send it to your appropriate ruler, ahem, I mean senator/congressperson

-peace

141.3.2007 19:50

Originally posted by duckNrun:
OK OK...short post :P

FAIR USE RULES... MEDIA MAFFIA DROOLS! lol

No seriously, anyone who wants to protect their rights PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE go to EFF.ORG and search for this bill and sign the e-letter stating you are behind it and EFF will send it to your appropriate ruler, ahem, I mean senator/congressperson

-peace
appropriate ruler would be who ever has the hand up the politician 0-o
but yes yes yes yes yes,fair use helps balance the might of the media mafia

151.3.2007 20:40

Agreed on the long posts YIKES!
Contact your Rep, make your voice heard, tell everyone you know about the DRM garbage, tell them to contact their rep. in congress.
What eventually may happen is enough people "complaining" to their "constiuents" about the DRM issue and stating they will vote for someone else in the next election! That will get their attention and may get them act on something in the consumer's favor.
Anyhow it's just my opinion and we all know about opinions!

162.3.2007 16:23

I agree with a great portion of what was posted especially by handsom. They made some seriously key points. But let me add my nickel bag of funk. If y'all have also paid attention to, all the RIAA have done is take down the weaker sites and replace them with sites you need to pay for or put of a bogus free version aside of the one you have to pay for with controlled content that is the worst material. I guess they figure if they can control file sharing sites because thats where a great majority of their consumers have gone due to a lack of quality of good music & etc... Last thing I will say is they can keep doing what they are doing each time they take one away like 5 more new places pop of with better protection.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 02 Mar 2007 @ 16:25

172.3.2007 17:06
vudoo
Inactive

What about a Right To Copy License? It could be just like a deer hunting license.

You buy a license. You stick an electronic credit card into your copier. It then checks the card to see how many days you have left on your license. If you have enough days left the copier will allow you to copy that DvD, CD, or even digital Download. You could pay say $20/yr or maybe $30. it could be just like Skype where you pay by the yr for unlimited calling.

And as far as files over the Internet? Well you could have enforced Ad banners where as the RIAA and MPAA would have gotten paid for the files we Download for FREE. Napster was going to enforce that and continue their service and a lot of aftists would have been paid. But No the RIAA had to play God. Now they have no choice but to again allow Ad Supportive payment. I'm not talking about Gator or Cydoor. I'm talking about a simple banner. Look at Voicebuster or Icall where you get FREE internet calling with ads that support the service. However when the app is not running you don't get any ads. This is what I've been trying to get the RIAA and MPAA to enforce.

If we all work together we can get out rights back and the artists can have their rights too and not get ripped off. It works for iCall and other services where the ads support the programmers. So then why not for the RIAA and MPAA as well.

182.3.2007 18:30

vudoo
the RIAA and its video brother are outdated and need to be disbanded they are causing more grief and strife to the people they were "hired" for.

192.3.2007 19:26

Hey vudoo thats an idea but why should you have to pay another fee just to have fair use of legally purchased content. It was already stated in another post that the consumer is being forced to support 3,4 or 5 revenue streams for the same content. So why is it occuring? Most people know the answer is enough money was thrown at the politicians and they decided it was a "good" thing to enact the dmca which took away the consumers right to fair use by making it illegal to circumvent copy protection.

Murphy had laws I think I'll start some of my own......
1) Things can go wrong
2) To make it happen faster just add politicians or lawyers and refer to #1

203.3.2007 4:41
webe123
Inactive

Originally posted by handsom:
Well, I half agree with you Zippy. But I don't think other people who responded are looking at the same picture... They're stuck in another picture, and I don't think they're getting this at all.

Yes. There is a battle going in courts over the RIAA vs the people.

Yes. The RIAA is a large part of what this article discusses.

No. It is NOT the same battle you are so used to seeing.
Then EXACTLY what is your point? Go back and READ what I said! Just because I used the RIAA as an example, does NOT mean I meant THEM altogether! Frankly, I think you are just using that as an excuse to get your point across. When I said the RIAA, they were an example of the distrust the ENTIRE entertainment industry has for the consumer...NOT just the RIAA! But I guess you have trouble with examples! And I STILL believe you have it wrong, period. And who are YOU to JUDGE me or anyone else? Who are YOU to say that your viewpoint is the only one correct?
I really don't think YOU are getting this at all. You still think that consumers should somehow
earn trust"by the industry..the same industry may I remind you that calls it's customers THIEVES. The same one that uses deceptive business practices to make profits...I wonder...WHO is the REAL thief??


Originally posted by handsom:
This one is different. This isn't 'Can the RIAA sue another corpse, non-computer owner, or six year olf kid?'. This is, does the government trust us enough to look at the RIAA and the music industries money and say "This is absolutely ridiculous, DRM methods must go."

I hope they do. This is much bigger than the RIAA, this is what the RIAA was allowed to found from; this is what many other similar groups have been founded from. If you think this is all about the RIAA, you are seeing a very small picture. This is about whether our government believes that by turning down donations (Because these corporations give lots of funding to politicians), and giving people more ability to handle their own media again, our economy will still strive.
The last time I looked it was the U.S. GOVERNMENT that was FOUNDED BY THE PEOPLE...NOT corporations!! It is the Government that works for the people....not what some people in giant corporations want, that have money to get bills passed in their favor in congress! When the Government makes decisions based on how corporations say they should, then the power is taken away from the people who founded it and I say it is TIME the people took their own government back! You don't agree? Fine with me, but let's remember that the US was a founded government of the people, by the people, and for the people!

Words from the Gettysburg Address of Abraham Lincoln, often quoted as a definition of democracy.
http://www.bartleby.com/59/11/governmentof.html


Originally posted by handsom:
Say what you will about the 'tired' state of the industry. But I dare you to come up with something they haven't already. Think your idea is great? I think you'll find it's either being made a reality, already is a reality, or failed in reality.

Wise men know there's nothing new under the sun. Period.

The trick isn't finding a "new" way to do things. That's a foolish presumption. These are multi billion dollar companies with tens of thousands of employees. That means that inevitable they have at least thirty intelligent people in each of these companies trying to work every angle. (Sorry, statisitcally I won't give them more credit.)..
Actually, new companies and new ideas spring up all the time. It does not take "tens of thousands of employees"! Ask Bill Gates....just one man that founded one of the largest companies in North America....but he never would have gotten it off the ground if he believed as you do! But you are so stuck in your belief that the industry has tried everything and can come up with nothing new to sell their product....well they have done it since they were founded....NOW you want to say that the internet has changed things so much they cannot compete? I say bullshit! There are ways to compete, but it is NOT up to the consumer to SELL THEIR PRODUCT! And creative common licensing would be one way to do it, but they are WAY too greedy to try that.


Originally posted by handsom:
Webe123 makes it clear that he gets the small picture very clearly. Unfortunately, I never argued that the smaller picture doesn't exist, I said that there's a much bigger picture. If the government changes the DMCA restrictions, and lightens them, things like the RIAA and DRM might cease to exist... That's a much bigger picture.

Actually YOU make it clear that you just don't GET IT! It is NOT about the RIAA or MPAA, but about BIG BUSINESS CONTROLLING THE US GOVERNMENT! There is more at stake here than just a few pirated songs or movies, it is about a principle of big business having their say and the people suffering for it. That goes for any big business.


Originally posted by handsom:
Many corporations have much more power than their head entities deserve to control. I agree that they've taken the wrong path to discouraging piracy. Heck, I've heard people all over the net who actually seem to do it more, people now enjoy it, proclaiming themselves as vigilantes against the record industry. It's gotten really out of hand.

First - Downloading a cd from limewire, kazaa, bearshare, bittorrent, usenet, or any other source like those does not, and will not make you a vigilante, hero, or other heroic figure. It makes you a common thief
But let's remember, that a common thief, is just that; common. Have you ever stolen a pack of gum? Something meaningless? Shoplifted at some point in your life? Most of us have, that makes most people, at some point in their lives, thieves to some degree. And if so many people have done it; it's pretty common, isn't it? So, please don't be so ignorant as to take it as an insult. That would be tragically ignorant.

Second - If the RIAA tried to target 100 sellers. People who actually profit from pirated media. They could. They could find them, and put them away. And do you know what would happen? Some of the people that Pirated Media Distributor A sold to would turn into Distributor B, C, D, and probably at LEAST up through H, if not more. Not to mention the extra manpower that would be required for that kind of a hunt. It's a ridiculous proposition. So, the RIAA targets those sharing music online. It's the source of most illegal media, one way or another. That is where most of it happens. The RIAA doesn't target you for downloading. Why? Because they don't know that you might own the cd. If you hear that someone got caught downloading a cd, you were either misinformed or lied to. Quite frankly, going after those who share the music online, is much similar to the idea of going after those who actually SELL the illegal media. The difference is that online distributors tend to, knowingly or not, distributor vastly more illegal media than would be by a streetcorner bootlegger. It doesn't matter if physical cash is made off the action or not; it's still another copy of the media in circulation that wasn't paid for. Not to mention the likelihood that the people downloading from online distributor a are much more likely to become distributors a-zzzxy13aa to the fifth. It's much more rampant. So the argument that 'free' online sharers are less harmful seems downright ignorant in light of this..


Well, if you believe all of that, then I really feel sorry for you. First off, in the 80's.. record companies sued and tried to get BLANK CASSETTE TAPES off the market! Also, big movie companies also sued and tried to KILL the VHS copies market...claiming it would "hurt their "sales"....I guess you have never HEARD of blockbuster??? Why did they do it before they gave it a chance? Becuase THEY claimed that it would kill the movie industry....the same thing went for blank cassette tapes with the record industry. Copying has always been looked down on by media companies...even IF you have a RIGHT to a PERSONAL COPY! So are you saying that now because of the internet, that things have changed so drastically that it is the consumer's fault? I got a newsflash for you. It has always been put on the consumer! From blank cassette tapes to blank and rental VHS tapes to the internet today.

It is not about freedom anymore...it is about control....and the media companies and companies in general do NOT want the consumer to even have a backup copy....they want them to buy a legally purchased item such as a music CD or movie DVD ALL OVER AGAIN if they happen to get a scratch in it. Why do you think they have fought "fair use" so hard? Dop you really think it is fair for someone to purchase a $50.00 DVD and have to purchase it ALL OVER again, if it gets a scratch? This is the kind of OUTDATED thinking that most companies have.

Originally posted by handsom:
Tired or not; this hurts. You can tell me until you're blue in the face that you wouldn't buy it anyway. But I'd like to point out that that attitude didn't exist a decade ago. A decade ago, you listened to the radio, and the radio made advertising bucks, or you bought the cd and the label made bucks. Either way, someone was profiting. This way, it's different, it's a clean cut 0 profit margin.

Companies like Napster are starting to wise up; taking free play seriously. They have put in a service for FREE that streams tracks to you, without storing them. It prevents you from outright stealing and distributing the tracks; and they make money off of ads. Unfortunately, that portion of their service is still highly experimental. Other faithful readers will recall another service that seems to have gotten the boot at the last minute (frog something was the name of it), it would have allowed full downloads, supported by ads, which would pay the music industry, and create a workable system; similar to the radio economy less than ten years ago.
I cannot believe what I am hearing...so YOU actually believe that years ago people did not make copies? They did when it was made available to them in the 1980's ...but one thing you seem to forget is that UNTIL the 1980's you COULD NOT COPY a song or TV show.... BECUASE THE EQUPIMENT USED TO COPY IT WAS NOT INVENTED YET!! So your point is moot. There was NO method I am aware of for copying something like a record in the 70's and no way I am aware of to copy a movie in the 70's either. But you can bet your bottom dollar if there WERE a way, they would have had the same things going on then as today.

And the Napster idea is OK as long as it is free, but ideas like Microsoft Zune, where you can "rent" a song that you paid for 3 days and then it dissappears unless you pay more are absolutely stupid and I am GLAD they are falling on their face.


Originally posted by handsom:
Unfortunately, there are always one or two people high up who don't get it. They don't recognize a chance to return to their old friend the profit margin, when they see it. Ideas like this are criticized. Sony blasted the idea, saying that people shouldn't expect to hear music for free, so he didn't approve. Obviously, he's not familiar with the word 'broadcast'.

Hopefully, ideas like this will slowly creep further along into a genuine reality, but you can't say that forces within the industry aren't trying to improve the situation..

OH YES I CAN say that there are people in the industry that are NOT willing to change! And it is NOT just "one or two people high up " unfortunately....If you look at the way the industry considers fair use and HATES it....you would understand that. It is a "corporate mindset" that you are dealing with....and the ONLY way they are going to change is when their profits are threatened!



Originally posted by handsom:
Much like a free government, there are a lot of power players all chipping away at different angles of the debate; and this can't be helped. But it seems.... 'Off' to criticize the industry as a whole, especially with the 'same old' 'nothing new' argument... Because it's just not true. But like anything else, new ideas take time to really implement. And bigger forces aren't necessarily helping.
Actually, you sound like the same bullshit we have been hearing from the industry for awhile now. We can't change... it is the consumers fault...it is p2p's fault...and YOU want to talk about the same old TIRED argument? Give me a break! The industry IS responsible for promoiting it's product and you sound like you just want to make excuses for them and their failures! Again, it is NOT up to the CONSUMER to save the industry from collapse! In Business... either you compete or you DIE...it is simple as that. And there HAVE been ways suggested to the industry to save itself from destruction....but they always seem to deny the fact that if they are going to compete today.... that THEY HAVE TO CHANGE! But they do not WANT to change!

Now with the advent of p2p and filesharing, they are having to look for new ways to compete...whereas years ago, THEY were the only ones in control and it was the consumer that paid a heavy price for it. You might think this is a bad thing somehow, but I think it is a GOOD thing....because whenever an industry has complete control or "legal monoply" if you will, they can raise prices anytime they want and unlike legal monoplies like telephone service, the entertainment indusrtries are NOT government controlled. BUT they have a legal monoply in that they are the only ones that can authorize copies...so where is the balance so that the consumer is not ripped off? In telephone companies, it is the government that keeps them in check, but with the entertainment industry....they have been running wild for a LONG time.

Originally posted by handsom:
Other power players like the RIAA and Macrovision are in it for cash and cash alone, and will do anything they can to stay on top. And it will take another mighty force to topple them. Hopefully that will happen soon; because I am awaiting a return to a more normal state with general media.

I'm a LEGAL downloader; I found a pay setup that works well for me. And it's really not that hard to do. The trouble is that most people are used to the price of 'free' and want to excuse themselves for not wanting to cough up a little change for their entertainment..

Or MABYE it is the FACT that these same poeople you and the industry call "thieves" are tired of bullshit that says if you scratch a CD or DVD...then that is too bad and you have to pay for it all over again? But I guess you are one of those that never considered how many people have ALREADY paid for CD and DVD's out of their OWN POCKET and have the industry NOW say they don't want them to back it up. Wherte is the FAIRNESS in THAT??

Originally posted by handsom:
Honestly, in the field of music, you can get a monthly subscription to napster for a whopping TEN bucks a month. They'll even GIVE you a low-level portable player for them with three month's subscription. Services like gamefly take care of all but your pc gaming needs for $15 a month; and netflix has become much better about supplying movie rentals to your door to be enjoyed on your tv, rather than your computer for as little as $10 a month. Yeah, maybe you have better media needs than those prices offer; but odds are for a few bucks more, you'll get all the media you need from them for a FRACTION of what you paid for it five or six years ago.

The problem is that a LOT of those services only "rent" music or movies, you have NO control what you do with it and you have NO control what device you put it on! Now, if you are happy renting music, fine. But don't make the same mistake that the industry has already made and think that other people are going to like it just because they SAY they should!

Originally posted by handsom:
Everyone wants to make it out as though there is no other option, that they 'have to' illegally download. And there's just no truth to that. If you can afford the computer and the internet to download on; you can afford these services..

But again, WHY should someone RENT A SONG? when they can buy the WHOLE DAMN CD for less... out of a music store WITH NO RESTRICTIONS on how they use it...than what they get it online for WITH RESTRICTIONS?

Originally posted by handsom:
I pay less than fifty dollars a month, less than one game price, and all of my entertainment needs are met. I get one game at a time, with a two day turnaround in between(Boo-hoo), two DVDs at a time, and nearly every song I could ever want to put onto my pc and my mp3 player. 50/month may sound like a lot, but considering that it covers my games/movies/tv/music completely; it's more than affordable. We're talking the price of one game, three dvds, or a few music cds. Unless you're a minor living with your parents, or a student paying for your own school, you just can't convince me that's not manageable. I'm considered 'low income' and I can afford it without blinking.

It's weird for me to say this, but I can't honestly say there's a good reason to pirate media. The industry HAS made it accessible affordably, people have just been to busy ignoring it. The only things missing are streaming movies(Starting to appear, but needs a LOT of work), and DRM-free music options. And those are truthfully very minor complaints.

If you believe that you are getting a deal with RESTRICTED media, then go ahead and waste your money. I am NOT that gullible! But DON'T try to tell me a bunch of BULLSHIT of how it is a GREAT DEAL! Until they make it at a fair price with no recstrictions I am not going to be a cattle in a part of their "herd" and believe that I am getting a "deal" because THEY say so! so "boo hoo" your own damn self!
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 03 Mar 2007 @ 4:53

213.3.2007 4:46
webe123
Inactive

Sorry for the long post...I did not read that it annoyed some, but I STILL feel I had to make my arguments known and answer some of the bullshit he said...so again, sorry.

223.3.2007 6:49

@duckNrun

Yes, the new bill would give us the right to back up our own DVDs. But we still currently have the right through the existing DMCA to backup our music and software for our own personal use, so those two are not part of the bill. We still have them.


@webe123

Quote:
who are YOU to JUDGE me or anyone else? Who are YOU to say that your viewpoint is the only one correct?

Okay, breathe deep.... Breathe in.... Breathe out.... And take this newsflash: When you post in a forum which relates to politics directly affecting us as consumers, with opinions, someone is going to disagree. Now just take that in.... Yes, it's an amazing thing, isn't it?

As for using RIAA as an example, that's great.

As for trusting the industry? You're just blatantly putting words in my mouth there. I would never say that, I don't trust them any further than I can throw them - And they're really heavy.

Next point you completely overlooked:
Quote:
Actually YOU make it clear that you just don't GET IT! It is NOT about the RIAA or MPAA, but about BIG BUSINESS CONTROLLING THE US GOVERNMENT!

Obviously you didn't read my entire post. Albeit it was long, but I've taken the same courtesy before replying to your long posts.

Quote:
does the government trust us enough to look at the RIAA and the music industries money and say "This is absolutely ridiculous

Yeah. That was my post, as I said, can the government look at the recording industry, the film industry, the entertainment industry, and say to them 'This is ridiculous' despite their money? So you arguing that I don't get that point, well, let's move onto one where you still have a leg to stand on, shall we?

Your next point seemed to bluntly point out that last quote then screams "HE IS WRONG, I SHALL REITERATE THE SAME THING, AND IT SHALL BE RIGHT!

Intermission:
(Hey, remember I'm not here to haggle you, this is honestly very intriguing to me; so please, don't take this in any way shape or form to be personal, it's not. I'm enjoying this, because I've found someone as fired up about this whole thing as I am.)

Good times.

Continuing on:

Quote:
Actually, new companies and new ideas spring up all the time. It does not take "tens of thousands of employees"! Ask Bill Gates....just one man that founded one of the largest companies in North America....but he never would have gotten it off the ground if he believed as you do! But you are so stuck in your belief that the industry has tried everything and can come up with nothing new to sell their product....well they have done it since they were founded....NOW you want to say that the internet has changed things so much they cannot compete? I say bullshit! There are ways to compete, but it is NOT up to the consumer to SELL THEIR PRODUCT! And creative common licensing would be one way to do it, but they are WAY too greedy to try that.

Okay, where to start here, you've got some major points, that I think are great and others that well... Not so much. Let's start with 'tens of thousands'.

There was actually a joke in that part of the text I posted. I challenge you to re-read it. Because you completely missed it, no doubt on a general "Rawr, I'm so angry someone disagrees with me!" run. And hey, like I've said, I'm not attacking you, I do those too. Heck, I just got off a one month ban; I'm just saying if you had really read and understood my posts, we would be purely debating right now, rather than me re-iterating the same thing again, because you overlooked it. I said:
Quote:
These are multi billion dollar companies with tens of thousands of employees. That means that inevitable they have at least thirty intelligent people in each of these companies trying to work every angle. (Sorry, statisitcally I won't give them more credit.)..

Wow, that looks like some satire to me. But hey, whatever.

There is a point buried in there, and right along with the satire; you missed that completely as well. Let's condense this for you, as it was a strike at the recording industry, that you completely overlooked, in what would seem to be anger that you thought I was defending the record labels, RIAA, MPAA, MAFIAA, etc.

Condensed version of that same quote:
These HUGE *empires* which have multiple millions of dollars, and employ tens of thousands of people, must have at least thirty people with half a brain working for them, but I won't give the companies anymore credit than that.

It's the same sentence, it's the same statement, and hopefully you got it this time, because I'm not defending anyone here. That's a direct strike to say that for all their dollars, and for all their employees, they've got less than 1% staff who can tell their butt from their head in an emergency situation. Furthermore, these corporations have become so large, so jumbled, that they don't have the ability to make effective, rational decisions in a way that doesn't allow some high-up to show what a dolt they are. This frustrates the heck out of me. Anyone can look at the DRM model, for example, and tell there's something wrong with that protection. But the fact remains that the head honchos, who stand to keep making those quarterly profit shares will do anything they can to scrape, claw, and fight for every last dollar that quarter... After all, installing a gold plated olympic size swimming pool isn't cheap, right?

Now, a valid point of yours that I would really like to add to, because I feel it's important, and this addition may have been overlooked:

Yes. Bill Gates started Microsoft. But he did not write the original software that got him started, Dos. He bought it from another group, who was foolish enough to sell it to him and his partner, on a legal basis, for $40. That's basically a couple people's meal at Denny's now. Bill Gates did not start alone. He started with Paul Allen. They, together formed a company that they called Micro-Soft after they successfully arranged a meeting with the head of MITS, to show a program, which at the time they had arranged the meeting, did not exist. Needless to say it existed before the meeting occurred, and their success started there.

First off, Bill Gates was far from alone in this, if you look things up, you'll notice that before his exclusive partnership with Allen; he worked in larger groups on the same sort of thing.

Secondly, this was at a time when the market was fledgling, there wasn't competition at the time. Heck, Microsoft has basically invented(And stolen from Apple) the pc market we have today. He was not one man against an industry. He was one man forming an industry that did not exist before. People did not have an altair in every home(He didn't even have one when he wrote the program that proceeded his partnership). Yeah, he knew what he was doing, but he was not alone, and he was not against a huge industry. If you think that someone could suddenly spring up against Sony Music, Warner Records, EMI, etc; and just suddenly succeed, because they have a new idea.... I'd be genuinely curious as to how you would really believe that could work.

I can honestly say that these companies aren't interested in the industry as a whole, they are interested in themselves. If you had a detailed, all inclusive plan for world peace, that included everybody, made them equal, and would be 100% garaunteed successful, do you think world leaders would use it? No. Just like corporations, world leaders don't want the playing field level. They want to keep it even. And, really, the music industry has a huge stranglehold already, with exclusivity contracts, royalties programs, etc; to say that no one has tried, out of at least a billion music fans in the world(Because this problem clearly is spreading), to present the music/game/movie industry with a better option.... I don't buy it. Instead, I believe that the music industry has either blindly rejected it, or that they have ingested it, and are in the process of convoluting it, because of one or two corporate heads who wanted a better personal profit margin from it. They aren't in it to be 'fair' they're in it for that gold plated swimming pool. And with the state of the industry, there just isn't the physical room for a new guy. So, I will say that one way or another, the industry isn't presenting us with something new. There are rumors of protection-free downloads in the future, through many methods, etc; but who knows when that will come, and at what type of cost. Some companies are trying to forge new paths to free legal downloads, etc; but that's all going to come down to a matter of A.)Time and B.)Not getting 'squished' by industry giants. Either way, a good idea takes time; and all we can do is support the little guys who are making efforts for us; heck, write in to EMI, who recently stated that they feel DRM is a problem, urge them to act on that. If you think one person can affect major instant change in this industry (And from the sound of it, you do. Right or wrong, I'm intrigued), then start being that one person, heck, I would gladly help. Ultimately though, I don't think there's room for one person, or even a startup in the industry right now. They've been buying out small companies like that left and right, only to shut them down. And that doesn't happen unless these people allow it to, one way or another, so you can't blame it entirely on the industry; because these people have to allow themselves to be bought.

Anyways, enough of my rambling, next point:
Quote:
I cannot believe what I am hearing...so YOU actually believe that years ago people did not make copies?

Yeah. You took another point completely and udderly out of context. And you have added words that I have never said... It's really annoying, I'll keep from doing that to you if you would please refrain on this.

No, I did not say that I believe copying didn't exist back then. Heck people used to copy cassettes in the eighties, and probably the seventies. However, I *am* saying that I believe (from the industry standpoint, not reality)it was a significantly smaller impact then it is now. HUGELY. The reason is simple and logical, and I dare you to argue this:
Most downloaders (I'll keep this to music, because it is the simplest example) do not download one or two CDs. They download a song or two from around fifty CDs, and that's if they're not a huge music fan, it usually only goes upwards. So, let's calculate from the industry's perspective what this means. 50 songs, from we'll say 35 albums(Because some may be multiple songs from one album you like more). The industry works by giving you an artists latest collection. Not on one of their songs, not two (Except in rarely popular exceptions that become cd/cassette 'singles'), but the whole collection. Because unless the single sells a LOT; the studio can't comp it's spending on advertising, recording, recruiting, editing and cleaning the tracks, cover and insert design, copyright fees, cd-media, some form of publicity(Other than advertising), and more. And you just can't release a an album with hopes of large success without that. No band looks at recording labels and says "Well, I could go for the big guy who can spend a lot to make us a lot.... But I'd rather go with a company I've never heard of, who can't really publicize me at all, so that I never rise to stardom", well some do, but that's not 'traditional' so I'm not going into indie-type bands, though I do respect them significantly. So it's unlikely that the major cluster of recording artists and bands would up and change their minds.

Quote:
If you look at the way the industry considers fair use and HATES it....you would understand that. It is a "corporate mindset" that you are dealing with....and the ONLY way they are going to change is when their profits are threatened!

While I agree with a LARGE part of this sentence, I'm not sure how anyone would 'propose' to threaten their profits. iTunes, Napster, etc, are not going to see major boycotts, it's just not going to happen, unless there's an alternative. We want our music, and we aren't going to put it on hold for a month, or a week, and ironically it's for the same reason that illegal downloading won't stop either.
Also, you are correct in saying it isn't one or two people. It's usually a board room of twenty people, who are led by... One or two predominate speakers, who either have a major stock in the company, or are very influential to their fellow stock holders. So either way, it really does boil down to a couple people per company; who's minds you would have to change. And these are very stubborn, money hungry people. So I really don't know what can be done to change their minds, it's really going to be up to politicians and lobbyists to make this go through congress for our rights. But at the rate we're going, we may never see that day.

As for 'renting' a song.... What on earth are you babbling on about? I download the song on my monthly fee, put it into my mp3 player or my car, and listen to it at home, on the road, or elsewhere. So, I can only guess what the 'rental' bit is all about. I'm sure you're referring to DRM, one way or another; but if you think it comes down to a 'rental' basis, I'd be interested in hearing why. I know there's a lot of DRM opposal(I'm against it as well), but it hardly turns your legal music downloads into 'rentals'.

Moving onto rental vs purchase. I agree that ownership is important. But I think that the grounds on which people wish to 'own' a product has become ridiculous. You love Johnny Cash? You want to own his live recordings at Folsom prison? Great. Go to a store, and pick it up for less than fifteen dollars, easily; or even go on the internet and buy it cheaper, wait for it to arrive; and then you legally own it.

At less than fifteen dollars an album in most mart-stores, you're paying roughly one dollar a track, depending on the album. That's not a huge price for ownership. Heck, going online and buying it will often get you albums for less than five dollars through amazon, ebay, half.com, etc. So if you're against 'renting' music that's full of DRM, by all means. It's not a high price.

Now, if you 'need' to 'own' so much music that you can't afford it, and you 'have to' download five more albums a month, then you're not justified, you're being greedy; and you're unwittingly falling to the same thing as the industry... Greed. Average users don't 'need' to 'own' 200 albums. TRUE music collectors do, and do you know who they are? They're the people you occasionally hear about with shelves and shelves of music CDs. Everyone likes music, but wanting something, and being unwilling to pay 10-15 dollars for it doesn't make you a collector, or an 'owner' it makes you either greedy, wanting, or a common thief when you download without paying for it.

I'm not opposed to 'ownership' but if you feel that need, it's not innaffordable to purchase these things. Honestly, let's look at something. CDs have retailed for about 17.99-18.99 for a LONG time; and between mart stores and inflation over the last decade, it's only gotten easier.

I'm going to have to cut this short, because it's probably long enough already, lol, but I want to finish with one thing:

I am not defending the RIAA, the entertainment industry, the court systems, piracy, or any other element to this debate. I'm saying that to one degree or another, they're all doing things wrong. Frankly that's WHY things are so convoluted and complicated in this matter.

I want to make it clear that I am not here to defend, but to express my opinion on WHY the situation is, and from their exchange real ideas on how it could be CHANGED.

webe123, I am particularly looking forward to your response, you're one of the more knowledgable users on here; I'm enjoying this a lot, I hope to hear more from you.

233.3.2007 8:03

handsom
crust teh enemy with large detailed polite facts 0-o
scary!!! ^^

243.3.2007 8:25

lol; I wouldn't call it crushing the enemy. Ultimately, I think we're on the same side, we just have slightly different views on the severity in certain elements. Ultimately, from reading webe123's posts, I'm fairly certain that both of us want to see the same conclusion.

We both want DRM, the MAFIAA, and a lot of the recent DMCA restrictions to go. It's just a question of what this case will do for us, and what the future holds. But it's infinitely entertaining to debate, nonetheless. :D

And wow, I just looked at that post, truthfully, I was getting really tired halfway through, now that I look at it - HOLY COW! No wonder I got tired of the post halfway through.

Now if only I could get a job as a columnist somewhere, I could *so* do that. Or a debater, I could be a MASTER of debate!!! LOL!

Seriously though, I would so love to do that for a living... I could just sit all the 'important' folks down in a room, and sit their and go through everything piece by piece, and basically say "This is how it is, this is why you're dumb, now stop doing that, and start doing this." Rofl, who wouldn't love that job!?!?

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 03 Mar 2007 @ 8:27

253.3.2007 11:25

we as americans, NEED to guard our RIGHTS our forefathers have left us . we should take our goverment back, Goverment by the people .of the people and for the PEOPLE. politic vote vote vote...

Opinions are like xxx,xxxx,s every one has one/ American IAM i am!!

Listen to diamond RIO..song.....

263.3.2007 19:15

the government is a corporation, or at least been hijacked by them!

274.3.2007 13:27
webe123
Inactive

Quote:
@duckNrunOkay, breathe deep.... Breathe in.... Breathe out.... And take this newsflash: When you post in a forum which relates to politics directly affecting us as consumers, with opinions, someone is going to disagree. Now just take that in.... Yes, it's an amazing thing, isn't it?

As for using RIAA as an example, that's great.

Mabye it is YOU that should relax just a little. I have a difference of opinion....sorry if that makes you uncomfortable.

Quote:
@duckNrunAs for trusting the industry? You're just blatantly putting words in my mouth there. I would never say that, I don't trust them any further than I can throw them - And they're really heavy.
Here is a QUOTE from YOU....."I'm saying that ultimately; this is about whether they feel they can trust us enough to force the reigns a little bit looser." But yet in your other posts, you admit you are a legal downloader and encourage others to do the same.....feeding an industry that is already outdated in it's thinking....is THAT the alternative to p2p? Support an industry that does not even trust you?

Your words..."I'm a LEGAL downloader; I found a pay setup that works well for me."

So to me, you are saying that you are supporting an industry that does not trust it's customers, which by your statements about legal downloading... makes you sound like you are perfectly willing to accept whatever restrictions they give you.....no matter HOW restrictive they are.

Quote:
Obviously you didn't read my entire post. Albeit it was long, but I've taken the same courtesy before replying to your long posts.
Well you obviously didn't read MINE. Because if you would have, you would have known why I said what I did. I agrued that supporting an industry that treats it's customers like thieves, is only making the problem worse.

Quote:
It's the same sentence, it's the same statement, and hopefully you got it this time, because I'm not defending anyone here. That's a direct strike to say that for all their dollars, and for all their employees, they've got less than 1% staff who can tell their butt from their head in an emergency situation. Furthermore, these corporations have become so large, so jumbled, that they don't have the ability to make effective, rational decisions in a way that doesn't allow some high-up to show what a dolt they are. This frustrates the heck out of me. Anyone can look at the DRM model, for example, and tell there's something wrong with that protection. But the fact remains that the head honchos, who stand to keep making those quarterly profit shares will do anything they can to scrape, claw, and fight for every last dollar that quarter... After all, installing a gold plated olympic size swimming pool isn't cheap, right?
Ok, mabye you meant it as humorus, but as you stated it before, it did not read like humor to me and you did not even give a hint it was humor.

And I agree basically with what you are saying....but you have to remember that when you support such corporations....you are also supporting the lifestyle of the big shots that run the companies you are actually making fun of!!


Quote:
Yes. Bill Gates started Microsoft. But he did not write the original software that got him started, Dos. He bought it from another group, who was foolish enough to sell it to him and his partner, on a legal basis, for $40. That's basically a couple people's meal at Denny's now. Bill Gates did not start alone. He started with Paul Allen. They, together formed a company that they called Micro-Soft after they successfully arranged a meeting with the head of MITS, to show a program, which at the time they had arranged the meeting, did not exist. Needless to say it existed before the meeting occurred, and their success started there.


Actually, the history lesson on Microsoft was unnecessary! I know he started the company with Paul allen.I know he bought the DOS software from IBM....what I was trying to point out in my statement, was that the original idea of Microsoft, was NOT Paul Allens....it Was Bill Gates original idea and although he did not WRITE the original DOS software....he found a way to use the software to create Windows!

But the whole point was that he never would have gotten his ideas off the groundif he did not try. And you have to remember that "big Blue" or IBM was the main computer leader in that day. But they simply failed to create an OS that was useable. To say there was "no competition" back then was simply not true. He was just the one to make the ideas he had WORK!

Something I have yet to see the media companies with all of their power and financial strength be able to do today. There really is no excuse but greed for the media companies NOT to come up with SOME sort of creative licesning scheme that would benifit both the copyright holders and the consumer....but I am afraid that as long as they hold on to their old way of thinking.... that is simply not going to happen.

Let's also remember that it was the record companies that wanted to force Steve Jobs to increase prices on the iTunes store and not have it as a flat fee of 99 cents for every single they sold....the record companies wanted to increase prices according to the popularity of an artist...which Jobs refused to do and the record companies could not force him to do, because of the contract they already had with him. This is really what turns me AGAINST the legal monoplies the media mafia....because if you give them an inch...they will definately find a way (or try their best) to take a mile!


Quote:
If you think one person can affect major instant change in this industry (And from the sound of it, you do. Right or wrong, I'm intrigued), then start being that one person, heck, I would gladly help. Ultimately though, I don't think there's room for one person, or even a startup in the industry right now. They've been buying out small companies like that left and right, only to shut them down. And that doesn't happen unless these people allow it to, one way or another, so you can't blame it entirely on the industry; because these people have to allow themselves to be bought.


Apparently, it is now YOU who are putting words into MY MOUTH! I NEVER said that I alone could change an entire industry, find where I said that and post it if you can, but I do believe that consumers together sure can! Change has to start somewhere. Sitting around saying it cannot be done or has all been tried before is something I simply do not believe. And Patricia Santangelo standing up to the media mafia may seem foolish to some, but I give her credit for at least TRYING to change something that has seem to have been accepted by consumers....and that is the notion that the media mafia is so powerful they cannot be beaten. Or that rules that are unfair to the consumer cannot be changed. To that, I say bullshit. If Rosa Parks would have went to the back of the bus whenm she was TOLD because IT WAS THE LAW, racial equality might not exist.... even today. Martin Luther King Jr. came to the forefront, yes, but it was Rosa Parks that started a civil rights movement! Change can happen and one person can make a difference....but I am not saying they can change the entire industry! But if enough people start to stand up to them,it certianly can.



Quote:
You took another point completely and udderly out of context. And you have added words that I have never said... It's really annoying, I'll keep from doing that to you if you would please refrain on this.?

YOU have also done this, so lets agree to stop. OK?

Quote:
No, I did not say that I believe copying didn't exist back then. Heck people used to copy cassettes in the eighties, and probably the seventies. However, I *am* saying that I believe (from the industry standpoint, not reality)it was a significantly smaller impact then it is now. HUGELY. The reason is simple and logical, and I dare you to argue this:
Most downloaders (I'll keep this to music, because it is the simplest example) do not download one or two CDs. They download a song or two from around fifty CDs, and that's if they're not a huge music fan, it usually only goes upwards. So, let's calculate from the industry's perspective what this means. 50 songs, from we'll say 35 albums(Because some may be multiple songs from one album you like more). The industry works by giving you an artists latest collection. Not on one of their songs, not two (Except in rarely popular exceptions that become cd/cassette 'singles'), but the whole collection. Because unless the single sells a LOT; the studio can't comp it's spending on advertising, recording, recruiting, editing and cleaning the tracks, cover and insert design, copyright fees, cd-media, some form of publicity(Other than advertising), and more. And you just can't release a an album with hopes of large success without that. No band looks at recording labels and says "Well, I could go for the big guy who can spend a lot to make us a lot.... But I'd rather go with a company I've never heard of, who can't really publicize me at all, so that I never rise to stardom", well some do, but that's not 'traditional' so I'm not going into indie-type bands, though I do respect them significantly. So it's unlikely that the major cluster of recording artists and bands would up and change their minds.

Actually, your thinking is flawed. Most of the costs you are quoting come from store bought CD's or those like you find in Wal-Mart. However,even Wal-Mart (Americas largest retailer of music CD's) has been forced to look at online sales and start selling online.I do agree that there ARE costs that go into a making a music CD...I ought to KNOW I have my OWN music CD out. But I simply disagree that the numbers you are stating cannot be offset by online distribution. Which is in it's infancy now.But in time,I think it will outpace music in stores as we know it.

Retail stores like Tower records have already closed a lot of their "brick and Mortar" stores down.Why? Because of poor sales. They can blame p2p all they want, but it is just one more way of the industry saying that they will not change! As I stated earlier...they dropped the ball when they DIDN'T legalize the original Napster!

They COULD have gotten people into the habit of buying music then...as Napster was king when it came to music downloading. That would have solved most of the problemn today with the "sue em all" campaign which is an absolute failure when it comes to stopping or at least throttling p2p. And the hate for the media mafia as we call them. I am sorry, but I think the blame goes to the record companies and other media companies who refuse to change and fail to embrace new technology.

Quote:
While I agree with a LARGE part of this sentence, I'm not sure how anyone would 'propose' to threaten their profits. iTunes, Napster, etc, are not going to see major boycotts, it's just not going to happen, unless there's an alternative. We want our music, and we aren't going to put it on hold for a month, or a week, and ironically it's for the same reason that illegal downloading won't stop either.

Well as long as there is people like you who support industries that call it's customers thieves, then therein lies the problem. The only way I see this comming to a reasonable conclusion and stopping the stupid lawsuits that are just making the industry more hated.Is for the industry to somehow find a method of advertisement or other means to compensate the artist, while at the same time giving the consumer a DRM FREE product with NO strings attached! Until then,you will just see legal alternatives as a drop in the bucket to p2p.

Quote:
As for 'renting' a song.... What on earth are you babbling on about? I download the song on my monthly fee, put it into my mp3 player or my car, and listen to it at home, on the road, or elsewhere. So, I can only guess what the 'rental' bit is all about. I'm sure you're referring to DRM, one way or another; but if you think it comes down to a 'rental' basis, I'd be interested in hearing why. I know there's a lot of DRM opposal(I'm against it as well), but it hardly turns your legal music downloads into 'rentals'.

I guess you have NEVER heard of ZUNE by Microsoft? Look it up.
[edit] Criticism
Critics have cited several Zune limitations, including:

Zune's implementation of DRM. In the view of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (which opposes all DRM): "Microsoft's Zune will not play protected Windows Media Audio and Video purchased or 'rented' from Napster 2.0, Rhapsody, Yahoo! Unlimited, Movielink, Cinemanow, iTunes, or any other online media service. That's right—the media that Microsoft promised would Play For Sure doesn't even play on Microsoft's own device." The EFF calls this "a stark example of DRM under the DMCA giving customers a raw deal."[26] The Zune will not even play content previously purchased from Microsoft's own MSN Music store.[27] Others have criticized Zune's DRM as well.[28][29][30] Technology reviewer Leo Laporte (of G4techTV (Canada)) said in his November 11, 2006, radio show that Zune may be the "beginning of the end" for DRM as a business tactic.[31]
DRM-related issues include:

Wireless transfers are restricted in ways which seem to critics to be unfair and more restrictive than might be expected from the phrase "You can play a sample song up to three times in the three days after you receive it." Critics find it unfair that
restrictions are applied even to songs for which the recipient owns a paid-for and current Zune Pass.[32]
restrictions are applied even to material that is self-recorded, or copyright-free and unprotected by DRM. This may actually be illegal, in the case of music with a license that forbids the application of DRM.

a song expires in three days even if it has not been played at all.[citation needed]
playing just a portion of a song (one minute of the song or half the song, whichever is shorter) counts as one "play."
A song cannot be re-sent to the same device, nor can a song received from someone else be passed on to a third person.[33][34][35][36]
Zune cannot send all songs wirelessly to other Zunes. Observers have reported that about 40% of the most popular Zune store downloads cannot be shared; attempts to do so trigger the message "cannot send some songs due to rights restrictions."[37] A Microsoft spokesperson attributed the problem to the feature's being a "new experience, and its implementation is in a version 1.0 stage" and saying that the company "is working to expand the number of songs that can be shared."[38] Initially, observers criticized two music publishers, UMG and Sony, for what was assumed to be an intentional restriction, while criticizing the Zune Marketplace for not disclosing which songs could not be shared.[20] Music publishers denied having placed any such restrictions.[38]
Numerous industry pundits have criticized the Zune for its shortcomings, especially those that the iPod and other rivals do not share.[39]

While Zune has built-in Wi-Fi capabilities, it can only use it to connect other Zune devices. It cannot use it to sync to its host computer, nor to connect to the Internet or download content.[40][41]
The Zune cannot be used as an external storage device, as can many similar products.[42]
The Zune cannot accept TV shows recorded using Windows Media Center's digital video recorder (DVR) software.[42]
The Zune cannot be used with non-U.S.[43] and some other versions of Windows,[44] nor with Mac OS X or Linux.
The Zune Marketplace uses the system of Microsoft Points that do not easily translate into currency. As columnist Andy Ihnatko put it, "The Zune Marketplace doesn't even take real money."[45] A song costs 79 points, which corresponds to $0.99, which gives the impression that songs cost 79 cents. Moreover, points can only be purchased in blocks of at least 400 points, leading to possible over-purchase and unused points.[46][47]
The Zune is English only. It lacks native language support (NLS) or handling unicode metadata found in file container formats that support this feature.[48]
The Zune does not support gapless playback.[42]
The Zune does not support Microsoft's own Windows Media Player.
The Zune device does not support any lossless audio codecs such as AIFF, WAV, or FLAC natively. The device cannot natively play Microsoft's own WMA Lossless format.[4]


SCOURCE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zune


Quote:
Moving onto rental vs purchase. I agree that ownership is important. But I think that the grounds on which people wish to 'own' a product has become ridiculous.
WHY is it"ridiculous"??. Because you say so? Sorry, but you are going to have to do WAY bettier than that! A person has a right to spend his money as he pleases, the same as you do. And mabye people are USED to OWNING products from years past that had no stupid DRM on it in the first place. Like Records.

Quote:
At less than fifteen dollars an album in most mart-stores, you're paying roughly one dollar a track, depending on the album. That's not a huge price for ownership. Heck, going online and buying it will often get you albums for less than five dollars through amazon, ebay, half.com, etc. So if you're against 'renting' music that's full of DRM, by all means. It's not a high price.

IT IS a high prioce when you consider that 3/4 or MORE of that CD is only FILLER material! ( I am talking new music...not 70's and 60's music when you usually got a little more for your dollar) Now if you think that most of the music produced today is full oif HITS, I got a wake up call for you.It is not! Most Cd's have mabye a song or two that is decent and that is it! (IF you are lucky)

Now, You want to run your math by me again? I would say that if you buy a new CD and have two good songs on it....you are paying $10.00 a SONG if you paid 20 bucks for the CD or 7.50 if you got ait for 15 bucks! Not very practical in my book. I don't pay for "filler" Cd's...sorry.


Quote:
Now, if you 'need' to 'own' so much music that you can't afford it, and you 'have to' download five more albums a month, then you're not justified, you're being greedy; and you're unwittingly falling to the same thing as the industry... Greed. Average users don't 'need' to 'own' 200 albums. TRUE music collectors do, and do you know who they are? They're the people you occasionally hear about with shelves and shelves of music CDs. Everyone likes music, but wanting something, and being unwilling to pay 10-15 dollars for it doesn't make you a collector, or an 'owner' it makes you either greedy, wanting, or a common thief when you download without paying for it.

Got news for you, People will own however much music they want to own, that does NOT make them a crook, thief or dishonest. I can name you people right now with dozens of old 70's record and 8 track collections and I would hardly call them collectors. they are just ordinary peopole who collected music over time.

Quote:
I'm not opposed to 'ownership' but if you feel that need, it's not innaffordable to purchase these things. Honestly, let's look at something. CDs have retailed for about 17.99-18.99 for a LONG time; and between mart stores and inflation over the last decade, it's only gotten easier..


Actually, I think that this thing we call the music and movie industry has become little more than legal monoplies with way too much control and too little to offer the average consumer. i lived in the 70's./..I remember the 8 track and the records and 45's, but we live in a totally different world today where not only the music itself has changed, but they distribution of music has changed as well.

Consider this...they made booze illegal in prohibition....but the reason the Government started allowing it again was because people was demanding a product and if they could not get it legally, they got it illegally. The problem was that it made the gangsters all the profits and the Government made nothing...while police and politicians were all being bought off because it became so common to "buck the system". The only way I can see for this to end, is for the media companies and consumers to come together to find a fair and balanced solution. The problem has been getting companies that represtent the Media companies to listen to groups that represent the consumers on Capitol hill....such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation....if you really want to make a start to end all of this ,I would suggest starting by helping them.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 04 Mar 2007 @ 13:37

284.3.2007 13:36

I was enjoying our chat here; but you've taken things far too personally. I'm not going any further, because it would seem a mod is looking for reasons to ban me, and I've just gotten off a one month.

Believe what you will; but don't put words into my mouth. Your assumptions about my views are just that, assumptions. And it seems pretty clear that going any further here will start a flamewar.

I sincerely hope you get a clue regarding who is arguing with you and who is agreeing with you.

And above all, don't force the ill-informed conclusions you have drawn regarding other members to be the absolute end-all be-all; thats a great way to becoming a bigot.

I'm done before I get banned for any kind of flaming.

294.3.2007 13:39
webe123
Inactive

Originally posted by handsom:
I was enjoying our chat here; but you've taken things far too personally. I'm not going any further, because it would seem a mod is looking for reasons to ban me, and I've just gotten off a one month.

Believe what you will; but don't put words into my mouth. Your assumptions about my views are just that, assumptions. And it seems pretty clear that going any further here will start a flamewar.

I sincerely hope you get a clue regarding who is arguing with you and who is agreeing with you.

And above all, don't force the ill-informed conclusions you have drawn regarding other members to be the absolute end-all be-all; thats a great way to becoming a bigot.

I'm done before I get banned for any kind of flaming.

Sorry you feel that way, but take your own advice and don't try to think that everyone will accept your views either. It is a two way street. Remember that.

304.3.2007 15:14

I was going to leave it, but for reasons listed at the bottom, I opted not to.


Quote:
Quote:Moving onto rental vs purchase. I agree that ownership is important. But I think that the grounds on which people wish to 'own' a product has become ridiculous.
Quote:
WHY is it"ridiculous"??. Because you say so? Sorry, but you are going to have to do WAY bettier than that! A person has a right to spend his money as he pleases, the same as you do. And mabye people are USED to OWNING products from years past that had no stupid DRM on it in the first place. Like Records.
And if you would stop taking one quote, that already has the answer, then cutting off the answer and posting a question, as though I had left it unanswered, you would see THIS:
Quote:
Moving onto rental vs purchase. I agree that ownership is important. But I think that the grounds on which people wish to 'own' a product has become ridiculous. You love Johnny Cash? You want to own his live recordings at Folsom prison? Great. Go to a store, and pick it up for less than fifteen dollars, easily; or even go on the internet and buy it cheaper, wait for it to arrive; and then you legally own it.

At less than fifteen dollars an album in most mart-stores, you're paying roughly one dollar a track, depending on the album. That's not a huge price for ownership. Heck, going online and buying it will often get you albums for less than five dollars through amazon, ebay, half.com, etc. So if you're against 'renting' music that's full of DRM, by all means. It's not a high price.

If you weren't so busy trying to find every flaw in my text; because you've taken some kind of personal vendetta with me; you would see the explanation staring you right in the face.

The 'sense of ownership' as a justification to illegal downloading is ridiculous, because it's not that expensive. You can download most tracks for a dollar, if you really don't want all the 'filler'. But as filler goes, the notion that it's suddenly something new is just blatantly uninformed. Bands have had high quality and low quality songs on albums for decades. That's not something where the industry has suddenly become lazy. It's simply because bands cannot be expected to pump out fifteen perfect tracks every year, in order to stay big. Many recording bands don't end up lasting more than two or three years, if they're lucky. So, putting the pressure on the labels over these crap songs (And yes, they do exist in multitude) is a blatant mis-assignment of blame. *IF* you're going to 'blame' someone because an entire cd isn't just so awesome that you collapse before it's entire awesomeness, then it's the band/artist's fault, for not writing and performing better songs. And it's not like the industry is going to start turning away bands because all of their songs weren't great. It's just not a workable logic. Old albums were NOT all 'great songs', heck the 60's and 70's played host to more one hit wonders than the 80's and 90's did. It's nothing new, and it's no one's fault; an artist/writer can only come up with so much good material.

BTW:
Quote:
Now, You want to run your math by me again? I would say that if you buy a new CD and have two good songs on it....you are paying $10.00 a SONG if you paid 20 bucks for the CD or 7.50 if you got ait for 15 bucks! Not very practical in my book. I don't pay for "filler" Cd's...sorry.

If you're only getting one or two good tracks on each disc, that's because you have extremely bad taste in picking albums to buy. Most people will agree that in general cases you get 4-6, sometimes seven or eight-If they're lucky. So, if you want to run down to the nitty gritty of it, in this new system you've chosen, where you must buy discs and disown songs that don't clobber you with their awesomeness.
4-6 songs for $15-$19 (Because if you're paying twenty, something's really wrong.) So, let's say you purchased an album with only four good songs; and you got ripped off into paying $19(Because you're a moron who only shops at places like Sam Goody) you've paid about 4.75 a song. Definitely not a good price. I agree. But let's say you are a real consumer, who actually thinks about their purchases to some degree; and you buy the same mediocre album at wal-mart for 13.99, an average price.... With tax, you've paid about $3.78 a song, and this is with your nonsense of disowning the 'filler' stuff. It's a bad price still; but most people don't permanently disregard all but they're favorite songs. Maybe you do, if so, I really don't care; because it's abnormal. Most people get an album, and listen to the whole thing, unless there are one or two songs they really don't like. Generally speaking, if you feel the need to skip over more than two tracks every time you listen to a cd; most people consider that to be a 'bad' album.


As for 'rentals' on the Zune... I'm kind of surprised to see someone bring up a device that is expected to fail within one year's time; and has almost no consumer interest; but I think that it is excellent you brought it up.

The Zune indeed, has many things about it that make it undesirable as a media player. Many of the features are far too restrictive, and it doesn't allow you to utilize files that you got from other sources, such as Napster, in my case. And interestingly enough, as much as M$ is trying to hype it, people aren't really buying it. This actually goes as something of a demonstration regarding your point about consumers needing to show their dislike for protection methods. M$ will either have to take a lot of the restrictions off their product, allowing DRM (Which the unit is physically capable of, and then some on the hardware end); or they're going to have a small failure on their hands. I say small, because I don't believe that they've invested nearly so much into this as, oh, say a gaming system, or Vista.

Quote:
Got news for you, People will own however much music they want to own, that does NOT make them a crook, thief or dishonest. I can name you people right now with dozens of old 70's record and 8 track collections and I would hardly call them collectors. they are just ordinary peopole who collected music over time.

There you go again... Tsk tsk tsk. Did I ever say that people who have purchased music are thieves? No. I only said that people who download music, rather than purchasing it are thieves. I said nothing about people with old collections, or outdated formats. I personally see nothing wrong with people downloading cleaner versions of music they own. This word contortion game is getting old, and it's getting easier and easier to point out webe123.

Quote:
Well as long as there is people like you who support industries that call it's customers thieves, then therein lies the problem. The only way I see this comming to a reasonable conclusion and stopping the stupid lawsuits that are just making the industry more hated.Is for the industry to somehow find a method of advertisement or other means to compensate the artist, while at the same time giving the consumer a DRM FREE product with NO strings attached! Until then,you will just see legal alternatives as a drop in the bucket to p2p.

Wow. I absolutely love this statement. Do you know why? Because it proves beyond the shadow of a doubt how little attention you are paying to my posts before you set out to misquote, contort, and disagree with them.

Quote:
Companies like Napster are starting to wise up; taking free play seriously. They have put in a service for FREE that streams tracks to you, without storing them. It prevents you from outright stealing and distributing the tracks; and they make money off of ads. Unfortunately, that portion of their service is still highly experimental. Other faithful readers will recall another service that seems to have gotten the boot at the last minute (frog something was the name of it), it would have allowed full downloads, supported by ads, which would pay the music industry, and create a workable system; similar to the radio economy less than ten years ago.

Yeah, that was my first post on this topic.

How do you think Napster's free stream method is supported? Yes, it's VERY limited, but it's a start. How do you think the other mentioned company was to run, oh wait, I already said it, WITH ADS. I wholeheartedly agree that advertising is THE way to go; and that it's the only way to combat this p2p frenzy. I was in it for a LONG time, and I know it's hard to stop. Had it not been for extenuating circumstances, I probably wouldn't have. But this 'advertising' idea is nothing new, and it comes with a bigger problem that most people don't realize. In order for this to work; you have to have advertisers lined up, the minute you launch something like that; half the world will want to try it. But when you have that many users accessing that many files, you'll need to a LOT of advertisers to comp that kind of cash, because it'll add up quickly. Getting that many advertisers interested in such a new, inventive product right off the bat is really hard to do. So yes, I agree that an advertising method is the way to go; but like I've said before, there's nothing new under the sun. The same company (again, it has a frog in the name, that's all I recall, but it was actually mentioned on ADNews) is still working to assemble the same kind of arrangement on ads; but it will take time to really launch something like that. I will say this much; once they do, I will be cancelling my Napster subscription, in favor of it. But truthfully; I'm not sure how you feel it's much different than what we've been discussing here. It all goes back to the old radio system, when tape copying existed, but was not nearly so rampant as p2p filesharing is. They would simply receive their funds from advertisers who, instead of paying a radio station for space, who in turn paid the studio for the song; the advertiser simply pays the record label directly. You're just cutting out the middle man - the radio station. This all goes back to 'nothing new' it's just a spin on the old way. Me paying one subscription of just under 15$ a month means that I get almost all the music I want(Because face it, you can't buy every song at one place, be it online or in a store, some times you even have to special order.) If you're going to criticize people for supporting the industry, let's examine my spending on this then:

Napster one month = 14.95
One month of Napster music downloads for me = between 20gb, and 35gb of music. That's well into the thousands of tracks. And I can play these on all my personal devices. (Good thing I don't own a Zune, lol) The Zune not being able to play the songs doesn't affect me, it just means I'm less likely to buy an overpriced player anyways. I can still listen to my subscribed music in my car, on the go, or in my home over my nice surround sound system. And if the industry got 100% of profits from Napster(and they don't), they would get $.004 per song. For those not reading this thoroughly, that's not a typo, it's less than a penny per song. If I'm a real music zealot, it gets better. But I'm only an average interest user. Call it 'rented' all you want, it's the same price as one album a MONTH, and I use all that. Quite frankly, buying one cd a month is a drop in the barrel to the industry. It means I'm still being legal, but the industry gets jack squat out of me.

If you want to rebel against the industry, you don't have to go illegal; you can enjoy music legally without paying through the nose. I'm anti-iTunes, because roughly one dollar a track is too much for me to swallow, at the rate I collect. I think we've had a discrepency in our discussion of ownership. If you 'need' to 'own' something, you will be willing to swallow down a pricetag of less than fifteen for the album, we're not talking big bucks here. If you already own an old recording of the album, 8track perse, and you want to download a better quality version I don't see the problem with that, and according to the DMCA, there is nothing preventing you from having a copy of the music you've purchased. If I'm wrong on that part; I would genuinely like to see where, not because I'm being a jerk about this, but because the DMCA is a large, complicated, and often contradictory article. What I am referring to as theivery is specifically the act of downloading something that you do not own, and are not paying for. And because I'm sure you're going to get all technical on me, hoping you figured out how to disagree with me, if someone 'gives' you a cd, then you do not own it. If they keep copies of it, after giving the original to you, they do not have legal rights to have them, and they are just as bad as illegal downloaders. If the original media is damaged, then it would make sense for them to give you the copy with the original, but not one or the other. By owning an original, you have rights to copies of your music, as long as you do not distribute them to others who do not have legal rights to them.

Lastly, I actually rather appreciate your mention of the illegal booze-running. It was a very interesting piece of American history. And I was intrigued by the way you paralleled it to your argument. But there is a difference here; which is sad; but exists. I wish the comparison were as direct as it seems from your text. We, as a nation, would be able to sort through this MUCH faster if it were. With illegal booze-running, police had to track these people down, often needing lots of man-power for big arrests; it breeded more illegal activity in these dens, leading to the uprising of the first major American mobs. The US realized that they weren't just dealing with alcohol, they were inadvertently mixing alcohol with drugs, prostitution, murder, and more. And it was costing the government more and more, from more necessary police officers, to FBI, everything. It was a nightmare for them to deal with.

This case is definitely similar in nature, I'll gladly give you; and I can see where the comparison might come to mind. However, people who illegally download a song are no more likely to start selling crack, killing people, and running prostitution rings than they were before they went downloading. The most they're going to do is start downloading movies and games, spreading the 'damage' (As it is seen by the industry), to more media formats. The police and FBI aren't investigating these events... The RIAA, MPAA, MAFIAA, etc are; and quite frankly, they're non-government entities who have figured out that this is a cash COW. The only thing the government has to deal with, is court cases. But the industry has even combated that problem, making it easier for the government to standby; now they do lawsuits in massive groups. Thousands of settlement letters and subpoenas are sent per trial, and decided in what basically amounts to nameless group guilt. The court hardly blinks at the effortless efficiency that these groups have concocted. In the end, these groups make HUGE sums of money; and they are having almost no effect on the government's judicial or law enforcement systems. So the government doesn't have the same angle they did before. I don't believe that many of our representatives really care when six thousand college students all get sued at once. I think they should; but I have no reason to believe they do.

Still, it was an EXCELLENT parallel, and I really appreciate the thought that went into it; I'm hoping to hear more intelligence, and less word contortion in your future responses. We're not enemies here, even if you think we disagree on a lot of things. Even if we did, we still wouldn't be enemies, so I'm hoping you consider that in your next posts, and stop making this so ugly. I'm tired of coming back to sections of my post that you've either partially quoted, or taken completely out of context. And I have no doubt that if you re-read before posting, you'd know it too.

Quote:
Sorry you feel that way, but take your own advice and don't try to think that everyone will accept your views either. It is a two way street. Remember that.

Take my own advice? You mean stop quoting half a paragraph, disregarding the other half, and saying that you're wrong; then parading around like I caught you saying something moronic, because I only put half of your quote before responding? Oh, I would love to; but I haven't been doing that. You have. My point has nothing to do with whether you accept my views or not; my issue is that you keep pretending my points are something else, through misquotes, partial quotes, and blatantly putting words in my mouth that I've never posted. Don't try to pretend that you've suddenly turned my own words against me in some clever manner. Remember that.

If you're wondering why I came back for a long post, after saying I was done; it's because you are so arrogant as to have thought you were going to teach me a lesson.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 04 Mar 2007 @ 15:18

3115.4.2007 7:08

While all of this verbal jousting is very entertaining and very infomative, it is giving me somewhat of a headache. (not to mention I've missed my breakfast)

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive