How long will Ferrari be around to design new cars if you can get a completely identical copy of their existing cars for free?
Well Dead Badger, I’ll let the lawyers decide which Act P2Pers actually contravene. I don’t remember any criminal charges being brought but I’m surprised the `No Electronic Theft (NET) Act’ (which I just discovered) isn’t discussed more as it seems directly on target. I don’t think I’ll wallow through it as I’m not a US resident and really don’t listen to that much music.(though I may pick through it, being interested in intellectual property rights)
I’m still kinda stuck on the surcharges the RI collects,ISTM an implicit(if it was not explicit as I read the AHRA) agreement to private copying. If the same charge was applied to hardrive sales would that satisfy them? Surcharge on ISP connections? If the majority of music distribution stops being new CD sales we’ll have to re-look at how we divy up that surcharge/royalty loot.
Hmm; I don’t know much about these surcharges, living in the UK where they don’t exist. I have to say I dislike them on principle - levying a charge on everyone to compensate for the inevitable copying of the few. This is particularly true of hard drives, where there are many primary purposes that don’t involve piracy. Additionally, the sheer capacity of the average hard drive makes surcharges impractical: you can get a 160 Gb hard drive for about £70 these days, which will hold roughly 2400 CDs (depending on encoding), representing around £24,000 of piracy. Even if only 1% of the hard drive capacity sold is used for piracy, you’d need a levy of about 350% to cover the cost of the piracy, making a £70 drive cost up in the £300 region.
Essentially, I think distribution on P2P networks goes well beyond any reasonable definition of private copying, and I don’t want to pay a surcharge to cover the cost of something I don’t do.
Some people think spending $10 on non-essential items is superfluous, what is your point? Can’t afford it? Tough shit.
And a convenient legal alternative will take longer to come about if such rampant downloading exists.
Actually, home users do need to decrypt a DVD before they can copy it, because the area where CSS keys are stored is unwritable on DVD-R/+R media. You can try to make a “bit for bit” copy of an encrypted DVD with your computer’s DVD burner, but it won’t happily play anywhere.
There is (very expensive) professional DVD equipment and media that can be used to make exact copies, but it’s cheaper just to buy another copy of the DVD.
By that logic, it’s also immoral to cross in the middle of a street, drive 65 MPH in a 60 zone, perform oral sex (in some states), drink alcohol before age 21 (in some countries), and so on. You’ve got a very long road ahead if you want to convince many people that it’s always immoral to break the law.
I’m no RI defender, but I’m familiar with those parts of the AHRA. The terms “digital audio recording device”, “digital audio recording medium”, “analog recording device”, and “analog recording medium” are specifically defined in the Act, and none of those definitions apply to computers or hard drives. A noncommercial copy can be legal, but only if you make it with (e.g.) a stereo component CD burner that only accepts “music CD-R” media.
Well, right you are Mr2001. In fact, section 4(B)(ii) seems to specifically exclude them.
That seems a little overly-constrictive interpretation of the defintions(though I’ll take your word that’s the current legal understanding). In Canada at least all writeable media get surcharged, CD-R “audio” merely more so: Current Tariffs from the non-profit that collects and distributes it, the Canadian Private Copying Collective.
I think once you get to the point where Ferraris are being broadcasted there’ll be people desiging Ferraris in their free time.
In the U.S., data CD-Rs aren’t surcharged; therefore they must not be “digital audio recording media”, because you can’t distribute a digital audio recording medium without paying the royalty (Sec. 1003(a)). Also, Sec. 1001(4)(B)(ii) excludes media that are primarily marketed or used for copying content other than music, which would include data CD-Rs.
The section that makes noncommercial copies legal is this one (1008):
It’s not entirely clear from the text (“noncommercial use … of such a device or medium”) that you need to use both the right device and the right medium to be safe from prosecution; perhaps you could get away with using one or the other, such as copying a CD onto a Music CD-R with a computer. That seems to go against the spirit of the law, though, since digital audio recording devices are surcharged and computers aren’t.
[QUOTE=World Eater]
A) It’s their choice where they want to air it.
B) if there’s a demand, then people will get sat radio
C) if there isn’t the venture will fold
D) Someone will attempt the same thing, and be mindful of how and why it failed before
E) if there’s a demand, then people will get the product
F) if there isn’t demand the venture will fold
G) Someone will attempt the same thing, and be mindful of how and why it failed before
H) repeat E,F, and G
Much like MST3K which started out promoting that their show should be taped and shared with people who weren’t able to get it in their market, Air America has the same concept.
On the Majority Report’s blog, they make that quite clear.
It’s so nice that you are so strident, condemning, and hostile about file sharing… not everyone agrees with you, including some of the artists who want their work spread around.
On a similar note, there’s quite a big community of people who record the Loveline radio show and share it with those of us who can’t listen to it live - each episode is available online within 1 or 2 days of the original broadcast.
I don’t know if the show’s producers are aware of it, or how they feel about it, but IMO it’s a perfectly legitimate use for file sharing. If I can go to Seattle, tape Loveline when it’s on the air, come back to Spokane, and listen to it for free, then I should be able to have someone in Seattle record it and send it to me over the internet.
No, you’re going to get people designing crappy cars because it takes (stay with me here) a lot of time, expertise and resources to design a good car. Time, expertise and resources that require money to secure.
Granted, in the music industry the resources needed to record an album are somewhat limited. However not everone in their basement has the skills to record a good song, even if they can write and play and sing. Not to mention that if there’s no money to be made, all of your artists need day jobs to put food on the table. What good is becoming a rock star if you still need to stock shelves at Wal Mart?
No money = no ‘dream’ of success = fewer people bothering in the first place
Mr2001-
I was under the impression that a CD-burner component of the computer IS surcharged.
Anyhoo, I think one thing we can all agree on is that the Ferrari analogy is really idiotic and played out.
Just to be clear about this, I wasn’t trying to start a Ferrari analogy. It’s just something I’d like, yet can’t afford. I don’t think any comparison goes further than that, but cityboy916, having opined that he should be allowed to nick stuff that he doesn’t want to pay for, needed to throw up a smokescreen. Meanderings about subdivisible Ferraris, voluntary Ferrari designers etc. are, I quite agree, pretty pointless.
It’s all another astounding “what-if” attempt. Blalron has his destitute tetraplegic audiophiles with broadband, cityboy has his 1,000 song wishlist that he doesn’t think is worth the money, we’ve got phantom surcharges that may or may not exist levied by laws framed before consumer CD-writers existed, let alone Napster … let’s see … we’ve got avid previewers who delete everything they download, obscurists who simply can’t find anything without searching kazaa for “something extra pretentious” (I still don’t understand how this works), and let’s not forget the put-upon small guys, the bands who can only be benefiting from all the marvellous exposure that P2P gets them, never mind the fact that if they wanted to distribute their work for free there’s nothing to stop them and God knows how they actually get the money from filesharing and who in the bloody blue blazes has heard of a band make it huge off the back of P2P anyway, oh look coincidentally it seems to be after they sign a record deal instead … what else, what else … oh yes let’s not forget the communo-utopians (as it applies to music only, natch) who believe in some sort of kitty system whereby every producer of non-tangible work is reduced to the level of busker, subsisting on the generous donations of the absolutely vast pool of communally-minded leeches out there, or perhaps on the whim of rich patrons who presumably aren’t such cheap fucks as those who seem to think they deserve the right to bestow payment at their own convenience, and all of these arguments, all of them completely ignore in a comprehensive fingers-in-ears kind of way that someone producing work might deserve any semblance of ownership over that work, let alone the right to control the manner in which it is distributed because it’s different from actual material things in some mystic way, see - look! I can take it and nobody knows it’s gone and of course there’s no harm done because I wouldn’t have bought it anyway, modern music is rubbish and the labels are evil (how could I forget the labels) after all if there’s a bogeyman then it’s perfectly alright to give him the shaft even if they’re only evil for trying to stop people giving them the shaft (hurrah, recursion, sign of a great argument there) all of which means that it’s perfectly okay to download Britney’s Toxic Me Baby Hard One More Time I mean really she’s rich anyway.
Man, that feels better. It would be readable but the RIAA stole my full stops.
Pretty hard to steal something that is being given away for free ain’t it? I happen to be an artist who wants my work spread around, hence I have a website with mp3s to download, and could honestly care less if my music floats around p2p networks. If any other artist feels the same way, that’s fine with me, it’s their music, do whatever you want with it. There happen to be many artists that don’t want to give their music away for a variety of reasons, and this is where taking their music becomes a problem. Pretty simple eh?
DB, that last post of yours should be framed.
destitute tetraplegic audiophiles with broadband…
[sub]hehehe[/sub]
It wasn’t meant as a smokescreen, and my opinion is not necessarily that it should be free but rather that there need not be such a discrepancy between how much it costs to download legally vs. how much it costs to buy a tape and record it off the radio.
Fair enough, although I don’t think it’s a completely fair comparison since the taped radio version is likely to be sucky in a number of ways (censorship, poor quality and likely talked over by the DJ). Add to this the convenience of downloading over painstakingly taping 1,000 songs off the radio when you don’t know their broadcast times, and I think there’s an awful lot of extra value in a legal download that will inevitably be reflected in the price.
I agree with you to a point though; I think 99c for a track isn’t too bad, but then I live in the UK, and downloads here cost 99p at any of the legal services, which I do think is over the top (nearly $2 at present rates). However I do think this situation will rectify itself when the market gets more competitive; it’s only in the very early stages, and in Europe in particular there’s only one major player, OD2. The legal services aren’t everything they could be, yet, but I think they’ll get there. And if you haven’t already, you ought to check out emusic.com, where a $10 monthly subscription gets you 40 downloads from a pretty decent selection of music from non-mainstream labels. Oh, and the files are plain, DRM-free MP3s, which you can re-download to as many of your computers as you like.
No-one has music tastes so eclectic that you literally can’t hear anything without going online.
haha
find me some Silly Rabit, some Pleasure Elite, find me some Naked Funk and some Soulstice. Find me some Crystal Method for that matter, a band with imense popularity but you still cant hear them on radio/mtv
there is PLENTY of music that I listen to that I would never have heard without the net.
I have only one thing to ADD to this discussion.
why does the Riaa so blatently ignore the rise of Other sources of information on the net that have an impact on all media sales.
message boards where one bad review will save hundreds of people from paying for a crappy cd. chat rooms, web sites instant messaging all have an impact of the sale of the latest media released, if some artist that I kinda like puts out they new album and track 1 rocks I go to a site or 3 and find out if the rest of the album is good or if it blows ass. if it blows I am not spending a dime on it.
I just find it strange that the movie industry recognises the growing threat from the information to be found online about crappy films but the recording industy just pretends it doesnt even exist.
time to wake up, I woulndt pay full price for a shitty car with some nice rims but I might take the rims for the right price, why the hell should anyone expect me to pay full price for a shitty cd with only one good track? I realise that the option is currently not leagal but thats not my argument. if there were a leagal option people would jump all over it. (note the success of itunes)
as for exposure to new music and obscure music, my last 3 cd purchases are due to p2p and the power to listen before I buy. thanks to p2p 3 bands and 2 labels are now a little better off because I had the power to hear their obscure ass music without having to buy the album first. without p2p there is no way in hell I would own any of them, really who goes to the store buys a bunch of random cd’s and takes them home to find out if they are any good?.
my suggestion to the riaa is to drop your retarded lawsuits and spend your energies on something constructive like joining the 20th (yeah I know thats the last one) century. its past time for the recording industry to pull its head out of its ass and act like the internet actually exists as a possible source of new income instead of a threat to the industries very existance.
Dead Badger, that was a thing of beauty.
And let’s not forget the reasoning that all artists are so happy and driven to produce their creative works that they’ll work 20 hours at Wal Mart and hobble home over broken glass, only to crank out a masterpiece or two because their muse forces them to. They’ll do all this, only to return back to their dead end job at Wal Mart in the morning. And hey! It’s no problem, since creating the work is so enjoyable and easy and fun and something they’re gonna do anyway. So since they’re going to produce these masterpieces anyway, no matter what, why should they get paid for them? Hey! They should be honored that anyone else wants to listen to (or read, or look at) their work. Isn’t that honor enough for them? Why do they expect to get paid as well?
And if they don’t enjoy the work enough to give it away to a bunch of ungrateful leeches, but instead want to (shudder) charge money for it, then they are “whores” who are not real artists. (But of course, if they are whores and not real artists, then why do the leeches want their work to begin with? The mind boggles.)
And of course we also should be mindful that all artists owe society their work. That’s right! How dare they hoard their work! Once they’ve created it, they owe it to everyone else. And if anyone else gets a whiff of it, a listen to it, a view of it, then by all means, they should steal a copy in order to to “share” it with the world! Doesn’t matter how vehemently the artist doesn’t want the work to be shared. That is meaningless! Because as we all know, artists owe the world their work!
Didn’t y’all know that this is how it really works? 
That’s nice. And you subsequently bought all of these albums? Presumably if you bought these CDs at some point, you got them from a store. It’s a rare music store that doesn’t let you listen to CDs before you buy them. Incidentally, the Crystal Method have full preview tracks streaming from their website. Samples for several of the others are available on Amazon. And if you’re planning on picking me up on the semantics of “going online”, it really ought to be clear from the context that we’re talking about filesharing here.
What, like opening online music stores and suchlike? Gosh, the very idea of it! It’s quite amazing they haven’t thought of this!
ohhhh, so obscure. :rolleyes: I can find the CD in about a million places.
Can’t hear it anywhere else then online? Bullshit. First go listen to some samples at the link below, and then buy the fucking album or not buy it.
This is perfectly fine, I always research my music before I buy it, especially at today’s prices. I personally will take some advice, but I’ll listen to it and form my own opinion. YMMV
I don’t follow you here.
Let’s define what makes a shitty car. Breaks down more often then others? Costs more then others in it’s class? Bad safety record? Guzzles too much gas?
Going by the above things, we learn that it’s pretty easy to decide if a car is shitty or not.
Now how do we define what makes a piece of music shitty? We don’t because we can’t. To someone, else track 1 sucks and track 8 is the best on the album. You should realize that if you think 90%+ of the album completely sucks, perhaps you don’t like that artist and should buy something else.
Fuck that, if the record industry could make a nickel off of it, they would do it in a nanosecond. The fact that the industry hasn’t adopted it leads me to believe that (and we’re talking strictly from their financial perspective) it’s not the promised land for them. I can tell you from first hand knowledge that this is one of the most cutthroat greed driven industries, so don’t give me some lame “oh if they did this they’d make a bazillion dollars”. You think you’re smarter then them? Go start something then.
Ok so you buy 3 cds. Meanwhile back on the farm, 2 people that were thinking about buying those same cds decided to download them instead. That makes 6 CD not sold. 1 sale made because of downloading and 2 sales lost because of downloading.
The point is that I’ll wager more people are taking advantage of the system for bad then for good.
Nobody, but what does that have to do with anything. I hear something on TV or read about something in a mag, I go to Towerrecords or to the Artists site, listen to multiple clips to make sure there is more then one good song, and then go buy in the store.
All done legally.
I loathe the RIAA, yet if feel they are correct for defending the copyrights.
Well to be honest it is a threat to their industry, I could care less of course, because the results will be the same for the consumer, lots of fucking music to download.
The real problem is how to secure the music from piracy, which is pretty much impossible.