******* File Sharing = No Internet Service
- Thread starter member979979
- Start date
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
:1orglaugh
Nice job, RIAA. :hatsoff:
yes, how will the record industry ever survive if there is a medium where people can listen to music for free? oh wait, I guess the record companies seem to forget that people have been doing that for the last 70 years on something called the radio.
put the music out there for free on the internet, but make money off of advertising, you can play an ad after every song. and if people don't like it, then they can buy the non-commercial filled version on mp3 or cd (although getting rid of the cd's entirely might not be a bad idea). viola, easy solution that requires no effort and everyone wins.
put the music out there for free on the internet, but make money off of advertising, you can play an ad after every song. and if people don't like it, then they can buy the non-commercial filled version on mp3 or cd (although getting rid of the cd's entirely might not be a bad idea). viola, easy solution that requires no effort and everyone wins.
member979979
Closed Account
I just don't understand how we (the downloaders) are liable? Its like if a music store decided to give away free cds, is that our fault?
Why buy the milk when you can get the cow for free.
Why buy the milk when you can get the cow for free.
what the hell?
That's actually a grey legal area and its one of the reasons why the RIAA 1) has thus far primarily sued people who share music, not people who download it, and 2) is now dodging the law altogether by going directly to the ISP's.
Personally, I think its still better than litigation. The U.S. law on P2P sharing is cloudy and vague, but most ISP's have pretty clear expectations in their ToS. You agree to those terms when you sign up for their internet service, so its logical that you should lose your service when you ******* them. In other words, the new model has a punishment that better fits the crime.
People don't go to a music store to get free music, they go there to buy it. People sometimes use file-sharing programs to get music that normally costs money, for free. How can you not be liable in some way if you log onto a file-sharing program with the purpose of stealing files?
People with huge collections of illegally downloaded material are cheap scumbags.
I don't get how one can own sound. How is that even possible?
It sounds like something that will be a nightmare to enforce. It never takes long for somebody to figure out a way around that type of stuff anyway. Usually the bigger the pirate the more knowledgeable they are on how to circumvent things like that meaning they might still have to go after the old grandmother and young ****. Not to mention it won't always be easy to prove somebody downloaded something they shouldn't have without a good idea they might be doing it already.
If we are lucky they will just encourage people to go to ISP's that don't put themselves in the recording industry's pockets. Not that I necessarily condone downloading pirated things. Unless a law is unjust, unethical or sometimes immoral I don’t like to break it. However, I don't consider it stealing in the classical meaning of stealing, not anymore than somebody writing down and singing a tune they heard from somebody else while traveling from town to town a thousand years ago, but it is a technical breaking of the law even if intellectual property laws have gone too far in recent years. "Stealing" information and knowledge isn't the same as stealing an physical item. It's just a good thing music producers weren't as zealous when the radio was invented. They probably would have made playing songs on that ******* also.
If we are lucky they will just encourage people to go to ISP's that don't put themselves in the recording industry's pockets. Not that I necessarily condone downloading pirated things. Unless a law is unjust, unethical or sometimes immoral I don’t like to break it. However, I don't consider it stealing in the classical meaning of stealing, not anymore than somebody writing down and singing a tune they heard from somebody else while traveling from town to town a thousand years ago, but it is a technical breaking of the law even if intellectual property laws have gone too far in recent years. "Stealing" information and knowledge isn't the same as stealing an physical item. It's just a good thing music producers weren't as zealous when the radio was invented. They probably would have made playing songs on that ******* also.
It's a strange sort of theft because normally theft means depriving the owner of a possession but of course the owner still has ther song or movie etc that's been "stolen"
It can be argued that by illegally downloading stuff you are depriving the owner of the fee because you should be paying for it.This overlooks that many people download material they wouldn't bother with if they had to buy it.
If I was a copyright owner I would get most angry with people who UPloaded my material-I should be the only one who can do that.If I want to give my stuff away that's my business but it's nobody else's right.
By the way , radio stations have always paid royalties to copyright owners whenever a song was broadcast.
GabberMan
Closed Account
A conspiracy to make you buy buy buy?! Well, maybe. But then again there wouldn't be such a problem if the music industry hadn't applied such greedy prices to CDs since their introduction in the 80s.
CDs cost less to manufacture than vinyls and tapes but were still more expensive from the off. So is it any wonder people "share" music? It's not as if the artists themselves are really losing that massive wedge of royalties that the record companies hold on to so tightly. Wankers.
And it seems pretty obvious to me that record lables would go out of their way to upload rivals' material asap to stifle actual shop sales of their products. Wankers.
CDs cost less to manufacture than vinyls and tapes but were still more expensive from the off. So is it any wonder people "share" music? It's not as if the artists themselves are really losing that massive wedge of royalties that the record companies hold on to so tightly. Wankers.
And it seems pretty obvious to me that record lables would go out of their way to upload rivals' material asap to stifle actual shop sales of their products. Wankers.
yes, think about. It costs virtually nothing to produce a Cd. It's just a little plastic disc. In terms of actual manufacturing it probably comes out to less than 50 cents each, and it's free to imprint the information on it. And if you get rid of the plastic and just transfer the digital data directly to and from hardware source, then it's just free.
The only real cost is the technology required in recording and editing the actual music, but that can be done increasingly cheaper with advancements in technology and software.
So the only real cost, and by that I mean imaginary, are the absurd salary demands of all the people involved with the project.
that's why capitalism is so stupid because value isn't based on the objective utility of an object, but on purely subjective motives that have no connection to anything in reality.
The only real cost is the technology required in recording and editing the actual music, but that can be done increasingly cheaper with advancements in technology and software.
So the only real cost, and by that I mean imaginary, are the absurd salary demands of all the people involved with the project.
that's why capitalism is so stupid because value isn't based on the objective utility of an object, but on purely subjective motives that have no connection to anything in reality.
