Slashdot Mirror
Napster's Learning Curve
Chabil Ha' writes "CNET News is reporting on Napter's learning curve. There are some interesting revelations about their dealings with the music industry." From the article: "We made one last effort to convince the labels that they should do a deal with us. A little-known underground product called Gnutella had just surfaced. It was a P2P file-sharing program that required no central server and no company to operate it. If the labels didn't do a deal with us, and instead put us out of business, then Gnutella and its derivatives would become unstoppable. If we worked together now we could convert the market to a paid-subscription model. If we didn't do a deal, chaos would ensue. The labels didn't believe us and didn't really understand what this Gnutella threat was."
How many justifications of piracy will be posted?
And now we have BitTorrent! It doesn't really matter what the labels do, P2P won't go away.
and fully support locking up digital media in order to control what customers can do with their media after they have "bought" the product they sell
seems like they want to "rent" music under the guise of "buying"
perhaps truth in advertising would have something to say
anyway Napster is just a "brand" when really they are just a re-seller of Microsoft DRM products
Wow RIAA finally made a very stupid decision(big surpise) not supporting Napster, because of this I really think they put themselves in a really bad posistion. People would actually use napster as a subscription for downloading music, pay per song no way. Gnutella needs no subscription or payment per song, people are going to use it if the RIAA/Napster agreement comes about, granted some will still use it after that, but RIAA wil still regain a holding on the music industry and lower the amount of pirating drastically.
NO~, I read Slashdot because I think it's stupid.....
The record industry still hasnt rapped its arms around paid download services...try finding one paid service that has ALL of the music companies collections. I dont mind PAYING for the songs if I can actually find them.
The right service would be one that has all the music companies collections and has a mix of paid and free song files.
Please stop APK.. you're only hurting yourself.
Down with the RIAA
Ok, the story is interesting and all, but did they really think that they'd change the way that a monopoly does business? It would be like getting them to admit that they're on a sinking ship, and that just ain't going to happen. But this is also why I'm such a big believer in free market economics. About time somebody thinks they own the customer, somebody else will out-hussle them and provide better service at a lower price. Regardless of the lawsuits and the piracy and all of the ugliness that currently surrounds the music/video industry, eventually it will all settle down and we'll all forget that this ever happened. A blip in history, I say...
If you don't want crime to pay, let the government run it.
Digital downloads could be much more profitable than CDs.
Really? More profitable? This wouldn't have to do with the fact that digitally distributed music being more expensive than tranditional optical media. With individual songs at $0.99 and rising, you'd have to be an RIAA executive to think that it wasn't protifable enough as it is.
This slashdot-related signature is a stub. You can help kihjin by expanding it.
Wow, the Napster creaters take a lot of blame for this, and I agree they are partly at fault with the failure of Napster. The part I do not agree with is them taking all the blame.
The RIAA had a chance to cut a deal with Napster and look ahead to what millions of users already knew about the future of aquiring music, but they decided to sue instead. They had a chance to grab the online industry just as it was starting, but instead took the wrong route and now look at them... Sueing anyone and everyone because they still haven't figured out that they can sell MP3's for cheaper than CD's and turn a BIGGER profit.
Well the recording-industry is, and has been suffering from a frog-in-the-well syndrome for a long time. Instead of trying to figure out disruptive technology, and how they can adapt/enhance their business model, they try to threaten it or squash it out of existence.
Like the article said, the RIAA's biggest mistake was trying to "cure" the symptoms and not the cause(s). So they went after Napster, but they failed to (to use a cliche) see which way the wind was blowing. They should have seen what was coming with napster - how P2P would be a major force to reckon with. Instead of seeing how they could use P2P to their advantage, they decided they wanted to crush it altogether.
How successful have they been at treating the symptoms? Now what exactly are the causes? Firstly I think it's the completely shitty kind of music that they churn out - the factory made, cookie-cutter style crap. I understand the whole deal about trying to make money for their shareholders, but seriously - a lot of the music is crap (which is why I try to support local bands and listen to indie stuff). A CD may have 1 or 2 good songs, but then you have to buy all the other 10 songs that come with it, and that you may not like as much. Clearly this wasn't good enough for them, because they want you to buy it all.
I wonder how different the entire scene would have been if they RIAA had seen the changes happening and adopted a model that we see today - where they can charge per song.
But like I said... frog in the well.
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net
I like
Trying to kill off P2P is like squeezing a blob of jelly, it just pours out between your fingers and reassembles after a while...
Understand who your customer is, what problems you need to solve, and how much they are willing to pay for it.
Ohhh! But No! The way the RIAA works now is:
Have your customers understand you, what problems (ooh!! P2P!! PIRACY!!) you need to have them solve for you, and how much you can make pay for it
From what I've seen, the RIAA hasn't been about understanding their customers. At all.
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net
I like
Napster was clearly the pioneer in the music download business.
And they clearly forgot the old saying:
"How do you identify the pioneers? They are the ones with arrows in their backs!"
What you meant to say, was:
The more you tighten your definition of Fair Use, the more content will slip through your fingers.
(Leia to Vader)
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
> If we didn't do a deal, chaos would ensue.
I believe that chaos would have ensued anyway.
A RIAA-sanctioned version Napster would have had SOME kind of encumberance for the user. (Such as limited selection, low bitrate, monthly fee, non-MP3 format, DRM, or some other bothersome detail.)
We subsequently found out that P2P is awesome for distributing large F/OSS binaries, such as Live CDs and so forth. Therefore, something like BitTorrent would have had to been developed anyway.
After that, it would have been inevitable that people would start using P2P to bypass the bothersome restrictions of Napster.
Yeah, that would work with what? a three-person internet startup talking to some guy in a music company? I mean I wouldn't hire any one who came in preaching doom and destruction if I didn't buy into his act. More often than not you'll be right. So when you're wrong and it becomes a huge problem, what do you do, just say "yes" to ever huckester that comes along?
of course, that SCO is just about the furthest thing from a monopoly as you can get...
Why did the Egyptians takes years to do what we can do to in a week?
The market was more fresh at the time; iTunes was not a great new way of doing things when it came out in the same way that Napster was. Napster was definitely not the first way for someone to acquire music using the internet, but it was the first one that was really big. There was no example to follow at that point.
Let's see -- I can:
1) Buy music from itunes. It will be in a format that only Apple players can play, will have digital restrictions, and will be at lower bitrate then some competitors. It will cost the nearly the same as the full CD if I buy the album ($14 at Walmart vs $10 on itunes).
2) Buy music from other server. It will be in a format that can play on many players, but not on the popular Apple players. It will have digital restrictions. Quality may be greater then the Apple offering (depending on the store.) It will cost the nearly the same as the full CD if I buy the album ($14 at Walmart vs $10 online).
3) Buy music on CD. I get great quality at a slightly higher cost, but I have to buy all the songs on a CD. I also have to travel to the store instead of sitting at home (or work). I do get artwork and physical media, but have no backup unless I make my own. Increasingly, I may be faced with attempts to block me from making a backup or traveling copy.
4) Buy the music from a Russian site. Incredibly low price, selection of different bitrates. Artists probably won't be paid, but the RIAA won't either. Won't be sued by RIAA for illegally downloading. Morally not quite as "right" as other options.
5) Download the music for FREE through kazaa / etc. Quality ranges, but I will likely have to hunt for a real copy of popular songs. I risk being sued by the RIAA. Morally, one of the least "right" choices.
6) Steal the CD from a store. All the benefits of a CD without the cost. Unless you get caught. Still, you will may very well be penalized less if you get caught then if you had downloaded the song from kazaa. Morally a "wrong" choice.
7) Make a copy from a friend. Quality ranges depending on your friends original source, but it's free and may be legal under home taping laws. Morally questionable.
Of course, the RIAA isn't interested in choices. They're only interested in money and that's why this article is interesting. As far as I know it's not even a dupe! +1 intersting for Slashdot!
Given the history of the RIAA and the major labels, it's mind boggling to me that Napster would think there was any chance at all of striking a deal, despite the looming Gnutella threat. As far as the industry was concerned, Napster was the devil incarnate. Remember, this is an industry that thinks nothing of criminalizing its customers by adopting overly restrictive DRM. It has fought and continues to fight the customer's legitimate fair use rights. To expect them to wrap their puny brains around the notion that they could actually profit by embracing Napster is ludicrous.
Has anyone ever heard that Hindsite is 20/20? Meaning you can look back and see clearly and exactly what you should or shouldn't have done. This sounds like a story of sour grapes! Napster or Shawn Fannigan? whatever the kid's name was is trying to rub this in the Music Industry's face. "See!? If we'd have done a deal then pirating wouldn't be there, Gnutella would never have take off like it has, and all of your music would be safe!" See! If you'd have listened to us, everything would be just fine. I call BULLSHIT!
I for one enjoy listening to my music before I buy it. I liked the radio, but how many of you have been burned and bought a CD/Tape/Record/etc after hearing only one track on the radio only to find out that the rest of the album is pure shit. I like to be able to download the "WHOLE" damn album and listen. Then if I like it, I go buy the CD/Tape/Record/etc, if I don't I certainly don't keep it cause it sucks! Only thing wasted is some time and temporary disk drive space, not my hard earned cash. This whole music situation is stupid.
Rant Over.
Generation Trance: What generation are you?
Does this sound like extrotion to anyone else?
The link to TFA managed to open 2 new Firefox windows, after which it crashed our all beloved browser. Which seems odd, because I use privoxy (through Tor), as well as Adblock Plus (never hurts to have layered security). Seems like CNET has found a way around those (usually) useful, might I say invaluable tools.
(Yes, of course I had to disable Tor temporarily to post this. Which is a major PITA too, BTW, although I can see the reasoning for that, somewhat, somewhere)
Why did the Egyptians takes years to do what we can do to in a week?
So basically you are saying that you can build the Giza pyramid in about a week? Interesting, someone please nominate this guy for the next X-Prize.
It's hardly a surprise that a Napster insider would have a somewhat self serving perspective on what went wrong.
Other observers might very well conclude, e.g. from books like All The Rave that Napster was not a trustworthy (or even a competent) partner for a deal.
Furthermore, today there are all sorts of legal models for online music (subscription, per-song, whatever), and it hasn't exactly stopped piracy networks.
What is that, some oblique reference to goatse.cx?
while (true) {
These two guys named Pete and Repeat were out on a boat fishing,
Pete fell out of the boat.
Who's left inside the boat?
}
I know it's a bit offtopic, but I just had to comment on Napster's new TV ad.
It starts off with a spooky-I-want-something-from-you "Hello friend" and gets darker from there. I actually change the channel when it comes on.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
2. fig. The appropriation and reproduction of an invention or work of another for one's own profit, without authority; infringement of the rights conferred by a patent or copyright.
1771 LUCKOMBE Hist. Print. 76 They..would suffer by this act of piracy, since it was likely to prove a very bad edition. 1808 Med. Jrnl. XIX. 520 He is charged with 'Literary Piracy', and an 'unprincipled suppression of the source from whence he drew his information'. 1855 BREWSTER Newton I. iv. 71 With the view of securing his invention of the telescope from foreign piracy.
Perhaps it's time to accept the fact that language is constantly evolving and embrace this usage of the word piracy which has enjoyed popular use for over 200 years now.
I'm such a big believer in free market economics...
o nopoly/monopoly_profits.htm
See
http://www.tutor2u.net/economics/content/topics/m
For a nice explanation of monopolies. You can also look up oligopolies.
The sad news is there is no such thing as a perpetually competitive market. The tendency is for one firm to use any means necessary to maintain a dominant position. Therefore, there is no "upstart" no small company out gunning the big behemoth. Small company too big? Crush them. Period. Example, phone companies, Microsoft, etc.
It has been observed in history that capitalism tends to create two social classes, one very small minority dominating the other in every sense of the word. Some societies have made laws that supress these tendencies and redistributes wealth. But labor and environmental laws, sewers, building codes all are the antithesis of capitalism. They do nothing but raise the cost of goods and services.
Please do not resort to quickie-mart capitalism. I urge you to get a better grasp of *both* sides of the subject.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
When you're challenging a big business model like the MPAA or RIAA...
:)
Ignorance is bliss for all parties involved.
Now that Napster came and rocked the boat (can't blame them, though, there was money to be made...) ALL digital downloading of media is being eyed very suspiciously by all sides. Is it legal, illegal?
Can it be made into paid content? Should we allow X resolution based video out versus X-1?
Soon we'll all have to pay for that pr0n we download, and the Britney Spears comeback album (Oops, I Ran Out of Welfare Again!) will require authentication everytime we open iTunes.
Which is why we all need to start refering to the act of making and supporting 100 year copyrights as "Child Molestation". That way, in 200 years, our decendents can find 200 year old references to our copyrights system that legitimizes calling RIAA type organizations "Child Molesters". I don't say this tounge in cheek. If someone using an unfair comparison a very long time ago legitimizes its use in our language. (which is not totally unreasonable) Then we must keep in mind that someone must coin the term. So, I hereby coin the term "Child Molester" to refer to companies that rape our inner child by abusing copyright/patant/trademark systems.
Record Companies are going to be irrelevant in the years to come. Bands are going to start selling their own music over the internet. Why get pennies on the dollar when you can get the whole dollar? Sell your songs for 99 cents online. Pay your $20 hosting fee. Sell millions.
The above is not worth reading.
#7 is morally questionable? Sounds like the RIAA and MPAA are making the impression they've been wanting to make. That people would even consider two highschool buddies going home and making a copy of one's album for the other to use as being "morallyh questionable" is very sad. We might as well not even have a fair use / home copying law.
You forgot:
3b) Order a CD online. If you look around for a bit, you'll probably get it for less than what you'd pay in a store (although that may be offset by shipping costs); you don't have to get up from your comfy chair to buy it, and if you buy it used on eBay or so, chances are that it'll be even cheaper - and also, the RIAA won't get a share of this particular sale (they already did when the original owner bought it), so you also can feel comfortable that you're not supporting them financially.
Also, with regard to 7), whether it's morally questionable or not depends on where you're from. In many places, you pay extra fees whenever you buy a disc or a blank CD-R, supposed to compensate copyright holders for the losses from private copying, but in those cases, it's not morally questionable anymore - they are getting compensated, and that fact actually gives you a (moral, if not legal) right to copy CDs from your friends, too. So, if you know someone in Canada, for example, why not ask them to mail copies of their CDs to you? They already paid for the right to do that, so it should be safe both legally and morally.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
4) Buy from Russian site... Artists probably won't get paid.
I think they'll get paid, just at a much lower rate (an order of magnitude less). At least, I believe this to be true of allofmp3.com. The biggest problems with this option are: quality (improving) and selection (improving very, very slowly).
There were many companies that wanted to sell music the way ITMS does, I remember going to a party in SF with about 10 different companies - including Napster - all wanting to sell music online. Of course, the record business didn't budge and all these companies bit the dust. Napster of course was a latecomer it started out in not so legal forma and tried to become legal, so it's understandable that perhaps the record business didn't want to deal with them, but there were many other companies who didn't have the legal baggage who were stonewalled by the record business.
Which is why it pisses me off immensely that people described ITMS as 'innovative' when it appeared, elsewhere taleneted developers had innovated and built all the technology several times over.
... it's more than just all the p0rn you can eat..
usenet has most of the benefits of p2p, with none of the legal hassles (with the right provider), especially if all you do is lurk and download.
It is morally questionable. If that highschool kid likes his buddy's album that much, he really ought to pay the asking price for it. That's the morally right thing to do - compensate the creator for the time and effort spent creating it.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
We might as well not even have a fair use / home copying law.
Fair use is a consumer right. Consumers can choose to waive this in exchange for the convenience of on-line downloading. Consumers have already demonstrated an openness towards licensing restictions and digital rights management in exchange for access to entertainment content. It is the end-user and not the RIAA/MPAA that is driving this change in attitude.
...use tunebite after downloading their locked .wma music and automagically convert it into unlocked .mp3 (or .ogg , or .wma) music and do with it as they wish. all perfectly legit, bought and paid for.
-dk
Dream with the feathers of angels stuffed beneath your head.
I think I missed that part of the law. Where in the home recording / fair use act does it state that "if you really really like it lots and lots" comes into it?
The simple fact is, sharing music is not the same as piracy. Copying some songs for and from friends is not the same as running a major bootleg operation where I duplicate movies and albums and repackage them and sell them for a profit as a business.
I'm pretty sure a good three generations of kids (and adults for that matter) had no problem copying albums for each other and it was never breaking the law and nobody ever felt there was some moral dilemma there.
So by your logic, if someone really really liked a book they read at the library, they are MORALLY OBLIGATED to send the $50 to the author as just-compensation?
It's like a bank robber telling the banks, "Instead of me continuing to rip you off, let's work together! Don't worry about other bank robbers, I'm the most successful one so the others will go away!"
Also, the way Fanning describes how Napster would provide a great outlet for new artists seems completely contrary to how people used Napster. I never fired up Napster and entered a search for "new rap music" or whatever, I searched for specific songs and artists, or even specific misspellings of songs and artists (after RIAA started watching.)
His revisionist history was not quite complete, let me fill in the rest:
"Napster started out as a free download tool for college students [to illegally download music.] Later the goal was to make it a real business in partnership with the record labels, [after it became evident that we would be shut down with our current model.]"
I don't have any problems with Napster or Shawn Fanning, but he sounds like a drug lord attempting to euphemize his trade by describing his drugs as "product". I guess he must be trying to get VC money for a new legitimate venture.
Which is why he comes across as so business-like and full of big ideas and new paradigms. I should have know it wasn't Fanning...
> Never start a business focused on solving a big company's problem. They don't know they have a problem...and they are probably right.
Really dumb article - a string of obviously failed business strategies is all it is. In what way did Napster hope to move from a free music model to one in which customers would pay? I still can't see the advantage of something like iTunes considering the very poor quality of files being sold.
I do see the advantage of buying CDs and ripping them for myself. I also see the advantage of downloading free songs I probably wouldn't have paid for to begin with via P2P networks, so thanks Napster.
Copyright laws make no sense any longer. That's a well plowed subject here.
allofmp3 is most likely run by the Russian mob. Even if they claim they pay loyalties, it can't be true because they couldn't possibly have all those contracts with the big record companies.
The truth is they found a loophole in Russian copyright laws (last time I checked it's well described on their site, in not too nasty terms of course), and are exploiting the hell out of it. Besides Russia is a pirate heaven anyway, where copyright laws basically go unenforced, like in all Asian countries but Japan.
AFAIK just because it's legal in Russia doesn't make it legal here. And even if I'm wrong, allofmp3 is basically pay-for-piracy, which is ethically worse than just p2p.
You forgot the service that Napster (as well as some others, like Yahoo) provide, which is funny because the article is about Napster.
Pay a flat price per month (ranges from $5-$15 depending on the service and what they offer), and you can download and listen to as much music as you want. The higher cost services even allow you to put all the music on your mp3 player (as long as it supports DRM'd WMVs).
You can't burn to CD unless you pay $.99 per song, and a low percentage of music is buy-only, but for the most part it's a pretty good deal. If only Napster would increase their selection of soundtracks and rare (less popular) music.
"Don't believe anything you read on the net. Except this. Well, including this, I suppose." --Douglas Adams
He was Grand Moff Tarkin. Still, +1 Geeky for you!
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
If you made a copy of it, then yeah.
> 3) Buy music on CD. I get great quality at a slightly higher cost, but I have to buy all the songs on a CD. I also have to travel to the store instead of sitting at home (or work). I do get artwork and physical media, but have no backup unless I make my own. Increasingly, I may be faced with attempts to block me from making a backup or traveling copy.
Wow. 10/2005, and you've never heard of AMAZON?
no taxation without representation!
What is the difference? I've enjoyed the content either way - without paying. And it's not like I'm going to kick back and re-read the same frigging book every weekend.
8) Buy the CD used for $8
I recently heard about this music streaming service. The idea behind the project a plun-in (Open source) for your favourite music player collects song names of what you are actually playing. These get uploaded onto your own musical profile page. This page shows stats and gives you general idea of your musical tastes.
You can create tags (ala flickr, gmail etc.) for your songs, artists, and albums. These tags are cool because you can see what everyone else has tagged and then stream music from the globally tagged data.
From your data, the system generates musical "neighbours". Last.fm provides neighbour radio that plays songs that your neighbours have listened to but you haven't.
Speaking of data, the stats collected is published with a creative commons licence. This is accessed via a bunch of web services.
For the control freaks not content to let someone eles dictate their songs selection, the artist pages are browsable and linked by similar artists (also generated from user data).
There's more features, but I think this is the kind of stuff (music listening) slashdotters would be interested in. Obviously I'm a fan on this service.. I just found out about them a couple months ago. If anyone has reccommendations for alternative services, I have an open mind.
And it's not like I'm going to kick back and re-read the same frigging book every weekend.
In which case it is as really bad analogy for music and this whole thread is pointless.
I know, I know, "I must be new here"
Finkployd
It's royalties not loyalties.
And it's fringe benefits not french benefits.
Congratulations, you just made undermined your own argument and now no one will ever take you seriously.
I wish you worked for me so I could fire you.
1) Buy directly from the artist at a show. I've been doing this more and more lately, but I live in Toronto and there's no shortage of excellent live music.
2) Download directly from the artists website. This is still a fairly new option. The Offspring and Rage Against The Machine are both on the right track, buyt not quite there. Harvey Danger, on the other hadn, have it figured out. I've never listened to them much before, but I downloaded the new album (after sending them a donation, I want them to succeed in their attempt to bypass the labels!) and I love it!
Mind you, neither of these options will score you the latest-greatest Ricky Martin or Britney Spears albums, but I suppose it's a resonable sacrifice :P
Never eat more than you can lift -- Miss Piggy
And I think you just gave me a new term for downloading copyrighted material.
"No, I never pirate music. I *Privateer* it!"
A blog about stuff.
You got me on the "loyalties", but I never said anything about benefits.
Anyway you're just a fucking AC, so you're not in a very good position to speak about being taken seriously.
http://www.archive.org/audio/etree.php
The royalties that people pay for the sale of music are fixed by ASCAP. The reason allofmp3 can charge so little is that with the exchange rate of the crappy Russian currency that rate is cheap for us (paying in US$ converted to whatever their currency is called).
Does the Russian mob run allofmp3.com? I doubt it. If they are, then they have a credible puppet.
I've bought quite a few "CDs" from allofmp3.com. Very few of them I'd have bought at the going rate (US$15, or there abouts). I think the point the original poster (that we're all replying to) was making is that the music industry is their own worst enemy. If I could by an album for US$5, I wouldn't use allofmp3.com (except for really questionable purhases that I didn't think was even worth US$5).
It is morally questionable.
no, no, It's not. Sharing information is not 'morally questionable.' if 'makign a dub' is morally questionable then 'borrowing ait for a week' is a morally questionable. if 'borrowing for a week' is morally questionable then playing it over speakers, in a non sound proof room, while people other than the 'purchaser' are present is 'morally questionable' i'm afraid not. Sharing information is not a morally questionable act. Quite clearly the information was being shared BECAUSE that Is what ONE DOES with information.
however, a person who only 'obtains' information without ever comensating anyone Is morally questionable. The process of sharing the information is not, it is the complete disreguard for recompensation that is in fact morally questionable. the fact that the information was shared is not the problem, the probme is that joe luser who obtained his information via data sharing refused to 'ever' monitarily recompensate anyone involved in marketing or producing of making that information available. But say you know this Joe Luser personally, and you know that he Is not such a morally objectional guy, but that he rather prefers to support artist by Going To Concerts. so Knowing that he's recompnosating artists, you Share Information with him, in the hopes that he will someday go to a concert by the 'band' whom you 'shared' the cd of with joe. the logic is a bit 'optimistic, and slightly dubious, but not so morally objectionable as say, knowing for a fact that Joe is a Selfish bastard who could care less, and just wants something for nothing, and will only ever spend his money benefiting himself maximally and other people to the very least possible.
But then every joe luser who chooses to shop at wal-mart instead of some other store with a slightly 'better' track record is guilty of that, so if you're gonna make that a 'morally objectional' crime you're going to have to shut down one hell of a lot of wal-marts.
didn't think of that did you?
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
8)Buy CD used at Amazon.com (they offer used from 3rd parties alongside with new in the same listing) or other place.
Much of the time, price lower than ITunes even with shipping. Great selection and variety, even on CDs released maybe a month ago. Superior bitrate. RIAA doesn't get money AGAIN. Completely legal and ethical. CD can be converted easily to any other format to play on any digital players, including Apple's. Don't have to go to store and waste gas.
Downside: Waiting a few days for it to get there.
The music industry has had it their way for so long that they simply can not grasp the concept of sharing the piece of the pie, even if it's a huge ass pie. They want it all.
To put it simply for the record executes (who are too stupid to understand basic math): you can have all of this lovely McDonalds hot apple pie (contents may be hot), or you can have half of this full-sized, deep-dish apple pie.
The record executives will, of course, take the McDonalds pie and sue the bakery out of existence.
-- Will program for bandwidth
ough... creator is sooo doublespeek, did't you mean right holding corporation? Oh I remember, the RIAA said "let's say crator instead"
But... the future refused to change.
Number six isn't morally wrong if you're stealing from WalMart! ;)
Questionable means that some people will find it wrong and others will be absolutely ok with it.
I'm not making a judgement call, just noting that to some people, copying a CD from a friend feels wrong even though as far as I can tell (IANAL!) it is perfectly legal.
If that is all it was we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. However, it is a bit different when you have some 10,000 "friends" you don't know (BT), and you're redistributing someone's else's work to them for free. Sorry, but to my mind the later behaviour stretches the "fair" in fair use.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Hell the following Google search's first result about piracy is the 5th (notice all I did to avoid that...): http://www.google.com/search?num=30&q=piracy+-soft ware+-music+-mpaa+-electronic+-intellectual+-inter net
Piracy is not only hard to justify, it's also hard to find information on it and hardly ever happens anymore.
Hmmm, maybe that's why they came out with the video iPod. Now they can say that all that HD is used for showing home video to their grandparents.
"That's so plausible, I can't believe it!" - Leela
We might as well not even have a fair use / home copying law.
There is no "home copying law" in the US, nor in most of the rest of the world.
My Journal
I think I missed that part of the law.
When did legal and moral start to mean that same thing? Things can be legal and immoral or illegal and moral
Lets just not get into the shady and disputable realm of "potential revenue", shall we?
My last sig was ridiculed
Have you guys seen that sp00ky ass TV commerical? Man, I would be scared to let my son see that (its just up there with the one on the west coast that starts out something like 'You dont want your penis to fall off', for a STD commerical.
I'm not that AC, but I thought I should point something out:
Anyway you're just a fucking AC, so you're not in a very good position to speak about being taken seriously.
You may attack him in place of his argument but his argument still stands as unchallenged.
BTW, he and I may be posting pseudo-anonymously but you're pseudo-anonymous "IntergalacticWalrus," so if it were true that we're not to be taken seriously merely because of pseudo-anonymity then you're not in a very good position to speak about being taken seriously either. That's a double edged sword you're swinging there -- don't cut yourself.
1) Buy music from itunes. It will be in a format that only Apple players can play
- Not really. You can download from iTunes, burn an mp3 cd, then download from that cd to any mp3 player.
3) Buy music on CD. I get great quality at a slightly higher cost, but I have to buy all the songs on a CD. I also have to travel to the store instead of sitting at home (or work).
- Just about any CD from Amazon.com is also available used, usually for under $10 including shipping. I've had excellent experience with that, and you don't have to "travel".