After checking on the law I guess it is in fact a percentage on both the hardware an the media, however due to the increase in ratio of units sold it does not invalidate my point.
Well the barriers to piracy may have been a lot higher in 1992 but we have to take into account the full picture. First of all the short-sightedness of the RIAA is their own fault. That is of course only if we assume your argument is true. But the full picture reveals that while the barriers were a lot higher to priacy then, it also gives the direct conclusion that less blank media was sold then. Thus as the cost of copying came more into the consumer realm and (assuming) more piracy was taking place, the record companies were ALSO getting far more revenue from their tariffs on the media. Look at the blanks per burner ratio. In 1992, the cost of blanks to the cost of burners ratio was much higer than today. People who had burners then bought blanks one at a time and were out 30+ dollars for each bad burn. Now people buy blanks 50 or 100 at a time and they cost just cents each. The RIAA gets ther cut regardless of how much they sell for. (I believe it is a flat amount and not a percentage per disc) So it seems that NOW they are raking in far more from the HARA tariffs than they were in in 1992.
I think this congressman is a diamond in the rough though. He seems to be the only one who has a clue about anything having to do with the internet/digital world and the rights that should be associated with it.
If something like this ever passed I would open a "freelance" Microsoft license compliance service. I could legally hack (if you can even call it hacking anymore when it comes to MS) into anyones Microsoft box to "verify" that their box was properly licensed. If I caused any damage, oops, I'm absolved of damage because I am trying to stop piracy. And god forbid someone was running an unlicensed version of windows, I guess I'd just have to delete their OS. Hey, come to think of it, this would really help opensource...we just have to pit MS vs. the RIAA to stop this.
I got a trial 3 issue trial subsciprtion to this magazine. Unfortunately, though it was a great Linux mag, at the 7.99 cover price for about 1/4-1/3 the thickness of a wired issue, the price was riddiculous. I didn't continue it because it was just too expensive.
Well once again it looks like more rights are to be taken away from us because the corporations (i.e. THE RICH) do not have enough money already and are scared that we might record something off of a service we pay for anyway (i.e. Digital Cable/Satellite) and take more money from them. It looks like the MPAA is trying to stop something like napster for TV shows before it starts. God forbid we should be able to watch a program more than once, or even at a..(oh my god!) DIFFERENT TIME! Imagine, employers having to schedule work around TV shows because we could not record todays episode of Bill Nye the Science Guy. Church would be in the offseason during football season. Ok, this is all ridiculous and radical but why is it different now than when VCR manufacturers were origianlly taken to court over VCRs? Because it is digital? Because now there is no degradation when we record? It hardly sounds like that would make or break a case. But the real issue is that both the RIAA and MPAA want to change everything they deal in (music, TV, Movies, etc.) to a license and not a purchase. This will get them out of their long time battle with fair use. If it is licenced you can only use it by the terms of the license, not however you want. It is starting now and if nothing is done about it not only are we going to have to license every form of entertainment, but give up our privacy by entering into a license where the MPAA and RIAA will know everything each of us has licensed. This looks pretty scary to me and things are just getting started..... Big Brother is not only the government, but also the corporations who own it.
Slashdot Mirror
After checking on the law I guess it is in fact a percentage on both the hardware an the media, however due to the increase in ratio of units sold it does not invalidate my point.
Well the barriers to piracy may have been a lot higher in 1992 but we have to take into account the full picture. First of all the short-sightedness of the RIAA is their own fault. That is of course only if we assume your argument is true. But the full picture reveals that while the barriers were a lot higher to priacy then, it also gives the direct conclusion that less blank media was sold then. Thus as the cost of copying came more into the consumer realm and (assuming) more piracy was taking place, the record companies were ALSO getting far more revenue from their tariffs on the media. Look at the blanks per burner ratio. In 1992, the cost of blanks to the cost of burners ratio was much higer than today. People who had burners then bought blanks one at a time and were out 30+ dollars for each bad burn. Now people buy blanks 50 or 100 at a time and they cost just cents each. The RIAA gets ther cut regardless of how much they sell for. (I believe it is a flat amount and not a percentage per disc) So it seems that NOW they are raking in far more from the HARA tariffs than they were in in 1992.
I think this congressman is a diamond in the rough though. He seems to be the only one who has a clue about anything having to do with the internet/digital world and the rights that should be associated with it.
...Or by the fact that the economy overall has sucked ass for the past year. I think nearly every business has had their worst year in a decade...
If something like this ever passed I would open a "freelance" Microsoft license compliance service. I could legally hack (if you can even call it hacking anymore when it comes to MS) into anyones Microsoft box to "verify" that their box was properly licensed. If I caused any damage, oops, I'm absolved of damage because I am trying to stop piracy. And god forbid someone was running an unlicensed version of windows, I guess I'd just have to delete their OS. Hey, come to think of it, this would really help opensource...we just have to pit MS vs. the RIAA to stop this.
I got a trial 3 issue trial subsciprtion to this magazine. Unfortunately, though it was a great Linux mag, at the 7.99 cover price for about 1/4-1/3 the thickness of a wired issue, the price was riddiculous. I didn't continue it because it was just too expensive.
Well once again it looks like more rights are to be taken away from us because the corporations (i.e. THE RICH) do not have enough money already and are scared that we might record something off of a service we pay for anyway (i.e. Digital Cable/Satellite) and take more money from them. It looks like the MPAA is trying to stop something like napster for TV shows before it starts. God forbid we should be able to watch a program more than once, or even at a..(oh my god!) DIFFERENT TIME! Imagine, employers having to schedule work around TV shows because we could not record todays episode of Bill Nye the Science Guy. Church would be in the offseason during football season. Ok, this is all ridiculous and radical but why is it different now than when VCR manufacturers were origianlly taken to court over VCRs? Because it is digital? Because now there is no degradation when we record? It hardly sounds like that would make or break a case. But the real issue is that both the RIAA and MPAA want to change everything they deal in (music, TV, Movies, etc.) to a license and not a purchase. This will get them out of their long time battle with fair use. If it is licenced you can only use it by the terms of the license, not however you want. It is starting now and if nothing is done about it not only are we going to have to license every form of entertainment, but give up our privacy by entering into a license where the MPAA and RIAA will know everything each of us has licensed. This looks pretty scary to me and things are just getting started..... Big Brother is not only the government, but also the corporations who own it.
-- Legalize Freedom