RIAA demands the impossible
on
Napster Wars
·
· Score: 1
How can Napster possibly remove all copyrighted material from their service? They don't own the files that are being traded. The files aren't stored in their machines. At best, they could intercept the copyrighted material as it flows between users, but that only prevents it from spreading further. The RIAA had better face facts...times have changed. This is somewhat like the musicians union. They used to be a powerful lobby. But with the advent of high quality sound recording, demand for live bands has plummetted. As the popularity of Napster grows, the demand for CDs and tapes will also fall. Stop beating a dead horse and find a way to profit from the MP3 revolution!
Who are you? Where are we going? And what's with the handbasket?
The other thing to consider here is THEIR trustworthiness. Do you really know this website? I think they are forgetting one of the inherent traits of any business model. There is always a risk involved. You CANNOT completely eliminate risk from a business transaction. If they aren't willing to do business with you on your terms or at least terms you find agreeable, screw'em. Who are you? Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
Like it or not folks, privacy is on its way out. The best we can do is disable cookies and use throw away email addresses, because, let's face it, this planet works on one principle: Money talks. Doubleclick and their ilk are not interested in you as a person. To them you are a walking dollar/yen/rupee/whatever sign attached to a certain set of "demographics". They want to sell somebody else the space in front of your eyeballs. And as much as we cry and whine and vent, we can't stop it. Look at television.
1)Public Television Cost: Free Ads:Almost None Content: Some good, mostly crappy Viewership: Pretty Low
2)Network Television. Cost: Free Ads: Lots and lots, broadley targetd Content: Better than PBS, sorta Viewership: HIGH 2) Cable Cost: A little Ads: Lots, more narrowly targeted Content: Better than Network Viewship: Higher 3) Digital/ Satellite Cost: A lot Ads: Some channels have none. Content: Better than Cable Viewership: Rising as costs fall
How does this relate to the internet? John Q Public wants the maximum bang for his entertainment dollar. If he can get better content for less (i.e. the internet) he's gonna jump on that horse and ride. Most people will glady give away a little information about themselves to save $. But then where do the internet content providers make their money? By selling the hell out of that info. I for one won't give away my info, but you can bet that for every privacy minded/.er, there are hundreds of John Q Publics willing to give it all away for a couple of bucks. An internet without advertising is an expensive internet with very little content.
Slashdot Mirror
How can Napster possibly remove all copyrighted material from their service? They don't own the files that are being traded. The files aren't stored in their machines. At best, they could intercept the copyrighted material as it flows between users, but that only prevents it from spreading further. The RIAA had better face facts...times have changed. This is somewhat like the musicians union. They used to be a powerful lobby. But with the advent of high quality sound recording, demand for live bands has plummetted. As the popularity of Napster grows, the demand for CDs and tapes will also fall. Stop beating a dead horse and find a way to profit from the MP3 revolution!
Who are you? Where are we going? And what's with the handbasket?
The other thing to consider here is THEIR trustworthiness. Do you really know this website? I think they are forgetting one of the inherent traits of any business model. There is always a risk involved. You CANNOT completely eliminate risk from a business transaction. If they aren't willing to do business with you on your terms or at least terms you find agreeable, screw'em. Who are you? Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
Like it or not folks, privacy is on its way out.
:Almost None
/.er, there are hundreds of John Q Publics willing to give it all away for a couple of bucks.
The best we can do is disable cookies and use throw away email addresses, because, let's face it, this planet works on one principle: Money talks. Doubleclick and their ilk are not interested in you as a person. To them you are a walking dollar/yen/rupee/whatever sign attached to a certain set of "demographics". They want to sell somebody else the space in front of your eyeballs. And as much as we cry and whine and vent, we can't stop it. Look at television.
1)Public Television
Cost: Free
Ads
Content: Some good, mostly crappy
Viewership: Pretty Low
2)Network Television.
Cost: Free
Ads: Lots and lots, broadley targetd
Content: Better than PBS, sorta
Viewership: HIGH
2) Cable
Cost: A little
Ads: Lots, more narrowly targeted
Content: Better than Network
Viewship: Higher
3) Digital/ Satellite
Cost: A lot
Ads: Some channels have none.
Content: Better than Cable
Viewership: Rising as costs fall
How does this relate to the internet?
John Q Public wants the maximum bang for his entertainment dollar. If he can get better content for less (i.e. the internet) he's gonna jump on that horse and ride. Most people will glady give away a little information about themselves to save $. But then where do the internet content providers make their money? By selling the hell out of that info. I for one won't give away my info, but you can bet that for every privacy minded
An internet without advertising is an expensive internet with very little content.