"If I don't use the roads, I don't necessarily want to pay for them" How about distribution? The food on your plate every breakfast how was that being delivered to your local retailer? And so on and so on.
Maybe the American Sherman Act needs to be changed: since monopolies are allowed in the US (other than in Europe), excesses like these can become real. The result? Well in this particular case: Microsoft (do I need to say more?) and a long lawsuit, ultimately ending before Supreme Court. So Id say: Congress, make monopolies illegal. How this will hurt consumers? And yes, now consumers will have to pay since any company (like Microsoft) wants to make a profit and still hold that monopoly position, consumers will pay for the lawsuit and their losses over it. Since it will take some time for competitors on the same market to bring a new, equally well-known and competitive product to the masses. In the end it may be better, for now it will hurt consumers. Plain and simple.
Recently I have been reading a lot of columns and articles on different websites on online piracy. The overall message was: bands good, RIAA good and pirates bad. Well if we look at the law and treaties, whether that is the DMCA, WIPO treaties or European laws (either from memberstates or the Union itself) it will tell us not to make a copy of material unless we have permission of the copyrights owner. These laws have been around even before the existence of the Internet we know it (remember?) And copying has been around longer than the web too. When I was a 15 year old kid I was having over 200 tapes, filled with music from cds I borrowed from friends or rented for a buck a week at our local library. Tapetrading was very popular amongst me and my - music loving - friends. So far I dont see anything new. Now the question to be asked is: what is different then? First of all the easiness of the finding and copying music. Second of all the rather high-quality of the copys playback sound makes a difference too. Taking a look at the Metallica vs. Napster lawsuit the more than 300.000 users which could be identified is relatively new. And very scary if you ask me. Now a lot of people have been stating their (valid) arguments over this: A great way of distribution of music, Its free flow of information, Its freedom of speech, One get to know music (before actually buying it), Record sales are dropping, The artist is losing money, It should be considered stealing. Well under the laws of all the countries mentioned above, it just IS considered a crime. So please, lets not get principal talking about freeflow of information and freedom of speech. Copying music is basically the same as stealing a car. Instead of taking something you can actually touch you infringe on someones right. That however doesnt mean that the records companies need to be principal. First of all where are the principles of the record companies when they are shoving their marketing techniques through 14 year olds throat in order to sell more Backstreet Boys or Spice Girls records? They never seem to have a problem with the firing of bands when their records dont seem to make enough sales. Besides that arent their profits still rising and are the likes of Metallica for instance still making money? It wasnt such a big deal before Napster arrived! (Even though there was a fuzz about audio cassettes - apperently those werent hurting their sales in the end that much.) So lets be a little bit realistic here and put the principles aside. First of all I think copying music is a given: people will be copying music. Cause there is a demand for it and it just feels different than stealing a car. Since there is a demand for copying music and the Internet is just a great way to exchange (music)files there will be means of doing this. So what if Napster has a weak side (their central server): a program will be created to do without that server (Gnutella, for instance). What is next? Make the program illegal? Well think again, and remember Phil Zimmermans PGP. Once it is out there it just is out there. Virtually unstoppable. Try to erase it in someway? How about the Scientology cases then? If it is erased from one site today, it will be on 10 others tomorrow. Besides Gnutella for instance makes it possible to send not only music but also other files. Are providers gonna check the packages being sent then? If by that time they arent already coded, of course. And what if the RIAA would lay their hands on a suspect. What are they gonna charge that person for? If that person has in total 100 different cds on his HD the RIAA would charge him for $1500? Not to mention the international aspect of this because MP3-trading just isnt an all-American thing. From a legal perspective my suggestion would be that the music industry started looking for different options and alternatives other than lawsuits. The only thing will be achieving through that is alienation of the music-lovers. How many people and maybe more important for them: development of new software which will enable copying faster, easier and without being noticed at all. The RIAA and others should either start thinking or worrying, because there will always be bright software developers around who know answers to burning questions. After which it will be published and there will be users who use it. And they are just few steps ahead of the RIAA. ##dev##
Slashdot Mirror
"If I don't use the roads, I don't necessarily want to pay for them" How about distribution? The food on your plate every breakfast how was that being delivered to your local retailer? And so on and so on.
Maybe the American Sherman Act needs to be changed: since monopolies are allowed in the US (other than in Europe), excesses like these can become real. The result? Well in this particular case: Microsoft (do I need to say more?) and a long lawsuit, ultimately ending before Supreme Court. So Id say: Congress, make monopolies illegal. How this will hurt consumers? And yes, now consumers will have to pay since any company (like Microsoft) wants to make a profit and still hold that monopoly position, consumers will pay for the lawsuit and their losses over it. Since it will take some time for competitors on the same market to bring a new, equally well-known and competitive product to the masses. In the end it may be better, for now it will hurt consumers. Plain and simple.
Recently I have been reading a lot of columns and articles on different websites on online piracy. The overall message was: bands good, RIAA good and pirates bad. Well if we look at the law and treaties, whether that is the DMCA, WIPO treaties or European laws (either from memberstates or the Union itself) it will tell us not to make a copy of material unless we have permission of the copyrights owner. These laws have been around even before the existence of the Internet we know it (remember?) And copying has been around longer than the web too. When I was a 15 year old kid I was having over 200 tapes, filled with music from cds I borrowed from friends or rented for a buck a week at our local library. Tapetrading was very popular amongst me and my - music loving - friends. So far I dont see anything new. Now the question to be asked is: what is different then? First of all the easiness of the finding and copying music. Second of all the rather high-quality of the copys playback sound makes a difference too. Taking a look at the Metallica vs. Napster lawsuit the more than 300.000 users which could be identified is relatively new. And very scary if you ask me. Now a lot of people have been stating their (valid) arguments over this: A great way of distribution of music, Its free flow of information, Its freedom of speech, One get to know music (before actually buying it), Record sales are dropping, The artist is losing money, It should be considered stealing. Well under the laws of all the countries mentioned above, it just IS considered a crime. So please, lets not get principal talking about freeflow of information and freedom of speech. Copying music is basically the same as stealing a car. Instead of taking something you can actually touch you infringe on someones right. That however doesnt mean that the records companies need to be principal. First of all where are the principles of the record companies when they are shoving their marketing techniques through 14 year olds throat in order to sell more Backstreet Boys or Spice Girls records? They never seem to have a problem with the firing of bands when their records dont seem to make enough sales. Besides that arent their profits still rising and are the likes of Metallica for instance still making money? It wasnt such a big deal before Napster arrived! (Even though there was a fuzz about audio cassettes - apperently those werent hurting their sales in the end that much.) So lets be a little bit realistic here and put the principles aside. First of all I think copying music is a given: people will be copying music. Cause there is a demand for it and it just feels different than stealing a car. Since there is a demand for copying music and the Internet is just a great way to exchange (music)files there will be means of doing this. So what if Napster has a weak side (their central server): a program will be created to do without that server (Gnutella, for instance). What is next? Make the program illegal? Well think again, and remember Phil Zimmermans PGP. Once it is out there it just is out there. Virtually unstoppable. Try to erase it in someway? How about the Scientology cases then? If it is erased from one site today, it will be on 10 others tomorrow. Besides Gnutella for instance makes it possible to send not only music but also other files. Are providers gonna check the packages being sent then? If by that time they arent already coded, of course. And what if the RIAA would lay their hands on a suspect. What are they gonna charge that person for? If that person has in total 100 different cds on his HD the RIAA would charge him for $1500? Not to mention the international aspect of this because MP3-trading just isnt an all-American thing. From a legal perspective my suggestion would be that the music industry started looking for different options and alternatives other than lawsuits. The only thing will be achieving through that is alienation of the music-lovers. How many people and maybe more important for them: development of new software which will enable copying faster, easier and without being noticed at all. The RIAA and others should either start thinking or worrying, because there will always be bright software developers around who know answers to burning questions. After which it will be published and there will be users who use it. And they are just few steps ahead of the RIAA. ##dev##