"Well it all depends on what you mean by sharing music. If you mean letting others listen to music from your stereo system (just an example), then you're right, it IS just the same as sharing your car, your TV, etc.
However, if you mean sending.mp3 files to others, then you're wrong. In this case, not only are you allowing them to listen to a seperate, stand-alone copy of what you own, but you are also giving them the ability to make copies and distribute it to others. It's a completely different matter than sharing your car, your TV, etc."
When I play music for someone in my house what stops them from taking out a tape recorder and recording the transmission? Its the same thing. We all are listening to the same CD but anyone can make a copy by just recording it.
Then they can distribute those records.
And allowing whomever you give it to to give it to all of their freinds.
Thats called distribution, the radio does it too. When you go anywhere you can record any music coming from any transmission and then distribute it. Hows it different than going to a party, recording the music and then putting it on the net?
They wouldnt try to have complete and absolute control over us and over musicians. You cant buy any music, you just buy a license.
Musicians get to sell their rights away, and the RIAA gets to own all the music and issue out licenses.
I think thats bullshit, either the consumers or the artists should own the music. And no one should own the distribution rights. Everyone should be a distirbutor.
When a speaker transmits sound to a group of people at a party, its illegal!
None of them own the CD and paid for these songs.
Is it right? Yes its right to share music. Its just illegal.
You share TV as well, and I dont hear anyone debating if thats right or wrong because the TV companies arent suing everyone left and right. If TV companies installed cameras in your home and fined you every time more than one person was in front of your TV, you'd think it was right because its the law. The law is always right to people like you.
Yes but an mp3 is not an exact copy bit for bit of a CD.
You arent making a copy of a CD, by providing an Mp3, You are sharing your CD by providing an mp3, a copy is when you give people a wave file ripped from the CD.
Your copy of the CD which you may give people is not 100% exact.
By the way I do make free music. If you want to listen to it, give me your email address and I'll send you a few songs
Until they get sued. Saying the public is too stupid and ill informed means even as they RIAA is sueing them they'll still buy CDs. It also means P2P will never be sued out of existance because people are too stupid to stop using it, I mean they dont pay attention to their neighbor getting dragged out in handcuffs
In the physical world, you buy the physical object and you own that object.
Why should music be any different? Why the hell should we buy licenses to use music in the way they tell us to, we dont really own shit do we? I think its wrong. I mean ok when people buy music on CD you can say you were selling the CD and not the music, fine.
But when music companies literally sell an Mp3, which is pure music in its digital form, what right do they have to tell us what we can and cannot do with that mp3? We paid for the mp3 right?
Do car companies sue you when you share your car with other people by giving people a lift? Do car companies require each person you give a ride to, to pay a license fee?
I hate the fact that if we are going to treat information as physical property, that unlike real physical property, in which the person who buys it truely owns it, when it comes to information theres a double standard, the person who buys it actually is paying to listen to it, and its in a very strict fashion
In my opinion no company has a right to tell you how to use something you paid for.
Why can we share physical objects, but when we treat information as physical objects suddenly we dont get to own the information we buy the right to use it in.
The RIAA wants absolute control over information and thats like TV and Car companies having absolute control over what you do with your car and TV after you buy it.
" "Why should copyright holders, who as owners of intellectual property, have fewer rights than somebody who owns televisions or clothing and attempts to sell them? Clearly everyone would agree that the television and clothing retailers should be able to investigate and prosecute shoplifters.""
Why should the owner of a TV have more rights than the owner of a CD?
Copyright owners shouldnt own the information, they should own the right to profit from it.
Just like the TV maker doesnt own the TV once they sell it to you, they own the rights to sell that TV and profit from it.
What I dont like is the fact that as we buy information we dont truely own it, yet when we buy physical objects we own them. This makes no sense to me, I say if we buy music we should be able to do whatever we want with it.
This will never happen, the RIAA is just going to cause people to boycott buying CDs entirely, and then when and if they do get their songs off P2P, no one will buy them and people will just listen to indie stuff.
Its a lost cause, what the RIAA needs to do is respect fair use and perhaps instead of trying to have absolute control over distribution, give up on control of distribution, modify copyright so that people can share files, and go after the people who burn CDs and sell them.
P2P is about as stopable as Linux, its not going to happen because P2P gives people freedom. People will not give up their freedom to share the music they purchase, and they will not stop distributing music, the best thing the RIAA can do is learn to profit in a world where they dont have absolute control. Perhaps if they stopped asking the question of how to stop piracy and started asking the question of how to profit off filesharing, this problem would be solved and all sides would be happy.
I can tell you for a fact it will never go back to the old days, thats like saying you can convince people to stop using the internet by blocking access to a few sites. It wont happen.
P2P is here to stay, I suggest they work with Kazaa to profit off P2P in the same way they profit off Radio and TV, Ad revenue. I dont mean banner ads, but high quality commercials should be added onto P2P, most users wont mind a commercial playing in the backround of Kazaa just like they dont mind when commercials play on TV or Radio.
Theres also taxes which can be used to give artists stipends, and the RIAA can use make ISPs pay, and have ISPs pass the bill down to users.
Theres alot of ways to do this which make more since than suing the world.
If musicians don't need RIAA, etc, and P2P is here to take the place of the record labels.. Then.. Why on earth do musicians still sign with columbia, interscope, universal, etc? Maybe because they DO need them?..
Because record companies are literally suing all the P2P companies out of existance before they become profitable. Maybe if Napster was not sued to death they'd have plenty of musicians signed to them. When they were sued there was several thousand musicians signed, so the musicians were starting to move to P2P, of course the RIAA killed it because the RIAA can only have control if they have a monopoly, musicians currently dont have a choice but to sign to the RIAA and sign away all their copyrights in the process.
Also.. Boycotting is fine and great.. I encourage people who hate the record companies (like me) to not buy cds or anything else from them.. However.. Like I've said before, when you boycot something.. You don't keep using that product! There are thousands of artists out there distributing their music for free. RIAA can't get you for that.
Just because you dont buy CDs doesnt mean you shouldnt listen to the music. Its not the bands we want to punish here, its not the musicians, just the RIAA.
This is just like MS vs OSS.. The way to get open source moving is not to steal MS products is it? No.. The way to show MS and company is to use Linux (note: just example of open source operating system, don't want to get flamed for not listing them all..) and also to support open source games and applications. Everyone seems to understand that.. So why not apply it to music?
I understand that and honestly, I never really download alot of big name bands music. I mostly listen to indie stuff. Just because I do that doesnt mean the rest of the world is ready to try new things. Its going to take a while to reverse all the brainwashing the RIAA has done to people, the people are so used to being forced to buy certain CDs and so used to being spoon fed what they should listen to that now when they can listen to anything they want they dont know what to look for because they dont truely know what they like. Until the new P2P indie bands get fair advertisement and the RIAA monopoly is taken down, the fans wont even know about the indie bands.
you are right, its better to play native games and run native software in linux, but until we get to that point, the option is to just run Microsoft Word and Internet Explorer.
Microsoft like the RIAA has a monopoly and people are so used to being forced into using a specific type of software that they dont know anything else.
haha Right.. That's why they charge me $20-50+ a ticket to go listen to them in concert right? Come on man, don't believe that bs some of the artists are feeding you. Look at how many artists now own their own labels because they got tired of the living under someone else's rule.. Then MAYBE 10% of those people actually distribute their music for free.. I don't know what news you've been getting, but all the time I hear about how bands are against file sharing.
Wow a few hundred artists own their label, while millions dont. This isnt about artists making money, this is about control. Artists can charge you 20 bucks to go to their concert, artists can also profit off ads for P2P, the difference here is freedom, you can record a concert and share it on P2P, artists dont care as long as they profit. Artists dont care about control just profit.
The artists who own record labels arent artists anymore, they are businessmen/businesswomen.
Eminem is no longer making music because he wants to create art, hes all about making money now.
Same with metallica and others, it doesnt matter if they have talent or not, they ceased being artists when they decided the business was more important than the culture.
Artists should stop continuing to resign with these companies if they really want the people to enjoy their music for free. I personally think the artists and producers really are doing their part lately, a lot of the bands I like always seem to release at least a couple mp3s on their sites for free these days.. Kindof like how magazine publishers have their magazines out where you can flip through them..
Yeah but the only way to free both the artist and consumer is to destroy the RIAA. This is what filesharers are doing, fighting for themselves and for artists. Artists will make more money without the RIAA, and consumers will get more music without the RIAA, everyone would win except for the RIAA.
The RIAA is a distribution company, they were RECORD companies which were founded because at the time, it was difficult to store and transport information, they had a use and purpose. Now we have the net and P2P, these companies are obsolete, they know they are obsolete, consumers dont need them, musicians dont need them and they have control over both the consumer and musician.
The P2P companies can take their place, we dont need columbia record, interscope, universal etc. Their business model is dead, they are corrupt, and they rob both the musician and the consumer of their rights. Musicians no longer own their copyrights, and consumers dont really own the music they buy, both sides are losing to the RIAA.
So at this moment musicians and consumers are on the same team, this is why I say its not about the musicians making a profit. Its about the RIAA having control over the musicians profits and the consumers.
I dont believe distributing Mp3s is wrong, just like boycotting isnt wrong. This is the only way we have as consumers and artists to punish them and prove to them we dont need them anymore. We dont, we can distribute our own music, P2P is just better and theres no reason why we shouldnt use something thats better.
Its not even just that. Its not even about profits anymore because I want musicians to profit off their music. Its about control, when we buy music what gives anyone the right to tell us what we can do with it?
Its going too far in my opinion when you cant even burn a song on a CD because the record companies fear you might share it. I mean its ridiculous, one person per song crap, it just cant work.
I dont mind paying for music, but I want to be able to do anything I want with that music once I pay for it. I dont want big brother telling me I have to use music in the way they want.
They need to give up distirbution rights, musicians dont care about distribution, they can profit off filesharing, its the record companies who know they wont have control over us anymore, the record companies know we wont buy CDs anymore and they know they are obsolete. We dont need them to distribute music anymore, we can do it ourselves.
The car company made the car specifically so that other people can ride with you. They actually want you to do it, this makes it a bad analogy for your purposes.
And if you ask the musicians, the ones who actually make the music, they make music so groups of people can enjoy it together, this is why they give concerts etc etc. Musicians dont mind people listening to their music, its the CEO at the record company who minds. Musicians do not care how many people listen to their music as long as they get paid, Musicians could get paid based on how popular their music is, on P2P. Say we allow streamed commercials to pay for P2P, Musicians dont care what you do with their music after you pay them, its the CEOs and RIAA who want to control what you do with music.
You dont seem to care if the RIAA removes all your rights. Some people do care, its not about design, why arent TV companies suing people for sharing TV?
My point is, if consumers dont fight, they wont get increased fair use rights. So the 60 million people are doing the right thing.
My car is my own. No your car is owned by your car company, you are paying for the right to drive in it.
current copyright laws.
Maybe the current laws need to be revised? Maybe its time to update those laws.
What I don't do without the permission of the copyright holders is redistribute copies of their works to millions of strangers,
Why? Because the law says you cant?
It's quite reasonable Hanzo. Everyone else gets it.
60 million people agree with me, so who is everyone else? You are just spineless. You wont defend your freedom or fair use rights, you'll sit and watch while the RIAA takes all your rights. What if the car companies tried this and said you cant share your car which you claim to own?
This isnt about getting musicians paid, theres more than enough ways to pay musicians, this is a power struggle between the users and the corperations, cant you see that?
Heres why Ads dont pay for P2P, They dont pay for P2P because the RIAA doesnt want them to pay for P2P. The RIAA wants control not profits. They want to be able to tell you what you can and cannot do with the music you buy, and have absolute control over you.
The TV companies arent doing this, thats why they are still profiting and P2P isnt a threat to them, I dont see NBC, ABC, Fox and others cracking down on P2P, the reason they dont is because they know how to deal with P2P, they've been profiting off of free TV for years.
The reason I say it will fail is because its before its time. People arent ready for it yet.
Right now people want to share files via P2P, despite all the problems which can occur, and all the dangerous, people want unlimited access to files.
So how do we do this? Theres an option, you can pay for music via commercials, lets assume everyone using the P2P service is a broadband user, or perhaps have AOL include this service for broadband users.
It could work by streaming video/audio commercials in a window while the user downloads. The same commercials that pay for TV, and for radio could pay for P2P.
I am not sure if we have the video streaming technology yet but I know we are close, I hear AOL is working on it right now, I think this is the way to go.
First you profit off free, just like TV is profitable and Radio is profitable, then you offer a higher quality ad free network a few years later (sorta like what cable is to TV).
I think people would pay if the pay services were better than the free services in quality, Itunes needs to improve its quality. If they used Flac or high quality waves yeah people would download, maybe if it were a flat fee, I'd think about subscribing but I wont pay.99 a download. Most people arent that rich. Imagine paying.99 a website, or.99 an hour for TV.
You steal TV. You steal Radio. You let your friends steal your car when you give them a ride.
You you let people steal your clock which I'm sure everyone in your house looks at.
You let your friends take a shower in your house, they steal your water.
Everyones a thief. Or maybe not?
Perhaps the music industry has no right to control what I do with a CD I purchase, perhaps I actually have rights of my own and the right to share is one of my rights?
The law is backwards. If we can share everything else, and information is supposed to be treated like physical objects, why the hell doesnt information follow the rules of physical objects. No one can tell you how to use a physical object once you buy it, if you buy a bed and you want 20 girls to sleep in it with you, the bed company doesnt sue you for sharing the bed.
The models for TV and radio, BTW, are about as bad as you can probably get. Saturated by advertising, only large corporate entites can afford to enter the market due to the infrastructure and organization required. If you want every bit of music out there to feature "product placement" and sound pretty much the same, you'll get it if you demand the TV/radio model you wish for.
Just pay for the damned music, or make use of the many sources of "free" music that do respect the wishes of the music's creators.
I told you how we can pay for music, use the Radio or TV model. This isnt about the artists, artists dont care what you do with their music after they get paid. Its the record industry which wants absolute control over what you can and cannot do with your music AFTER you purchase it. You cant listen to it in a room with people, you cant play it in your car, you have to have your rights of ownership stripped away. Look, when we buy physical objects, we own those objects and can do whatever we want with them, why is it when we buy information, the record company still owns it? Thats bullshit.
Just pay for the damned music, or make use of the many sources of "free" music that do respect the wishes of the music's creators.
I pay for the music in the way I want to pay, in business you have to make a deal, a contract, you dont put an offer on the table and bully everyone into signing. What do I get out of the deal? I want enhanced fair use rights.
The models for TV and radio, BTW, are about as bad as you can probably get. Saturated by advertising, only large corporate entites can afford to enter the market due to the infrastructure and organization required. If you want every bit of music out there to feature "product placement" and sound pretty much the same, you'll get it if you demand the TV/radio model you wish for.
Thats how music currently sounds now under the RIAA anyway, so I dont see how anything would change. But I wasnt saying it would be "RADIO", it would still be P2P, we would still share music, we'd still have control of distribution, the RIAA would just get paid, and artists would have a way to get paid based on how often their music is downloaded.
The TV/Radio Model is the only one which will work, nothing else will work, you cannot have a subsription service unless its higher quality than the free services out there, the musicians need to profit off the free services, and then charge a fee to access higher quality pay services without the advertisements.
Slashdot Mirror
"Well it all depends on what you mean by sharing music. If you mean letting others listen to music from your stereo system (just an example), then you're right, it IS just the same as sharing your car, your TV, etc.
However, if you mean sending
When I play music for someone in my house what stops them from taking out a tape recorder and recording the transmission? Its the same thing. We all are listening to the same CD but anyone can make a copy by just recording it.
Then they can distribute those records.
And allowing whomever you give it to to give it to all of their freinds.
Thats called distribution, the radio does it too. When you go anywhere you can record any music coming from any transmission and then distribute it. Hows it different than going to a party, recording the music and then putting it on the net?
Because both Waste and Direct Connect would be considered private performances.
So if people were to use these services, such as Waste, it would be impossible to sue them right? Its a private performance.
Show me the law, post a few links. I dont believe you.
If this law is true, we should have the right to use waste and share all our music and movies, because its a private performance.
If this is true, how can the RIAA be suing users of direct connect and other private networks?
"or inviting friends over to watch a new DVD."
Actually no you dont, I heard that alot of clubs have to pay the RIAA a decent sum of money to play music for crowds.
They wouldnt try to have complete and absolute control over us and over musicians. You cant buy any music, you just buy a license.
Musicians get to sell their rights away, and the RIAA gets to own all the music and issue out licenses.
I think thats bullshit, either the consumers or the artists should own the music. And no one should own the distribution rights. Everyone should be a distirbutor.
So what, sharing is still right.
When a speaker transmits sound to a group of people at a party, its illegal!
None of them own the CD and paid for these songs.
Is it right? Yes its right to share music. Its just illegal.
You share TV as well, and I dont hear anyone debating if thats right or wrong because the TV companies arent suing everyone left and right. If TV companies installed cameras in your home and fined you every time more than one person was in front of your TV, you'd think it was right because its the law. The law is always right to people like you.
So if its wrong to treat cars like this, why treat music like this?
First no one can create an exact copy of a CD from an mp3. You know this and I know this.
Second, when you share music, its no different than sharing your car, your TV, or anything else you physically own.
You arent creating a copy and selling it, you are sharing what you already have.
Yes but an mp3 is not an exact copy bit for bit of a CD.
You arent making a copy of a CD, by providing an Mp3, You are sharing your CD by providing an mp3, a copy is when you give people a wave file ripped from the CD.
Your copy of the CD which you may give people is not 100% exact.
By the way I do make free music. If you want to listen to it, give me your email address and I'll send you a few songs
Until they get sued. Saying the public is too stupid and ill informed means even as they RIAA is sueing them they'll still buy CDs. It also means P2P will never be sued out of existance because people are too stupid to stop using it, I mean they dont pay attention to their neighbor getting dragged out in handcuffs
What about when you buy an mp3?
In the physical world, you buy the physical object and you own that object.
Why should music be any different? Why the hell should we buy licenses to use music in the way they tell us to, we dont really own shit do we? I think its wrong. I mean ok when people buy music on CD you can say you were selling the CD and not the music, fine.
But when music companies literally sell an Mp3, which is pure music in its digital form, what right do they have to tell us what we can and cannot do with that mp3? We paid for the mp3 right?
Its these double standards that piss users off.
Do car companies sue you when you share your car with other people by giving people a lift? Do car companies require each person you give a ride to, to pay a license fee?
I hate the fact that if we are going to treat information as physical property, that unlike real physical property, in which the person who buys it truely owns it, when it comes to information theres a double standard, the person who buys it actually is paying to listen to it, and its in a very strict fashion
In my opinion no company has a right to tell you how to use something you paid for.
Why can we share physical objects, but when we treat information as physical objects suddenly we dont get to own the information we buy the right to use it in.
The RIAA wants absolute control over information and thats like TV and Car companies having absolute control over what you do with your car and TV after you buy it.
"
"Why should copyright holders, who as owners of intellectual property, have fewer rights than somebody who owns televisions or clothing and attempts to sell them? Clearly everyone would agree that the television and clothing retailers should be able to investigate and prosecute shoplifters.""
Why should the owner of a TV have more rights than the owner of a CD?
Copyright owners shouldnt own the information, they should own the right to profit from it.
Just like the TV maker doesnt own the TV once they sell it to you, they own the rights to sell that TV and profit from it.
What I dont like is the fact that as we buy information we dont truely own it, yet when we buy physical objects we own them. This makes no sense to me, I say if we buy music we should be able to do whatever we want with it.
This will never happen, the RIAA is just going to cause people to boycott buying CDs entirely, and then when and if they do get their songs off P2P, no one will buy them and people will just listen to indie stuff.
Its a lost cause, what the RIAA needs to do is respect fair use and perhaps instead of trying to have absolute control over distribution, give up on control of distribution, modify copyright so that people can share files, and go after the people who burn CDs and sell them.
P2P is about as stopable as Linux, its not going to happen because P2P gives people freedom. People will not give up their freedom to share the music they purchase, and they will not stop distributing music, the best thing the RIAA can do is learn to profit in a world where they dont have absolute control. Perhaps if they stopped asking the question of how to stop piracy and started asking the question of how to profit off filesharing, this problem would be solved and all sides would be happy.
I can tell you for a fact it will never go back to the old days, thats like saying you can convince people to stop using the internet by blocking access to a few sites. It wont happen.
P2P is here to stay, I suggest they work with Kazaa to profit off P2P in the same way they profit off Radio and TV, Ad revenue. I dont mean banner ads, but high quality commercials should be added onto P2P, most users wont mind a commercial playing in the backround of Kazaa just like they dont mind when commercials play on TV or Radio.
Theres also taxes which can be used to give artists stipends, and the RIAA can use make ISPs pay, and have ISPs pass the bill down to users.
Theres alot of ways to do this which make more since than suing the world.
ooops heres the URL http://www.musiccity.com/
MusicCity
As you see on the site, artists are getting paid through P2P. The RIAA just doesnt want to give P2P a chance.
If musicians don't need RIAA, etc, and P2P is here to take the place of the record labels.. Then.. Why on earth do musicians still sign with columbia, interscope, universal, etc? Maybe because they DO need them?..
Because record companies are literally suing all the P2P companies out of existance before they become profitable. Maybe if Napster was not sued to death they'd have plenty of musicians signed to them. When they were sued there was several thousand musicians signed, so the musicians were starting to move to P2P, of course the RIAA killed it because the RIAA can only have control if they have a monopoly, musicians currently dont have a choice but to sign to the RIAA and sign away all their copyrights in the process.
Also.. Boycotting is fine and great.. I encourage people who hate the record companies (like me) to not buy cds or anything else from them.. However.. Like I've said before, when you boycot something.. You don't keep using that product! There are thousands of artists out there distributing their music for free. RIAA can't get you for that.
Just because you dont buy CDs doesnt mean you shouldnt listen to the music. Its not the bands we want to punish here, its not the musicians, just the RIAA.
This is just like MS vs OSS.. The way to get open source moving is not to steal MS products is it? No.. The way to show MS and company is to use Linux (note: just example of open source operating system, don't want to get flamed for not listing them all..) and also to support open source games and applications. Everyone seems to understand that.. So why not apply it to music?
I understand that and honestly, I never really download alot of big name bands music. I mostly listen to indie stuff. Just because I do that doesnt mean the rest of the world is ready to try new things. Its going to take a while to reverse all the brainwashing the RIAA has done to people, the people are so used to being forced to buy certain CDs and so used to being spoon fed what they should listen to that now when they can listen to anything they want they dont know what to look for because they dont truely know what they like. Until the new P2P indie bands get fair advertisement and the RIAA monopoly is taken down, the fans wont even know about the indie bands.
you are right, its better to play native games and run native software in linux, but until we get to that point, the option is to just run Microsoft Word and Internet Explorer.
Microsoft like the RIAA has a monopoly and people are so used to being forced into using a specific type of software that they dont know anything else.
Its going to take years to change.
haha Right.. That's why they charge me $20-50+ a ticket to go listen to them in concert right? Come on man, don't believe that bs some of the artists are feeding you. Look at how many artists now own their own labels because they got tired of the living under someone else's rule.. Then MAYBE 10% of those people actually distribute their music for free.. I don't know what news you've been getting, but all the time I hear about how bands are against file sharing.
Wow a few hundred artists own their label, while millions dont. This isnt about artists making money, this is about control. Artists can charge you 20 bucks to go to their concert, artists can also profit off ads for P2P, the difference here is freedom, you can record a concert and share it on P2P, artists dont care as long as they profit. Artists dont care about control just profit.
The artists who own record labels arent artists anymore, they are businessmen/businesswomen.
Eminem is no longer making music because he wants to create art, hes all about making money now.
Same with metallica and others, it doesnt matter if they have talent or not, they ceased being artists when they decided the business was more important than the culture.
Artists should stop continuing to resign with these companies if they really want the people to enjoy their music for free.
I personally think the artists and producers really are doing their part lately, a lot of the bands I like always seem to release at least a couple mp3s on their sites for free these days.. Kindof like how magazine publishers have their magazines out where you can flip through them..
Yeah but the only way to free both the artist and consumer is to destroy the RIAA. This is what filesharers are doing, fighting for themselves and for artists. Artists will make more money without the RIAA, and consumers will get more music without the RIAA, everyone would win except for the RIAA.
The RIAA is a distribution company, they were RECORD companies which were founded because at the time, it was difficult to store and transport information, they had a use and purpose. Now we have the net and P2P, these companies are obsolete, they know they are obsolete, consumers dont need them, musicians dont need them and they have control over both the consumer and musician.
The P2P companies can take their place, we dont need columbia record, interscope, universal etc. Their business model is dead, they are corrupt, and they rob both the musician and the consumer of their rights. Musicians no longer own their copyrights, and consumers dont really own the music they buy, both sides are losing to the RIAA.
So at this moment musicians and consumers are on the same team, this is why I say its not about the musicians making a profit. Its about the RIAA having control over the musicians profits and the consumers.
I dont believe distributing Mp3s is wrong, just like boycotting isnt wrong. This is the only way we have as consumers and artists to punish them and prove to them we dont need them anymore. We dont, we can distribute our own music, P2P is just better and theres no reason why we shouldnt use something thats better.
Its not even just that. Its not even about profits anymore because I want musicians to profit off their music. Its about control, when we buy music what gives anyone the right to tell us what we can do with it?
Its going too far in my opinion when you cant even burn a song on a CD because the record companies fear you might share it. I mean its ridiculous, one person per song crap, it just cant work.
I dont mind paying for music, but I want to be able to do anything I want with that music once I pay for it. I dont want big brother telling me I have to use music in the way they want.
They need to give up distirbution rights, musicians dont care about distribution, they can profit off filesharing, its the record companies who know they wont have control over us anymore, the record companies know we wont buy CDs anymore and they know they are obsolete. We dont need them to distribute music anymore, we can do it ourselves.
The car company made the car specifically so that other people can ride with you. They actually want you to do it, this makes it a bad analogy for your purposes.
And if you ask the musicians, the ones who actually make the music, they make music so groups of people can enjoy it together, this is why they give concerts etc etc. Musicians dont mind people listening to their music, its the CEO at the record company who minds. Musicians do not care how many people listen to their music as long as they get paid, Musicians could get paid based on how popular their music is, on P2P. Say we allow streamed commercials to pay for P2P, Musicians dont care what you do with their music after you pay them, its the CEOs and RIAA who want to control what you do with music.
You dont seem to care if the RIAA removes all your rights. Some people do care, its not about design,
why arent TV companies suing people for sharing TV?
My point is, if consumers dont fight, they wont get increased fair use rights. So the 60 million people are doing the right thing.
My car is my own. No your car is owned by your car company, you are paying for the right to drive in it.
current copyright laws.
Maybe the current laws need to be revised? Maybe its time to update those laws.
What I don't do without the permission of the copyright holders is redistribute copies of their works to millions of strangers,
Why? Because the law says you cant?
It's quite reasonable Hanzo. Everyone else gets it.
60 million people agree with me, so who is everyone else? You are just spineless. You wont defend your freedom or fair use rights, you'll sit and watch while the RIAA takes all your rights. What if the car companies tried this and said you cant share your car which you claim to own?
This isnt about getting musicians paid, theres more than enough ways to pay musicians, this is a power struggle between the users and the corperations, cant you see that?
Heres why Ads dont pay for P2P, They dont pay for P2P because the RIAA doesnt want them to pay for P2P. The RIAA wants control not profits. They want to be able to tell you what you can and cannot do with the music you buy, and have absolute control over you.
The TV companies arent doing this, thats why they are still profiting and P2P isnt a threat to them, I dont see NBC, ABC, Fox and others cracking down on P2P, the reason they dont is because they know how to deal with P2P, they've been profiting off of free TV for years.
The reason I say it will fail is because its before its time. People arent ready for it yet.
Right now people want to share files via P2P, despite all the problems which can occur, and all the dangerous, people want unlimited access to files.
So how do we do this? Theres an option, you can pay for music via commercials, lets assume everyone using the P2P service is a broadband user, or perhaps have AOL include this service for broadband users.
It could work by streaming video/audio commercials in a window while the user downloads. The same commercials that pay for TV, and for radio could pay for P2P.
I am not sure if we have the video streaming technology yet but I know we are close, I hear AOL is working on it right now, I think this is the way to go.
First you profit off free, just like TV is profitable and Radio is profitable, then you offer a higher quality ad free network a few years later (sorta like what cable is to TV).
I think people would pay if the pay services were better than the free services in quality, Itunes needs to improve its quality. If they used Flac or high quality waves yeah people would download, maybe if it were a flat fee, I'd think about subscribing but I wont pay
You steal TV.
You steal Radio.
You let your friends steal your car when you give them a ride.
You you let people steal your clock which I'm sure everyone in your house looks at.
You let your friends take a shower in your house, they steal your water.
Everyones a thief. Or maybe not?
Perhaps the music industry has no right to control what I do with a CD I purchase, perhaps I actually have rights of my own and the right to share is one of my rights?
The law is backwards. If we can share everything else, and information is supposed to be treated like physical objects, why the hell doesnt information follow the rules of physical objects. No one can tell you how to use a physical object once you buy it, if you buy a bed and you want 20 girls to sleep in it with you, the bed company doesnt sue you for sharing the bed.
The models for TV and radio, BTW, are about as bad as you can probably get. Saturated by advertising, only large corporate entites can afford to enter the market due to the infrastructure and organization required. If you want every bit of music out there to feature "product placement" and sound pretty much the same, you'll get it if you demand the TV/radio model you wish for.
Just pay for the damned music, or make use of the many sources of "free" music that do respect the wishes of the music's creators.
I told you how we can pay for music, use the Radio or TV model. This isnt about the artists, artists dont care what you do with their music after they get paid. Its the record industry which wants absolute control over what you can and cannot do with your music AFTER you purchase it. You cant listen to it in a room with people, you cant play it in your car, you have to have your rights of ownership stripped away. Look, when we buy physical objects, we own those objects and can do whatever we want with them, why is it when we buy information, the record company still owns it? Thats bullshit.
Just pay for the damned music, or make use of the many sources of "free" music that do respect the wishes of the music's creators.
I pay for the music in the way I want to pay, in business you have to make a deal, a contract, you dont put an offer on the table and bully everyone into signing. What do I get out of the deal? I want enhanced fair use rights.
The models for TV and radio, BTW, are about as bad as you can probably get. Saturated by advertising, only large corporate entites can afford to enter the market due to the infrastructure and organization required. If you want every bit of music out there to feature "product placement" and sound pretty much the same, you'll get it if you demand the TV/radio model you wish for.
Thats how music currently sounds now under the RIAA anyway, so I dont see how anything would change. But I wasnt saying it would be "RADIO", it would still be P2P, we would still share music, we'd still have control of distribution, the RIAA would just get paid, and artists would have a way to get paid based on how often their music is downloaded.
The TV/Radio Model is the only one which will work, nothing else will work, you cannot have a subsription service unless its higher quality than the free services out there, the musicians need to profit off the free services, and then charge a fee to access higher quality pay services without the advertisements.
Like Cable TV.