I read alot more posts from people to the effect that they'd buy more music if it was offered to them at a reasonable price, and that's the reason iTunes exploded like it did.
Saying it's not a "reasonable price" and using that as justification for piracy means that they advocate piracy in this situation. I don't care if they would buy it, they should buy it, or they should go and find free (as in freely distributed, not pirated) music.
"Troll -- A Troll is similar to Flamebait, but slightly more refined. This is a prank comment intended to provoke indignant (or just confused) responses. A Troll might mix up vital facts or otherwise distort reality, to make other readers react with helpful "corrections." Trolling is the online equivalent of intentionally dialing wrong numbers just to waste other people's time."
I wasn't trying to provoke indignant or confused reponses. I was "making a joke", as we say in the USA. I don't know what you call it over in India.
We call people who use words incorrectly "idiots."
Musicians don't sign RIAA contracts, they sign contracts with the record labels. And why wouldn't they, given the state of the music industry today?
That is what I meant; technically I am incorrect, I apologize.
Unfortunately, the state of the music industry has been such that for the average artist to even think of releasing an album on to the world stage, a record deal with a label was absolutely necessary. The labels control the industry and decide who and what is in and out on a particular day.
This is in the process of changing in a big way, and the labels don't like it.
I would agree with that.
Many arguments have been made lately that artists would be much better off without the record labels if they simply released their work to the Internet and made their living by touring and selling merchandise.
I would make that argument!
Of course, the record labels and by extension, the RIAA, want to maintain the status quo, hence the demonisation of sharing music via the Internet and the somewhat desperate legal tactics designed to ward off what some would say is an imminent change in the way the entire music industry works.
The RIAA isn't trying to demonize music sharing. They are demonizing copyrighted music and piracy over the Internet. Their argument has to do with copyright violation, and they are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!
They're not trying to make it so all music has to be copyrighted, and so all music has to pass through RIAA companies.
Somewhat desperate? Maybe... we'll see how they make out. So far a settlement against a 12-year-old, personally I hope they nail all the pirates they can. Piracy is a bullshit Robin Hood fantasy founded on a completely illogical sense of "morality".
So, while artists these days may continue to sign contracts 'of their own volition' without knowing any better, I'm quite certain that they would be much happier and more prosperous in the New Music Industry - Coming Soon...
FYI, any band that has signed a contract has definitely done so of their own volition. Bands big enough to get signed are at a point in their career where they have agents, who would for sure advise them to not sign anything without having a lawyer look at it first. Even (and I've never met one) recognized bands without agents have read the "how to make it in the music biz" books, it is common knowledge. They all know what they are doing when they sign on the dotted line.
Oooh! Anonymous coward called me a maggot and told me to "fuck off"! I'M SHAKING.
He didn't make a logical bridge between point A and point C, that was my point. You obviously don't know how to reason, and you're too scared to post your real name because you realize that you don't know how to reason.
Congratulations on learning how to use "fuck" in a sentence! You sound like you're learning how to be a big boy!
They add features based on what customers want and stability isn't what most customers want. I bitched about rebooting Win9x twice a week at my last job and someone asked what the big deal was. He didn't believe a computer could stay up and running for two weeks, let alone the year or two that some machines are up, essentially zero reboots between kernel upgrades.
Umm, Windows is stable now -- Win9X is back in 199x. We're in 200X now. Not to mention, stability is what a lot of their customers want. There are plenty of production IIS, Exchange, database, etc. servers out there that need need NEED 99.9999% uptime.
Linux is different in that its developers add features that they, the developers, want. Developers tend to care more about stability than users and because Linux's development is led by Linus, an developer, we'll see stability continue to be a fairly high priority.
And that may be why Linux hasn't been the breakout hit of user's desktop's everywhere -- because they're adding features that developers want, not regular users...
As I see it, your only hope here is to suggest that the RIAA is not a monopoly. If you disagree that there is a monopoly, then that's a different issue; one you didn't address in your reply. However, if you think that 'choice' is some sort of absolute property that, when it exists must exist to its fullest and most complete extent, then you're frankly nuts. A person in chains has the choice to bite off his tongue and die, so do we say he is free to choose? 'Choice' in the way that the RIAA allows an artist, retailer, or consumer to have choice is in fact not a choice--its a formality driven by a foregone conclusion, that if one wants music, either to buy or make, for most people this is the only game in town.
There's nothing wrong with being a monopoly; when you're using your monopoly to squash other business, that's when there's something wrong.
Do I care that RIAA is going after people who are pirating their shit? Of course not, they can be my guest -- actually, I hope they catch every last one of them.
Does RIAA go to Best Buy and say "if you stock independent bands, we're going to not sell you RIAA CD's, or we're going to increase the price?"
To my knowledge, no, and that's what an unfair monopoly does, it uses it's monopoly power to squash competition.
Especially with the Internet, people can get non-RIAA music easily. So, yes, you DO have a choice when it comes to buying music. You don't HAVE to buy RIAA music -- in fact, YOU NEVER DID. Go to college sometime, and find some the punks. They pride themselves on buying music by unsigned or indie label bands that don't belong to RIAA, and they have music collections that are probably larger than most peoples (if you don't count pirated libraries.)
So, in conclusion, I frankly don't buy that RIAA is evil, abusing its monopoly power, etc. etc. Everyone, especially in the age of the Internet, has always had a choice to not buy RIAA merchandise. It's as simple as that.
Musicians don't get any money from RIAA enforcement actions, and their contracts are so twisted and evil to start with that the only people who would lose if the RIAA were to vanish overnight would be RIAA staff.
Who told the musicians to sign RIAA contracts?
Oh... that's right. They did it of their own volition.
So to pretend that RIAA is some evil corporation that enslaves musicians is just plain illogical. Grow up.
in general slashdot has been more or less accepting of the times when one group or another goes after the people actually committing a crime.
Actually, no. In general, Slashdotters think that rampant piracy is OK because RIAA and MPAA are "evil" or some such bullshit, and they think that people who break into computer systems and fuck shit up should be set free.
Makes me think that most Slashdotters are 12 years old...
People should use search engines if they don't know what the website is, not just enter blind URLs. Sitefinder will encourage this type of activity.
I hope it does encourage that type of activity. The domain name system is, to use a technical term, fucking retarded, and maybe if enough people make a noise about SiteFinder and the domain system, perhaps we can do away with it in favor of a better system. Domains, the way they're handled now, aren't a logical way to organize information. Adding TLD after TLD only encourages companies (and people) trying to protect their name to buy more and more stuff domains. So basically, it's a crappy artificial market for registrars to make a buck.
The RIAA screws the artists. They steal their songs, they pay them a tiny fraction of what they make from them, and they exercise creative control through the use of unfair contracts.
The artists sign into a legally binding contract with the RIAA companies. They know what they are getting into before they sign anything. They have lawyers read the contracts over before any ink is squeezed out of a pen. They're not screwing anybody, everyone has a way out before they sign on the dotted line.
The RIAA screws the retailers. This is self evident, but in case you're not observant, the CD costs the record store around 85% as much as they sell it for. They dump products on the market in the forms of "deals" in order to bump up CD sales and manipulate music charts.
Um... that's usually the way it works, a store buys something, and then they mark it up and sell it for a profit. So of course the CD costs the record store less than they sell it for.
Furthermore, no one is forcing retailers to purchase music. They CHOOSE to purchase music to sell to the public, so how are they getting screwed? They know the prices, they decide it's worth it, and buy it. If it wasn't worth it, they wouldn't buy it.
The RIAA screws the public. We buy overpriced CDs for which we have no actual legal rights. Another industry would have been hit for price fixing, but since technically the RIAA isn't a company, they technically aren't a monopoly. We get treated like criminals for violating the monopoly they technically don't have.
No one ever forced you to buy a CD. No one has ever been forced to purchase a CD. If you don't like the price, you don't pay it, end of story.
And we're ripping THEM off?
When you take something and don't pay for it, yes, you are ripping them off.
There is a difference between "ripping off" and "overcharging". People, you make your own decisions about what you purchase. If you purchase something you know is overpriced, you are ripping yourself off.
Are we going to be grown-ups about this, or are there going to be a million immature posts about how every hacker that has broken the law should be freed?
Slashdot Mirror
Your logic is faulty -- you don't need peer-to-peer to find free music.
Start at mp3.com, or even google!
I read alot more posts from people to the effect that they'd buy more music if it was offered to them at a reasonable price, and that's the reason iTunes exploded like it did.
Saying it's not a "reasonable price" and using that as justification for piracy means that they advocate piracy in this situation. I don't care if they would buy it, they should buy it, or they should go and find free (as in freely distributed, not pirated) music.
The only problem with your argument is, how the hell would RIAA get rid of competition? Make sending files over the Internet illegal?
Please.
Wow, let's take a joke that was already not funny, and make it less funny. Good job!
I think this thread makes it obvious how totally fucked up the moderation system is on Slashdot, when people can't even read a fucking definition.
Oooh, I did it. Now what.
Troll? Really? Let's consult the Slashdot FAQ:
"Troll -- A Troll is similar to Flamebait, but slightly more refined. This is a prank comment intended to provoke indignant (or just confused) responses. A Troll might mix up vital facts or otherwise distort reality, to make other readers react with helpful "corrections." Trolling is the online equivalent of intentionally dialing wrong numbers just to waste other people's time."
I wasn't trying to provoke indignant or confused reponses. I was "making a joke", as we say in the USA. I don't know what you call it over in India.
We call people who use words incorrectly "idiots."
What do you call them in India, idiot?
Crap! I knew I shouldn't have told her!
I guess if I'm dumb enough to accidentally delete a file...
Musicians don't sign RIAA contracts, they sign contracts with the record labels. And why wouldn't they, given the state of the music industry today?
That is what I meant; technically I am incorrect, I apologize.
Unfortunately, the state of the music industry has been such that for the average artist to even think of releasing an album on to the world stage, a record deal with a label was absolutely necessary. The labels control the industry and decide who and what is in and out on a particular day.
This is in the process of changing in a big way, and the labels don't like it.
I would agree with that.
Many arguments have been made lately that artists would be much better off without the record labels if they simply released their work to the Internet and made their living by touring and selling merchandise.
I would make that argument!
Of course, the record labels and by extension, the RIAA, want to maintain the status quo, hence the demonisation of sharing music via the Internet and the somewhat desperate legal tactics designed to ward off what some would say is an imminent change in the way the entire music industry works.
The RIAA isn't trying to demonize music sharing. They are demonizing copyrighted music and piracy over the Internet. Their argument has to do with copyright violation, and they are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!
They're not trying to make it so all music has to be copyrighted, and so all music has to pass through RIAA companies.
Somewhat desperate? Maybe... we'll see how they make out. So far a settlement against a 12-year-old, personally I hope they nail all the pirates they can. Piracy is a bullshit Robin Hood fantasy founded on a completely illogical sense of "morality".
So, while artists these days may continue to sign contracts 'of their own volition' without knowing any better, I'm quite certain that they would be much happier and more prosperous in the New Music Industry - Coming Soon...
FYI, any band that has signed a contract has definitely done so of their own volition. Bands big enough to get signed are at a point in their career where they have agents, who would for sure advise them to not sign anything without having a lawyer look at it first. Even (and I've never met one) recognized bands without agents have read the "how to make it in the music biz" books, it is common knowledge. They all know what they are doing when they sign on the dotted line.
I accidentally deleted a video file of me and my ex-girlfriend having sex, and forgot to make backups.
I was really starting to like getting those blackmail checks every month, too.
I respond to everybody who responds to my posts without reasoning properly... AC's included.
Oooh! Anonymous coward called me a maggot and told me to "fuck off"! I'M SHAKING.
He didn't make a logical bridge between point A and point C, that was my point. You obviously don't know how to reason, and you're too scared to post your real name because you realize that you don't know how to reason.
Congratulations on learning how to use "fuck" in a sentence! You sound like you're learning how to be a big boy!
They add features based on what customers want and stability isn't what most customers want. I bitched about rebooting Win9x twice a week at my last job and someone asked what the big deal was. He didn't believe a computer could stay up and running for two weeks, let alone the year or two that some machines are up, essentially zero reboots between kernel upgrades.
Umm, Windows is stable now -- Win9X is back in 199x. We're in 200X now. Not to mention, stability is what a lot of their customers want. There are plenty of production IIS, Exchange, database, etc. servers out there that need need NEED 99.9999% uptime.
Linux is different in that its developers add features that they, the developers, want. Developers tend to care more about stability than users and because Linux's development is led by Linus, an developer, we'll see stability continue to be a fairly high priority.
And that may be why Linux hasn't been the breakout hit of user's desktop's everywhere -- because they're adding features that developers want, not regular users...
As I see it, your only hope here is to suggest that the RIAA is not a monopoly. If you disagree that there is a monopoly, then that's a different issue; one you didn't address in your reply. However, if you think that 'choice' is some sort of absolute property that, when it exists must exist to its fullest and most complete extent, then you're frankly nuts. A person in chains has the choice to bite off his tongue and die, so do we say he is free to choose? 'Choice' in the way that the RIAA allows an artist, retailer, or consumer to have choice is in fact not a choice--its a formality driven by a foregone conclusion, that if one wants music, either to buy or make, for most people this is the only game in town.
There's nothing wrong with being a monopoly; when you're using your monopoly to squash other business, that's when there's something wrong.
Do I care that RIAA is going after people who are pirating their shit? Of course not, they can be my guest -- actually, I hope they catch every last one of them.
Does RIAA go to Best Buy and say "if you stock independent bands, we're going to not sell you RIAA CD's, or we're going to increase the price?"
To my knowledge, no, and that's what an unfair monopoly does, it uses it's monopoly power to squash competition.
Especially with the Internet, people can get non-RIAA music easily. So, yes, you DO have a choice when it comes to buying music. You don't HAVE to buy RIAA music -- in fact, YOU NEVER DID. Go to college sometime, and find some the punks. They pride themselves on buying music by unsigned or indie label bands that don't belong to RIAA, and they have music collections that are probably larger than most peoples (if you don't count pirated libraries.)
So, in conclusion, I frankly don't buy that RIAA is evil, abusing its monopoly power, etc. etc. Everyone, especially in the age of the Internet, has always had a choice to not buy RIAA merchandise. It's as simple as that.
And nope, piracy is never justified.
Musicians don't get any money from RIAA enforcement actions, and their contracts are so twisted and evil to start with that the only people who would lose if the RIAA were to vanish overnight would be RIAA staff.
Who told the musicians to sign RIAA contracts?
Oh... that's right. They did it of their own volition.
So to pretend that RIAA is some evil corporation that enslaves musicians is just plain illogical. Grow up.
in general slashdot has been more or less accepting of the times when one group or another goes after the people actually committing a crime.
Actually, no. In general, Slashdotters think that rampant piracy is OK because RIAA and MPAA are "evil" or some such bullshit, and they think that people who break into computer systems and fuck shit up should be set free.
Makes me think that most Slashdotters are 12 years old...
Rule #1: Always err on the side of the individual.
Uh... who's making these rules? You? Well then, it MUST be right!
Because if the individuals are undamaged, then by definition, who cares about the corporations?
What the fuck are you talking about? You've gone from A to C, with no B in between!
Holy ghost of McCarthy! You don't agree, so rather than address his point rationally, you scream "Troll!"
That was AWESOME! I wish I could argue as well as you can.
People should use search engines if they don't know what the website is, not just enter blind URLs. Sitefinder will encourage this type of activity.
I hope it does encourage that type of activity. The domain name system is, to use a technical term, fucking retarded, and maybe if enough people make a noise about SiteFinder and the domain system, perhaps we can do away with it in favor of a better system. Domains, the way they're handled now, aren't a logical way to organize information. Adding TLD after TLD only encourages companies (and people) trying to protect their name to buy more and more stuff domains. So basically, it's a crappy artificial market for registrars to make a buck.
The RIAA screws the artists.
They steal their songs, they pay them a tiny fraction of what they make from them, and they exercise creative control through the use of unfair contracts.
The artists sign into a legally binding contract with the RIAA companies. They know what they are getting into before they sign anything. They have lawyers read the contracts over before any ink is squeezed out of a pen. They're not screwing anybody, everyone has a way out before they sign on the dotted line.
The RIAA screws the retailers.
This is self evident, but in case you're not observant, the CD costs the record store around 85% as much as they sell it for. They dump products on the market in the forms of "deals" in order to bump up CD sales and manipulate music charts.
Um... that's usually the way it works, a store buys something, and then they mark it up and sell it for a profit. So of course the CD costs the record store less than they sell it for.
Furthermore, no one is forcing retailers to purchase music. They CHOOSE to purchase music to sell to the public, so how are they getting screwed? They know the prices, they decide it's worth it, and buy it. If it wasn't worth it, they wouldn't buy it.
The RIAA screws the public.
We buy overpriced CDs for which we have no actual legal rights. Another industry would have been hit for price fixing, but since technically the RIAA isn't a company, they technically aren't a monopoly. We get treated like criminals for violating the monopoly they technically don't have.
No one ever forced you to buy a CD. No one has ever been forced to purchase a CD. If you don't like the price, you don't pay it, end of story.
And we're ripping THEM off?
When you take something and don't pay for it, yes, you are ripping them off.
There is a difference between "ripping off" and "overcharging". People, you make your own decisions about what you purchase. If you purchase something you know is overpriced, you are ripping yourself off.
But the fact of the matter is that the RIAA members need to come up with a new business model.
The problem with that statement is, they shouldn't have to. People shouldn't be ripping them off.
ROFL! I eat my words!
Are we going to be grown-ups about this, or are there going to be a million immature posts about how every hacker that has broken the law should be freed?
Wait... what is Bluetooth again?
;-)
Oh, I guess that's why it's dead.
"Tone" has nothing to do with "subject".
It is obvious -- to anyone -- that it is an editorial piece, because of the tone. The content is clearly opinion.
Surely, you are just playing dumb.