The fact of the matter is that people are inherently self-serving and most will take a free ride as long as they're in the majority, even if it is wrong. Even if the RIAA had a website where you could mix and match any songs you wanted, stamp out the CD, and have it mailed to you for a reasonable price, P2P would still be incredibly popular.
If you don't believe this, check out all the warez irc channels, websites...I guess the software companies must not be providing what people want either, eh?
"When the State (not the government - you anglo-saxons are pitifully clueless about the three branches it seems) does that, it insures that EVERYBODY gets the same treatment, no matter where they are; so if they don't happen to live in a generous neighbourhood, they are not screwed like it happens so much in the USA with, say, school districts."
Refresh my memory. Who administers school districts? Ah yes! Its the State!
We were talking about p2p software, not record studios.
"Piracy is the act of stealing an artist's work without any intention of paying for it. I'm not talking about Napster-type software. I'm talking about major label recording contracts."
-Courtney Love
Everyone points to the few artists that support p2p, but if artists are so supportive of p2p, where is the vast outpouring of support? Not isolated and limited, but VAST? Name 5 other Top 10 Billboard artists from the last two years who have publicly supported p2p.
Record companies aren't stupid. Artists are less promoted because they're less popular, and sure, its a cyclical thing, but teens (the strongest demographic in music) aren't buying artists that got their start in the 60's.
Generational demographics is what the music industry is all about. Its the young segment of the market that's buying the most CD's, not the older, responsible adults reminiscing back to Janis Ian's early 1967 days. As to Janis Ian, I know exactly who she is, and have 3 of her albums, and enjoy her music. HOWEVER, I'm also realistic enough to realize that God and the FBI (her 2000 CD) isn't moving off the shelfs like For All The Seasons of Your Mind did in 1968. My question stands.
Again, no offense was meant to Janis Ian.
I made no statement as to the quality of her music, or her past popularity. Its clear that she is a lesser known artist at this point in time (as evidenced by the several slashdotters who had never heard of her). Do you deny that she is lesser known than other uber-popular artists like Spears, or N'Sync?
Its obvious that CD's from a lesser known artist such as yourself (no offense intended) might have difficulties selling. Its also apparent that free downloads of your music would expose it to more people and potentially increase sales. However, what do you think the effect of peer to peer sharing is on more recognized artists and groups, particularly very popular artists and groups (Britney Spears and the like) who don't need peer to peer technology to gain recognition?
If that's how you'd like to define sociopathy, everyone's a little sociopathic. Who hasn't driven 5 miles over the speed limit EVERY DAY of their life?
This is the one ethical use for p2p music sharing, imho. I download Ben Folds concert.mp3's, and other Ben stuff that was only released in Japan and other places.
This is really the best idea for stopping illegal file sharing. I think the reason they're hesitant to do this is because you can't sell an.mp3 for as much as a CD. I know that I value a CD more than an.mp3, but I still download.mp3's because CD's are too cost-prohibitive. If I want 8 songs from 5 different artists, I'd pay at least 60 dollars. That's entirely too much. There is no middle ground, so instead I download all 8 for free.
You're overthinking it. When mp3 trading was only prevalent in the seedy underworld of the internet (newsgroups, IRC) the RIAA paid little attention. When it became easy for regular Joe AOL to download (Napster), the RIAA became quickly concerned. That people will ALWAYS trade mp3's is not a question. The RIAA appears to be more concerned about everyday people trading files.
Resorting to signatures is a step back, and progress for the RIAA.
Yea, I hear it all the time. Everyone buys the CD's of the songs they snag on p2p. I've heard this a million times and I still don't buy it. I'm assuming you delete the songs you don't like? So how many mp3's are on your hard drive? 100? 300? 10,000? Are you saying that you have the CD's for all of those mp3's? I don't believe it for a second.
The simple fact of the matter is that many people are downloading music they would otherwise buy, particularly when there's only 2 or 3 songs on a CD that they'd like. I download music off p2p, but I don't make any illusions to myself about the legality of it. When I download music on p2p, I know that I'm stealing, and I do it anyway. Unethical? Perhaps. But at least I don't have any delusions that I'm in the right.
Ha. I don't think Stile ever made any secret of the fact that he was a sell-out. It just took him a while to get enough traffic to justify porn banners everywhere.
Ok, your point that the US unduely meddles in other nations' business is spot-on. However you fail to note that pretty much every other nation engages in the same damn'd thing; the US is just more effective (not necessarily clever, "effective") at it because of its political, economic & military might.
I fail to note it, because, as you state, the U.S. does far more of it than any other country. But does it really matter? If its American policy and its causing big problems for us, who cares that the rest of the world is doing it?
As for Castro, the US never supported him.
You are absolutely wrong here. Perhaps you don't consider CNN a reliable source of news either, but I'll quote them just the same. All emphasis is my own.
"
Early U.S. support of Castro soured when nationalization of American businesses began in the hemisphere's first communist state."
"
The US supported Castro's overthrow of Batista and supported those who tried to overthrow Castro. Is the US government merely against any Cuban (or Carribean or...) government which doesn't toe the US line?"
"
At the beginning of his rule, the United States supported Castro. However, once he embraced communism, the U.S. attempted to overthrow him."
--http://library.thinkquest.org/20176/crevolutio n. htm
How many more pages would you like that implicitly state that the United States supported Castro before his communist announcement two years after his overthrow of Batista's government in 1961? Moving on...
As for Bin Ladin having been "high in the ranks" of the mujahadeen, he wasn't. Back in those days he was pretty much just a Saudi rich boy who was playing revolutionary dilettente. Please.
Once again, that's incorrect. The Soviet incursion was the birth of Osama bin Laden in leadership type roles. This was when he began recruiting soldiers and raising money to funnel to the cause, and led troops into battle. I can't think of a better way to describe a military leader.
"During the 1980s, the United States supported several ragtag rebel groups eager to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Americans provided funds and arms, including Stinger surface-to-air missiles.
"Bin Laden was just emerging as a leader, but he was already an Islamic idealist, clearly with no love for the West," Lacoste said in an interview, one of several with veterans of that period who sketch a similar picture."
--http://www.hypocrites.com/article.php?sid=5177
"
Bin Laden made ample use of the American equipment lavished on rebel groups during the Soviet resistance"
--http://news.ozarksnow.com/terrorism/binladen/b in 092001.html
"When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, he went to Pakistan, where he met the Afghan rebel leaders fighting against the occupation. [...]
As a military commander, Bin Laden was respected for his organisational skills, his bravery and, above all, for his ability to survive."
--http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_a si a/newsid_1551000/1551100.stm
"The first contact with Bin Laden was in 1979, when the new graduate from the Univ. of Jedah got in touch with the U.S. embassy in Ankara, Turkey. With the help of the CIA and the U.S. Armed Forces intelligence services he began to organize in the early 1980s and network to raise money and to recruit fighters for the Afghan mujahidins that were fighting the Soviets."
"
When the Afghans under bin Laden, backed by the U.S. CIA stopped the construction of the Soviet-Afghan pipeline, the Soviet Union went through an economic collapse and ceased to exist in 1991."
--http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/bj091701.html
"And finally, the fact that Pacifica (heavily biased)"
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this. The trouble with media is that you have to have an editor deciding which stories run and which stories are cut or never assigned. Because of this, the final work ends up being some representation of that person's thoughts and opinions. However, Pacifica is one of the few places where you can hear the other side of the story, and I do value it for that. Once again, this is all just my opinion, and I understand why you might disagree.
"reports on a Palestinian (heavily biased) having found a piece of exploded munition (likely) that was labelled USA (unlikely) is a bit unlikely. While it's entirely possible that this all happened as reported, Palestinians have in large numbers proven themselves perfectly capable filling in details to make for a more compelling story (same goes for Israelis) and Pacifica is hardly the sort of media outlet to engage in a hard-hitting objective journalist in the face of just the sort of news that they prefer to report."
Whether this incident happened exactly as described or not is not all that important. The facts are these:
1.) The U.S. DOES supply munitions to Israel, including M-16's, tanks, artillery, and assault choppers, among others.
2.) Israel DOES use these weapons to kill Palestinians and occupy Palestinian neighborhoods against U.S. demands that they withdraw entirely from these areas.
Whether Israel is justified in attacking Palestinian civilians is not important in the context of this conversation, so don't get distracted by that. The main thrust of my argument here is that this country gives weapons to other countries and then ends up either in direct opposition with them, or begging them to use the weapons in a manner we approve of. This is short-sighted and has gone on for a very long time and will probably continue to occur for ages longer.
"If Electronic Arts' "Tiger Woods PGA Tour Golf", or "Dungeons & Dragons" (the other two games specifically mentioned in the article) are available for non-BREW phones, then you have a point."
Tiger Woods PGA Tour Golf is, in fact, available. http://www.jamdat.com/ Do I have a point yet?
Slashdot Mirror
Believe it or not, there are legal sources to download music and film, two examples being mp3.com, and broadband.yahoo.com. There are others.
The fact of the matter is that people are inherently self-serving and most will take a free ride as long as they're in the majority, even if it is wrong. Even if the RIAA had a website where you could mix and match any songs you wanted, stamp out the CD, and have it mailed to you for a reasonable price, P2P would still be incredibly popular. If you don't believe this, check out all the warez irc channels, websites...I guess the software companies must not be providing what people want either, eh?
"When the State (not the government - you anglo-saxons are pitifully clueless about the three branches it seems) does that, it insures that EVERYBODY gets the same treatment, no matter where they are; so if they don't happen to live in a generous neighbourhood, they are not screwed like it happens so much in the USA with, say, school districts." Refresh my memory. Who administers school districts? Ah yes! Its the State!
Actually, it says someone who looks for "ALTERNATIVES to [...] p2p warfare".
Actually, you're wrong. The correct word is 'specify', which means 'indicate'. The article does not indicate where he gets that number from.
The RIAA is already all over this guy.
Actually, its from Filter Magazine, not aintitcool.
We were talking about p2p software, not record studios. "Piracy is the act of stealing an artist's work without any intention of paying for it. I'm not talking about Napster-type software. I'm talking about major label recording contracts." -Courtney Love Everyone points to the few artists that support p2p, but if artists are so supportive of p2p, where is the vast outpouring of support? Not isolated and limited, but VAST? Name 5 other Top 10 Billboard artists from the last two years who have publicly supported p2p.
Record companies aren't stupid. Artists are less promoted because they're less popular, and sure, its a cyclical thing, but teens (the strongest demographic in music) aren't buying artists that got their start in the 60's.
No, album sales makes them popular. Its a very simple and accurate gauge of popularity.
Generational demographics is what the music industry is all about. Its the young segment of the market that's buying the most CD's, not the older, responsible adults reminiscing back to Janis Ian's early 1967 days. As to Janis Ian, I know exactly who she is, and have 3 of her albums, and enjoy her music. HOWEVER, I'm also realistic enough to realize that God and the FBI (her 2000 CD) isn't moving off the shelfs like For All The Seasons of Your Mind did in 1968. My question stands. Again, no offense was meant to Janis Ian.
I made no statement as to the quality of her music, or her past popularity. Its clear that she is a lesser known artist at this point in time (as evidenced by the several slashdotters who had never heard of her). Do you deny that she is lesser known than other uber-popular artists like Spears, or N'Sync?
Its obvious that CD's from a lesser known artist such as yourself (no offense intended) might have difficulties selling. Its also apparent that free downloads of your music would expose it to more people and potentially increase sales. However, what do you think the effect of peer to peer sharing is on more recognized artists and groups, particularly very popular artists and groups (Britney Spears and the like) who don't need peer to peer technology to gain recognition?
You're one of the better examples for p2p. I know plenty of people who most of their CD's are burned from their mp3 collection. :)
If that's how you'd like to define sociopathy, everyone's a little sociopathic. Who hasn't driven 5 miles over the speed limit EVERY DAY of their life?
This is the one ethical use for p2p music sharing, imho. I download Ben Folds concert .mp3's, and other Ben stuff that was only released in Japan and other places.
This is really the best idea for stopping illegal file sharing. I think the reason they're hesitant to do this is because you can't sell an .mp3 for as much as a CD. I know that I value a CD more than an .mp3, but I still download .mp3's because CD's are too cost-prohibitive. If I want 8 songs from 5 different artists, I'd pay at least 60 dollars. That's entirely too much. There is no middle ground, so instead I download all 8 for free.
You're overthinking it. When mp3 trading was only prevalent in the seedy underworld of the internet (newsgroups, IRC) the RIAA paid little attention. When it became easy for regular Joe AOL to download (Napster), the RIAA became quickly concerned. That people will ALWAYS trade mp3's is not a question. The RIAA appears to be more concerned about everyday people trading files. Resorting to signatures is a step back, and progress for the RIAA.
Yea, I hear it all the time. Everyone buys the CD's of the songs they snag on p2p. I've heard this a million times and I still don't buy it. I'm assuming you delete the songs you don't like? So how many mp3's are on your hard drive? 100? 300? 10,000? Are you saying that you have the CD's for all of those mp3's? I don't believe it for a second.
The simple fact of the matter is that many people are downloading music they would otherwise buy, particularly when there's only 2 or 3 songs on a CD that they'd like. I download music off p2p, but I don't make any illusions to myself about the legality of it. When I download music on p2p, I know that I'm stealing, and I do it anyway. Unethical? Perhaps. But at least I don't have any delusions that I'm in the right.
I think my favorite part was the bit about AOL being a free or inexpensive service.
Ha. I don't think Stile ever made any secret of the fact that he was a sell-out. It just took him a while to get enough traffic to justify porn banners everywhere.
Have you never seen the hott (double T for double hot) Linux chicks?
p g
http://www.succurit.com/pictures.php?cat=chicks
My favorite is http://www.succurit.com/pics/other/linux_chick4.j
I've basically stopped watching TV altogether except for the Simpsons anyway. HA. Are you sure it wasn't a Butterfinger commercial?
Sigh, indeed.
Ok, your point that the US unduely meddles in other nations' business is spot-on. However you fail to note that pretty much every other nation engages in the same damn'd thing; the US is just more effective (not necessarily clever, "effective") at it because of its political, economic & military might.
I fail to note it, because, as you state, the U.S. does far more of it than any other country. But does it really matter? If its American policy and its causing big problems for us, who cares that the rest of the world is doing it?
As for Castro, the US never supported him.
You are absolutely wrong here. Perhaps you don't consider CNN a reliable source of news either, but I'll quote them just the same. All emphasis is my own.
--from http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/americas/9901/02/cuba.ca
Here's more text:
--http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/docs/acthis20/inf
--http://phys4.harvard.edu/~wilson/complication
--http://library.thinkquest.org/20176/crevoluti
How many more pages would you like that implicitly state that the United States supported Castro before his communist announcement two years after his overthrow of Batista's government in 1961? Moving on...
As for Bin Ladin having been "high in the ranks" of the mujahadeen, he wasn't. Back in those days he was pretty much just a Saudi rich boy who was playing revolutionary dilettente. Please.
Once again, that's incorrect. The Soviet incursion was the birth of Osama bin Laden in leadership type roles. This was when he began recruiting soldiers and raising money to funnel to the cause, and led troops into battle. I can't think of a better way to describe a military leader.
--http://www.hypocrites.com/article.php?sid=517
--http://news.ozarksnow.com/terrorism/binladen/
--http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_
--http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/po
--http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/bj091701.html
"And finally, the fact that Pacifica (heavily biased)"
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this. The trouble with media is that you have to have an editor deciding which stories run and which stories are cut or never assigned. Because of this, the final work ends up being some representation of that person's thoughts and opinions. However, Pacifica is one of the few places where you can hear the other side of the story, and I do value it for that. Once again, this is all just my opinion, and I understand why you might disagree.
"reports on a Palestinian (heavily biased) having found a piece of exploded munition (likely) that was labelled USA (unlikely) is a bit unlikely. While it's entirely possible that this all happened as reported, Palestinians have in large numbers proven themselves perfectly capable filling in details to make for a more compelling story (same goes for Israelis) and Pacifica is hardly the sort of media outlet to engage in a hard-hitting objective journalist in the face of just the sort of news that they prefer to report."
Whether this incident happened exactly as described or not is not all that important. The facts are these:
1.) The U.S. DOES supply munitions to Israel, including M-16's, tanks, artillery, and assault choppers, among others.
2.) Israel DOES use these weapons to kill Palestinians and occupy Palestinian neighborhoods against U.S. demands that they withdraw entirely from these areas.
Whether Israel is justified in attacking Palestinian civilians is not important in the context of this conversation, so don't get distracted by that. The main thrust of my argument here is that this country gives weapons to other countries and then ends up either in direct opposition with them, or begging them to use the weapons in a manner we approve of. This is short-sighted and has gone on for a very long time and will probably continue to occur for ages longer.
"If Electronic Arts' "Tiger Woods PGA Tour Golf", or "Dungeons & Dragons" (the other two games specifically mentioned in the article) are available for non-BREW phones, then you have a point."
Tiger Woods PGA Tour Golf is, in fact, available. http://www.jamdat.com/ Do I have a point yet?