Why should all internet users be forced to pay for music they don't een necessarily want so some people can get unlimited music a fraction of its value. This is basically socialism. The part about giving some of the money to the artists directly undermines free market as well. By bypassing the copyright owner in favor of the original creator, who as already been compensated by the new copyright holder based on free market dictates, you are doubly rewarding the artist and penalizing the risk taker. This is more socialism. The legal action taken by the RIAA is the only way to protect their copyrighted works in a free market system.
If you're stealing music, that is not free market. Free market means the buyer and seller both agree on a price. That said, the proposed solution of internet tax is basically socialism. Everyone is forced to pay a little so some people can download unlimited music for free.
Without a record label, you get little publicity. With little publicity, you get no record sales or attendance at concerts. Therefore, you get no cash, and have to keep your day job. Your solution makes no sense.
"I bet that every time a fan A makes his/her friend B a copy of an Alison Krauss album, B buys, on average, 2 more Alison Krauss albums."
That's total bs. It's just as easy to say that friend B will then ask the fan A to burn copies of more of her albums. Show some statistics rather than making baseless claims
From the article:"Another secret of their success is that the labels target consumers - namely, adults - who are still willing to pay for their music, rather than download it for free."
So the article does not refute "p2p sharing causes lost sales", as the poster suggests. BTW, Most indie labels are part of the RIAA.
"You are an unnecessary organization.
Music can and will be made, produced, and sold without you.
Leave us alone or cease to exist."
This is neither accurate nor insightful. Sure you can sell a few home produced cds at the local bars without a record label, but it's hard to get any significant exposure. Anything beyond a garage band is dealing with an RIAA member.
You've missed the point of capitalism. Without the ability to own and trade a creation, the desire to create is impeded. Protection of property is important, both for physical property and IP. If I steal your car, or I steal your song, either way I've taken something of value that you've created without compensating you based on mutually agreed terms. Your hospital anaolgy is bad in that you presume the producer creates demand by forcing something on the consumer against his will (gunshot wound). This is the opposite of p2p file sharing, in which the consumer violates the rights of the producer
Objectivist is used in this case to describe someone who follows the philosophy of Ayn Rand. I wouldn't use pragmatic to describe this philosophy. It holds individual rights as its aim and is unwilling to compromise on this.
I don't agree with your interpretation of free market with respect to p2p sharing. Free market means that both the buyer and seller come to an agreement on a price for something of value produced by the seller and wanted by the buyer. With p2p sharing, the seller doesn't have any say in the transaction, so it's not free market, but more like theft. It's not much different, for instance, than walking into Pfizer and stealing their recipe for whatever drug you need, and making it yourself. A contract requires mutual agreement between BOTH parties.
Fascism is very similar to socialism. In socialism, one is expected to sacrifice for society, while in fascism, one is expected to sacrifice for the nation. Both systems denounce individual rights in favor of group rights.
No, the supreme court enforced the laws on the books in FL regarding elections, which the FL court was disregarding in favor of new laws they were making up on the spot. Bush won according to FL law at the time.
There was something like an 80% approval rating in Panama for the US removal of drug lord Noriega from Panama. Just keep pretending that everyone is on equal moral ground no matter what their actions and no one has the right to enforce a moral code in the world. You're basically arguing for anarchy.
"Soon the RIAA will move to kill the college stations"
RIAA members send free copies of songs to college radio stations for them to play on the air. Why would RIAA members not want airplay? Your post show your lack of understanding of how the music industry works.
"This could have fit in with yesterday's April Fool's stories..."
If this comment were made against Linux it would have been considered a troll, but it gets posted on the front page because it's against MS. Nice unbiased editing guys.
If they can't sell any albums, no one's going to pay to promote their music. Therefore, no one will have heard of the musicians. Therefore, no one will go see them in concert. Therwfore, the musicians will make no money from performances.
poster's claim of FUD unfounded
on
BSA IDC FUD
·
· Score: 1
The poster suggests that that the low IT growth in some countries is due to oppression instead of piracy. I would argue that both piracy and low IT growth are a direct result of opression. Opressive governments like those in China and Russia steal wealth in the name of society or due to corruption. This reduces the motivation to make money writing software and increases the incentive to pirate software due to lack of respect for personal property in these types of govts. So, although the cause and effect the BSA is trying to argue is not clear cut, the correlation between slow IT growth and piracy are not surprising. Presumably, reforms in these govts would fix both problems.
How hard would it be to write a utility to simply play the audio on a cd that was intended for cd players, instead of the second session tracks? Seems like it should be easy in either Windows or Linux given the format is known and not encrypted.
Why does the threat need to be immediate? Waiting until it's immediate is waiting until it's too late. Just look at the N. Korea problem. Much more difficult to deal with that regime now that they can use the threat of a nuclear holocaust to extort money and oil from the US. I'd say your attitude is ridiculous. It's great to see that the largest protests in human history are in support of a leader who rules through brutality, and has two murderous sons as successors, one of whom is a serial rapist. I'm glad the world has shown their stupidlity.
Figures the environmentalistsare trying to blame the US for Hussein's actions. I suppose it's our fault that he dumped oil into the gulf 12 years that was ten times more than spilled in the valdez incident, too.
CNN/FOX/etc. show every piece of footage they can get coming out of the IRAQI govt. as well as what the US govt. is saying. Plus they mention what al Jazeera is reporting from time to time. Your comments show your ignorance. Get some facts before spreading your unsubstantiated opinions as fact.
"but the effect is the same...People afraid because bombs are going off and buildings are collapsing around them."
The effect is not quite the same, because civilians are not the target of the attacks. The shock and terror (which is a much better phrase than shock and awe) is meant for the military, which means that although the coalition is instilling terror, they are not terrorists, by the definition of a terrorist.
Terrorize is correct, but not in the same sense that a terrorist terrorizes. This has a much narrower definition of intentionally killing civilians to instill terror, which the coalition is not doing.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should all internet users be forced to pay for music they don't een necessarily want so some people can get unlimited music a fraction of its value. This is basically socialism. The part about giving some of the money to the artists directly undermines free market as well. By bypassing the copyright owner in favor of the original creator, who as already been compensated by the new copyright holder based on free market dictates, you are doubly rewarding the artist and penalizing the risk taker. This is more socialism. The legal action taken by the RIAA is the only way to protect their copyrighted works in a free market system.
If you're stealing music, that is not free market. Free market means the buyer and seller both agree on a price. That said, the proposed solution of internet tax is basically socialism. Everyone is forced to pay a little so some people can download unlimited music for free.
Without a record label, you get little publicity. With little publicity, you get no record sales or attendance at concerts. Therefore, you get no cash, and have to keep your day job. Your solution makes no sense.
"I bet that every time a fan A makes his/her friend B a copy of an Alison Krauss album, B buys, on average, 2 more Alison Krauss albums."
That's total bs. It's just as easy to say that friend B will then ask the fan A to burn copies of more of her albums. Show some statistics rather than making baseless claims
From the article:"Another secret of their success is that the labels target consumers - namely, adults - who are still willing to pay for their music, rather than download it for free."
So the article does not refute "p2p sharing causes lost sales", as the poster suggests. BTW, Most indie labels are part of the RIAA.
"You are an unnecessary organization. Music can and will be made, produced, and sold without you. Leave us alone or cease to exist."
This is neither accurate nor insightful. Sure you can sell a few home produced cds at the local bars without a record label, but it's hard to get any significant exposure. Anything beyond a garage band is dealing with an RIAA member.
What's your point? I don't think it's legal for Fedex to knowingly ship illegal drug, weapons, etc. How's this any different?
You've missed the point of capitalism. Without the ability to own and trade a creation, the desire to create is impeded. Protection of property is important, both for physical property and IP. If I steal your car, or I steal your song, either way I've taken something of value that you've created without compensating you based on mutually agreed terms. Your hospital anaolgy is bad in that you presume the producer creates demand by forcing something on the consumer against his will (gunshot wound). This is the opposite of p2p file sharing, in which the consumer violates the rights of the producer
Objectivist is used in this case to describe someone who follows the philosophy of Ayn Rand. I wouldn't use pragmatic to describe this philosophy. It holds individual rights as its aim and is unwilling to compromise on this.
I don't agree with your interpretation of free market with respect to p2p sharing. Free market means that both the buyer and seller come to an agreement on a price for something of value produced by the seller and wanted by the buyer. With p2p sharing, the seller doesn't have any say in the transaction, so it's not free market, but more like theft. It's not much different, for instance, than walking into Pfizer and stealing their recipe for whatever drug you need, and making it yourself. A contract requires mutual agreement between BOTH parties.
Fascism is very similar to socialism. In socialism, one is expected to sacrifice for society, while in fascism, one is expected to sacrifice for the nation. Both systems denounce individual rights in favor of group rights.
No, the supreme court enforced the laws on the books in FL regarding elections, which the FL court was disregarding in favor of new laws they were making up on the spot. Bush won according to FL law at the time.
There was something like an 80% approval rating in Panama for the US removal of drug lord Noriega from Panama. Just keep pretending that everyone is on equal moral ground no matter what their actions and no one has the right to enforce a moral code in the world. You're basically arguing for anarchy.
"Soon the RIAA will move to kill the college stations"
RIAA members send free copies of songs to college radio stations for them to play on the air. Why would RIAA members not want airplay? Your post show your lack of understanding of how the music industry works.
How do you know they won't recruit student narcs.
"This could have fit in with yesterday's April Fool's stories..."
If this comment were made against Linux it would have been considered a troll, but it gets posted on the front page because it's against MS. Nice unbiased editing guys.
If they can't sell any albums, no one's going to pay to promote their music. Therefore, no one will have heard of the musicians. Therefore, no one will go see them in concert. Therwfore, the musicians will make no money from performances.
The poster suggests that that the low IT growth in some countries is due to oppression instead of piracy. I would argue that both piracy and low IT growth are a direct result of opression. Opressive governments like those in China and Russia steal wealth in the name of society or due to corruption. This reduces the motivation to make money writing software and increases the incentive to pirate software due to lack of respect for personal property in these types of govts. So, although the cause and effect the BSA is trying to argue is not clear cut, the correlation between slow IT growth and piracy are not surprising. Presumably, reforms in these govts would fix both problems.
How hard would it be to write a utility to simply play the audio on a cd that was intended for cd players, instead of the second session tracks? Seems like it should be easy in either Windows or Linux given the format is known and not encrypted.
"and btw, who the fuck is the US congress to decide which mobile phone service protocols is the iraqi people going to use ???"
Because they're paying for it.
Why does the threat need to be immediate? Waiting until it's immediate is waiting until it's too late. Just look at the N. Korea problem. Much more difficult to deal with that regime now that they can use the threat of a nuclear holocaust to extort money and oil from the US. I'd say your attitude is ridiculous. It's great to see that the largest protests in human history are in support of a leader who rules through brutality, and has two murderous sons as successors, one of whom is a serial rapist. I'm glad the world has shown their stupidlity.
Figures the environmentalistsare trying to blame the US for Hussein's actions. I suppose it's our fault that he dumped oil into the gulf 12 years that was ten times more than spilled in the valdez incident, too.
CNN/FOX/etc. show every piece of footage they can get coming out of the IRAQI govt. as well as what the US govt. is saying. Plus they mention what al Jazeera is reporting from time to time. Your comments show your ignorance. Get some facts before spreading your unsubstantiated opinions as fact.
"but the effect is the same...People afraid because bombs are going off and buildings are collapsing around them."
The effect is not quite the same, because civilians are not the target of the attacks. The shock and terror (which is a much better phrase than shock and awe) is meant for the military, which means that although the coalition is instilling terror, they are not terrorists, by the definition of a terrorist.
Terrorize is correct, but not in the same sense that a terrorist terrorizes. This has a much narrower definition of intentionally killing civilians to instill terror, which the coalition is not doing.