What bs. How do you explain all the song sharing on p2p networks then? There's no relationship between the price of the cd and whether or not it's available on p2p networks. Claiming that p2p song swapping wouldn't exist if a cd cost is $5 instead of $20 is silly. Instead of just making up stuff to get karma points, why don't you actually find out what's really going on?
In business, the person taking the moentary risk usually ends up with the lion's share of the profit. That is why the music producers make most of the money. If an artist's debut fails, they'll declare bankruptcy and the music producer will be stick paying the bill. When a project is successful, however, the person who put up the money is usually the 1st to get money back. That is why the artist needs to pay the studio cost if successful. The investor needs a return on his investment to make it worth the risk. Everybody keeps claiming artists are being ripped off. But unknown artists will give their left arm for a recording contract that is a supposed rip-off. Why? Because it isn't a rip-off. Unknown artists want someone to take a risk on them. If they're successful, they bitch and moan about the person taking the risk, because they forget that without the risk he took, they'd still be nowhere.
As long as Kazaa is up, no one's going to buy DRM media, so DRM is a mute point for music anyway. DRM does not stop Kazaa or block mp3s. Without legal help in protecting their copyrighted material, the RIAA is doomed since the average teenager either doesn't understand or care about copyright. Most adults aren't any better
Just because you can make available music online doesn't make it any cheaper to produce or promote it. A professional music studio still costs thousands of times more than the instruments and equipment a band uses to play in a local club. No one's going to vist Joe Band's web site either unless they've heard of them. All the stuff traded on Kazaa is stuff the RIAA took risks on to make popular. They spent the money and are getting screwed. Slashdot is against the RIAA because they don't like the RIAA resisting while they're screwing them.
"Those whose main goal was to get free music for the sake of IP theft/piracy were the minority; most people simply thought that although what they were downloading was not top quality, it would get better once Napster went legit."
You're joking right? That was Naste's business plan. Kazaa's business plan now is to advertise to people downloading copyrighted material. Cooincidently, the advertising seems to revolve around cd-burners.
Electronic companies make products that media providers support and consumers use. IF the RIAA ceases to exist as we know it, there will be no point in DRM for music, since p2p sharing has already won, at the expense of music producers and any artist that wanted a record contract with one of these producers
The point of the article is that if people stop spending money on music, the big corporations will collapse. We will be left with a bunch of garage bands producing music in their basement and fighting for airplay on local stations so they can sell a few home burned cds to help pay the bills that their day jobs don't. Of course they won't sell many cds because their tracks will soon make it to kazaa. That is the future of the music industry if p2p sharing is allowed.
The movie business has the exact same problem as the music business. It's just push back a few years. When you can download a free copy of your favorite movie from Kazaa in 20 min instead of 20 hrs, and burn it to dvd cheaply, DVD sales will drop substantially.
According to the article, the music industry is failing because of theft of copyrighted material. Free market is NOT at work. Instead, free as in beer market is at work. The free market system is broken because there is no bartering going on between producers and consumers. Instead consumers are purchasing their music for $0, without allowing the producers any say in the price. Apparently, no one on slashdot is concerned about why the RIAA members are failing. They think this is fault of the RIAA members when in fact it is the fault of music pirates. If cable went under because everyone was stealing their service, would we say it was their fault for not offering cable at a low enough price to make it not worth stealing? Yet people think this is a legitimate way for consumers to force down the price of music. I find it morally reprensible.
Kazaa is just an example. By file-swapping, the writer means Kazaa style p2p file sharing services. He's not talking about turning Kazaa into a pay service. He's talking about eliminating copyrighted material on Kazaa, which the RIAA is trying to make happen.
"Here's a clue: You will alienate less people if you put out better music. Woot Woot, the clue train is arriving, and this incarnation of the Pop train is finally leaving."
Every generation claims that music was better when they were young. Things are no different today. You just got old, that's all. It has nothing to do with the RIAA
"Here's another clue: We all have CD burners. Besides the obvious ability to copy music CD's, what you don't realize it has taught us is how cheap CD's truely are. I know there's the cost of the production of the album, the marketing, etc., but over 8 million copies, those costs are negligable. People hate you because the last CD they bought cost them $18.99 and the last CD they burned cost $1.76, including the label, the insert, and the case."
Copy a hundred cds and throw out 99. Then you'll start to get the picture of the economics of marketing music. Oh, and don't forget studio time, promotion, actually paying the artists, salaries of employees, printing costs, etc. Maybe it's not $18, but it's a lot more than $0.50, or whatever you pay for blank cd-r's put the cd burner divided by the number of cds you burn.
From a wired article:
"In the first six months of 2002, CD sales fell 11 percent - on top of a 3 percent decline the year before. Sales of blank CDs jumped 40 percent last year, while the users of Kazaa, the biggest online file-trading service, tripled in number. Meanwhile, the labels' new legitimate online music services attracted fewer paying customers than the McDonald's in Times Square."
Hard to argue that cds sales are down for the 1st time ever solely due to the economy given these statistics. You may not like what Rosen is saying, but she's probably right. Despite all the self-righteousness of slashdot readers, they're the real thieves and liars, making up bullshit excuses and lame cases that actually occur 0.0001% of the time to justify keeping technology around whose primary purpose is to steal property from copyright holders.
"Though many people have directed their anger towards her, it was never at her as an individual, but rather as the figurehead of an organization who's goals are in opposition to a large percentage of the public."
Translated from slashdot-speak to English: People are angry because the RIAA doesn't want people ripping cds and sharing the content online. Because they are taking steps to prevent this, it upsets the music pirates.
"The recording industry also has been promoting its own, for-fee online music services, but consumers have largely rejected them because of usage restrictions and limited selections."
They forgot to mention that for-fee means costs money. Consumers don't enjoying paying money if they don't have to.
The irony is in the fact that slashdotter's are posting that SCO is using the law because they can't compete, and Bois is their lawyer. Bois was also attacking MS, for Sun, Netscape, AOL, etc., who are also used the law because they can't compete. But was Bois or these companies considered bad? No, they were heroes to slashdot. Using terms like monopoly or software patent doesn't change the essence of the irony. It only show how stupid antitrust legislation is when compared aginst patent legislation. One grants a monopoly, the other punishes a monopoly, even if it wasn't granted, but earned.
The playing field was level to begin with. MS won the market, and were subsequently penaized for business practices which would not be illegal, but for antitrust legislation.
It's ironic that you're ripping on MS for supposed IP theft, when no case has been won proving this, and meanwhile the article claims linux is guilty of the crimes that you infer makes MS evil. In short, the original poster is correct in pointing out how hypocritical slashdotters are, or at least how inconsistent their arguments are.
You want a judge to sign every one of thousands of search warrants, all based on the same set of evidence? You're just using beuracracy to protect piracy. One signature from a judge should be sufficient for everyone, if they have the list of IPs and supporting evidence, which they do since Kazaa isn't encrypted.
"If you absolutely feel you must have the possiblity of accessing logs older than that, then encrypt them with a public key. Let the private key be held by an individual in another country. If you need to access the logs, you mail the encrypted log to him, he decrypts it and sends it back."
I believe that known as obstruction of justice. Not much different than shredding evidence.
I agree. Everyone on slashdot complains about DRM, copy-protected cds, etc. Since developing this stuff costs money, the RIAA would be less likely to implement these types of technologies if allowed to curtail p2p piracy in a cost effective manner. Of course, however, since slashdot readers tend to value personal freedom of consumers at the expense of business IP, they complain about any attempt to identify p2p pirates as well.
I believe using your electromagnet to avoid giving out customer info under search and siezure is known as obstruction. As far as filing a suit before search and siezure, they probably will file a suit against everyone at once, beforehand if forced to.
Slashdot Mirror
What bs. How do you explain all the song sharing on p2p networks then? There's no relationship between the price of the cd and whether or not it's available on p2p networks. Claiming that p2p song swapping wouldn't exist if a cd cost is $5 instead of $20 is silly. Instead of just making up stuff to get karma points, why don't you actually find out what's really going on?
In business, the person taking the moentary risk usually ends up with the lion's share of the profit. That is why the music producers make most of the money. If an artist's debut fails, they'll declare bankruptcy and the music producer will be stick paying the bill. When a project is successful, however, the person who put up the money is usually the 1st to get money back. That is why the artist needs to pay the studio cost if successful. The investor needs a return on his investment to make it worth the risk. Everybody keeps claiming artists are being ripped off. But unknown artists will give their left arm for a recording contract that is a supposed rip-off. Why? Because it isn't a rip-off. Unknown artists want someone to take a risk on them. If they're successful, they bitch and moan about the person taking the risk, because they forget that without the risk he took, they'd still be nowhere.
But did he make a profit? The RIAA needs to mitigate their risk by selling at a higher price since not every band they sign will be successful
As long as Kazaa is up, no one's going to buy DRM media, so DRM is a mute point for music anyway. DRM does not stop Kazaa or block mp3s. Without legal help in protecting their copyrighted material, the RIAA is doomed since the average teenager either doesn't understand or care about copyright. Most adults aren't any better
Just because you can make available music online doesn't make it any cheaper to produce or promote it. A professional music studio still costs thousands of times more than the instruments and equipment a band uses to play in a local club. No one's going to vist Joe Band's web site either unless they've heard of them. All the stuff traded on Kazaa is stuff the RIAA took risks on to make popular. They spent the money and are getting screwed. Slashdot is against the RIAA because they don't like the RIAA resisting while they're screwing them.
"Those whose main goal was to get free music for the sake of IP theft/piracy were the minority; most people simply thought that although what they were downloading was not top quality, it would get better once Napster went legit."
You're joking right? That was Naste's business plan. Kazaa's business plan now is to advertise to people downloading copyrighted material. Cooincidently, the advertising seems to revolve around cd-burners.
Electronic companies make products that media providers support and consumers use. IF the RIAA ceases to exist as we know it, there will be no point in DRM for music, since p2p sharing has already won, at the expense of music producers and any artist that wanted a record contract with one of these producers
The point of the article is that if people stop spending money on music, the big corporations will collapse. We will be left with a bunch of garage bands producing music in their basement and fighting for airplay on local stations so they can sell a few home burned cds to help pay the bills that their day jobs don't. Of course they won't sell many cds because their tracks will soon make it to kazaa. That is the future of the music industry if p2p sharing is allowed.
The movie business has the exact same problem as the music business. It's just push back a few years. When you can download a free copy of your favorite movie from Kazaa in 20 min instead of 20 hrs, and burn it to dvd cheaply, DVD sales will drop substantially.
According to the article, the music industry is failing because of theft of copyrighted material. Free market is NOT at work. Instead, free as in beer market is at work. The free market system is broken because there is no bartering going on between producers and consumers. Instead consumers are purchasing their music for $0, without allowing the producers any say in the price. Apparently, no one on slashdot is concerned about why the RIAA members are failing. They think this is fault of the RIAA members when in fact it is the fault of music pirates. If cable went under because everyone was stealing their service, would we say it was their fault for not offering cable at a low enough price to make it not worth stealing? Yet people think this is a legitimate way for consumers to force down the price of music. I find it morally reprensible.
Kazaa is just an example. By file-swapping, the writer means Kazaa style p2p file sharing services. He's not talking about turning Kazaa into a pay service. He's talking about eliminating copyrighted material on Kazaa, which the RIAA is trying to make happen.
"Here's a clue: You will alienate less people if you put out better music. Woot Woot, the clue train is arriving, and this incarnation of the Pop train is finally leaving."
Every generation claims that music was better when they were young. Things are no different today. You just got old, that's all. It has nothing to do with the RIAA
"Here's another clue: We all have CD burners. Besides the obvious ability to copy music CD's, what you don't realize it has taught us is how cheap CD's truely are. I know there's the cost of the production of the album, the marketing, etc., but over 8 million copies, those costs are negligable. People hate you because the last CD they bought cost them $18.99 and the last CD they burned cost $1.76, including the label, the insert, and the case."
Copy a hundred cds and throw out 99. Then you'll start to get the picture of the economics of marketing music. Oh, and don't forget studio time, promotion, actually paying the artists, salaries of employees, printing costs, etc. Maybe it's not $18, but it's a lot more than $0.50, or whatever you pay for blank cd-r's put the cd burner divided by the number of cds you burn.
From a wired article:
"In the first six months of 2002, CD sales fell 11 percent - on top of a 3 percent decline the year before. Sales of blank CDs jumped 40 percent last year, while the users of Kazaa, the biggest online file-trading service, tripled in number. Meanwhile, the labels' new legitimate online music services attracted fewer paying customers than the McDonald's in Times Square."
Hard to argue that cds sales are down for the 1st time ever solely due to the economy given these statistics. You may not like what Rosen is saying, but she's probably right. Despite all the self-righteousness of slashdot readers, they're the real thieves and liars, making up bullshit excuses and lame cases that actually occur 0.0001% of the time to justify keeping technology around whose primary purpose is to steal property from copyright holders.
"Though many people have directed their anger towards her, it was never at her as an individual, but rather as the figurehead of an organization who's goals are in opposition to a large percentage of the public."
Translated from slashdot-speak to English: People are angry because the RIAA doesn't want people ripping cds and sharing the content online. Because they are taking steps to prevent this, it upsets the music pirates.
"The recording industry also has been promoting its own, for-fee online music services, but consumers have largely rejected them because of usage restrictions and limited selections."
They forgot to mention that for-fee means costs money. Consumers don't enjoying paying money if they don't have to.
The irony is in the fact that slashdotter's are posting that SCO is using the law because they can't compete, and Bois is their lawyer. Bois was also attacking MS, for Sun, Netscape, AOL, etc., who are also used the law because they can't compete. But was Bois or these companies considered bad? No, they were heroes to slashdot. Using terms like monopoly or software patent doesn't change the essence of the irony. It only show how stupid antitrust legislation is when compared aginst patent legislation. One grants a monopoly, the other punishes a monopoly, even if it wasn't granted, but earned.
The playing field was level to begin with. MS won the market, and were subsequently penaized for business practices which would not be illegal, but for antitrust legislation.
It's ironic that you're ripping on MS for supposed IP theft, when no case has been won proving this, and meanwhile the article claims linux is guilty of the crimes that you infer makes MS evil.
In short, the original poster is correct in pointing out how hypocritical slashdotters are, or at least how inconsistent their arguments are.
If you think the RIAA members aren't already competiing against each other for market share, you're misinformed.
Despite what CNN tells you, theey're prosecuting people for uploading music to other users.
You want a judge to sign every one of thousands of search warrants, all based on the same set of evidence? You're just using beuracracy to protect piracy. One signature from a judge should be sufficient for everyone, if they have the list of IPs and supporting evidence, which they do since Kazaa isn't encrypted.
"If you absolutely feel you must have the possiblity of accessing logs older than that, then encrypt them with a public key. Let the private key be held by an individual in another country. If you need to access the logs, you mail the encrypted log to him, he decrypts it and sends it back."
I believe that known as obstruction of justice. Not much different than shredding evidence.
I agree. Everyone on slashdot complains about DRM, copy-protected cds, etc. Since developing this stuff costs money, the RIAA would be less likely to implement these types of technologies if allowed to curtail p2p piracy in a cost effective manner. Of course, however, since slashdot readers tend to value personal freedom of consumers at the expense of business IP, they complain about any attempt to identify p2p pirates as well.
Spam has nothing to do with copyright, no matter how hard you try to spin it. A judge still has to sign off on it, BTW, just like a search warrant.
I believe using your electromagnet to avoid giving out customer info under search and siezure is known as obstruction. As far as filing a suit before search and siezure, they probably will file a suit against everyone at once, beforehand if forced to.
You mean, Download, Mix, Burn , don't you? This case has nothing to do with ripping your own cds for your own mix cds.