Knowing that the movie industry has decided to treat each and every customer as a thief really makes me want to go out and give them some cash for the honor of being one of their suspects.
I beg to differ. Having formerly done security system installations, this is a quite common practice, especially if you're dealing with security gueards. A large casino I worked for used '2222' for its security codes. McCarren Airport (Las Vegas) prior to 9/11 had '1234' for its password to get into "secure" areas.
It has to be something the lowest common denominator on the security team can remember.
You can't sue people for committing a crime if THEY CAN PROVE you were trying to get them to do it.
Most people don't know the law OR the source of their downloaded files. Add to this a threatening letter from the RIAA/DOJ offering a cheap settlement for your "crime."
Entrapment, combined with extortion, is the new entertainment business model. Get used to it.
I'm surprised that no musicians have commented on this.
So let me get this straight... For the purposes of argument, I'm in a band, performing my own music. I'm already paying a soundman. If I tell my employee to record and make copies of the show for anyone who wants to buy one, I suddenly have to pay Clear Channel a cut?
That's what we said five years ago about the RIAA suing people.
This whole brouhaha is simply about not allowing anyone the choice of what they listen to unless they pay for each and every listen. If you decide your ringtone from your existing music, then they can't sell you the latest "big thing."
Mr. Avalon almost got a clue there, but he missed the forest because he was able to identify two new varieties of trees.
Maybe next year he'll notice that:
a) Soundscan reports millions more CDs sold at retail than the RIAA reports having shipped to retail outlets (about 60 million for the past two years);
b) Since 2000, the numbers of "units" shipped to "promotional and specialty" outlets (aka record clubs), has dropped by 50%, accounting for the bulk of the industry's decline;
c) The REAL important numbers are how many units were shipped and how many units were returned.
The RIAA's numbers are designed to provide no useful data whatsoever.
This idea that you have to spend a million dollars to make an album is pure unmitigated bullshit of the type that the record labels like to pump out on a regular basis. Or those "learn to mix like the pros" schools.
You CAN spend that much, but you don't have to.
People can't tell an mp3 from a CD track. They sure can't tell the difference between a $20,000 reverb and a $20 ProTools plug-in.
"In the past year, the recording industry has gone after people, including children, for illegally downloading music from the Internet. Earlier this month, the Recording Industry Association of America subpoenaed the University of Arizona to provide the personal information of four students accused of illegally downloading music from university computers."
Three reporters worked on this story and evidently none of them understand the facts.
No one has been subpoenaed anywhere for downloading music.
If you remember back a whole 14 to 18 months ago, the starting price for downloaded music was $2.49. The had already done all the colluding and price-fixing, had it all buttoned up.
Then Apple came along and screwed it all up.
The labels are just trying to get the price back to where they wanted it in the first place.
Equally true is the fact that they have no right to expect us to buy music if they do not meet the customer's expectations of how it exists, the quality, how it is distributed and the cost.
The customer is always right. Until the labels make something we want to buy, we don't owe them a goddamn thing.
Some of us are begging people to listen to our music. We give it away for free every day. Try DMusic.com, or GarageBand.com or Iuma.com or vitaminic.com.
So if it is my file, do I have the right to prevent persecution for sharing it?
Slashdot Mirror
Knowing that the movie industry has decided to treat each and every customer as a thief really makes me want to go out and give them some cash for the honor of being one of their suspects.
I beg to differ. Having formerly done security system installations, this is a quite common practice, especially if you're dealing with security gueards. A large casino I worked for used '2222' for its security codes. McCarren Airport (Las Vegas) prior to 9/11 had '1234' for its password to get into "secure" areas.
It has to be something the lowest common denominator on the security team can remember.
You'rte supposed to let it drip into the keyboard while holding Shift-Alt-Control.
Please put a Twinkie in each hand before you fry them, because fried Twinkies are awesome.
You can't sue people for committing a crime if THEY CAN PROVE you were trying to get them to do it.
Most people don't know the law OR the source of their downloaded files. Add to this a threatening letter from the RIAA/DOJ offering a cheap settlement for your "crime."
Entrapment, combined with extortion, is the new entertainment business model. Get used to it.
I'm surprised that no musicians have commented on this.
So let me get this straight... For the purposes of argument, I'm in a band, performing my own music. I'm already paying a soundman. If I tell my employee to record and make copies of the show for anyone who wants to buy one, I suddenly have to pay Clear Channel a cut?
Fuck that. The death of another good idea.
Since the 60s. It's called payola.
Live in the desert long enough and anything seems like a good idea.
That's what we said five years ago about the RIAA suing people.
This whole brouhaha is simply about not allowing anyone the choice of what they listen to unless they pay for each and every listen. If you decide your ringtone from your existing music, then they can't sell you the latest "big thing."
It's all about choice. You don't get any.
The same could be said for the quality of Microsoft's security -- it's unheard of.
So... what was the "surprise" supposed to be? Who was surprised? By what? Isn't this exactly what they said they wanted to do??
It's the only one eBay knew to teach them.
Mr. Avalon almost got a clue there, but he missed the forest because he was able to identify two new varieties of trees.
Maybe next year he'll notice that:
a) Soundscan reports millions more CDs sold at retail than the RIAA reports having shipped to retail outlets (about 60 million for the past two years);
b) Since 2000, the numbers of "units" shipped to "promotional and specialty" outlets (aka record clubs), has dropped by 50%, accounting for the bulk of the industry's decline;
c) The REAL important numbers are how many units were shipped and how many units were returned.
The RIAA's numbers are designed to provide no useful data whatsoever.
That's right. Some artists can get $2 off that $15 sale.
That would be the Terms of Service, which did NOT allow for assignment and clearly indicates that such a right does not exist.
Didn't you ever read it?
http://www.azoz.com/riaa/legal/mp3TOS.pdf
...how Universal was able to sell the licenses of 1.7 million songs it did not own to Trusonic, who was then able to sell them again to GarageBand.
Universal made $31 million selling the independent library, that they CHARGED musicians to post.
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum...
Where did you buy Pro Tools at? You got screwed.
$20k for a reverb unit???
This idea that you have to spend a million dollars to make an album is pure unmitigated bullshit of the type that the record labels like to pump out on a regular basis. Or those "learn to mix like the pros" schools.
You CAN spend that much, but you don't have to.
People can't tell an mp3 from a CD track. They sure can't tell the difference between a $20,000 reverb and a $20 ProTools plug-in.
"In the past year, the recording industry has gone after people, including children, for illegally downloading music from the Internet. Earlier this month, the Recording Industry Association of America subpoenaed the University of Arizona to provide the personal information of four students accused of illegally downloading music from university computers."
Three reporters worked on this story and evidently none of them understand the facts.
No one has been subpoenaed anywhere for downloading music.
If you remember back a whole 14 to 18 months ago, the starting price for downloaded music was $2.49. The had already done all the colluding and price-fixing, had it all buttoned up.
Then Apple came along and screwed it all up.
The labels are just trying to get the price back to where they wanted it in the first place.
Equally true is the fact that they have no right to expect us to buy music if they do not meet the customer's expectations of how it exists, the quality, how it is distributed and the cost.
The customer is always right. Until the labels make something we want to buy, we don't owe them a goddamn thing.
Some of us are begging people to listen to our music. We give it away for free every day. Try DMusic.com, or GarageBand.com or Iuma.com or vitaminic.com.
So if it is my file, do I have the right to prevent persecution for sharing it?
And how does the world tell the difference?
If our systems were that simple, then the voting could potentially come out accurate. The people would actually decide.
This is, of course, an event that cannot be allowed to take place in the U.S.
According to the RIAA, that is impossible. The list price of LPs never crossed the $9 until 1994, according to them.
More damning of the general intelligence of the American public.
Actually, there are only four lawsuits. One was filed in Washington DC and the other three in New York.