Hahaha, it's funny how you people say, "It's a service, not a requirement," but when invasion of privacy actually happens to you it's suddenly not okay.
Example: Tivo. Tivo isn't required, but people got all up in arms because they captured info about what people watched (which is kind of a bullshit thing to do). They aren't exactly identifying YOU, just your data, so it's not REALLY an issue. Either way, it's still not cool to know that something you bought that is yours is sending data about the shit you watch to someone else.
Just because a company violates privacy issues doesn't make it "okay" simply because it's "a service, not a requirement," because you know as well as I that there are a ton of braindead computer users who sign up for things not knowing what they are.
Your response was quite pointless. I am very well aware that I don't *have* to do any of those things, but the reality is, I want to do those things, and I will! I also don't have to provide my personal information to do so! Crazy, huh?
Allow me to restate the first line of my last post: I have a right to privacy and anonymity.
I'm sorry if you don't agree with that. My information *will* remain invalid and private. My registrar has no problems with allowing me to do so. It will remain that way, even if ICANN warns me unless a solution presents itself where I can hide my personal information from others.
I'm surprised to see the responses I'm seeing on a site where most people ostensibly argue for free speech and anonymity
Word to that. Quite a few closed minded goons on here who don't realize that people with personal domains have every right to remain private/anonymous.
Instead you get some jackass trying to convince you otherwise with clever retorts like, "Ooooh you don't HAVE to have a website/domain name/email!!" as if he just injected an insightful revelation into my head.
Let me give you an example... say I have a slashdot account and put my domain as my homepage and/or make my email address public. I post something that someone doesn't agree with, and this person happens to have a chemical imbalance in their head.
They dig up info on me, they could prank my house, send shit to me, or just generally make a page with my name, address, and phone number saying "THIS GUY IS A DOUCHE!"
I'd rather avoid that. I'd also like to avoid masking my identity by being forced to use shit like yahoo or hotmail. If I use name@mydomain.com and my whois info is invalid, then.. that's all the protection I need.
If the public goes to the front page, they see a blank page. I use it primarily for web-development testing as well as a place to host any files that I might like to share out to friends. I also have email accounts based on that domain name.
There's absolutely no reason for *my* information to be made public. I have invalid whois data, and I won't be changing it simply because there's no reason to. I don't run a business online, I don't make profit, therefore, it's of no use to anyone to know where I live or what my phone # is.
I'm surprised everyone else hasn't followed suit. Whenever SCO makes a statement, it's usually in one ear, out the other... all I hear is "blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah."
Even though they are viewed as "The enemy" of this community, had they actually ever ONCE said anything factual and worthwhile, I'd listen. But that has yet to happen.
Ever notice how when their media attention dies down, they make another statement just to keep the fire going? They have no case, never had one, they're jerking the legal system and playing it like a lottery, and flat out wasting people's valuable time. They want to throw a little temper tantrum because no one's buying their stuff. I wish the legal system would take their false lawsuits and dismiss them with a grin and a flip of the bird.
Instead, they try to spread their FUD around about how Linux supposedly has their IP included, yet continuously fail to show proof even when asked, which only proves that they are delaying the inevitable point in time when it will be proven to all their investors that they are completely and utterly full of fucking shit. I really hope someone countersues them into oblivion.
I think the best thing people can do at this point in time is just ignore them.
I just don't understand why someone would spend $2,000 - $3,000 on a laptop just to play games. Sure, it's convenient to have a portable kick-ass gaming system, but not when it's THAT expensive. You can piece together an equivalent desktop system that performs as well, if not better, for nearly 1/5 the price.
I don't know many people who NEED to take their games with them, as laptops are generally meant for portable work.. start putting hardcore gaming technology and you're gonna be paying out the ass for something you really don't need.
Unless you're fine with blowing that much money, take a step back and think of convenience vs. necessity.
Games these days are insanely short and are also rampant with sequels based on engines that have had very little to no core updates since the first.
Tony Hawk 4/5, GTA: Vice City are prime examples. Sorry, but if you're gonna charge $50, give me a reason. I don't think much R&D was invested into the engines for Vice City or the THPS sequels. It's pretty much "take the old engine, tweak the graphics a bit.. add some new scenarios.. RELEASE!" aka Expansion Packs. I'll be damned if I'm gonna pay $50 for an expansion pack.
There's a point where it's funny, but then there's a point where it's really just overdone. I haven't even read half the stories posted, but it seems like they're all fake... and if they aren't, Slashdot is really ruining the credibility of some people. Not sure if the BSD on Gameboy is real or not, but if it is, who's gonna believe it?
You don't see CNN taking the day off. "OSAMA BIN LADEN CAPTURED!!", you click the link and read a long drawn out story that COULD be true, but at the bottom: "...April Fools!"
I know I don't HAVE to purchase them, and I don't. That's why I copy them. I don't buy DVDs either for the same reason they keep trying to re-sell movies under the "Ultra Special Edition" scheme. I just think it's a somewhat valid reason why copying doesn't exactly hurt them.
But there are plenty of people who DO shell out cash for the same games (and DVDs) they purchased in the past. I feel that "sales lost" because I copy are offset by those who DO purchase twice. I already purchased MGS2, so why should I purchase MGS2:Substance if I wanna check out the extras?
Renting you say? Great! Off to Blockbuster to rent it for $4.99. Blockbuster already paid quite a hefty fee for the game to be able to make profit from renting to people. I rent the game, keep it for 4-5 days, and.. chances are I'll beat it (even if it wasn't a game I already beat/owned). Now, if I returned it never to play it again, how's it different if I copy it?
There's definitely a lot of arguments FOR the industry losing money out to those who mod.. but honestly, they don't lose much for the reasons mentioned above.
A good example would be Metal Gear Solid 2. It was a good game and all, but it took 8-9 hours to go through the FIRST time. That's not worth $50 at all.
...then they come out with MGS2: Substance. So, they want me to pay another $50 so I can... skateboard as Snake? Right...
What about re-hashes of old games? Super Mario Advance 4 was, what, Super Mario 3 on NES? In fact, if I recall, I actually purchased that game twice: Super Mario 3 (the original) and a 2nd time for the SNES. Why should I pay another $40 just to play the SAME game on a different platform? Ridiculous.
I don't see myself purchasing GTA: San Andreas when it comes out just for the fact it's more or less an expansion pack like Vice City was. An expansion pack they charge $50 for. Crazy! It's the *same* engine used in the first two with VERY minor tweaks here and there. Sorry, but it's not THAT hard to come up with the story and different scenarios. I felt kinda ripped off w/ Vice City. I probably woulda paid $25 for it.. MAYBE $30. The 3rd time around, looks like I'll be copying it instead.
Most people don't have the know how or the care to mod their systems. Sometimes price is an issue. If you can't solder it yourself, you'll most likely have to send it to a shop somehwere and have someone do it for ya. A lot of people don't want to bother with that.. they don't want to bother with the possible risk of frying your system.
I have a modded PS2 and copy games all the time. I have no problems admitting it. Yeah yeah, I'm a worthless thieving piece of shit, yadda yadda. I'm not justifying it at all, but people have been spreading PC games all over IRC, usenet, P2P, etc... for YEARS. I wouldn't exactly say that the video game industry is suffering because of it.
It doesn't make it okay to do it, but you don't see PC game developers getting up in arms over it (at least, they aren't going on a stampede like the ??AA). UT2004 has been spread all around and it even includes a patch so you can play it online. Compare the sales of 2004 vs the original, which was probably pirated just as much, if not more.
On a more moral note, I've thought about getting a mod for my little seven year old brother's PS2 simply because the games are expensive and he has scratched some already. Granted, they still work, but... at $50 a pop, those things aren't easily replaceable. Sure, I suppose he could be taught to handle them better, but people should still be able to make backup copies of games.
Some might bring up the argument, "Well, with that thinking, how would these companies survive then if everyone did what you're doing?" That's the thing, not everyone does it. I'm sure most people on here know how to go about gettin an ISO of a game if they really wanted it. Does it mean they're going to? The possibility is there, but probably not.
It doesn't justify it, but this type of problem has always existed and always will exist.
Step into a Pod at Destination A, arrive at a Pod at Destination B just moments later. It's just re-arranging molecules, right? I'm sure we can do that.
And you know... even if that doesn't succeed, at least we could have super-human abilities if, let's say, a fly were to enter the pod with us at the exact moment we materialize. We could vomit on people and make them dissolve instantly, or walk into a bar and challenge the toughest man to an arm wrestling match only to BREAK HIS FOREARM IN HALF!!
We'd be so tough and bad ass that people would BEG to drive us to where we needed to go. They'd be all like, "Oh please, Mr. Human fly, don't vomit on me or break my bones. Where do you need to go? Oh... to China Cuisine on 59th street? Right away!"
...and if that didn't succeed, we could do Mac commercials as a last resort.
You really expect people to believe that you've gone to a concert of every artist whose songs you illegally obtained?
Is this really a hard concept to grasp?
I like a few bands who aren't associated with the RIAA. Tomahawk and Fantomas to name two. I have purchased every CD they own as WELL as attended each concert they've performed. Even bought a shirt or two.
No, I haven't gone to every concert of an artist whose mp3 I've downloaded, but then again, if the mp3 wasn't available, I would've never bought the CD to begin with. Let's take GWAR, for example... never really actually heard their music until recently. I'm certainly not gonna spend $15 on a CD to see if I like them. There was a GWAR mp3 flood on a few newsgroups, so I thought "Why not?". Downloaded their CDs, gave em a listen over the span of a few weeks. Found out they're a pretty goofy band. Some songs are catchy, but I don't think I'd buy any of their CDs. If they ever came to my city for a concert, I'd definitely make it a point to go see them just because I think it'd be a good time. Had mp3s never existed, I probably would've borrowed the CDs from my friends and gave them a listen. What's the difference? If I borrow the CDs from a friend, I could easily just copy the CD or (if I lived in olden times) made a cassette copy.
I mean, if tomorrow someone suggests to me, "You really need to check out [band]", I'm not gonna fuckin immediately and blindly shell out my $$ for a CD just on a hunch because someone told me to check them out. Either I'm gonna request that the person who suggested them make me a copy of their best songs, or I'm gonna download the mp3s to hear what they sound like. MP3s happen to be very convenient.
You can have all the doubts you want. I don't care if you believe I steal 100% of what I download. It's not like you're going to influence my actions in the future or anything. I've already explained my position in reponses to others who have responded.
To be quite honest, the majority of music I've downloaded is pretty mediocre to say the least. It's not that I listen to crappy stuff, but the bands I like, I'll find some other way to support them.. and the bands I'm merely curious about.. no big deal there as I probably would've never purchased their CDs to begin with.
No, I don't buy the CDs because I know that part of the money goes to the RIAA. I don't wish to give them money.
Like I originally stated, I'll support the artists by going to their concerts, where they take in most of their profits. I'll buy a shirt or two, and make it a point to see them every time they come to town.
Don't get me wrong, I HAVE purchased CDs from artists not affiliated with the RIAA (Tomahawk, Fantomas, etc..), but those that ARE, I will support through other methods.
Quite honestly, when an artist comes out with a new album, I'll download it first. I'll give it a few listens, and if it's good, I'll keep them in mind and make it a point to support them in some method. It could be spreading the word of how good the album is, or it could be by buying merchandise from their website. If it's mediocre or just a re-hash of what was done before in a lame attempt to cash in, then I'll probably give it a few listens only to let it disappear into my mp3 collection never to be heard of again.
You are right: I probably would've stopped purchasing CDs either way. It's insane the amount of crap they put out today. For every CD I DON'T buy, it's easily made up by the amount of teenagers duped into buying the latest MTV trend that's being forced down the throats of teenagers.
Same thing with DVDs: I don't purchase DVDs anymore. Capitalism or not, the entertainment industry is greedy and manipulative. Take, for instance, what they do with Lord of the Rings. They release the plain vanilla version on DVD and a few months later release an Extended Edition expecting people to pretty much buy it twice. So, for every DVD I don't buy, it's easily made up by those suckered into buying Deluxe Ultra Edition Box sets of movies they already own.
Call it capitalism, call it whatever you want. I'll call my methods "reverse capitalism." Making money is fine, but don't bullshit me into buying your stuff.
See, I don't need the morality squad jumping down my throat trying to remind me of what's right/wrong. If you think what *I'M* doing is more wrong than how the industry operates, then you have some thinking to do. I might not single handedly change the way the industry treats consumers (nor is that my goal), but at least I take comfort in the fact that I'm no longer a participant.
I don't really care if you agree with it or not (I never really asked), so no, I won't "get over it". I'll leave that up to the general population.
The reason I stopped buying CDs and continue to download mp3s is because of how the RIAA reacted to the situation. Many others feel the same why. Why should we buy CDs? I'll support the artists by going to their concerts instead.
They like to jump around like a big angry monkey and spread their lies and misinformation to get the public (and government) to see them as "poor me, people aren't buying our music" instead of coming to the realization of "Hey, maybe the music we're putting out is junk."
Then they huff and puff, throw lawsuits left and right in an attempt to SCARE people into buying their products. Coercion, anyone?
I think we've all known for quite some time that mp3 downloading is equivalent to when recordable cassette tapes were introduced. There was a frenzy from the industry as if it was the end of music and sales as they knew it. It wasn't.
Middle-aged office secretaries. Every office has a gaggle of them where all they do is talk and gossip about who's getting voted off, fired, etc. The thing is, they think everyone watches it, as if it's really something to do.
"OMG, you DON'T WATCH JOE MULTIMILLIONAIRE?!"
"Uh, no. You ask me this every week."
"Yeah, but that show is GOOD."
"...you're lonely, aren't you?"
Basically it gives them something to look forward to in their otherwise meangingless lives.
Slashdot Mirror
Hahaha, it's funny how you people say, "It's a service, not a requirement," but when invasion of privacy actually happens to you it's suddenly not okay.
Example: Tivo. Tivo isn't required, but people got all up in arms because they captured info about what people watched (which is kind of a bullshit thing to do). They aren't exactly identifying YOU, just your data, so it's not REALLY an issue. Either way, it's still not cool to know that something you bought that is yours is sending data about the shit you watch to someone else.
Just because a company violates privacy issues doesn't make it "okay" simply because it's "a service, not a requirement," because you know as well as I that there are a ton of braindead computer users who sign up for things not knowing what they are.
Call me crazy, but I don't see the point in using an email service where you CAN'T DELETE your emails. WTF?
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.
Your response was quite pointless. I am very well aware that I don't *have* to do any of those things, but the reality is, I want to do those things, and I will! I also don't have to provide my personal information to do so! Crazy, huh?
Allow me to restate the first line of my last post: I have a right to privacy and anonymity.
I'm sorry if you don't agree with that. My information *will* remain invalid and private. My registrar has no problems with allowing me to do so. It will remain that way, even if ICANN warns me unless a solution presents itself where I can hide my personal information from others.
I'm surprised to see the responses I'm seeing on a site where most people ostensibly argue for free speech and anonymity
Word to that. Quite a few closed minded goons on here who don't realize that people with personal domains have every right to remain private/anonymous.
Instead you get some jackass trying to convince you otherwise with clever retorts like, "Ooooh you don't HAVE to have a website/domain name/email!!" as if he just injected an insightful revelation into my head.
I have a right to privacy and anonymity.
Let me give you an example... say I have a slashdot account and put my domain as my homepage and/or make my email address public. I post something that someone doesn't agree with, and this person happens to have a chemical imbalance in their head.
They dig up info on me, they could prank my house, send shit to me, or just generally make a page with my name, address, and phone number saying "THIS GUY IS A DOUCHE!"
I'd rather avoid that. I'd also like to avoid masking my identity by being forced to use shit like yahoo or hotmail. If I use name@mydomain.com and my whois info is invalid, then.. that's all the protection I need.
Not all rules apply to everyone.
My domain is a personal domain.
If the public goes to the front page, they see a blank page. I use it primarily for web-development testing as well as a place to host any files that I might like to share out to friends. I also have email accounts based on that domain name.
There's absolutely no reason for *my* information to be made public. I have invalid whois data, and I won't be changing it simply because there's no reason to. I don't run a business online, I don't make profit, therefore, it's of no use to anyone to know where I live or what my phone # is.
I'm surprised everyone else hasn't followed suit. Whenever SCO makes a statement, it's usually in one ear, out the other... all I hear is "blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah."
Even though they are viewed as "The enemy" of this community, had they actually ever ONCE said anything factual and worthwhile, I'd listen. But that has yet to happen.
Ever notice how when their media attention dies down, they make another statement just to keep the fire going? They have no case, never had one, they're jerking the legal system and playing it like a lottery, and flat out wasting people's valuable time. They want to throw a little temper tantrum because no one's buying their stuff. I wish the legal system would take their false lawsuits and dismiss them with a grin and a flip of the bird.
Instead, they try to spread their FUD around about how Linux supposedly has their IP included, yet continuously fail to show proof even when asked, which only proves that they are delaying the inevitable point in time when it will be proven to all their investors that they are completely and utterly full of fucking shit. I really hope someone countersues them into oblivion.
I think the best thing people can do at this point in time is just ignore them.
...people have to actually WANT to use these services. You can't just release something and expect people to use it and make it the next standard.
Most won't use this.. and I'd be surprised at those who do. Who in their right mind wants to be restricted like this?
Who are you trying to convince, me or you?
I just don't understand why someone would spend $2,000 - $3,000 on a laptop just to play games. Sure, it's convenient to have a portable kick-ass gaming system, but not when it's THAT expensive. You can piece together an equivalent desktop system that performs as well, if not better, for nearly 1/5 the price.
I don't know many people who NEED to take their games with them, as laptops are generally meant for portable work.. start putting hardcore gaming technology and you're gonna be paying out the ass for something you really don't need.
Unless you're fine with blowing that much money, take a step back and think of convenience vs. necessity.
Games these days are insanely short and are also rampant with sequels based on engines that have had very little to no core updates since the first.
:)
Tony Hawk 4/5, GTA: Vice City are prime examples. Sorry, but if you're gonna charge $50, give me a reason. I don't think much R&D was invested into the engines for Vice City or the THPS sequels. It's pretty much "take the old engine, tweak the graphics a bit.. add some new scenarios.. RELEASE!" aka Expansion Packs. I'll be damned if I'm gonna pay $50 for an expansion pack.
That is why I love my modchip
No kidding, today has been ridiculous.
There's a point where it's funny, but then there's a point where it's really just overdone. I haven't even read half the stories posted, but it seems like they're all fake... and if they aren't, Slashdot is really ruining the credibility of some people. Not sure if the BSD on Gameboy is real or not, but if it is, who's gonna believe it?
You don't see CNN taking the day off. "OSAMA BIN LADEN CAPTURED!!", you click the link and read a long drawn out story that COULD be true, but at the bottom: "...April Fools!"
Karma to burn. *shrugs*
I know I don't HAVE to purchase them, and I don't. That's why I copy them. I don't buy DVDs either for the same reason they keep trying to re-sell movies under the "Ultra Special Edition" scheme. I just think it's a somewhat valid reason why copying doesn't exactly hurt them.
.. chances are I'll beat it (even if it wasn't a game I already beat/owned). Now, if I returned it never to play it again, how's it different if I copy it?
But there are plenty of people who DO shell out cash for the same games (and DVDs) they purchased in the past. I feel that "sales lost" because I copy are offset by those who DO purchase twice. I already purchased MGS2, so why should I purchase MGS2:Substance if I wanna check out the extras?
Renting you say? Great! Off to Blockbuster to rent it for $4.99. Blockbuster already paid quite a hefty fee for the game to be able to make profit from renting to people. I rent the game, keep it for 4-5 days, and
There's definitely a lot of arguments FOR the industry losing money out to those who mod.. but honestly, they don't lose much for the reasons mentioned above.
Uh, I'm suggesting that playing SNES/NES roms isn't hurting Nintendo as they no longer make a profit from those games.
Quite funny yourself there, kiddo.
Nintendo no longer makes profit from NES/SNES, so I wouldn't exactly call playing an NES/SNES emulator "pirating".
By all means, point me to a store that sells SNES games where NINTENDO makes a profit.
Agreed.
...then they come out with MGS2: Substance. So, they want me to pay another $50 so I can... skateboard as Snake? Right...
A good example would be Metal Gear Solid 2. It was a good game and all, but it took 8-9 hours to go through the FIRST time. That's not worth $50 at all.
What about re-hashes of old games? Super Mario Advance 4 was, what, Super Mario 3 on NES? In fact, if I recall, I actually purchased that game twice: Super Mario 3 (the original) and a 2nd time for the SNES. Why should I pay another $40 just to play the SAME game on a different platform? Ridiculous.
I don't see myself purchasing GTA: San Andreas when it comes out just for the fact it's more or less an expansion pack like Vice City was. An expansion pack they charge $50 for. Crazy! It's the *same* engine used in the first two with VERY minor tweaks here and there. Sorry, but it's not THAT hard to come up with the story and different scenarios. I felt kinda ripped off w/ Vice City. I probably woulda paid $25 for it.. MAYBE $30. The 3rd time around, looks like I'll be copying it instead.
Same applies with the THPS series. Reeeeeeehash!
Most people don't have the know how or the care to mod their systems. Sometimes price is an issue. If you can't solder it yourself, you'll most likely have to send it to a shop somehwere and have someone do it for ya. A lot of people don't want to bother with that.. they don't want to bother with the possible risk of frying your system.
I have a modded PS2 and copy games all the time. I have no problems admitting it. Yeah yeah, I'm a worthless thieving piece of shit, yadda yadda. I'm not justifying it at all, but people have been spreading PC games all over IRC, usenet, P2P, etc... for YEARS. I wouldn't exactly say that the video game industry is suffering because of it.
It doesn't make it okay to do it, but you don't see PC game developers getting up in arms over it (at least, they aren't going on a stampede like the ??AA). UT2004 has been spread all around and it even includes a patch so you can play it online. Compare the sales of 2004 vs the original, which was probably pirated just as much, if not more.
On a more moral note, I've thought about getting a mod for my little seven year old brother's PS2 simply because the games are expensive and he has scratched some already. Granted, they still work, but... at $50 a pop, those things aren't easily replaceable. Sure, I suppose he could be taught to handle them better, but people should still be able to make backup copies of games.
Some might bring up the argument, "Well, with that thinking, how would these companies survive then if everyone did what you're doing?" That's the thing, not everyone does it. I'm sure most people on here know how to go about gettin an ISO of a game if they really wanted it. Does it mean they're going to? The possibility is there, but probably not.
It doesn't justify it, but this type of problem has always existed and always will exist.
Scott me up, Beamie!!
Step into a Pod at Destination A, arrive at a Pod at Destination B just moments later. It's just re-arranging molecules, right? I'm sure we can do that.
...and if that didn't succeed, we could do Mac commercials as a last resort.
And you know... even if that doesn't succeed, at least we could have super-human abilities if, let's say, a fly were to enter the pod with us at the exact moment we materialize. We could vomit on people and make them dissolve instantly, or walk into a bar and challenge the toughest man to an arm wrestling match only to BREAK HIS FOREARM IN HALF!!
We'd be so tough and bad ass that people would BEG to drive us to where we needed to go. They'd be all like, "Oh please, Mr. Human fly, don't vomit on me or break my bones. Where do you need to go? Oh... to China Cuisine on 59th street? Right away!"
You really expect people to believe that you've gone to a concert of every artist whose songs you illegally obtained?
Is this really a hard concept to grasp?
I like a few bands who aren't associated with the RIAA. Tomahawk and Fantomas to name two. I have purchased every CD they own as WELL as attended each concert they've performed. Even bought a shirt or two.
No, I haven't gone to every concert of an artist whose mp3 I've downloaded, but then again, if the mp3 wasn't available, I would've never bought the CD to begin with. Let's take GWAR, for example... never really actually heard their music until recently. I'm certainly not gonna spend $15 on a CD to see if I like them. There was a GWAR mp3 flood on a few newsgroups, so I thought "Why not?". Downloaded their CDs, gave em a listen over the span of a few weeks. Found out they're a pretty goofy band. Some songs are catchy, but I don't think I'd buy any of their CDs. If they ever came to my city for a concert, I'd definitely make it a point to go see them just because I think it'd be a good time. Had mp3s never existed, I probably would've borrowed the CDs from my friends and gave them a listen. What's the difference? If I borrow the CDs from a friend, I could easily just copy the CD or (if I lived in olden times) made a cassette copy.
I mean, if tomorrow someone suggests to me, "You really need to check out [band]", I'm not gonna fuckin immediately and blindly shell out my $$ for a CD just on a hunch because someone told me to check them out. Either I'm gonna request that the person who suggested them make me a copy of their best songs, or I'm gonna download the mp3s to hear what they sound like. MP3s happen to be very convenient.
You can have all the doubts you want. I don't care if you believe I steal 100% of what I download. It's not like you're going to influence my actions in the future or anything. I've already explained my position in reponses to others who have responded.
To be quite honest, the majority of music I've downloaded is pretty mediocre to say the least. It's not that I listen to crappy stuff, but the bands I like, I'll find some other way to support them.. and the bands I'm merely curious about.. no big deal there as I probably would've never purchased their CDs to begin with.
No, I don't buy the CDs because I know that part of the money goes to the RIAA. I don't wish to give them money.
Like I originally stated, I'll support the artists by going to their concerts, where they take in most of their profits. I'll buy a shirt or two, and make it a point to see them every time they come to town.
Don't get me wrong, I HAVE purchased CDs from artists not affiliated with the RIAA (Tomahawk, Fantomas, etc..), but those that ARE, I will support through other methods.
Quite honestly, when an artist comes out with a new album, I'll download it first. I'll give it a few listens, and if it's good, I'll keep them in mind and make it a point to support them in some method. It could be spreading the word of how good the album is, or it could be by buying merchandise from their website. If it's mediocre or just a re-hash of what was done before in a lame attempt to cash in, then I'll probably give it a few listens only to let it disappear into my mp3 collection never to be heard of again.
Debbie that's you, isn't it? Look, we talked about this eariler. You have a call on line 3. Please take it and stop playing around on Slashdot.
Thanks!
Sincerely,
M.K. in programming
You are right: I probably would've stopped purchasing CDs either way. It's insane the amount of crap they put out today. For every CD I DON'T buy, it's easily made up by the amount of teenagers duped into buying the latest MTV trend that's being forced down the throats of teenagers.
Same thing with DVDs: I don't purchase DVDs anymore. Capitalism or not, the entertainment industry is greedy and manipulative. Take, for instance, what they do with Lord of the Rings. They release the plain vanilla version on DVD and a few months later release an Extended Edition expecting people to pretty much buy it twice. So, for every DVD I don't buy, it's easily made up by those suckered into buying Deluxe Ultra Edition Box sets of movies they already own.
Call it capitalism, call it whatever you want. I'll call my methods "reverse capitalism." Making money is fine, but don't bullshit me into buying your stuff.
See, I don't need the morality squad jumping down my throat trying to remind me of what's right/wrong. If you think what *I'M* doing is more wrong than how the industry operates, then you have some thinking to do. I might not single handedly change the way the industry treats consumers (nor is that my goal), but at least I take comfort in the fact that I'm no longer a participant.
I don't really care if you agree with it or not (I never really asked), so no, I won't "get over it". I'll leave that up to the general population.
The reason I stopped buying CDs and continue to download mp3s is because of how the RIAA reacted to the situation. Many others feel the same why. Why should we buy CDs? I'll support the artists by going to their concerts instead.
They like to jump around like a big angry monkey and spread their lies and misinformation to get the public (and government) to see them as "poor me, people aren't buying our music" instead of coming to the realization of "Hey, maybe the music we're putting out is junk."
Then they huff and puff, throw lawsuits left and right in an attempt to SCARE people into buying their products. Coercion, anyone?
I think we've all known for quite some time that mp3 downloading is equivalent to when recordable cassette tapes were introduced. There was a frenzy from the industry as if it was the end of music and sales as they knew it. It wasn't.
Now we're seeing the truth.
but who wants to watch all these reality shows?
Middle-aged office secretaries. Every office has a gaggle of them where all they do is talk and gossip about who's getting voted off, fired, etc. The thing is, they think everyone watches it, as if it's really something to do.
"OMG, you DON'T WATCH JOE MULTIMILLIONAIRE?!"
"Uh, no. You ask me this every week."
"Yeah, but that show is GOOD."
"...you're lonely, aren't you?"
Basically it gives them something to look forward to in their otherwise meangingless lives.