Thanks for clearing that up. You're right, the retail end is screwed. And your scenario isn't just for WalMart. It's every store that wants to sell a DVD. You'd have to have a global kiosk at every store, because you're not going to be able to integrate it into everyone's (different) register.
Also, this would kill a few markets out there. You would no longer be able to sell DVD's at used book stores, no longer able to give them as gifts. No longer able to buy them from Columbia-House type places, or Amazon.com.
And even after all that, I can't imagine what the purpose of this would be? I don't see how this keep someone from ripping/burning a copy. All I see is that it would keep the average user from lending a DVD to a friend, or letting your kids watch a movie you bought when you're not in the house. I'm really at a loss to see where the content protection is?
Somehow, we're both arguing against something we both agree on.:)
Yes, the RIAA pays a lot of lip service to illegality of downloading.
And here they say downloading a copy of a song you own is still illegal.
Personally, I think the RIAA has not taken any downloaders to court, because they'd hate to lose a case. Would this set a precedence that downloading is legal?
Also, what's the punitive damage of taking something you don't own? The cost of the item? Penalties the same as shoplifting? Pretty low. Nothing like the inferred cost of bootlegging, and providing thousands of people the product, and destroying the 'potential' income of the RIAA's clients. Even the NET ACT targets the 'uploader'.
If the RIAA tries to target a downloader, then maybe the only way they could win, is to lower the penalty fine. Maybe they don't want to put a low price tag on that crime, which many may find justifiable (like a speeding ticket).
This isn't a loophole. And it's not even a good defense.
The RIAA has made it clear (true or false) that downloading a copy of a song that you already own is illegal.
Going out and buying a CD after you get busted, is not going to save you either, because they're not that stupid. The evidence they're going to have on you is NOT your hard drive contents, but your logs of you downloading the copyrighted material.
Kind of a silly back and forth argument about the semantics of where electrons are being copied.
Since both sides can't be blamed for making the copy (because then there'd be 2 copies made, and only 1 copy was made) it has been pointed out that the person providing the file for downloading is the one who is making the copy.
They're the ones in "possession" of the file, they're the ones making it available, and they're the ones making a copy---that the download takes.
Your point has been brought up a long, long time ago, and it's the UPLOADER that is making a copy. You are simply downloading the copy the uploader made when you make the download request.
I don't understand. Viruses are simply programs that run in an O/S that we don't want running. How can an O/S know the difference between an application I just compiled and some virus? You're asking that my application can't run? You want Palladium?
Don't get me wrong. I think the SPREADING of viruses should be stopped. But I think that falls into the internet connection. Adding a REAL firewall, and fixing IE. But I don't think it's the O/S's fault.
True. True.
I switched to Firefox because I was sick of using IE. Ever since I've switched, AdAware has found ZERO spyware/malware incidents!
To IE's meager defense, I'm sure there might have been a setting somewhere that might have tightened up the holes, but switching to Firefox has been easier. Plus, I'm addicted to the tabbed browing.
I couldn't believe it passed 100-0 either. So I followed some of the links above to see what our beloved Senator Feingold did (only one to vote against the Patriot Act)
4/13/2005: S.AMDT.395 Amendment SA 395 proposed by Senator Feinstein. (consideration: CR S3540-3541; text: CR S3540)
To express the sense of the Senate that text of the REAL ID Act of 2005 should not be included in the conference report.
I'll have to do more checking, but obviously in the end, it was important to pass the monies on to our war in Iraq...
Heh. I have no doubt that money can be made selling drugs. And yes it can be a lot. But there is no way he's selling 1000 pills EVERY night. There is no way he can do it safely for long without getting caught, nor can he corner the market forever there. Someone will horn in on him. And he's going to end up dead or in jail.
If you've ever watched "The Sopranos", it's about mob guys nowadays. Behind the scene interviews describe these guys who work for Tony only pulling in 100K a year. There are lots of scores to be made, but they're sporadic.
I looked for the link, but I can't find it. The reason I replied to your first comment was the just today, I read an article about an RIAA rep replying to questions/accusations about the cost of CD's being so high. He replied with the usual propaganda about how inflation today makes CD's actually at an all time low, investment in 90% of failed artists, etc. He actually took a stance based on cheap CD costs, cheap distribution (online too) etc.
They're talking out both sides of their mouths, depending on the situation.
Personally, I figured most of their costs go into marketing. They already own the producing side, they partially own most distribution channels, CD packaging, materials, etc. All they're doing is paying themselves money in each area.
And even the marketing side they're greasing. I'm sure MTV is owned by one of them. Radios shows are all ClearChannel, and we've read about Payola. Tickemaster is corrupt, so I can only imagine they're in bed. And even the retail stores are getting rear ended. Special prices IF they put up certain banners and signs and promos? Anyway...
My main beef with 'legal' online music is lack of content. You wouldn't believe me if I told you how many mp3's my friend has, and he'd chuck them in an instant if **ALL** of their discography was avaiable at all times. Even for a cost.
I'm talking cross-tagged genres, biographies, pictures, member lineups, similar-to links, redone-by, etc.
And the funny thing is, these records companies are the ones WITH this information.
Even iTunes has only recently broken 1 million songs to choose from. That's terrible!
The traditional cost of media is largely distribution costs (if you believe the RIAA).
Wrong. The RIAA does not say most of their cost comes from distribution. Their cost comes from "investing" in all their artists, of which only 1 in 10 are profitable.
However, don't mistake my personaly beliefs as theirs.
Fair enough. Although I was attempting to be more derisive than insightful, I am assuming they'll follow the same approach they did with the crap they pushed in the schoolrooms:
Maybe the scouts also get to learn about barratry, buying politicians, ripping off artists, and price fixing! Boy scouts might finally be able to outsell those Girl Scout Cookies!
Hell, we just learned to race pine wood derbies, and how to have fun. It helps when your dad volunteers to be a scout master. Like they say... take an active step in raising your kids.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, this would kill a few markets out there. You would no longer be able to sell DVD's at used book stores, no longer able to give them as gifts. No longer able to buy them from Columbia-House type places, or Amazon.com.
And even after all that, I can't imagine what the purpose of this would be? I don't see how this keep someone from ripping/burning a copy. All I see is that it would keep the average user from lending a DVD to a friend, or letting your kids watch a movie you bought when you're not in the house. I'm really at a loss to see where the content protection is?
I find the responses to them quite amusing.
Yes, the RIAA pays a lot of lip service to illegality of downloading.
And here they say downloading a copy of a song you own is still illegal.
Personally, I think the RIAA has not taken any downloaders to court, because they'd hate to lose a case. Would this set a precedence that downloading is legal?
Also, what's the punitive damage of taking something you don't own? The cost of the item? Penalties the same as shoplifting? Pretty low. Nothing like the inferred cost of bootlegging, and providing thousands of people the product, and destroying the 'potential' income of the RIAA's clients. Even the NET ACT targets the 'uploader'.
If the RIAA tries to target a downloader, then maybe the only way they could win, is to lower the penalty fine. Maybe they don't want to put a low price tag on that crime, which many may find justifiable (like a speeding ticket).
The RIAA has made it clear (true or false) that downloading a copy of a song that you already own is illegal.
Going out and buying a CD after you get busted, is not going to save you either, because they're not that stupid. The evidence they're going to have on you is NOT your hard drive contents, but your logs of you downloading the copyrighted material.
Since both sides can't be blamed for making the copy (because then there'd be 2 copies made, and only 1 copy was made) it has been pointed out that the person providing the file for downloading is the one who is making the copy.
They're the ones in "possession" of the file, they're the ones making it available, and they're the ones making a copy---that the download takes.
Your point has been brought up a long, long time ago, and it's the UPLOADER that is making a copy. You are simply downloading the copy the uploader made when you make the download request.
Wrong. They're currently focusing their lawsuits on uploaders because that's the only civil case that they could possibly win.
They might SAY downloading is illegal, but they'd be hard pressed to win.
These sounds like perfectly good O/S features to me. They should add them.
The AV they should let others take care of. I don't want FireFox being uninstalled because of 'possible infection alert'.
Don't get me wrong. I think the SPREADING of viruses should be stopped. But I think that falls into the internet connection. Adding a REAL firewall, and fixing IE. But I don't think it's the O/S's fault.
I switched to Firefox because I was sick of using IE. Ever since I've switched, AdAware has found ZERO spyware/malware incidents!
To IE's meager defense, I'm sure there might have been a setting somewhere that might have tightened up the holes, but switching to Firefox has been easier. Plus, I'm addicted to the tabbed browing.
Heh. I was going to say, "coming into california" then couldn't remember if Feinstein for sure was california, so went to say coming FROM mexico"
And the only thing she was concerned about was illegal immigrants coming into Mexico. Ah well, back to the grindstone.
4/13/2005: S.AMDT.395 Amendment SA 395 proposed by Senator Feinstein. (consideration: CR S3540-3541; text: CR S3540)
To express the sense of the Senate that text of the REAL ID Act of 2005 should not be included in the conference report.
I'll have to do more checking, but obviously in the end, it was important to pass the monies on to our war in Iraq...
If you've ever watched "The Sopranos", it's about mob guys nowadays. Behind the scene interviews describe these guys who work for Tony only pulling in 100K a year. There are lots of scores to be made, but they're sporadic.
Doubt it. You have to be pretty high up to be making that kind of money. Also, you're not factoring in time spent in jail.
The artists are already being billed for that part... So where is all the money going?
Oh wait, I see your last paragraph there...
No, no, no! I have 3TB of porn.
They're talking out both sides of their mouths, depending on the situation.
Personally, I figured most of their costs go into marketing. They already own the producing side, they partially own most distribution channels, CD packaging, materials, etc. All they're doing is paying themselves money in each area.
And even the marketing side they're greasing. I'm sure MTV is owned by one of them. Radios shows are all ClearChannel, and we've read about Payola. Tickemaster is corrupt, so I can only imagine they're in bed. And even the retail stores are getting rear ended. Special prices IF they put up certain banners and signs and promos? Anyway...
My main beef with 'legal' online music is lack of content. You wouldn't believe me if I told you how many mp3's my friend has, and he'd chuck them in an instant if **ALL** of their discography was avaiable at all times. Even for a cost.
I'm talking cross-tagged genres, biographies, pictures, member lineups, similar-to links, redone-by, etc.
And the funny thing is, these records companies are the ones WITH this information.
Even iTunes has only recently broken 1 million songs to choose from. That's terrible!
Wrong. The RIAA does not say most of their cost comes from distribution. Their cost comes from "investing" in all their artists, of which only 1 in 10 are profitable.
However, don't mistake my personaly beliefs as theirs.
It takes a lot of lawyers to strongarm all their contract-for-hire musicians. I'm sure this P2P thing is simply overtime for them.
Students Playing the Starving Artist
Maybe the scouts also get to learn about barratry, buying politicians, ripping off artists, and price fixing! Boy scouts might finally be able to outsell those Girl Scout Cookies!
Would you look into a Phillip Morris merit badge? Then why these crooks?
Sorry yours had an agenda.