There's a difference between showing excerpts and titles then redistributing the content as a whole (removing some images). At least in most countries.
Given equal price points ($0 by choice for indies, $0 by piracy for RIAA rubbish) people will almost always choose the RIAA rubbish. However if given differing price points ($0 for indies, $20 for RIAA rubbish) people will be more likely to select the indie music.
People seek entertainment in one form or another. If they won't go to indie musicians then they'll go to television or they'll go to whores. They'll go somewhere for their entertainment. Very few people are willing to be bored for no reason in particular.
That is unfortunate, but I'm amazed caching is even legal in some (most?) countries. Its always seemed like it was just rampant copyright infringement to me, except of course the law in certain countries makes an exception for it.
Also:
A. File sharing has caused DRM (e.g. rootkits).
B. DRM pisses off customers.
C. Pissed off customers look for other things to buy instead of CD's.
Well here's a question: was the music industry losing sales at a rate that doesn't correlate to the growth of p2p before p2p became popular? Your rant doesn't answer that question.
downloaders don't believe that piracy hurts legitimate artists Of course it hurts legitimate artists. The people it doesn't hurt are the people's work you're pirating.
If piracy became impossible tomorrow and ever more then people aren't going to suddenly go to music stores and buy lots of music. Instead they'll find someone who offers them a price they're willing to pay, which will be an indie artist (who may use ads on their website to make money). If they have a choice between the pirated works of the latest RIAA shill or an indie artist whose offering their work for the price of a banner when you go to their website, people will choose the RIAA crap. If however they have a choice between $20 for the latest RIAA shill or an indie artist whose offering their work for the price of a banner when you go to their website, people will be much more likely to choose the indie artist.
So yes, piracy does hurt legitimate artists. However it doesn't hurt the RIAA's artists.
My god people...what the fuck do you want? A government that represents the people and is elected by the people. Not such a big ask to be honest. Instead we've got a government that games the system to make it so only one of two people can be elected president (which I think disqualifies the elected by the people part, no real choice is no choice at all) and sells itself to special interest groups (such as the RIAA).
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like a good reason not to vote for Hillary Clinton. Shame the only other choice is the Republicans if she runs for president.
You incorrectly spelled downgrade.
Wow, sorry. Being a site that has more Americans the non-Americans I figured you were an American.
Wow. So you could say that pirates are forcing Jobs to put DRM into iTunes :rolleyes:
Do you still hate it now that DRM is cool?
And whose forcing Jobs to put his DRM in the Mac OS X?
dumb monkeys wii, smart monkeys arm
It's like what's the difference between a freedom fighter and a militant rebel?
Have the state governments passed laws outlawing yelling in the library? No. So why the fuck do they need to do the same here?
So they'll be targeting internet cafes next then? Fuckers.
Wow, my hat is off to you sir. To be at least 98 years old and to be posting on slashdot, you sir are truly a geek.
There's a difference between showing excerpts and titles then redistributing the content as a whole (removing some images). At least in most countries.
Given equal price points ($0 by choice for indies, $0 by piracy for RIAA rubbish) people will almost always choose the RIAA rubbish. However if given differing price points ($0 for indies, $20 for RIAA rubbish) people will be more likely to select the indie music.
People seek entertainment in one form or another. If they won't go to indie musicians then they'll go to television or they'll go to whores. They'll go somewhere for their entertainment. Very few people are willing to be bored for no reason in particular.
There's a difference between keeping a local copy and distributing it.
That is unfortunate, but I'm amazed caching is even legal in some (most?) countries. Its always seemed like it was just rampant copyright infringement to me, except of course the law in certain countries makes an exception for it.
Also:
A. File sharing has caused DRM (e.g. rootkits).
B. DRM pisses off customers.
C. Pissed off customers look for other things to buy instead of CD's.
Well here's a question: was the music industry losing sales at a rate that doesn't correlate to the growth of p2p before p2p became popular? Your rant doesn't answer that question.
If piracy became impossible tomorrow and ever more then people aren't going to suddenly go to music stores and buy lots of music. Instead they'll find someone who offers them a price they're willing to pay, which will be an indie artist (who may use ads on their website to make money). If they have a choice between the pirated works of the latest RIAA shill or an indie artist whose offering their work for the price of a banner when you go to their website, people will choose the RIAA crap. If however they have a choice between $20 for the latest RIAA shill or an indie artist whose offering their work for the price of a banner when you go to their website, people will be much more likely to choose the indie artist.
So yes, piracy does hurt legitimate artists. However it doesn't hurt the RIAA's artists.
Wow, I'm sorry to hear all you get is candies and nuts for Christmas.
Might does not make right.
How is it flamebait to say in a comment what others have said in moderation?
Troll.
I do and I would hardly call a game that is being actively worked on today to be "the most legacy of legacy crap."