I already know about royalties and recording contracts, and clearly far more than you do.
1) Royalties have to go to everyone involved in making and selling an album, which (if the artist wishes to delegate) may not be just the artist and his or her band. 2) Recording contracts are voluntary. Artists join them mainly in order to delegate, so the business types do business and the musicy types (the artist) can do music.
Morality, perhaps? Do you just want your favourite artists to live on pity handouts or something? You'll download their work, which they've put blood, sweat and tears into, but maybe if you deign to give them payment, they can eat this week. And when does that happen?
Musicians aren't your personal entertainment monkeys, you know.
if you're a potential customer, a company damn well ought to listen to you if they want to sell their products
Depends how big that "you" is. If it's Slashdot, a relatively minor portion of the world video card market, they could most likely safely ignore it. Hell, even a proportion of Slashdot couldn't care less.
NVidia have given their reasons for not wanting to release OSS drivers, a lot of them legal, to do with patents, trade secrets etc. If you don't want that, don't buy an NVidia card. Oh, you want 3D acceleration, and ATI's closed source too? Too bad.
Good luck paying bills, sending letters or doing quite a few long distance things if your Internet connection fails, or there's some kind of Internet-killing catastrophe...
What you have stated, by and large, are not reasons to download from P2P rather than buy CDs. They are (except the first one) reasons to rip from CDs you have bought.
If you haven't got a CD player in the car but you have at home, you're either copying to tape from CD (fair use) or using an MP3 player, which you can rip CDs onto (also fair use). P2P doesn't factor in here.
Same goes for rock climbing and also the listening to music in-game thing; an MP3 player doesn't mean P2P. And I've really honestly never heard of the situation of number 5 occurring, but "why bother to learn" doesn't really stand up when iTunes, Windows Media Player and (IIRC) Winamp make it a simple, 1-click procedure.
In fact, what it seems like, by and large, is that you're arguing against CDs in general, rather than against ripping CDs. You can say all you like that there are medical reasons for downloading from P2P, but jesus, I've never seen anyone who downloads because of arthritis, they download because it's free! More to the point, if you can't handle a CD I think it's extremely unlikely you can handle many other household objects anyway, like, say, a computer mouse.
It's not easier to download than to rip. To download an album from BitTorrent can take about half an hour, maybe even more...to rip a CD takes 5 minutes, if that.
Yes. That's why Vista provides file and network monitoring APIs for the more or less explicit purpose of allowing anti-virus software and firewalls, and why Avast/Trend work. Because it's a lockout.
Antialiasing text is a job for the OS/X server; antialiasing images is a job for those who make GIFs for web pages. If you want to see Firefox's bloat increase incredibly, include both of the above.
On Slashdot, the try-before-you-buy P2P model is constantly upheld as an example of why P2P is a good thing. I'm sick of hearing it, because for every person here who works that way there are many more (outside Slashdot, mostly) who don't, they just download music and leave it at that. More to the point, if you work in the latter way, there's very little chance that you're going to be in a record store at all, let alone go and specifically buy a CD.
MS had decided to close off that access to all software except their commercial security apps (which they will charge extra to the customer)
Lies. Trend and Avast have apparently been able to run on Vista without any problems. They knuckled down and wrote code so they worked on Vista, and indeed Vista has an API called Windows Filtering Platform, which allows anti-virus makers to monitor file activity. Symantec and McAfee, on the other hand, threw a hissy fit.
Trend Micro's anti-virus and Avast both work on Vista, because their respective developers spent time developing new software to work with it.
Symantec and McAfee on the other hand, rather than invest money in development for a version of their programs which fits Vista's new security model, decided to bitch and whine loudly about Microsoft's new security in Vista while doing nothing of any value. In a sane and equitable world, Microsoft would have offered to aid them in building their new anti-virus products for Vista, and McAfee and Symantec would have agreed. Instead, probably with the threat of a lawsuit from the two companies, and because of the two launching attack ads, they let them bypass their new security features.
This should not be happening. This is BAD for security, as once you let one program bypass security barriers it's only a matter of time before others do, not all of them friendly. This is STUPID because Microsoft has kowtowed to pressure from two companies far more focused on saving money on developing their shitty, shitty antivirus programs than actually providing any more security.
As an addendum to what I said before, your CD being scratched isn't a reason for supporting P2P. It's a reason to pressure the record companies to replace scratched and/or damaged CDs on request.
The other more interesting number is: how many sales are *generated by the other 98%, when they user plays it for her friend, or ends up buying it, or whatever. Does it balance out that 2%?
Probably none, because if the friend says "Cool, I'll go and buy that", the response is quite likely to be "Buy? Nah, what you need to use is LimeWire, you can get it for free there". More to the point, if you already have the song for free, sound quality isn't an issue for you and you don't really care about packaging (like most people) what incentive is there to spend any money at all on music?
most of us (at least 60%,) own the CDs we're downloading off the net
And I thought most of the other arguments given for downloading RIAA-label music off the Internet were the ultimate in bullshit.
Why, pray tell, would you want to download music, ripped into a lossy format by some unknown encoder, that you already own on CD? If your answer involves the words "Sony", "BMG" or "rootkit" then I know you're talking gibberish.
Slashdot Mirror
I already know about royalties and recording contracts, and clearly far more than you do.
1) Royalties have to go to everyone involved in making and selling an album, which (if the artist wishes to delegate) may not be just the artist and his or her band.
2) Recording contracts are voluntary. Artists join them mainly in order to delegate, so the business types do business and the musicy types (the artist) can do music.
Morality, perhaps? Do you just want your favourite artists to live on pity handouts or something? You'll download their work, which they've put blood, sweat and tears into, but maybe if you deign to give them payment, they can eat this week. And when does that happen?
Musicians aren't your personal entertainment monkeys, you know.
-1 Troll?! This is 100% the truth.
if you're a potential customer, a company damn well ought to listen to you if they want to sell their products
Depends how big that "you" is. If it's Slashdot, a relatively minor portion of the world video card market, they could most likely safely ignore it. Hell, even a proportion of Slashdot couldn't care less.
NVidia have given their reasons for not wanting to release OSS drivers, a lot of them legal, to do with patents, trade secrets etc. If you don't want that, don't buy an NVidia card. Oh, you want 3D acceleration, and ATI's closed source too? Too bad.
...you should see the fries.
Good luck paying bills, sending letters or doing quite a few long distance things if your Internet connection fails, or there's some kind of Internet-killing catastrophe...
Redundancy is sometimes a good thing.
99% of predicted replies: "Use Linux".
Correction: ball.
;)
(Pedantry in action
Hang on. Foobar2000 can scan a full collection on machines with very little memory to begin with. What makes Amarok require lots more?
What you have stated, by and large, are not reasons to download from P2P rather than buy CDs. They are (except the first one) reasons to rip from CDs you have bought.
If you haven't got a CD player in the car but you have at home, you're either copying to tape from CD (fair use) or using an MP3 player, which you can rip CDs onto (also fair use). P2P doesn't factor in here.
Same goes for rock climbing and also the listening to music in-game thing; an MP3 player doesn't mean P2P. And I've really honestly never heard of the situation of number 5 occurring, but "why bother to learn" doesn't really stand up when iTunes, Windows Media Player and (IIRC) Winamp make it a simple, 1-click procedure.
In fact, what it seems like, by and large, is that you're arguing against CDs in general, rather than against ripping CDs. You can say all you like that there are medical reasons for downloading from P2P, but jesus, I've never seen anyone who downloads because of arthritis, they download because it's free! More to the point, if you can't handle a CD I think it's extremely unlikely you can handle many other household objects anyway, like, say, a computer mouse.
It's not easier to download than to rip. To download an album from BitTorrent can take about half an hour, maybe even more...to rip a CD takes 5 minutes, if that.
I'd love to, but the link is borked ;)
Yes. That's why Vista provides file and network monitoring APIs for the more or less explicit purpose of allowing anti-virus software and firewalls, and why Avast/Trend work. Because it's a lockout.
You, sir, are a fucking moron.
Please, "pwned" in a story title, again? Has Slashdot been taken over by 12 year old Counter-Strike players?
Antialiasing text is a job for the OS/X server; antialiasing images is a job for those who make GIFs for web pages. If you want to see Firefox's bloat increase incredibly, include both of the above.
So then, why are Symantec throwing their little tantrum then, if they have a working product already?
On Slashdot, the try-before-you-buy P2P model is constantly upheld as an example of why P2P is a good thing. I'm sick of hearing it, because for every person here who works that way there are many more (outside Slashdot, mostly) who don't, they just download music and leave it at that. More to the point, if you work in the latter way, there's very little chance that you're going to be in a record store at all, let alone go and specifically buy a CD.
MS had decided to close off that access to all software except their commercial security apps (which they will charge extra to the customer)
Lies. Trend and Avast have apparently been able to run on Vista without any problems. They knuckled down and wrote code so they worked on Vista, and indeed Vista has an API called Windows Filtering Platform, which allows anti-virus makers to monitor file activity. Symantec and McAfee, on the other hand, threw a hissy fit.
Microsoft is, for once, clearly in the right.
Trend Micro's anti-virus and Avast both work on Vista, because their respective developers spent time developing new software to work with it.
Symantec and McAfee on the other hand, rather than invest money in development for a version of their programs which fits Vista's new security model, decided to bitch and whine loudly about Microsoft's new security in Vista while doing nothing of any value. In a sane and equitable world, Microsoft would have offered to aid them in building their new anti-virus products for Vista, and McAfee and Symantec would have agreed. Instead, probably with the threat of a lawsuit from the two companies, and because of the two launching attack ads, they let them bypass their new security features.
This should not be happening. This is BAD for security, as once you let one program bypass security barriers it's only a matter of time before others do, not all of them friendly. This is STUPID because Microsoft has kowtowed to pressure from two companies far more focused on saving money on developing their shitty, shitty antivirus programs than actually providing any more security.
Fuck Symantec, fuck McAfee.
As an addendum to what I said before, your CD being scratched isn't a reason for supporting P2P. It's a reason to pressure the record companies to replace scratched and/or damaged CDs on request.
One word: cdparanoia.
If your CD is so incredibly badly scratched that CDparanoia can't make sense of it, that's more your fault for taking so little care of your stuff.
The other more interesting number is: how many sales are *generated by the other 98%, when they user plays it for her friend, or ends up buying it, or whatever. Does it balance out that 2%?
Probably none, because if the friend says "Cool, I'll go and buy that", the response is quite likely to be "Buy? Nah, what you need to use is LimeWire, you can get it for free there". More to the point, if you already have the song for free, sound quality isn't an issue for you and you don't really care about packaging (like most people) what incentive is there to spend any money at all on music?
most of us (at least 60%,) own the CDs we're downloading off the net
And I thought most of the other arguments given for downloading RIAA-label music off the Internet were the ultimate in bullshit.
Why, pray tell, would you want to download music, ripped into a lossy format by some unknown encoder, that you already own on CD? If your answer involves the words "Sony", "BMG" or "rootkit" then I know you're talking gibberish.
If you wanna piss them off, don't pirate and don't buy either. Buying rewards them financially; piracy gives them an excuse to go apeshit.
The directors personally sent him a copy, so most likely he has.
This is absolutely 100% hilarious. I love it.