2) Until recently, music was a social activity (people used to be able to play instruments and entertain family and friends, for example, and they'd also leave the house at times to hear others make music). Take off the headphones.
Not anymore... On the off chance that you might be playing a copyrighted song, musical instruments will be banned.
If the RIAA requires me to use copy protection, it's certainly hard to me to encourage sharing. Thus aren't they impeding a competitor's business in an unlawful way?
Yes, they are. However, the legislation means that you would have to adopt the RIAA/MPAA's business model in order for you to continue to stay in business.
'Indie promotion' is just another buzzword that makes it sound like it's creative and underground, which is far from the truth. Indie promotion is another word for payola. That's all it is. If there are a few indie promoters that can get some unknown band on the radio, they are very few and far between.
Yes, it is very important that you not get this term confused with out that would describe a person legitimately promoting independent artists. That is not what an "indie" promoter is.
I blame the DJs as much as sony for this... maybe more. DJs should have the balls to play what they like because they like it...
Nothing goes to the DJs anymore... not even a decent salary. That money/laptop/boat (yes, a PD I worked with before got a Boat for playing a song) goes to the Program Directors and Managers.
Why don't we forget what's in the books at Congress for a second? Payola is clearly constitutional. The FCC is clearly NOT constitutional. It's funny how everyone hates the FCC when they try to censor the latest "extreme" shock jock. Yet now they're beloved, because, you know, they're helping the little guy. Damn the man! The FCC *is* the man. If it didn't exist, you'd see more variety on the airwaves, not less. Regulations only hurt the consumer. Anything that restricts speech in any form for any reason other than protecting the population from the threat of force is wrong.
I can't agree with your comments. The FCC is a necessity. Just like the ESRB and the MPAA (at least for the sake of rating movies).
If it weren't for the FCC, who would stop you from figuring that a station sucked (which most do) and just taking over their airwaves with your own transmitter?
The airwaves belong to the people, and it has to be regulated. The FCC is also there to make sure that the radio stations do the best they can for the public with those airwaves. If you believe that you can better serve the public than an existing station, you may petition the FCC to give that frequency to you. If you can show that you can do a better job of serving the public, they will give it to you.
...whenever ridiculously-overplayed songs like "Beverly Hills" come on the radio during our daily commute (especially for the 2nd or 3rd time in a given day)
That's funny, K92 here in Roanoke, VA just started playing the song yesterday (first time I've heard it on there) announcing that it's a great new song and you heard it first on K92.
That's funny... I figured it was already played out about 3-4 months ago. Sometimes they say "better late than never", but not in this case.
I suggest they be forced to give up the profits from that album/song. If they committed a crime in order to increase profits, then they should be required to surrender those profits.
If I robbed a bank and got caught, I certainly wouldn't be allowed to keep the money that came from the bank.
Maybe they could sue google if the user clicks the ad but doesn't buy anything from the advertiser? Let's sue google because we believe they should only display the ads to serious buyers.
Sounds like one of the following must be true:
a) person is stupid enough to demand only $200.00 for a crime most likely punishable as extortion.
b) person is testing the effectiveness of their program.
c) person is too short sighted to think of either a or b.
I got an email the other day asking for my card numbers, pin numbers, social security number, etc. so that they could verify that my information had not been compromised.
I'm sure glad I took the time to fill all of that out.
Those Lord of the Rings movies were just too much. You couldn't drink your beverage until half way through the show if you wanted a hope of not missing part of the show for a trip to the can.
I simply took a long piss instead of seeing that piece of crap movie.
If I sold my Mustang to you could I get sued by Ford for it? If not, why not?
Ford could claim that if you really wanted the Mustang and I kept it to myself, you would have been forced to buy it from them. Then they would have had a total of two sales instead of one. Right?
If I sold my Mustang to you instead of you buying from them, they have just lost a sale.
Yes, they got my sale for my Mustang... but they could have had two sales which is the entire point, right?
I must have missed school that day. Damn shame. I probably would have made sure to have been there had I known they were going to be discussing the porn industry.
No kidding. I was showing someone at work the difference in size between two emails with the same single line of text... one was html message with a stationery (Outlook) the other was the exact same message converted to plain text.
We took the original messages after delivery over the internet and printed them out.
The plain text version took 1/4 of a page of paper to print out (including headers and everything). The same message in html with stationery took 6 pages.
Maybe not a fee that is increased based on how long you keep the movie.. but it is a fee based on the fact that the movie is returned late. IMHO, that would be a late fee.
Yes. Netflix does. Granted it's not a store, per say... but you still rent the movie, and get to keep it as long as you want. Where have you been for the last three years or four?
No, you walk away with a license to watch the merchandise. As we have so clearly noted in past discussions, you don't actually own the movie... remember?
Hell, you can use a car to kill people... you can also use a baseball bat to kill people. It's not that you can, it's that they have both already been used to kill many people. However, I don't see anyone jumping up and going to the Supreme Court trying to make driving to a baseball game illegal.
Frankly, piracy is wrong and always will be wrong, and legal downloading like iTunes is already taking off, which means most pirates are so cheap that they're not willing to spend 99 cents on a song.
Not the same song. For $0.99 you get to rent a song and you are told when/where/how you may listen to it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, they are. However, the legislation means that you would have to adopt the RIAA/MPAA's business model in order for you to continue to stay in business.
So how is my car stereo going to connect to the master database to determine that I can't play a song today that I could play yesterday?
Yes, it is very important that you not get this term confused with out that would describe a person legitimately promoting independent artists. That is not what an "indie" promoter is.
Nothing goes to the DJs anymore... not even a decent salary. That money/laptop/boat (yes, a PD I worked with before got a Boat for playing a song) goes to the Program Directors and Managers.
DJs don't get crap.
I can't agree with your comments. The FCC is a necessity. Just like the ESRB and the MPAA (at least for the sake of rating movies).
If it weren't for the FCC, who would stop you from figuring that a station sucked (which most do) and just taking over their airwaves with your own transmitter?
The airwaves belong to the people, and it has to be regulated. The FCC is also there to make sure that the radio stations do the best they can for the public with those airwaves. If you believe that you can better serve the public than an existing station, you may petition the FCC to give that frequency to you. If you can show that you can do a better job of serving the public, they will give it to you.
That's funny, K92 here in Roanoke, VA just started playing the song yesterday (first time I've heard it on there) announcing that it's a great new song and you heard it first on K92.
That's funny... I figured it was already played out about 3-4 months ago. Sometimes they say "better late than never", but not in this case.
You are welcome to read my rant on my blog.
I suggest they be forced to give up the profits from that album/song. If they committed a crime in order to increase profits, then they should be required to surrender those profits.
If I robbed a bank and got caught, I certainly wouldn't be allowed to keep the money that came from the bank.
Maybe they could sue google if the user clicks the ad but doesn't buy anything from the advertiser? Let's sue google because we believe they should only display the ads to serious buyers.
I just feel bad for the airport screener who will never feel like a real man again after I walk through.
This story totally sucks without pictures.
Or he's been watching too much Austin Powers.
I got an email the other day asking for my card numbers, pin numbers, social security number, etc. so that they could verify that my information had not been compromised.
I'm sure glad I took the time to fill all of that out.
I simply took a long piss instead of seeing that piece of crap movie.
How about this... If Rob Thomas (of matchbox20) decided to rip the Mad Kingdom cd and share it on bittorrent, should the RIAA sue him?
If so, why? It's his music?
If not, why not? The RIAA doesn't represent him, they represent the record company.
If I sold my Mustang to you could I get sued by Ford for it? If not, why not?
Ford could claim that if you really wanted the Mustang and I kept it to myself, you would have been forced to buy it from them. Then they would have had a total of two sales instead of one. Right?
If I sold my Mustang to you instead of you buying from them, they have just lost a sale.
Yes, they got my sale for my Mustang... but they could have had two sales which is the entire point, right?
I must have missed school that day. Damn shame. I probably would have made sure to have been there had I known they were going to be discussing the porn industry.
No kidding. I was showing someone at work the difference in size between two emails with the same single line of text... one was html message with a stationery (Outlook) the other was the exact same message converted to plain text.
We took the original messages after delivery over the internet and printed them out.
The plain text version took 1/4 of a page of paper to print out (including headers and everything). The same message in html with stationery took 6 pages.
Maybe not a fee that is increased based on how long you keep the movie.. but it is a fee based on the fact that the movie is returned late. IMHO, that would be a late fee.
Yes. Netflix does. Granted it's not a store, per say... but you still rent the movie, and get to keep it as long as you want. Where have you been for the last three years or four?
No, you walk away with a license to watch the merchandise. As we have so clearly noted in past discussions, you don't actually own the movie... remember?
Hell, you can use a car to kill people... you can also use a baseball bat to kill people. It's not that you can, it's that they have both already been used to kill many people. However, I don't see anyone jumping up and going to the Supreme Court trying to make driving to a baseball game illegal.
Not the same song. For $0.99 you get to rent a song and you are told when/where/how you may listen to it.
How? You won't be able to give it away, because every method used for giving away your software, music, pictures, movies, etc. will be outlawed.