You know, I'm getting tired of explaining this every time there is an RIAA article, but I'll do it again anyway.
The price-fixing had nothing to do with the high prices of CDs. The RIAA was threatening not giving advertising budget and/or materials to places like Best Buy who were willing to sell CDs AT A LOSS just to get people in the store. It didn't say the RIAA was overcharging for CDs. It said they couldn't force prices on chain stroes to protect music only stores whoa re being hurt by by chains selling prices below or at cost to try and get people into the store in hopes they will buy something else (which is higher priced and has more markup).
So yes, the RIAA was convicted of price fixing. But, no, that settlement did not have to do with the perceived "high price of CDs". It had to do with the RIAA doing the right thing (in my opinion) and trying to protect small, music-only specialty stores from being run out of business by large chains like Best Buy, Target, and WalMart.
This would be true no matter who owned the rights to the song though. The topic was "only" big music industry getting rich of the rights from songs. If I use the same meoldy from an indie artist, I will be in violation of the law just the same as if I used the same meoldy from Madonna or Britney.
It only benefits the "assigness" of the work when people are stupid enough to sell their rights to the music. Artists know what they are getting into when they give away the rights to their sings. The label fronts a lot of money, and in return wants their money back (if you make money) and the rights to the song. If you don't like this agreement, don't enter into it. The artist chooses to make his money up front by selling the rights to the label, rather than hoping in the long term he will make more money from royalties. There are plenty of artists who don;t sign with a major label for exactly these reasons. I have a hard time finding sympathy for someone who knowingly sells their rights, and then wants to complain that the label gets the profits from the rights they sold.
While many studies have linked violent video games and movies with violent crime, there have been no studies that they prove that violent movies/games CAUSE violent actions. Correlation is not causation.
To steal an example from Michael Moore, why do these people playing violent games mean that is what caused their violent actions? The Columbine kids liked bowling as well, but no one is trying to say bowling causes violent actions. While it is easy to say that most people who committ acts of violence see violent video games and movies, that ignores the fact that most people who see voilent videos games and movies do not committ acts of violence.
You mean ignoring the "tiny warning" which is the icon in the task bar that keeps popping up telling you to us their auto-update service? The one that won't go away until you set it either to get the updates or intentionally choose for it not to update?
MS has included an auto-update feature, what more should they do? They tell people to check for updates, if people ignore this, they can't do anything about it. If Ford sends me a postcard about a recall and I ignore it, that is my fault, not Fords.
Sure, very few people will "not buy into" Intel because of this, but ZERO people will buy Intel just because of this. few > ZERO, thus it's a net loss for Intel.
Only if you completely discount the amount of time and money they will save by not having to deal with the overclockers. When a newb overclocks and fries his processor, he calls Intel and complains. People who don't know what they are doing can easily destroy things, and when they do, they will blame it on the "crappy Intel chip" instead of them not knowing what they are doing.
The only thing you can't do is redistribute WineX code for any commercial purpose. That's not software libre.
You're right, it's not. But neither is the GPL "FREE software". Free means without restraints, and the GPL does include a number of restraints (you MUST include source being one). Free is public domain or the BSD license (which basically is no restraints, you can do as you want with it). If you're going to be picky about your definitions, be picky about all of them. I have no problem with the GPL, it's your work, release it how you want. But don't claim that it is "more free" than this license. Restrictions are restrictions. I support FREE software, where there are no restrictions more than "Free software" where you get more rights, but also restrictions if you want to use those rights.
Yes, that is why every store will exchange a defective product for a limited amount of time. This includes CDs and video games. But once you go past the stores timeframe for returns/exchanges you are SOL. If this guy would have taken the game back a week after he bought it, he could have gotten a new game. He waited over a month to try and return it, and they told him no. The same thing would have happened if it was a book or a toaster. He wants the store to take it back indefinitely, even when he himself may have caused the damage. That is more than unreasonable.
Why is this not expected of other industries then? You don't own the contents of a book when you buy it? You are buying a license to read it. But no one expects a free replacement copy of a book when they spill something on it or their kids rip a page out. As far as markups go, books as as bad if not worse than games and music. A hardcover can cost anywhere from $20 to $50 to but, but the material cost at most $1. So why is there no outrage and indignation about the book industry? Could it be because there is no way to make a free, acceptable copy of the book (well, acceptable to the majority of people)?
Can I ask where the ruling is that decalers back-up copies as fair use? I'm not trolling, I just always see reference to it, but have never seen anyone talk about the ruling itself. I know it isn't part of the original fair use rules (which deal with using limited piece for education, review, and the like). It also wouldn't be covered under the VCR ruling I think (at least not the portion commonly sited), since that deals with copying for the purpose of time-shifting, and this is just copying to have an extra copy (which I'm sure would be legally different). I'm just curious what the actual ruling is...
On the flip side of this though, you are expecting something that you couldn't get for any other product as well. If I buy a book and find out that 2 pages are ripped out at the end, the store won't take it back after 30 days (or whatever their policy is) and the publisher isn't obligated to replace the book (and won't replace it). Same thing if I buy a light bulb and notice it doesn't work. They may replace it, but they aren't obligated too.
Don't get me wrong, I certainly think they should replace it if you prove it's broken (i.e. send them the broken/defective part for replacement), but they aren't obligated too. Game makers aren't acting any different than anyone else in that respect.
They want us to listen to this music. However, we still have to make up our own minds about whether we like it enough to buy the entire album or not. Wouldn't the record labels perhaps save their advertising dollars by promoting a special download of Avril's song somewhere? Instead we get to have this song shoved to our, already bleeding, ears.
The difference is that a majority of people will simply downaload the rest of the album if they want it for free from Kazaa (or whatever the P2P du jour is). And even if they only want that one song, they need to buy the whole record if they hear it on the radio (or go to iTunes or wherever and buy it). If they have already downloaded that song, they can just keep that freebie and not ever buy anything else. Plus they still have to pay for advertising to let you know where to get the free download.
While I agree they will get added blame for not "helping to clean up the net" (which i think is a crock, but that is besides the point), there is a flipside to it as well. If they allow people to install the service pack on pirated installs, people will look at that as a license to use a pirated version. Many people who may not use a pirated copy otherwise will say "Well, MS must not care too much, since they specifically made the service pakc so it will work on pirated version, so I'll pirate it". This isn't a huge amount of people, by any stretch of the imagination, but it still will influence people.
While in general you aren't hurting anyone, this isn't always the case. Sometimes these games are bought by companies who plan to release an update version, including a version of the original as well. Or they are planning to release a compilation of old games. There are at least a few compilations packs that include things such as Pacman, DigDug, Asteroids, etc. So while you may think you never hurting anyone, that isn't always the case. Just look at the current "control games" that have become fairly popular. There is an Atari 2600 one with 10 or so old Atari cart games on it and an arcade version with 6 old arcade games. Certainly your hurting the sales of these type of devices.
While these entries in the database haven't come back to haunt you, the fact is they easily could. What happens if something happens at you government job? Then you could easily be the prime suspect on nothing more than the fact people you knew were involved in some stuff way back when. Just because it hasn't come back to haunt you yet, doesn't mean it won't at a later date.
I see a lot of posts saying the music industry is dying because today's music sucks and has no innovation. But if you actually look at history, that has always been the case. What has been the most popular has always been fairly tame, shallow music. The "good stuff" that is always remembered is rarely on the top of the charts. Go back and look at the actual music charts for the 60s, 70s and 80s. You'll find a huge amount of crap (in fact it is almost exclusively crap). That is because the most popular music is almost always easily digested pop songs. Today is no different. The most popular music is simple, easily digested, and easily forgettable, just like the "great music days" of whatever decade you want to pick. Today's music isn't any worse than yesterdays music, we just remember the good stuff from yesterday and see the crap of today.
You have email. Spam is just use of the email system. you may not like how it is being used (and I don't either), but it is nothing more than use of the email system (baring the illegal use I talked about earlier). Email is designed so that anyone can send a message to another person if they know the email address of that person, and that is exactly what is happening. If we make it illegal to send someone an email without their express consent, then email might as well be dead. If I want to send you an email because I liked your/. comment (assuming you are not the AC you are now), I can't, even if you put your email address up, since I don't have your express consent. How do I get your consent to contact you if I can't contact you to get your consent?
Email was designed as an open system, and that is the way it should stay. If you want a closed system with controls on who can use it, design one and use that instead of email. But don't complain when people use the email system exactly how it was designed.
I am glad this guy was caught and convicted, and I'm glad it wasn't for spamming. It always amazes me how people want new laws targetting spam, but most of what the worst spammers do is already against the law and they can be targetted for that. Advertising fraudulent products is against the law. Pyramid schemes are against the law. Hacking someone's system and sending email from there is illegal. I have no problem with spam that doesn't the law in the sending. If you have a legitmate email account and send email from it, and don't make false claims, then you are using the email system as intended.
If you want to go after spammers, there are plenty you can go after suing existing laws. We don't need new laws specifically for spam anymore than we need new laws specifically for music sharers. Use the existing laws.
...spent on arresting pirating grandmothers and children.
While I'm not a fan of this legislation, this reasoning makes me almost support it. The concept of "they are prosecuting granmothers and children" is not only laughable, it is stupid. they are prosecuting anyone who breaks the law. If it is grandmothers and children, then yes they should be prosecuted. Just because your a grandmother doesn't mean you get to ignore the law and do whatever you want. Last time I checked, the law applied to everyone, and that includes grandmothers and children. Next time someone breaks into your house, maybe we should give them a free pass because they are old or young?
What is the alternative to doing this? Ask every person who pirates a copy if they would have bought it and take them at their word? There are 2 ways to get music, buy and and steal it (and please no diatribe on whether steal is the right word). Obviously either way you want the music. So if you stole it, it should be considered a lost sale, as you obviously wanted the music but chose to steal it instead of buying it. Yes, people will steal more than they would buy, but that doesn't change the fact they wanted the music to begin with, which certainly points toward a possible sale.
And when you buy clothing, you aren't paying for the actual material, you are paying for the name brand and the actual design that went into it (you really don't think the material in a bikini costs $30, do you? Or the material in a "designer" t-shirt costs $50?). But when your shirt rips, you don't expect a replacement (especially when it rips because you got it caught on something). People are equating users ruining DVDs with defective merchandise. Scratches on DVDs can be avoided (none of my CDs or DVDs have any scratches, because I am anal about these things). If the user ruins it, why should it be replaced for free? If I drive my car off a cliff, the dealership won't fix it, even if it is under warranty still.
While these things are considered legal in many (if not most) circles, that does not mean they are a right. These are defenses that can be used when making copies that may get you off the hook, but they are nor rights by any stretch of the imagination. No court has ever said that you MUST be able to do these things, just that you are in the right if you do do them. While this may seem like nit-picking, it is a very large legal gap. The **AA is not required to make sure you can do these things, but if you do do these things you can use this as a defense.
While i have mixed feelings on the legislation, expecting anyone to make an indestructible item is unrealistic. No one complains when their watch or toater breaks (especially if it is after a decent period of time). Why should we assume DVDs (or CDs) are any different? Maybe they should offer a 1 year warranty with DVDs, and if they break within the first year (by defect in the DVD, not by consumer misuse such as scratches) then they will replace them. But wanting a back-up because you mistreat your DVDs hardly seems any more reasonable than expecting a new pager because you dropped it from the roof and it broke.
This isn't about something becoming obsolete, this is about buying something you know you can't use right now. If you bought a tape, and the guy says "You know that won;t work in your CD player" and you say "Yeah, I know", you have no right to later complain that the tape won't play in your CD player. If you buy a music file you know won't work on your portable (or your OS), you give up all right to complain because it doesn't work. You knew it going in, and you bought it anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, I'm getting tired of explaining this every time there is an RIAA article, but I'll do it again anyway.
The price-fixing had nothing to do with the high prices of CDs. The RIAA was threatening not giving advertising budget and/or materials to places like Best Buy who were willing to sell CDs AT A LOSS just to get people in the store. It didn't say the RIAA was overcharging for CDs. It said they couldn't force prices on chain stroes to protect music only stores whoa re being hurt by by chains selling prices below or at cost to try and get people into the store in hopes they will buy something else (which is higher priced and has more markup).
So yes, the RIAA was convicted of price fixing. But, no, that settlement did not have to do with the perceived "high price of CDs". It had to do with the RIAA doing the right thing (in my opinion) and trying to protect small, music-only specialty stores from being run out of business by large chains like Best Buy, Target, and WalMart.
This would be true no matter who owned the rights to the song though. The topic was "only" big music industry getting rich of the rights from songs. If I use the same meoldy from an indie artist, I will be in violation of the law just the same as if I used the same meoldy from Madonna or Britney.
It only benefits the "assigness" of the work when people are stupid enough to sell their rights to the music. Artists know what they are getting into when they give away the rights to their sings. The label fronts a lot of money, and in return wants their money back (if you make money) and the rights to the song. If you don't like this agreement, don't enter into it. The artist chooses to make his money up front by selling the rights to the label, rather than hoping in the long term he will make more money from royalties. There are plenty of artists who don;t sign with a major label for exactly these reasons. I have a hard time finding sympathy for someone who knowingly sells their rights, and then wants to complain that the label gets the profits from the rights they sold.
Because as we all know, taking a cumshot is much worse than taking a gunshot.
While many studies have linked violent video games and movies with violent crime, there have been no studies that they prove that violent movies/games CAUSE violent actions. Correlation is not causation.
To steal an example from Michael Moore, why do these people playing violent games mean that is what caused their violent actions? The Columbine kids liked bowling as well, but no one is trying to say bowling causes violent actions. While it is easy to say that most people who committ acts of violence see violent video games and movies, that ignores the fact that most people who see voilent videos games and movies do not committ acts of violence.
You mean ignoring the "tiny warning" which is the icon in the task bar that keeps popping up telling you to us their auto-update service? The one that won't go away until you set it either to get the updates or intentionally choose for it not to update?
MS has included an auto-update feature, what more should they do? They tell people to check for updates, if people ignore this, they can't do anything about it. If Ford sends me a postcard about a recall and I ignore it, that is my fault, not Fords.
Sure, very few people will "not buy into" Intel because of this, but ZERO people will buy Intel just because of this. few > ZERO, thus it's a net loss for Intel.
Only if you completely discount the amount of time and money they will save by not having to deal with the overclockers. When a newb overclocks and fries his processor, he calls Intel and complains. People who don't know what they are doing can easily destroy things, and when they do, they will blame it on the "crappy Intel chip" instead of them not knowing what they are doing.
The only thing you can't do is redistribute WineX code for any commercial purpose.
That's not software libre.
You're right, it's not. But neither is the GPL "FREE software". Free means without restraints, and the GPL does include a number of restraints (you MUST include source being one). Free is public domain or the BSD license (which basically is no restraints, you can do as you want with it). If you're going to be picky about your definitions, be picky about all of them. I have no problem with the GPL, it's your work, release it how you want. But don't claim that it is "more free" than this license. Restrictions are restrictions. I support FREE software, where there are no restrictions more than "Free software" where you get more rights, but also restrictions if you want to use those rights.
Yes, that is why every store will exchange a defective product for a limited amount of time. This includes CDs and video games. But once you go past the stores timeframe for returns/exchanges you are SOL. If this guy would have taken the game back a week after he bought it, he could have gotten a new game. He waited over a month to try and return it, and they told him no. The same thing would have happened if it was a book or a toaster. He wants the store to take it back indefinitely, even when he himself may have caused the damage. That is more than unreasonable.
Why is this not expected of other industries then? You don't own the contents of a book when you buy it? You are buying a license to read it. But no one expects a free replacement copy of a book when they spill something on it or their kids rip a page out. As far as markups go, books as as bad if not worse than games and music. A hardcover can cost anywhere from $20 to $50 to but, but the material cost at most $1. So why is there no outrage and indignation about the book industry? Could it be because there is no way to make a free, acceptable copy of the book (well, acceptable to the majority of people)?
Can I ask where the ruling is that decalers back-up copies as fair use? I'm not trolling, I just always see reference to it, but have never seen anyone talk about the ruling itself. I know it isn't part of the original fair use rules (which deal with using limited piece for education, review, and the like). It also wouldn't be covered under the VCR ruling I think (at least not the portion commonly sited), since that deals with copying for the purpose of time-shifting, and this is just copying to have an extra copy (which I'm sure would be legally different). I'm just curious what the actual ruling is...
On the flip side of this though, you are expecting something that you couldn't get for any other product as well. If I buy a book and find out that 2 pages are ripped out at the end, the store won't take it back after 30 days (or whatever their policy is) and the publisher isn't obligated to replace the book (and won't replace it). Same thing if I buy a light bulb and notice it doesn't work. They may replace it, but they aren't obligated too.
Don't get me wrong, I certainly think they should replace it if you prove it's broken (i.e. send them the broken/defective part for replacement), but they aren't obligated too. Game makers aren't acting any different than anyone else in that respect.
They want us to listen to this music. However, we still have to make up our own minds about whether we like it enough to buy the entire album or not. Wouldn't the record labels perhaps save their advertising dollars by promoting a special download of Avril's song somewhere? Instead we get to have this song shoved to our, already bleeding, ears.
The difference is that a majority of people will simply downaload the rest of the album if they want it for free from Kazaa (or whatever the P2P du jour is). And even if they only want that one song, they need to buy the whole record if they hear it on the radio (or go to iTunes or wherever and buy it). If they have already downloaded that song, they can just keep that freebie and not ever buy anything else. Plus they still have to pay for advertising to let you know where to get the free download.
While I agree they will get added blame for not "helping to clean up the net" (which i think is a crock, but that is besides the point), there is a flipside to it as well. If they allow people to install the service pack on pirated installs, people will look at that as a license to use a pirated version. Many people who may not use a pirated copy otherwise will say "Well, MS must not care too much, since they specifically made the service pakc so it will work on pirated version, so I'll pirate it". This isn't a huge amount of people, by any stretch of the imagination, but it still will influence people.
While in general you aren't hurting anyone, this isn't always the case. Sometimes these games are bought by companies who plan to release an update version, including a version of the original as well. Or they are planning to release a compilation of old games. There are at least a few compilations packs that include things such as Pacman, DigDug, Asteroids, etc. So while you may think you never hurting anyone, that isn't always the case. Just look at the current "control games" that have become fairly popular. There is an Atari 2600 one with 10 or so old Atari cart games on it and an arcade version with 6 old arcade games. Certainly your hurting the sales of these type of devices.
While these entries in the database haven't come back to haunt you, the fact is they easily could. What happens if something happens at you government job? Then you could easily be the prime suspect on nothing more than the fact people you knew were involved in some stuff way back when. Just because it hasn't come back to haunt you yet, doesn't mean it won't at a later date.
I see a lot of posts saying the music industry is dying because today's music sucks and has no innovation. But if you actually look at history, that has always been the case. What has been the most popular has always been fairly tame, shallow music. The "good stuff" that is always remembered is rarely on the top of the charts. Go back and look at the actual music charts for the 60s, 70s and 80s. You'll find a huge amount of crap (in fact it is almost exclusively crap). That is because the most popular music is almost always easily digested pop songs. Today is no different. The most popular music is simple, easily digested, and easily forgettable, just like the "great music days" of whatever decade you want to pick. Today's music isn't any worse than yesterdays music, we just remember the good stuff from yesterday and see the crap of today.
You have email. Spam is just use of the email system. you may not like how it is being used (and I don't either), but it is nothing more than use of the email system (baring the illegal use I talked about earlier). Email is designed so that anyone can send a message to another person if they know the email address of that person, and that is exactly what is happening. If we make it illegal to send someone an email without their express consent, then email might as well be dead. If I want to send you an email because I liked your /. comment (assuming you are not the AC you are now), I can't, even if you put your email address up, since I don't have your express consent. How do I get your consent to contact you if I can't contact you to get your consent?
Email was designed as an open system, and that is the way it should stay. If you want a closed system with controls on who can use it, design one and use that instead of email. But don't complain when people use the email system exactly how it was designed.
I am glad this guy was caught and convicted, and I'm glad it wasn't for spamming. It always amazes me how people want new laws targetting spam, but most of what the worst spammers do is already against the law and they can be targetted for that. Advertising fraudulent products is against the law. Pyramid schemes are against the law. Hacking someone's system and sending email from there is illegal. I have no problem with spam that doesn't the law in the sending. If you have a legitmate email account and send email from it, and don't make false claims, then you are using the email system as intended.
If you want to go after spammers, there are plenty you can go after suing existing laws. We don't need new laws specifically for spam anymore than we need new laws specifically for music sharers. Use the existing laws.
...spent on arresting pirating grandmothers and children.
While I'm not a fan of this legislation, this reasoning makes me almost support it. The concept of "they are prosecuting granmothers and children" is not only laughable, it is stupid. they are prosecuting anyone who breaks the law. If it is grandmothers and children, then yes they should be prosecuted. Just because your a grandmother doesn't mean you get to ignore the law and do whatever you want. Last time I checked, the law applied to everyone, and that includes grandmothers and children. Next time someone breaks into your house, maybe we should give them a free pass because they are old or young?
What is the alternative to doing this? Ask every person who pirates a copy if they would have bought it and take them at their word? There are 2 ways to get music, buy and and steal it (and please no diatribe on whether steal is the right word). Obviously either way you want the music. So if you stole it, it should be considered a lost sale, as you obviously wanted the music but chose to steal it instead of buying it. Yes, people will steal more than they would buy, but that doesn't change the fact they wanted the music to begin with, which certainly points toward a possible sale.
And when you buy clothing, you aren't paying for the actual material, you are paying for the name brand and the actual design that went into it (you really don't think the material in a bikini costs $30, do you? Or the material in a "designer" t-shirt costs $50?). But when your shirt rips, you don't expect a replacement (especially when it rips because you got it caught on something). People are equating users ruining DVDs with defective merchandise. Scratches on DVDs can be avoided (none of my CDs or DVDs have any scratches, because I am anal about these things). If the user ruins it, why should it be replaced for free? If I drive my car off a cliff, the dealership won't fix it, even if it is under warranty still.
While these things are considered legal in many (if not most) circles, that does not mean they are a right. These are defenses that can be used when making copies that may get you off the hook, but they are nor rights by any stretch of the imagination. No court has ever said that you MUST be able to do these things, just that you are in the right if you do do them. While this may seem like nit-picking, it is a very large legal gap. The **AA is not required to make sure you can do these things, but if you do do these things you can use this as a defense.
While i have mixed feelings on the legislation, expecting anyone to make an indestructible item is unrealistic. No one complains when their watch or toater breaks (especially if it is after a decent period of time). Why should we assume DVDs (or CDs) are any different? Maybe they should offer a 1 year warranty with DVDs, and if they break within the first year (by defect in the DVD, not by consumer misuse such as scratches) then they will replace them. But wanting a back-up because you mistreat your DVDs hardly seems any more reasonable than expecting a new pager because you dropped it from the roof and it broke.
This isn't about something becoming obsolete, this is about buying something you know you can't use right now. If you bought a tape, and the guy says "You know that won;t work in your CD player" and you say "Yeah, I know", you have no right to later complain that the tape won't play in your CD player. If you buy a music file you know won't work on your portable (or your OS), you give up all right to complain because it doesn't work. You knew it going in, and you bought it anyway.