Ha! Self publishers? Live music? Is this what people are sharing these days?
The fact is you don't know what'd happen if the majors died. You could probably assume that their millions of customers would be disappointed. You could probably also assume, we'd lose a huge part of music distribution system and choice in music. What you can't assume is that there will be a flock of dedicated people waiting to give up all their free time for free to fill the music gap (even for the modest $800 price tag). You most certainly can't assume that your tastes represent the whole, or even if they do, that they should be the only taste in music available.
I don't even know why we are discussing this, because the market should (and is) making clear what it wants, and what it can provide. The biggest inhibitor right now is the market cannibalising itself in the form of piracy.
i'm not interested in those sweet boybands that some old producer with weird sexual preferences creates one after another, as those can't adapt to such an environment. so, if we get less "music" like that and more of 'underground' one... hey, go for it:)
Good for you, but some people are interested in music (and other art forms) that are created under copyright. Caving to piracy won't increase any of this "underground" music, but it will cut down everything else, and a lot of people would miss the "everything else".
Anyway, it's completely disingenuous and completely false that you know all of the commercial music out there, and that out of all of it, non-commercial music would be better than all of it. Basically, it suggests an irrational prejudice against commercial music. I actually don't mean any offence about this; god knows I have a number of irrational prejudices of my own, but bear it in mind: not all commercial music fits that mould.
1 The loudness war 2 High prices for little content 3 Competition for the entertainment dollar (pay TV, satelite radio, cell phones, computer games, MP3 players, and others that had no or little presense 30 years ago.) 4 Retaliation for the industry's nukes on student's finances. 5 DRM on CD's makes them incompatible and dangerous to use. I don't keep a list of safe to play CD's. The lack of the Philip's Compact Disc logo on the good bad and ugly makes shopping by the cover very difficult. 6 Free music online (not piracy) 7 Piracy (fueled by all of the above) 8 Restrictions on use... Can't leagaly do the Carson Williams light show legaly unless you buy one of the approved for use licenses from Lights-o-Rama or play it in public at a reception, etc. No weekend DJ'ing for me. 8 ?? did I miss anything?
Nice list, but I think you misunderstand what people want. They don't hear or don't care about DRM, about the RIAA, or about the loudness war. The internet introduced an immediacy to entertainment that traditional physical music distribution simply can't tap into. That's the main cause of piracy today. They want their entertainment now, and the lack of effective enforcement allowed it. Of course, it doesn't make much difference to these people whether it's good illegal content or good legal content. It ends up the same for them. Of course price plays a large part as well.
Except that in this case it would be perfectly legal to get a mechanic to go and rip out the immobilizer circuit, whereas it's against the DCMA to strip the DRM from your WMA files.
Actually, the DMCA protects circumvention for fair use. I think playing files for your own private, personal pleasure qualifies as fair use, right?
They're going to lose money from jaded customers, from word-of-mouth from said jaded customers, and possibly even certain people refusing to buy Microsoft products. The best possible situation for them is to keep their servers running and keep their vendor lock-in. Anything less is a financial loss.
You own the copy, the copyright holder owns the music/movie. The GGP indeed needs to choose his words more carefully, because there are usually two rightful owners involved in copyright cases.
I'm sure there were people who paid good money to buy audio tracks. Not rent, *buy*.
It's what they paid for. I'm not generally a person who vindicates others for making bad choices, but this is a good reason why people should be careful what they buy. Do any of the customers have any legal recourse over this? Can they sue MS?
If there is one outcome from this, it should be to force companies to warn people of what they're paying for. There should be notices, saying that the product may become temporarily or even permanently unusable at any time. DRM is not evil, like the OP suggested, just a mistake with unforeseen consequences (OK, perhaps not unforeseen by anyone with any foresight). It's high time people truly knew what they were paying for.
Or maybe money (or lack thereof) is the reason they can't be bothered investigating every singe one of the 14,000 warrants. Maybe even only about 5 (or 10 or 15) were actually bad warrants, and the rest were perfectly legal and perfectly justifiable.
So, we have two possibilities: a) the government is cohesive, efficient, greedy, corrupt, ruthless, or b) the government is slow, inefficient, under-funded (at least, if you want every warrant triple checked by every layer of authority), and lazy.
I'm betting on b), based on previous encounters with governments and their employees. The separation of powers would also explain the inefficiency, which would in turn explain the low warrant rejection rate. Or I could be wrong, and it could be a) the evil plutocrats wanting quick arrests for some god-knows reason.
Actually, for a troll, he's not that bad. I don't agree with a word he's saying, but nothing he's saying is technically, outright wrong, just overblown and highly disagreeable. That kind of opinion is what you get when you labour under the assumption that US companies and their employees deserve mollycoddling.
Oh, every cult follower thinks their leader knows what they're talking about. In fact, the cults are usually based on some grain of (generally accepted) truth, blown way out of proportion, and the trick is to mix the self-serving BS in with the truth. There's a (generally) false implication that because some of the information is true, all the information thrown in with it is also true.
In this case, NewYorkCountryLawyer knows some stuff about the legal system and (I assume) copyright law. His information is generally reliable when he sticks to the facts, which he often does. The problems arise when he starts mixing in a little conjecture of his own, which scores a free ride from the credibility of his verifiable information. Not really enough to be considered a cult, but enough for me to want to question his wisdom.
No seriously, I get your point, and to a certain extent, it's true: politicians want you to be afraid of terrorism. But politics is a game that can be played in any market. It can latch on to any current trends and use them to their advantage. Currently, they've latched onto terrorism in response to so many people being afraid of terrorism, but because it's a democracy, they need everyone to feel that afraid, so that they are pushing all the right buttons. I don't think there's anything sinister about that alone (the racism is a little disturbing, however), because it's a good example of the will of the people being acted out through politicians.
That's right! My blog has been taken down by TPB! I guess criticising TPB is against Swedish law, eh? Or maybe, they're just plain hypocrites, like I knew they were.
As for my sig, it means distribution of child porn, not any act required for its creation.
Child porn distribution is not just about discouraging creation, it's also about protecting the identity and dignity all the children who participated. It's not a thought crime, even if some would like it to be.
As for terrorism, well, your statement is just silly. The governments only acting afraid because terrorism has proved terrifying for so many people over the past few years. See my sig:
Slashdot Mirror
Ha! Self publishers? Live music? Is this what people are sharing these days?
The fact is you don't know what'd happen if the majors died. You could probably assume that their millions of customers would be disappointed. You could probably also assume, we'd lose a huge part of music distribution system and choice in music. What you can't assume is that there will be a flock of dedicated people waiting to give up all their free time for free to fill the music gap (even for the modest $800 price tag). You most certainly can't assume that your tastes represent the whole, or even if they do, that they should be the only taste in music available.
I don't even know why we are discussing this, because the market should (and is) making clear what it wants, and what it can provide. The biggest inhibitor right now is the market cannibalising itself in the form of piracy.
Anyway, it's completely disingenuous and completely false that you know all of the commercial music out there, and that out of all of it, non-commercial music would be better than all of it. Basically, it suggests an irrational prejudice against commercial music. I actually don't mean any offence about this; god knows I have a number of irrational prejudices of my own, but bear it in mind: not all commercial music fits that mould.
And you and just about everyone you know and care about will lose about 95% of their access to new music.
Cars were a complete alternative, P2P is not. It lacks an adequate production arm.
I can't find anything in the woefully short article or the summary that supports the claim of the title.
I've commented on this before.
They're going to lose money from jaded customers, from word-of-mouth from said jaded customers, and possibly even certain people refusing to buy Microsoft products. The best possible situation for them is to keep their servers running and keep their vendor lock-in. Anything less is a financial loss.
You own the copy, the copyright holder owns the music/movie. The GGP indeed needs to choose his words more carefully, because there are usually two rightful owners involved in copyright cases.
If there is one outcome from this, it should be to force companies to warn people of what they're paying for. There should be notices, saying that the product may become temporarily or even permanently unusable at any time. DRM is not evil, like the OP suggested, just a mistake with unforeseen consequences (OK, perhaps not unforeseen by anyone with any foresight). It's high time people truly knew what they were paying for.
Yeah? And I think you're a CHINESE SPY!
;)
Yeah! Any word on that?
What? Oh, it's just I have a friend, y'know, who, er, might be interested...
Yeah, they're all in it together for the money.
Or maybe money (or lack thereof) is the reason they can't be bothered investigating every singe one of the 14,000 warrants. Maybe even only about 5 (or 10 or 15) were actually bad warrants, and the rest were perfectly legal and perfectly justifiable.
So, we have two possibilities: a) the government is cohesive, efficient, greedy, corrupt, ruthless, or b) the government is slow, inefficient, under-funded (at least, if you want every warrant triple checked by every layer of authority), and lazy.
I'm betting on b), based on previous encounters with governments and their employees. The separation of powers would also explain the inefficiency, which would in turn explain the low warrant rejection rate. Or I could be wrong, and it could be a) the evil plutocrats wanting quick arrests for some god-knows reason.
Actually, for a troll, he's not that bad. I don't agree with a word he's saying, but nothing he's saying is technically, outright wrong, just overblown and highly disagreeable. That kind of opinion is what you get when you labour under the assumption that US companies and their employees deserve mollycoddling.
Oh, every cult follower thinks their leader knows what they're talking about. In fact, the cults are usually based on some grain of (generally accepted) truth, blown way out of proportion, and the trick is to mix the self-serving BS in with the truth. There's a (generally) false implication that because some of the information is true, all the information thrown in with it is also true.
In this case, NewYorkCountryLawyer knows some stuff about the legal system and (I assume) copyright law. His information is generally reliable when he sticks to the facts, which he often does. The problems arise when he starts mixing in a little conjecture of his own, which scores a free ride from the credibility of his verifiable information. Not really enough to be considered a cult, but enough for me to want to question his wisdom.
Um, have you actually used Vista? Or do you not know what alpha means?
You're thinking for yourself. If you're not blindly agreeing with the GP, then you're brainwashed. Obviously.
With all this AT&T and Comcast stuff, I think you can reverse those two lower case letters.
So, all knowing and all seeing AC, where is the line drawn between insightful satire and pointless insults?
ur a terrist? omg
No seriously, I get your point, and to a certain extent, it's true: politicians want you to be afraid of terrorism. But politics is a game that can be played in any market. It can latch on to any current trends and use them to their advantage. Currently, they've latched onto terrorism in response to so many people being afraid of terrorism, but because it's a democracy, they need everyone to feel that afraid, so that they are pushing all the right buttons. I don't think there's anything sinister about that alone (the racism is a little disturbing, however), because it's a good example of the will of the people being acted out through politicians.
That's right! My blog has been taken down by TPB! I guess criticising TPB is against Swedish law, eh? Or maybe, they're just plain hypocrites, like I knew they were.
Funny you should mention that. That's basically what I did as soon as I signed up:
http://imustbeamafiaashill.baywords.com/2008/04/19/yay-free-speech/
(Mods, please note this is neither a joke nor a troll. I mean what I said)
As for terrorism, well, your statement is just silly. The governments only acting afraid because terrorism has proved terrifying for so many people over the past few years. See my sig: