Beware..the RIAA is getting into the hacking business... (1 Viewer)

[Damin J Toell]

Fine. Then you should have no problem with the idea that record companies are not entitled to a copyright system where copyrights shelter the record company side of the system from competition.

Of course, I don't believe that copyrights shelter record companies from competition. In post #133 of this thread, I outlined 3 reasons for this belief. You didn't respond to them then (although you tangentially acknowledged #2, while deflecting it later) and you probably won't now, either. This thread is getting a bit too circular....

DJ

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

No. This percentage we're discussing occurs at the retail level.

That's what I'm talking about too. I'd say that at this point in the game, file trading accounts for a lot of indie CD sales, they gain recognition from the bootlegs then get the sales from the new fanbase.

 

[MikeDeVincenzo]

DJ
Indie did exist before file trading, but we also must remember that the FCC rules preventing a large corporation (Clear Channel) from purchasing hundreds, if not thousands, of radio stations nationwide have been repealed. The uniform national blandness that inevitably results from this situation will make it more difficult than ever for an indie artist to get noticed. The Internet offers an alternative channel for distribution, but of course our friends at the RIAA would prefer that you never discover indie artists. They would much rather have your money, thank you very much 75 percent market share is simply not enough. Why settle for 75 percent when 100 percent is out there?
And with their partners in crime over at Clear Channel Communications and Infinity Broadcasting, they are going to take their best shot.

 

[Thomas Newton]

Of course, I don't believe that copyrights shelter record companies from competition

That loud noise that you hear is nothing to be alarmed about. It's just the sound of Damin simultaneously puncturing all four of his own tires.
It is, of course, Damin's privilege to call a dog a cat, and to honestly, mistakenly, and repeatedly insist that this is so. At the end of the day, the dog will still be a dog.

 

[Bob Partovi]

It is, of course, Damin's privilege to call a dog a cat, and to honestly, mistakenly, and repeatedly insist that this is so. At the end of the day, the dog will still be a dog.

Are you aware of the labeling theory? It says that labels are created by those people in authority who can benefit from the label and help foster thes actions deemed appropriate/inappropriate by the group/individual labeled. Psychology 101 my friend. By the way recent evidence has also shown the IR specturm analysis of apple's and orange's to be almost identical

 

[Dan Brecher]

Attention:
Various posts originaly posted in this thread have been edited or deleted due to content of a political nature which, like that of religious discussion, is not allowed here on the Home Theatre Forum.
Please keep discussion on topic in future.
Dan

 

[Ted Todorov]

For an example of the complete cluelessness & hopelessness of the record industry and their continuing attempts to shovel talent free "talent" down our throats read this NY Times Magazine article. The Times' blurb: "A confused music industry tries to construct its next pop star."
This is why their sales are hurting, but they just keep blaming Napster^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Kazaa. For more on the blame game, get Princess Superstar's fabulous new album, Princess Superstar Is and check out her tune You Get Mad at Napster.
Ted

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

While discussions on the merit of modern talent, the reasons for a decline in CD sales, or deficiencies in the copyright act are interesting, they have NOTHING to do with the topic at hand, which is, to facilitate those who have paid for the rights to exclusive distribution of a product to enforce those rights by curbing the illegal distribution of music via filesharing.

Whether your opinion is that filesharing does or does not have benefits is irrelevant, just as arguments for and against the use of marijuana are. Under current law, unauthorised distribution of material protected under copyright is forbidden. Period. The question is how those whose legitimate interests are at stake will be allowed to protect their licenses.

This situation sparks an awful lot of "chicken little" paranoid ramblings about the future implications of filesharing under this legislation. Buzz' assertation that the RIAA will somehow restrict the distribution of music by those who have the right to do so falls into this category.

I am all for the creation of protective measures that restrict unauthorised distribution, while enabling those who have the right to distribute product control how it is disseminated. If this means a new file format, then so be it. Those who create (or control the rights to) the content should have the right to control its distribution, in just the same manner as every other commercial product is handled. People seem to think this is something unique to the entertainment industry, when in fact it is a fundamental part of any product release, from cars to hamburgers, and the very heart of a capitalist society.

 

[Thomas Newton]

Those who create (or control the rights to) the content should have the right to control its distribution, in just the same manner as every other commercial product is handled.

The makers of other commercial products don't have the right to break into my home on the "suspicion" that, say, the 2-liter bottle of Diet Coke or the TV that they see through the window might be stolen.

They don't have the right to block the roads, driveways, and walkways to my home either.

If they do these things, that makes THEM criminals -- whom the police may quite rightfully haul off to jail, and whom I may sue for the shirts off their backs.

But when the record companies -- whose "exclusive rights" are artificially granted and not even based on their own creative work -- want to do the computer equivalents of these things, a bill pops up in Congress to exempt them from criminal laws and civil liability.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Those whose legitimate interests are at stake are the public, who have a right not to be subject to arbitrary vigilante action, and to arbitrary search and seizure.

Which is why they have put forward a bill, and not just begun hacking on their own. IF he bill gets passed (which I doubt), then there is cause to be concerned over how they go about protecting their rights, artificial or not.

The record companies, publishers, songwriters and artists all have the right to have the integrity of their distribution agreements maintained. Whether or not this specific bill gets anywhere, there will be changes put in place to curb music piracy, just as there already is for software piracy which, while not entirely effective, is a deterent to the casual user.

 

[Thomas Newton]

IF he bill gets passed (which I doubt), then there is cause to be concerned

The time to be concerned over illegitimate proposals such as this one is before they are passed. Wait until the bad proposal becomes (unConstitutional) law, and that makes it all the harder to get rid of it.

 

[Jonathan Dagmar]

First of all this bill is downright terrifying. Even if it had no hope of passing, the very idea that it could be considered is cause for alarm.

Now on to the subject of music piracy in general. I agree that dropping prices will do nothing to stop piracy. Why? because 99% of mp3 trading is done by high school student with little to no money.

I blame the moronic record companies. They have created an industry where the only customers are people under 25, that is, the demogrpahic with the lowest income level. If they would figire out that people over 25 still listen to music, and that they are the ones who can afford to buy LOTS of it, and that they should start producing good music again....

 

[John_Berger]

Wow! Talk about a thread coming back from oblivion!!

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I am all for the creation of protective measures that restrict unauthorised distribution, while enabling those who have the right to distribute product control how it is disseminated. If this means a new file format, then so be it.

How could such a new file format be created? Sure, the RIAA could say they would prefer music be encoded using AAC or some other format which limits use. But it wouldn't make MP3s illegal nor would it discourage the use of MP3s. Congress passing a law banning MP3s would betray the original intent of copyright; to further artistic and technological development. The rights of the copyright holder to protect their monopoly must be balanced against the right of the public to basic rights as Americans.
I also found this interesting: Music, Movie Industries used illegal version of Kazaa software to pursue copyright infringement claims.

 

[Casey Trowbridg]

Indeed, this is a thread coming back from the dead, but I've read all the posts in it, and I think its a good debate.