Since we all love to talk music so much..

[Big Train]

I'd like to restate something I said earlier about downloading (and I want to limit this thread to ONLY this point).

My concern for downloading in America goes beyond my business. What I am concerned about is the erosion of intellectual property, our main stock in trade (as we don't build anything). Being able to disrespect (my opinion) the rights of copyright holders legally is going to set precendent in a number of other industries much more vital to the GDP than the slot machines the music industry is.

Trade secrets traded through non-central networks? Who do you sue? Patents, schematics, product schedules etc..

The case of thinkfast.com (?) recently where Apple sued the site owner and won, for revealing trade secrets. What happens when that info is not on one central source? The legal precedent has been set via music that there is no fault (Of course, unless sanity returns and we get our rightful justice).

Thoughts?

[Big Train]

Guess label bashing IS all we care about..

Crickets chirping..

[Big Train]

You fuckin libs...I answer all your retarded threads...fuck..

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh in the HOUSE OF MUSIC

File sharing may boost CD sales
Study defies traditional beliefs about Internet use
By Beth Potier
Harvard News Office

As sales of recorded music drop precipitously, the music industry has pointed a blaming finger at the dramatic growth of file sharing among individuals who search, share, and download music files from each other. Surely if consumers can get their favorite songs for free, the reasoning goes, they're not making tracks to the nearest record store to pay $18 for a CD.

Think again, says Felix Oberholzer-Gee, associate professor at Harvard Business School. In a recent study, Oberholzer-Gee found that sharing digital music files has no effect on CD sales. "It's a finding that surprised us," he says. "We just couldn't document a negative relationship between file sharing and music sales."

Oberholzer-Gee and co-author Koleman Strumpf of the University of North Carolina accessed data directly from file-sharing servers and observed 1.75 million downloads during a 17-week period in fall 2002. "Our key advantage is that we have much better data than anybody else who worked in this subject," says Oberholzer-Gee. Most other research on the market impact of file sharing has relied on survey data. Asking people to self-report about what is, after all, illegal activity almost never produces reliably truthful answers, he says.

Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf's study used statistical models to compare downloads of songs from 680 popular albums in a variety of styles with the actual sales of those albums, as reported to Nielsen SoundScan, the industry's leading sales tracker. The researchers statistically analyzed whether the sale of an album declined more strongly in relation to the frequency and volume of downloaded songs from that album. In one week, for instance, they saw a spike in downloads of songs from the soundtrack to the film "Eight Mile." They would chart sales data for that CD in the following weeks to see if the download activity caused sales to decline.

It didn't, they were stunned to find. "This is where we cannot document any relationship between file sharing and subsequent sales," says Oberholzer-Gee, calling the effect "statistically indistinguishable from zero."


Music to record industry's ears?

In fact, the study found that for the most popular albums - the top 25 percent that had more than 600,000 sales - file sharing actually boosts sales. For every 150 songs downloaded, the study showed, sales jumped by one CD. For the least popular 25 percent of the sample, "we found a more pronounced negative effect," says Oberholzer-Gee. Despite predictions that the Internet would level the playing field of the music industry, giving consumers equal access to obscure, independently produced artists as to chart-topping pop darlings, music downloads parallels music sales.

"When you look at what the music people are sharing online, it's very much like looking at radio," he says. Not coincidentally, the early days of music radio brought similar fears that consumers would not purchase records they could listen to for free.

For the record industry, Oberholzer-Gee argues, this research brings great news. "[File sharing] is not as dangerous as many have believed. The music industry's ability to influence what people listen to seems almost unbroken," says Oberholzer-Gee, adding that the study found that industry marketing - video play on MTV, for instance - seems to affect downloads as well as CD sales.

Still, the duo's research has not been music to the industry's ears. The Recording Industry Association of America, the U.S. music industry trade group, has rejected the study's findings and clings to its assertion that file sharing is chipping away at CD sales, which are, undeniably, suffering.

Oberholzer-Gee poses several theories on the slack pace of music sales, from what he calls the "CD replacement boom" winding down as older listeners finish replacing their vinyl with CDs, to the poor economic climate, to the rising price of CDs. Despite his and Strumpf's initial surprise at the results of their study, he says, it makes clear economic sense that every download does not displace a CD sale.

"Observing that people consume lots and lots at a price of zero dollars makes sense to an economist," he says. If someone offered him a free plane ticket to Florida, he offers, he'd be poolside in a heartbeat. For $250 roundtrip, he'd think harder about how much he wanted to fly south. "At $18, we're being lots more selective than at zero dollars."


Emotions meet economics

Although he is a music fan, Oberholzer-Gee says that economic inquiry rather than musical passion drove this research. As the proliferation of digital media - and the ease of disseminating it - drives the discussion of property rights into the courts, economists are taking notice. The fine line between granting sufficient protection of intellectual property to spur creation yet not such stringent protection that market forces will be choked is as important to economists as to lawyers, he says.

One such lawyer looking closely at property rights in the digital age is Jonathan Zittrain, the Berkman Assistant Professor for Entrepreneurial Legal Studies at Harvard Law School and co-director of the Law School's Berkman Center for Internet and Society. He gives the study high marks for bringing rigorous empirical research to what he calls an important public policy issue. "Making generalizations about Internet use is tricky, and Felix has identified and dealt with the pitfalls in a way well suited to peer scrutiny - while still accessible to industry, government, and the public, all of whom have important interests within the battles over digital property protection," says Zittrain.

Oberholzer-Gee is also hopeful that the study's robust data will inform the music industry as it struggles to tame the digital media beast. Until now, the industry has resorted to shots in the dark.

"One of the motivations to do this study was that the debate is emotionally very charged," he says, in part because of the scarcity of factual data on the subject. "We were struck by the fact that so much is at stake and yet we knew so little. It's very important to get this right."

beth_potier@harvard.edu

Linky (www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/04.15/09-filesharing.html)

This study is very telling BT, your doom and gloom;) prophecies regarding intellectual copyrights are clearly unfounded. While, I do think that actual hardcopy unit piracy being done extensively in China is a different story. In any case, downloading is here to stay like it or not, so the industry must contend with it. Can you say music format BLU-RAY DVD?:cool:

[academic punk]

The question of intellectual property is already in major flux (if not crisis), thanks to globalisation.

While companies are finding that taking their business offshore makes for a fatter bottom line, they're also discovering the drawbacks: other countries have different laws as to "intellectual property". If India (for example) has a slacker legal guideline as to what constitutes "ownership" of an "idea", then a company in danger of not ebing able to own their copyright with such strict control.

[Hardrock69]

Originally posted by Big Train
Guess label bashing IS all we care about..

Crickets chirping..

It is? Ok...whatever floats your boat...

;)

academic punk is correct.

It is one thing to march towards globalisation, but if it is to be done correctly, everyone involved needs to be on the same page.

Think of it in this slightly irrelevant way....if some alien civilization wanted to deal with our stupid planet, I am sure they would rather deal with a planet with one centralized government.

And we are not EVEN there yet. But we are well on our way.

All of the above has also made for radically increased security when it comes to new releases of product. For instance, U2 had a major panic attack when a cd of rough mixes from their latest album disappeared last year. Had that disc been posted online, it would have really fucked up their marketing strategies, as well as costing them some big dollars. And so now, security is really tight on new projects. Movie Studios are a good case in point as well (as is any intellectual property).

I just wish someone would come up with a device that would generate free energy, or an easier way to get 200 mpg from a car or something, and then post all the info necessary to build it in your garage online before it could be suppressed by the world government.

:cool:

[Big Train]

Well that's just it, (Nicks off topic post not included), it worries me just in this country, as intellectual property is really all we got. The problem with these sorts of precedents in music, is that it becomes a basis to argue in other cases and the whole thing gets convoluted.

America is only the land of ideas now. Not protecting them is a much bigger issue to me than almost anything. Without that, we don't have much in order to make any money.

[academic punk]

I agree.

And you're going to see further collapse on the structure of American industry with things like CAFTA. The country's sugar industry is going to implode as that blossoms.

But I don't see what protections can be effectively put in place. Firts of all, other countries, this is the biggest windfall of all time. No way are they going to want to re-write their laws to suit us. What's the incentive?

As for downloading, the precedent is home recording, and that's always been legal as long as its for your own private consumption. I personally don't download all that much, but I know plenty of people who do.

The chief problem for me is simply the price of the music. It used to be the ultimate impulse purpose (and what is rock music about if not impulses?).

I used to buy cassettes by the armload (at $3.99 a pop, why the hell not?) when I was making shit at my college job. But why would anyone - with the technology and resources now available - spend that kind of money today? What's the incentive?

(I'm trying to draw a parallel between foreign nations and today's college kid...what's the incentive to help OUR commerce interests? In both examples, it comes down to our industry making concessions to reach a compromise: with foreign nations, to get them to agree to intellectual property laws, provide them moneys and resources that only we can provide (and giving them assistance towdrs their military always goes a long way with foreign nations), with the music industry...well, that's your field...)

[Hardrock69]

One thing is for certain...intellectual property is about all we have left.

America is now a nation of consumers. I would be willing to bet 99% of what we buy these days is made outside the United States.

It is so rare these days to find anything that says "Made In USA" on it.

And even then, say you come up with some new kind of technology. The karitsu member-companies in Japan will file a shitload of patents on derivative ideas involving that technology. You may own the patent on your one idea, but other corporations will box you in by filing these ancilliary patents until there is not much you can do with your own idea.

It is an imperfect world, but it is the only one we have....

[Nickdfresh]

The war over downloading
The debate over Internet piracy has raged for years. Now the Supreme Court is about to weigh in.
March 28, 2005: 3:49 PM EST
By Krysten Crawford, CNN/Money (http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/28/technology/grokster/index.htm?cnn=yes) staff writer

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Who should pay for movie and music piracy on the Internet?

That question has hounded Hollywood and Silicon Valley ever since an upstart Internet company called Napster rocked the music business some years back with a nifty technology that allowed Internet users to get Beethoven and Beck for free.

Now the issue goes before the Supreme Court in a case that could reshape the future of the Internet, and how Hollywood markets its products.

In MGM v. Grokster, the major Hollywood studios and record labels have asked the nation's highest court to hold the developers of popular software for Internet downloading, known as "peer-to-peer" file sharing, accountable when users of their software download copyrighted movies and music. Lower courts so far have refused.

Oral arguments in Grokster -- one of two important Internet cases to be argued before the high court Tuesday -- come just a week after a new study found that piracy appears to be thriving in the virtual world.

The Pew Internet & American Life Project, a non-profit research group focusing on the Internet, said last week that some 17 million Americans are using not just the Internet but e-mail or other technology -- like their friend's iPods -- to get bootlegged music.

The study doesn't say how much Internet piracy is taking place overall. But to some analysts, it offers further proof that piracy will continue no matter what steps the entertainment industry takes.

"Apple Computer has spent a couple of years working its way to 300 million songs sold" for its iPod portable music player, said Eric Garland, CEO of file-sharing tracker BigChampagne. "We think, very conservatively, that 750 million unauthorized or free songs are swapped online every month."
The apocalypse?

"Peer-to-peer" file-sharing allows computer users to exchange files without having to go through a central Internet server. The software first gained national attention in 2000 as hordes of music lovers flocked to Napster, which provided a directory of songs that users could then download.

The record labels won a federal appeals court order shutting down Napster in 2001. They then went after other distributors, including the developers of two programs called Grokster and Morpheus.

Last summer the same San Francisco court that shut down the old Napster refused to do the same to the developers and distributors of Grokster and Morpheus software. The court found that since Grokster and Morpheus allow users to trade music and movie files without going to a central site like Napster, they should not be accountable for bootlegged material swapped using their software.

The decision was a huge blow to the entertainment industry since software programs such as Grokster and Morpheus are much harder to police when there isn't a central site to monitor.

The music labels -- joined this time by Hollywood -- appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed last December to hear the case. A decision is expected sometime this summer. Also Tuesday, the court is hearing another big case over whether cable operators have to open up their broadband lines to competing Internet service providers, much as Baby Bells have to do in the phone industry.

In the music case, the pro-Grokster crowd insists that innovation will be irreparably harmed should Hollywood and the record labels win.

"This case is not about bad actors," Michael Weiss, CEO of Morpheus developer StreamCast Networks, said at a news conference early this month. "It's about technology and who gets to control it, plain and simple."

But entertainment executives say their companies have already lost billions in sales to downloaders and stand to lose billions more.

Music industry critics, however, say those claims are overblown. Meanwhile, movie piracy by home users is much less rampant since it's harder to download films and most people don't seem all that interested in watching movies on their home PCs, at least not yet.
Odd alliances

Grokster has drawn extraordinary interest, not just from the technology industry but from groups like the Christian Coalition of America, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Taxpayers Union and the commissioner of major league baseball.

One pair of strange bedfellows: religious and "pro-family" groups -- typically at odds with the entertainment industry over on-air nudity and profanity -- are backing Hollywood and the music labels in the case because they think peer-to-peer is widely used by pornographers and other miscreants.

No matter who wins, both sides acknowledge the battle over piracy will continue in the courts and on Capitol Hill. Congress so far has resisted entertainment industry pressure for a new law that would hold software and hardware makers liable when people download copyrighted material for free.

Hollywood and the recording industry have already sued thousands of individuals for alleged illegal downloads using Grokster and newer, faster programs like BitTorrent and eDonkey.

BigChampagne' Garland predicted more litigation no matter what happens in Grokster. In past piracy cases, the best the entertainment industry could hope for was a court order blocking a product from being manufactured. In the Internet age, lines of computer code are unstoppable.

"All you can do (in Grokster) is remove a company from the equation," Garland said. "At a certain point, it will always come back to lawsuits against individual users."

[Hardrock69]

Justices skeptical in song-swapping case

Justices ask if restricting file sharing could stifle innovation, yet question online downloading.
March 29, 2005: 3:50 PM EST

WASHINGTON (CNN) - High-tech reached the nation's high court Tuesday as Supreme Court justices questioned whether online file-sharing networks could be held accountable for copyright infringement.

At issue is whether the entertainment industry can continue aggressively pursuing not only those who illegally download copyrighted songs, movies and photos, but also those who sell file-sharing software and services.

A San Francisco-based federal appeals court in August ruled those file-sharing companies were not responsible, since their products do not directly tell users where they can download protected material.

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) Studios sued the two makers of file-sharing software, Grokster and StreamCast Networks, claiming it has lost billions of dollars in revenue from the illegal distribution of its property, and has had to spend millions more developing anti-theft technology and prosecuting offenders.

For the justices, the debate came down to two competing arguments: whether software companies induce or encourage Internet piracy and profit from it, and whether computer innovation would be stifled under perpetual threat of lawsuit.

Justice Stephen Breyer pointed out Xerox copiers, videocassette recorders, iPod music players, and even the Gutenberg press had the potential of abuse by consumers: "In each case there could be vast numbers of infringement illegal uses," he said, but he added that the benefits to society from those inventions were incalculable.

Justice Antonin Scalia wondered whether innovators would be punished immediately after creating a new product if the entertainment industry had a legal veto. "If I started a business now, how do I know how to proceed?" he asked. "If I'm a new inventor, I'm going to get sued right away."

"There's never the intent to break the law when the guy is in the garage inventing the iPod," added Justice David Souter.

MGM attorney Donald Verrilli pointed out that during an earlier trial in the case, a court agreed that roughly 90 percent of those using the so-called "peer-to-peer" file-sharing software were illegally downloading protected material. "The overall activity is so large, it's mind boggling," he said. The software companies, Verrilli claimed, provide "active encouragement and assistance."

MGM is supported by a large number of entertainment groups, including the recording industry, Major League Baseball, and intellectual property advocates, as well as 40 states fearing lost jobs and tax revenue.

The software companies contend they should not be held responsible for the illegal acts of their customers since their software is used mainly to download and share legal or non-protected files. They note that while some of their users do steal songs, many also use their software to trade public-domain material such as government papers, as well as free songs and movie previews. That, argues the technology industry, meets the legal standard for protection from liability.

On the Supreme Court steps, several artists argued jobs are in jeopardy. "Stop in the name of creativity," said Lamont Dozier, a prolific songwriter and producer at Motown, who penned such hits as "Stop in the Name of Love."

"I thought, if I was back in Detroit, if we had this problem then, in the '60s, there never would have been a Motown, I would have been at Ford's car factory, because I couldn't make a living in the music business."

Back in court, several justices seemed equally troubled over how much leeway technology companies should be given when they benefit directly from trafficking in copyrighted intellectual property.

"Why isn't this a case of willful ignorance?" asked Souter.

Grokster and StreamCast attorney Richard Taranto replied, "There is no 'mother may I' system, no chaperone." He argued his companies do not tell users to download protected music or movies. "It's an autonomous system, there is no centralization."

After intense questioning from some of the justices, Taranto admitted that, in practice, "illegal activity" may have initially helped provide start-up capital for some new technology companies.

"From a legal and business perspective, it seems wrong to me," said Justice Anthony Kennedy.

A variety of civil libertarians are backing Grokster and StreamCast, fearing technological advances could be stifled if software and computer companies become unwilling to develop new products due to worries about copyright violations.

They say the entertainment industry should work with technology innovators to find solutions for the future, and not look back.

"Stop putting the toothpaste back in the tube," said Adam Eisgrau of P2PUnited.org, a group representing the software-sharing industry. "It doesn't work. It's time for them to learn that."

Hundreds of mostly young people gathered on the Supreme Court steps in support of the file-sharing companies, chanting and carrying signs. Some camped out overnight to attend the oral arguments.

Supreme Court precedent dates back to a 1984 ruling that Sony Corp. could not be held liable if consumers used the company's Betamax tape machines to illegally copy movies.

Tuesday's case is MGM Studios v. Grokster (04-0480). A ruling is expected by June.

[Dr. Love]

Originally posted by Big Train
Well that's just it, (Nicks off topic post not included), it worries me just in this country, as intellectual property is really all we got. The problem with these sorts of precedents in music, is that it becomes a basis to argue in other cases and the whole thing gets convoluted.

America is only the land of ideas now. Not protecting them is a much bigger issue to me than almost anything. Without that, we don't have much in order to make any money.


You're going to have to find a better way of protecting your property. Suing people is only going to make the music industry look even worse. I personally don't know anyone that I can think of with a favorable opinion of the industry.

I don't pirate music, but I don't buy CDs either, because I won't pay the over-inflated (in my opinion) prices and I won't help finance the music industry's legal bill.

So I listen to CDs I've already purchased, songs I've written or whatever may be on the radio.

[Big Train]

It's not for lack of trying. The technology people keep offering solutions, that keep getting broken within hours. Not to mention the companies who we need to help protect our content, the tech makers, have no reason whatsoever to come up with a workable solution. As long as Sony sells more MP3 players than Aerosmith CD's, thats the way it crumbles..

You don't like my industry or the people who inhabite it, thats fine (I'm sick of defending myself and my friends in the business on a personal level--the misconceptions are staggering and people just don't want to know the truth about us..fine). If you don't like the products we sell either, great.

I'm glad that you don't steal music. However, advocating not protecting ourselves is crazy. Ok suing individuals isn't "Cool" but it has to be done. Suing companies that allow it wholesale, what we originally wanted to do, is hamstrung in the courts.

The "innovation" part makes me laugh and cry (When I think of all the pain a lot of my friends are suffering through needlessly..lost homes, divorces, bankrupty). It is comical to me that you have one industry (Hi-Tech) who whine about "Stifling innovation" ,making money on our backs. Which is funny, when you consider how much money THEY lose to software pirarcy and how the crack down on that with anti-pirarcy initiatives.

But hypocrisy in business? Never...

[Big Train]

By the Way, I can't WAIT till this happens to other industries so you can understand what is we are going through...when industrial espionage via P2P starts happening wholesale and products get cancelled or cut back because people are making them in China 4 months before we can...jobs out the window on a macro-economic scale.

As Phil would say, "it's later than you think"...

[Dr. Love]

Originally posted by Big Train
It's not for lack of trying. The technology people keep offering solutions, that keep getting broken within hours. Not to mention the companies who we need to help protect our content, the tech makers, have no reason whatsoever to come up with a workable solution. As long as Sony sells more MP3 players than Aerosmith CD's, thats the way it crumbles..

I understand what you're saying, but I think it's inevitable that music is going to move away from the CD format because it's too easy for people to hack and crack. Your industry is going to have to come up with a new format or new protections for your product. Obviously digital isn't going to work anymore, because it's just too easy for people to break.


I'm glad that you don't steal music. However, advocating not protecting ourselves is crazy. Ok suing individuals isn't "Cool" but it has to be done. Suing companies that allow it wholesale, what we originally wanted to do, is hamstrung in the courts.

It's not that I don't like the people involved, it's that I don't like the policy being implemented. You guys can't seriously plan to find and sue every person that downloads music. That's got to be hundreds of thousands of people. That's going to cost you guys a lot in court fees and your image will be further hurt.


The "innovation" part makes me laugh and cry (When I think of all the pain a lot of my friends are suffering through needlessly..lost homes, divorces, bankrupty). It is comical to me that you have one industry (Hi-Tech) who whine about "Stifling innovation" ,making money on our backs. Which is funny, when you consider how much money THEY lose to software pirarcy and how the crack down on that with anti-pirarcy initiatives.

But hypocrisy in business? Never...

I work in software, and I know how big a problem piracy is. It's huge. We face the same problems you guys do (industry-wise) and we're always trying to come up with ways to stop it. The problem is that the producers have to create the protection schemes... all the thieves have to do is break it... once.

In any event, this is a problem I don't think your industry can solve with its current strategy. It has to learn that and come up with a different solution before they alienate their market and before they run out of money.

Also, have you guys thought about dropping the price of CDs or dropping the price of songs to purchase on the internet? Some of the pirates will never stop downloading regardless, but some may just be put off by the cost of buying it.

[Big Train]

Originally posted by Dr. Love



I work in software, and I know how big a problem piracy is. It's huge. We face the same problems you guys do (industry-wise) and we're always trying to come up with ways to stop it. The problem is that the producers have to create the protection schemes... all the thieves have to do is break it... once.

Also, have you guys thought about dropping the price of CDs or dropping the price of songs to purchase on the internet? Some of the pirates will never stop downloading regardless, but some may just be put off by the cost of buying it.

I'll keep my comments brief about the music aspect (which this thread was NOT intended to be about).

The price argument you CANNOT be serious about. Go to Tower the majority of catalog (Midline titles we call them) are 9.99. New titles are between 9.99-14.99 (FYE). If that is too much, go to Wal Mart, 8.99 for new titles (some baby bands as low as 4.99-5.99-Mars Volta for ex.). IF THAT is too much, go to Itunes, Rhapsody etc..and buy them for a buck a pop, whatever songs you want. I'm mean, yea, we are so non-responsive to price issues. Last I checked, Microsoft products are generally not on sale in such variety, they need the EU to "help" them.

The software industry needs to learn that what we are doing is right. We ARE working on all that you mention, but when they themselves can walk their own walk, then they can lecture. Suing individuals HAD to be done. If you can't sue the company who allows it, you sue the individual who commits the act. The buck has to stop somewhere, activists made sure it's wasn't the companies.

[Dr. Love]

Originally posted by Big Train
The price argument you CANNOT be serious about. Go to Tower the majority of catalog (Midline titles we call them) are 9.99. New titles are between 9.99-14.99 (FYE). If that is too much, go to Wal Mart, 8.99 for new titles (some baby bands as low as 4.99-5.99-Mars Volta for ex.). IF THAT is too much, go to Itunes, Rhapsody etc..and buy them for a buck a pop, whatever songs you want. I'm mean, yea, we are so non-responsive to price issues. Last I checked, Microsoft products are generally not on sale in such variety, they need the EU to "help" them.

That's my ignorance speaking then... last time I bought a CD (many years ago), it was 18.99 and Best Buy had the "best" prices at 15.99, if I recall. So yeah, that price sounds much more reasonable. I seem to recall there being some lawsuit over prices, now that I think about it.


The software industry needs to learn that what we are doing is right. We ARE working on all that you mention, but when they themselves can walk their own walk, then they can lecture. Suing individuals HAD to be done. If you can't sue the company who allows it, you sue the individual who commits the act. The buck has to stop somewhere, activists made sure it's wasn't the companies.

Some software vendors will sue the people, but most of them won't. It just costs too much money, so they'll try to make it as hard as they can to hack it. But it always gets hacked. In any event, it's getting easier every day for music to be pirated. More people sign up for high-speed internet each day.

My guess is that eventually the majority of American households will be downloading music. It'll be morally wrong and illegal, but do you plan to sue everyone?

I guess my overall point is that I don't think you guys are going to win this fight. I don't see how you're going to stop it if you can't stop the channels its happening through and you can stop the people from doing it. I really think your only reasonable option is to find a way to make it difficult enough that it deters people.

I guarantee if people couldn't pop a CD in their computer and immediately rip it to mp3 or wma, it wouldn't be as big a problem as it is now.

[Seshmeister]

It's hard to feel sorry for the labels when you look at the fake manufactured shit that they invest their money in.

Endless pop idol and hip hop is worthless. People shouldn't have to pay for it.

The way forward is live music. Bands like Van Halen made much more off of merchandising than album sales in any case. The record companies stole the revenue from sales.

Software is a different matter. I don't really understand why companies can't properly protect it. Up until a couple of years ago Microsft were using software keys whereby any product could be cracked by any number divisible by 7!!!

I think things are begining to change but it's been too little too late.

[Seshmeister]

I have to add that I am a total fucking hypocrit on this subject.

I run a software company and for example recently I was about to get a flight and thought I would get a game for my PDA to kill time.

It took 5 minutes to download it from linewire and then it asked me for a software key. It took a quick google search and I had it.

It wasn't the money at all. It was much quicker and easier for me to steal the game than to buy it.

That's just wrong and ludicrous. The companies themselves have to take the blame most of the time for not protecting their own stuff. I don't mean by legal action because you're never going to be able to close down the server in fucking Ubekistan or wherever it is. I don't see why they can't come up with something unique in the packaging of the product.

I remember they had all sorts of shit protecting computer games in the early 1980s which was more sophisticated than you get now.

Alternatively if you buy and download it onlline why not have online registration with a second download to activate the product. I know there are companies that do all this but they tend to be the small ones which is kind of bizarre.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[Big Train]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
It's hard to feel sorry for the labels when you look at the fake manufactured shit that they invest their money in.

Endless pop idol and hip hop is worthless. People shouldn't have to pay for it.

The way forward is live music. Bands like Van Halen made much more off of merchandising than album sales in any case. The record companies stole the revenue from sales.



THis attitude is comical. Because you don't like it and deem it unworthy of commerce, you would advocate it be stolen..

Do you feel this way about software, snack chips, household items or lumber? Unlikely..

You are similar to many software types I talk to, who speak out of both sides of their mouths. I give you credit Sesh, for being honest enough to admit your a hypocrite...

[Seshmeister]

And another thing while I'm on a rant.

I tried to buy a pretty specialised bit of software online recently from a small US supplier and the company wouldn't take a credit card payment from me because I was overseas. I emailed them showing how I could steal their product online in 10 minutes saving myself $500 telling them to 'and I quote' get a fucking grip while you still have a business.

We eventually came to an arrangement whereby I had to register my card at some internet clearing house.

That's just not good enough.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Big Train
THis attitude is comical. Because you don't like it and deem it unworthy of commerce, you would advocate it be stolen..

Do you feel this way about software, snack chips, household items or lumber? Unlikely..

You are similar to many software types I talk to, who speak out of both sides of their mouths. I give you credit Sesh, for being honest enough to admit your a hypocrite...

I'm living in the real world here and more honest than most.

I'm also pretty lazy and can't be bothered making labels and false CD inlays so I actually buy 99% of the music I want. I only download boots.

To expect people to be honest because that's moral is not going to work. Any time I go to cheap PC equipment shops these days they are full of dodgy looking guys buying truckloads of blank CDs.

If people could go online and get a new freezer for their house for 10% of the price and it was delivered in an hour with no comeback you can bet a fucking high percentage of people would.

Whining on about that fact isn't going to save your freezer industry.

And I stand by the comical attitude about the major labels. Fuck them. They've been greedy and corrupt for decades now and I would be a happy man if they all went under and were replaced with hundreds of micro labels run by the bands mothers or girlfriends or whatever promoted and distributed on the web.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Big Train
I'd like to restate something I said earlier about downloading (and I want to limit this thread to ONLY this point).


Fabulous Shadow is a deranged cunt.








































Ooops!

[Seshmeister]

Finally I think a lot of the figures banded about for music theft aren't really accurate.

Guys will be guys whether it's baseball cards or stamps and there seems to be a sub culture of people that download literally thousands of albums. It's collecting. You see it here and at DDLR.com with the people that have 100 Van Halen boots. Do they ever listen to them? Would they buy them all if there was no downloading?

There was a case here recently where a student was prosecuted for having 20 000 albums on his hard disk. He was sharing them P2P but not selling.

Why would he do that?

Even the most fanatical music fans I know(and I know a few) can only listen to a few hundred albums regularly.

I guess I'm saying you can't equate the theft figures directly one to one with the loss to the industry.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[DLR'sCock]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
It's hard to feel sorry for the labels when you look at the fake manufactured shit that they invest their money in.

Endless pop idol and hip hop is worthless. People shouldn't have to pay for it.

The way forward is live music. Bands like Van Halen made much more off of merchandising than album sales in any case. The record companies stole the revenue from sales.

Software is a different matter. I don't really understand why companies can't properly protect it. Up until a couple of years ago Microsft were using software keys whereby any product could be cracked by any number divisible by 7!!!

I think things are begining to change but it's been too little too late.

Bands and artists make all/most of their money from Merchandising, Live shows, and Publishing Royalties....

The bands and artsists don't make much off of the sales of their albums, over 90% of it goes to the label....

Some perspective, if you are in a 4 member band and you go gold and sell 500,000 albums in the US, then you can stand to make about $25K - $40K each(unless the cost of to make the album and the cost of marketing was way to high), that's it....when the label will make millions...So remember every penny that the label shells out to make and promote the album with your "advance", YOU PAY BACK WITH THE MONEY YOU EARN FROM ALBUM SALES.....or other avenues until the debt is paid, the label is nothing more than a credit card that can earn a laughable amount of interest.......It's kinda hard to feel bad for the labels, but if the artist doesn't sell enough....bye bye!!!

That's why the labels are freaking and the artists are not really freaking about it....

[DLR'sCock]

One more thing, it does bother me when someone dowloads music and then SELLLS IT for a profit.....


I don't mind sharing, and I always buy what I like and want to support.....

[Big Train]

I'm starting to feel like everyone just keeps beatin gon their respective dead horses...let's just let it go...I'm glad to see the passion for music though.

[Seshmeister]

Really?

I thought I made a couple of spectacular posts in this thread...:)

[Dr. Love]

I agree with your post on collecting... I know people with hundreds of movies, and they don't watch them. We counted it up... if you watched a movie every night, it would take over a year to watch them all, and that was assuming they stopped collecting right then.

I got out of the Vh bootleg trading because of time constraints, but mostly because I didn't listen to the CDs, I didn't watch the DVDs, and I was spending all my time gathering a huge pile of crap that was barely audible or visible.

I don't know what the answer to piracy is, but I don't think what's going on is going to work at all.

[Seshmeister]

Yeah.

For example from my experience there are maybe 3 CVH videos worth watching and a few sound recordings.

The - 'Hey I also have a 10 much worse versions of a gig on that tour' thing is bizarre...

[Nickdfresh]

Justices skeptical in song-swapping case
Justices ask if restricting file sharing could stifle innovation, yet question online downloading.

March 29, 2005: 3:50 PM EST

WASHINGTON (CNN (http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/29/technology/scotus_filesharing/index.htm?cnn=yes)) - High-tech reached the nation's high court Tuesday as Supreme Court justices questioned whether online file-sharing networks could be held accountable for copyright infringement.

At issue is whether the entertainment industry can continue aggressively pursuing not only those who illegally download copyrighted songs, movies and photos, but also those who sell file-sharing software and services.

A San Francisco-based federal appeals court in August ruled those file-sharing companies were not responsible, since their products do not directly tell users where they can download protected material.

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) Studios sued the two makers of file-sharing software, Grokster and StreamCast Networks, claiming it has lost billions of dollars in revenue from the illegal distribution of its property, and has had to spend millions more developing anti-theft technology and prosecuting offenders.

For the justices, the debate came down to two competing arguments: whether software companies induce or encourage Internet piracy and profit from it, and whether computer innovation would be stifled under perpetual threat of lawsuit.

Justice Stephen Breyer pointed out Xerox copiers, videocassette recorders, iPod music players, and even the Gutenberg press had the potential of abuse by consumers: "In each case there could be vast numbers of infringement illegal uses," he said, but he added that the benefits to society from those inventions were incalculable.

Justice Antonin Scalia wondered whether innovators would be punished immediately after creating a new product if the entertainment industry had a legal veto. "If I started a business now, how do I know how to proceed?" he asked. "If I'm a new inventor, I'm going to get sued right away."

"There's never the intent to break the law when the guy is in the garage inventing the iPod," added Justice David Souter.

MGM attorney Donald Verrilli pointed out that during an earlier trial in the case, a court agreed that roughly 90 percent of those using the so-called "peer-to-peer" file-sharing software were illegally downloading protected material. "The overall activity is so large, it's mind boggling," he said. The software companies, Verrilli claimed, provide "active encouragement and assistance."

MGM is supported by a large number of entertainment groups, including the recording industry, Major League Baseball, and intellectual property advocates, as well as 40 states fearing lost jobs and tax revenue.

The software companies contend they should not be held responsible for the illegal acts of their customers since their software is used mainly to download and share legal or non-protected files. They note that while some of their users do steal songs, many also use their software to trade public-domain material such as government papers, as well as free songs and movie previews. That, argues the technology industry, meets the legal standard for protection from liability.

On the Supreme Court steps, several artists argued jobs are in jeopardy. "Stop in the name of creativity," said Lamont Dozier, a prolific songwriter and producer at Motown, who penned such hits as "Stop in the Name of Love."

"I thought, if I was back in Detroit, if we had this problem then, in the '60s, there never would have been a Motown, I would have been at Ford's car factory, because I couldn't make a living in the music business."

Back in court, several justices seemed equally troubled over how much leeway technology companies should be given when they benefit directly from trafficking in copyrighted intellectual property.

"Why isn't this a case of willful ignorance?" asked Souter.

Grokster and StreamCast attorney Richard Taranto replied, "There is no 'mother may I' system, no chaperone." He argued his companies do not tell users to download protected music or movies. "It's an autonomous system, there is no centralization."

After intense questioning from some of the justices, Taranto admitted that, in practice, "illegal activity" may have initially helped provide start-up capital for some new technology companies.

"From a legal and business perspective, it seems wrong to me," said Justice Anthony Kennedy.

A variety of civil libertarians are backing Grokster and StreamCast, fearing technological advances could be stifled if software and computer companies become unwilling to develop new products due to worries about copyright violations.

They say the entertainment industry should work with technology innovators to find solutions for the future, and not look back.

"Stop putting the toothpaste back in the tube," said Adam Eisgrau of P2PUnited.org, a group representing the software-sharing industry. "It doesn't work. It's time for them to learn that."

Hundreds of mostly young people gathered on the Supreme Court steps in support of the file-sharing companies, chanting and carrying signs. Some camped out overnight to attend the oral arguments.

Supreme Court precedent dates back to a 1984 ruling that Sony Corp. could not be held liable if consumers used the company's Betamax tape machines to illegally copy movies.

Tuesday's case is MGM Studios v. Grokster (04-0480). A ruling is expected by June.

[Cathedral]

In order for anyone to hear my next release, you're going to have to come to my front porch and wait for me to finish brushing my one tooth to pluck it out for you on banjo.

I grew up using an outdoor pooper and drinking well water, I can adapt easily to losing the comforts of city life.

Recording into a tin can? No problem, the CDRW drive won't work anyway.

Less is more, especially when more is no longer available.

Metallica on acoustic, I've done that already and it worked well with the drunks in 1994.

We as a Nation have sold ourselves down the river in the most literal of senses possible. Even the blind saw this coming.

[Hardrock69]

Hey Nick, you are a little slow on the draw there pal...