SEIV is being Pirated

Saxon · #1 August 29th, 2001, 12:48 PM

Regarding music, let me ask tesco samoa if the music club he is part of returns some money to the artists/labels or not? I agree with you, 300% mark up is hard to swallow and I would be happier paying less, as long as some of it went back to the creator. If an Online retailer can give me the product I want with less mark up than that shop on Main Street, I will happily go to that store, as long as some of the cash makes it�s way back to the guy the artist.

The single song idea is great and, as Hadrian pointed out, paying more for a good CD is better than paying for a CD with only one good song on it. The music industry could do some creative things with current technology and still make good cash.

If I was the hypothetical guy who buys a SE4 license and then downloads it from a Warez site, I would follow up with an email to Richard suggesting that he investigate the possibility of creating a similar download procedure. We had to get some commercial anti virus software off the net and once our credit card cleared, they sent us a password. We then went to their site, entered the password and got a download. This allows legitimate purchasers quick access to product and skips the waiting. One could also offer a lower price, as no physical goods are created and no shipping and handling is incurred. Finally, you would never have back orders or overstocking problems.

However, I would also tell Richard that I work in the non-profit sector and don�t have a clue how to run a business, so he should take my ideas with a grain of salt!

Puke · #2 August 30th, 2001, 01:01 AM

quote:
Originally posted by askan:
Now if you can justify to the artist/creator why its alright to rip them off then fair enough. If you can't then your just a thief, no different from the guy who steals you wallet except alot more cowardly (because you aren't facing your victims).

Askan
(Head developer for a product that gets pirated)

I downloaded the MP3 of 'Every Day is Halloween'

then I bought the album containing the song. I would never have purchased it otherwise. Same goes for the latest Motorhead, the classic Slayer "Seasons in the Abyss" two Sepultura albums, Boingo's self titled album, and countless more.

Without the ability to prevue music, i would not buy anything that i didnt hear at a friends place and enjoy. music stores figured that out, that why there are listening stations in every single music store now. I dont like going to stores to listen, they are full of annoying kids and degenerate beatnicks. I like to listen to music Online. If someone wants to accuse me of stealing, they can refund the money I spent buying those $12-20 dollar CDs.

maybe its a different story for people who collect songs Online and never spend a dime, but im not about to make appologies for someone elses misdeeds. And its not as if their misbehavior is what killed napster. I think the music industries over reaction to the situation killed napster, and they would probably be making alot more money if they had harnessed all that free marketing potential, instead of squelching it.

geoschmo · #3 August 30th, 2001, 01:19 AM

I have to disagree with you here Puke. Napster in my mind is exactly the same thing as Warez. I won't disagree that the music industry or individual artists should do something like Napster to market their music, but they have every right to want Napster itself shut down.

Your claim that you only were using it to preview music that you were deciding whether or not to buy is irrelevant. The fact is Napster had no controls over whether a user bought an album later. Once the person downloaded the file, they couldn't care less. They were making money (throguh banner ads, etc.) off other people's work without their permission, plain and simple. And that's wrong.

Whether or not your intentions were ethical or honorable in sampling music is not the issue. The question is is it ethical for Napster to make the songs available. The answer to that has to be NO.

Whether it is a good idea or not for the Music industry to doing something like Napster is irrelevant. The fact is they haven't yet, and noone has the right to do it for them.

Geoschmo

Puke · #4 August 29th, 2001, 02:18 PM

quote:
Originally posted by geoschmo:
The fact is they haven't yet, and noone has the right to do it for them.

Geoschmo

sure, ethicaly. but its not called an ethical economy, its called a market economy. if there is an oportunity to make money, and you dont jump on it, someone is bound to do it for you. Im betting things would stay pretty much status quo in an ethical economy, and no one would get off their *** to innovate anything new.

Bell didn't invent the first or best telephone, he just nabbed the pattent on it a few hours before the guy with an earlier, better Version made it to the pattent office. The fact that multinational recording industry conglomerates happened to win a leagle battle against an internet music startup is purely a matter of symantics.

while I like to poo poo on music lables for being big and evil, they had actually planned to partner with napster from the begining, as napster was always intended to transform into a subscription based service. I think the real blame falls on artists like Lars who rose a big stink and crusaded against the internet music pirates before the industry was positioned to realize a profit from it. recal that his label didnt want anything to do with his lawsuit until after it was over.

but thats not really the point either. if you want to get into the leagle issues, you have to analyze how peer to peer file sharing works. napster isnt uploading music they dont own, and they are not downloading music they dont own. their license agrement provided clauses that people had to own music that they traded digitally, and while blame was put on them for 'misuse' of their service, I am not buying it.

making VHS tapes of cable broadcasts is 'wrong.' early tape rentals from your local video store were disposable, and they had an odomoter style dial to show how many times they were viewed. that policy died quick. kids making tape recordings of radio broadcasts are breaking the law. whatever crazy **** is illegal right now, if the industry does not change then market factors will change it for them. There are enough legitimate outlets where artists offer their work or samples of their work Online, and are compensated by paypal type systems, that I am not too woried about the future working its self out.

for now, ill keep buying CDs. mp3 quality is not up to par for serious listening anyway, just like VHS isnt up to quality for serious viewing. there ARE non-lossy compression formats, but they are generally not used on public web servers because of prohibitive file sizes.

geoschmo · #5 August 29th, 2001, 02:42 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Puke:
Im betting things would stay pretty much status quo in an ethical economy, and no one would get off their *** to innovate anything new.

Contrary to what many people think, the end does notjustify the means. You can't participate in illegal or unetical behaivor and justify it by saying, "If I didn't do it, somebody else would have." There are too many ways to make money in our economy that are perfectly legal. You don't have to skirt legality to do it.

quote:
Bell didn't invent the first or best telephone, he just nabbed the pattent on it a few hours before the guy with an earlier, better Version made it to the pattent office.

But that has nothing to do with the discussion here. Bell didn't "sample" the other guy's work and get a patent for himself on it. He patented his own work. It just so happeneded that the two were similer, and Bell got there first.

quote:
The fact that multinational recording industry conglomerates happened to win a leagle battle against an internet music startup is purely a matter of symantics.

Uh, no. It's a matter of law and ethics. Your dismisal of it is symantics.

quote:
while I like to poo poo on music lables for being big and evil, they had actually planned to partner with napster from the begining, as napster was always intended to transform into a subscription based service.[quote]And once they do, I will have no problem with it at all.[quote]if you want to get into the leagle issues, you have to analyze how peer to peer file sharing works. napster isnt uploading music they dont own, and they are not downloading music they dont own. their license agrement provided clauses that people had to own music that they traded digitally, and while blame was put on them for 'misuse' of their service, I am not buying it.

Actually you are off here. The fact that they did not "directly" do anything does not absolve them of responsibility, any more than simply driving the getaway car absolves someone from responsibility in a bank holdup.

quote:
whatever crazy **** is illegal right now, if the industry does not change then market factors will change it for them. There are enough legitimate outlets where artists offer their work or samples of their work Online, and are compensated by paypal type systems, that I am not too woried about the future working its self out.

You are probably right, but that does not give someone the right to steal someone elses work, or make money off enableing someone else to steal it.

tesco samoa · #6 August 29th, 2001, 02:48 PM

Quote
but thats not really the point either. if you want to get into the leagle issues, you have to analyze how peer to peer file sharing works. napster isnt uploading music they dont own, and they are not downloading music they dont own. their license agrement provided clauses that people had to own music that they traded digitally, and while blame was put on them for 'misuse' of their service, I am not buying it.

End Quote

In Canada it was legal to download songs from Napster (for personal) but it was Illegal to share them. Kind of like a bad star trek story.

Under the home user ( fair use policy) it is legal to copy streaming music and/or video for personal use.

I personally have used the services to get back cat. music that is not available and also to replace my LP's with CD's. I will not by a cd of something I have on LP. Sorry but double dipping is wrong (IMO).

I also feel that it is wrong to charge 20 dollars for a Kinks cd ( or any other cd that has been out for 20 years ).

But I stongly feel that you are not a criminal for downloading music or software.

Nor should you be grouped with criminals.

The music industry has wasted 7 years to develop a Online wharehouse of music. Fear and greed has kept that from happening. Now that they are finally doing it the model will not work. (Until they combine all their resources ( what will happen when retail cd stores want a piece of the pie ))

The story about artists not getting their due is not 100% acurate.
Look at Prince's Online album and how he benifited from it. ( Set a limit on how many albums he wanted to sell to make a profit, then release it and not care about it being shared or copied. Prince ended up making as much as he did with his Last 5 Record label releases) It is the Music Food chain that is not getting their due's. The artist is at the bottom of that food chain. If you ever get the chance to read a contract offered from the labels, you would laugh ( and cry ) and then go get a lawyer. They will tell you not to sign.

And with the person who went to see your friends band. Isn't he supporting them by going to their concert. Buying their stuff at the show. I doubt that the band gets much from that guy buying a CD of their music from a retail store.

What would they do if he said that he bought the cd used ???

Um. Sorry about writting all that. This topic is very important to me. I hope I do not offend anyone.

As you can guess I am against the DMCA and the RIAA.

This is a good topic.

------------------
L? GdX $ Fr C++ SdT T+ Sf* Tcp+ A M++ MpTM ROTS Pw+ Fq+ Nd Rp++ G+

Askan Nightbringer · #7 August 29th, 2001, 04:36 PM

"What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way." -- Bertrand Russell, in "Roads to Freedom"

"It doesn't matter how many times you paint a fence, it is still a fence. Hitler had reasons for exterminating Jews, the CIA had reasons for attempting to rig Australian elections, a student has reasons to copy another's work and Trevor Chappel had a reason for bowling underam to New Zealand. Having an excuse doesn't make it any less wrong." -- Askan Nightbringer, in "Shrapnel Games Forum"