Didn't say they did, but copying is allowed in limited circumstances under fair use. Although since you brought up personal use copying, according to the byzantine logic of the MPAA, even that isn't allowed under fair use. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/dvd-copying-cas/
Edited by - Solar4 on 11/8/2010 7:05:57 PM
[Link]
Solar4 Deactivated User
183 Posts 10/10
Posted - Nov 8 2010 : 7:07PM
........ Edited by - Solar4 on 11/8/2010 7:07:35 PM
The musicians and music-related people I met a decade ago did not have any positive comments for the RIAA. All it did for them was put up roadblocks to their musical careers.
Really. Here is the quote off of Community: Season One, "This product is authorized for sale or rent only in the country where originally sold (e.e., only in the U.S. or only in Canada, respectively). Unauthorized reproduction, distribution or exhibition violates federal laws with severe penalties and violates Sony Pictures Home Entertainments standard terms of trade." Sony forgot to put in your part about can be copied and shared by multiple people. In fact, they wrote the opposite. Here's one from Scooby Doo: Camp Scare, "This copyrighted product has been manufactured and distributed by Warner Home Video, a Warner Bros. Home Entertainment Company, and is authorized for sale or rental for private home use in the USA and Canada ONLY. The sale or rental of this product outside of the USA and Canada has NOT been authorized by Warner Home Video, and is in direct violation of its written terms of trade. Federal law provides sever civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized distribution, reproduction or exhibition of copyrighted motion pictures, videotapes or videodiscs." Again, your portion saying it can be copied and shared by multiple people. Since supposedly I am the troll, please site all the DVDs that state on them that the manufacturer and distributor allow copying and sharing by multiple users as I assume you must know which ones they are, I can't find that statement on any of mine. Until you do I'll have to assume that you are actually the troll.
Apparently, from the multiple threads about this that have gone on here, many file sharers feel that it should be free. For those who are calling for a new business model, why don't you create one yourself. If you can find a profitable way to do it, DO IT. Be it through licensing content or creating your own, go ahead and create this new profitable business model. I'm not trying to be a jerk by saying this, new models have to come from somewhere.
@Flash: Of course you're right. No one found this miraculous new business model yet. That's what we're talking about! I have suggested some ideas, like this one: Would it be possible to create a global license that would enable one individual to access all content available ? If this is indeed possible, what price should it be? Is it possible to maximize revenue with such a product? One funny question I'm sure you'll like: If I buy a CD, and I break it, how can I buy another copy without buying a second license? There are some thorny issues that remained accepted for years when content was mainly available through disks. The internet changed the way we feel about it. How can we adapt for the better ? I learnt some very interesting things in this thread, I'll try to sum it up in a post and ask a few questions about it. Edited by - Jambavant on 11/9/2010 2:44:42 AM
Jambavant, I get the impression that you're sincere about this, and understand that consumers being able to make and distribute copies freely won't be part of a new business model. I don't think everyone in thee discussions agrees with you. I'm pretty sure some who say "Come up with a new business model" actually mean "Do what makes you happy, I'll keep downloading and distributing as I like". Truth is, the only 'business model' those people will accept is one that doesn't interfere with their downloading and distributing. The music and movie companies know this. Every business model they think of still faces the same problem. However they sell content, once sold someone can copy it and distribute it, and in the digital world they can do so quickly and very widely. Come back a step from the detail of a new business model and think in general terms. What's required? The companies want a method of commercial distribution which means the same sort of profitability as currently exists, in such a way that the product won't be copied and distributed without the copyright owner's consent, or at least only at a minimal rate. I don't think they have any trouble with the general idea of developing/using a new business model, but they're not going to even try unless they think the second part of that statement will be addressed. In general terms there are only a few options. Either the companies develop some sort of encoding that can't be cracked, which I think is at the borderline where possible becomes impossible. Or they shut down copying/distributing after it happens, as much as they can, which is what they're trying now (with the aim, presumably, of making it an unappealing idea to do it). Or, they make people not want to copy/distribute in the first place. I think you're advocating a business model that achieves this last. Great, but that's a level of social psychology well beyond my imagination. I can only begin to think of some sort of international advertising campaign to make it uncool. And those never work.
What's a 'trusted network' and how can I be sure it's only going to be 30 people at most? (Not that I imagine many companies would be happy with 30 copies, but I'm willing to learn.)
[Link]
Solar4 Deactivated User
183 Posts 10/10
Posted - Nov 9 2010 : 6:52AM
Yes Really. And the trolling aspect comes from your sarcastic posts about how credit card numbers and cd's/dvd's are equivalent in terms of it being acceptable to their being copied and shared among multiple people. You know their not equivalent, yet you continue to post sarcastic posts stating that they are. As for the mysterious business model that content providers don't think exists, it actually does, it's called the itunes model. And it would entail scenes and movies being purchasable on the day of their release and to take a page from other industries, prices would be reduced and more profit would be made up on volume of the content sold. Edited by - Solar4 on 11/9/2010 6:54:35 AM
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Nov 9 2010 : 12:32PM
If you break a cd you bought, you buy another. You never bought any license in the first place. You bought a copy, if you downloaded to it your computer, and you want to burn a disc because you broke your original, that is fair use. It is not fair use if you burn 10 copies and hand them out.
An iTunes model would be appealing to me as a consumer...but it would probably have to be centralized (like iTunes is) to work out. Also...a good part of the iTunes model has to do with its ease of use on "cool" and popular technology. This might be a good step in the right direction, however...at least something to try out. Edited by - fu_q on 11/9/2010 12:40:56 PM
@Fergus: thanks a lot for your post. Yes, i try to be as honest as possible in this debate and I know I come with high expectations. I think the Internet changed profoundly the way we see and handle content, and something has to be done to adapt to this change. It's sad to see some of the most talented and tech savvy persons joined the pirates' side. I think the only thing they want is to make the most out of content, given the technology available, and access almost all, if not all content available. There is also the issue that it's difficult to control content while respecting users' privacy. Maybe one of the reason why it's so difficult to prevent piracy is because of this community of highly skilled people. If there could ever be a system that would make their hopes possible, maybe 1) they would not try as hard to break the control systems 2) they would even contribute.You are absolutely right, that's ideally what I'd like to see happen. I don't believe in the kindness of the humanity but I believe in policies. Here's why I believe a personal license to access all kinds of content would help lower piracy. 1) why share content when you have nothing to gain from it? Sharing requires some effort. Pirates share content because it gives them access to more content than they could afford: I buy 1 item, you buy 1, and we have two each. It's not very likely you are going to share anything if you already have the two. Many websites offer all their content without DRMs to their members, even to trial subscribers. I doubt the majority of it is available to illegal downloading. It takes time and money to share. 2) there are some interesting technologies available today. iTunes abandoned the FairPlay DRM, but now every track sold is watermarked, so they can trace songs shared illegally back to you. Universal Music also implemented that through UITS. There are also audio and video watermarking technologies available. A DRM doesn't have to be intrusive to be effective. Ironically, the retail DVDs are the only guaranty that piracy will still be possible because you can't trace it back to the uploader. Presently, DRMs on DVDs are mostly annoying for the regular customers, not for the pirates. They are more intrusive than they are effective. One of the most inspiring examples to me is Spotify. You can stream and download 10 million songs for £10/month. You can connect with Facebook so as to share your playlists with your contacts, you can bookmark theirs, you can post playlists on your blog, you keep your music with you wherever you go, whatever computer you access the service from, and everything stays automatically in sync... I think this is only the tip of the iceberg.
Spotify sounds like a great deal. Arr, we found the treasure of this thread. Music is not such a big deal to me now that I would pay for a membership, but I like the business model and would like to see it in porn.
[Link]
Solar4 Deactivated User
183 Posts 10/10
Posted - Nov 10 2010 : 6:00AM
The content providers in this thread have shown no real interest in such a model even though it's quite reasonable. Primarily because they believe they'll make less money off the deal. Likely because they're letting greed overrule reason. And in other news..Limewire returns: http://www.zeropaid.com/news/91263/developers-bring-limewire-back-to-life/ Edited by - Solar4 on 11/10/2010 6:03:50 AM
Spotify certainly looks good, although of course its geographic limitation bugs me because i can't use it. They seem to be working on the 'vast volume' business model, i guess. I now better understand your previous suggestions about a sort of portal for all porn producers where sufficient volume plus a sense of community might make piracy simply less popular. There are criticisms of Spotify on the Wikipedia page about it, primarily that small labels/artists get very little back and that possibly the business model isn't sustainable over the long term. There are criticisms of anything, of course, and there's nothing new about independent artists getting little money out of their efforts. It's definitely worth following.
@Solar4 Content producers are anything but greedy: their primary concern is to have the financial means to pursue their activity. That, and a certain sense of fairness. You are so letting your one-sided feelings out, and it's not very nice. I can understand your frustration as a customer, but you have to take into account other opinions. How do you know for sure they will make more money if they turn their business model upside down ? It's probably wise to take it one step at a time. I think there are some excellent opportunities lying around here, but the reason why business models haven't changed yet is because it's still too uncertain and too risky. As time goes by, we'll probably move further into dematerialization of content and it will maybe clearer as to how to deal with it. One example is you think an iTunes equivalent would be best. I don't. 1) I think that pay per unit won't stop piracy 2) Most majors are trying to find alternatives to iTunes because it became so powerful they are losing control over their content. I don't think it's good for the producers or the customers to have such a distribution platform. One thing you are right about is the resurrection of LimeWire: it's just not possible to eradicate the technical intermediates.
Oh yes, those terrible greedy content providers who spend money producing entertainment and then have the gall to hope for something back! Unlike the pure of heart 'sharing' community who merely want access to millions of songs, movies and clips (which cost money to produce) without spending a single solitary cent; no greed on their part, not at all. You continue to demonstrate the merits of your case with admirable clarity.
@Fergus: If you really want to try spotify, you can ask a friend in the UK to open an account for you, and you can create a UK Paypal account to pay for it. Once the account is up and running, you'll be able to access it from within the US with no problem. Of course this business model will not be flawless from the start. I think that's where the debate kicks in as to who gets what on what criteria. Moreover, I think one essential element is needed so Spotify can succeed: critic mass. If there's not enough people, there won't be enough content, and soon it will deperish. I think this is a step in the right direction, but I think there is still a long way to go.
"FBI probes 4chan's 'Anonymous' DDoS attacks" "The FBI has launched an investigation into an online protest that allegedly took down numerous Web sites belonging to antipiracy and entertainment groups, as well as the U.S. Copyright Office, a source with knowledge of the probe told CNET today. " http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20022264-261.html
people who don't agree with the industry's method of dealing with downloaders, may I suggest only buying used (instead of. .you know. . .hacking) that's what I did when the record companies started suing people. I was about to join vivid's website when I heard about this, and promptly decided against it. Edited by - cm37564 on 11/10/2010 10:51:01 AM
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Nov 10 2010 : 1:34PM
Here comes the FBI Those who said the FBI will never get involved were incorrect. They are now involved. You can bet your bottom dollar they will find out who is spearheading this Ddos and will prosecute. Once you attack the Copyright Office, you are playing in their backyard.
[Link]
Solar4 Deactivated User
183 Posts 10/10
Posted - Nov 10 2010 : 2:59PM
Of course they're motivated by greed, most people in any given profit making enterprise will seek to make as much money as they possibly can and in this case they're resorting to blackmail and extortion to make even more money, which if they know the history of the mafia they would know that such tactics have a poor track record. In fact, greed is what has destroyed the US economy with bankers and wall st execs taking it upon themselves to find new and more creative ways of making money, including pressuring the house and senate to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act to allow them to make as much money as humanly possible at the expense of the rest of the country and as a result we all have to live with the consequences of their actions, except them of course. And moving towards an iTunes model wouldn't turn their business model upside down, it's merely the natural progression of commercialism in the context of the internet. And it works quite well for the music industry. Edited by - Solar4 on 11/10/2010 3:14:27 PM
@Solar4 iTunes is a lesser evil for record companies. They are trying to find other distribution channels because they cannot rely only on Apple. I find your comments on greed a little surprising. People are not that bad usually.
While I sympathise with your ideas here to some extent, the reality is that not everyone is a merchant banker. The people you're talking about live in a different moral and ethical universe to most of us - I've met enough of them to have seen it demonstrated repeatedly. Some ordinary business people are also like this but most are not. Yes they want to make as much as they can, but they are aware of various limitations on doing so. They don't want to spend every waking minute on pursuing dollars; they want to see family and friends. They want to maintain some reputation of being reasonable human beings.They want customers who see them as worth revisiting. There are plenty of reasons, including self-interested ones, why business people aren't as greedy as they might be.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Nov 11 2010 : 2:35AM
Depends on what you mean by 'works quite well.' Most of those in the music industry hate Steve Jobs fucking guts, his insistence on keeping purchases based on such a low per song rate has decimated the industry. Of course one could say with reason that the record industry was gouging music fans for decades so turnabout is fair play, but to act like Itunes is a unqualified success for the music industry is just not accurate.
iTunes is an unqualified success for customers. $1 per song is a price that makes people just buy on impulse without even thinking about it. And I have to believe this "free spending" customer mindset is good for the music industry. Don't they get a piece of every one of those dollars?
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Nov 12 2010 : 3:08AM
Not according to the industry, which has seen windfall profits drop to a trickle. I recommend the book [ invalid url ] for the background on this, the labels see very little of that $1. Mind you I'm not exactly weeping for the poor record executives or anything.
It does, however, require iTunes (If I'm not mistaken?). Installing iTunes on your computer is as bad as buying an Apple product. Edited by - randomprecision on 11/13/2010 5:18:58 AM
I'm not a fan of Apple's anti-porn stance...which I think is driving business to its competitors (part of why I bought a Droid instead of waiting for the iPhone on Verizon or switching plans to AT&T)...but, other than this, I don't think that Apple is too awful. They do (did???) have that proprietary thing going...which is still a pain with tv shows that you buy. Is this why you hate them, RP?
^I'm no user of iTunes either, due to the proprietary-ness and bloat and system requirements. But the truth is that millions and millions of people really really value convenience and ease-of-use above all else. And if you pledge allegiance to Apple, you do get convenience and simplicity. Kinda like those "cartridge" coffeemakers; I never thought they would catch on, but apparently they're quite popular. People are too lazy/busy to fool with filters and coffee beans/grounds and washing coffeepots and whatnot. Convenience trumps quality/flexibility/economy.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Nov 15 2010 : 5:38PM
^ We have one of those coffee machines at work and it rocks. I would never use one at home as I'm too much of a coffee snob but it makes a lot of sense for an office, as no one wants to clean and take care of the coffee maker, but everyone loves their coffee.
I don't hate them. I just get bad vibes from them. I installed iTunes on my computer once and I just didn't like how massive it was. Besides which, it was kind of useless since I already have all the music I want. I don't remember everything it did that I didn't like but I remember that I was turned off enough that I uninstalled it almost right away. A program has to be pretty bad for me to not even want to hang onto it for a while and see what it's about. Edited by - randomprecision on 11/15/2010 6:30:59 PM
I don't like Apple either. I got an ipod on ebay from a random seller. iTunes is like most new PC games, you need a brand new computer for it to work correctly
^ What?? I know people personally who have 5+ year old pieces of shit that run iTunes perfectly fine. Maybe you don't know how to work it correctly? My parents even have a 5 year old Dell that's dying that can run iTunes as good as it did 5 years ago. If there's millions of people that run the program and like it and don't have problems with it yet you can't work it on your computer, chances are it's you that's the problem, not the program or computer. Just a thought.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Nov 26 2010 : 2:41AM
I had it on my Dell too and it slowed things down, I guess slow is relative, but there are players that work a lot faster in general, but Itunes is the best for downloading legit music obviously.
Introducing Kalani Luana
Posted - Nov 8 2010 : 7:03PM
