how-to block ads
|
|
view: topics flat text |
|
Comments on news posted 2001-05-07 12:55:32: live365 tries to stamp out streamripper
Insatiable demand for digital music is creating a new battleground. ..
|
 | | Bite the hand that feeds them Seems to me that one thing the record industry doesn't realize is that if they keep pushing these issues, and keep going after these web sites, that after a while, the people that buy CD's, and cassettes will stop buying because the record industry doesn't give a hoot about the artists just the RIAA pockets, that's it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I think it is ridiculous to pay anything over $10 for a CD, when they are made cheaper than a cassette!! Let's see who's stealing from who now!!!!!!! The all mighty RIAA will fall flat on it's face one of these days when they least expect it. I can't wait for that day!!!! If an mp3 doesn't have the sound quality of a CD as the RIAA says, then what are they in attack mode for. I am all for paying for music, but not getting ripped off for it!!!!! | |
| | | | Re: Bite the hand that feeds them We need to become a bigger voice over the internet and how we use it. Regulation is coming whether we like it or not, it is up to us to stand up for what's right. I believe that artist should be compensated, but when you are rolling in millions of dollars by selling 15 dollar CDs and expecting me to pay for the digital version of the same song, you have got to be kidding me. I am tired of hearing Metallica and others whine, I am a musician, and a DJ. I want to put my music out there, and I want to spin, not to undermine the creativity of others, but to add my twist to this art form. I am not looking to get paid, just to be heard...isnt that what musicians get into the business for? Capitalist aspirations for the internet threaten our access to the expanding amount of content and information. We shoudlnt stand for this, and make our voices heard, before large corporations and other interest groups begin to rip us off in yet a different medium. We are the renegades of funk =0P | |
| | sravers
join:2001-03-21
Los Angeles, CA | An Old Babylonian hymn dating from the twentieth century BC began the first form of music of man. The Ancient Greeks devised a system of notation for their music soon thereafter. In the late ninth century Italian and French church musicians pioneered the use of symbols to indicate pitches - a system that eventually grew into modern notation. The Church was responsible for most developments of music in the West, especially with the increasing organization of plainsong.
Music at this time was not copyrighted. To suggest such a thing would ensure that copywriters or having rights to such songs would be considered crazy. The church would not stand for a person "owning" a song and saw this as a form of corporate greed. The greed of owning a song for self motivation could only cause trouble, so the church decided against copyrighting music and kept it free and pure for all to enjoy. No one has rights to music as it is an endless mathematical rhythm melody of notes and tunes, impossible to "own" and set rights to. Have you ever heard of copywrighted math calculations? No because most people hate math. Because music sounds good and is enjoyable, some greedy people try to control it. The only people who are possessed with this "ownership of music" are those filled with greed, hate, envy, jealously and self righteousness, the very things the church taught man against.
By 2005 RIAA had lost most of it's lawsuits and began to fade away, due to music swapping becoming a global way of life. RIAA by this time had become a legend unto itself, an example that corporate greed gets one nowhere.
In 2004, the RIAA Board of Directors en route to attend a funeral for their late friend, Tommy Mottola, who died while in exile in France, all perished when their chartered jet crashed into a snow covered mountain after their plane lost radar and radio contact with ground control while on approach.
In 2008, Hilary B. Rosen, president and owner of RIAA, died of a broken neck when she slipped and fell down the wet rain soaked stairs while exiting her private jet. Hilary B. Rosen was en route to attend her daughters beauty pageant in Seattle.
Music will always find a way to remain free for all to listen to and enjoy, because that is what music is.
»www.negativland.com/albini.html | |
|
 FLea973Premium
join:2001-02-27
Morristown, NJ |  Support Him!!!
This guy needs help fighting the fight! If you can help please do! This may be the case that wins it. I am no lawyer, but to me this looks like the next logical progression of the Tape Vs. Radio and Beta/VHS Vs Television argument... difference: Its digital and a hellova lot cheaper! | |
| | |  justinAustralian
join:1999-05-28
New York, NY
kudos:7 | Re: Read this! The stations we're talking about are already paying license fees.. the issue here is not whether or not internet broadcasters have to pay royalties - they do have to, and they do pay.. | |
|
| | two OC3s and a microphone... This is a perfect example of an application where IPv4 unicast falls flat on its face. Enabling the applications to run multicast could save them a ton of bandwidth. | |
| | justinAustralian
join:1999-05-28
New York, NY
kudos:7 | Re: two OC3s and a microphone... multicast is all but dead .. none of the carriers will carry multicast traffic, despite that many of their routers are capable.
Why? probably because they can't figure out how to charge for it. | |
| | | | | Re: two OC3s and a microphone... Well I don't think multicasting is dead, as many companies are just beginning to recognize the substantial benefits in bandwidth utilization that can be had, and in fact a lot of work is currently being done to scale this technology so that it can run better on the Internet. But it still has a little ways to go and like you said new financial/business models will need to be drawn up before carriers will want to offer it. | |
|
| |  the Overlooked Problem
StreamRipper uses MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3 (MP-3) technology which is by no means an "opensource technology". For every copy distributed, the author must pay a royalty. On top of that, there are definite per-stream royalties associated with each MP-3 the end-user creates. Stopping StreamRipper stops a whole bunch of other problems down the line.
I like open source. But I am against the wholesale rip-off of intellectual property rights and copyrights of software and technologies that I or my colleagues in other parts of the industry worked so hard to create. This isn't something new, nor unclear, nor unprotected by existing laws.
If the author of StreamRipper and the proprietors of the music stations are fearing for themselves, then they obviously have not put in as much research into the issue as they claim or have quietly circumvented laws and copyrights and hoped nobody notices. In the specific case of StreamRipper, this looks to be true.
Hopefully, the author of this news article will check his sources and do some more research into the legality of such products as StreamRipper before publishing another "I've done nothing wrong yet they're out to get me!" piece. This is why you generally don't see these articles published in major newspapers. | |
| | | | Re: the Overlooked Problem >StreamRipper uses MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3 (MP-3) technology >which is by no means an "opensource technology". For every >copy distributed, the author must pay a royalty.
This is by no means an absolute. While Fraunhoffer does in fact hold patents for many MP3-based technologies, it is definately a debatable point on wether they have the ability to charge royalties for any technology that uses MP3 technology in any way. The LAME developers (which StreamRipper uses I believe) claim that they have removed *all* code that infringes on Fraunhofer/Thomson patents.
And the laws and copyrights you are clinging to were, in fact, very quickly enacted and were constructed by layers who's sole incentive were driven by the large Media companies.
>>But I am against the wholesale rip-off of intellectual >>property rights and copyrights of software and >>technologies that I or my colleagues in other parts of the industry worked so hard to create.
what's to say that people use this product to "ripoff" other people's property rights ? There are plenty of legal and valid reasons to use this product, are you going to sue the maker of the VCR because it can be used to copy VHS tapes ?
Bob | |
| | | | | Re: the Overlooked Problem 1)The VHS format was not copyrighted with a per-stream royalty charge like MP-3 (and the rest of MPEG).
2) You cannot remove code from an MP-3 product and still have it produce/read MP-3 compatible streams. There are blocking patents on this technology, and without them, you cannot have an MP-3 encoder or decoder. The author is in violation no matter what.
3) Sure, there are many valid reasons to use a product, as long as all the associated fees, copyrights, patents, and other intellectual properties are respected. In the case of StreamRipper, this is not so. | |
| | | | | | Re: the Overlooked Problem Streamripper does not encode to mp3. It only decodes, it wouldn't even decode the audio if it didn't have to look for silence. anyway, it's the encodeing that has a license, not the decoding.
As for using LAME, I used mpglib which is part of the LAME distro for the unix version. I'm using xaudio for the windows version. I would prefer to use mpglib as it's GPL'd, however it's quality is not up to snuff.
-Jon | |
| | | | | | | Re: the Overlooked Problem Actually, decoding needs a license too. As does any MPEG related product.
But if you take out all the decoding and are only copying the MP-3 from one place to the other, you should be fine.
As far as the legality of mpglib, its makers are only flying under the radar for now. | |
|
| justinAustralian
join:1999-05-28
New York, NY
kudos:7 Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
Home/Office setup ..
| This is a red herring.. if there are established license fees to pay, and this is not certain, music stations will and do pay them, and it will be a fairly small part of their costs, just as it is for radio broadcasters.
Since streamripper is a winamp plugin, winamp has any MP3 algorithm battle to fight, if any.. the stream comes down from shoutcast as an MP3, and gets stored on disk as an MP3.
Neither streamripper nor any big radio stations on the net are circumventing any laws, nor are the seeking to avoid paying statutory playlist fees, whatever they are.
The issue is that listeners will be attempting to make copies of songs they hear just as you use your TIVO to make a copy of a TV program so you can watch it later. I have an MP3 player. Are you honestly suggesting that it should be criminal for me to store radio music on my MP3 player for when I go outdoors?
In the haste to eliminate the possibility that some users may go to the next step and trade these copied songs, the RIAA is likely to try to crunch the stations and/or the tools, illegally, because the job of policing the audience is too huge to contemplate..
THATS the issue. | |
| | | | | Re: the Overlooked Problem A red herring is claiming this is a red herring. 
That license fees need to be paid is an absolute. I don't make this stuff up.
quote:
The issue is that listeners will be attempting to make copies of songs they hear just as you use your TIVO to make a copy of a TV program so you can watch it later. I have an MP3 player. Are you honestly suggesting that it should be criminal for me to store radio music on my MP3 player for when I go outdoors?
I never said that. What is the issue is redistribution. This has always been the issue of copyright. Fair Use allows you to make a temporary copy for yourself. But once you give a copy to someone else without the permission from the original owner, you are violating copyright. And TIVO did secure the necessary licenses to allow you to do this with your television. TIVO uses MPEG technology and has also secured the licenses for that as well.
quote:
Neither streamripper nor any big radio stations on the net are circumventing any laws, nor are the seeking to avoid paying statutory playlist fees, whatever they are.
This is pure BS. Someone is feeding it to you by the trough. Streamripper employs MP-3 technology and the author is not paying the royalties to distribute such a product. The radio stations are rebroadcasting onto a different medium in a different market and not paying the royalties associated with airing shows, music, and actors residuals. They know they're trying to pull a fast one here.
quote:
In the haste to eliminate the possibility that some users may go to the next step and trade these copied songs, the RIAA is likely to try to crunch the stations and/or the tools, illegally, because the job of policing the audience is too huge to contemplate..
The RIAA and MPEG-LA and Frauhoefer and the FBI and whoever else would be right to do this because as I explained above, these are already copyright violations.
For a more in depth look into copyrights in this new age of computers, look here:
»www.educause.edu/issues/dmca.html
You could also join me at the cooler for more commentary on this if you like.
| |
| | | | | Anon | Re: the Overlooked Problem Really. Honestly. If I write a program that decodes/encodes MP3 layer yada streams...and i don't charge anything for it...sue me.
While you're wasting your time suing me, fountain, I'll waste my time laughing. At least for my part you cannot squeeze blood from a turnip and just knowing that building a GPL'd or FREE ripper upsets you or people like you is all the payment i'd need for the rest of my life.
It's great that the MPEG group invented some stuff...but as soon as someone else figures out how it works what in dog's name do you think you can do to stop it? From where I'm sitting it's actually quite ridiculous. A bunch of whiny, anal, greedy babies worried about some boat or mansion that they may or may not be able to buy.
Buy food and shelter for your family. Leave the whining to your children and if you want to create a technology that won't get ripped apart by 'hackers' then become a better coder. Read a Knuth book or something.
I exist with people like you fountain. You're the cops of the world and most of you don't realize the errors of your ways until you're on your death-beds yapping about shoulda coulda woulda...yadda. some of you go out like you came in.
Anyway, the truth is that intellectual property is very ethereal and while creating a routine or module that does something innovative is very important, and should be rewarded accordingly and the author should be acknowledged...
The kind of crap you're talking about is the stuff of fahrenheit 451 and school book bans. If a guy steals your work for profit, it definitely sucks. That one should get his/her arse whupped. If a guy just reproduces or reverse engineers then you're SOL because as soon as you finish spanking him the next wise-guy is on the way and as the Internet unfolds it's story, people who think they can keep certain things from flowing across it are simply wearing brick colored glasses. There's a copy of everything out there. Thank dog the internet is bigger than you. | |
| | | | | Anon | said by dfountain:
The RIAA and MPEG-LA and Frauhoefer and the FBI and whoever else would be right to do this because as I explained above, these are already copyright violations.
*sigh* I thought CD's couldn't skip. | |
| | | |  onsitedeHot Hot Hot
join:2000-11-24
Simsbury, CT | quote:
>I never said that. What is the issue is redistribution. This has always been the issue of copyright. Fair Use allows you to make a temporary copy for yourself. But once you give a copy to someone else without the permission from the original owner, you are violating copyright. And TIVO did secure the necessary licenses to allow you to do this with your television. TIVO uses MPEG technology and has also secured the licenses for that as well.
endquote:
OK, let me get this straight. If I use winamp/streamripper to make a temporary copy for my own personal use it is covered under "Fair Use". When the law is broken is if I was to distribute that copy to others? | |
| | | | | | >>The radio stations are rebroadcasting onto a different medium in a different market and not paying the royalties associated with airing shows, music, and actors residuals. They know they're trying to pull a fast one here.
That statement is simply not true, since I can personally show you reciepts from my station which pays the royalties.
The deeper implication of the article that had to do with webcasting licensing was not to say how broadcasters can get away without paying licenses. That is simply silly. The point is that for all the rules and licenses organizations such as DI DO pay, there is an equal amount of "infighting" within the industry that contradicts even itself. And the point is that they use the monopoly they have to make their claims sound right.
Here's just one example of what I am talking about that's not widely known:
As you can find on the RIAA site, the DMCA interpretation of the following... (»www.riaa.com/Licensing-Licen-3a.cfm)
"14. Transmission of copyright management information. If technically feasible, transmissions by the webcaster must be accompanied by the information encoded in the sound recording by the copyright owner that identifies the title of the song, the featured artist and other related information (if any)."
That's fine, so a station such as DI tries hard to keep all the metadata so this would be followed. But then I have known a certain "big" organization I won't mention the name, trying to make webcasters remove metadata from the stream as a condition for a private license agreement, in hopes that programs like streamripper would be next to worthless (you wouldn't know what you recorded for the most part). So while everyone is suing claiming "you are not DMCA compliant", a few are also trying to make you break the DMCA rules at the same time, the ones they don't like. I call that absurd.
So I wasn't talking about avoiding license fees at all, I don't know what exactly gave you that idea (it even says in the article we are paying license fees, now that I think about it.)
sorry if this is quickly put together, it's 8am & I am sleepy | |
| | | | justinAustralian
join:1999-05-28
New York, NY
kudos:7 Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
Home/Office setup ..
| dfountain: The issue is only redistribution because you say it is so... I wrote the article, and I did not write it about redistribution. I wrote it about strong arm tactics.
you can suggest any legal means be employed to force listeners to obey the copyright rules, but it seems to me in throwing up all these other objections, you wish to stop redistribution on a technicalities, or worse, by just being a bully. In your haste to shut everything down you assume streamripper uses an MP3 encoder, it does not. Then you assume DI is not paying its license fees, it does.
If streamripper worked off windows media or real audio streams, which it could easily do, your whole argument collapses.. yet it is absolutely certain that the labels (and you) will find another excuse to bully the author, and perhaps the stations as well, to shut them down, because all they can think about, night and day, every minute or every hour is redistribution.
DI and many other stations are as DMCA compliant as they can be under the circumstances and confusion .. go ring up live365 legal department and speak to them about it .. you're just incorrectly assuming it is all pirate radio.
[text was edited by author 2001-05-08 11:59:19] | |
| | | | | | | Re: the Overlooked Problem Well I'm disappointed with all of you. You all seem to be reaping all the benefits associated with flying under the radar, so to speak, and none of the negatives, such as jail. Frankly, you sound like a bunch of 15 year olds whining because what you were getting away with has been taken away from you.
You know, I never made a point of attacking any station that has done its research and is paying its fees. Those stations (mainly the webcast stations, not the radio stations) should then have nothing to fear. Attacking me won't solve your problem. I don't even work for or with the RIAA. I just side with the laws.
So go ahead and attack a capitalistic industry that makes it possible for you to even rip your popular music off the airwaves. Go ahead and make your own record label, sign your own artists, promote those artists, and then distribute that music for free. Let's see how long that lasts!
And Justin, your argument holds no water. You talk of bullying, I talk about existing laws. You talk about strreamripper working on non-MP3, when it in fact ONLY works on MP3. You of all people I thought were intelligent enough to debate me on merits, rather than misdirections and nonsensical probabilities.
When you people learn the hard way that your work is being stolen from you and given away for free, you will change your minds. Until then, let the RIAA and the FBI pound away at thieves like you. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: the Overlooked Problem I remember people blindly siding with "the law" without questioning it's validity, and we all know how that turned out.
The point is that in the name of legality anything can be done by the big players. Who do you think lobbies to get the laws passed in their favor, duh! But since your take on this is that as long as the word "legal" is there, you will hide out pretend that's all correct and everyone else is evil. I may be paying my royalties, but I don't have to like it when it smells rotten, that's why I open my mouth. But if one says "my opinion is the one that is currently legal," then that person's opinion cannot even be called his Own, but that's a whole other discussion, isn't it. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: the Overlooked Problem So to have a valid opinion I need to make sure it's an opinion no one else has? That's ridiculous. I take pride in siding with a law that is to everyone's benefit. Without laws, you'd have anarchy and chaos. But maybe that's what you'd prefer. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: the Overlooked Problem I am not going to teach anyone what it means to have own opinion (regardless of opinion's validity).
end of story for me | |
| | | | | | | | | Anon
| Re: the Overlooked Problem ummm don't you mean irregardless?
Anyway, I believe the message is this:
If you believe that something is ok just because it's a law then you're probably not very bright. In your case I believe you fervor is a cloak for something different altogether.
The truth is that there are people in this world who are scared by the free flow of information. letting ideas...concepts..words...software...music just fly around here and there wildly, unbridled if you will. It scares the sh*t out of'm.
Among those people are politicians, cops, wife-beaters(same difference), child molesters and lawyers who need to justify their parents' sacrifices.
MP3 and MPEG are so trivial in the grand scheme of things that when they're replaced this will all seem a silly conversation.
And it will be replaced. It's replacement will be replaced. So if you need a witch hunt, why don't you try to find out why DSL circuits bounce or where jimmy hoffa died (did he become sausages??)
[text was edited by author 2001-05-08 17:03:41] | |
|
| | | | | | |  GalfordPremium
join:2001-02-24
Kingstree, SC | all i have to say is that even though there are laws about the copy rights of music and how it is distributed, the people that uphold the law can actually abuse it for their own needs while others who do follow it pay in the end. Ever heard of a dirty cop hiding behind the badge even though the badge represents the law, no? | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: the Overlooked Problem You can imply I'm dumb for following the law, that I have no opinions of my own, dumb for respecting copyrights, and dumb for paying $16 at the music store when I could have gotten it for free off the Internet. You can also imply that Licensing Authorities such as RIAA or MPEG-LA are just greedy SOB's who want a buck. Fine. But you've gone off topic.
My original post was about StreamRipper and how it uses MP-3 technology that requires a license to use. MPEG licensing is always the forgotten or ignored part of the equation. Your attacking me isn't going to change that fact.
And I'll quote my original post because its point seems to have been lost on several of you.
quote:
StreamRipper uses MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3 (MP-3) technology which is by no means an "opensource technology". For every copy distributed, the author must pay a royalty. On top of that, there are definite per-stream royalties associated with each MP-3 the end-user creates. Stopping StreamRipper stops a whole bunch of other problems down the line.
I like open source. But I am against the wholesale rip-off of intellectual property rights and copyrights of software and technologies that I or my colleagues in other parts of the industry worked so hard to create. This isn't something new, nor unclear, nor unprotected by existing laws.
If the author of StreamRipper and the proprietors of the music stations are fearing for themselves, then they obviously have not put in as much research into the issue as they claim or have quietly circumvented laws and copyrights and hoped nobody notices. In the specific case of StreamRipper, this looks to be true.
If you must attack something, do it productively. Start by telling me how this is not legal, and back it up with case law and facts. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: the Overlooked Problem you missed my original point on the fact that it is this MP3 licensing "law" that is the problem. I don't agree with (as do many people) the fact that you can patent something such as Thomason did with the MP3 technology. Your whole argument is based on the fact that this is an absolute..that something like MP3 decoding or encoding is, in fact, a patentable (and thus enforcable) object. Well, this is where the controvery is...I don't have a problem with Fraunhoffer/Thomason licensing their specific implementation of MP3 (which is very good BTW and worth the money), but claiming a blanket license of all MP3 encoding/decoding is where they crossed the line...
I don't trust our Patent system in the least, expecialy when it comes to computer-based algorithms.
Bob | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: the Overlooked Problem said by Bob Jenkins:
you missed my original point on the fact that it is this MP3 licensing "law" that is the problem. I don't agree with (as do many people) the fact that you can patent something such as Thomason did with the MP3 technology.
I got your point in its entirety. It's one I've heard echoed before. But just because people don't like the present patent system doesn't mean they should actively and illegally circumvent it. It's not like I'm telling you to go to hell because you feel that way. However, because you feel that way, you should try to change the laws. I know a bunch of people who feel all software should be free and that since it is technically just 1's and 0's and not a physical product, it is OK to freely copy it. Doesn't that sound ridiculous? I hope it does.
quote:
Your whole argument is based on the fact that this is an absolute..that something like MP3 decoding or encoding is, in fact, a patentable (and thus enforcable) object. Well, this is where the controvery is...I don't have a problem with Fraunhoffer/Thomason licensing their specific implementation of MP3 (which is very good BTW and worth the money), but claiming a blanket license of all MP3 encoding/decoding is where they crossed the line...
Well I'm sorry you find controversy in our (USA's) current system of copyright protection and patents. But again, it comes down to "Well I don't like it, so I'll just pretend it didn't exist." My friendly advice to you is to make sure that when the patent-holders of the technologies you're stepping on come to collect their dues, you better be darned sure you're in the right and have all your bases covered. But who knows? Maybe if you keep a low profile, they won't notice. Isn't that what the gamble is?
quote:
I don't trust our Patent system in the least, expecialy when it comes to computer-based algorithms.
Then change our patent and copyright system to one that better suits your needs. If you can come up with a sure-fire solution to everything you see as vague, then you'll be the envy of all the people whose job it is to figure this one out. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Anon | Re: the Overlooked Problem said by dfountain:
Then change our patent and copyright system to one that better suits your needs. If you can come up with a sure-fire solution to everything you see as vague, then you'll be the envy of all the people whose job it is to figure this one out.
So if I may translate? Yes I may.
What fountain is saying is that you should quit your job and devote your entire pool of time and resources to getting some tiny change in this law...because at a minimum you'll need to give it that much since you'll be fighting against some of the most active, belligerent and well-funded lobbyists in the country.
And after all, when the day is over and all the pockets have been picked, he and the people he sides with are really in it for the money and couldn't give a rats asthma about right and wrong. It's obvious from the many direct references to the 'law' that he isn't even clear on what's right.
It's funny how people who support the gubmint's general corruption always and I mean without fail tell you that if you don't like it then do something to change the laws. They say that smugly though because they know that you are not funded. You are not politico-economically viable. They know with the surety of a scientologist (which is not a religion) that they are right because they're on the side that has the biggest gun.
Fortunately there are enough liberated minds in the world that this kind of crap is getting harder and harder to shove down the throats of people who don't want it. This means that there are people who do things for higher reasons than the profit gobble that fountain spews.
Uh hehehehe I said fountain spews. HAHAHAHA sorry.
SO like I said, suck on the law all you want, the fact remains that there are way too many people smarter than us who know how to encode, decode, emulate, decypher, digitize, collimate, chop, crop, slice, dice and peel. And they won't do it for money and kids like you will never stop them and if you ever did stop them, you'd only be stopping yourself because those are the people who keep technology vibrant.
The RIAA seems to be a lot like the tobacco industry.
A bunch of pimps. They hire high-priced lawyers who know how to confuse and challenge even the smartest and most well-meaning judges, (buying off the ones they can't confuse) and all for a service that they don't even deliver.
Let's face it man, the only thing the RIAA is good at is keeping CD's expensive. The truth is that if you sell 100 of something it should be one price, but if you sell a million of them it should be a much lower price.
That being the case, a CD should cost about $5. Especially since even the best artists seem to put out albums (ack I'm old) with only 2 or 3 good songs out of 12. Metallica comes to mind. When they're good they're great (that was 10 years ago) and when they're bad they'll put you right to sleep. $40 for a boxed set? *scoff!* *CHORTLE!*
Yeah so their cover of turn the page was better than the original, most of the album stunk.
How about the RIAA actually WORK for their money and do a little quality control.
"No, Yanni...this song sounds like the other 8 songs you've recorded this week. Let's change the tempo or something"
"Hmmm... you know Madonna baby, I think the novelty of you being a whore-like saint (or is it saint-like whore?) has worn out...how about you start making good music again..hmmm?"
Most of the crap on the radio isn't even worth downloading from napster let alone buying on CD. Maybe the RIAA should start wondering about what they're going to do after their chapter 11 filing. I don't think RJRTC is going to welcome them into the fray. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Anon
| Re: the Overlooked Problem [QUOTE=Captain DSLAM
They say that smugly though because they know that you are not funded. You are not politico-economically viable. They know with the surety of a scientologist (which is not a religion) that they are right because they're on the side that has the biggest gun.
[/QUOTE]
Which side again, mate?
[text was edited by author 2001-05-11 05:55:42] | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | Anon | More Re: The Overlooked Problem
- Free decoders/players: "No license fee is expected for desktop software MP3 decoders/players that are distributed free-of-charge via the Internet for personal use of end-users."
- Decoders/players you sell, where you write the decoder: $0.50 per unit, or a one time $50,000 fee.
- Decoders/players you sell using Fraunhofer's code: One-time fee of $60,000 (object) or $100,000 (source).
- Limited software encoders (max. 56K bitrate): A one-time payment of $100,000 if you write the code, or $200,000 for Fraunhofer's. Free redistribution rights.
- Full quality software encoders, where you write code or license from a 3rd party: $2.50 per unit.
- Full quality software encoders using Fraunhofer's object code: $5.00 per unit (source code not available).
- Hardware encoders: $2.50 per unit.
- Paid downloads, music-on-demand: 1.0% of revenue, subject to a minimum $0.01 per download.
- Broadcasting / streaming: "We do not charge royalties for MP3 streaming or MP3 broadcasting (e.g. Internet Radio) until the end of the year 2000. Beyond this date we anticipate to charge a small annual minimum and a percentage of revenue. However, this model is not yet fully developed because we cannot yet oversee where this new market is going."
So based on Thomson / Fraunhofer's current business practices, it would appear that the StreamRipper and StreamRipper32 *applications* per se are compliant with MP3 licensing. As long as they don't use Fraunhofer's code, and are distributed free-of-charge via the Internet for the personal use of end-users, which they are. Otherwise the developer Jon Clegg would have to fork over cash if he decided to start charging money.
But the *use* of Streamripper is more problematical, since it turns a digital broadcast into a download. There is already a precedent case here, see »www.realnetworks.com/company/pre···ion.html for RealNetworks vs. StreamBox. StreamBox independently developed a stream recorder and ripper for RealAudio / RealVideo formats. RealNetworks gained an injunction based on StreamBox violating their proprietary rights AND the US Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) that prohibits distributing stream recorders. I think the same arguments could apply against any StreamRipper object code distributions.
Now the interesting part is where Jon says StreamRipper is open source. As opposed to object code, source code has typically been Free Speech protected. But the backers of DMCA are trying to claim higher privileges, so I don't know how long that will last. I mean, you are certainly free to joke about having a bomb in you luggage on a plane, and if you do you will certainly be arrested at the next stop.
Now is it proper for Live365 to yank Roger's Classical because of the station manager's son's involvement with StreamRipper? Does an ISP have to spy on private messages and file transfers to make sure no copyrighted material is going back and forth? Or on the other hand, are the record labels forced to sit idly by while the cracks for DVD encoding and digital watermarking are published freely in the press?? Some of the issues out on the table now. Something like one of these will wind up in the US Supreme Court I think.
But, I digress... | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: More Re: The Overlooked Problem Entranced,
Thank you for the informed and thought out commentary. I didn't know that tidbit about "free" distribution until now. Though the rest of what I knew seems to have held true.
You get a thumbs-up from me because unlike some others on this thread, you used your brain. Kudos to you! Maybe we'll get somewhere after all. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Supose for a moment that tomorow there's a new law that says it's ok to beat old ladies with a baseball bat (Don't ask me why I came up with this...I just don't know). So since it's the LAW and you take pride in siding with the law...it's ok with you do that? You're just gonna let it happen because someone said it is?
Siding blindly with the law can be just as bad. Never let go of your freedom to think for yourself. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: the Overlooked Problem Wow, you guys really beat this topic to death. I'd just like to add something, if I make a program to convert microsoft outlooks databases into say eudora's databases, does that mean that I am breaking two different copywrites just because I have discovered their 'tricks'? | |
|
 JohnC2Mr. JohnPremium
join:2000-09-22
Hamden, CT | Just turn on the radio.... What is the big deal! Since when do we need a station to fit everyone's needs. It is simple capitalism.... if you want it, You got to pay for it. The free internet is a dream. The Bandwidth Gods are going to come home and they want to get paid! I like free, but you have to realize that the mighty dollar controls all.....
--
See all that stuff in there Homer? That's why your robot didn't work! | |
| | | | Re: Just turn on the radio.... You want to know something funny? I have never head of streamripper or even knew it was possible to rip a stream till I read this. Thank you RIAA. On another note, if they do some encrpyting or some other crap to prevent this, ill just use my other computer as a recorder and connect the sound cards together. I still win. The RIAA will not win, they will only show the world how greedy they are. | |
| | | Anon | The big deal is that record labels who own copyrights have NEVER received any royalties in the US when copyrighted songs are broadcast over the air. Instead artists and publishers get royalties, collected on their behalf from broadcasters by music licensing services such as ASCAP. But under the 1998 US DMCA law, copyright owners like record labels are also entitled to royalties whenever their copyrighted material streamed digitally online!
So for now stations that broadcast over the air like FM and TV only have to pay licensing royalties. Stations that stream on the Internet have to pay licensing royalties AND record label royalties. Now what fee structure applies when you stream IP over the air to cellphones, PDAs and portable MP3 players? Hmmm.
But anyway this is how 1998 DMCA reads right now. The RIAA for their part have proposed record label royalties of 0.4 cents per listener for every song streamed. At DI Radio we had 2000+ listeners on the Trance streams the last I looked. So if we play 12 songs online this hour, we would owe the labels $100. Just for an hour! And the RIAA wants this made retroactive to 1998. Where is that money going to come from? THAT is the big deal... | |
| | | | Anon |  More Re: Just turn on the radio....
| |
| | | | | | Re: More Re: Just turn on the radio.... someone said because it's the law, so that means they are supposed to be exempt because it's just right (don't even question why, you aren't worthy) ) | |
|
| Anon | ??? *turns on his radio, tunes into a station, puts a tape in and hits record*
It's the same thing.....
It really is getting out of hand... | |
| | | | Re: ??? *turns on computer, tunes to DI with winamp, put disk in MD recorder, hook it up to soundcard S/PDIF output, hits record*
*gasp* nooooooooooooooooooooooooo
geez | |
|
| Anon | losers ahhhhh shut up ya bunch of whining babies | |
| | Anon |  I have a Tape Deck
I didnt make a profit off of it, I just know what type of music I like. I'd even trade with my friends here and there, they all have good taste.
So tell me, what is so different about Streamripper. Its simply the digital equivelent.
I don't have an internet connection at my house. I use streamripper to save my favorite streams at a friends and ocassionaly hook up to his network and retrieve them. When I through a party at my house and I play my ripped streams, am I hurting the artists? I can imagine the fear on the artists faces when my friend goes "Woah... thats a cool song, who's it by?"
Come on people. Grow up. If copying songs off the radio station for personal use is illegal, ... well... I dont know. Our Society is pretty messed up as it is, perhaps these lawyers need to be looking at the fact that we can now be cuffed and brought to jail for not wearing our seatbelts. | |
| sravers
join:2001-03-21
Los Angeles, CA | RIAA Lossers Typical RIAA Loosers.
I've got their corporate power right here, below my naval just waiting for them.
Don't they have anything better to do than pick on ingenious people who have a good idea and share it with everybody else? | |
|  UB-
@physics.auth.gr | 21st Century Schizoid man I read the whole of the news and the commentary. Still makes no sense to me at all.
I am no law specialist, but IMHO the essence of copyright laws is twofold:
1. an individual should not profit in money from "the copyright owner's" products or intellectual work without paying them for the right to make money
2. an individual should not profit in other than money ways by claiming that a product is a product of his own
Thus the first aspect is material: you should not make money by selling the product or byproduct that is copyrighted, because this would mean less revenues for the original vendors. The second is ethical: you should not get fame or gain higher scientific status by claiming that a specific piece of work is yours, i.e. impersonating the original creator of the work.
Honestly, all this legalese and debating regarding mp3, napster and internet radio it makes no sense to me. In fact it resembles a snake eating its own tail. Forget the internet for a moment and try to imagine the earlier days of the recording industry, e.g. Elvis, Sinatra, Beatles, etc. They were great artists and they were trying to sell records. Their main advertiser was radio. Radio made them famous and radio made them idols and goldmines for the recording companies. And radio had to pay for broadcasting rights too, because radio stations themselves were getting high ratings _because_ they were playing Elvis, Sinatra etc. This is the essence of business (and capitalism): create a need (even the most perverse or illogical one), create a (preferable cheap) product, use or create the media to validate it as a valuable product, and wait for the bucks to pour in your pockets. Thus everybody was happy. Radio stations were (and perhaps are) paying royalties, but at the same time they were getting tons of promo disks and tons of advertisers etc. All show business to me boils down to money circulating round and round. So if you wanted to enjoy your favorite artist, you had to either wait for the radio to play your song (without paying nothing of course), or go buy the record (naturally paying for it).
Copyright laws were wisely established to discourage eventual outsiders from profiting from this golden merry-go-round that needed a lot of oil to keep its weels spinning.
Eventually the tape/cassette recorder was accessible to more and more people who naturally begun recording from radio or from disks. This new hardware industry was not ever threatened from copyright laws. Although it was (and still is) illegal to start a business and sell duplicates of cassette or LP records, it is still a strong business in underdeveloped countries, called "piracy". I think there there was and still is much tolerance regarding taping. First, it is "gray publicity": big idols of the time became even bigger. For example, recording companies would be very happy to know that you made 10 copies of a record and gave them to your cousins or shoolmates. Second, people did buy pirated copies but at the same time bought also more originals from the other artists that they would not buy otherwise. So small scale piracy is desirable, (although illegal), but large scale piracy i.e. making money in expense of recording companies is deemingly prosecuted.
Then came the CD. Things did not change much.
Then came personal computers and personal cd-recorders. The landscape did not change either, even though you can now make _perfect copies_ of original work - the equivalent of pressing your own vinyl records in the old days. The CD recorder itself being marketed is the biggest inconsistency in the history of copyright laws. One can make infinite perfect copies of a product costing $15 and sell it at $1 still making profit. However it is perfectly legal to a) buy a CDR b) buy CD blanks. Moreover, noone will ever ask you for what purpose you are buying a super-pro CD replicator that can make 100 copies in 10 minutes. If you come to think of it in legal terms, manufacturing, selling and buying CD recorders is 1000% illegal. However their market still grows, and now we have 32x or more replicators.
Now think of internet, mp3, napster and internet radio. Here we have minor cases of piracy. MP3s at 128 kbps are bad quality but listenable. However on file sharing schemes you'll easily find 192, 224 and even 320 kbps that are real close to CD quality. You can for example take these, remaster them in a sound editing program to compensate for spectrum and dynamics loss and make audio CDs that sound 1% (or less) inferior to the original audio CDs.
Here's a delicate issue: Fraunhofer they tried to keep the mp3 compression process proprietary to themselves and impose the $200,000 or so tarifs mentioned in one of the posts above, hiding behind the law of copyright. MP3 technology is a marketable one - and you can see it now everyday in the stores. However FHG apparently did not take into account the dynamics of the internet and the fact that you cannot patent mathematics easily. The MP3 format made music "pirateable" (in the same manner divx made movies pirateable) so is it bold to accuse Thomson/Fraunhofer as promoting illegal activities ? Why didn't they protect the mp3 format right in the beginning with a scheme like liquid audio? Because they themselves were stuck with the same snake biting its tail problem: if they were to protect the technology too much, nobody would have noticed its existence, we would not talk about it today (and of course our hard disks would be much emptier...).
It's the same problem as with every marketable technology, notably software. Why did Microsoft or Adobe or Macromedia etc become the dinosaurs they really are today ? Because they never protected their OSs or software in a _serious_ way. All that was (and mostly still is) needed is a copy of the CD, or even a small part of it and a valid serial number. This is gray publicity again. Imagine the opposite situation, where these companies protected their software with dongles or laserlocks: their market share would now be below 1% or less, cause they would not get known or popular (no radio would play their song) and thus today's PCs would all be running free linux - what a nightmare! It's a clever choice the companies made to sell 1000 copies at $1 instead of 10 copies at $100.
I sense that the mp3 arena is circling about the same problem. Music idols these days are created and killed constantly. Idols become famous for 15 minutes, sell 1 million copies, are very soon forgotten, and then are replaced by new artists. This is the current model for music showbiz and it is evident from the music genres that get most listeners in those semi-legal radio stations. Buying CDs today makes no sense, after one-two months they just collect dust in drawers. New marketing formats are sought, more appealing and more realistic to buyers. Thus mp3 buying by downloading was invented. Currently they are expensive, but expect a massive drop in the prices soon. An album while costing $15 on cd stores would probably cost only half or less as an mp3 download or perhaps $2 per songs. And this makes much sense to buyers, cause they can buy only the "hits" in the same sense some decades ago one had the option of bying the 45 singles and not the whole LP.
And I am sure these downloads won't exceed 128 kbps - otherwise downloading for dialup users makes no sense. Here enters the internet radio issue: they broadcast at a quality very similar to present shoutcasts, so at a quality comparable to _marketable_ mp3 that can be dloaded to your brand new portable mp3player. This latter piece of hardware has entered the market aggressively and owners sure need to feed it with the latest hits. I think mp3 players entered the market at a very bad timing for recording industries - they obviously invested in the huge existing base of (already pirated or to-be termed as pirated?) music found on the internet.
Some questions to ponder at: If RIAA or other bodies had means to control the developent of technology _in advance_:
1. would the allow Fraunhofer to publish the mp3 format, or would they decide that mp3 should remain a military secret ?
2. would they allow the development of general purpose CD-recorders, or would enforce that they embed hardware restrictions in audio cd replication like the ones in home audio cd copiers ?
3. would they allow the free development of streaming music technology, or would they limit it right from the beginning to paying subscribers only ?
I think that in all three cases, any restrictions imposed like the ones suggested in the second part of the above, would severely impede the merry-go-round of capital and investment, software and hardware, free and payable music. Each of these pairs are the driving forces of today's rapidly changing market and no sensible businessman would ever think to exclude _in advance_ any profit possibilities that cannot be forecasted or foreseen. Especially in internet-related businesses, where economy rules are discovered as we all go along.
Some more thoughts open to discussion...
1. Internet radio has nothing to be afraid of unless it interferes with the downloadable music market.
2. Current priority is on high-bitrate mp3 formats filesharing schemes, that allegedly threaten the sale of audio CDs.
3. I said "allegedly" because to my knowledge there is no market analysis definitely proving that recording companies have lost money to mp3 downloads (if you know any relevant url, please post it)
4. The real reason Metallica started the war was not because they felt their sales were threatened (what I suspect is that this war extended their caree for another 5-10 years). What they were afraid of is that their kingdom would be threatened by an obscure degeneration effect that I describe below.
5. An mp3 that you can find for free (or anything you get for free) is good by definition, because you have a desire for it, spend time hunting it, downloading it and eventually distributing it to your friends. At the same time, such an easy and costless process does diminish the satisfaction of owning the song. Just think of how pride you were about getting that particular CD in the same week it was out and how beautiful it looked in its jewelcase, your cdplayer and your CD shelf. You do not and cannot feel the same with an mp3. Moreover, that mp3 will be soon forgotten among the 40 GB of other mp3s or within a pile of mp3-CDs. And the worse, finding it to play it is much more time consuming than searching your CD shelf. (Admit it, the mp3 differs in psychology from the CD as much as the CD from the LP.) So Metallica had a moment of glory playing through your winamp, but their _image_ (literally, as a 2-dimensional surface of the CD or Label of the CD) will faded much more easily. To conclude Metallica's nightmare, you would not possibly imagine throwing their cd (=$15) in a trashcan, even if you came to dislike them. However, you would easily "murder" them by killing a tiny file on your Hard Disk. And this kind of mortality through sudden death, emphasizing the vanity of it all the star system business, is the everyday nightmare of all decaying (like Metallica) or newborn stars (like the typical trance/house/techno/dance music for 21st century butterflies).
Why is this post so lenghty ? I was triggered by the original article and especially the following paragraph about Alphabet soup:
>Ari is frustrated: "Unlike other labels, which charge
>based on our revenue (zero), one label required a large
>license fee based on listeners. We opted to instead remove
>all their content, however they informed us that they have
>disclaimer language which insists that no matter what we
>do, we will still be fully liable if we miss a single song".
That "if we miss a single song" sounded quite ambiguous to me when first reading the sentence (i'm not a native english speaker), which I took it as meaning "if we miss a single song from our playlist". This latter meaning sounded to me as describing the situation in a crystal clear way: "you cannot play our songs, but you are not allowed to boycot them either".
This is the insanity of 21st century. You just have to swim along the stream, but you must never make waves _or_ stop. And you cannot get out of the water either.
Is it worth swimming ? Is it worth fighting and spending time and energy about all that computer, internet, mp3 and radio stuff? Or are we just playing along their silly games, endlessly dancing around and eventually kicking at that snake that eats its tail, ever so happy it cannot bite us back? I am pretty much worried, my friends. Is that music really worth it? I look at my piles of CDs and mp3 CDs and directories on my HDs often look at them and try to figure what was the last time I heard that particular album. I think we should focus more on what we want to become than what we want to have. And I always wanted to become a bass player and I bet that did not become one because I was too lazy or too afraid of failure. Being a collector of music seemed to comfort me for some years now... but not so much anymore. Recently I think more and more often that being a consumer is just a substitute of being a creator. So "shut up, pick up yer guitar and play" seems to be the best way to bid you goodnight .... | |
| | | Anon | Re: 21st Century Schizoid man I like your closing paragraph. It is a valid point, the whole creator vs consumer thing. sorry to say that years of television watching, jump-cut editting, advertising bombardment, and mouse-clicking have conditioned me in such a way that I was unable to read your entire post, let alone type a reply without distraction. | |
|
| | Good article Very good article! Well done! Well researched!
I write articles for a webzine myself and know how much time it takes to research such a story - must have been over 3-4 hours for this one!
respect,
Eagle[TM] | |
| | | The bottom line The bottom line is that music never has and never will be a stable product. You can not put restrictions on how a sound is distributed, as it is something that can be recreated at little or no cost in way too many ways. Music is NOT something you can hold on to or stick on a shelf. These companies will continue fighting a futile battle to control rights to distribution forever but they will never be able to stop it. Hell, they shouldn't even be able to try.
Record companies and associated businesses: Give it up.
Stop trying to control something that is naturally free. If you don't want people to copy the music that you've stuck on a CD and signed a contract over, then face it: you're in the wrong business. Quit whining and filing lawsuits and for Christ sake, you have enough money, quit trying to place limits on the rest of us so that you can make even more.
Just my two cents...
- sexydawg | |
| | Anon | RIAA: professional pickpocketers It seems that the RIAA is upset that they got too late in the game for controlling something that they could have easily controlled earlier, but it wasnt on their priority list.
Second of all, most of these "complaints" are from the record companies thinking that even one penny short of their "peak profit potential" is a cut to their financial jugular, when they're really gaining profits from legitimate sales. The artists are just fronting the stuff, even if they disagree with their draconian record label.
It's time that somebody stood up to these cronies that get off by defending their "almighty" copyright. Instead of sending blackops to clean things up, they ought to bring themselves over. No lawyers. No cops. No law enforcement whatsoever- then again, the RIAA doesnt like odds favoring equally or in favor of the defendant as current case law requires. Also, Rosen would hate having the odds in favor of the mp3/music sharing majority, something she doesnt get in that extremely thick skull.
--
-Sethstorm
"Few exist are those who mess with bandwidth with pure impunity" | |
| | | Record Sales Are up By the way.... The radio used to play music without paying royalties, and when they started do you think musicians cared, do you think musicians themselves got any of that money? maybe 10 cents to the dollar.... if even.
What did the artists care about? That their music was being heard. That's always what musicians care about the most, that they are being heard.
That is why it is so easy for record labels to take advantage of them...
and digital music will never be controlled.
If you think about it, sharing files with someone is pretty much the same as giving them a mix tape...
so maybe people should be required to pay record labels royalties every time they make a mix.
I can tape off the radio... and the radio is free.
RECORD SALES ARE UP!
so WHO CARES that people can get music for free. They will always be able to anyways.
And, when someone says "download this artist"
I can, and I do. And I hear them, I like them, and I buy their cds.
Free mp3 trading is free advertising for record labels and musicians. | |
| | | respect Yes, there is a huge problem in the music industry. Payola, lulling passive interest of listeners, artists willing to sign prohibitive contracts, etc.
If an artist cannot earn a living from his art, he must take a day job. By working a day job, he cannot devote himself fully to his art, which will in turn suffer.
Quality of art, and quantity of quality art decline. It has been documented in history, as recently as a few hundred years ago. Copyright protection offers an incentive to those who bring art to the masses. If you don't create, you may not understand this concept. If you do create but don't want to charge money for your art, that doesn't mean you get to decide for every other artist in the world (or even ANY other artist in the world).
Yes, it costs less than a dollar to duplicate a CD if done in large volume. This doesn't account for the cost of a recording studio, an engineer and producer, musical instruments and equipment, hired musicians, art work, and anything else that went into the creation of the recording.
Simple minds use simple excuses. The cost to duplicate the CD is not the issue. If somebody creates a CD how does he get anyone to buy it?
He pays $80,000 to shoot a flashy video for MTV for the ADD consumers. He pays $200,000 for recording studio time and an engineer and producer. His label will pay to be on commercial radio with medium to heavy rotation. Radio promotion is probably the highest cost in any music marketing campaign. (this can range from $100,000 to millions of dollars)
Then after someone has heard it at least a statistical 8 times, they begin to like the song (don'tcha love science?). After a while they consider purchasing the song. They don't call it radio programming for no reason. By this time, the costs associated with the creation of the music and the marketing of it to the consumer, is astronomical. This is the problem that needs to be fixed.
I read an article from Shania Twain's former personal manager that claimed that radio promotion costs for just one of her top ten hits was several million dollars. This was for a six month period of time.
Ever since payola was declared illegal (as if anyone needed that explicitly stated) the business has found a way around it, which needs to be stopped. They use "independent promoters". An independent promoter will approach a radio station and offer to pay them for the right to provide them with all of their new "adds" (additions to the play list). They pay a large fee to the station, in return for exclusive rights to independently promote them. They will bill a record label for every song that is added to the radio station play list, and the fee is described as "promotional costs" in order to be "legal". If the record label doesn't pay, the song is dropped from rotation, and doesn't get played. The independent promoter will bill the record label even if he had nothing to do with the song being added to the play list.
The record labels both love and hate this. It makes things much more predictable, and easily manipulated, but at the same time it makes any kind of large scale marketing promotion very expensive.
www.salon.com has several great articles about Clear Channel and how they have perfected this process.
So, the cost to duplicate CD's isn't really the issue. Record labels lose large sums of money every day because they try to play the game rather than report illegal behaviors and practices. An artist on a major label is considered a flop if he only sells 500,000 copies. If an independent sold half of that, he would be a huge success.
And the creator of any intellectual property is the only person with the right to decide what to do with his creation. No matter how badly someone else wants it for free, it will never make it right. If the owner decides that he wants to give it away for free, then so be it.
Streaming music technology was created in order to allow people to preview music in it's complete form (not just part of a song). It is a perfect tool for an artist to directly connect with his audience and let them preview before buying. Then someone has to come along and try to get something for nothing, and ruin it for everyone. If the excuse was true that people only use P2P to listen before buying, then internet radio streaming is the perfect solution to respect artists and publishers rights, and simultaneously allow the listener free access to new music previews. But that isn't really the case now, is it?
Considering the huge number of computer users that use P2P, nobody knows what "most of them" do. But people are ready to quote statistics that prove P2P helps sales, or that most P2P users only use it to try before you by. No real research study to prove it, not by scientific standards at least. But if someone provides statistics about negative affects of P2P, nobody believes it. Even if there is independent research studies.
Open minds have not decided yet, we listen to all the facts and decide later, if ever. Only accepting facts that support your current beliefs, and disregarding everything else is very dangerous. | |
|
| |
|
