Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to nasadude
Re: When are they going to realize
Perhaps if they hadn't changed to law past rediculousness (Copyright = lifetime of author + 70 years / until they change it to 90/ until they change it to 120) more people would respect it. IMO a copyright should last the lifetime of the author UNLESS it is sold, in which case it should follow patent law, and last 15 years. |
|
Jigsaw
Stardust We Are
Premium
join:2000-10-21
Cleveland, OH
 ·Cox HSI
| reply to nasadude
Look at allofmp3.com.They were selling songs yea The RIAA hated them that they sold em so cheap but they did pay the Roms(and when you went to higher bit rates it was alot more money).But to my point at the time it was the second Best place to get Music next to Itunes and they did make alot of money doing it.What i can't believe is the RIAA don't look at this and go Man we could do the same thing and make a killing.Its all Greed its not for the artist they pay them nothing its just there greed pure and simple.
--
"It's called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it."-George Carlin
|
|
Network Guy
join:2000-08-25
New York
 ·PHONE POWER
·Broadvox Direct
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude  : I bet if they offered consumers a quality product (non-DRM, high bitrate), that was easy to find, pay for and download, this shit might not stop Downloadable content is still a convenience at best, not the sole next-generation medium.
People are presently willing to purchase and download DRM-infested, low-bitrate crap 'cause they want to. This premise is as simple as supply and demand. Some care about the convenience, some care about the quality. One would shop online for either accordingly.
The RIAA and MPAA are lobbying for anti-piracy laws because they know that right now there's no better way to address the problem other than scaring people to stop doing it. Instead of investing in research for technologies to fend off the piracy, they'd rather slap everyone across with the same pimp hand. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to Network Guy
said by Network Guy :.... I bet if they went after repeat illegal content distributors, the shit would stop. ... I bet if they offered consumers a quality product (non-DRM, high bitrate), that was easy to find, pay for and download, this shit might not stop, but they would make so much money they wouldn't care.
the RIAA and MPAA both have obsolete business models they are trying to prop up by buying laws from congress and suing people. It doesn't sound much like their core business is making and distributing songs and movies as it is trying to scare people to buy their DRMed crap. |
|
Network Guy
join:2000-08-25
New York
·PHONE POWER
·Broadvox Direct
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to karlmarx
I think that's stretching it a bit.
Copyright laws exist to protect intellectual property. Dissimenating, replicating, or redistributing it without the author's consent would constitute a violation.
What's making this debate a heated one comes from both ends. The blatant downloaders who refuse to pay for the copyrighted, yet freely-available content, and the content and distribution companies who want straight into the source and play digital cops across the board.
It is a different society we live in, that doesn't imply everyone is immoral and indifferent to the issue.
What the RIAA and MPAA want to enforce is simply addressed on a case-by-case basis. What they don't want to do is invest in the resources required to do so. I bet if they went after repeat illegal content distributors, the shit would stop. It's apparently easier to hand over that job to the network carriers who aren't in the business of playing digital cop to begin with. |
|
