how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | reply to kd6cae
Re: Here's a crazy thought said by kd6cae:Why not just allow file sharing and make it legal? I mean after all if I'm backing up my purchased content to an off site location, as I often do, I don't want my internet to be disconnected just because I happen to be sending music or movies over my internet link. Write your congress-critters -- but describe the whole model of how artists ought to be paid.
Free music on radio DID NOT HURT THE RECORD INDUSTRY. I think that's an important point. It drove demand for concerts, t-shirts, hats, fan magazines, and -- yes -- recordings. We're essentially asking for recordings to be free, now.
And what about movies, books, comics, software, and etc.?
If you're suggesting a new model -- which we definitely do need, it needs to be complete.
said by kd6cae: Plus, maybe just maybe we can finally get faster upload if these industries would realize that sharing content isn't such a horrible thing. I mean why do you think only 2 providers out of all the providers in the U.S. offer speeds greater than 2Mbit/sec up? A handful of ISPs understand this -- the rest are kidding themselves. The dummys think that if 33% of their bandwidth is file-sharing, that if they kill file-sharing that 33% turns to 0%. They fail to recognize that demand will be there for the high-bandwidth songs and videos -- legal or not.
The ISPs actually have no role in what's inside your communications. When you subscribe, they are providing communications services FOR YOU. It is wholly inappropriate for them to act secretly against your interests and I'm just waiting for the user-vs-ISP lawsuits that are bound to come up.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
What you do at Christmas does not matter so much; What counts are the Christmas things you do all year through. | |
Reviews:
 ·Charter
| If they aren't performing as dumb pipes... If they are examining some of your traffic, then they have the chance to identify all of your traffic.
As such, they are no longer performing as a dumb pipe and could possibly be held responsible for anything that travels through their connections.
This would mean that someone could try for a class action suit for all the spam, trojans, spyware and viruses sent along. They could also try to declare themselves an interested party and sue on behalf of all the content owners, music, programs, pictures, etc.
Moving away from the protections of common carrier/dumb pipe would open them to all sorts of trouble.
Even trying to say they only inspect certain packets wouldn't really work because they have the means to identify those and look, what about all the other ones? | |
DesdinovaPremium
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD | reply to funchords
Re: Here's a crazy thought "If you're suggesting a new model -- which we definitely do need, it needs to be complete."
I agree completely and I'm of the opinion that such a model already exists and is already firmly in place. That model is so old it's new: simply compense the creator directly for the creation. More musicians, filmmakers and other creative-types are taking control over their work and how they generate revenue streams; they're handling their own content creation, marketing and distribution. And there are more than enough distributors (of both hard copy and electronic copy) to assist them.
And in the long run this model has every thing it needs to be successful. As more artists recognize the benefits of being in charge of their careers (more artistic freedom, more money), fewer and fewer will probably sign with the majors...and suddenly one day the majors won't be so major anymore.
I suspect we're witnessing the final days of our generation's Edison Trust...and we've got a front row seat! | |
|
