how-to block ads
|
-
Stewy
Premium
join:2007-12-12
Kitchener, ON
| reply to dirtyjeffer
Re: [ Extreme] Has Rogers ever shut any one down for overusage?
said by dirtyjeffer  :sentence - "I pay for..."...those radio channels are included in your monthly subscription cost...Rogers then pays the "creator/distributor" of those channels, and the money feeds down the stream. in the case of downloading everything you want for free, there is no money exchanged, and no one is being paid for the content that is "for sale". What I'm trying to get to is if I pay for all of those TV channels and Music channels and pay for a DVD Movie rental with unlimited rentals.
"just because you don't like it, or you disagree with it, doesn't make it any more a right to do."
I do disagree with the business model, but I also believe that I do have a "fair" use right to do so.
In the end, on some months I may end up downloading 250 Gigs which is way over my allocated bandwidth, of perhaps tv show and music that's being broadcasted over the air (but I never download or care for music anyway) or DVD's that I already PAY a monthly subscription for.
If I'm paying for it, no matter what the business model is, I believe that I have a fair and ethical moral right to do so. | |
dirtyjeffer
Merry Christmas
Premium
join:2002-02-21
London, ON
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to Stewy
said by Stewy :
For example, I pay for my cable that has 30 digital music stations why can't I record parts of it and play it on my portable player and listen to it at a time of my choosing over and over again.
Fair is Fair use.
while i don't know if that is technically possible, your example isn't the same thing...the key part is how you started your sentence - "I pay for..."...those radio channels are included in your monthly subscription cost...Rogers then pays the "creator/distributor" of those channels, and the money feeds down the stream.
in the case of downloading everything you want for free, there is no money exchanged, and no one is being paid for the content that is "for sale".
a great example is two posts above you:
said by RogersCustomer :
The max you'll be charged by going over is $25, I've paid that fee twice now and don't mind since the purchasing the particular things I've downloaded would have cost more :\.
now do you see what i mean?
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability. | |
Stewy
Premium
join:2007-12-12
Kitchener, ON
| reply to dirtyjeffer
said by dirtyjeffer : it doesn't matter what their business model is...just because you don't like it, or you disagree with it, doesn't make it any more a right to do. the reality is, large labels invest millions into bands, through marketing and distribution along with a variety of promotions and other retail initiatives...there are lots of people involved in the music business who rely on the sales of those products for their livelihood...and i am not talking about millionaire Bono, i am talking about all the "little people" involved in the process. I don't think I agree, in my opinion everything that is broadcasted over the air is fair game. I can record a TV show and put it on my portable display and watch it over and over again. For example, I pay for my cable that has 30 digital music stations why can't I record parts of it and play it on my portable player and listen to it at a time of my choosing over and over again.
Fair is Fair use. | |
Daphoid
join:2005-01-04 | reply to crazlunatic
Yes, I've gone over the limit on 3 occasions. Yes, I've been charged the $25 overage fee, No my service has not been throttled. I am attempting to stay under the limit this month.
Nice and simple.
- D | |
RogersCustomer
@on.ca
| reply to crazlunatic
I've been over the past few months, due completely to my downloading of full series of shows instead of just episodes (I'd run out of things to watch while commuting).
I've been over by 5-50GB, however this isn't a regular occurance. Normally I'm between 25-50GB/month and that's with heavy podcast (13 or so) downloading, gaming (including demos and updates), and the usual internet traffic.
The max you'll be charged by going over is $25, I've paid that fee twice now and don't mind since the purchasing the particular things I've downloaded would have cost more :\.
Not wanting to start that debate though.
This month I'm trying to stay under the limit.
- D | |
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
·Rogers Hi-Speed
Host:
Rogers
Bell Canada
| reply to crazlunatic
Re: [ Extreme] Has Rogers ever shut any one down for overusage?
OK, let's leave this alone please. Forum rules do state that this particular discussion is not appropriate for the forum. I let it go to see where it would go, and it's gone down the toilet. Should have known. SO ... either go back to the original topic or leave it alone. Thank you. | |
outFire
join:2009-05-13
Toronto, ON
| reply to crazlunatic
Dirtyjeffer,
"you go over every month by several hundred GIGS?!? wtf are you downloading? everything?"
I think you should watch what you said, and this is the gentleman issue with rogers and not with you, so do not over rage yourself please.
If you ever feel you are one of those who have been effected by network abuser then go fight it off with rogers. "but when you get a lot of excessive downloaders, you can affect the performance of the network for all the people in your area...perhaps as a way to curb the degradation of performance, the company spends lots of money to upgrade the network to handle the increased loads...multiply that many times for many areas and you have a lot of money spent, when really a small amount of the people have caused this...that means a price increase comes along to help pay for all the extra costs...so all of us pay for the reckless use of the network by a few."
It is none of your business how the uses his internet, you have no right to swear at the man. | |
Taylortbb
Premium
join:2007-02-18
Waterloo, ON
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to dirtyjeffer
said by dirtyjeffer :almost every band has a "sampler" of their music on their site...if you want to "try it out", you can do it there...if you don't like it, don't buy it...so why do millions of people download the whole thing with no intention of buying it...the same goes for software and movies. Actually, studies (that aren't paid for by the RIAA) consistently show that P2P users buy substantially more music than most people. So obviously there's enough people that do this for it to show a consistent trend.
I also think you completely missed my entire argument and latched on to my black and white statement. Please, tell me how seeing 60 movies a year in theaters makes me a freeloader on the industry?That's $600/year in ticket sales, that's A LOT of money. Most people don't spend that on DVDs.
I wont bother repeating what everyone else has said about exposure. But there are plenty of bands and record labels that realize this. Just look at the Canadian label Nettwerk, quite successful while supporting file sharing. Or »www.musiccreators.ca , they've got a pretty good list of major and small artists that think file sharing is okay.
--
Taylor Byrnes
www.taylorbyrnes.org | |
mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to crazlunatic
The big problem with piracy is that the recording industry helped caused it. People steal because they don't agree paying for it and that's the recording industries problem, most of the music today is not worth buying.
People are more than willing to buy if there is something worth buying but the recording industry only sees dollar signs and marketability thus slowly we are seeing more popularity in the indie scene. I fully support indie music and I do buy good music. Even Apple is taking a slice, you can get on iTunes rather cheaply and that's why they have a big indie section.
The recording industry does not understand this and would rather piss off the few customers they have left by suing them. Yeah that's the way to do business, let's sue everyone rather then fixing a dying business.
Sorry but until the recording industry wakes up and actually promotes real music I have no sympathy for them and blackmailing ISPs or threatening to sue people will not stop piracy. | |
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
·Rogers Hi-Speed
Host:
Rogers
Bell Canada
| reply to dirtyjeffer
Don't think that I don't agree with you that there is a potential element of "theft" in copying copyright material.
What I'm talking about though is that the industry model is such that the amount lost to copying for the artists and writers is pennies from the cost of the CD. So to go around implying that the number of sales lost is theft from their arists of their rightful royalties may be true, but in terms of real dollar value in the artists pocket, it's pathetically little compared with what the labels themselves are making.
What so many people want of the industry is to tell the whole truth about who is being impacted and by how much.
BUT that said, they also need to find a way to work with technology, not fight it, or they need to find new ways to earn their money and stop relying on the mechanical copyright. I have no problems feeding the artists for their works. | |
dirtyjeffer
Merry Christmas
Premium
join:2002-02-21
London, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to sbrook
said by sbrook :
For indie artists, exposure is exceptionally important ... but indie artists have ALWAYS had problems getting exposure and therefore sales. Long before the digital age, to be indie meant starvation. The music industry has always favoured the label tied artists, because the industry provides the exposure and the means to get sales.
At the same time, the industry charges their costs to the artists for exposure, for the production, for the distribution. Then they also charge the buyer for all these things. Crediting the artist for sales to reduce their bill. Talk about double dipping.
it doesn't matter what their business model is...just because you don't like it, or you disagree with it, doesn't make it any more a right to do.
the reality is, large labels invest millions into bands, through marketing and distribution along with a variety of promotions and other retail initiatives...there are lots of people involved in the music business who rely on the sales of those products for their livelihood...and i am not talking about millionaire Bono, i am talking about all the "little people" involved in the process.
remember, during this economic collapse of the auto sector, it isn't the big car company exec's "feeling the pinch"...it is all the workers in the plants that are gone, as are many of the workers who work in all the supporting industry as well.
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability. | |
dirtyjeffer
Merry Christmas
Premium
join:2002-02-21
London, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to got it wrong
said by got it wrong :
Before the internet and during it's early years and before CD's, I used to tape the music via radio onto a cassette. as did i, but the sound quality recording of an AM radio broadcast on an audio cassette in a $100 "ghettoblaster" doesn't compare to listening to a quality "original" on your $2000 stereo system (home or car), so in most cases, you simply went out and purchased the media.
now, you don't need that, you can easily download it, burn it to disk and enjoy all the benefits of buying it, without paying for it and unfortunately, that is what happens more often than not, whether you wish to believe it or not (so you don't feel guilty doing it yourself).
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability. | |
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
·Rogers Hi-Speed
Host:
Rogers
Bell Canada
| reply to crazlunatic
Exposure is what sells music and movies. No exposure, few sales. Exposure has a value.
For indie artists, exposure is exceptionally important ... but indie artists have ALWAYS had problems getting exposure and therefore sales. Long before the digital age, to be indie meant starvation. The music industry has always favoured the label tied artists, because the industry provides the exposure and the means to get sales.
At the same time, the industry charges their costs to the artists for exposure, for the production, for the distribution. Then they also charge the buyer for all these things. Crediting the artist for sales to reduce their bill. Talk about double dipping.
I really hate the idea of stealing from the performers ... but except for the indies, the performers and writers get so very little out of a record sale. As an artist, you have to sell millions of CDs to break even. The old idea of silver and gold records are nothing these days to the artist - they see so little benefit. | |
got it wrong
@videotron.ca
| reply to dirtyjeffer
Before the internet and during it's early years and before CD's, I used to tape the music via radio onto a cassette.
As did many many students and working folks.
Many took their LP and recorded it to cassettes and slapped it in their car.
It's no diff.
Just the means have changed.
When AC/DC or Black Sabbath or Judas priest or the Scorpions, or Bon Jovi were all the rage, do you think each kid bought their own?
No.
Maybe a couple did and the rest copied it to cassette, or recorded it off the radio onto cassettes via their "ghetto box" (a ghetto box was the rage then as well).
Before MP3's, before CD's, before internet and into the early years of the internet, people still did the exact same thing.
Nothing has changed.
Exposure has changed and technology has changed.
damn I feel old now. Thanks Jeffy  | |
dirtyjeffer
Merry Christmas
Premium
join:2002-02-21
London, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to wake up
said by wake up :
I have more than one set of friends who write & play music at local bars.
They told me they got more exposure on youtube and torrents than doing the local thing and selling CD's.
i am not talking about exposure, i am talking about money...that is great that they get lots of exposure, but they can't pay their bills with exposure, they need money.
quote:
They said as an indie the web is the best thing to happen to them. More of a crowd. More downloads to get exposed to their music and word travels by mouth. They also said they breal into market around the world as opposed to local. Not every download is a sale or would have been a sale. Those that buy will buy. Exposure to the buying people is a must.
almost every band has a "sampler" of their music on their site...if you want to "try it out", you can do it there...if you don't like it, don't buy it...so why do millions of people download the whole thing with no intention of buying it...the same goes for software and movies.
quote:
Then there is that girl who won Canadian Idol (She is from Gatineau, Quebec). Her dad is also a musician that we have seen perform many times. He was not only giving us his CD, but also one from his daughter who won in (I think it was 2006) and told us to listen to it and share it with others.
that's fine...HE gave it to you, you didn't take it without their permission.
quote:
So, give a CD away, download it, same chit.
no, it is not the same thing...if the band (or someone affiliated to it) gives you a CD, that is their choice, as a way of promoting their material...if you hit up the P2P programs and download the CD on your own, that is stealing it.
quote:
It's exposure. It's what musicians want. It's what generates sales and a following.
musicians want exposure, but they also want to be paid for their work...what they don't want is everyone enjoying their hard work without paying for it...that isn't how it works...and to say it generates sales is false...i can assure you more people download it and keep quiet than download and say, "Hey, that is a good album, I am going to pay $15 for that CD now"...stop kidding yourself.
quote:
Maybe you want to talk to your "band buddies" what exposure is to both the buying and non-buying crowd.
i have, and it is something that is very discouraging to them...they spend a lot of time and money creating the music, only to have people "steal" it from them...they don't mind handing out a few copies as promotional material, but they don't want their material floating around the net where everyone can have it for free...what is the point in spending all that time and money creating it if you work all year to make an album, and all you are left is a bill for $20,000.
quote:
You seem to think each download is a lost sale. Please wake up.
it is...because you shouldn't have it if you didn't pay for it.
go back 20 years, before the internet...you either bought the album, or waited for the song to come on the radio...you couldn't type a few keys on the keyboard and download the whole album in 15 minutes, burn it to disc in another couple of minutes and away you go...just because the technology exists, doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability. | |
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
·Rogers Hi-Speed
Host:
Rogers
Bell Canada
| reply to wake up
There's the real rub ... remember that I keep mentioning the different "copyrights" ... there's the writer's copyright, there's the performer's copyright, and then there's the mechanical copyright.
Often people who download CDs will go out and buy the CD for their own genuine article. They want to test drive it first to see if there are enough songs on the CD to make its purchase worthwhile. And often people who download a CD will not have gone out to buy that CD under any circumstances.
So, there is "exposure" and it's one of those semi-tangible items of value like "goodwill" which can be assigned a value when valuing a business. Exposure offsets the lost royalties to the writer and to the performer.
The real complainer is the holder of the mechanical copyright ... the recording company label. To the label, if you copy a CD, it's lost mechanical copyright loyalty revenue (which for all intents and purposes is pure profit). They don't care about exposure ... after all, they have an exposure machine that aims to give every recording and artist the exposure that * they* want to give it, which may not be the amount that the artists involved would like. Look at the number of "one hit wonders" ... look at the number of artists who have no talent, but seem to keep selling records due to record industry hype.
This matter of copyright infringement is being driven by the loss of mechanical copyright royalties by the recording industry. Sure, they say they're acting on behalf of the artists, and it's the artists who are losing out, but it's really about their mechanical copyrights! After all, the amount they actually pass on to the artist is pathetically small amount from recording sales. | |
wake up
@videotron.ca
| reply to dirtyjeffer
said by crazlunatic :Have Rogers ever shut anyone down for going over on bandwidth? I've gone over by several hundred gigabytes for 3 months now and paying the overage fee. Every month they tell me they may shut me down, but has this ever happened to anyone? Let them. You paid your overage fee's. If they disconnect you, fight. If they try to charge you while being disconnected, fight. I'm sure CIPPIC or other consumer union would love to pick this fight.
It doesn't matter what you download. It's no one's business. And Rogers or anyone else for that matter has no right to question what you download.
I know I share my line with the guy next door. I don't question what he does, and I don't care.
Rogers is supposed to be a dump pie that feeds you. That's it.
Off Topic:
said by dirtyjeffer :i have a couple of friends who are in a band...when people download and share their music, without paying for it, that financially hurts them... I have more than one set of friends who write & play music at local bars.
They told me they got more exposure on youtube and torrents than doing the local thing and selling CD's. They said as an indie the web is the best thing to happen to them. More of a crowd. More downloads to get exposed to their music and word travels by mouth. They also said they breal into market around the world as opposed to local. Not every download is a sale or would have been a sale. Those that buy will buy. Exposure to the buying people is a must.
Then there is that girl who won Canadian Idol (She is from Gatineau, Quebec). Her dad is also a musician that we have seen perform many times. He was not only giving us his CD, but also one from his daughter who won in (I think it was 2006) and told us to listen to it and share it with others.
When we went to Canada day celebrations in Ottawa I had no clue who she was when sang. But the kids sure picked up on it and told us we had her CD that the dad gave us.
So, give a CD away, download it, same chit.
It's exposure. It's what musicians want. It's what generates sales and a following.
Maybe you want to talk to your "band buddies" what exposure is to both the buying and non-buying crowd.
You seem to think each download is a lost sale. Please wake up. | |
dirtyjeffer
Merry Christmas
Premium
join:2002-02-21
London, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to Taylortbb
said by Taylortbb :I encourage you to step back and consider that things aren't always so black and white. i have a couple of friends who are in a band...when people download and share their music, without paying for it, that financially hurts them...they haven't spend the past year writing music, practicing, and perfecting it, and investing thousands of dollars producing a CD in order to get money for their work, only for people to own that material without paying for it...it is that black and white and the only ones who don't see it that way are the ones who want all their media for free and have to find some way to justify it to themselves.
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability. | |
|
