how-to block ads
|
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
 ·AT&T Midwest
 ·Comcast
| reply to PolarBear
Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice
said by PolarBear  :Your statement clarified my point exactly, Nightfall. A $10k suit for sharing 10 songs is nothing more than a scare tactic, because the **AA can't honestly think that even if they do win a suit against Average P2P User, that Mr. User will ever be able to come up with the $10k. They throw a large $$ lawsuit at Mr. User hoping it will scare him into settling for MUCH less, KNOWING full well he could NEVER pay $10k. Hell, they could sue me for $1,000,000,000 if they wanted to, and I'd LET them win for the fun of it, 'cause I know they'd never see a penny of the money. Edit: I do agree with your theory of a reasonable dollar amount put on these things, however. That is my theory behind why people choose P2P over legal download services: you don't get a reasonable product for your $. If download services were REASONABLE, people would P2P much less, and PURCHASE much more. I agree, the **AA shot themselves in the foot on the download services being reasonable. Imagine how successful they would have been if they launched an allofmp3 like system? If they would have added more features to the CD to make it more price friendly, it would have been a win/win. As it is, they didn't do that so these things exist.
No matter what the price of these things will be, there will always be people who will use P2P to get them or share them. Imagine if software makers dropped the price across the board by 50% if you downloaded instead of bought in the stores. The stores could drop their price by 25% for those who wanted the hard copy. There would still be people who pirate. Same goes for music and movies. Even music as cheap as allofmp3 would get distributed illegally. People will do anything to save a buck, including pirate.
These people must be punished at some level. If someone is so cheap to not pay .25 cents a song, they should be hit with a $10 per song shared bill. People who fight it in court better be expected to pay court costs if they lose. Nothing is anonymous on the internet, so people who are dumb enough to get caught sharing should get nailed. I am glad we agree on the cost being inflated at least.
In short, there has to be a way to protect the intellectual property of others. I am a published writer and photographer, and I have caught other websites and news organizations using my work without my permission and without paying me. These people, when confronted, paid up because they knew they were in the wrong and I didn't put a outlandish $3000 per article or picture on it either. Its amazing how, when the price is reasonable, there is no arguement if one party knows they were in the wrong.
Glad we at least agreed on some things. 
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal | |
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| said by Nightfall :I agree, the **AA shot themselves in the foot on the download services being reasonable. Imagine how successful they would have been if they launched an allofmp3 like system? If they would have added more features to the CD to make it more price friendly, it would have been a win/win. As it is, they didn't do that so these things exist. Back during the heyday of Napster, I thought the recording industry should team up with Napster and build an online music store. The idea would be to limit the bitrate of the "free, shared" music. Say 96kbps tops. Then they would sell higher bitrate (and more reliably produced) versions for differing prices. The higher the bitrate, the more it would cost. (Of course, all of the songs would be reasonably priced. It would just cost more for more quality.)
They could have thought of the free, low bitrate songs like radio copies. Free publicity. Sure, some people wouldn't buy the higher bitrate copies, but some people are content to listen to music on the radio and never buy the CDs. Many more people would be likely to hear the low quality version and decide to buy a higher quality version to keep.
Instead, they decided to stomp Napster out of existence and in doing so provided the climate for the P2P apps to develop. Finally, after many years of fighting music online, they finally figured that they could benefit from online music, but even now they seem to regard online music as a bastard child. Something that should be dealt with with a wary eye and kept as hidden away as possible lest some embarrassing questions be asked. | |
|
