Kazaa offices raided [Archive]

reki

11th Feb 04, 5:01 AM

Originally posted by Moe
Reki, without wanting to start this old debate up again, I think his point was that instead of sueing 14-year old children and trying to intimidate everybody, the record industry should try to develop a commercial movie/music portal with reasonable prizes. If I pay a buck for a song online, or a buck to download and rent a movie for a night, why would I want to use kazaa where half the songs are fakes, virii, dialers or of really bad quality?

iTunes - 99c a track.

ps. This thread isnt about suing 14 year old kids - its obviously a more complicated issue than some of you guys make it out to be. Piracy is a big problem for legitimate artists and businesses. Kazaa has not been shut down, they have not been sued, they have not been arrested. They are being investigated.

I mean, who are we trying to kid here? Everyone knows what Kazaa is for and what it is designed for. If they wish to make money by marketing software to be used specifically for the purpose of software piracy, they will have to wear it. Some of you guys act all sorry for them like they are doing it out of some global socialist ideal. No, they are in it to make a buck, and its a risky business they are in. Im sure they also realise this.

ilia1986

11th Feb 04, 5:23 AM

Sad... Sad... The greedyness of all those record campanies really astonishes me...

Why cant they leave Kaaza alone?! WHY?! I WILL NEVER PAY FOR MUSIC! NEVER!!!!!!!

SquidDNA

11th Feb 04, 5:47 AM

Reki, unless they make you buy the whole album, which they frequently do. Even then, if you can't afford an iPod, it's highly restrictive DRM out the siphon.

Which is nonsense, really. People who are going to pay a buck on the internet for a track are doing it because it's morally and ethically preferable to getting it from a "peer." It's not that they can't do the latter, it's that they prefer not to. Putting that $0.99 track in a new format that can only be read by certain (expensive) types of hardware and only burned to CDA so many times before you have to buy it again needlessly pisses off the people who came to the party trying to meet you halfway.

Zepherian

11th Feb 04, 5:57 AM

I am for a new paradigm.

Screw the record companies. Let the peer to peer revolution keep on track. Yes, a lot of people will lose revenue, but if the future has next to free or free software and music delivered directly to your home fast over broadband connections, I say its evolution.

A tyranosaurus rex was an astonishing animal, but would you want to save one if you had to live with one?

However, there has to be some form of compensation for whoever produces copyrighted material, that is the problem. Those that think corporations have a right to flog off somebody else's work and make a killing are missing the issue. Where a middleman is no longer needed a middleman should no longer be kept IMO. However, revenue must be created for the people that MAKE stuff. Solve this problem and you have a brave new world :)

Sjeti scientist

11th Feb 04, 6:19 AM

Originally posted by Black Splitstar
They had it coming

i agree with black splitstar. dont you remember napster.

mrmoron

11th Feb 04, 6:19 AM

Those music "artists", they should get a REAL job and stop complaining about losing revenue. And so should the big company executives. In fact, EVERYONE should get a real job and then KILL themselves. Yeah, problem solved.

SquidDNA

11th Feb 04, 7:19 AM

Thanks for contributing.

littlegreencube

11th Feb 04, 8:24 AM

hi soul ;[

*downloads Black Napstar*

Paladin

11th Feb 04, 9:24 AM

iTunes - 99c a track.
For what it's worth, the record labels fought tooth and nail to prevent iTunes from happening.

-Paladin

Moe

11th Feb 04, 10:45 AM

I'm not sorry for Sharman Networks. I hope Gator will somehow be blamed as well.
itunes is rather small, and have you tried to legally download a movie? It's a nightmare, there are hardly any movies available. IF a working, cheap system like itunes but without the restrictions mentioned by Squid, with a large database, is built, kazaa would show a significant drop in usage statistics.

Beelzebuddy

11th Feb 04, 10:48 AM

Piracy is a big problem for legitimate artists and businesses.Sorry, but I'll have to call your bluff on this one. It is my firm belief that piracy can only be a boon to artists. It gives starting artists the exposure they desperately need to survive without having to sell their souls to record companies. And while you can argue that it may take profits from established artists, I don't recall seeing Ms. Spears on the streetcorner begging for spare change.

The only party that stands any chance of losing money due to piracy is the record companies. And considering the highway robbery they've been able to get away with for the past half century, I daresay they've got it coming.

The meat of my argument: I postulate that it hasn't been shown that piracy has cost anyone a cent. I don't have the link on me now, but in the past I've posted links to a site analysing the RIAA's financial records and came to the conclusion they were making more money per CD than they had in years, contrary to the several billion they claim to have lost. I'm still looking for some good numbers - hell, even anecdotal evidence - that suggests music piracy actually hurts someone.

If anyone happens to have any real evidence, instead of spouting stale propoganda, I'll be happy to hear it.

FallenSoloSLS

11th Feb 04, 11:03 AM

i-tunes is crap. E-music is beginning to be a good alternative, but it's not there yet by a long shot. ( http://www.emusic.com/pitch.html )

When the recording industry opens up their entire collection and makes it available in a multitude of formats at multiple quality levels at various prices in an non-restrictive manner, then I'll participate. Here's what I want. . . I want a d/l service that has EVERYTHING!. I want it in 192Kbps or higher MP3 or even WAV format, I want it unrestricted, and I want it at $1.25 per track. I want albums available for d/l for under $6.00. I want even the most obscure artist to be available - including singles by dance music artists (house/progressive house/breaks/downtempo/etc.)
I want bulk purchase deals that reduces the price I pay. I want to avoid separate proprietary applications loaded with spyware or adware in order to access the content of an on-line sales provider.

BTW, I'm Joe Consumer, and until my expectations are met, all the moral arguments and all the saber rattling from the RIAA is not going to stop me from using the p2p services that meet my expectations better. W/ Piolet or Soulseek, I get all the music I want. I get it in high quality MP3 format. I get it in an unrestricted format. And while I am risking a lawsuit from the RIAA, that is a risk I'll take - w/ over 40,000,000 p2p users world wide and millions of them here in the US, that is a risk I'll take.

Moral arguments aside (which are completely debatable - http://magazine.14850.com/0402/musicindustry.html ) p2p is a reality that the RIAA has got to learn to live with and regardless of the lawsuits or the raids or any other actions, it's not going away.

There may well be a revolution going on that pretty much kills the traditional recording industry - and the artists and fans are likely to come out the winners in the long run.

Mac_Bug

11th Feb 04, 11:41 AM

I demand that Apollyon470 give me $100 every month.

Dimension

11th Feb 04, 12:39 PM

judging from what squid said, i-tunes is the loss. seeing as my mp3-player probably doesn't support those new fileformats, i will continue to buy cd's and rip them to my comp, or lend cd's from other people and rip them. I'm well aware that the second thing is illegal, but frankly, I'm not paying 19.99 for a single. besides, i *could* legally record all songs from either an internet radio, or via real radio (just need to plug in a cable and my mp3 player does the recording all by himself actually). sure its fecking inconvenient, but its been legal since the appearance of radio, so i don't quite get why its made such a fuss out of now. and don't tell me that the fees radios pay to play songs would even out the money lost to recorders who would've otherwise bought a cd. i won't believe it until someone gives me VERY good proof.

Beelzebuddy

11th Feb 04, 1:10 PM

I demand that Apollyon470 give me $100 every month.Eh?

...i-tunes is the loss. seeing as my mp3-player probably doesn't support those new fileformats...It'll play mac files with much less manipulation than it would take to get your mp3 player to play the hamstrung DRM that the rest of the online stores are selling. No, it's not perfect, but it's a damn sight better than anything else out there.

I'd like to know exactly why we have music CD-Rs with a levy going towards the RIAA and it still be illegal to download music. Just don't make no sense.

Moe

11th Feb 04, 1:10 PM

Dimension: here's a couple of curious things about your suggestion:
[This only goes for Germany, I don't know what the law says in the US or elsewhere]
-you may rip music from CDs, even if they are not your own, if you do not break any copy protection by doing so. If it is copy-protected, you can't even rip the CD you just bought. But if it isn't, it is perfectly legal to go to the local library, get a CD, and rip it. All of this only as long as it is for private purposes only, of course.
If you buy a CD and put in in your disc drive, and find out that due to some copy protection you can't read it, you can try to return it, but the vendor doesn't have to accept it. You are also not allowed to backup any software you legally own if you defeat a copy protection mechanism of any sort in doing so.
Now I agree that kazaa isn't morally right, but the current laws are a bunch of bullshit. They do not allow me to back up my copy of Maya, which costs about 5000 bucks, but at the same time allow me to copy all the music I want from the library, as long as there is no protection. This is like saying you may enter any house if the door isn't locked, but if it is locked, you can't get in, even if its your house.

Ammon Ra

11th Feb 04, 1:11 PM

Originally posted by reki

iTunes - 99c a track.

Yes. they're the first to understand that 10$/€ for a single is a rip-off. IF them big record companies understand that they can't fight against the internet then they'll survive. It's something akin to the lodite falacy. Not exactly similar, but it's close enough ;)

If there was a european version of I-tunes then, sure i would use it. :)

as for MP3s i dont understand why companies hate them, or rather, dislike them so much. as they dislike divx...sort of.

Trivial Question: He who knows who/what invented the mpg 4 & mp3 format gets a cookie. ;)

Bnonn

11th Feb 04, 1:44 PM

The MPEG-1/2 Layer 2 encoding started as the Digital Audio Broadcast (DAB) project initiated by Fraunhofer IIS-A. This project was financed by the European Union as a part of the EUREKA research program where it was commonly known as EU-147.

Runtime of EU-147 was from 1987 to 1994. In 1991 there were two proposals available: Musicam (known as Layer II) and ASPEC (Adaptive Spectral Perceptual Entropy Coding) (with similarities to MP3). Musicam was chosen due to its simplicity and error resistance.

A working group around Karlheinz Brandenburg and Jürgen Herre took ideas from Musicam, from ASPEC and own ideas and created MP3, which was designed to achieve the same quality at 128 kbit/s as MP2 at 192 kbit/s.

Both algorithms were finalized in 1992 as part of MPEG-1, the first phase of work by MPEG, which resulted in the international standard ISO/IEC 11172-3, published in 1993. Further work on MPEG Audio was finalized in 1994 as part of the second phase, MPEG-2, which resulted in the international standard ISO/IEC 13818-3, originally published in 1995.

Short answer: the Moving Pictures Expert Group. I want my cookie. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mp3)

Btw. Information wants to be free.

JeffHCross

11th Feb 04, 1:48 PM

Originally posted by Higaran
but I dont think there is a law against file sharing, except maybe for copyrighted files.
Uhm ... there's no law HERE (the US, where all this RIAA stuff happens) about file sharing ... just copyrighted files. You can share files all you want ... it's just the distribution of copyrighted material that gets you in trouble.

Originally posted by Ammon Ra
as for MP3s i dont understand why companies hate them, or rather, dislike them so much. as they dislike divx...sort of.

It's not MP3 that they hate. It's the distribution of copyrighted material contained within said MP3 files that they hate.

Movie companies love VHS and DVD ... except when people record movies off of rented tapes rather than buying them ... or burn DVDs rather than buying them.

It's not the format they hate ... it's the usage. If it doesn't make money for said company, they don't want it used in that way.

I've always argued that music companies should embrace MP3 and file sharing because many people (myself included) use file sharing networks to sample music before buying it in the stores. Finally they're starting to get it with I-Tunes.

Russian Ninja

11th Feb 04, 1:56 PM

I suppose it's possible that the police will find all that data collected from Kazaa Spyware while they're at it as well.

Soulblighter

11th Feb 04, 1:58 PM

BTW, I'm Joe Consumer, and until my expectations are met, all the moral arguments and all the saber rattling from the RIAA is not going to stop me from using the p2p services that meet my expectations better.

why dont we just do this for everything... i want banks to have shorter lines otherwise i will rob them, i want my local grocery store to carry every kind of bread there is otherwise i will steal the other stuff because i am not paying for something i dont like, and finally i want you to mow your lawn every day otherwise i will set it on fire.

listing demands is pointless especially since you admit to getting music for free already, so why should the music industry bow to such wishes when more then likely another p2p will pop up and only close down as long as other demands are fulfilled.

your needs are not going to be met, and they should not be met.. and fyi since you are not paying for the music you should be called joe freeloader because consumer gives off the perception that you give money for a service.

what you suggest is not a solution but rather another road to even more problems.

JeffHCross

11th Feb 04, 2:00 PM

I may be wrong ... but this comes from my understanding of working in radio and reading some copyright law.

Originally posted by Dimension
besides, i *could* legally record all songs from either an internet radio, or via real radio (just need to plug in a cable and my mp3 player does the recording all by himself actually). sure its fecking inconvenient, but its been legal since the appearance of radio, so i don't quite get why its made such a fuss out of now.

The fees radio stations pay do not even out the listeners buying CDs. They are expensive, and from my experience it is illegal for a radio station to play copyrighted material that they have not paid a fee for. But you have missed a VERY important fact here.

Recording a song off of the radio is NOT legal either. No, no, no, no, no.

The only time duplication is legal in ANY form is for your own personal second copy. If you have it already, you can copy it. This allows for mixtapes, but THAT'S IT.

Recording off the radio can't be stopped, very true. And that's why there is the public perception that it is legal. Just like duplicating a VHS tape off of something you rented. It is completely illegal - hence the FBI warnings before home movies - but it happens.

MP3 got to be a fuss because of the exact reasons you cited ... it's huge ... and it is taking money away from record companies.

Justified? Maybe. Not for me to decide.

The5thElephant

11th Feb 04, 2:23 PM

Reki while your comment on the police being mean because they stop shoplifters was mildly funny it doesn't apply in my opinion. When someone downloads a song from Kazaa or Limewire etc. they aren't directly taking money from the wallets of the artists and producers of the music. While yes it may cause less CDs to sell (which strangely it hasnt) many of these artists are ridiculously rich already so complaining they aren't getting the money they deserve is ridiculous.

And arguing that filesharing programs make it difficult for new artists to do well is also completely wrong and actually the truth is quite the opposite. Studies show that upcoming artists' (and popular artists) concert ticket sales grow by a large amount once there music begins spreading on the internet. And millions of people will buy their CDs anyway if they make a good one.

Also ignoring my opinion on this the record companies and artists etc should have realized by now that ads and lawsuits are NOT going to stop filesharing of copyrighted material. In fact I am sure many of these ads help spread the idea of filesharing to the few people who don't know about it. The ads are especially dumb when they show some rich well respected director or actor saying they don't appreciate people seeing their work for free. How the hell do you think a visual artist feels when they display their art for FREE in galleries? Are they complaining? No.

AceRimmer

11th Feb 04, 2:24 PM

I find it a little stupid that the law says you can't record anything apart from a personal second copy. Take radio for instance. How could anybody catch you, unless someone else in the car/room was a police in disguise? Hardly likely. Not that I condone copying or anything, but realisticly in most cases, unless your part of a university (like what happened in the university of NSW), noone could catch you.

Boy its a pity that im not Year 12. I could use this thread as basis for a 'social and ethical issues' assignment. ;)

Tronno

11th Feb 04, 2:43 PM

Perhaps the music industry should look into organizing more highly-publicized concerts instead of sinking with the recorded media boat. You can't pirate live shows, now can you?

Bnonn

11th Feb 04, 2:52 PM

Yes, it's called bootlegging.

FallenSoloSLS

11th Feb 04, 2:55 PM

What people here fail to understand is this:

The P2P community has moved to such an advanced state that you can't shut it down. Piolet, and excellent music file sharing application is decentralized, meaning it doesn't rely on a server. If Piolet were "shut down" it would not effect the community the way that shutting down Napster or Audiogalaxy did. There's Ares, there's BitTorrent, there's the old Nutella, there's Nutella2, There's FastTrack (AKA Kazaa), there's ICQ and lots of other networks.

For general popular music, I recommend Piolet. For more obscure stuff, I recommend Soulseek. Piolet is very elegant and can be very fast for those of us with high speed internet. Soulseek is a bit clunkier, but if you want something and have patience, it'll probably have it - especially dance/electronic music.

Today there's file checking included in many P2P applications to clean out of your search any bogus files. There's sometimes built in anti-virus protection. There's some P2P programs that give some degree of user anonymity. There's lots of things being put in P2P applications that make them better, faster, and harder to hurt.

Soulblighter,

The thing is, one can stand on one's soap box all day and preach to the world about copyright infringement and liken d/l'ing a track to stealing or shoplifting, but the rest of the world is literally not buying it. Downloading music just doesn't hold the same moral stigma. And the actions of the RIAA have not endeared themselves to anyone but the recording industry's stock holders. The bad feelings toward the recording industry are so pervasive that Lots and lots of people, including myself, do not see them as the bell weather of good citizenship. As far as I'm concerned, the major lables can go under. . . From their ashes will come something better.

I must clarify that my d/l habits do not apply to pirated/hacked software (which I don't trust) and it does not apply to movies (A DVD for less than $10 is a bargain, and on-line movies for d/l often look like ass and sound worse).

bluevorlon

11th Feb 04, 2:59 PM

And there's the old chesnut about P2P increasing the revenues of artists who would not be often discovered without it. And it's revitalised the singles market in the form of legal downloads, because guess what, people didn't want to pay £3/4 for a single which is why the bottom fell out the market. Album sales, happily, continue to rise.

FallenSoloSLS

11th Feb 04, 2:59 PM

Originally posted by Tronno
Perhaps the music industry should look into organizing more highly-publicized concerts instead of sinking with the recorded media boat. You can't pirate live shows, now can you?

The ticket prices will have to come down. I paid $17 to see U2 in 1987. Their tickets today would probably be more like $80.

I paid $60 a ticket to see Tina Turner. While it was a good show, and Lionel Richie opened, it wasn't worth $60!

BTW, I'm going to see Liz Phair for $25 - that's a price I can live with. Stadium concerts should not be more than I'd pay for a ticket to see the basketball team that normally plays there. Under $50 for reasonably good seats should be the norm. $70-$100 for front row or up close seats - max.

Oh, and bootlegs sound like shit.

bluevorlon

11th Feb 04, 3:08 PM

Ticket prices won't come down whilst sales and revenue from tours continue to rise. That said, I've rarely had to pay more than £25 for a gig. Even the reunited pixies tickets are only £25.

Of course, now they've sold out, it'll cost around £200 to get two tickets off eBay.

Now THAT'S something I wouldn't mind being abolished...

Bri_Dog

11th Feb 04, 3:22 PM

Kill Kazaa and another will take it's place. We saw this when Napster died.

SquidDNA

11th Feb 04, 3:35 PM

Because something is perceived to be unstoppable does not mean it is right. I think a lot of you are missing this point.

Mac_Bug

11th Feb 04, 3:36 PM

You're rich enough, giving me $100 won't land you on the streets, so pay up.

Bnonn

11th Feb 04, 3:42 PM

And because something is illegal does not mean it is wrong.

If everyone does something and sees no moral detriment to it, how can one viably maintain the policy that it should be illegal? Are laws not supposed to serve society, and its wishes?

Pyromonger

11th Feb 04, 3:59 PM

Soul, most ppl can't bake their own bread or print their own money ;)

The record companies trying to attract the consumers. They're not doing a very good job. :P

Mac_Bug

11th Feb 04, 4:03 PM

It's called civil disobedience Bnonn, except a lot of people are missing the part about turning themselves in

SquidDNA

11th Feb 04, 4:06 PM

Lots of people see moral and ethical problems with p2p. Maybe not as many as there are p2p users, but they're still there.

Regarding each of our absolute statements, Bnonn, I would say we're both right. Mine was meant to curtail the "p2p will never die!111" reaction to the question of whether or not it's right. Yours is meant to curtail the "it's against the law" reaction. Funny that the answer is probably somewhere in the middle?

Bnonn

11th Feb 04, 4:42 PM

Were I to download copyrighted music, games or movies, it would not be because I was engaging in civil disobedience. I would do it for the same reason I would smoke marijuana. I don't have the same values as the people making the laws, or the people who run this site.

Lolly, I tend more toward the "p2p will never die!!!11" side of things for the simple reason that I don't believe it will. I also completely support the entire concept of sharing information, regardless of who wrote it and how they want to be compensated.

SquidDNA

11th Feb 04, 5:01 PM

So would you then contend that something is right simply because it cannot be changed, or am I missing something?

I mean, other points of your argument aside, the fact that it's easy to do and difficult if not impossible to prevent isn't automatic justification for any action. That's the extent of my position in this line of reasoning.

Mac_Bug

11th Feb 04, 5:27 PM

Bnonn, I demand all of your personal info, right this instant, post plz

Vidar

11th Feb 04, 5:30 PM

I'm not sure how much morality is involved in downloading music. If you download a song for free, you screw over the artist and the RIAA. If you don't download it, the artists get screwed over regardless, instead by the RIAA, as they always have been and always will be.

Paladin

11th Feb 04, 6:03 PM

Originally posted by SquidDNA
Because something is perceived to be unstoppable does not mean it is right. I think a lot of you are missing this point.

What is "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant in law. Law exists to create stability and order in society. If a law cannot be enforced effectively it detracts from that stability rather than adding to it and therefore runs contrary to the purpose of law itself.

We should have learned our lesson on the subject of legislating morality from our futile attempts at banning abortion, birth control, and alcohol, but humans are indescribably thickheaded in this area.

Jao Ensatsu Ken

11th Feb 04, 6:04 PM

The REAL question you all should be pondering:

In the end, does it really matter?

Bnonn

11th Feb 04, 6:39 PM

Only if you give me yours, Mac.

That's how this works.

FallenSoloSLS

11th Feb 04, 6:40 PM

If you download a song for free, you screw over the artist and the RIAA.

Mostly you screw the record lable. The artists get a pathetically small amount of $$ for their efforts. Particularly new artists that are in debt up to their eyeballs due to the shitty contracts that the major lables shove down their throats. Do a bit of a Google search on the subject.

Mac_Bug

11th Feb 04, 7:15 PM

sorry, but

I also completely support the entire concept of sharing information, regardless of who wrote it and how they want to be compensated.

The5thElephant

11th Feb 04, 8:53 PM

The record labels are screwing themselves over by having such high priced CDs and wasting time and money trying to stop P2P when they could be making money off it (which they are and just don't admit it). P2P helps new artists with spreading their music and getting it popular. Without P2P I am fairly sure many popular bands would not have been nearly as well known.

I want to start seeing ads from artists stating 'Thank you P2P for giving the world the chance to see my creativity without making them broke...I owe my popularity to you P2P.......I love you P2P!'.

Higaran

11th Feb 04, 9:05 PM

Originally posted by Pyromonger
Soul, most ppl can't bake their own bread or print their own money ;)

Actually you can print your own money, but you have to have it backed up by silver or gold and it can't resemble us currency too closely. There are a few communities in the us that use alternate forms of us currency, and its perfectly legal.

Gyokuran

11th Feb 04, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by Soulblighter

why dont we just do this for everything... i want banks to have shorter lines otherwise i will rob them, i want my local grocery store to carry every kind of bread there is otherwise i will steal the other stuff because i am not paying for something i dont like, and finally i want you to mow your lawn every day otherwise i will set it on fire.
The grocery store is charging you $20 for a loaf of bread which can be near instantly duplicated with the flick of a hand. What do you do?

I've cost the Recording and software industry no money with my pirated songs and aplications. Why? Because if p2p sharing wasnt avalible (or a cheap legal alternative) I would simply not buy their products. I dont have $20 to spend on a CD from some group I've never listened to, and I sure as heck dont have $500 to crank out for photoshop. If I can buy it, I buy it. If I cant buy it then I dont get it, or if its software that I want/need alot then I find a way to get it. If I really like something I download, then I'll buy it if I can.

I'd feel sorry for the artists loosing potential money from their work... if the ones who were losing the money didnt already have millions and the ones who benifited were barely supporting them selves. Not only that, but when I crank out $20 for a CD, $0.05 goes to the CD its self, perhaps $1 to the packaging, another couple bucks to the artist if they are lucky, and the vast majority to big brother publisher who I have no sympathy for.

Mac_Bug

12th Feb 04, 12:30 AM

if the ones who were losing the money didnt already have millions and the ones who benifited were barely supporting them selves.

Why must people hang out signs that say "I'm a moron"?

Bnonn

12th Feb 04, 2:42 AM

You can talk, Mr I-Highlight-Portions-Of-People's-Comments-Which-Don't-Mean-What-I-Think-They-Mean.

If information is free, all information must be free. I wasn't asking for your account number as compensation for mine.

Moe

12th Feb 04, 3:31 AM

What Bnonn means is that yes, you can have his contact info, but he can also have yours or mine or Squids at the same time. All information is supposed to be free, and giving him your contact info is not a form of compensation, but obeying the information is free principle.
Bnonn, while I tend to agree with you to a certain degree, don't you think there is certain information that should not be free? Hospital patient information maybe? What about anonymity on the web?

I used to wonder why the music industry doesn't consider the damage it does to its public image. The sad fact is that they can actually ignore it, because there is no alternative, except for kazaa. You can't boykot the RIAA, can you?

The_Assimilator

12th Feb 04, 4:52 AM

I live in South Africa. The country waaay down the south end of Africa.

It's primitive here. We don't have wildlife running around in the streets, but only larger companies have DSL. Ordinary users are stuck with 56k. Our bandwidth provider is a government-run company called Telkom, who cares nothing for their users and caps bandwidth at 3 GB a month.

Software takes a long time to get here. Homeworld2 only arrived 3 months after the rest of the world got it. Software here is also very expensive, especially console games. And some software packages, such as programming IDEs, are as rare as orc eggs. We could buy them over the internet, but then the shipping costs and "Value Added Tax" add another 20% onto the cost.

For technology-savvy South Africans, Kazaa is a way of life. Not because we enjoy pirating software, but because we truly have no other choice. If we bought software online, we'd be bankrupt in weeks. If we buy software in the stores, more often than not we can't buy anything else for another month, such are the ridiculous prices.

For us, Kazaa is a Godsend. We can't emigrate, so we use Kazaa to get the software we need. Need being the operative word. So you people making noises about "oh it's only $20" - for us it isn't $20, more like $30 or $40. Piracy is a way of life; our phone bills are high, but less than what we'd pay to get our software legally.

And before you ask: I own Homeworld, Cataclysm and HW2 legally, but I had to dig deep into my funds to buy them. So next time you guys are deliberating the merits and demerits of P2P software, remember that for some of us, P2P is not an option, it's a necessity.

SquidDNA

12th Feb 04, 6:25 AM

So Bnonn, let's refine this a little, did you use Kazaa or K-Kite ++?

(For those unfamiliar, the difference is that the former has the spyware intact.)

More broadly, how do you feel about spyware? Do you really believe that all information should be free? Do you put the blinds on your windows at night?

Playing games is not a necessity, The_Assimilator. Tough situation, but you're not using P2P to survive, you're using it to access luxury items you wouldn't otherwise be able to afford. Fail.

Moe, I know people who intentionally avoid RIAA supported artists, supporting independents they like instead.

Beelzebuddy

12th Feb 04, 6:37 AM

You're rich enough, giving me $100 won't land you on the streets, so pay up.Ah. I get where you're trying to go with this. Well, to make your analogy truly comparable, I wouldn't have to give you $100, but I would show you what I produced to make my employer feel that $100 was justified. That slightly dilutes your position. And, honestly, if I were between jobs right now there'd be nothing I'd love more than to show you my work, on the off chance that you'd like it and want more.

Part of the adaptation to file sharing means that artists will have to come off their high horse and realize that their work is neither entirely original nor is it unique, nor is it God's gift to the world. Let's hope that this process begins with Marissa Marchant (http://marissamarchant.com/music.html)

NovaBurn

12th Feb 04, 6:45 AM

Originally posted by SquidDNA
So Bnonn, let's refine this a little, did you use Kazaa or K-Kite ++?

(For those unfamiliar, the difference is that the former has the spyware intact.)

More broadly, how do you feel about spyware? Do you really believe that all information should be free? Do you put the blinds on your windows at night?

Playing games is not a necessity, The_Assimilator. Tough situation, but you're not using P2P to survive, you're using it to access luxury items you wouldn't otherwise be able to afford. Fail.

Moe, I know people who intentionally avoid RIAA supported artists, supporting independents they like instead.

Ok squid what about those people are using these "luxury items" to further their education? Example would be someone who downloaded 3D Studio Max 6 in order to learn digital animation and modeling while they were still in high school or college? They have the will to learn these things but without the right tool how are they to learn when the tool they need is well within the price range of $500+ dollars? What about all the people on the internet that use photoshop and modeling programs? Do you think that all of them shelled out money for those hefty programs in order to further their knowledge in their usage or education for a potential career in future? We know that jobs these days demand the best they can get, and you are going to need every advantage possible to become the best you can.

Downloading games on the other hand is not really a neccesity, more like a convience to have. But The_Assimilator made a good point that some people have no choice in getting access to new software because of the geographic location, economic situation they are in.

Martian

12th Feb 04, 6:52 AM

I want to learn how to drive a car to further my career. But I can't afford it.

Should I steal a car and force an instructor to teach me how to drive?

AngelTLSC

12th Feb 04, 8:29 AM

Originally posted by Martian
I want to learn how to drive a car to further my career. But I can't afford it.

Should I steal a car and force an instructor to teach me how to drive?

Sure. Sounds like a plan to me :D

bluevorlon

12th Feb 04, 8:41 AM

You don't need a car to learn how to drive, you can learn in a car provided by your instructor...

:rolleyes:

Moe

12th Feb 04, 9:10 AM

Squid: ok, but this is even worse than trying to boycot Microsoft products, there's a whole lot you will miss out on.

SquidDNA

12th Feb 04, 9:15 AM

Yes, there's a whole lot of things you can miss out on because you can't afford them. That's life, isn't it. The fact that you can't afford them doesn't mean it's right to steal them, regardless of whether we're talking about career-furthering software or games.

Edit: Moe, I don't advocate that stance, but it's a cohesive position in my view. I respect the effort.

Martian

12th Feb 04, 9:33 AM

Originally posted by bluevorlon
You don't need a car to learn how to drive, you can learn in a car provided by your instructor...

:rolleyes: But I can't afford those lessons. That is what I meant. But you are right, I could also kidnap an instructor complete with his car.

Was my phrasing unclear? :(

Dimension

12th Feb 04, 9:52 AM

thanks to jeffhcross and moe for clearing up some stuff i had wrong.

anyways, so I'm kinda developing some kind of semi-serious approach towards this whole issue.

how about i acquire all my songs for free (dl, and everything else that does not include theft from a store, as in from someone who paid for it). instead of paying for all that stuff i have, i sent certain amounts of money TO THE ARTIST? of course i'd need an adress, but lets just figure every artist has an account for exactly that. i mean, what are record labels for, really? they organize events, produce media, and do all promotion.

promotion is replaced by the fact that there is unlimited accessability. you don't have to purchase anything (CD, TV, Radio) to get to know a certain artist, as you use equipment you already have (most of the time anyways). i mean, you never really see commercials for artists anywhere, except for compilations (of course those would die out).

media production is annuled, for obvious reasons.

event organization and affiliated promotion could go to other organizations who specialize in promoting and planning such events.

what do you think, would that work?

bluevorlon

12th Feb 04, 11:03 AM

No.

Who do you think gives the new up and coming band (take, for example, The Sex Pistols) the money to quit their jobs and make their debut LP? Buy equipment, know who and where and when and how to get them their first gigs?

SquidDNA

12th Feb 04, 11:21 AM

Ressev

12th Feb 04, 11:23 AM

Greed.... we all suffer from this. From Record Producers to the music and software pirates, we all suffer from it. More and for less... yes... Get off your high horses of blame and attend to the blood on your own hands.

Companies exsist to make money. You live off of money. You want money to buy things or you steal it. You are just as bad as the Record Producers and RIAA becuase you too are greedy. Only you show no respect for the law as well and as such are even worse.

Record companies invest in new artists. The artist signs contracts with the record company and is expected to come up with about 2-4 albums in the duration of the contract. Additionally, the record company puts up money - thus paying for in advance, for the production of the music. They are investing in a risky future.

What are these risks? The band floops and thus does not make a Return on Investment (ROI) or people steal the music as opposed to paying for it and thus reduce the ROI. As such, record companies develope certain ways to mitigate those losses: they sign up bands that sound like previous bands that have been a success (ever wonder why all the music sounds the same... that is why - risk management). Record labels fear the new and untried simply becuase it may not succeed and thus the ROI flops. Another area they mitigate loss is in sueing 14 year olds who DL or UL hundreds and thousands of songs. It worked to an extent in the US.

Do Record producers take a nice cut? You bet they do, they are greedy. Do Record producers pay new artists very little? You bet they do becuase they want to get a ROI if not simply break even. Does your greed by not putting up money to buy music contribute to the lack of variety and legal actions? You bet it does.

You want a great way to beat the system and thus break the dependence on BIG RECORD LABELS? Don't steal for starters - it just proves your dependence on them. Support independant artists who self promote on the web by buying from them - oh, but wait... KaZaa has their music to so why buy it - you hypocritical worm. Be responsible for your actions and take responsibility. I know that is hard when there are so many Politicos who try to make the Government mommy and daddy to everybody, but you are still responsible for yourself despite their interference. Next you will want them to subsidize your entertainment... oh wait, they even do that in some places.

*boring*
*greedy*
*whingers*

Your actions and words about your actions betray you.

:cranky:

ÜberJumper

12th Feb 04, 11:27 AM

For major artists, their careers are developed, and honed by the producer. The record label does a lot of work helping them develop their sound, and works with them in recording studios to provide the time and professional resources to fund and market their albums.

The artists aren't being robbed by the recording studios. They signed a contract that specifies what they get out of the deal. Sure a naive artist might be taken advantage of, sure Record labels will try and get the most out of the deal.

The same thing happens with games publishers and dev studios.

The artists/developers in these situations may very well be taking less than they would if they had more negotiating power, which they didn't when they signed. Like Relic running off someone's credit card before Homeworld was signed with Sierra. Relic may have given away too much of HW's IP to break into the biz, but they got their studio started by what Sierra gave them for HW.

If an artist/developer/author creates their own IP, funds its development themselves, then distributes it themselves, all the money is theirs.

But that's not how the world works in every case. Artists/software developers/authors often work with publishers, on the publishers terms, to create and sell a copyrighted product, that only the publisher (or however its defined in the contract) can resell.

Then along comes someone who buys this product, and reproduces it (all or in part) to redistribute. And it doesn't matter that it's ones and zeros, it's still a product that was developed, paid for, and copyrighted by someone else. The people that reproduce (in whole or in part) that property for use by people are, by law, criminals.

Yes information should be free, yes it'd be awesome if everything was free. However, it's not.

[edit]haha blu, squid, and ressev's posts weren't there when I started mine.

Mac_Bug

12th Feb 04, 11:53 AM

If information is free, all information must be free. I wasn't asking for your account number as compensation for mine.

Then I'll give you your account number when you give me yours.

Ressev

12th Feb 04, 12:05 PM

There is a distinct difference between free access to information and information being free.

Some have argued that there should be no privacy - thus information is free. However, my access to that information - in terms of manipulation, should not be free. So if Mac_Bug wants to know your A# then he can know it and the balance of your account. But he can't affect it.

However, information, at this time, is a commodity. Thus, it is chargable and you must meet the terms of the source lest you break the law. If you break the law you lose any moral authority you had since the matter of compensation is not immoral in and of itself (that is, the law is not immoral since compensation for work is not immoral - unless you are advocating slavery-lite which is immoral :p ).

Paladin

12th Feb 04, 12:15 PM

Only you show no respect for the law as well and as such are even worse.
Actually, I'd have to say that those who use the law as a shield for their actions, use their money to get the law changed to favor them, and use that to oppress those who don't have the money to fight back far worse than those who break the law.

-Paladin

Mac_Bug

12th Feb 04, 12:18 PM

Now that it's morning and I'm awake.

Who are you people to decide whether someone is rich enough or make enough money? Since when is there such a thing as making too much money? Since when did stealing from the rich become charity?

POint 2. Make up your damn minds. Either you are affecting someone's profits, or you are not. Stop coming around saying 'well I doubt we are making a dent' and then go around saying 'well so what if we are'.

There is a fundamental difference between 'stealing' something online and stealing something from the store. If you steal a car, kidnap an instructor, you are costing someone somewhere something. If you are 'stealing' a car simulator and downloading a virtual driving instructor, the cost to someone else is far less. The only thing being deprived is potential profit, as some would argue, they would've never have paid for it otherwise. WIth that said, the question is then why do ppl bother paying for things at all that others get for free - and why these things are out there in the first place and continues to be produced for some people to 'steal'.

ionfish

12th Feb 04, 12:24 PM

On the subject of information freedom, because some things have been said that are apparently stupid. Either they are stupid because the person saying them hasn't defined their context properly, or they are stupid completely on their own merits. For the purposes of this little discourse, I shall assume the former and lay out for those who might be tempted to agree even with the latter, why they are so stupid.

The concept of 'freedom of information' is one that must always be regarded with certain caveats, in both a practical sense, and several theoretical ones.

Let's start with an extreme case. Total freedom of information means everybody sharing their bank account numbers, as Mac has said. It also means divulging personal information like any particular sexual habits that might be considered strange by society at large. I'm not going to make a value judgement about this; more openness might, on the one hand, be a good thing and break down prejudices - on the other, it might just give people more apparent reasons to be prejudiced. This is, of course, tied to the absurd mantra that one should always strive to tell the truth. There are plenty of situations both real and hypothetical where telling the truth can be not beneficial, or even detrimental. Do you really want everyone to know exactly what you think of them? You might keep your friends, but you'd probably lose a fair number of business associates who you keep your views from out of expediency. Once more, I don't offer a value judgement - what is, however, apparent, is that total freedom of information would make our society vastly different from how it is now.

That's one objection - the other is of course that we'd end up with anarchy. If you can get the bank account numbers of rich people just by asking for them, then why work? You could just take money. Boom, there goes the financial system. Enforced redistribution of wealth. Everyone for themselves. Anarchy. Back to a barter economy. If people were perfect, total freedom of information would be great. Newsflash: they're not. People are imperfect, which is why utopias will never work out. Anarchy and communism both have some good ideas that are of some actual relevance to the real world. That doesn't mean we should take them up wholesale, because they won't work. Individual selfishness will always upset the equilibrium of utopia.

Of course, this is an extreme and absurd possibility. When we talk about freedom of information, we don't mean all information. Mostly, anyway. Less extreme problems: incentive. This is the one proponents of capitalism always harp on about, and I think most of us would agree that they have something of a point. It's all very well to want to write stories, make music, shoot films, purely for the satisfaction of doing it, and for communicating these things to everyone else. But artistic satisfaction doesn't pay the bills. However creative you are, you need to eat. Hence, when people write or sing or paint, they want to be paid, so they can eat. No such thing as a free lunch - someone always has to make the sandwiches. Whether the way we organise this payment at present is the right one is, of course, open to debate. But we need to do it somehow. Freedom is always limited by practicality.

In retrospect, this has little to do with the actual filesharing debate, but hey, perhaps someone can find a little relevance. This is just a taste of the problems you run into when espousing freedom of information; like everything else, it must surely be a matter of degree, of compromise, of finding a middle ground. I don't want to start paying to access these forums, for example, so obviously I'm in favour of some freedom. But on the other hand, if I write a book, I'd like to be paid, so I can live long enough to write another one.

Ressev

12th Feb 04, 12:28 PM

- re: what paladin said -
Then get politicians elected who are of more noble stuff.

...Sheesh...

Their actions do not excuse your actions. If you think otherwise, think again.

Why don't you lobby the same powers to get the laws changed in your favor? Or do you wallow in a sense of self-pity that assumes your lack of money will make no difference. Please be more creative than "well they did this so I can steal it from them". Money has value, but so do large numbers of angry voters... just ask the former Governor of California, Gray Davis.

But there is another issue: you assume that they have no right to try to protect themselves against thieves. It's like the thief crying "no fair" because the Jeweler he robs petitions the officials for more protection. Are their bad laws and stuipid laws? Yes. Can you get them changed? With effort and persistence: YES!

Comon! Show some signs of life and thought and stop resorting to petty thievery to press your objections. You only do it because you are greedy - just like them.

Paladin

12th Feb 04, 12:33 PM

Noble politicians do not happen. The system of politics self selects the powerhungry and corruptible.

Seriously, you need to develop some healthy cynicism.

Why don't you lobby the same powers to get the laws changed in your favor? Or do you wallow in a sense of self-pity that assumes your lack of money will make no difference. Please be more creative than "well they did this so I can steal it from them". Money has value, but so do large numbers of angry voters... just ask the former Governor of California, Gray Davis.
In the long run, only the wealthy have a voice in modern America. This is not a democracy, and has not been for decades. It's a plutocracy, get used to it.

But there is another issue: you assume that they have no right to try to protect themselves against thieves. It's like the thief crying "no fair" because the Jeweler he robs petitions the officials for more protection. Are their bad laws and stuipid laws? Yes. Can you get them changed? With effort and persistence: YES!
Corporations are not human, and therefore have no rights.

-Paladin

Mac_Bug

12th Feb 04, 12:34 PM

We have marijuana advocates who run for office, but you wouldn't see filesharing advocates running for office, ever.

Ressev

12th Feb 04, 12:36 PM

I have cynisism.

Corporations have rights which have been given them. They are, in and of themselves, legal and social constructs - thus their right to exsist is based on law and society.

And you are awfully defensive about your own greed - which I never said anybody (politicians and heads of corporations) lacked. :D

In the long run, only the wealthy have a voice in modern America. This is not a democracy, and has not been for decades. It's a plutocracy, get used to it.

That is so weak an argument for anything. I have no money - so I have no power - so I will steal to have some power and strike at my oppressors. That is just weak.

Paladin

12th Feb 04, 12:41 PM

Actually, I haven't taken a defensive stance about anything at all. I have not made any reference to my own behavior, and have said nothing about whether or not I utilize p2p, because it's irrelevant.

We're discussing the philosophical issue, not the practical instances of it.

Corporations have been "given" rights for the reasons I posted before: Those who have money can twist the law to their whim in this country. The fact remains however, that corporations are inherently abusive, like any social construct, because they are not human and cannot be guided by conscience.

Therefore they should have no rights or protections.

Paladin

12th Feb 04, 12:47 PM

That is so weak an argument for anything. I have no money - so I have no power - so I will steal to have some power and strike at my oppressors. That is just weak.
I'm sorry you've been taken in by the rulers of this country and the illusion of power they offer you.

Regardless, I have not put forward any argument as a justification of theft, I have merely stated why the law is not a good standard of morality in this nation, and why I believe that those who use money to excersize power over the common man are evil.

If I were going to make an argument justifying theft in a moral context it would be to say that I do not believe in the concept of ownership, I don't think humans should be considered the "owner" of anything, let alone coporations or governments or any other soulless entities. If nothing can be owned nothing can be stolen.

But as I stated before, morality is irrelevant in the context of law, so why are you harping on it?

-Paladin

ÜberJumper

12th Feb 04, 12:50 PM

Corporations are guided by humans. Therefore their human owners are responsible for them.

Just like a dog who's owner lets run free to bite the neighbors kid, so will a corporation that runs amok under it's owner's watch be subject to prosecution. If the powers that be feel that it needs persecuting...

Corporations can be punished when they are caught, just as politicians that break the law can be punished.

Ressev

12th Feb 04, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Paladin
The fact remains however, that corporations are inherently abusive, like any social construct, because they are not human and cannot be guided by conscience.

Therefore they should have no rights or protections.
Then neither should any human have rights or protections becuase they act against conscience. A corporation is guided by the conscience of it's stakeholders - it's investors and management. It has a collective conscience that responds to it's main objective: money. Corporations are legally responsible for their actions. Since they are responsible for their actions they have certain rights.

Responsibility denotes right. When corporations are no longer responsible for their actions then they no longer have rights. You have rights because you are responsible. Fear the day when you are no longer responsible for your actions, for it will quickly follow that you have no rights.

True, you may not think you are defensive about it, but it sounds like you are. Maybe I'm reading to much into your words.

Yet, your argument is still weak.

FallenSoloSLS

12th Feb 04, 12:55 PM

I'd like to see on a music artist's site a PayPal donation button.
Something that we could send money directly to the artist for music downloaded through P2P programs - much like on the web sites promoting free ware, like Team Speak or DVD Shrink.

I think it would be an interesting situation for the record lables to have to deal with if a very popular artist, like Justin Timberlake, put something like that on his official website.

Somehow though, I'm pretty sure that the recording lables manage the websites for most major recording artists.

Paladin

12th Feb 04, 12:55 PM

Yet, your argument is still weak.
Only because you insist on reading it as something it is not, a justification for a behavior I'm not making the attempt to justify in this argument.

-Paladin

Ressev

12th Feb 04, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by Paladin
If nothing can be owned nothing can be stolen.

But as I stated before, morality is irrelevant in the context of law, so why are you harping on it?

Two things here:

1 - morality and society are the basis for law. Period. Immoral laws can exsist, I do not deny that, but when people say *phttt* to law they should not be surprised when legal ramifications are dealt to them. The real question is this: is the particular law immoral? From there we can have a more rational discussion.

2 - I love it when people say nobody should own anything. It reminds me of idiot politicians who say that they will take care of illegal immigration by legalizing all illegals. Sorry, getting rid of ownership or money or morality or law will never get rid of greed and the human capacity for evil. Ownership exists period. Do you have a job paladin? Do you work? You own your own time and expect compensation for it? Why?

Paladin - defensive or no, your argument is still weak.

Bnonn

12th Feb 04, 1:07 PM

That's one objection - the other is of course that we'd end up with anarchy.
That was sort of what I was getting at.

We have marijuana advocates who run for office, but you wouldn't see filesharing advocates running for office, ever.
That remains to be seen, my overconfident friend.

Paladin

12th Feb 04, 1:09 PM

Whether or not a law is moral is irrelevant at all times. All that matters is whether it promotes or detracts from social order.

As for working, yes, I make furniture. I work for myself, and I sell my work because I have to. I disagree with the capitalist system you see, but that doesn't change the fact I live in it.

If there were no money or concept of ownership I would still make furniture, and give it away for free, because I'm doing what I was meant to do. Only people who are working contrary to their own predispositions need to demand compensation to motivate themselves.

-Paladin

bluevorlon

12th Feb 04, 1:10 PM

However, what you may eventually see is a system where a garage band gains popularity and capital through filesharing (say, bitorrent) and donations by fans, and is then able to put together higher quality tracks, attracting more money.

Maybe that's pie-in-the-sky, but when you consider that PA was functioning off of donations for a considerable period, maybe not.

Squid I think the problem with this is getting a large enough fanbase to make this kind of model financially viable. To get that size a fanbase as a band usually requires a record of some sort.

Sure some bands currently could function only via donations, but it's only the big established ones. And whilst I think there is a natural swing of these things pushing the onus back to the artists, (I doubt we'll see EMI paying someone like Mariah Carey $60m to make one album again anytime soon.) to suggest record companies and labels are going to fade out of existence is probably misguided. You don't see publishing houses, Tv stations, and Film Studios going out of business because of the internet do you?

Also, I'd like to state that as well as the artists, we have to remember that record labels have in no small way been as influential as the artists themselves in shaping the musical landscape of the 20th century... you only have to look at Elektra, Island, Factory, from the 60's, 70's, and 80's, and modern record labels like Nonesuch, Lost Highway, Domino, Warp, Mo'Wax, Ninja Tune, Twisted Nerve (where my bunny avatar comes from) Fierce Panda etc...

You can nurture talent and make money. Lets not forget this.

Ressev

12th Feb 04, 1:33 PM

Originally posted by Paladin
Whether or not a law is moral is irrelevant at all times. All that matters is whether it promotes or detracts from social order.

As for working, yes, I make furniture. I work for myself, and I sell my work because I have to. I disagree with the capitalist system you see, but that doesn't change the fact I live in it.

If there were no money or concept of ownership I would still make furniture, and give it away for free, because I'm doing what I was meant to do. Only people who are working contrary to their own predispositions need to demand compensation to motivate themselves.

-Paladin

Spoken like a true socialist. Fine... I'll play with you for now.

Ownership is inherent and is recognized as a product of the one who creates. As such, whether you recognize it or not, you have ownership of your woodwork. You have the right then, to do whatever you want with it - sell it, give it away, set up a contract with another to produce more, destroy it... whatever, that is your right. But denying that ownership exsists is idiotic and one of the weaknesses to such socialist/marxist ideas. Yet, that is not really what this thread is about. This thread is about people stealing (whether they call it or recognize it as such) the created work of others. Indeed, in the case of the music industry, ownership of the created work was transfered from the artist to the producer by contract (they both agreed to it).

Your argument is weak and, fyi - intended or not, your argument supports the reasoning of some who engage and would likewise argue that filesharing is ok.

As for the morality of the law being irrelevant because the question is "does it produce social order": pleeease. You may disregard morality for whatever reason you so chose... but by what measure do you evaluate social order?

Even, as you said, there is a social order in the USA. What, exactly do you mean by social order and how would you know it when it was or was not ordered? Also, who sets the standard for that "order"? But that is quite off topic.

Ressev

12th Feb 04, 1:45 PM

Basically Paladin, how would you feel if someone walked in and stole furnature you worked on and were hoping to sell so that you could feed yourself and sleep indoors at night?

How would you feel if someone stole/bought your work, massively produced copies of it and then gave it away, thus undercutting anybodies desire to buy from you?

SquidDNA

12th Feb 04, 1:50 PM

Blu, I was suggesting the model itself, not suggesting its supremacy over the existing one. I think it would be a great day if a band got off the ground solely in the manner I described. I don't seriously think it would be the new way of doing things as a result. :)

Nonny, did I miss your response to my question about spyware?

Vidar

12th Feb 04, 1:51 PM

This conversation has gone on a really silly tangent. If the RIAA wants to get people to steal less music, make CDs more affordable. It's as simple as that. There's no fucking reason at all for the outrageous CD prices we see today aside from corporate greed. It's quite possible to sell CDs for $10 and still turn a decent profit, as we've seen from smaller record labels. But the larger ones are relentless in their $20 per CD policy, which is absurd. Record labels need to realize that they can't price gouge anymore, especially disposable pop that's marketed at teens with high disposable income, and they can't continue to screw over the artists. Doing that, nobody wins. People who care about the artists are reluctant to buy CDs because so little goes to the artists they care about (and because the RIAA has a long, long history of allowing mistreatment of artists), and people who don't care about the artists are reluctant to buy CDs because they cost so fucking much.

Instead of adapting, however, record labels cling to failing ideas and falling profits, taking draconian measures to try to change the tide, making themselves look worse in the process.

Drop the average price for a CD to $9.99, and sales would boom and the record labels would start to win back some of the respect they lost. They have to realize that they can't be seen as a soulless, money-hoarding company and then expect people to listen to them or respect their property. Sure, profits would decrease somewhat, but it's the only way to stabilize the record industry in the long-term.

ÜberJumper

12th Feb 04, 1:57 PM

Record Labels, like anyone else, will charge what the market will bear. Regardless of price, people will still steal music if left up to their own devices, because why pay for something when you can get it for free.

Peer to Peer file sharing of copyrighted materials is illegal.

You've got Itunes, and puretracks and all kinds of other legal sites where you can buy singles for 99cents. Stop stealing music and go buy it.

Paladin

12th Feb 04, 2:21 PM

Originally posted by Ressev

Spoken like a true socialist. Fine... I'll play with you for now.

Ownership is inherent and is recognized as a product of the one who creates. As such, whether you recognize it or not, you have ownership of your woodwork. You have the right then, to do whatever you want with it - sell it, give it away, set up a contract with another to produce more, destroy it... whatever, that is your right. But denying that ownership exsists is idiotic and one of the weaknesses to such socialist/marxist ideas. Yet, that is not really what this thread is about. This thread is about people stealing (whether they call it or recognize it as such) the created work of others. Indeed, in the case of the music industry, ownership of the created work was transfered from the artist to the producer by contract (they both agreed to it).

Your argument is weak and, fyi - intended or not, your argument supports the reasoning of some who engage and would likewise argue that filesharing is ok.

As for the morality of the law being irrelevant because the question is "does it produce social order": pleeease. You may disregard morality for whatever reason you so chose... but by what measure do you evaluate social order?

Even, as you said, there is a social order in the USA. What, exactly do you mean by social order and how would you know it when it was or was not ordered? Also, who sets the standard for that "order"? But that is quite off topic.
I'm neither a socialist nor a communist. I'm an anarchist. The difference between communism and anarchism is so small as to be nearly cosmetic, but I prefer the term because it has more purity of concept and because I am violently, vehemently opposed to socialism and communism has a longstanding (Whether deserved or not) conceptual association with socialism. The problem with socialism is that it does not do away with ownership, it merely transfers ownership of all things to one artificial entity, which is even worse than the capitalist model of personal and communal property.

Order is an objective concept, and does not require definition in moral terms. That which is orderly is immediately visible compared to that which is chaotic, and while chaos is inherently superior to order, we're working within the context of the foolish experiment of social order, so we have to assume that order is desirable or else there is no reason to even have a society.

Order cannot be shown to be desirable or "good" through pure objective reason, but the only purpose of having laws in the first place is to preserve said order, so within the context of law one must take it as a given.

-Paladin

Beelzebuddy

12th Feb 04, 2:26 PM

Squid I think the problem with this is getting a large enough fanbase to make this kind of model financially viable. To get that size a fanbase as a band usually requires a record of some sort.Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie (http://www.deadtroll.com/) seem to be doing okay. And hey, look! A PayPal button!

As for the morality of the law being irrelevant because the question is "does it produce social order": pleeease.Allow me to step in here for a second. The gist of what paladin is trying to get across is nothing new, and can be more easily summarized as "If the majority of people in society are breaking a law, then the government should change the law instead of society."

I happen to disagree to an extent with this: I see nothing wrong with society mostly abiding by the law, as long as no one gets hurt. For example, take speed limits. It's far from unusual for the vast majority of the people on the road to break the speed limit by 5 mph or more, and for the police to generally ignore this. I choose to interpret laws as regulations instead of hard and fast rules. Thus, in my perfect society murderers would occasionally get off because "Your honor, he needed killin' " but the vast majority of the intricate and nonsensical laws we have today would be done away with, filesharing amoung them.

Stop coming around saying 'well I doubt we are making a dent' and then go around saying 'well so what if we are'.Everyone's ambivalence about the issue is easily explained. The instant someone says "p2p hurts no one" the lot of you would jump his ass demanding proof, regardless of the fact that such demands contains the same fallacy as "prove there isn't life on mars." Thus, such arguments are usually padded with an "even if it IS hurting them, it's not very much."

Stop stealing music and go buy it.It's very cliched, but I must say that the reason I'm not biting right now is because of the DRM most sites (read: all except iTunes, and I lack an iPod) foist on the buyer prohibits my morality from buying it. I refuse to subscribe to the belief that a piece of information can be licensed. Services - flows of information, yes, but not coherent pieces. Any software or media I purchase is mine, and mine alone. For this reason I do not and will never simply accept that every time I want to use a piece of software or listen to a song, it's perfectly normal that the information chunk which I legally own nip on over to its creator and ask them if it's okay that I use it.

Bnonn

12th Feb 04, 2:29 PM

Sorry Lolly, my response is basically that spyware gathers information for the benefit of a select few. This contradicts the basic idea of freedom of information. In a truly free situation, all the information spyware gathers would already be freely available.

Btw, I'm not saying that what I am suggesting works. It merely strikes me as the most perfect ideal. But you already know that I can't become involved in ideological discussions because I can't deal with reality.

Paladin, I am interested in your concept of no ownership. It, too, strikes me as a perfect ideal, but I'd need you to elaborate on the idea somewhat before I can decide how it applies to physical property. I 100% agree that no ownership can be claimed on any intellectual creation, and this is why I reject outright Uber's disgruntled order to stop stealing music. If I were to download copyrighted music, I do not recognize that I would be stealing it, because it would not belong to anyone. I credit the author with its creation, but the music does not belong to the author. I am happy to compensate the author for that creation in some cases, but I am not obliged to.

I am not interested in whether my views are legal or not. I don't believe in the concept of punishment either, so I cannot respect our justice system as it is. It places me in something of a quandary with regards to accepting the consequences of illegal actions, because I don't believe the consequences are justified. And since there's no where in the world I can go which fits with my values, it isn't feasible to suggest I move. It is also shortsighted to say that by living in society, I am accepting its rules, because clearly I am not.

Gyokuran

12th Feb 04, 2:29 PM

Originally posted by Mac_Bug

Why must people hang out signs that say "I'm a moron"?

Please give an actuall argument against something I say rather than insulting my intelligence.

My argument was that I have no sympathy for music artists who make more money then 10 average families do in a year, then complain about losing profit. I have even less sympathy for large near monopoly corperations who price goudge, change copywright laws and complain about loss of potential profit when their sales rates are still going up every year.

Pure communism does not make for a stable society just as pure capitalism doesnt. I dont want to live in a society like the US in the 1920's just as I dont want to live under a soviet style communism. They are both extremes and chances are the most stable economic system lies somewhere in the middle. Pure Anarchy simply doesnt work, social higherarchys are part of human nature.

The various recording industries can charge what they want for CDs because they are effectivly a monopoly as the RIAA is made up of the vast majority of all US recording companies. I see p2p file shareing as the only compititon to the recording industry. Eventually perhaps the recording companies will give some more services and at reasonable prices. But even when they seem to start coming half way, they try to hold all of the power again with things like files which expire, files that can only be copied to other media devices so many times, and programs which blacklist other legal programs.

Ressev

12th Feb 04, 2:53 PM

Paladin - what is the basis of order? How do you know you have it? Also, since when did order and anarchy coincide? Additionally, order by what means?

- so how would you feel about your work being knocked off thus affecting your standard of living?

Morality is an issue anarchists, socialists, facists, communists, etc... cannot deal with. It goes against their irrational belief in their own 'brightness' which is nothing more than closed mindedness. Just becuase you cannot sense it with your 5 senses does not make it non-exsistent. Ownership exsists, despite your denial of it and your lack of sensing it.

Morality judges order and action. It is the underpinnings of conscience and is external to individuals. Order by oppression is immoral - or do you think it is ok? In which case why object to the order you say is in the USA?

You are a dreamer lost in a sea of ambivalence towards anything but yourself. Are you responsible? Then you have rights. Are you not responsible? Then you have no rights. Anarchy does not recognize "right" or "good" since anarchy itself is against stability and order. You are self-contradictory and thus futile in your speculations.

Ownership exsists regardless of what you say or think.

Apollyon - laws regarding filesharing deal directly with laws protecting the originator of a work's ability to make money. If laws were interpreted sensibly, their multiplicity would be unnecessary. Getting people to recognize that taking someones work without compensating them via filesharing is wrong is the issue. Getting people to care as much about others as themselves is really the underlying issue to many, many problems.

Bnonn

12th Feb 04, 2:54 PM

Communism was never implemented in Soviet Russia. In fact, neither was true socialism.

Dyntheos

12th Feb 04, 2:56 PM

This thread is now closed.

I've read enough to warrent a semi apology to those that have been banned in the past for advocating the use of Kazaa, due to the confused outlook on warez this thread has placed this forum in, this is attributed to several moderators disregarding our own rules and not warning several posters they are in breach of the guidelines, by advocating P2P.

Let me make this very clear.

Kazaa is file sharing and a means to gain warez. That several moderators have posted in this thread and failed utterly to make that crystal clear is the only thing stopping me from banning multiple people from these forums, as well as the moderators themselves.

Remember people this is relics forums, and as a software developer, we do not and can not no matter how bleeding heart your story is in anyway advocate the use of P2P software, for this also includes files sharing programs such as bittorrent, which is now widely used to share warez.

I will consider all discussions concerning kazaa and P2P to be banned in the future because it displays the fact that it generates a ramapant infestation of foot in mouth disease and the total lack of thought by several of our members.