European telcos and ISPs do not have to hand over subscriber information to record labels.
-
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/19/courts_protect_filesharers/[^] Mean while over in America, land of the free: http://www.riaa.com/newsitem.php?id=780E8751-0E03-4258-D651-F991B66E1708[^] Atleast people are starting to realise there needs to be a change in the way entertainment is delivered and priced. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/29/london_callling_wrap/[^] Power to the people!
originSH wrote:
Atleast people are starting to realise there needs to be a change in the way entertainment is delivered and priced.
why? does the concept, "you charge too much and I really really want it so it is okay for me to steal it" make sense? It isn't like you need music to live.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
in the US freedom includes the concept of private property rights
That sentence would be completely nonsensical to a European (unless you belong to their institutional wealth club).
Every Englishman's home is his castle, don't you know. Check your own emminent domain laws before slinging stuff in this direction. I think you'll find you have less rights than you thought.:doh:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
in the US freedom includes the concept of private property rights
That sentence would be completely nonsensical to a European (unless you belong to their institutional wealth club).
Would that be the one founded by the Rothschilds?
-
Every Englishman's home is his castle, don't you know. Check your own emminent domain laws before slinging stuff in this direction. I think you'll find you have less rights than you thought.:doh:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Every Englishman's home is his castle, don't you know.
That's just what "we" want you to think. Oh yeah, and eminent domain ruling was just lame. It was also handed down by the 5 leftist judges on the supreme court at the time. Now that there is a conservative majority, it may well be overturned. But that aside, many conservative states (including my own) have already passed laws making such eminent domain deals illegal, so the ruling has no jurisdiction over me. So I suggest that you look into our eminent domain laws before slinging stuff in this direction.
-
Would that be the one founded by the Rothschilds?
Brady Kelly wrote:
Would that be the one founded by the Rothschilds?
It is kind of interesting that for all their socialist mumbo jumbo, Europeans have a far lower turnover rate among the wealthy than the United States (i.e. wealth is far less excessible to those that don't yet have it).
-
originSH wrote:
Atleast people are starting to realise there needs to be a change in the way entertainment is delivered and priced.
why? does the concept, "you charge too much and I really really want it so it is okay for me to steal it" make sense? It isn't like you need music to live.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
why?
Well the current system is obviously not working as indicated by the massive drop in sales.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
does the concept, "you charge too much and I really really want it so it is okay for me to steal it" make sense?
It's not theft :P it's copyright infrimgement ;) A completly different law. And while we are on the law how about the ways the music companies are breaking the law? DRM to prevent copying, which I am legally entitled to do and installing spyware onto my PC. None of that makes it right recieve a copy of a song without paying for it. But mix tapes, that favorite tv series you recorded on your vcr last night and other such things are also illegal but generally accepted. Maybe the answer is to adapt the law and/or the method of sale/delivery so that everyone is happy, becuase otherwise nothing will change except the music companies going out of business, and then things will change anyway. Bring in a flat monthly fee to allow unlimited access to the music library, yeah the music companies make less money but they're the only ones saying thats a bad thing. (Just to be clear here I am completly against anyone trying to resell the music without the rights. Taking someone elses copyrighted material and making a profit of it is wrong.)
-
originSH wrote:
Mean while over in America, land of the free:
I lose no love for record companies, and feel their time has come and gone, but in the US freedom includes the concept of private property rights. If the record companies legally own the property rigths to music they should have some legal recourse over its dissimination.
Pardon Libby!
Quite right: it's a business not a charity. Maybe they do overcharge but that doesn't give people the right to get it free or steal it. It's just ridiculous: if they don't earn money what is the incentive to produce the goods?
-
Quite right: it's a business not a charity. Maybe they do overcharge but that doesn't give people the right to get it free or steal it. It's just ridiculous: if they don't earn money what is the incentive to produce the goods?
digital man wrote:
if they don't earn money what is the incentive to produce the goods?
If stealing from record companies translates into less Justin Timberlake, then I'm all for it.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
why?
Well the current system is obviously not working as indicated by the massive drop in sales.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
does the concept, "you charge too much and I really really want it so it is okay for me to steal it" make sense?
It's not theft :P it's copyright infrimgement ;) A completly different law. And while we are on the law how about the ways the music companies are breaking the law? DRM to prevent copying, which I am legally entitled to do and installing spyware onto my PC. None of that makes it right recieve a copy of a song without paying for it. But mix tapes, that favorite tv series you recorded on your vcr last night and other such things are also illegal but generally accepted. Maybe the answer is to adapt the law and/or the method of sale/delivery so that everyone is happy, becuase otherwise nothing will change except the music companies going out of business, and then things will change anyway. Bring in a flat monthly fee to allow unlimited access to the music library, yeah the music companies make less money but they're the only ones saying thats a bad thing. (Just to be clear here I am completly against anyone trying to resell the music without the rights. Taking someone elses copyrighted material and making a profit of it is wrong.)
thanks - a good and well reasoned reply. your point:
originSH wrote:
But mix tapes, that favorite tv series you recorded on your vcr last night and other such things are also illegal but generally accepted.
is excellent.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
why?
Well the current system is obviously not working as indicated by the massive drop in sales.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
does the concept, "you charge too much and I really really want it so it is okay for me to steal it" make sense?
It's not theft :P it's copyright infrimgement ;) A completly different law. And while we are on the law how about the ways the music companies are breaking the law? DRM to prevent copying, which I am legally entitled to do and installing spyware onto my PC. None of that makes it right recieve a copy of a song without paying for it. But mix tapes, that favorite tv series you recorded on your vcr last night and other such things are also illegal but generally accepted. Maybe the answer is to adapt the law and/or the method of sale/delivery so that everyone is happy, becuase otherwise nothing will change except the music companies going out of business, and then things will change anyway. Bring in a flat monthly fee to allow unlimited access to the music library, yeah the music companies make less money but they're the only ones saying thats a bad thing. (Just to be clear here I am completly against anyone trying to resell the music without the rights. Taking someone elses copyrighted material and making a profit of it is wrong.)
originSH wrote:
Bring in a flat monthly fee to allow unlimited access to the music library, yeah the music companies make less money but they're the only ones saying thats a bad thing.
IIRC some of the online music services do offer this sort of access. Unlimited streaming music and downloads that only work as long as you keep up your monthly payment.
-- You have to explain to them [VB coders] what you mean by "typed". their first response is likely to be something like, "Of course my code is typed. Do you think i magically project it onto the screen with the power of my mind?" --- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
-
originSH wrote:
Bring in a flat monthly fee to allow unlimited access to the music library, yeah the music companies make less money but they're the only ones saying thats a bad thing.
IIRC some of the online music services do offer this sort of access. Unlimited streaming music and downloads that only work as long as you keep up your monthly payment.
-- You have to explain to them [VB coders] what you mean by "typed". their first response is likely to be something like, "Of course my code is typed. Do you think i magically project it onto the screen with the power of my mind?" --- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
-
thanks - a good and well reasoned reply. your point:
originSH wrote:
But mix tapes, that favorite tv series you recorded on your vcr last night and other such things are also illegal but generally accepted.
is excellent.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
why?
Well the current system is obviously not working as indicated by the massive drop in sales.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
does the concept, "you charge too much and I really really want it so it is okay for me to steal it" make sense?
It's not theft :P it's copyright infrimgement ;) A completly different law. And while we are on the law how about the ways the music companies are breaking the law? DRM to prevent copying, which I am legally entitled to do and installing spyware onto my PC. None of that makes it right recieve a copy of a song without paying for it. But mix tapes, that favorite tv series you recorded on your vcr last night and other such things are also illegal but generally accepted. Maybe the answer is to adapt the law and/or the method of sale/delivery so that everyone is happy, becuase otherwise nothing will change except the music companies going out of business, and then things will change anyway. Bring in a flat monthly fee to allow unlimited access to the music library, yeah the music companies make less money but they're the only ones saying thats a bad thing. (Just to be clear here I am completly against anyone trying to resell the music without the rights. Taking someone elses copyrighted material and making a profit of it is wrong.)
originSH wrote:
But mix tapes, that favorite tv series you recorded on your vcr last night and other such things are also illegal but generally accepted.
-
Quite right: it's a business not a charity. Maybe they do overcharge but that doesn't give people the right to get it free or steal it. It's just ridiculous: if they don't earn money what is the incentive to produce the goods?
If their customers don't put pressure on them what is the incentive to price the goods at a sensible level? Despite all their bleating about lost revenue the recording industry just keeps earning more and more.
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
Would that be the one founded by the Rothschilds?
It is kind of interesting that for all their socialist mumbo jumbo, Europeans have a far lower turnover rate among the wealthy than the United States (i.e. wealth is far less excessible to those that don't yet have it).
Yes, but since when was socialism supposed to aid wealth, for anyone?
-
Yes, but since when was socialism supposed to aid wealth, for anyone?
Brady Kelly wrote:
Yes, but since when was socialism supposed to aid wealth, for anyone?
It isn't (in theory), but it certainly seems to entrench the elite.
-
If their customers don't put pressure on them what is the incentive to price the goods at a sensible level? Despite all their bleating about lost revenue the recording industry just keeps earning more and more.
Steve_Harris wrote:
If their customers don't put pressure on them what is the incentive to price the goods at a sensible level?
How about competition? If music pricing is so "insensible"*, then obviously there is a business opportunity to create and publish "sensibly priced" music. *How can you justify that supposed "insensibility" of music prices when people actually buy it?
-
Steve_Harris wrote:
If their customers don't put pressure on them what is the incentive to price the goods at a sensible level?
How about competition? If music pricing is so "insensible"*, then obviously there is a business opportunity to create and publish "sensibly priced" music. *How can you justify that supposed "insensibility" of music prices when people actually buy it?
How about competition? While the RIAA are squeezing the nuts of the US government their interests are protected and they can charge what they like for the DRMed CDs of their latest plastic photocopy band.
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
Yes, but since when was socialism supposed to aid wealth, for anyone?
It isn't (in theory), but it certainly seems to entrench the elite.
Socialism is sort of like Fuedalism 2.0: A permanent peasant underclass serving a permanent ruling class. Thats probably why the Europeans are so comfortable with it.
Pardon Libby!
-
How about competition? While the RIAA are squeezing the nuts of the US government their interests are protected and they can charge what they like for the DRMed CDs of their latest plastic photocopy band.
Steve_Harris wrote:
How about competition? While the RIAA are squeezing the nuts of the US government their interests are protected and they can charge what they like for the DRMed CDs of their latest plastic photocopy band.
They are not a monopoly, so your characterization is wrong. While you might not own the rights to the Spice Girls (or the Louis Vuitton logo or the Mercedes logo or Google), you could certainly fund a new band called the Zest Girls and compete with other record labels on price and "quality". And here's a newsflash...ANY company in any industry (almost) can charge whetever they like for whetever product they sell. However, you're not forced to buy it (hence the parallels between capitalism and freedom). I'm sure you can live without Pink's latest album if you think the price is too high. I certainly can.