|
|
| Page 2 of 2 |
|
|
 Posted: Thu, 3rd Feb 2005 12:34 Post subject: |
|
 |
| MAD_MAX333 wrote: | let me use the car example again, what if i took the key and took the car for a spin??? is the owner losing money by me doing a few turns?? not likely to be that much BUT still, illegal.
and yes you ARE stealing, it's the law and i studied the stupid law for 10 months and 2 years before that in the foundations course |
I have not bought a game in 2 years. I can't afford to. At $50 a game, even one game a month, or even one every 2 months would take a huge chunk out of my budget...
That means that I REALLY can't afford to toss the $50. REALLY. I can barely afford to keep my PC relatively up to date, although I'm already employing things like overclocking and tweaking (As well as compromising on the details) to do it. For me, that $50 would take me THAT much farther from the new video card I'm saving up for, or would equate to not buying a new pair of jeans I need, etc. Therefore, the $50 simply cannot be spent, regardless of having the game or not.
You made a reference to the car example. Sure, nobody would know, but you would actually be bringing a significant financial loss to someone. With software, regardless of whether I choose to download or go without, the financial gain to the company is $0. The only one that benefits (or does not) is me.
In the example with the car, I would not see it as a problem if you were to take it for a test drive, and it would make 0 difference to ANYBODY in the rest of the world, i.e. if there was a 100% chance that the car would not be damaged (100% chance that I would not buy the game), a 100% chance that the owner of the car would never find out, etc.
If the companies could force you to buy their games, they would. They aren't losing any sleep over it. No matter what happens, there is no loss to them, significant or otherwise. Therefore, I see nothing wrong in doing this, only fair retribution to an industry that pumps out more shit than ABC.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 3rd Feb 2005 15:07 Post subject: |
|
|
Well eventually you won't be able to steal software. So you're either going to have to resign yourself to never playing a new game again, or actually buy something. Your call.
Just because the theft of information is relatively new and has less impact then the theft of material goods, doesn't make it any less a crime. The only reason we do it is because it's convinient (we can do it from our own home) and in comparison to material theft it carries a much smaller risk.
An analogy would be stealing a car from a showroom. The dealer is insured, so he doesn't lose money directly, and you wouldn't have bought the car anyway but it's still a crime.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 4th Feb 2005 03:12 Post subject: |
|
|
| AnimalMother wrote: | | Well eventually you won't be able to steal software. So you're either going to have to resign yourself to never playing a new game again, or actually buy something. Your call. |
That was the music industry's intention in shutting down Napster. That's a battle that has been going on for years, and has envoked the entertainment industry to resort to drastic measures such as user lawsuits. The problem here is, if the industry were winning, it would never have resorted to such measures. Slowly but surely, they're undermining their own public reputation, and when that happens, THEY will be the ones going down.
They basically have 2 choices:
1. Accept that piracy will exist, and keep their measures oriented towards damage control, rather than guerilla warfare. Meaning no more user lawsuits. No more FBI monitoring IRC. No more subpoenas, etc. They keep their image, grow, and allow piracy to die out on it's own will (hah!)
2. Continue this guerilla warfare until the amount of people aware/active on the situation is elevated to a point that the general public begins to boycott them, and they lose a significant percentage of sales, thus beginning the monoliths' long, painful fall.
The choice is theirs: Embrace reality and adapt to it, or succumb to it's flow. Once companies realize that dropping the publisher and selling the game online for $15 is as profitable as having the publisher distribute it, piracy will have good reason to stop. Once the artists understand that dropping the label and selling their albums for $3-5 a copy online is just as profitable, piracy will have good reason to stop. Movies... they're too closely intertwined with big business to stop, so they're more or less screwed. They could drop the BIG CGI CLOCKBUSTER campaign, but that would toss cinema back to the 1940's...
Either way, it looks like they've made it their choice to fight the world. Well, good luck... dipshits.
The music industry is adapting an online-retail model, but it's still [slowly] weaning off the Sam Goody's of the world, so a $20 album still costs $20.
I'm referring to one of the downhillbattle flyers,
| Quote: | Where mony goes on a $16.98 CD:
Promotion and advertising: $1-2
Design and Packaging: $1-2
Artist's Royalty: $0.50-2
Miscellaneous (Shipping, Musician's fees, trust funds): $1-2
Recording and Studio Costs: $1-2
Wholesale Distributors and Retail Store profits: $3-4
Recording Label Profits: $5-5.50 |
Revised for online distribution:
Promotion and advertising (online only): $0.50-1
Design and packaging: $0 (none needed)
Artist's Royalty: $0.50-2 (same as previous)
Misc. :$0.50-1.50 ($0.50 subtracted as shipping)
Recording and Studio costs: $1.50-$2.50 ($0.50 added due to label contracts with studio's)
Distribution: $0.25-$0.50 (online only)
Record label profits: $0 (what record label?)
Total: $3.25-$7.25, with an average of $5.25 per album.
For that money, you get:
1 copy of the music, in quality ranging from 128kbps to lossless, at your choice. May be burned twice and copied to portable devices infinite times.
Alternatively, you can request them, and they will burn you a copy of the disc (or several discs) for a reasonable fee.
I see this as a sane, modern, and downright acceptable format, compared to the current distribution system that has me paying 2-3 times as much.
As for artist profits, apparently artists are satisfied with what money they make. Eventually I expect this number to fluctuate, to a point where popular artists can charge $8.99 per album, and less-known artists settle for $2.99-4.99. As someone pointed out earlier, why should I worry about the artists' profits if they do not... If they choose to, they later can,
This environment is also open to newcomers. Garage bands can put their album out for free, and whatever revenue in clicks that generates will suffice to cover bandwidth for the carrier of the music. They can then in exchange get free statistics on what userbase they are attracting, free advertisement through a top50 list and a "Featured New Band" section of every page, and a chance to gain fame through their music. It's like a demo tape that accidentally got into the live deck of the hottest radio station in town. Win-win...
Plus the model has more flexibility than any existing system:
- instead of the shitty 30 second demo thing Amazon etc. has going on, the site could offer us the chance to listen to the full songs, 2-3 times, at 64kbps stereo (streaming, of course) for free. It's not enough to enjoy the music fully, but it is plenty to tell of you like it enough to buy or not
- Those looking for the latest and greatest save, those looking for free music get it
- You can build a forum and chat system, as well as a user rating system into your site.
- Since all sites will have ~the same product, they will have price wars, forcing the prices even lower.
- The industry (both consumer and artist) gets to keep it's current Album orientation, thus not forcing artists into producing entire discs full of hits (trust me, it's harder than it sounds).
- Options are available to make individual tracks available for as little as $0.50 apiece.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 4th Feb 2005 04:59 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mchart wrote: | | South Side. Cable is not an option here. Just because the nodes are overloaded like you cant beleive. I would be lucky to get 500kBITS for download speed during peak times. Where as with my adsl its a constant 2.5mbit down (after overhead). Not to mention I get better ping times because it is DSL. The faster upload is obvious. |
I had a friend who had cable and he lived in an appartment across the street from the hancock building. He was capped at 100kb's but from what i knew he never got a letter. But this was 3-4 years ago depending where on the south side you live i guess it will depend on how good of a service you can get. Sbc dsl though is everywhere now supposidly they might go national. Also do you live near Midway or southern suburbs? We should start a chicago Nforce convention it would rule.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 15th Apr 2005 01:52 Post subject: |
|
|
Well I didnt think this was worth starting a new thread, so I'm just going to revive this one:
| Quote: |
In North America, where the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America have focused enforcement efforts, Parker said there has been virtually no change in P2P traffic levels since the groups began cracking down on illegal file trading.
"In some parts of the world we have seen the opposite happen. The publicity created by the MPAA actually drove users to find out what all the fuss was about and resulted in an increase in traffic levels," Parker said. |
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,67202,00.html?tw=rss.TOP
Slap in the face to RIAA and MPAA.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 15th Apr 2005 02:20 Post subject: |
|
|
One word, ProtoWall: bluetack.co.uk
dead_man007
- The one who laughs last, thinks slowest.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 15th Apr 2005 05:46 Post subject: |
|
|
Putting the pressure on the ISP:
http://news.com.com/Comcast+sued+for+disclosing+customer+info/2100-1030_3-5671438.html
| Quote: | Leadbetter, a mother of two teenage children, was a customer of Comcast's high-speed Internet access service.
The company, Settlement Support Center, based in Washington state, was using information that the Recording Industry of Association of America had obtained in a Philadelphia lawsuit over the illegal sharing of digital music files, said Lory Lybeck, the lawyer representing Leadbetter.
But no court authorized Comcast to release names and addresses of its customers, or notified his client that her information had been given to an outside party, Lybeck said. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 2 of 2 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
