Holy shit! Tis horrible...

[flap]

quote:Originally posted by void main:
You pirate to harm, you boycott to "change". Pirating only induces more of what you call stupid laws. If you boycotted rather than pirated there would be no such thing as DRM that does nothing more than fuck over the rest of us who don't pirate. Now stop doing it before I send my thugs up there to rough you up.      

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]

My question is: exactly how much do you want people to boycott? Are you asking us to boycott *all* proprietary software and *all* non-free music? And, more importantly, are you asking people to not buy as well as not copy stuff?

[voidmain]

I'm not asking you to boycott *anything*. I am asking for you not to pirate. I am asking for *you* to boycott if you feel strongly against something. If I agree with you I will join in your boycott. If I do not I will not. I have a personal boycott against all Microsoft products but so far 95% of the population are not with me on this yet. I hope this site levels the numbers a little more. If you have a problem with a record label or group, boycott them.

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]

[flap]

Well by definition I have 'a problem' to differing degrees with all proprietary software vendors, record labels and all other proponents of the intellectual property/copyright regime.

I just think that, in the short-term, a person does a lot more harm buying, say, a CD than downloading it. If you manage to get people to stop 'pirating' they're just going to start buying again; they're not going to look for alternatives. Perhaps not with software, but that's certainly the case with music/films.

[voidmain]

quote:Originally posted by flap:
Well by definition I have 'a problem' to differing degrees with all proprietary software vendors, record labels and all other proponents of the intellectual property/copyright regime.

So because of that you believe that gives you the right to steal from them? If it's a slight problem you voice your opinion to them If it's a large problem you don't use their product.

[flap]

I don't suffer from the harmful misconception that information is akin to physical property so I don't see that it's possible to "steal" it.

If you're asking me do I feel that people have the right to go against an artist/programmer's wishes and copy their data without their consent? Yes, I do. I don't, however, feel that the artist has the right to tell others what they can and can't do with a reproducable pattern of bits that they happen to have originated, once they have decided to distribute it at all.

[voidmain]

So then you will have no problem with me blaming you for Palladium and new CDRW drives that will be totally worthless to me? Things that are going to cost me extra money and provide me no benefit, in fact hamper my normal legal activity.

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]

[emh]

I think this whole fire-sharing issue could have went away a long time ago if the record companies would have only accepted Napster's original settlement and had Napster charge a monthly fee for their services, with royalties proportional to the songs being downloaded.

As it is, there are several reasons why people download songs:

1.  People don't want to buy a $20 CD that has one song on it that they like.

2.  They download songs to sample what may be on a CD they're interested in buying.

3.  Band directors do it to hear recordings of pieces they're thinking about performing with their band.

There are other reasons other than these, not everyone downloads songs just to avoid paying for them.  For these and other reasons, having a monthly subscription services makes the most sense.  Companies like Press Play have the right idea, however their song selection is limited, and you can only download songs in WMA format (and Windows Media Player is required I think).  

This isn't to say that the paying service will suddenly oust all the free services, but if a paying service had the flexibility and choice of music that a free service such as Napster, Audiogalaxy, or Kazaa have, it could become a gold mine both for the service and for all record companies.

[xyle_one]

the only way i would pay for a service like that, is if i could download the songs to my drive, and do whatever the hell i wanted with it. meaning, i could burn it to a cd for my car, have it on my laptop, and maybe even an mp3 player. i dont want any of the bullshit licensing that goes along with it, like if i download a song, i can only listen to it on the machine it was downloaded to, unless i move the license too, which means it can only be on one machine. when i buy a cd, i want to be able to rip to my mac, throw the disc into my closet, then maybe burn it back to cd for my car. that way i have the original, and dont have to worry about it getting stolen out of my car.
i also dont want to be told how to use the music i bought. "hey, here is your new car, now remember, only drive on these roads, and please dont park it anywhere except your driveway, oh yeah, if you want people to drive with you, better buy this deluxe family package, it comes with 4 seats."
would you buy that car?

[flap]

Don't look at me; I never said *I* was a "pirate" - That would be against the law. I'm just debating hypothetically the ethics of it.

And I would prefer that you placed the blame for Microsoft's Draconian measures firmly with Microsoft. But that's a completely separate issue from the intellectual 'property' argument.

[voidmain]

quote:Originally posted by flap:
And I would prefer that you placed the blame for Microsoft's Draconian measures firmly with Microsoft. But that's a completely separate issue from the intellectual 'property' argument.

I do, and that's why I don't use their products. I also believe in the freedom of information and that's why I use Linux and open formats. I don't believe that gives me the right to break the law and take information from people who do not believe in this. If enough people do the same as I the people that do not believe in freedom of information will be forced to become believers.

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]

[emh]

quote:Originally posted by Xyle: Mac Commando:
the only way i would pay for a service like that, is if i could download the songs to my drive, and do whatever the hell i wanted with it. meaning, i could burn it to a cd for my car, have it on my laptop, and maybe even an mp3 player. i dont want any of the bullshit licensing that goes along with it, like if i download a song, i can only listen to it on the machine it was downloaded to, unless i move the license too, which means it can only be on one machine. when i buy a cd, i want to be able to rip to my mac, throw the disc into my closet, then maybe burn it back to cd for my car. that way i have the original, and dont have to worry about it getting stolen out of my car.
i also dont want to be told how to use the music i bought. "hey, here is your new car, now remember, only drive on these roads, and please dont park it anywhere except your driveway, oh yeah, if you want people to drive with you, better buy this deluxe family package, it comes with 4 seats."
would you buy that car?

Which was exactly what I was saying.  You'd be able to do all of this if a paying service was as flexible as the free ones are now.  I said that Press Play is a step in the right direction, but the fact that you can only download in WMA format and have a bunch of restrictions is not exactly a smart move.

[xyle_one]

actually, a co-worker just downloaded pressplay and windows media player 9 (i told him no). i dont like it. it only supports wma, and you cant move the music from machine to machine. well, you can, but you have to buy a license for it. so far i think it is crap, but maybe they will make it more suitable for my tastes..

[Doctor V]

File sharing, AKA piracy is the best thing to have ever happened to music.

The record labels are only the means of getting the music from the artists' music to the public.  New technology allows the public to get that music without the middleman, or label.  The labels' trade agreements have created an oligopoly that is very rich and powerful.  They will do anything to supress the technology that helps both musicians and the public.  Notice, they have not just attacked those who distrubute their copyrighted material, they have attacked all file sharing.  Its all about power and control.

 

quote:Originally said by Mr. Valenti, the president of the Motion Picture Association of America before the house Judiciary comittee
The growing and dangerous intrusion of this new technology threatens an entire industry's economic vitality and future security.  (The new technology) is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone."

This was said in 1982 about video tapes.  Think if the RIAA/MPAA got their way back then.  There would be no VCRs, and no tape recorders.  File sharing will be the video tapes of the future.  The success of VCRs and tape recorders was not the result of a boycott, it was because they became widespread too fast, and the trade unions did not have the power to stop them.  Today, with mM$'s monopoly, the RIAA just might win.  One company has the power to restrict what 90% of consumers do.  If there were competition, of course, DRM would never succeed, software providers would not offer it cause it would not be the choice of the customers, and doing so would lead to losing market share.  The same could happen with M$, but the are sitting on a 40 billion cash hoard and have 90-95% market share, it could well succeed.

Boycotting is not always the best way to stop opression.  It is almost 100% ineffective against monopolys (or oligopolys).  Because customers don't have much of a choice.  Sure, it would be great is everyone up and stopped buying computers from all couputer retailers and built their computers and installed linux just because they don't like M$, but its not going to happen.  It would also be great if they just up and stopped buying CDs, and stopped listening to the radio (controlled by RIAA), but that too will not happen.  Most boycotts are ineffective.  In India, it was illegal to make salt from the ocean.  The people could just have boycotted salt until the British changed the laws.  It might have taken forever too.  But, no, instead they all simply decided to break the law because the law did not serve the public, just special interest.  And that worked.  Furthermore it would be very hard to get enough public support to actually make a music boycott work with how much influence the media has over people's minds.  No, this war will not be won with a boycott.  It will be won by hackers and by the public's outright disregard for opressive laws.

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: Comrade Doctor V: Linux Pusher ]

[lazygamer]

YAY! Doctor r0x0rz!  

[cahult]

Coorect me if I