Comparing the RIAA To "The Sopranos" 193
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "According to commentator Therese Polletti at Dow Jones MarketWatch, 'the RIAA's tactics are nearly as bad as the actions of mobsters, real or fictional. The analogy comes up easily and frequently in any discussion of the RIAA's maneuvers.' Among other things she cites the extortionate nature of their 'settlement negotiations' pointed out by Prof. Bob Talbot of the University of San Francisco School of Law IP Law Clinic. His student attorneys are helping private practitioners fight the RIAA, and the the illegality of the RIAA's use of unlicensed investigators. She goes on to cite the fact that the RIAA thinks nothing of jeopardizing a student's college education in order to make their point, as support for the MAFIAA/Mafia analogy."
Can we at least hope... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Can we at least hope... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Can we at least hope... (Score:4, Funny)
Your version was not nearly as nice sounding.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can we at least hope... (Score:5, Insightful)
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080320-pc-game-developer-has-radical-message-ignore-the-pirates.html [arstechnica.com]
Basically the message is that pirates were never customers and can therefore be ignored. I would take it one step further and say that piracy is a form of free advertising. More than once I've bought cd's based on mp3's I heard. The music and movie industry suits are a bunch of whining dinosaurs; all they need to do is make the disks worth buying by offering additional content liek posters, stickers, etc..
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This seems to ignore the fact that it is VASTLY cheaper to download an mp3 or an album than it is to
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
CAPTCHA: "funded". Figures.
Re:Can we at least hope... (Score:4, Insightful)
Additionally, the music industry existed for promotion and distribution. Now that distribution is basically free, their only function is promotions. This puts the artists in the curious postition of being popular not due to their hype but their talent. Artists were never the ones getting paid from album sales anyway; the labels made the bulk of the money. Cut out the middleman by having bands sell mps'3 directly from a website and the money goes where it should-to the artists.
Artist may have to resort to actually PERFORMING in order to make money. Damn shame.
The industry ought to adjust to the reality on the ground: mp3's are advertising & thats all.
Re: (Score:2)
Still, those bands should sell their own discs and keep 90% of the money, instead of using a middleman, and only keeping 1% of the money.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So what? People don't exist to support business, people choose the businesses they wish to support on the basis of which ones provide what they want at a price they're willing to pay. Businesses that can't do that receive no support and, well, go out of business. After all, do you buy milk just to support the dairy industry? I doubt it. If bands still make music and people still have a means to access it then why should anybody care whet
Re:Can we at least hope... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Can we at least hope... (Score:4, Interesting)
Another scenario: I would very much like to have the full version of Ableton Live 7 [ableton.com] ($500). I can afford this comfortably after I save up for 6 months or so and then will probably buy it. Now... if I pirate it before then and buy it after I save up, they lose nothing.
You see, intellectual "property" is really nothing like physical property. Physical property can be stolen, and then someone always loses something. With IP, making a copy does not always result in a loss of sale. Very, very different.
P.S. Another example: I watched all four seasons of Peep Show [youtube.com] on YouTube recently, and will definitely be buying the DVD. In this case, the BBC (or whoever) is actually gaining a sale because I pirated their show: I most likely never would have seen it if it wasn't on YouTube.
Re:Can we at least hope... (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, if you pirate it, you become proficient with it. So you give them mindshare.
So if you ever decide to use this software professionally, you will buy it. And you won't even consider purchasing anything else.
The software industry, in part, understands this and therefore does little to suppress home piracy of professional software. And that is why Windows was easy to pirate until it got to nearly every computer: now that you depend on it, we'll make you buy it.
Kind of like drug dealers — it's all free until you get hooked.
Indeed, strict enforcement of anti-piracy measures would really benefit F/OSS development, not the big companies.
Re: (Score:2)
I always love this argument. The problem is that there is a truth there, and it is spun off into justifying doing something wrong. That one cannot realistically do something about a thing does not make it right.
It is true that if somebody who would never have bought your b
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are making exactly the same arguments as the RIAA regarding "lost sales". By your argument borrowing a book from a library is theft. Copyright law as it is currently being interpreted by the RIAA and MPAA fails to recognize the intrinsic value
Re: (Score:2)
Borrowing a book from a library isn't theft. Neither is loaning a book to a friend. Photocopying a book and then giving it out for free to whoever wants it, on the other hand, is another matter.
Aside from which, when you borrow a book from a library, you have to return it.
Thought I'd point that out. I hope you actually read it.
Re: (Score:2)
The traditional distribution paradigm for things like movies, music and books is in transition and people will not continue to pay top dollar for something that costs virtually nothing to produce. So what? If there is value in owning a hard copy they'll bu
Re: (Score:2)
Costs nothing to produce? Really?
So what about the research materials and costs? What about the writing and editing time? What about travel expenses, image rights? And that's not even looking at the publisher end.
As a small publisher, it costs me somewhere around $3-500 just to get the book published and the
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Look, I understand your point, but you should reevaluate the copying = stealing line. I am giving examples, not because the specific software is important. Think about 10 years ago when Photoshop
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think so - not because you didn't raise a point - you raised a couple of good ones. The problem is that there are people who would use that as a justification for feeling entitled to rip off whatever they want, regardless of if they are putting somebody into bankruptcy in the process, and the counterpoint needs to be made. You said that copying IP does not always cause a loss of sale, but there are plenty of tim
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If that is "the problem" then yes, you should reevaluate it. Consider that rape is not th
Re: (Score:2)
"You see, intellectual "property" is really nothing like physical property. Physical property can be stolen, and then someone always loses something. With IP, making a copy does not always result in a loss of sale. Very, very different."
Making copies results in sales it how they make millions of dollars.
A band playing on stage get paid for the gig but a band who plays ONCE can just make copies and get paid for each one.
The argument against copying is hypocritical we should change the laws so that you only get paid for what you produce not what you copy a million times.
~Dan
Re:Change is needed (Score:4, Insightful)
I used to think that way when it was either PC DOS or MS DOS. I have since changed my ways for the better. There are several advantages. This supports monopolistic providers. It eliminates market competition and produces a monoculture.
I was faced with the Photoshop issue and resolved to find an alternative when the BSA started making noise. When they started getting really nasty, I knew it was time to comply with their demands while at the same time not supporting them in a free market. I bought a digital camera which came bundled with ArcSoft's photo editor. It did the touch-up stuff I needed to do including cropping, red eye removal, and changing the resolution for a web page. It was legal and did the job. Now I am an avid Gimp user.
My photo editing has been followed by OS choice, Office suite choice and other choices. The end result is now instead of insanely priced monopoly products, the market is filled with viable alternatives with few exceptions. As the alternatives grow, the high priced stuff retires or is repriced into more attractive price points. For example, have you seen the price for PhotoShop Elements? They are still trying to hold on to the cash cow, but it is being eroded, not by piracy, but by the competition. MS is having the same problem with buggy Vista, OSX and Ubuntu. MS Office and Open Office, etc.
Don't pirate and support the monopoly vendor's products. Use the alternatives and make a rich field of usable products.
When I first got into stage lighting, I loved the demo of Martin's Procenieum. At $2500 a copy, it was out of the question. It is now NLA for good reason. Instead I use FreeStyler with a $60 USB interface.
http://www.digimedia-mls.com/dmxplus/ [digimedia-mls.com] This died with Windows 95. At a good price point, this could have grown into a great product. The clones ate it for lunch.
http://users.pandora.be/freestylerdmx/ [pandora.be] Freestyler Rocks and is free.
http://www.dmxcontrol.de/joomla/?lang=en [dmxcontrol.de] DMX control another freeware console rocks, but has some language translation problems.
Manolator is a pared down version of Procenium that also rocks. A lightshow on a DMX lighting system instead of buying the Lights-o-Rama package is possible if you already have DMX dimmers. Load up your song in Winamp, set the events to time to the music and rock on. This also uses inexpensive interfaces or you can build your own.
http://www.freedmx.com/ [freedmx.com]
An here is a free drop-in replacement for the $2500 software. Nice easy to use console. Free....
http://www.chromakinetics.com/DMX/StageConsole.html#screenshot [chromakinetics.com] Screenshot.. Requires giving an email address to receive.
http://www.chromakinetics.com/DMX/StageConsole.html [chromakinetics.com]
Avoiding piracy and shopping for good alternatives is legal and sticks the high prices right where it counts.
Overpriced simple software quickly becomes surrounded by clones.
If you want a full featured DMX software desk, there are many packages from about $200 to several grand. Only spend the money if the competition won't do the job. Don't pirate it.
Re: (Score:2)
They way out of this morass is that pioneered by the open source
Re:Can we at least hope... (Score:5, Informative)
I could listen to internet radio (well, that's now in debate, but I used to be able to) for weeks, for free, and not hear anything I would want to purchase. Likewise, I could download a few GBs of mp3 files, listen for a few weeks, and not hear anything I would want to purchase. In neither case has the artist "lost" a sale.
The whole "1 download = 1 lost sale" argument is very, very flawed in this sense. Yes, if I pulled 3 albums over bittorrent, I "could" pay for them. But if I "would" pay for them, I...well...would. A sale is only lost when I find and download something that I would ordinarily purchase, but decide that the internet price of "free" is more appealing.
I have downloaded a fair bit of music from the internet. Mostly pretty niche stuff, that not a lot of people are into. Not the stuff carried at my local music store, that's for sure. A lot of it I couldn't hear anywhere, yet WOULDN'T purchase without hearing. This was exploratory downloading. No sales were lost, as I wouldn't have purchased it. Yet I now own all 6-8 or so CDs of a particular band in that set, BECAUSE of that exposure. The rest of the bands? Don't listen to the mp3s, haven't bought any CDs. No sales lost due to that downloading, sales actually GAINED for one band because of it. Now I suppose you could tell me that it's somehow my duty to buy everything, THEN decide what I like, but I'm a weirdo who wants to spend my money only on things I want.
Back in the day, before I was completely wise to the amount of malware infused warez in the world, I downloaded some cracked commercial games and played them. Generally, they would hold my interest for a couple of weeks, and then get deleted to free up space. Once in awhile, I'd find a good one, and without fail I'd purchase it. Would I have purchased any of them without the opportunity to try them first? Probably not. Spending $40 on a game is hard to justify after getting burned a couple of times in a row on shitty games. Trying first allowed me to spend my money on what was worth it, supporting the people who's efforts I appreciated. Once again, rather than losing sales, the free downloads gained sales, and that money went to people who produced something I appreciated.
I've come to realize that companies being slimy is the reason I am this way. Companies who slipped me a turd covered with gold foil at the same price as a decent product are the reason I insist on trying first. Now I don't know if I'm somehow weird or unique in this regard, but giving me something to try for free is the best way to get money out of me. I'll pay for stuff that's worth it. But I don't trust companies to give me a product that's worth paying for 90% of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the point of the article. You don't advertise to people who aren't potential customers.
Re:Can we at least hope... (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone who listens to the mp3's are potential customers. Share it and another potential customer hears the song. Repeat several thousand times and you have bona fide "buzz". Someone will buy the disk, go to the show, whatever. Money is made.
How about this: If I distribute mp3's over the internet, the record companies should pay ME for helping to advertise and distribute their content. How's that?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
There is a difference (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest difference (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The biggest difference (Score:5, Funny)
No surprise. Where are they gonna find good music?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about the theme, but Journey's "Don't stop Believin'" at the end of the final episode of the Sopranos is from an album on the Columbia label - and Columbia are part of Sony BMG.
Wait a minute... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Law on their side or not, I wouldn't exactly say they're "good guys". So "The Untouchables" is out.
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:4, Insightful)
The RIAA is well within their rights to pursue people they think have infringed on their copyrights. But they have to follow court procedures and the law when pursuing their rights. They have to file separate lawsuits for each defendant. They have to make sure that the person they are suing is the correct person. When they make mistakes, they should be diligent about dismissing. It seems apparent that they don't care.
That is why Tanya Andersen is seeking class action status. She was innocent. She tried reasoning with the and offered them her computer to inspect. Even when they inspected her computer and found nothing, they still tried to push her to pay and hinted that they might pursue her 9 year old daughter. It wasn't until 2 years after the start of the suit when they had to produce evidence to the judge did they finally dismiss:
Any ordinary trust (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Any ordinary trust (Score:5, Funny)
Harmful products? (Score:2)
Have you listened to some of that stuff?
Re:Any ordinary trust (Score:4, Informative)
No, they don't. RIAA is much less forgiving. Rather than shooting you in the back of the head for something you probably knew you had coming to you, they'd rather hit you with a life-destroying $222,000 settlement [wikipedia.org] for something you were capable of doing, and watch your life fall apart around you.
At least the classic mafia deserves respect.
Re:Any ordinary trust (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the jury ruled that way because the judge instructed them that capability was all that was required for a guilty verdict. Just as the GP said...
Re: (Score:2)
"She's a liar," remember?
Re:Any ordinary trust (Score:5, Insightful)
Well it depends on how you define "kill for profit." If you mean kill with a GLOC or a piano wire, then no, most monopolized industries don't kill for profit. But if you account for deaths that the company (or group of companies) could have prevented either through action or inaction but didn't expressly for the purpose of profit then I think you're actually out on very thin ice here. The monolithic pharmaceutical and health insurance companies knowingly "kill" thousands of people each year for profit. The manufacturers of cigarettes knowingly "kill" millions of people each year for profit. If you brought these charges up in court, it'd be 'wrongful death' instead of 'murder', but killing is killing and dead is dead as far as most people are concerned.
Re:Any ordinary trust (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Any ordinary trust (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, they do torture people. Mental torture. It's harsh having your dream of graduating from college being held hostage over allegations of what is really a petty infraction-- allegations that don't need to be substantiated to a high standard because the crime is too petty. The punishments are what's totally out of whack, and opened the door for all this. I'm not talking just being forced to drop out for lack of money after having to pay some exorbitant fine, I'm talking punitive expulsion for allegedly violating the law. Being railroaded. I don't know for sure but this is what I'm guessing expulsion means: You're finished at the university level. You lose all credit for all coursework you've completed. If you can get back in at all, which is doubtful with a black mark like that on your record, you'll be starting over. Colleges don't like to admit or keep the sort of people who've been caught at things such as plagiarism, cheating on exams, and the like. If you decide to try to get on with life, you'll have a rough time getting jobs with only a high school diploma, and a record that is effectively criminal. Employers don't want to hire dishonest people. The MAFIAA wants its victims to be sweating over all those possibilities. Mental torture. Paying a $3000 settlement, even if the money has to be borrowed from a loan shark, begins to look like a real good idea when faced with all those alternatives. None of this is in the cards over a speeding ticket, which is arguably a more serious crime as that can put people in danger.
Re: (Score:2)
~Dan
Laws (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Gambling, prostitution, drugs, those profitable activities are controlled by organized crime.
Ooooohh ... (Score:3, Funny)
Cheers
Re: (Score:2)
Or me [slashdot.org]. Except I only kneecap people who done something wrong.
you could compare the riaa to sharia law (Score:5, Interesting)
upload a song, owe thousands may not be as awful as steal some bread, have your hand chopped off, or commit adultery, get stoned to death, but the riaa's tactics shares with religious fundamentalist notions of justice this same disproportionate massive punishment for comparatively mild crimes
it's very simple: you don't teach anyone to respect morality with fear and terror. you just teach them that fear and terror are more important than morality
they need to learn that lesson in rural yemen as much as they do in riaa headquarters
a truly just society is one that metes out punishments that are milder than the actual crimes being punished (but not too mild, just milder). in such a way does a society provide stability and a respect for justice. if the punishments are too severe or too mild in comparison to the crimes, then justice is disrespected, not served, and society is destabilized and impoverished as a result
the impoverishments under religious fundamentalism are apparent. the impoverishments unde rriaa tactics are simply less cultural riches for us all
Re: (Score:2)
That's ridiculous.
Steal $100, so a just society fines you $95?
Congratulations, it's now profitable to steal even if caught in this just society of yours.
no, that's an unjust society (Score:2)
what about the $100?
the $100 was never yours in the first place, so it is never taken back from you. it is returned to the rightful owner completely. it was never yours, ever, to ever be considered as something taken back from you. the way you are thinking about the situation is simply not the moral way to think about the situation
the $100 doesn't even figure into the punishment calculation. the act of stealing does. get it?
do you understand what morality is? apparently not based on ho
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
i'm antifundamentalist (Score:2, Offtopic)
christian fundamentalists are just as wrong as muslim fundamentalists
but it doesn't take a genius to see that currently the muslim world has a bigger problem with fundamentalist assholes destroying muslim societies than the christian world does
when the christian world was busy clubbing each other in the dark ages, the muslim world was making advances in algebra, alchemy, alcohol, algorithms... notice a trend in those words?
the christian world was once as dogmatic and fascist reli
Re: (Score:2)
This is a popular misunderstanding of how Islamic punishment for stealing works. A person stealing out of hunger is not punished by cutting his hand off.
1. The theft must not have been the product of hunger, necessity, or duress. [wikipedia.org]
2. According to the Qur'an, any punishment should fit the crime. The Qur'an says: [aol.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it a scientific fact or your cultural definition?
i would say it's a scientific fact (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no scientific evidence of the cause-effect relation between level of religion in the society (cause) and poverty (effect). In fact, there is a lot of evidence of opposite relation: poor people or people under any kind of duress tend to be more religious.
One can measure correlations only.
the poverty doesn't have to be monetary (Score:2)
however, one can prove that a financially rich society is built upon innovation and novel inventions which uproot the status quo. and that more of these accumulate in a society that encourages a mind to wander rather than a society that insists a mind
i am well aware (Score:2)
and i would go further and say that law based on religious teachings in general is inherently unjust. look at the barbaric violence and t
critical thinking: (Score:2)
then some vile guys come and start making defective flip flops, and label them the same as my supershoes. people start tripping and breaking their legs, it's an awful situation
1. am i responsible for those broken legs? absolutely not
2. am i reponsible for shutting down those vile guys making cheap dangerous knockoffs? absolutely
critical question: what if i never shut these guys down? what if these guys keep making
Actually, I think the RIAA and MPAA... (Score:2)
I don't know (Score:5, Insightful)
RIAA... (Score:5, Funny)
MAFIAA Acronym (Score:2, Insightful)
While I agree that their tactics are ridiculous, to compare them to a criminal organization whose actions include murder, drug dealing, burglary, kidnapping, arson, and other felonious crimes is ridiculous - it doesn't advance the debate, it distracts from it!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:MAFIAA Acronym (Score:4, Insightful)
You make fine distinctions about what is good/right and what is not. Technically, you might be right. Morally, you are wrong. They use non-criminal organizations to do their dirty work and ruin plenty of lives. They use organizations that support and partake in the crimes you condemn. Guilt by association? Yes. Bad laws are worse than no laws, and those that enforce bad laws are worse than those who break them. Long before "We the people" stand up together and say NO more, there will have to be those of us who say it first.
War criminals are told that 'following orders' is not an excuse for doing bad things. The grueling financial and moral beating that defendants are taking from the good guys on behalf of the **AA is immoral. Following orders is not an excuse. The bad guys have always taken advantage of the legal system whenever possible. Someone mentioned the Untouchables earlier. They made their name by nabbing gangsters for things like tax evasion rather than the crimes they were really wanted for. Yes, the bad guys DO abuse the system and use it against good people. It is not ridiculous to think of the **AA's tactics as mafia like or to liken them to the mafia. The mafia does not kill everyone they come in contact with, nor do they sell drugs to everyone that they see. Extortion is one of their businesses, they are famous for it. So it **IS** a fair comparison and your statements otherwise are what distracts from the debate.
You might have a stronger case if the **AA had disbursed some of the money they won through extortion like pre-litigation back to the artists. It's been 6 years plus and not a dime has gone to any artist. Even the artists are shouting they want to sue the **AA. [google it]
There is at this point, not one reason to feel sorry for the **AA or support them. They have already spent all their good will and continue to use mafia like tactics to push the law onto their side so they can oppressively enforce their business model on the population of the world, not just one country. It takes government collusion to force it on such a large part of the world. With the obviousness of that, how you can think of the **AA as anything different from the real mafia is beyond me. Different tactics don't make them better, just slightly different.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The MaFIAA might have the law on their side as opposed to the real mafia not having the law on their side.....
I wouldn't be so sure about that. See, e.g., Elektra v. O'Brien [blogspot.com], Atlantic v. Brennan [blogspot.com], Interscope v. Rodriguez [blogspot.com], and other decisions [blogspot.com] listed in my sidebar.
The reason they seem the same, is because they are (Score:5, Interesting)
Business is Business (Score:4, Insightful)
The mob is just a business like any other. Every business-person makes their own decision regarding how immoral/illegal they're willing to act in order to make a profit. Some stop just past shady insider trading practices, others go all the way past fraudulent accounting, while others still go all the way to violent crimes, either explicitly or implicitly.
The RIAA and MPAA fall somewhere between Enron (and their ilk) and the diamond industry (probably leaning closer to the Enron side), but certainly with a number of mob-style tactics thrown in, without going all the way to actual violence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, Im dealing with one of these 'business people' now. I was supposed to do some work for a company who later ended up folding because of 'bad management', and I was left holding the bag on the domain I purchased at their instruction(they didnt want to buy it, I dont know?)
T
P2P growth going underground (Score:4, Interesting)
That's because so much of the traffic is moving to methods that evade the ability for the RIAA to see what is going on. More and more P2P is taking place within smaller groups that are harder to join (you have to be nominated and voted in to get access). That traffic is also encrypted, so no one along the sidelines can even see what it is. One group I heard of has rented a dedicated server of their own (so I guess they have dues to be a member to pay for it) and they access it via SSH and store files in a big "world" writable directory. If I were going to do that, I'd also keep the files therein encrypted just to be safe from the ISP. It wouldn't take more than about 20 people to get a big server at $5 a month each. They don't even need a domain name. What they do need is a few people that are also members of other such groups to provide a linkage. There have been porn trading groups like this for years. So I guess the P2P crowd is finally catching on to what the porn people learned a long time ago.
Protection money paid.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
In slightly different things, I found quite interesting the info you have in your page about OurStage [ourstage.com]. I know several people here know about emusic and other places but I have never heard about OurStage and I think it is good to let people in slashdot know about i
Perhaps we should compare the RIAA to Jet Li? (Score:2)
Just stay away, and let the RIAA die. (Score:2)
All you can do is to help it die fast. This is good for both the dying animal, and you. Don't give it any first aid, and in the case of RIAA, don't give them any money.
Just stay away, and let it die.
Solves one mystery (Score:4, Funny)
Happens to be an RIAA enforcer handing a summons for unauthorized downloads of Journey songs.
WTF???? (Score:2)
As a low-ranking mobster [slashdot.org] I very much resent the comparison.
is there anybody else? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is this association (RIAA - organized crime, criminals, etc.) stupid? I feel really stupid seriously considering this myself, but I guess I have to:
1. Organized crime deals mostly with illegitimate business, RIAA deals with a legit business.
2. Organized crime kills and maimes people, RIAA sues them for vast sums of money.
3. This association with its stupid accent on emotionality drives away from the real problems with RIAA. It is bloody not working!
The real problem is:
Why are you keep buying and listening to the stuff written by the people who are enslaved by RIAA? It is like buying sweatshop sweaters, except that in this case it's not sweatshops, but sweetshops - every artists dreams of being signed by the major label.
Why are you so addicted to this stuff anyway? Why do you have to listen every day to a new single or watch new movie? Have a life! The real reason why this thing is so bloated is stupid inability of recent consumer generation to act creatively and to entertain themselves. Buy a Guitar Hero and play yourself. Make music yourself, make videos yourself, make movies yourself. Listen and watch what other people like you did on youtube or in any other free, unlimited way... Why do you have to go down to the rock bottom of coach-potato entertainment where you do absolutely nothing and only consume entertaining stuff? This is not good for you, do you realize it?
Get on with your lives. Entertain yourself actively. Create yourself. You do not have to watch latest terminator movie ahead of time on torrents in order to create your own stuff.
It is more difficult but much more rewarding when you get appreciation of your family, of your friends, of your peers, of your social network, when you see your 5-digit number of views on youtube.com
You Are Forgetting Front Companies. (Score:2, Interesting)
Check the ongoing Shareaza P2P travesty, http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/02/26/102239.shtml [slashdot.org]
iMesh represents the record companies' interests in P2P and has been building a 'marketplace' monopoly using RIAA lawsuits to 'kill' the competition. The chairman Robet Summer was RIAA president, IFPI board member for 'piracy,' and head of Sony 'Rootkit' Records. He got $30 million (and a convenient RIAA suit)
Just wait!! (Score:2)
The perfect cast... as the fisherman says (Score:2)
We had a neighbor who made his friends by giving away stuff that fell off a truck. He isn't with us anymore.
The geek reminds me not a little of our late governor, Eliot Spitzer.
The difference is only that the geek derives his sense of entitlement from his technical skills and not his bank account. Not that he isn't living rather well.
60% of American households don't have a broadband connection.
These are the households who have to buy or rent the video, borrow a copy
There is another side to this... (Score:2)
Of course, it's also true that college students think nothing of violating a copyright holder's rights either. Why should the RIAA respect this attitude?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:hmmm (Score:5, Informative)
Re:hmmm (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The difference is that at some point these organizations came together and found that they got less flak if they didn't kill people and just took them to court and ruined their lives. It also turned out to be better for business.
Its just business, if it was less trouble for the Mafia to take people to court, they would. They (as an o
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Relativism (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. They send the Sheriff to do it for them.
Sue you.
Bankrupt you.
Send the law to seize your assets.
You get evicted.
If you try to stay the sheriff's men will throw you out.
If you try to resist them they'll use as much force as necessary - including deadly force if your resistance appears to be a threat to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Torrent sites are the ultimate Video stores offering on demand movies with no DRM.
Customer satisfaction is something the studios have never caught onto.
~Dan