Usa Today News Article

[RealitY]

Some one had a link to this article HERE (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-05-05-our-view_x.htm) (I believe it was OlderThanDirt), interesting reading, but in it read...


Yet the efforts have failed to get people to pay for music recorded off the Internet. One reason is that legitimate music sites remain unappealing. Most are cumbersome and offer fewer services to paying customers than illegal sites provide for free.
ILLEGAL...
This truly shows you the the mind set of the public at large and the brainwashing to those at large, even those who are on our side of the fence, OTD you should have caught this, as it clearly states my point, or maybe just a typo, I think not.

[silverccrow]

i KNOW i KNOW TRUE TRUE TRUE !

[Skillian]

Well the fact that they call it a "site" shows it's written by someone who doesn't really know what they're talking about. Plenty of that in journalism.

Either that or they're talking about warez sites, in which case they are right in calling them illegal.

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by REALITY@8 May 2003 - 06:11
This truly shows you the the mind set of the public at large and the brainwashing to those at large, even those who are on our side of the fence, OTD you should have caught this, as it clearly states my point, or maybe just a typo, I think not.
I think most of Joe Public cares very little about our cause. Once they start associating layoffs at the CD factories with filesharing, then and only then will mainstream America take notice. :huh:

[OlderThanDirt]

Some one had a link to this article HERE (I believe it was OlderThanDirt), interesting reading, but in it read...


Yet the efforts have failed to get people to pay for music recorded off the Internet. One reason is that legitimate music sites remain unappealing. Most are cumbersome and offer fewer services to paying customers than illegal sites provide for free.

ILLEGAL...
This truly shows you the the mind set of the public at large and the brainwashing to those at large, even those who are on our side of the fence, OTD you should have caught this, as it clearly states my point, or maybe just a typo, I think not.

I caught it, but not just the word ILLEGAL. The article said ILLEGAL SITES. But, while the RIAA has gotten the public to parrot "illegal, illegal, illegal" everytime the topic of P2P comes up, the first visible chink in that armor of argument was what my VERY first post as a forum member was all about ... where U.S. District Court Judge, Stephen Wilson, parroted the U.S. Supreme Court, "substantial non-infringing uses, substantial non-infringing uses, substantial non-infringing uses."

It takes time to alter public perceptions. But, as long as judges are willing to stand up to the dragon and others are willing to do the same, the dragon will eventually be slain.

[RealitY]

And down she will go, yet to be seen no more, but only as an artifact.

[MagicNakor]

Originally posted by Jibbler@9 May 2003 - 00:35
I think most of Joe Public cares very little about our cause. Once they start associating layoffs at the CD factories with filesharing, then and only then will mainstream America take notice. :huh:
I don't think that'll ever happen. There's layoffs going through all sectors of business right now. It's a pretty flimsy reason on the companies' part if they're going to associate filesharing with CD factory layoffs. The layoffs in the travel sector are still being blamed on terrorism, which is still a somewhat flimsy reason to back the massive cuts that are going on. I'm not sure how they'll spin the layoffs at the dog food plant or the forestry sectors. Dogs aren't terrorists, and trees don't fileshare.

:ninja:

[Ad]

It will never happen ;) i just cant see it happening ilegal what does that word mean these days?

[rastilin]

Something that is against the law.

And to REALITY, actually I think that you're in denial.

[OlderThanDirt]

I think something REALITY said earlier put it best. What we're witnessing right now is the "status quo" industry power in its death throes ... flailing about wildly, refusing to accept defeat ... in short, going out in a blaze of unrealized glory. If the public has no pity on P2P users, it has even less pity on creeps like Madonna who damn the file sharers ... on her way to her Mercedes. Know what I mean? The largesse of the industry, or more accurately, the largesse of their control over the marketplace, is becoming more clear with each misstep they take (the arrests/trials of those college students being the most recent misstep). They've thrown a gauntlet down at the kind of people who have no problem with picking it up and tossing it back in their faces ... those people being sharers and software developers. And in throwing down that gauntlet, they are raising many eyebrows in the media, the electronic industry, civil rights groups and legislators ... and those people are beginning to talk and talk loudly. Rather than work in the industry's favor, an economic downturn will work to their detriment as more and more people who normally would pay for music are tempted to acquire it for free ... enlarging the army of sharers the industry has to fight.

[RealitY]

Originally posted by rastilin@9 May 2003 - 06:58
And to REALITY, actually I think that you're in denial.
In denail about what...
Maybe the fact the that I am scrared shitless at the fact that your avatar l :lol: :lol: ks like a terrorist, confusing me as I soil my pants.

Its (we) to big for them to stop, although some may suffer, we will prevail. They cannot shut down every aspect of filesharing, there are to many, and from the destuction of one (such as Napster), another bigger one grows (the birth of KaZaa). I can name many different avenues already that appear to be unstopable. They only are alienating their market further and further. It is clear, if one avenue gets shut down, we will find the next. They are DESPERATE, as most are in their final breath. A dinasour throwing rocks at a tidal wave.

I am NOT in denial, just l :mellow: :mellow: king at REALITY straight on.

[N£MO]

I dont care illegal or not.

Filesharing is here to stay,period.

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by N£MO@10 May 2003 - 08:57
I dont care illegal or not.

Filesharing is here to stay,period.
If only it were that easy. :huh:

[RealitY]

Originally posted by Jibbler+10 May 2003 - 18:09--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jibbler @ 10 May 2003 - 18:09)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--N£MO@10 May 2003 - 08:57
I dont care illegal or not.

Filesharing is here to stay,period.
If only it were that easy. :huh: [/b][/quote]
Are you suggesting its not?
:ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:
:unsure: :unsure: :unsure: :unsure:
<_< <_< <_< <_<
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[OlderThanDirt]

(N£MO @ 10 May 2003 - 08:57)

I dont care illegal or not.

Filesharing is here to stay,period.

If only it were that easy.

Innovation is never easy but it always seems to come about. Earthstation5.com might be the latest example of that. However, there is ONE possibility that could come about that would greatly reduce the amount of filesharing.

If you were around when videotapes came out, you&#39;ll remember that buying a movie used to cost &#036;50.00 or more. It was no surprise that a lot of people got into the habit of copying movies. Even when Macrovision came out, people found ways around it. But now, some new releases go for &#036;14.99 ... less than some music-CDs cost. When you consider the cost of living increases since then, the difference between &#036;50 and &#036;15 is a monumental price-drop. Part of the reason for this was inclusion of one or more "coming attractions" ads in releases. And some video releases even have "pro" ads from 3rd-party sponsors. In short, advertising revenue helps defray a lot of the cost. And now, the people copying movies are just a small niche ... with the possible exception of "recent releases" or "yet-to-be releases" which is the real bain of the MPAA. A lower price didn&#39;t end the practice of copying but it did minimize it.

There&#39;s a lot of MP3 sharing going on now. But now, CDs can cost anywhere from &#036;15-&#036;25. What if the price came down to, say, &#036;4.99 ... and the CD had a few ads in tow ... connected to the tracks in a seamless way that would not interfere with the track but, at the same time, not allow skipping past the ad? True, MP3 grabbers and sound editor software could produce a clean version ... but it would take work to do it. And surely, people would do that work to burn their own clean copy (which is legal under the Audio Home Recording Act of 1982). But, at a price of &#036;4.99 for a CD, would as many people be willing to risk the wrath of the RIAA? I don&#39;t think so. Sharing certainly wouldn&#39;t end but it would be minimized ... just as it happened in the movie realm.

[RealitY]

Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@11 May 2003 - 03:31
If you were around when videotapes came out, you&#39;ll remember that buying a movie used to cost &#036;50.00 or more.
Those F**KING CR :ph34r: :ph34r: KS.

Part of the reason for this was inclusion of one or more "coming attractions" ads in releases. And some video releases even have "pro" ads from 3rd-party sponsors.
My downloads are "ADD FREE" kids. :lol:

What if the price came down to, say, &#036;4.99 ... and the CD had a few ads in tow ... connected to the tracks in a seamless way that would not interfere with the track but, at the same time, not allow skipping past the ad?
I don&#39;t like the idea of listening to Dorito or Tampon adds on a CD, but if that sacrifice brought the cost down to &#036;5.00, then I would buy the CD if I liked it. Problem is, I think the artist would get "tore an ass" for doing this, though someone should try it. Again I think we all know this price could come about without ads, if they got rid of all the bad weight, as you say, the nephews (who are eating them out of business) and such. The big change here is that their business is no longer monopilized anymore, and they will have to compete and work to get our business back, not try to make us the bad guy, because at this point in time, they can all blow me.

[OlderThanDirt]

The big change here is that their business is no longer monopilized anymore, and they will have to compete and work to get our business back, not try to make the bad guy, because at this point in time, they can all blow me.

Exactly ... and "cheap" is the only weapon they haven&#39;t tried yet. The movie industry could teach the music industry a thing or two about that. Right now, the music industry is treating sharing like a cancer that has to be cut out. But, if they started treating sharing like a cold ... and started to attack the &#036;ymtom&#036;, they might not get rid of the cold altogether but it would be less of a pain in the ass to them. :D