Usa Today News Article

Quote:

---

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.

I dont care illegal or not.

Filesharing is here to stay,period.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

(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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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