Announcement

Collapse

Lounge Posting Guidelines

E-DRUMMING DISCUSSION ONLY! DO NOT POST PRODUCT OR TECHNICAL QUESTIONS!

Having issues? Please visit our Forum Talk section for answers to frequently asked questions.

See more
See less

NEWS: regarding sharing music

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NEWS: regarding sharing music

    I just read this. Seems fresh off the press...

    Check it out:

    http://music.msn.com/music/article.a...5&silentchk=1&

    Mick

  • #2
    Legal action is a costly process and a cash cow for the lawyers involved.

    The ISPs have technology available to them to throttle back or indeed block the protocol traffic of P2P applications. Doing that is the cheapest and most sensible option.
    :eek:

    Comment


    • #3
      Blah Blah. We are the ISP's bread and butter, no way will they ever stop people completely. Some throttle certain practices all of the time, some restrict it at busy times, and a couple give you free reign to do as you please.
      It will never be stopped for the simple reason that there is always a way around it (rapidshare, megaupload etc>).
      Scare tactics is all this is.

      Comment


      • #4
        KevH is right. For better or worse, Pandora's box has been opened and the recording business will never be the same. The only hope they have is to appeal to the consumer's sense of fair play and offer the songs for a reasonable amount of money in an easy-to-access universal format. I have been buying a good deal of music on-line. I would rather pay $.99 for a song and know I have done the right thing than get it off a P2P site.

        I had to laugh when I read that it was costing them more in legal fees than they were getting in settlements. It just illustrates that the law is not really much of a deterrent.

        It's all about offering value, and if the consumer does not care about the physical recording and packaging, they will have to find some other way to do so. If pay-per-download sites will offer other incentives (one free song for every ten bought, points redeemable for swag or concert tickets, etc.), they will enjoy more success, IMO.
        Id rather be told the ugly truth than handed a pretty lie.

        Comment


        • #5
          Required reading on the subject:

          http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?s...-8859-1&q=RIAA

          Comment


          • #6
            Time to fire up GROKSTER and Limewire. Wooo hoooo!
            Music is not my passion, it's my obsession...
            www.oblyvion.com
            Facebook:[Scych]
            You Tube Scychful
            Twitter:@Raakinn

            Comment


            • #7
              Haha, the 'man' think's that this will acutally happen?!? It's a load of BS plain and simple. There is no way that they can block certain protocol's or whatnot by just assuming it's what one program uses, etc. For example, go use any torrent application, and you choose the port you want to use, or whatever range, and forward that. They can't block it because if you're a gamer hosting a server, etc. you have to have your port forwarded in order to have people connect to you, so they can't just block that off.

              The ISP's would be bankrupt and the multi-trillion dollar internet industry would be down the crapper. Band's don't make squat off of selling CD's anyways. Maybe more rap artists and singers do, but acutal bands with 4/5 members/musicians hardly make anything off of their acutal music sales in the grand scheme of things. Most of their income comes from touring, merch, endorsements, publicity kind of things, etc. Unless you're selling the CD outright vs. a store/online then you take more of the profit.

              This is the same kind of crap saying how B&M stores are losing so much business due to the internet. Because I can go online and order from an acutal dealer of "x" product who doesn't have a physical store, and doesn't even carry the product lots of times until it's ordered and I can get it for 20-50% cheaper plus NO tax and a lot of the time free shipping.

              And they said they were going to tax all the websites, blah blah blah. It's never going to happen, it's WAY too much to keep up with, and they'll end up spending more time and money in resources trying to do so than it's worth. I don't see what the big deal is, seeing as how if things are cheaper, people will buy it, and it still is good for our economy.

              Like, why would I go to Best Buy and spend $1,100 on my new Canon HF11 Vixia camcorder plus tax, when I can (and did) order it from CompUSA's site for $400 less for the EXACT same product.

              I know I'm way off topic here at this point (lol, sorry about that) but it's the same general concept. The LAW says they're going to do this and do that, they need to just shut up and acutally put some concern into real issues that are going on, and not this petty BS.
              Check out my NEW eBay Store: V-Drum Emporium!

              Comment


              • #8
                LAWS are being written by big corporate interests who threaten members of Congress with the loss of their seats if they don't "play ball." All that matters anymore is profit and people looking out for themselves. What ended this era was MONEY. It was no longer profitable to sue people. If you noticed, they sued mostly people who had thousands of files in their shared folder so the RIAA could rack up penalties per violation. It wouldn't be worth it to sue someone with five or six files in their shared folder. A shrewd company might sue a few small fries to throw others off the trail. Greed and the quest for profit put an end to this process. It underscores the point, if people want things done, they have to stop thinking in terms of "right and wrong" and think in terms of profitable and non profitable. The fact that millions of file sharers changed the music industry forever shows that the consumer has a lot of power. Unfortunately, most of them are too stupid, lazy or detached from current events to organize and make big and positive changes.
                Music is not my passion, it's my obsession...
                www.oblyvion.com
                Facebook:[Scych]
                You Tube Scychful
                Twitter:@Raakinn

                Comment


                • #9
                  Our little family uses
                  http://mp3fiesta.com/
                  no virus' and 20 cents a song. a buk a CD, good value I always thought..sry for being a Mr Goody 2 shoes oh so boring
                  Nothing of importance here

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Sook View Post
                    Our little family uses
                    http://mp3fiesta.com/
                    no virus' and 20 cents a song. a buk a CD, good value I always thought..sry for being a Mr Goody 2 shoes oh so boring
                    You meant to say, "No viruses and 20 cents a song. A buck a CD, good value I always thought. Sorry for being Mr. Goody Two Shoes and oh so boring."

                    Sorry for being Mr. Grammar Matters.
                    Music is not my passion, it's my obsession...
                    www.oblyvion.com
                    Facebook:[Scych]
                    You Tube Scychful
                    Twitter:@Raakinn

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by AdamCooney View Post
                      Haha, the 'man' think's that this will acutally happen?!?
                      Can I ask where you're trying go with that response? Or are you just taking the mick out of a view that is different to yours? Please keep it civil!

                      But to answer you and the other guy's - that politely responded with "blah blah" - points; they're are products out there that recognise traffic at Layer 7 - the application layer. Regardless of what ports you decide to come up with for BT it makes no difference with products such as Packeteer's Packetshaper - they can spot it no problems via the application signature. I work with this product day in and day out for ISPs and for corporate networks and believe me when I say 1) it does work and 2) they are acting against P2P applications!

                      And also, residential use is not the "bread and butter" of ISPs it's business use that's makes them the most money. ISPs make such little margins on residential products but they make huge margins on corporate products!

                      P2P usage is a burden on ISP networks and they will and do act on this...all of them. It's only a matter of time before they all agree to joint action! And then where will you go? Honour amongst theives?? I doubt it...it's a losing argument.
                      :eek:

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by MickRR View Post
                        I just read this. Seems fresh off the press...

                        Check it out:

                        http://music.msn.com/music/article.a...5&silentchk=1&

                        Mick
                        $1,000,000 charge for a college student that downloaded 7 songs? Definitly cruel and unusual punishment if you ask me.
                        Love my new TD-20S, Hate my credit card debt. :mad:

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by drbeat View Post
                          Can I ask where you're trying go with that response? Or are you just taking the mick out of a view that is different to yours? Please keep it civil!

                          But to answer you and the other guy's - that politely responded with "blah blah" - points; they're are products out there that recognise traffic at Layer 7 - the application layer. Regardless of what ports you decide to come up with for BT it makes no difference with products such as Packeteer's Packetshaper - they can spot it no problems via the application signature. I work with this product day in and day out for ISPs and for corporate networks and believe me when I say 1) it does work and 2) they are acting against P2P applications!

                          And also, residential use is not the "bread and butter" of ISPs it's business use that's makes them the most money. ISPs make such little margins on residential products but they make huge margins on corporate products!

                          P2P usage is a burden on ISP networks and they will and do act on this...all of them. It's only a matter of time before they all agree to joint action! And then where will you go? Honour amongst theives?? I doubt it...it's a losing argument.
                          That's as maybe, but as I said, there are so many ways around it. I can see torrenting dying out eventually, but then again, what's to stop people renaming mp3 as jpg and sharing it as such, then the downloader just renames it mp3 and away he goes. I also don't see how ISP's can stop rapidshare and megaupload links and their ilk. It's not illegal to use file hosting sites and provide people with links.
                          As someone rightly said, make the cost of buying downloads reasonable and people will use it. Apple must have made billions from the sale of iTunes tracks, they can sure afford to cut the cost now. The artists are making squat from it.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by KevH View Post
                            That's as maybe, but as I said, there are so many ways around it. I can see torrenting dying out eventually, but then again, what's to stop people renaming mp3 as jpg and sharing it as such, then the downloader just renames it mp3 and away he goes. I also don't see how ISP's can stop rapidshare and megaupload links and their ilk. It's not illegal to use file hosting sites and provide people with links.
                            As someone rightly said, make the cost of buying downloads reasonable and people will use it. Apple must have made billions from the sale of iTunes tracks, they can sure afford to cut the cost now. The artists are making squat from it.

                            Well I was talking about Peer to peer sharing and not server to client. No the ISPs cannot stop megaupload etc but then again rapidshare, megaupload etc do themselves try to stop the sharing of copyrighted material either by monitoring it themselves or through their vast network of snitches.

                            Providing the links to download copyrighted material is a legal grey area but many websites have been shut down for such things.

                            Yes the price of music in general from the corporate elite is too expensive and very little goes to the artist. But that still doesn't make it right to - in effect - steal it. I think cars are too exepensive yet I don't go stealing them to make a point. I think money is not easy enough to come by but I don't go searching for websites that give me links to other sites that publish cloned credit card details.
                            :eek:

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              It seems to me that "intellectual property" can (or should be) only be sold once. Therefore, at least in the case of replacing music already purchased, one should be able to download a new copy of the intellectual property, when it was the medium failed. For instance, I have purchased at least four different copies of the album "Fly by Night" by RUSH. One 8 track, 2 cassettes and one CD, all of which failed. I have since downloaded the album from a file sharing source and keep a copy on my harddrive for transfer to CD's and other than the fact that it came from a file sharing program, I do not consider it piracy. I should be able to, and would prefer, to download it from either the record company or even the official RUSH web site but I can not and that is not my fault.
                              This is a point which I have heard nothing about when record companies talk about intellectual property rights.
                              Point number two... Being a musician who plays in cover bands, why should I (or any of you) have to buy a song (which may not even be to my taste), in ordr to learn it (because the music industry has pushed it to the top of the charts), when I and my band mates will ultimately be assisting the music publishers in the promotion of said "work of art"?
                              This is another point that they never mention?
                              My point in this post is simply that it is a much more complicated subject than they make it out to be.
                              The blues are here to take me and to drag me down to hell...

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X