Posted on 03/24/2009 9:47:56 AM PDT by max americana
Under pressure from the big record labels, several countries around the world are cracking down hard on illegal file-sharers with a "three strikes, you're out" policy — and the United States may be next. The basics are simple: Get caught three times sharing files illegally, and your Internet access gets cut off. But in a day and age when Internet access is almost as essential as a cell phone or electricity, should the music industry or Internet service providers [ISPs] have the power to determine who can and can't get online, particularly without criminal charges being filed? And what if there's no legal recourse for the customer whose service gets cut off? "In this country, you don't punish people with just allegations ... in Russia, it happens differently," says Gigi B. Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, a Washington, D.C., non-profit group specializing in digital rights. "It gives the RIAA [Recording Industry Association of America] way too much power, but it's going to take acquiescence from the ISPs [to happen]," Sohn says. "I think it's unfair and un-American in many different ways. No copyright holder should have that much power based on an allegation." SNIP: Details are hard to come by, and the ISPs aren't talking, but the ultimate punishment for repeat infringers who ignore warnings might be termination of Internet access. Internet speed could be slowed for those who ignore warnings but haven't quite reached termination level. "That is one possible outcome. That is not the only outcome," RIAA President Cary Sherman told FOXNews.com in an interview.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
This makes no sense,
so somebody with a netflix download account has to PROVE they are innocent?
It’s really sad what’s happened to music business. People dont’ buy music anymore. How is a musician supposed to make money? Why bother making music? So you can sell ringtones? It’s just sad. And it’s sad that people feel no responsibility towards paying the artists for their work. They just glom it off the net. Cheapskates.
LOL. Looks like it. Verizon snd Comcast are known to throttle connections BTW.
I pay the artists I enjoy for their work happily and freely. I just don’t buy the 92% of music that’s utter garbage. And unfortunatly quite a few of the big record labels specalize heavily in that 92%. I will say I did quite a bit of music downloading in my teens but that I now own pretty much every album I’ve ever downloaded. Not to mention the fact that for 15 dollars a month my zune pass gives me almost all of the music I could want.
If artists whine about not making sales I’d tell them to take a hard look at what they put out and that we’re not obligated to buy their garbage just because some record label puts them on TV.
Yes and no,
People throughout Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe, and South America don't play by the rules (They never did)
But America, Canada, and western Europe MUST?
Either it's a fair playing field or not.
And this isn't just music. It entails all aspects of the entertainment business.
So they won’t terminate your access if you “share” child porn, but don’t even think about sharing music.
Makes total sense. /sarc
I would feel worse about it if more than 2 out of 12 songs per CD were any good.
How do they determine who is “sharing files”? Is it based on protocols? Applications? If you use BitTorrent, do they know whether you download/share “Presentation.ppt” or StarWarsIV.avi”? Many businesses use Torrent.
Well, all the music thieves are definitely driving up ticket prices, that's for sure. But I'm not talking about live shows. I'm talking about sound recordings. Why bother making them if people are going to steal them?
Why bother doing anything that you love to do?
It depends what it is, and what it costs. I can go fishing for next to nothing. Making sound recordings takes money. Why bother?
Did you ever take a cassette and record a song from the radio? Same difference when it comes to public transportation of media.
No, it's not the same thing at all. How do songs get from a CD to the net? It's called "ripping" for a reason. Short for ripping-off, as in stealing.
Lame rationalization. You don’t have to buy entire cds. You can purchase single songs. But you choose to steal them. Why?
Because I believe it's an unjust law. Like slavery. So it's a form of civil protest. Like throwing tea in the harbor.
I peRsonally use BT for my DL’S but I am guessing they are now going to concentrate on BT’s instead of straight DL’S. I DL from Mininova for my ‘stuff’ and most of the uploaders cover up their uploads with WINRAR to compress the file. BUT it’s redundant because the file is in pieces, which is the selling point of BT.
Imagine a rural vegetable stand. The kind where they leave a basket out for payment, and trust the good will of people to pay for what they take. Downloaders are basically driving up to the vegetable stand, loading up on tomatoes, and stiffing the farmer. It's not right.
What is an unjust law? Copyright? It’s in the Constitution.
You are a symptom of what is wrong with America. No integrity. No respect for others. Just a selfish utilitarianism. Rationalization of adolescent appetite. Pathetic, really. And a symptom of our fading national character.
This whole idea is a mess. Suppose your Internet connection is paid for by your employer because you need access from home. Your access gets terminated by your ISP for something teen does. Now what?
ISPs have no business enforcing this unless criminal charges are involved.
>> How do songs get from a CD to the net? It’s called “ripping” for a reason. Short for ripping-off, as in stealing.
Trasferring purchased CD music or DVD movies to your computer is entirely legal — “fair use” doctrine of copyright law. Distribution is illegal. Downloading that which you did not pay for is illegal. But “ripping” is entirely legal and legitimate.
I have personally “ripped” every CD and DVD I own onto my PC for use with my AppleTV (a badass little device, by the way). Some were easy. Some required decryption. But, so long as I don’t distribute, I’ve broken no copyright law.
SnakeDoc
So were the people who threw tea into the Boston harbor all those things too? Or the people who fought against slavery? It's an unjust law, and I'm protesting it. Nonviolently, mind you. What's wrong with that?
or the download pricepoint is just not there yet.
look what happened with the itunes 99 cents made a difference.
The problem is the consumer is buying a song, the industry THINKS they are selling a recording in a particular format.
There has to be a “convenience price” that works. IOW something that has no DRM and is not draconian to use. (ie not slaved to itunes managment software)
I'm for amending the Constitution.
You’re an idiot. You’re not protesting anything. You’re just a selfish moron.
I think they should figure out a way to release music in a format that can’t be digitized. I don’t know if that’s even possible, but that’s what they should do.
Ok well if you're just going to resort to personal attacks there's no point in discussing it further. Good day, sir.
Except that in this case, there are still just as many tomatoes at the stand when they leave. Oops, doesn't fit your "stealing" paradigm very well...
Good. You’re not worth “discussing” anything. You’re just a babbler.
Please let's not resort to personal attacks.
It hasn’t merely changed. It’s gone. There is no business model for sound recordings anymore. It’s a terrible loss.
>> Because I believe it’s an unjust law.
First, I fail to see how it is unjust to require you to pay for merchandise (including intellectual property). Second, we are not empowered to violate those laws that we disagree with.
>> Like slavery. So it’s a form of civil protest. Like throwing tea in the harbor.
Please spare me the high-and-mighty rationalization. You’re no Thomas Paine or Harriet Tubman. You’re a petty thief — stealing the fruit of other peoples’ labor without compensating them.
Fundamentally, you’re no different than the liberals that pass confiscatory taxes. You unilaterally put within the public domain the property of other people. Capitalist, my ass.
SnakeDoc
First of all, how many times do I have to buy "The Best of the Eagles"? or say.... Dire Straits? I bought them in the 70's, bought some more of the same songs, again, in the 80's, copied them to cassettes and then even bought some CD's, now their on my hard drive. But it's a pain in the neck.
So I've bought some songs 2 or 3 times.
How about some old Johnny Winter stuff?
Some music is difficult to find and some stuff I've found like a live version of Hendrix and Billy Gibbons is impossible to find in any store or web site.
Finally, the musicians are making money the old fashioned way... performing. They get a cut of the gate, the T-Shirts, posters and whatever else they can get a hold of.
Now I have to admit it would be tough for a band like Steely Dan to "tour", but that's how musicians make money now. Performing.
Incorrect. A downloaded song that was not paid for is a loss of revenue. It's stealing. I love how you thieves squirm at the reality of your deeds. Just admit it. You're a petty thief.
And Harriet Tubman is not Thomas Paine and Thomas Paine isn't Harriet Tubman. What is your point?
I agree. Stealing music has made the sound recording a lost art. It’s a terrific loss.
>> I think they should figure out a way to release music in a format that can’t be digitized. I don’t know if that’s even possible, but that’s what they should do.
This would kill more sales than it would generate. I buy music and movies specifically for the purpose of digitizing them for my own personal use (on IPods, AppleTVs, etc.).
Without this capability, the item is useless to me, and they will therefore lose my sale.
SnakeDoc
I buy mp3 downloads from Amazon all the time. They are only .99 and I can pick and choose what I want. And no DRM.
We have a long tradition of civil disobedience in the face of unjust laws. This is an unjust law, and I am carrying out civil disobedience in the face of it.
Because I believe it’s an unjust law. Like slavery. So it’s a form of civil protest. Like throwing tea in the harbor.
_________
LOL.
You don’t think anyone is actually buying your self-serving and incredibly silly notion that having to pay someone for their work is like slavery, do you?
You are as transparent as an empty jewel case. You just want what you want, and since the technology exists enabling you to take what you want, what little remains of your conscience recognizes that you must come up with a plausible argument for why it’s OK to steal.
And the best you came up with is the slavery analog? Too funny.
>> What is your point?
My point was in the second sentence you quoted ...
“You’re a petty thief — stealing the fruit of other peoples’ labor without compensating them.”
SnakeDoc
I guess. It’s just sad to me to see sound recordings—albums—go the way of the dinasaur. Digital technology killed recorded music.
Except that in this case, there are still just as many tomatoes at the stand when they leave. Oops, doesn’t fit your “stealing” paradigm very well...
___________
Has the artist received payment for his/her work? No? It fits the stealing paradigm quite nicely, IMO.
>> This is an unjust law, and I am carrying out civil disobedience in the face of it.
Requiring you to pay someone for the fruits of their labor is not “unjust”, it is capitalism.
If you think capitalism is unjust, you may be on the wrong board.
SnakeDoc
If they do not, I will have failed, in so far as one can fail in the pursuit of what is right and just.
I disagree.
Everyone needs a hobby, I guess. I like getting paid for my work--all my work. Why should everyone else make money except you? I don't do charity for people who are not in need of any.
What exactly are you protesting by not paying the artist for their work? You continue to paint yourself as non-violent community organizer, but the image of a common thief keeps shining through.
Just wait, SOLID 3D image printers are on the horizon.
Imagine if any small convenience item can just be printed up rather than buying. (think replicators on star trek)
Suddenly all those “little things” that no longer need be bought because they can be manufactured in the house.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/plastic-printer-that-offers-a-3d-glimpse-of-the-future-448046.html
Plastic printer that offers a 3D glimpse of the future
It is not the song that is being affected, here. It is the distribution model. (BTW Virgin Records is shutting down more stores)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.