DescentBB

MD-2389 wrote:

Dedman wrote:Don't try and steal music and it won't be a problem.

Thats probably the most ignorant post in this entire thread.

Not at all. Don't steal music and all the hulabaloo with the RIAA goes away.

If we stop stealing music, we've just stopped stealing music.

the RIAA would still be trying to restrict the manner in which we listen to the music we've bought legally, and they still be giving the short shaft to artists.

Duper wrote:

AceCombat wrote:yes roid that was the issue i was talking about. and yes my name is ace and I approve this harassment

hehehehe

HEY HEY!!

Dedman wrote:

MD-2389 wrote:

Dedman wrote:Don't try and steal music and it won't be a problem.

Thats probably the most ignorant post in this entire thread.

Not at all. Don't steal music and all the hulabaloo with the RIAA goes away.

As I said, your post was flat out ignorant.

Lets just say for the sake of arguement that all piracy stopped around the world. Do you honestly think they'll stop implimenting insane copy protection schemes just because people stopped stealing?

This ★■◆● infringes on my RIGHT to make a legitimate backup copy of music that I LEGALLY BUY. I am guaranteed this right by law. By implimenting this feature, they are violating copyright law. If you really wanted to get picky, they are guilty of installing software without the user's consent.

MD-2389 wrote:

Dedman wrote:Don't try and steal music and it won't be a problem.

Lets just say for the sake of arguement that all piracy stopped around the world. Do you honestly think they'll stop implimenting insane copy protection schemes just because people stopped stealing?

Do you honestly think that the money-grubbing RIAA would do anything they think would hurt their bottom line? Do you honestly think they're so dumb that they'd blow tons of money to create copy-protection schemes that they *knew* wouldn't gain them anything?

Right now, they're just flat-out confused -- they think the copy-protection schemes might gain them something, so they're dumping money into them. They see a problem, and they're dumping money into a failing solution. But if people weren't stealing music so much, they wouldn't waste their money trying to prevent a problem that didn't exist. If there was no problem, they wouldn't dump any money into the failing solution.

What they're doing is bull****, no question. It infringes on your RIGHT to not have crap software installed on your PC, and your RIGHT to make legitimate backup copies of your Beastie Boys album. But Dedman is right -- if the RIAA didn't think there was money to be earned by making it harder to copy their CD's, they wouldn't put any money into making it harder to copy them. They may not be very intelligent about discovering the right way to deal with theft, but they wouldn't be dumb enough to keep fighting it if nobody did it.

Looks like we might have the RIAA to thank for something at long last... killing off a crap band by making no-one want to buy their music. (As if they ever did before anyway...)

Lothar wrote:Do you honestly think that the money-grubbing RIAA would do anything they think would hurt their bottom line? Do you honestly think they're so dumb that they'd blow tons of money to create copy-protection schemes that they *knew* wouldn't gain them anything?

Yes actually. Remember the black marker work-a-round? Remember the guy that posted an article on the shift key (which the RIAA tried to sue btw)?

Right now, they're just flat-out confused -- they think the copy-protection schemes might gain them something, so they're dumping money into them. They see a problem, and they're dumping money into a failing solution. But if people weren't stealing music so much, they wouldn't waste their money trying to prevent a problem that didn't exist. If there was no problem, they wouldn't dump any money into the failing solution.

The only thing its gaining them is more pissed off customers. What they need to do with all that money they're stealing from the artists they CLAIM to be protecting is to buy themselves a ****ing clue. Maybe, just maybe, if they would pay attention to WHAT people download so much, their sales would go up even more. They need to get it through their thick skulls that most listeners do NOT like all the boyband trash they've been shoveling out left and right onto the airwaves for the past few years.

If you really want to get into the nitty gritty, they can impliment the all the nasty copy protection schemes they want, but if someone REALLY wants to steal music they'll find a way. Even if it means sticking it into a standalone player at someone's house and recording the playback to their computer. If they want to boost their sales, maybe they should start actually following a certain court order that told them to lower their prices. Universal did, and their sales went up.

What they're doing is bull****, no question. It infringes on your RIGHT to not have crap software installed on your PC, and your RIGHT to make legitimate backup copies of your Beastie Boys album. But Dedman is right -- if the RIAA didn't think there was money to be earned by making it harder to copy their CD's, they wouldn't put any money into making it harder to copy them. They may not be very intelligent about discovering the right way to deal with theft, but they wouldn't be dumb enough to keep fighting it if nobody did it.

Which now I refer to my initial post. All this will do is piss off their PAYING customers. You know, those of us that have portable players that like to take our music on the road. Dedman's assumption that music sharing is the sole cause for this is VERY ignorant, which is the whole point. People have been stealing and sharing music for years. It wasn't until the advent of peer to peer networks that the RIAA started pulling this crap. Is music theft part of the problem? Sure it is. The thing is, with p2p, listeners finally have a choice with WHAT they want to listen to instead of being force-fed the drivel the RIAA slaps out all the time. Why buy a $20 CD that has maybe 3 good songs on it with the rest being filler garbage when you can download all the good songs you like for nothing or dirt cheap (ie: iTunes and the like)? What's hurting the RIAA so much is that they got kicked in the balls by the listeners and they just can't get back up. They're not listening to their customers, and now they're paying for their lack of attention. The genie is out of the bottle, and its not going anywhere anytime soon. They simply can't compete with that.

It is really hard to compete with free.

I bet you could fill the RIAA headquarters building up with cash money that they have "earned" from CD sales that should really belong to the artists. I saw somewhere that it costs most artists money to get a CD produced through the RIAA, and they do not make any money off it. People like that who need the RIAA to get their songs out and have to pay for it would probably welcome P2P because it is free for them too!

MD, half of your post is like... what I already said, or else irrelevant... and the other half is disagreement that doesn't make any sense.

MD-2389 wrote:

Lothar wrote:Do you honestly think they're so dumb that they'd blow tons of money to create copy-protection schemes that they *knew* wouldn't gain them anything?

Yes actually. Remember the black marker work-a-round? Remember the guy that posted an article on the shift key (which the RIAA tried to sue btw)?

What makes you think that didn't buy them anything? The fact that it didn't completely solve everything doesn't mean that they didn't get a good number of unsuspecting consumers to install that software.

What they need to do with all that money they're stealing from the artists they CLAIM to be protecting is to buy themselves a ****ing clue.

Yes, I agree. But how is this relevant to my statement that "if people weren't stealing music so much, they wouldn't waste their money trying to prevent a problem that didn't exist"?

The RIAA is in it for the money. They engage in absurd copy protection schemes because they think they'll end up with more money by doing so. They think they'll end up with more money because their perception is that theft is hurting their sales, while pissing off customers is hurting their sales less.

Is the perception right? Probably not. But, imagine what would happen if the main p2p networks shut down and nobody bothered to start up a new one. People could still share music via IRC and other channels, but there wouldn't be an easy place for people with less tech knowledge than my mom to download free music. It seems to me that, if the file sharing networks -- which the RIAA percieves as a problem -- were gone, they would no longer put money into enhancing copy protection, because they would not see any chance for profit in it.

they can impliment the all the nasty copy protection schemes they want, but if someone REALLY wants to steal music they'll find a way.

Yes, I agree. If someone REALLY REALLY wants to steal $20 from me, they'll find a way, too. But I'd much rather have only that one person who *really wants it* stealing money from me than to have a hundred people who *don't care that much* stealing money from me.

You're missing my point: at present, there is a very very large community of music-theft online. The RIAA percieves this as hurting their bottom line. They percieve this hurt as bad enough that it's worth their time and effort to spend a lot of money trying to create new copy-protection schemes. Whether or not there's something they *could* be doing better is not the point. Whether or not this is totally counterproductive is beside the point. The point is, if this percieved hurt was not there, they would have no reason to spend large amounts of money on copy protection schemes.

All this will do is piss off their PAYING customers.

For the most part, I agree. But the RIAA *thinks* it will make more people buy the CD if it makes it harder for people to steal the music.

Dedman's assumption that music sharing is the sole cause for this is VERY ignorant, which is the whole point.

The sole cause for what? The sole cause for the RIAA's action, or the sole cause for your ire? Of course it's not the sole cause for your ire -- lots of legitimate customers get pissed off about boneheaded copy protection schemes that just make it harder to listen to their own music. But, IMO, it *is* the sole reason why the RIAA puts copy protection on the disks in the first place. They wouldn't make it hard (read: a tiny bit harder than "super easy") to copy music if they didn't think music copying and widespread fileswapping was hurting their sales.

Answer me this: if the major p2p networks shut down today and none took their place, so that the average joe schmoe with a computer didn't know where to go to steal music, do you think the RIAA would keep spending money on new copy protection schemes?

You spend a lot of time rambling about what the RIAA should be doing, and I totally agree -- I've written the same thing probably dozens of times on this board. But you keep skipping over the point: the only reason the RIAA bothers with copy protection is because it percieves a problem with large amounts of people stealing music online. If music theft was not so prevalent, they wouldn't bother trying to counter it.

Lothar wrote:If music theft was not so prevalent, they wouldn't bother trying to counter it.

And if the RIAA gave people what they wanted, music theft would not be so prevalent. This particular argument can keep on going in circles simply because it's a chicken and egg scenerio.

I get my cd's nice and legal from Overstock.com. I won't pay over $10 for a CD. As soon as RIAA matches this, I'll buy from stores. Until then, if I can't get it form Overstock, or similar, I won't get it..at all.
I don't bother downloading 'cause the bitrate sucks. 128k is a joke.

Lothar wrote:MD, half of your post is like... what I already said, or else irrelevant... and the other half is disagreement that doesn't make any sense.

To you.

What makes you think that didn't buy them anything? The fact that it didn't completely solve everything doesn't mean that they didn't get a good number of unsuspecting consumers to install that software.

Which didn't last very long once an exploit against it was made known (which just happened to be a feature of Windows, which made it completely legal even though it was a breach of the DMCA.). Your only point here is that the majority of the public is stupid. Something we've all known for how long now?

What they need to do with all that money they're stealing from the artists they CLAIM to be protecting is to buy themselves a ****ing clue.

Yes, I agree. But how is this relevant to my statement that "if people weren't stealing music so much, they wouldn't waste their money trying to prevent a problem that didn't exist"?[/quote]

The thing is, not everyone that downloads off of p2p is "stealing music". Ever hear of shareware? The same concept applies here. I'm sorry, but I'm not buying any CD (I don't care WHO the artist is) until I hear it first. You can't listen to the entire CD in stores so what alternative do people like me have other than to download it off of p2p networks? Blaming "poor" sales on p2p swapping only is downright ignorant because there are far more factors to be taken into account here. By that logic, the poor sales for Descent3 were solely because people pirated it instead of buying it in stores like good little boys and girls and not the fault of Interplay's poor marketing skills.

The RIAA is in it for the money. They engage in absurd copy protection schemes because they think they'll end up with more money by doing so. They think they'll end up with more money because their perception is that theft is hurting their sales, while pissing off customers is hurting their sales less.

Which you're only proving that the RIAA is composed of a bunch of greedy ignorant morons. Again, something we all already know.

Is the perception right? Probably not. But, imagine what would happen if the main p2p networks shut down and nobody bothered to start up a new one. People could still share music via IRC and other channels, but there wouldn't be an easy place for people with less tech knowledge than my mom to download free music. It seems to me that, if the file sharing networks -- which the RIAA percieves as a problem -- were gone, they would no longer put money into enhancing copy protection, because they would not see any chance for profit in it.

And thats where you're wrong. As long as they percieve ANY kind of "threat", they're going to keep on implimenting stupid schemes like this one. Knowing them, they'll keep on doing this until the only way we can listen to it is on a "pay to play" player, which is encoded in such a way that it'll only play perfectly on that player and sound like ★■◆● if you rip from it. They are a monopoly of the music industry. You know it, they know it, and they're not afraid of anyone since nobody (other than the EFF and the like) will stand up to them.

Yes, I agree. If someone REALLY REALLY wants to steal $20 from me, they'll find a way, too. But I'd much rather have only that one person who *really wants it* stealing money from me than to have a hundred people who *don't care that much* stealing money from me.

Umm....your point?

You're missing my point: at present, there is a very very large community of music-theft online. The RIAA percieves this as hurting their bottom line. They percieve this hurt as bad enough that it's worth their time and effort to spend a lot of money trying to create new copy-protection schemes. Whether or not there's something they *could* be doing better is not the point. Whether or not this is totally counterproductive is beside the point. The point is, if this percieved hurt was not there, they would have no reason to spend large amounts of money on copy protection schemes.

See above.

For the most part, I agree. But the RIAA *thinks* it will make more people buy the CD if it makes it harder for people to steal the music.

And they're dead wrong. They just don't realize it.

Dedman's assumption that music sharing is the sole cause for this is VERY ignorant, which is the whole point.

The sole cause for what? The sole cause for the RIAA's action, or the sole cause for your ire?[/quote]

The whole situation. Everytime someone mentions the insane things the RIAA is doing, Dedman's only comment is "if people would stop stealing music...blah blah blah". The idea that stealing music is the only thing hurting sales is flat out ignorant.

Of course it's not the sole cause for your ire -- lots of legitimate customers get pissed off about boneheaded copy protection schemes that just make it harder to listen to their own music. But, IMO, it *is* the sole reason why the RIAA puts copy protection on the disks in the first place. They wouldn't make it hard (read: a tiny bit harder than "super easy") to copy music if they didn't think music copying and widespread fileswapping was hurting their sales.

Which in turn they lump the cost of that crap onto the customers and justify it because of "music theft" instead of their own ineptitude and their inability to listen to their customers.

Answer me this: if the major p2p networks shut down today and none took their place, so that the average joe schmoe with a computer didn't know where to go to steal music, do you think the RIAA would keep spending money on new copy protection schemes?

And as I've said repeatedly, yes they would. They would keep on going until they were forced to stop by either the government or lack of funding.

You spend a lot of time rambling about what the RIAA should be doing, and I totally agree -- I've written the same thing probably dozens of times on this board. But you keep skipping over the point: the only reason the RIAA bothers with copy protection is because it percieves a problem with large amounts of people stealing music online. If music theft was not so prevalent, they wouldn't bother trying to counter it.

Just like you keep saying the same thing over and over and over again in the same post repeatedly.

LOL... please learn to use quote tags properly. Also please learn to make a coherent argument. Thanks :)

MD-2389 wrote:Everytime someone mentions the insane things the RIAA is doing, Dedman's only comment is "if people would stop stealing music...blah blah blah". The idea that stealing music is the only thing hurting sales is flat out ignorant.

I have never stated explicitly or implicitly that stealing music is the sole cause of weak sales or for the RIAA's â??insaneâ?

Music theft.

interesting. I wonder how many people have downloaded the scores to the music of the top 20?

thats Music theft.

what you are griping about dedman, is copyright infringment.

My main problem with the RI/MPAA, and it should be everyone else's, is they are successful in extending copyright lengths well beyond what is needed, and on top of that, demand more power in controling their copyrights at the same time.

That and their general failure to see the postives in new technology until someone twists their arms on the issue.

IMHO, their copyrights should expire in twenty years, rather than the 70+ they have now, whats the point in hanging on a copyright for that long when its gonna sit on the shelf for most of its lifetime?

If I remember right, the article previously mentioned in this thread about the way the college student disabled the auto-install feature of the copy protection was featured on thid board a while back. All ya gotta do is hold down the "shift" key when you pop a disc in. Problem solved. As far as this proggy making it onto computers in the US, the recording companies already tried it a while ago; until this student blew thi lid on it. Then the stopped placing it on the CDs because of the angry consumer that couldn't copy his own CD, and it wasn't a secret anymore. Maybe they think they can fool someone overseas.

fliptw wrote:what you are griping about dedman, is copyright infringment.

I know it's copyright infringment. I am calling it theft because that is what it has been labled in the past in this and like threads. And I am not griping about it per se. I am pointing out what I consider to be the stupidity of people justifying copyright infringment simply because they don't like the RIAA's tactics in trying to stop it.

My position has been and remains to be this: if people would stop engaging in copyright infringment (theft) then the motivation for the RIAA to do what they are doing in response to it would go away.

Dedman wrote:if people would stop engaging in copyright infringment (theft) then the motivation for the RIAA to do what they are doing in response to it would go away.

<broken record>
If the RIAA would stop engaging in un-friendly business practices (ripping people off) then the motivation for the people to do what they are doing in response to it would go away.
</>

Tetrad wrote: <broken record>
If the RIAA would stop engaging in un-friendly business practices (ripping people off) then the motivation for the people to do what they are doing in response to it would go away.
</>

I disagree. Copyright infringement as it pertains to music has been going on for far longer than the RIAA's un-friendly business practices. It has gotten to the point that it is part of our culture. That doesn't make it right however. Saying that music theft is the RIAA's fault becuase of their business practices is a total cop-out. That is akin to saying it is ok to steal gasoline becuase you think the oil companies are gouging the public. Well, it isn't. The oil companies and the RIAA may be gouging the public, but that can't justify the stealing their products.

Dunno, it can be argued that those companies are stealing from us.

Stop with the "music theft" buzzwords! It's not stealing, it's copyright infringement. The RIAA loves "theft" because it carries with it connotations of a guy wearing black and white stripes and a racoon mask sneaking into the artists' homes and stealing copies of CD's. This is in sharp contrast to what it really is, which is illegaly copying a copy that you legitimately own and, under U.S. law, are allowed to use as you wish. Which, unfortunately for the RIAA, means being able to play it back through your computer speakers without incident.

Dedman wrote:That is akin to saying it is ok to steal gasoline becuase you think the oil companies are gouging the public.

I'm not saying it's okay. I'm saying the businesses in question are at fault for not seeing a need and filling it themselves. Both sides are really bringing it upon themselves, but it's much easier to change the way somebody does business than what the mass market wants to do.

Dedman wrote: Copyright infringement as it pertains to music has been going on for far longer than the RIAA's un-friendly business practices.

The MP/RIAA un-friendly business practices started when they got the governments of the world to start pushing the expiry of the copyrights back further and further, with the option of extending it further and further.

Lothar wrote:LOL... please learn to use quote tags properly. Also please learn to make a coherent argument. Thanks

Uh huh. I goofed up on one of your quotes and this is the best you can come up with? Concession accepted.

roid wrote:hehe, so easy, that you had to use google to figure out howto do it.

Yeah, I'd like to think google is a good start when you've never used an operating system before. Remember, knowledge is easy after you've already learned it, not before. If you don't know something you have to find it out somehow. Sometimes google beats coming here and asking a stupid question.

Dedman wrote:

MD-2389 wrote:Everytime someone mentions the insane things the RIAA is doing, Dedman's only comment is "if people would stop stealing music...blah blah blah". The idea that stealing music is the only thing hurting sales is flat out ignorant.

I have never stated explicitly or implicitly that stealing music is the sole cause of weak sales or for the RIAA's â??insaneâ?

Testiculese wrote:Dunno, it can be argued that those companies are stealing from us.

Not really- they arn't taking any of your property without your consent- when you buy cd's, you are agreeing to pay them more than they deserve.

But I'm not worried, anyway -- what kind of loser buys Beastie Boys CD's?

<---- Loser


Hey Lothar...not every band has to be Creed.

I love when people bash art. Its like saying "what kind of loser would eat chicken"...Um...The loser who likes chicken you dill hole

very well said, jbomb

MD-2389 wrote:My whole point is that the RIAA is going about this the wrong way. You don't win the hearts of your opponents by bankrupting them, simply because they won't have the money to buy your product.?

Sounds like we are in perfect agreement

LOL at Jbomb

snoopy wrote:Not really- they arn't taking any of your property without your consent- when you buy cd's, you are agreeing to pay them more than they deserve.

Not when there aren't alternatives. Then it's like coersion. Like the price at the pumps. There are the beginnings of alternatives for music, but they're not ready yet. And they certainly aren't available to 16 year olds. So, in order for them to get the artist's album, they are *forced* to pay those prices. They're ripping the people off(not to mention the artists), and that is basically stealing.

Since I'm over 18, and have a bank account with a Visa-based ATM card, I can go to places like Overstock.com, and get my CD's for the price I would pay..$10 or less, so it works for me, at least.