Miscellaneous > Intellectual Property & Law
Holy shit! Tis horrible...
voidmain:
So then you will have no problem with me blaming you for Palladium and new CDRW drives that will be totally worthless to me? Things that are going to cost me extra money and provide me no benefit, in fact hamper my normal legal activity.
[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
emh:
I think this whole fire-sharing issue could have went away a long time ago if the record companies would have only accepted Napster's original settlement and had Napster charge a monthly fee for their services, with royalties proportional to the songs being downloaded.
As it is, there are several reasons why people download songs:
1. People don't want to buy a $20 CD that has one song on it that they like.
2. They download songs to sample what may be on a CD they're interested in buying.
3. Band directors do it to hear recordings of pieces they're thinking about performing with their band.
There are other reasons other than these, not everyone downloads songs just to avoid paying for them. For these and other reasons, having a monthly subscription services makes the most sense. Companies like Press Play have the right idea, however their song selection is limited, and you can only download songs in WMA format (and Windows Media Player is required I think).
This isn't to say that the paying service will suddenly oust all the free services, but if a paying service had the flexibility and choice of music that a free service such as Napster, Audiogalaxy, or Kazaa have, it could become a gold mine both for the service and for all record companies.
xyle_one:
the only way i would pay for a service like that, is if i could download the songs to my drive, and do whatever the hell i wanted with it. meaning, i could burn it to a cd for my car, have it on my laptop, and maybe even an mp3 player. i dont want any of the bullshit licensing that goes along with it, like if i download a song, i can only listen to it on the machine it was downloaded to, unless i move the license too, which means it can only be on one machine. when i buy a cd, i want to be able to rip to my mac, throw the disc into my closet, then maybe burn it back to cd for my car. that way i have the original, and dont have to worry about it getting stolen out of my car.
i also dont want to be told how to use the music i bought. "hey, here is your new car, now remember, only drive on these roads, and please dont park it anywhere except your driveway, oh yeah, if you want people to drive with you, better buy this deluxe family package, it comes with 4 seats."
would you buy that car?
flap:
Don't look at me; I never said *I* was a "pirate" - That would be against the law. I'm just debating hypothetically the ethics of it.
And I would prefer that you placed the blame for Microsoft's Draconian measures firmly with Microsoft. But that's a completely separate issue from the intellectual 'property' argument.
voidmain:
quote:Originally posted by flap:
And I would prefer that you placed the blame for Microsoft's Draconian measures firmly with Microsoft. But that's a completely separate issue from the intellectual 'property' argument.
--- End quote ---
I do, and that's why I don't use their products. I also believe in the freedom of information and that's why I use Linux and open formats. I don't believe that gives me the right to break the law and take information from people who do not believe in this. If enough people do the same as I the people that do not believe in freedom of information will be forced to become believers.
[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version