Actually you can get headphones in movie theaters. Tell them you're hard of hearing and you need an accommodation. They'll give you set of headphones and a wireless receiver.
I have no idea if this will work in Australia, but it'll work in the US.
Actually, I have to agree with you. There is no reason to drop ticket prices when ticket sales are through the roof. In fact the movie industry might want to consider raising ticket prices to keep up with the demand.
But why did people start downloading music way back in the mid 90s? Because there was no legal means to download music. If iTunes had been opened in about 1998, a year before Napster, there would have been little reason for the vast majority of people to use Usenet and IRC because iTunes would have been much easier. And because everyone would have been using iTunes, there would not have been any demand to create an easy to use program such as Napster.
You can blame the people, but I blame the industry for refusing to provide the service people wanted.
"Theft and infringement has the same results"
Nope, when you steal physical property, the owner of the property loses his ability to use, sell, or lease out his property. That's the result of theft.
When you infringe, you're violating a government granted monopoly. (Much like those people in the 70s who would install a second phone in violation of AT&T's government granted monopoly.) When you download a song the music industry does not lose a sale, it loses a possible sale. The same could be said of radio. I might hear a song on the radio for free and think, "God, that song is awful, I'll never buy it." On the other hand, I've heard plenty of music online which caused me to buy the music. Music is an odd product, you really can't sell it until someone else has wide access to it.
And unlike theft, the holder of the copyright still has the monopoly over his music and can still sell it, use it, and lease it out. Accordingly, the results are completely different.
How many times do we have to explain that theft and infringement are two entirely different concepts and are not analogous.
"It isn't like a movie company is suddenly going to start giving live performances of it's movies..."
You're kidding right? Despite so called piracy the movie industry had its very best year ever in ticket sale profits.
"What a judgment like this does is encourage content producers to not bring their product into the Australian market..."
Will not selling content in Australia make it unavailable on P2P? Nope, it'll still be there. So how does not selling it help? That will only force customers to use P2P.
What this judgment should do is to force the content industry to sell its products in way that people want to buy.
"What the government is considering is similar to what they would have to do if a judge ruled that shoplifting was legal..."
Once again, theft is different from infringement. If you're still arguing that after reading this site for as long as you have you're either an idiot or you're lying. And I don't think you're an idiot.
I'm probably going to get a lot of disagreement with this. But I think that if the music industry had opened an iTunes-like store prior to Napster, about 1997, P2P would not have been pervasive had it was and is.
I remember people sharing music via IRC and Usenet in the mid 90s. But it was difficult so not many newbs did it. It was not until 1999, when Napster was released, that suddenly everyone could share music.
iTunes did not come out for four more years. And even when it did finally open, it was limited to only iPod users. It was several more years before Amazon provided a DRM free reasonably priced alternative for everyone else.
During those years between Napster and legitimate services, people got used to getting what they wanted for nothing. By the time the legitimate services arrived, it was too late.
I'm not arguing that P2P never would have existed. Certainly it would have existed and it would have been widely used. However, most of the sheeples in the world would have stuck with the 1997 iTunes because it would have been relatively cheap and easy to use. And most sheeple never would have had any reason to use P2P.
"the vast majority the world over not only accepts..."
Apparently you've never heard of the Chinese. Our notion of government granted monopolies have not been accepted by a billion people living there. There is no moral or ethical considerations because the mere notion of owning an infinite "product" is simply beyond reason. Well, their reason.
And despite what you think, the vast majority of Americans find it ludicrous that a person who was brutally raped is worth about the same as the the downloading of 24 songs. (Remember, there was no evidence at trial that she shared any music.)
If you want to live in a world where government granted monopolies are worth more than people, that's fine. I hope they give you plenty of grass to graze.
If this treaty actually was related solely to the counterfeiting of physical goods no one would have a fricken problem with it.
The only reason people are upset about the treaty, and the only reason the treaty is cloaked in secrecy, is because it will affect our consumer and constitutional rights by making our copyright laws more draconian.
The only way they can screw us over is by doing it in secret.
"Pre 1930s or so, recording were very expensive to buy, fragile, and basically the reserve of rich people. The 1940s and 50s were a key time in the music industry, as vinyl records came around that allowed the mass production of discs"
And the vast majority of musicians during that time made money by "begging" to play live.
"it is a golden era with no gold"
Wait, you said you wanted music to be about the music. That's the here and now. Anyone who wants to create music can create it and the world has access to hear it.
But now you're telling me you want music as a means to get rich. What exactly is your point?
"wouldn't my only recourse be to take the ISP to court?
And if the ISP doesn't give me an opportunity to resign my contract"
You could sue for their breach of contract, but you'd lose. The contract between you and the ISP would exclude activiies such as bittorent or "heavy use." So you would be kicked off because you breached that portion of the contract. If you went to court to sue your case would be kicked out because you were the breaching party.
There was a good article about Google (which I cannot find). Google ran the numbers and noticed that people were only reading Google News while at work. The numbers dropped significantly after work, during lunch, and during the weekends.
In other words, people read online news as a little break from work. Something to fill in a downtime. And as evidence has shown, people are not willing to pay for that.
The guy from Google specualted that the reason we bought newspapers (although we only paid a nominal amount and the real profits came from advertising) was for the experience of reading a newspaper.
Cuddling up on the couch with a cup of coffee, slowing reading through the news, doing the crossword, laughing at the comics, seeing what new movies were out, checking out the scores, etc. We were willing to pay for that because we enjoyed doing it.
For what ever reason, maybe we're too busy... whatever, we simply no longer enjoy that experience. So we no longer pay for it. And regardless, we certainly do not enjoy it while sitting at the computer.
It's hilarious that you're arguing copyrights in the same breath as a free market. Copyrights are not a free market. They are a government granted monopoly no different from the one enjoyed by AT&T in the "good" old days.
Copyrights and patents are a government granted exception to a free market.
Think back to the 1800s when the player piano was invented. Copyrights only protected published sheet music, thus piano rolls were not covered by copyright. It was perfectly legal to sell piano rolls.
What did the music industry do? In a free market when you're faced with competition, you compete or die.
That's not what the music publishers did. They went to Congress which increased their monopoly to include performances of music. Suddenly, piano rolls were included under copyright and the music industry (of the 1800s) bypassed any market force to compete through government fiat.
That's what happens every time the music industry is faced with competition. They sue. And if they cannot sue, they broaden their monopolies so they can sue.
If you think that sort of BS remotely resembles a free market you're either lying or an idiot.
That's one way of looking at it. You could also argue, quite persuasively, that Coke is not in the business of selling soda, but is in the business of selling cans and bottles. You could also argue that McDonalds is not in the business of selling food, but is in the business of selling paper bags. And you could also argue that the credit card companies are not in the business of providing credit, but in imposing of random fees on unsuspecting users.
But such distinctions are irrelevant. The point is whether Palmer is doing a job she likes (creating music) at a wage she's willing to accept (whatever the fans are willing to pay).
"The shoemaker doesn't ask individual people to employ him..."
Why not? If you look through the entire history of music, the notion of selling collections of music on vinyl or plastic discs is only a blip. A minuscule little blip. Selling collections of music did not really catch on until the 60s.
"I don't give my stuff..."
Your analogy fails because you're comparing scarce physical goods with nearly unlimited virtual goods. If you're selling burgers, and I open up a restaurant next door and also sell burgers. That's not stealing or immoral in anyway. That's competition.
"It is sad to think that all of music will no longer be about making music, but about begging for cash and trying to sell trinkets"
The era of making money selling albums was really about four decades. It started in the 50s, caught on in the 60s, thrived in the 70s, took dive in the 80s, slightly regained and then completely died in by the end of the 90s.
Merely because something was done one way for a relatively short period of time, you expect it always to be done the exact same way. That's not the way life works.
There are people who believe that evenutlaly the manufacturing sector in the US will come back. Just like it was in the 70s with high wages. It will not come back. Merely because it existed for a short time does not mean it will exist forever.
And if you believe the 50s through the 90s was "about making music" you're either an idiot or lying. The music business was a business. It was not about music, it was about selling vinyl and then plastic dics. What was on encoded on those discs was irrelevant.
Right now if you want to make music, you can make music. No one is stopping you. There are no middle-men/gate-keepers keeping you from having access to the world. If you want to make music for music's sake, you're living in a golden era. If you demand to be paid for that, you're completely out of luck. If you want to be paid for it, you're going to have to give people a reason to pay. Just like I do in my job, like you do in your job, and everyone else does in their jobs.
You seem to be under some bizarre belief that people deserve to be paid for what they do. They do not. Every day I take a crap. No one pays me. If a musician wants to release crap on a CD, no one is under any obligation to pay him.
I asked my boss to hire me. A musician might ask to be paid for his work from his fans. If you consider those requests to be begging, that's your right, I guess. But it's ludicrous.
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
On the post: Copyright Industry Responds To iiNet Ruling By Asking For Gov't Bailout; Aussie Gov't 'Studying' It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Question:
I have no idea if this will work in Australia, but it'll work in the US.
On the post: Copyright Industry Responds To iiNet Ruling By Asking For Gov't Bailout; Aussie Gov't 'Studying' It
Re: Re: Question:
On the post: Copyright Industry Responds To iiNet Ruling By Asking For Gov't Bailout; Aussie Gov't 'Studying' It
Re: Re: Re:
But why did people start downloading music way back in the mid 90s? Because there was no legal means to download music. If iTunes had been opened in about 1998, a year before Napster, there would have been little reason for the vast majority of people to use Usenet and IRC because iTunes would have been much easier. And because everyone would have been using iTunes, there would not have been any demand to create an easy to use program such as Napster.
You can blame the people, but I blame the industry for refusing to provide the service people wanted.
"Theft and infringement has the same results"
Nope, when you steal physical property, the owner of the property loses his ability to use, sell, or lease out his property. That's the result of theft.
When you infringe, you're violating a government granted monopoly. (Much like those people in the 70s who would install a second phone in violation of AT&T's government granted monopoly.) When you download a song the music industry does not lose a sale, it loses a possible sale. The same could be said of radio. I might hear a song on the radio for free and think, "God, that song is awful, I'll never buy it." On the other hand, I've heard plenty of music online which caused me to buy the music. Music is an odd product, you really can't sell it until someone else has wide access to it.
And unlike theft, the holder of the copyright still has the monopoly over his music and can still sell it, use it, and lease it out. Accordingly, the results are completely different.
On the post: Copyright Industry Responds To iiNet Ruling By Asking For Gov't Bailout; Aussie Gov't 'Studying' It
Re:
How many times do we have to explain that theft and infringement are two entirely different concepts and are not analogous.
"It isn't like a movie company is suddenly going to start giving live performances of it's movies..."
You're kidding right? Despite so called piracy the movie industry had its very best year ever in ticket sale profits.
"What a judgment like this does is encourage content producers to not bring their product into the Australian market..."
Will not selling content in Australia make it unavailable on P2P? Nope, it'll still be there. So how does not selling it help? That will only force customers to use P2P.
What this judgment should do is to force the content industry to sell its products in way that people want to buy.
"What the government is considering is similar to what they would have to do if a judge ruled that shoplifting was legal..."
Once again, theft is different from infringement. If you're still arguing that after reading this site for as long as you have you're either an idiot or you're lying. And I don't think you're an idiot.
On the post: Copyright Industry Responds To iiNet Ruling By Asking For Gov't Bailout; Aussie Gov't 'Studying' It
On the post: Did The Recording Industry Really Miss The Opportunity To 'Monetize' Online Music?
I remember people sharing music via IRC and Usenet in the mid 90s. But it was difficult so not many newbs did it. It was not until 1999, when Napster was released, that suddenly everyone could share music.
iTunes did not come out for four more years. And even when it did finally open, it was limited to only iPod users. It was several more years before Amazon provided a DRM free reasonably priced alternative for everyone else.
During those years between Napster and legitimate services, people got used to getting what they wanted for nothing. By the time the legitimate services arrived, it was too late.
I'm not arguing that P2P never would have existed. Certainly it would have existed and it would have been widely used. However, most of the sheeples in the world would have stuck with the 1997 iTunes because it would have been relatively cheap and easy to use. And most sheeple never would have had any reason to use P2P.
On the post: USTR: A Lot Of Misperception Over ACTA, But We Won't Clear It Up Or Anything
Re: We, the People.
Apparently you've never heard of the Chinese. Our notion of government granted monopolies have not been accepted by a billion people living there. There is no moral or ethical considerations because the mere notion of owning an infinite "product" is simply beyond reason. Well, their reason.
And despite what you think, the vast majority of Americans find it ludicrous that a person who was brutally raped is worth about the same as the the downloading of 24 songs. (Remember, there was no evidence at trial that she shared any music.)
If you want to live in a world where government granted monopolies are worth more than people, that's fine. I hope they give you plenty of grass to graze.
On the post: USTR: A Lot Of Misperception Over ACTA, But We Won't Clear It Up Or Anything
The only reason people are upset about the treaty, and the only reason the treaty is cloaked in secrecy, is because it will affect our consumer and constitutional rights by making our copyright laws more draconian.
The only way they can screw us over is by doing it in secret.
On the post: USTR: A Lot Of Misperception Over ACTA, But We Won't Clear It Up Or Anything
Mike, you forgot the sarcasm tag.
On the post: Yes, If You Don't Do Anything, You Shouldn't Expect People To Just Give You Money
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And the vast majority of musicians during that time made money by "begging" to play live.
"it is a golden era with no gold"
Wait, you said you wanted music to be about the music. That's the here and now. Anyone who wants to create music can create it and the world has access to hear it.
But now you're telling me you want music as a means to get rich. What exactly is your point?
On the post: But, Wait, Didn't The Entertainment Industry Insist ACTA Wouldn't Change US Law?
Re: Re: Re: Wont work
And if the ISP doesn't give me an opportunity to resign my contract"
You could sue for their breach of contract, but you'd lose. The contract between you and the ISP would exclude activiies such as bittorent or "heavy use." So you would be kicked off because you breached that portion of the contract. If you went to court to sue your case would be kicked out because you were the breaching party.
On the post: Massive Disconnect: Paywall Analysis Claims It's Reasonable To Expect 66% Of Readers To Pay
Re: Not a good reason to pay - bad writing
There is a world of difference between what is "possible" and what is "probable."
On the post: Massive Disconnect: Paywall Analysis Claims It's Reasonable To Expect 66% Of Readers To Pay
In other words, people read online news as a little break from work. Something to fill in a downtime. And as evidence has shown, people are not willing to pay for that.
The guy from Google specualted that the reason we bought newspapers (although we only paid a nominal amount and the real profits came from advertising) was for the experience of reading a newspaper.
Cuddling up on the couch with a cup of coffee, slowing reading through the news, doing the crossword, laughing at the comics, seeing what new movies were out, checking out the scores, etc. We were willing to pay for that because we enjoyed doing it.
For what ever reason, maybe we're too busy... whatever, we simply no longer enjoy that experience. So we no longer pay for it. And regardless, we certainly do not enjoy it while sitting at the computer.
On the post: Yes, If You Don't Do Anything, You Shouldn't Expect People To Just Give You Money
Re:
It's hilarious that you're arguing copyrights in the same breath as a free market. Copyrights are not a free market. They are a government granted monopoly no different from the one enjoyed by AT&T in the "good" old days.
Copyrights and patents are a government granted exception to a free market.
Think back to the 1800s when the player piano was invented. Copyrights only protected published sheet music, thus piano rolls were not covered by copyright. It was perfectly legal to sell piano rolls.
What did the music industry do? In a free market when you're faced with competition, you compete or die.
That's not what the music publishers did. They went to Congress which increased their monopoly to include performances of music. Suddenly, piano rolls were included under copyright and the music industry (of the 1800s) bypassed any market force to compete through government fiat.
That's what happens every time the music industry is faced with competition. They sue. And if they cannot sue, they broaden their monopolies so they can sue.
If you think that sort of BS remotely resembles a free market you're either lying or an idiot.
On the post: Yes, If You Don't Do Anything, You Shouldn't Expect People To Just Give You Money
Re:
But such distinctions are irrelevant. The point is whether Palmer is doing a job she likes (creating music) at a wage she's willing to accept (whatever the fans are willing to pay).
On the post: Yes, If You Don't Do Anything, You Shouldn't Expect People To Just Give You Money
Re: Re: Re:
Why not? If you look through the entire history of music, the notion of selling collections of music on vinyl or plastic discs is only a blip. A minuscule little blip. Selling collections of music did not really catch on until the 60s.
"I don't give my stuff..."
Your analogy fails because you're comparing scarce physical goods with nearly unlimited virtual goods. If you're selling burgers, and I open up a restaurant next door and also sell burgers. That's not stealing or immoral in anyway. That's competition.
"It is sad to think that all of music will no longer be about making music, but about begging for cash and trying to sell trinkets"
The era of making money selling albums was really about four decades. It started in the 50s, caught on in the 60s, thrived in the 70s, took dive in the 80s, slightly regained and then completely died in by the end of the 90s.
Merely because something was done one way for a relatively short period of time, you expect it always to be done the exact same way. That's not the way life works.
There are people who believe that evenutlaly the manufacturing sector in the US will come back. Just like it was in the 70s with high wages. It will not come back. Merely because it existed for a short time does not mean it will exist forever.
And if you believe the 50s through the 90s was "about making music" you're either an idiot or lying. The music business was a business. It was not about music, it was about selling vinyl and then plastic dics. What was on encoded on those discs was irrelevant.
Right now if you want to make music, you can make music. No one is stopping you. There are no middle-men/gate-keepers keeping you from having access to the world. If you want to make music for music's sake, you're living in a golden era. If you demand to be paid for that, you're completely out of luck. If you want to be paid for it, you're going to have to give people a reason to pay. Just like I do in my job, like you do in your job, and everyone else does in their jobs.
On the post: Yes, If You Don't Do Anything, You Shouldn't Expect People To Just Give You Money
Re:
I asked my boss to hire me. A musician might ask to be paid for his work from his fans. If you consider those requests to be begging, that's your right, I guess. But it's ludicrous.
On the post: Yes, If You Don't Do Anything, You Shouldn't Expect People To Just Give You Money
Could be. Generally the most successful albums and movies are also the ones most pirated on P2P. As I've said before, crap is still crap no matter what price you put on it.
On the post: But, Wait, Didn't The Entertainment Industry Insist ACTA Wouldn't Change US Law?
Re: Re:
It is my hope for your sake that you're being sarcastic. I have little faith in the sheeple that make up our country.
Next >>