We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
They aren't trying him for the same thing twice: The criminal case was "Conspiracy to Defraud" (criminal) and they're probably just going for copyright infringement. (civil)
I have a Droid (and an iPhone 3G before that) and an ebook reader (Cybook Gen3) and the ebook reader is gathering dust. While it does have both the features (and they are nice features) of long battery life and less eyestrain, the ebook reader fails because it's not always in my pocket.
Judging solely on the fact that VPN services (and others like them) are on the rise due to the War on Unauthorized File Sharing, I'd say that what the customer wants is an all-you-can-eat monthly subscription that allows you to download in a DRM free file format of the user's choice.
After all, if you're willing to pay $21/3mo to disguise your unauthorized file sharing, then you're willing to pay $20/3mo to get it straight from the source. (Possibly even more than the cost of a VPN service, depending on how much of a hassle you feel going to BT sites is)
So, my to answer the title question: No, I think that buying music a la carte is a ship that has sailed. Fewer and fewer people are okay with *buying* digital music files at any price point-- but they will gladly pay for the *service* of getting those digital music files to their computer. I know I would, if it was competitively priced against the competition. (VPN services + Unauthorized File Sharing)
I would feed you, little hungry troll, but my lawyers have advised me that doing so could put me at risk of a lawsuit and to wait until such a time that they have determined which food safe to recreate without somehow preventing future innovation.
Without a sarcmark I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but in case you're not: They can always pay the fan club a small sum to do the work, making it a work for hire. That way, the copyrights stay firmly in the hands of the lawyers, the way our founding fathers intended. [insert sarcmark here]
What about collusion? *All* the big carrier's SMS prices have gone up. Since it's well know that SMS doesn't actually cost them anything, I can't find a rational reason why *every* carrier's SMS prices have increased.
When I was in the military I never thought of it as I was fighting for my Government, I considered myself fighting for my country.
I feel the same about copyrights as I do about Government: Both had reasonable and noble purposes for their creation, and both are now bent and twisted to favor those with money over "the rest of us".
Sadly, I also believe that the solution is the same for both: Reboot.
Somebody you don't even know e-mails you a copy of a copyrighted song and then you turn around and e-mail copies to all of your friends.
You make an MP3 copy of a song because the CD you bought expressly permits you to do so. But then you put your MP3 copy on the Internet, using a file-sharing network, so that millions of other people can download it.
Even if you don't illegally offer recordings to others, you join a file-sharing network and download unauthorized copies of all the copyrighted music you want for free from the computers of other network members.
In order to gain access to copyrighted music on the computers of other network members, you pay a fee to join a file-sharing network that isn't authorized to distribute or make copies of copyrighted music. Then you download unauthorized copies of all the music you want.
You transfer copyrighted music using an instant messenging service.
You have a computer with a CD burner, which you use to burn copies of music you have downloaded onto writable CDs for all of your friends.
If they sent the movie to a critic to be screened for award considerations, it was ready, wasn't it?
The fact that people wanted to see the movie enough to torrent it shows that marketing had done their job, doesn't it?
Also, from a business point of view, it *is* his responsibility to meet my expectations, as a consumer, or he'll find my attention pointed elsewhere, won't he?
I'm not justifying anything. Piracy needs no justification to exist. Mike is saying that Jackson should have responded better to the leak, I'm saying he should have "leaked" it himself.
Are you suggesting that the movie was created so I could *not* watch it?
Take your argument to the next level, if you bought a DVD and it came with a sticker that said you were only allowed to watch it on Friday nights at 8pm, would you do as the sticker demands, or would you say "Screw it, the technology exists to watch it whenever I want, and I'll do just that."
Let's be honest here, friend. Jackson only cares because he feels he's losing money with piracy, not because the public saw it "too soon". If he wants to fight piracy, then compete with it: Give the fans what they want, when they want, and piracy won't be needed.
It would be best for the creator for me to see the movie 3 times a day for a month, but that's not going to happen because it's *not* what's best for the creator that is important, it's what's best for both of us.
What's best for both of us is for me to see it when I want to see it and pay for it. Since we, the consumers, are not given that option, we default to a close second: See it when we want to see it and then go pay.
On the post: Obama Quietly Issues Ruling Saying It's Legal For The FBI To Break The Law On Accessing Phone Records
Reboot
On the post: Recording Industry May Go After OiNK Admin Again
Re: Double Jeopardy
On the post: App Store Overload? Kindle Gets An App Store
Re:
So, the phone won.
On the post: Will Lower Prices Help Sell More Albums?
VPN
After all, if you're willing to pay $21/3mo to disguise your unauthorized file sharing, then you're willing to pay $20/3mo to get it straight from the source. (Possibly even more than the cost of a VPN service, depending on how much of a hassle you feel going to BT sites is)
So, my to answer the title question: No, I think that buying music a la carte is a ship that has sailed. Fewer and fewer people are okay with *buying* digital music files at any price point-- but they will gladly pay for the *service* of getting those digital music files to their computer. I know I would, if it was competitively priced against the competition. (VPN services + Unauthorized File Sharing)
On the post: Patents Being Used To Keep Starving Children From Getting Therapeutic Food Paste
Re:
Alas, you must go hungry.
On the post: CBS Would Rather Kill Off Classic Jack Benny Video Footage Than Let Fans Rescue And Digitize It
Re:
On the post: Justice Department Finds No Problems With Text Message Prices
Re: Re:
On the post: Wait, Someone Expects People To Pay To Let People Know When They're Being Sarcastic? That'll Work
Woosh.
On the post: Google And Verizon Find A Tiny Bit Of Common Ground On Net Neutrality... But Still Aren't That Close
Re: Re: Arrogance
If I had to guess, I'd say the German lawyers will win. Their words seem to run a bit longer than other countries.
I want to be a German lawyer when I grow up!
On the post: It's Not An Open vs. Closed Internet, But Ours vs. Theirs
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I want to live where you live.
On the post: Google And Verizon Find A Tiny Bit Of Common Ground On Net Neutrality... But Still Aren't That Close
Arrogance
You learn something new everyday, I guess.
On the post: It's Not An Open vs. Closed Internet, But Ours vs. Theirs
Re: an interesting reframing of the issue
I feel the same about copyrights as I do about Government: Both had reasonable and noble purposes for their creation, and both are now bent and twisted to favor those with money over "the rest of us".
Sadly, I also believe that the solution is the same for both: Reboot.
On the post: OiNK Admin: Not Guilty
Next
On the stand he admitted to downloading music himself as a way to discover new artists. Everyone here knows what the next course of action will be.
Civil suit.
On the post: Be Careful Challenging Others To Read 100 Books, As You Might Infringe On Someone's Trademark
Re: Re:
On the post: Facebook Requires McAfee Scan If There's A Security Breach? Is This Security Or A Marketing Program?
Wow.
On the post: Peter Jackson Freaks Out About BitTorrent Leak Of The Lovely Bones
Re: Downloading = not illegal
Black propaganda, all of it.
On the post: French Court Forcing Google To Remove Word 'Scam' From Google Suggest
Re: I Wonder if Google isn't shooting themselves in the foot?
That is even cooler than when typing in "why won't" ended in "my parakeet eat my diarrhea". (I'm not kidding.)
I'm going to show everyone this.
On the post: Peter Jackson Freaks Out About BitTorrent Leak Of The Lovely Bones
Re:
The fact that people wanted to see the movie enough to torrent it shows that marketing had done their job, doesn't it?
Also, from a business point of view, it *is* his responsibility to meet my expectations, as a consumer, or he'll find my attention pointed elsewhere, won't he?
I'm not justifying anything. Piracy needs no justification to exist. Mike is saying that Jackson should have responded better to the leak, I'm saying he should have "leaked" it himself.
On the post: Peter Jackson Freaks Out About BitTorrent Leak Of The Lovely Bones
Re:
Are you suggesting that the movie was created so I could *not* watch it?
Take your argument to the next level, if you bought a DVD and it came with a sticker that said you were only allowed to watch it on Friday nights at 8pm, would you do as the sticker demands, or would you say "Screw it, the technology exists to watch it whenever I want, and I'll do just that."
Let's be honest here, friend. Jackson only cares because he feels he's losing money with piracy, not because the public saw it "too soon". If he wants to fight piracy, then compete with it: Give the fans what they want, when they want, and piracy won't be needed.
On the post: Peter Jackson Freaks Out About BitTorrent Leak Of The Lovely Bones
Re:
It would be best for the creator for me to see the movie 3 times a day for a month, but that's not going to happen because it's *not* what's best for the creator that is important, it's what's best for both of us.
What's best for both of us is for me to see it when I want to see it and pay for it. Since we, the consumers, are not given that option, we default to a close second: See it when we want to see it and then go pay.
Next >>