The RIAA are idiots, apparently

Remove all ads!

By middlemen I mean the big companies who abuse artists even more than pirates do. If anything's misplaced, that thing is.

If you pirate something you wouldn't otherwise buy, the artist doesn't lose any money, nor does the publisher or anyone. So are you starving them? Heheh, no. The most you could do would be to give up their music and/or programs or whatever. That still wouldn't fill their stomachs.

Besides, RIAA uses illegally modified version of Kazaa (Kazaa Lite) to track down people who share files. The idiots have actually lost a lawsuit over that and good for them. Funny thing how they speak about the legality of downloading they appear to be extreme legalists. But when it comes to stalking people and/or themselves using some software, rules suddenly become relative.

Which is why exactly? Because the only thing they give a damn about is money.

@Hacken Slash: If artists were paid more by publishers, there would be more artists and they would be more inclined to experiment rather than beat sequels to death. If publishers reduced prices, more people would buy the work. If they also put in price reduction the same amount of money they put in copy protection, they would sell more.

You know why piracy is on decline in Poland? Because the leading distributor has seriously cut prices and started replacing scratched disks at no cost other than delivery. Plus, the more games you buy, the more discount you get when buying other games. After some time, a little dated products end up in budget series. I actually own games I haven't played yet and I'm far from rich.

 

Just to add to HB's thoughts...piracy of music hurts the "little" people the worst. Even legal downloading has squeezed many out of working in the music industry...consider that pirated/downloaded music is just that...music. There's no cover art, no graphic design, no liner notes, no photographs, no packaging materials (am reminded of the "classic" Spinal Tap black albumn)...all in addition to the middle-men mentioned above.

As far as Microsoft is concerned...when you consider the years of development for an OS or a product like Office, along with the support and updates which will literally last for years, $150 bucks seems to be a fair price.

@chev

...just what we need...more, richer Michael Jacksons

 

Oh dear, no, please... But record companies don't really deserve their huge share, I think. And especially software publishers.

 

True. When I bought my comp I bought that XP home, and it's such bull**** that I have uninstalled it. I paid for XP, when I'm not even using it, so getting a free copy of 2k seems a fair trade to me.

 

Damn, I had a whole bunch of stuff to say, but I forgot it as I kept on reading...


What I can remember: Aye, the people getting pirated are only the most popular and mainstream, and they are already rich enough. Does 50 cent need to go triple double platinum in one day and complain about losing a fraction of that money to piracy? No, he doesn't, but he does (note: I'm not sure if he actually does, just an example of a huge guy getting pirated)

Why can't America be smart and do something like that? Oh yeah, because we are greedy bastards. Heh, sorry about that, I can't believe I actually thought America could do something customer-friendly. I must stop living in a dream world.


I also like buying at shows, so I only pay 10 bucks for a CD... yes, the band only make 1 or 2 of those dollars, but its better than paying 15 dollars and having them make only 1 or 2.

Luckily for me, I don't like mainstream crap, so when I do spend money on a CD, small bands are being helped.

Urhmm, I can't remember what else I was going to say...

 

Correction: the most popular ones get pirated the most, but it's not *only* them who get pirated. They're just the ones who could shrug it off, being rich already. Smaller bands get pirated too, but they also face the possibility of getting sacked by their record company, when their record sales don't go high enough.

 

Hacken Slash wrote:

I think you don't get the real point here. MS started its business wanting to become a monopoly.
The same capabilities as an application has also OpenOffice which is free AND open source.
Difference between Linux/Unix and Windows?
The former are open source meaning that one can tamper the kernel (the source code and heart of the system) to fit his needs, while Windows have their source code locked and run things THEIR way period.
The former is more powerfull and equipped than the latter, yet it is still free because there are many people who eat their life in front of a computer typing because they feel that software should be kept free at some point. They rely entirely on the donations one makes. And if you are happy with what they made you can give them what you wish and that is IMHO fair.
Secondly all the distros of Linux are not free.
Yes, one can download a free version (which is fully functional and again more powerfull in all aspects from Windows) but there is also a full version (or Corporated many names exist) that costs no more than 90 EU (IIRC). Big difference isn't it?
Microsoft never relied on the home users, their income comes from the big clients (countries, companies etc). Secondly Gates knows that Windows lack the quality Linux has.
But he also made an OS that is easy to be used by someone that only knows point and click plus typing. Linux on the other hand requires a big devotion and spenting of time to make it fully and easily functioning, which is something that restrains most users from adopting such an OS.
On this, Gates places his hopes for monopoly.
If you are not computer junkie (or professional put the word you wish there) you can't easily work on Linux. That is true.
But if someone wishes to work in IT or any related area then he should switch from Windows to Linux as soon as possible IMHO.
Not that he should forget windows entirelly (after all number of web sources are compatible only to Windows or IE).
But the features Linux provides in terms of security, possibilities and many other aspects cannot be matched with Windows.
And one last thing, do you really believe that they work that hard? Because i've heard otherwise (xbox in every office and so on)
And if they do work that hard, then they do a lousy job since they are starting the updates and the patches only a month after it has been released for heavens sake.

 

Oh no. Don't you go blaming that on the programmers. That's Marketing's or Corporate's mistake of sending it out before it was ready. If you didn't see any patches for months on such a buggy product, then you can blame the programmers for being lazy. The simple truth is that programs will always have bugs, because people are not perfect. They can be found with testing and eliminated, but only if the testers are given enough time before the product is released. I can only imagine how hard Gates is working his programmers to both fix what's wrong with the current versions and make a new one (quick, quick, quick!) for profit.

 

I'm afraid i will disagree with you. After all there are numerous cases of software that its release date has been postponed due to that testing as you say.
No i don't blame the programmers entirely but please, i have seen a vast number of exploits coming out the very next day Microsoft has released it.
So someone has not done his job as well as he ought to.
And being a member of the IT world i know that testers are not the programmers.
So guess who is not doing his job.
And to tell the difference between Windows and Linux (which also has bugs but never so many) i have noticed that the open source software (everything) is being tested thoroughly and has to accomplish three RC (release canditate) states in order to be marked as stable.
In windows there is only one beta version which (mind this) is also locked and one who finds a bug can't determine what caused that anomaly.

 

I think people need to see the big picture and realize that we all benefit from the evil, giant, monopolistic corporations.

You may not buy Britney Spears CDs and you may not give a crap if her songs are pirated, but all that money she makes goes to pay the thousands of people employed as a result of her success (record company secretaries, make-up artists, limo drivers...). Those folks take their paycheck and buy groceries and gasoline and they pay your dad the dentist to get their teeth cleaned. Then your dad the dentist can afford to send you to Princeton and you can afford to buy a cup of coffee and a laptop (with a dual-boot Linux/Windows of course!) and download Rage Against the Machine songs for free, the whole while gnashing your teeth at the evil, monopolistic, corporate behemoth that is ruining your life.

 

No offense, Sir Fink, but this is one of the most BS arguments I heard.

So you are saying that is okay that some entity (be it a corporation or a person) makes a large amount of money, deserved or not, because that money will trickle down. Well, how about this: is okay if someone robs a bank, because he'll spend the money, eventually (and, most probably, in the same manner as Brittney Spears, i.e. buying a lot of useless stuff )

The question is: how is it better for society to allocate its resources. It might try to enforce an artificial monopoly on some quantity which is easily available today (i.e., music) in order to keep some set of people living in the luxury they grew accustomed to, or it might use those resources in a more useful manner. Face it, there is no reason for big music companies to exist in the form they are today. They have been born to help with distributing music (which 50 years ago, was not a simple task). This can easily be done today by the artist himself.

 

Of course Sir fink you forget the fact that these people you mention (yes these employees not the authoritive heads) are being paid way less than they deserve, in order for the authoritive heads to take a fat paycheck every month plus a nice big bonus every year.
So i don't want even a penny of my money to go in the pocket of that manager, director, CEO. If someone could ensure me that everything i pay goes either to the artist or the simple employees then i would pay for every cd i buy.
Since noone can ensure me for that then i buy only what i really like (and that is not mainstream i assure you) and the rest comes the known way.
As for software i never had to buy OS. At the beginning i used cracked copies, afterwards due to my work i always have a valid licence of Windows OS for my house. But still, i say i prefer Linux over Windows and that is a fact that is being backed up by the arguments i made in the previous posts.

 

Heheh, if the company makes a surprise $10M more than expected, how much of it ends up in the limo driver's pocket? There are companies that hire people because they need them and pay the least they can get away with. There are companies that give honest terms so they have a stable and reliable base. And there are companies that actually give good terms to inspire loyalty and work zeal. Incidentally, this is also the order of frequency of appearance.

It's not like the easiest way is the most profitable, but people will still go for it. The easy and petty mean way. Shove millions of dollars in copy protection and copyright lobbying but never lever the prices by the same amount, which would actually be easier to enact but would require to give up on the petty meanness. Not to mention generally lowering the prices in order to make CDs more affordable so that more people would buy them. It costs to make the 1st CD, but the Nth thousand of CDs is just copying. It costs a couple of blank CD, a box and factory maintenance plus shipping. That does not add up to 50-60 bucks per game or movie or whatever, let alone what Windows or Office costs.

Then goes preventing back-up copies or transfer of used licenses, one copy per computer per person policy and the like. Ideally, publishers would love to make it so you couldn't lend your CDs to anyone even if you don't keep a copy for yourself or charge anything for it, so you couldn't make any back-up copies (and the better protection the crappier CDs, I guess, so you would surely need at least one replacement... oh, and no replacement of scratched disks, of course), so you had to buy their software when you buy hardware, so you had to buy a whole bundle instead of just one product... ideally, so you couldn't even buy a license but had to pay monthly bills.

Do I have to remind anyone that we've had artists for millennia but overblown copyright laws only for a couple of decades? And giant evil software and record corporations for about two decades? The biggest abominations are companies that have the only function of buying and selling "intellectual property" rights, far far removed from any author or inventor. When I see the word "franchise" referring to a computer game or book setting I like, I want to puke.

I'm sick of all the marketing. Gold, platinum, diamond editions. Limited editions. Intransferrable non-exclusive licenses... blaaah. Ads and commercial crap everywhere. Commercialised language. Everything being merchandise. Everyone being a trader of some sort. My dinner is almost on my shoes.

[ January 01, 2006, 17:49: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Yes... Makes you kind of wonder why pretty much everyone except Electronic Arts (and it's not like Electronic Arts are making new and innovative games with their sportsgames and SIMS addons) of the big gaming companies are having huge economical problems. If it's all so cheap they should naturally be packing up tons of profit and none of them would be in the crap they are right now. It's also interesting that still gaming is on a firm rise among people. Of course PC gaming is declining and in console markets the console manufacturers are picking up huge licence costs for all games but piracy is a big thief especially in the PC business. I blame personally every one who illegally download PC games for the current crappy state that gaming is in. I know a LOT of people who have not bought a game in ten years and these people play games made by small companies like Paradox. It really makes me sick. Personally I don't think 50 euros is overprized for a game, if they are like Baldur's Gate you'll enjoy them for years to come, not a bad deal for 50 euros I would say.

Quite frankly I don't care much if you download anything that EA pushes out illegally, on principle it's wrong but it's not touching me in any way, but when you are downloading games from smaller companies you are stabbing them in the heart and working against them on their next project and then it starts to hurt me and that's when I start to get pissed.

 

Meh. I'm reading a lot of excuses for illegally downloading songs and software. "The CEOs are overpaid! The limo drivers are underpaid!" Deep down, I don't really give a crap either way. Download all the crap music you want, kids. But be honest with yourself at the end of the day and admit you're just too cheap to actually pay for it. No need to pretend to be some Little Red Book carrying hero of the proletariat.

 

On the other hand, it's good you have the gut to admit you're a fan of the system as it is and don't give a damn either way so long as you're left alone instead of having your mouth full of holy private property, which would be quite disappointing.

What about RIAA? Aren't they too cheap to use the original freeware Kazaa with all the ads, that they use the illegal Kazaa Lite? What about all the affairs with companies illegally snooping on people's hard drives, histories and the like? If we are to be champions of the law, we need to make it work in all directions.

The idea is that reducing the price makes more people buy the product. Some vendors prefer to keep the price as high as possible and rely on advertising. Others place their bets on accessibility and reduce the price. Cutting copyright protection expenses should allow a greater reduction of prices, as well. The Polish distributor who does that isn't really a poor company and some of the games are really, really cheap, while nothing really costs more than 50 bucks unless it's Playstation or by Microsoft and heck, even Age of Empires 2 costs less than 40 bucks on a promo right after the release. From what I'm able to see, it looks like the company is growing and growing and the more promotional offers there are, and the more significant price cuts, the better the company is doing.

And I have no respect for companies that prevent you from making backup copies and give you the game on crappy CDs, while offering no replacement. That should be a felony and the person who consciously and willingly came up with that strategy (and I suspect the coincidence between copy protection / non-replacement and crappy CDs isn't always accidental) is worse than a thief in my eyes.

 

Sir Fink you miss the point again i think. Even a guy who is downloading music or software mostly pays for them too but at a reduced price.
The real problem with MS or SONY or the vast majority of companies that work in these two areas is different.
These companys sell to you a product that in fact is no better than the free alternatives you may acquire. In example for music i can tell you the opportunity one has to have a very good music library by just buying music magazines (that always come with a cd). You may pay the full price of a cd but you'll get more than the work of just one artist.
These companies are companies, with their boards of directors (and all higher ups) have one purpose only. Making loads of money. Simple as that.
But they exploit the work of few people to support mainly themselves, and afterwards the real contributors of their product quality, quantity and support.
I have allready told you that Linux and Open source software in general is not necessarily free. You have the opportunity to acquire a version of the software free but you can also either as a donation or in the form of payment a logical amount of money to acquire a more powerfull version of this software.
And the vast difference here is that even the tottaly free software is very close or equivalent or even better (here goes the majority) to Windows or Mac OS (not to name only MS products).
The only catch here is that you should have knowledge. Knowledge of what is, and knowledge how to pull it through. For music you should know what you like and how you can get it at a better price.
For software to have the knowledge to be more than point and click.
That is why i dislike MS. It is a good (since XP) OS that lacks a lot of essential stuff, and provides you a lot of useless stuff. And at the same time it takes away from you the power to control the way your system works, by just making everything for you.
Music companies do the same thing too. They promote music, and people, lifestyles that will keep them within a line they have designed. They don't care about quality of music anymore they just care about making money by manipulating the masses.
I know a score of bands, musicians, artists that have never gained recognition of their work (which is very good to excellent) during the lifetime in order to be greatly exploited right after their death, because they were not conformed to the picture companies wanted to have.
But when one is dead he can't speak, can he?
Not to mention the number of musicians that were talented and have shown excellent examples of art, that were buried by the companies due to their out of line (companies line) character.

Have you ever considered these facts?
Because noone ever said that i download my music/software because i am to cheap to buy. We are talking about paying what it worths and not what they say it worths.
Simple as that, nothing less nothing more.
I don't understand why i should pay that guy who is sitting all day with his cigar espresso and a beautyfull secretary to keep his knees warm all day long, doing nothing else other than having good time and "doing business" with the rest of his caste.

 

The problem is, Mithrantir, if you feel the price of an item is too high, you have two legal options:

1. negotiate for a better price (with the owner).
2. seek a different product that has a more competitive price.

Let me put your words into another circumstance...

"the price for diamonds was too high at the jewelers, so I bought mine from the fence in the back alley."

or, how about

"the price of a car was too high at the dealership, so I bought mine from a chop shop in Guadalahara."

Downloads that aren't supported by the owner of the software or media is no different than buying stolen goods. Sure the price is better...but did you get a receipt?

 

Bah... again making an argument against copyright infringement by replacing something intangible (like music) by some real object (like a car or diamond).

It does not work that way. Copying music is not stealing (no matter how much some keep saying that). By making a copy of anything, you do not deprieve somebody of something real. You might argue that you deprieve the music company of a potential sale. But the key term here is 'potential'. But then, again, how many would buy the music which the they download freely? Or, let's put it other way: if I decide not to go out to dinner this evening, I have deprieved a restaurant of a chance to get my money. So sue me

I am not saying making copies is legal in all cases... but then, that's mostly because the laws are screwed (or paid for by the interested parties, more probably).

 

@Hacken Slash: Stolen cars or car parts are obviously wrong and smuggling may be immoral for a number of reasons. But what moral obligations do we have to help maintain the diamond monopoly?

Glad to hear you agree with me. I still say downloading is not the preferable way and it will be morally wrong in most cases, but there's no way to call it stealing. Various legal systems have known constructs like the old Roman "theft of use" (furtum usus, when you used something without permission) or the modern semantic idiocy known as "time theft" (when workers take unauthorised breaks).