PDA

View Full Version : RIAA at it again....



Verlon
01-02-2008, 09:44 PM
Saw on CNN today...now they want to make it illegal to rip your own CDs to your ipod (or whatever) for personal use.

Not sure how they intend to enforce this, but apparently they are sueing some unfortunate sould for this as a 'test case.' And they wonder why CD sales are plummeting.

AbnRanger
01-02-2008, 10:09 PM
Saw on CNN today...now they want to make it illegal to rip your own CDs to your ipod (or whatever) for personal use.

Not sure how they intend to enforce this, but apparently they are sueing some unfortunate sould for this as a 'test case.' And they wonder why CD sales are plummeting.Give it 2 more years and CD's will be the next dinoaur...right behind 8-track and cassette tapes.
Downloading is where it's at. Period.

ted
01-03-2008, 12:44 AM
I've got mixed feelings on this. (the other side and just a view, nothing more). If you buy a CD from a group, you have the right to listen to that music from the CD. Does it give you the right to multiply the use without compensation to the group?

Kinda like software? I'm not 100% behind the unlimited personal use and multi-purpose use for one purchase. Maybe pay a nominal fee for a download to other devices?

Tough call. I'm still on the fence. But definately against the level that a few were convicted of where they had distributed thousands of MP3's to friends and family. That's abuse in my mind.

Verlon
01-03-2008, 12:55 AM
Right of first use....

I should be able to loan the CD out...
Sell the CD (Garth Brooks tried to prevent sale of his used CDS)
Or make a copy provided that the original music from that CD is playing on only one player at any given time.

for example, I rip my CD to my ipod (if I had an ipod). I can listen to the ipod OR the CD, but I could not loan the CD or sell it and keep listening to that CD on my ipod.

Book publishers tried all this nonsense (including software type EULAs) around the turn of the century, and the US Supreme Court kicked the whole idea to the curb. The only reason this idea is getting new life is because some software company brilliantly pointed out that the computer has to copy the program into system memory to run the program. That is where the concept of a software license gained foothold.

Now I am all for artist being paid, but the artists aren't the ones getting the money. If the CD doesn't sell well enough, the artist could end up OWEING the studio money.

So we pay them for the CDs, the artist owes them for the CDs they didn't sell, and they are still hurting for money so bad they have to sue people to stay in the black.

If you can't figure out how to make money selling pop music to teenagers, maybe you are in the wrong line of work.

jin choung
01-03-2008, 01:20 AM
riaa is a joke.

if they have a problem with ripping YOUR OWN CDs, they clearly have no notion of the legal principle of FAIR USE.

they should pick a side - if they're gonna start prosecuting under the law, they should pay attention to WHAT THE LAW ACTUALLY SAYS.

riaa is gonna go the way of sco.... they're gonna make their last gambit a legal one and when it turns out that they've made enemies of all their customers and they can't sue their way out, they're gonna tank.

if you f with consumer rights, you're done.

i'm counting the days till riaa no longer is a going concern.


jin

Matt
01-03-2008, 03:01 AM
All I know is, we're the last generation who are used to paying for music, most of the internet generation have never had to pay for music, and it will only get worse with subsequent generations.

The music / film industry need to think of a way to work WITH this, trying to fight it just makes it worse.

http://stealthisfilm.com/Part2/

Bill Carey
01-03-2008, 03:20 AM
Actually, ripping and storing on your harddrive / ipod isn't prohibited in the lawsuit. Ripping / storing and having Kaza on your system ready to transfer is.

As of now, they have to actually catch you transferring the files to get you. Looks like they want make preemptive strikes now, and/or get the people they suspect but are better at using anonymous sites than most.

Not to say they won't try to expand the scope of it if this suit is successful.

ingo
01-03-2008, 03:51 AM
Saw on CNN today...now they want to make it illegal to rip your own CDs to your ipod (or whatever) for personal use....

Its already illegal since you have to bypass a copy protection to get your CD on the harddisk. So you can decide for yourself if you want to buy a CD and make an illegal copy or if you want to use the internet and get your illegal copy for less ( ... and use that saved money for the lawsuit ;) )

andrew_y
01-03-2008, 06:21 AM
What kills me over all this is..... you can just go to your local public library and do the same thing. (sign out cd/dvd and rip it to local drive) I never hear a library mentioned in all of this riaa stuff.

Matt
01-03-2008, 06:30 AM
What kills me over all this is..... you can just go to your local public library and do the same thing. (sign out cd/dvd and rip it to local drive) I never hear a library mentioned in all of this riaa stuff.

What a great idea!

;)

:D

Steamthrower
01-03-2008, 06:48 AM
Thing is, they make such a big deal about "the artist not getting paid".

Well, come on. An artist doesn't make their big bucks from CD sales. They make the real money from tours. Whereas they get maybe $1 per CD sold, they get $25 or $30 per person in an arena that holds 15,000...day after day after day on a tour.

Every bootlegged CD that someone has given me has caused me to do either two things: 1, go out and buy more CDs and go see their concerts, or 2, throw the CD away.

Copying for personal use is in my opinion a moot point - I have no problems with it. Copying for commercial use is another thing. I'm against it totally.

Matt
01-03-2008, 09:24 AM
I've often bought an album off iTunes because I wanted it there and then (shops were closed) and then bought the physical CD because I wanted it in my collection!

Steamthrower
01-03-2008, 09:36 AM
I've often bought an album off iTunes because I wanted it there and then (shops were closed) and then bought the physical CD because I wanted it in my collection!

I would say in addition to this that any true fan of a group or artist wants to have something physical. For instance a friend gave me some copied Switchfoot (I'm a real Switchfoot fan). So...I could either pull out a scratched blank CD from a dingy little paper sleeve and put it in my stereo...or I could go out and buy a shiny new three-disk album collection, which I did.

Like any Led fan is going to listen to Led Radio on XM and not going to buy any Led merchandise, Led albums, etc.? Copying music for personal use is about as immoral as photocopying a recipe out of a cookbook for your aunt.

Andyjaggy
01-03-2008, 09:48 AM
I've just gotten to the point where the only music I buy is DRM Free music online. I still occasionally buy a CD but I immediately copy it to my computer and store the CD away in a box. I'm a bad person, come get me RIAA.

Steamthrower
01-03-2008, 09:55 AM
I've just gotten to the point where the only music I buy is DRM Free music online. I still occasionally buy a CD but I immediately copy it to my computer and store the CD away in a box. I'm a bad person, come get me RIAA.

:goodluck:

You just announced it to the world.

Andyjaggy
01-03-2008, 10:02 AM
Everyone donate to my fund for my legal battle that will ensue.

Actually I heard this story a couple weeks ago and its not as ridiculous as it sounds. The RIAA claimed that ripping your CD onto your computer was "unauthorized" not "illegal" in other words they don't want you doing it but they can't do anything about it. I also believe they were more referring to ripping it to your machine and then sharing it via kazaa or something.

Either way I'm all about DRM free online music purchases. Itunes plus, CD Baby, Gramophone, these companies have it figured out and they get my business and money.

Interesting thing about itunes plus though. They say it is DRM free, and it is but there is still some sort of DRM embedded in the song because I went to listen to some of my itunes plus music on an older version of itunes that was released before itunes plus and it wouldn't let me play the music. It plays in everything else, but not an older version of itunes.

meathead
01-03-2008, 11:48 AM
The RIAA can be an awful organization sometimes. It was started with a genuine purpose, but lost it's way when it decided to use and become the legal field. Like drug enforcement, it needs to be more about education, less about policing. They are alienating their fan base.

For example, somehow, many of us managed to save interent radio last year from the RIAA, when it looked doomed. I, despite my laziness, actually called my congressional delegates for this (like millions of others), and it seemed to work. The rediculous royalty rate hikes the RIAA had in store, to cripple this great new small industry were recently reconsidered. Help out here:

http://www.savenetradio.org/

Internet radio like Winamp, and Pandora is mostly what I listen to when on the computer- which is a lot like all of us animators. It's where I find all my favorite bands, introduced to new stuff, which I then go out to purchase. It's on right now, they just played a great Czars song, followed by an old Bowie tune, and on to a crazy Hinson song. Regualr radio would never do that?!!?
Itunes and the like (such as the New Radiohead album download) is not high quality enough for some of us audiophiles. CD and LP sales, with their great packaging, high quality playback and pressings, is still special to some of us. And I recognize, stealing the music of the bands I listen to (small indie bands generally), is taking money right out of the mouths of the very people I hope make it, so I buy them.
The RIAA is doomed, they have made too many stupid moves. Radioheads massive success of letting you decide what price you want to pay for their last album, Prince giving his album away in a Sunday paper, and Madona's leaving of the major label, all represent the downfall of the bad guys like RIAA. It's actually getting better for the Artist everyday, and in turn better for the music fans.

Andyjaggy
01-03-2008, 11:59 AM
Gramaphone encodes all of their tracks at the highest possible settings for their downloads. Then again it's classical music and that still might not be good enough. Even CD's have a hard time with classical at times.

jin choung
01-03-2008, 12:08 PM
Its already illegal since you have to bypass a copy protection to get your CD on the harddisk. So you can decide for yourself if you want to buy a CD and make an illegal copy or if you want to use the internet and get your illegal copy for less ( ... and use that saved money for the lawsuit ;) )

that comes from the DMCA and that in itself is illegal because it ignores fair use.

jin

Steamthrower
01-03-2008, 02:04 PM
And I recognize, stealing the music of the bands I listen to (small indie bands generally), is taking money right out of the mouths of the very people I hope make it, so I buy them.

I see that too. But my attendance at a single concert would be the equivalent of buying two or three dozen CD's from a group. The big labels get nothing from tours. They get revenue from CD sales. If they were really interested in gaining the artist money, they'd be advertising for their artists' tours. But they don't. They leave that to the artist.

jin choung
01-03-2008, 05:26 PM
Actually, ripping and storing on your harddrive / ipod isn't prohibited in the lawsuit. Ripping / storing and having Kaza on your system ready to transfer is.

As of now, they have to actually catch you transferring the files to get you. Looks like they want make preemptive strikes now, and/or get the people they suspect but are better at using anonymous sites than most.

Not to say they won't try to expand the scope of it if this suit is successful.

let's clarify:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20071231/tc_nf/57474
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/01/riaa_behaving_b.html
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9839170-7.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1040_3-0-5

jin

Matt
01-03-2008, 05:53 PM
Interesting thing about itunes plus though. They say it is DRM free, and it is but there is still some sort of DRM embedded in the song because I went to listen to some of my itunes plus music on an older version of itunes that was released before itunes plus and it wouldn't let me play the music. It plays in everything else, but not an older version of itunes.

If you get info on the song in iTunes, you'll see it has your email and name still embedded in it, I guess it's so if you shared your tracks online they could come knocking on your door, if you didn't know the data was there and were silly enough to share your stuff.

I wonder if they will play on somebody elses iTunes? Never tried.

jin choung
01-03-2008, 06:00 PM
i'm sure those doing it are smart enough to strip it out.

(yep, you can)

jin

PeteF
01-03-2008, 08:37 PM
This next generation, as I see it with my sixteen-year old son, views files on USB sticks as the new physical medium. (It's all about files and access anyway). Today there is a whole lot more means to play/view your content. Enforcing rules to keep things on original shiney disks are road blocks to what these kids want. Frankly they don't read the fine print about copyright and could care less, they just want to have more access, and so far, the 'illegal' means seems to be doing a better job at serving those needs.

As a parent I do not allow my son access to illegal downloads or P2P software. He pays for his music, but he wants to listen to it on on his PSP at night, and via a memory stick in his car stereo during the day. Technology is taking another step forwards... adopt or die...

jin choung
01-03-2008, 09:02 PM
right. if you try to control the consumer experience, you're dead.

jin

IMI
01-03-2008, 09:07 PM
I still occasionally buy a CD but I immediately copy it to my computer and store the CD away in a box. I'm a bad person, come get me RIAA.


I've been getting away with that for years, and still no RIAA people knocking at my door. I don't keep HD copies for any amount of time, but have been making CD copies since CD burners came out.
My favorite CD's I've even made - get ready for this - TWO copies of! One for home and one for my car. And to compound that, I've made my own "Best Of.." collections, even before the record labels could get around to it. So in some cases I have up to three or more copies.
Man, I'm gonna burn in Hell for sure. :D

ted
01-04-2008, 01:04 AM
Copying music for personal use is about as immoral as photocopying a recipe out of a cookbook for your aunt.

I like that analogy. :thumbsup:
My Grandma shared her recipies from cookbooks with my Mom and my Wife. I guess by todays standards she could have been sued by Betty Crocker and locked up. :hey:
You're making me re-think this whole issue.

Steamthrower
01-04-2008, 07:17 AM
My favorite CD's I've even made - get ready for this - TWO copies of! One for home and one for my car. And to compound that, I've made my own "Best Of.." collections...

Holy Burrito! That's outright sinful. Do you lie awake at night sweating in guilt-ridden anxiety over the $0.23 in royalty costs you deprived from Boston?


I like that analogy.
My Grandma shared her recipies from cookbooks with my Mom and my Wife. I guess by todays standards she could have been sued by Betty Crocker and locked up.
You're making me re-think this whole issue.

Now - though I fully believe that the ethics of personal filesharing are fine, my "scruples" come into place when it's used for commercial use (this means, for example, software that you use for your business).

Also I fully encourage supporting the artist. Which is why I buy a lot of good CDs. But if someone gives me a burned CD which I listen to once then throw away...that didn't lose anybody money. I don't buy CDs unless either I know the artist is good or I listen to the sound samples on Amazon first. I've never just strolled through the store, seen a CD, and bought it without knowing whether I'd like it or not.

Verlon
01-04-2008, 08:47 AM
Copying music for personal use is about as immoral as photocopying a recipe out of a cookbook for your aunt.


In most of the examples here, I would say it is more like ... about as immoral as copying the recipe onto a 3*5 notecard for YOURSELF so you can store them in a convenient box by the stove and not risk the $30 cookbook in a 'spaghetti incident'' nevermind the convenience of the format and the plastic box that is easy to move from by the stove to counter to living room to show your aunt, all while the original cookbook stays on the shelf.

Verlon
01-04-2008, 08:50 AM
oh, and as to the intent of the RIAA....I only went with what CNN reported, but I would not put it past them to sue with ambiguous language to get the precedent of the language, then USE that language with new meaning against us later.

Sony CEO is on record as saying "If you rip a song from your CD for personal use, I guess you could say you stole that song." ...follow the links orignally provided by Jin and read those articles.

Steamthrower
01-04-2008, 08:56 AM
nevermind the convenience of the format and the plastic box that is easy to move from by the stove to counter to living room to show your aunt

But aha - here is where the RIAA niggles into wordplay. They'll contrive a cleverly worded law that implies that if your aunt happens to take that 3x5 card home, you're now a thief. Never mind that your aunt liked that particular rum cake recipe so much she might consider buying the cookbook for herself.

Verlon
01-04-2008, 09:05 AM
but if you didn't OPEN the cookbook, you are still within the right of first use....

Of course the RIAA would maintain you couldn't even make said rumcake from memory because memorizig the recipe is an unauthorized copy.... :)

Steamthrower
01-04-2008, 09:09 AM
That's like...like...like humming a tune from a CD or something...that's...that's legal sacrilege...

meathead
01-04-2008, 10:19 AM
Gramaphone encodes all of their tracks at the highest possible settings for their downloads. Then again it's classical music and that still might not be good enough. Even CD's have a hard time with classical at times.

Its well documented that CDs leave out small tidbits of music, even on Digital recordings, and tend to sound too "bright" at times. But the whole 192 kbps download (higher than Itunes) is equal to CD quality has been shown to be completely false. To get even close (for the true Audiophile), you would need upwards of 400+ kbps lossless. Ofcourse, proper stereophile equipment required.

You cant beat the warm, smooth sound of LP, especially when listeneing to old Jazz or old R&B. Even the new modern rock/techno stuff is way better on LP. So many of my fav new bands release tons of bonus material only available on on the LP. And different pressings, like UK vs Japanes vs US really matters too. Once met a guy with 5 diff pressings of Miles Davis "Kind of Blue," he wouldn't play the English pressing- "just to look at and have." But he played me the US press on his electrostatics...pretty amazing sounding. Like being there in some 1950s jazz club in NYC.

Andyjaggy
01-04-2008, 10:35 AM
I agree. If you've ever looked at the wave form or the frequency response of an mp3 you would be shocked at how much clipping occurs after about 10-12 khz.

CD's are better but even they have a hard time handling the huge dynamic range and frequency response of classical music. DVD-A or SACD discs sounds awesome if done right and played on the right equipment. Again though with most modern rock and alternative, I can't tell a difference between a standard mp3 and CD quality. Mainly because the recording artists have compressed the crap out of it to make it as loud as possible so there is almost no dynamic range.

LP's sound great, but I'm not an audiophile enough to bother getting into that. Then don't even get me started on surround sound. I think I have two movies in my collection with decent surround. Most of them are pretty empty in the surround channels. I think when I saw King Kong in the theater they threw snapping twig in the surrounds every ten minutes or so. Sad.

Master and Commander though, there is a movie with some good sound.

Steamthrower
01-04-2008, 10:55 AM
You can't get the full experience of listening to Wagner or Rachmaninov through a CD, or for a DVD-A or SACD for that matter. A concert always wows me, leaving me with the single thought "I'm going to go home and listen to that through my Panasonic? No way."

However, being into alternative rock, CDs are more than fine for that. Groups tend to add a bit of grunge/hiss to their songs anyway, and the compression from the CD or MP3 doesn't bother me.

My biggest problem with CDs is that high vocals tend to be thin. For example, take a pop/classical soprano with a clean voice, and play her through even a Harmon Kardon system, and it's flattish and thin.

Andyjaggy
01-04-2008, 11:09 AM
There are so many variables though, even if you have a perfect recording there are many more factors that will determine what happens to the sound by the time it reaches your ears.

That is the one problem with having a really nice sound system. Suddenly all your recordings suck :D

meathead
01-04-2008, 11:42 AM
LP's sound great, but I'm not an audiophile enough to bother getting into that.

Yeah, my bro is the biggest audiophile I have ever met, and he tried replacing all of his CDs with albums, wasn't easy and has been an expensive (maybe unnecessary) move. Fortunateley all that stopped now when he had two kids - Dora the Explorer on HD through $12,000 speakers is still Dora, go figure?!?!? But Yo Gabba Gabba is impressive! www.yogabbagabba.com
Have you watched that show? best kids show ever, the music is awesome. I know I need help.



...Then don't even get me started on surround sound. I think I have two movies in my collection with decent surround...

Yeah, so true. But when you see, I mean hear, a good one, the sound can make up for the worst movie. Case in point, I watched Reign of Fire once, the audio was so good (5.1), mainly because of the sytem it was played on, that a movie about dragons, with subpar plot and blah acting was suddenly riveting.



...being into alternative rock, CDs are more than fine for that. Groups tend to add a bit of grunge/hiss to their songs anyway, and the compression from the CD or MP3 doesn't bother me.

Agree. Unfortunately, there's a whole generation of kids, where music is no longer ALSO about quality sound. It's about portability, as someone prob said in this thread. They play crappy compressed music (lets face it, prob crappy music in the first place) on an ipod -not exactly the amplifier of the year, thru crappy headphones. That's their "musical experience" and they never get the feel or magic of a true audio soundstage?!?! Hence, they do not buy CDs or albums, and download only a few tracks off of albums which will be dumped later for something new, thereby killing an industry and never knowing the best music on an album is sometimes the songs that didn't challenge you initially. Great bands, make whole great albums that you can go back to years later to enjoy. Where was I? Ohh yeah, RIAA sucks.

Andyjaggy
01-04-2008, 11:45 AM
Reign of fire. A decent movie, I've never heard it on a good system though. Might make it worth buying.

T-Light
01-04-2008, 11:53 AM
Slightly OT, but, how do the these corporates have so much power in the first place?

eg 1)
Person goes to a record store and steals a cd/dvd. Eventually gets caught with a slapped wrist. In the UK it can be a third offence or more before they'll actually be fined/imprisoned/or forced into several hours of community service. Even then I think HM Gov is trying to push through something whereby only violent criminals go to jail.

eg 2)
Person legaly purchases cd/dvd then makes own copy of said product. Gets up to 650,000 fine and several years in jail.

Surely to goodness, someone somewhere in power on this planet must at least see that the laws need a massive rewrite and the corporates need kicking into touch.

Sil3
01-04-2008, 12:11 PM
Things are getting out of hand with this ********... I will keep to make copies of ALL my purchased CDs, DVDs, and whatever I WANT to copy...I bought it... so couldnt care less what this organizations say.

If I loose one of my Original Music CDs they will force me to pay FULL price on new one, when in reality I already did that... since we pay for the RIGHTS to listen to it.. right??

If so, then why forcing me to pay second time the SAME RIGHT I already payed? They should only ask me for the material expenses... not theentire price again.

Since even "they" wont follow their rules I dont think they have the right to demand anything else really...

Can anyone imagine a Refrigerator maker saying that we are not allowed to use it to store the Neighbours food or friends food since I was the person they sold the Refrigerator to... yeah right...

Stupid laws/demandings are just that Stupid and not to be taken serioulsy, at least I dont.

jin choung
01-04-2008, 12:17 PM
If I loose one of my Original Music CDs they will force me to pay FULL price on new one, when in reality I already did that... since we pay for the RIGHTS to listen to it.. right??

If so, then why forcing me to pay second time the SAME RIGHT I already payed? They should only ask me for the material expenses... not theentire price again.

Since even "they" wont follow their rules I dont think they have the right to demand anything else really...


EXACTLY right. they want all the benefits without ANY of the responsibilities. this goes double for the itunes store.

if you have a purchase on file, you should be able to download from them again at any time, especially in the event of a hard disk catastrophe. that's NOT their policy. you lose, you lose.

the only ones who seem to have it right in regards to copyright holders RESPONSIBILITIES is STEAM, valve games online store.

if you purchase, that purchase is in their system and you can redownload your game from them in perpetuity.

everyone else is applying a double standard and if they're not gonna play fair, they can go f themselves when they exhort other to.

jin

*Pete*
01-04-2008, 12:41 PM
the only ones who seem to have it right in regards to copyright holders RESPONSIBILITIES is STEAM, valve games online store.

if you purchase, that purchase is in their system and you can redownload your game from them in perpetuity.


Much like Newteks system of Downloading LW and replacing broken/lost dongles.

this is a difficult issue, becouse when making laws and rules, you try to make them in a way that promotes personal freedom and limits abuse.

If i buy a CD with music in it, i buy the music in it..not the CD, so naturally i will copy the song to my mp3 player, my computer and perhaps even make a backup CD so that i am safe in case the original CD gets scratches, destroyed or lost.

this is a freedom that i will not let go off, never.

as for copying to family and friends, it is abuse...you may let them listen to it, but not let them have it on a permanent basis, you do not have the right to give or sell someone what belongs to someone else, in this case..the musician.

with the current technology copies are incredibly easy to make, something that is relatively new to us, the question is how to stop/limit abuse while still allowing for personal free use?


I think the Dongle that we are using for LW, is an ideal solution..you can install LW in any computer, but only use it in the one that has the dongle...so no matter how many copies you make, only one person can use it at any one time.
something like this will have to be the solution in order to quarantee free, fair use and stop abuse, but how it should be done practical, i have no idea and no suggestions.

Sil3
01-04-2008, 01:02 PM
So if I buy a CD I dont have the Right to give it away to anyone I want? What about second hand Houses that only deal with USED items such as CDs, DVDs Books etc?

I personally think that when I buy something I have the right to do whatever I want with it (not talking about illegal copies).

If I buy a Picasso I can hang it on the wall, put if on a bank safe, lock it on a closet, make a nice fire with it, give it way or sell it for millions.

Why should things be diferent with Music? Besides isnt the best interest of the Artist to be listen by the biggest amount of people so they can listen to its Art? Unless of course they only make music to make money...

Its not the Artists that are upset and are making these stupid laws/demands...its the Publishers that are seing the cow getting thinner and thinner and cannot really do anything about it except demanding stupid actions... well guess what...to bad.

The Music business as we know it will be over in less than 2 decades IMO, there will be no more Super bands like Rolling Stones, GNR, Metallica, etc etc, those days are over, in fact we are watching it right now and for the past decade... tell me a Band that is less than 10 years old (active with records) that have become a SUPER Band, like the ones I mentioned before.

It wont happen and wanna know why, because there are so many options so many things to listen to, so many bands and performers that people will get distracted and listen to much more of them than in the old days, where Bands had legions of fans, now there are legions of Bands with fewer and fewer fans because the offer is so huge.

This will also makes us think... in the old days, Musicians would grow up listening and playing alongside their idols. Making some sort of foundation that would then carry on to the next generation, if this "follow" will be over because of too much to listen to, what influences will the future Musicians have?

Im pretty sure Music will not die, its impossible but perhaps we are on the edge of a new Musical (and Artistic) revolution.

Time will tell.

Steamthrower
01-04-2008, 01:06 PM
as for copying to family and friends, it is abuse...you may let them listen to it, but not let them have it on a permanent basis, you do not have the right to give or sell someone what belongs to someone else, in this case..the musician.

I'll admit freely that I'm biased here. I believe that a whole new set of morals tends to develop with each new technology that couldn't have been applied even fifty years ago (that's morals I'm talking about, not legalities).

Maybe I'm mistaken. But all I know is that every bootlegged CD someone's given me that I've liked has caused me to either buy more or attend their concerts.

Steamthrower
01-04-2008, 01:08 PM
So if I buy a CD I dont have the Right to give it away to anyone I want?

Pete's talking about copies here, I believe.

*Pete*
01-04-2008, 01:17 PM
So if I buy a CD I dont have the Right to give it away to anyone I want? What about second hand Houses that only deal with USED items such as CDs, DVDs Books etc?


i totally understand the problematic, really...on both sides.

a solution is needed, limiting your right to sell the CD that you bought is wrong, but you keeping copies of the content of the CD as mp3 on your computer or ipod after selling the CD is equally wrong.

its like you buying an object from me, i send it in a CD , you use it for your purposes, save a copy on your HD, then sell the CD to someone else who needs/wants it...where is my money for that?
I set the price for the object based on that you do not have redistribution rights....if you want to sell the object to others and let me know about your intentions, id charge far more for the object to begin with and grant you the right to resell it to who you want.

as in the case of musicians...you paying a few dollars for CD will not be enough to compensate for the work done for it, ten thousand people paying a few dollars each for the CD will compensate for the work, and anything over that is profit.
you giving/selling the CD to others takes a potential buyer awat from the musicians, and when everyone does it, perhaps they will sell less CD's than they need to afford to keep being musicians.

so, if there is a way to quarantee that you can not play the music that was on the CD after you sold it, everyone would be happy...if you want the music again, buy it with the money you got selling it.

its only fair that you dont keep things without paying for them..that is theft, even if it seems innocent to copy contents from a CD into computer, or copy the CD and later sell the original CD.

Steamthrower
01-04-2008, 01:25 PM
you giving/selling the CD to others takes a potential buyer awat from the musicians, and when everyone does it, perhaps they will sell less CD's than they need to afford to keep being musicians.

I agree somewhat...yet look at Prince, giving away CDs in order to promote his concerts (I mean, if you'd want to go to a Prince concert!). Or Cory Doctorow, who releases all his novels (http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/d#a3826) on the internet for free. Or like Radiohead did with their In Rainbows CD. You could pay fifty cents for it if you wished.

*Pete*
01-04-2008, 01:55 PM
but not everyone is Prince or Radiohead....those are among the most succesfull musicians and have made more money than they ever imagined, they can afford to do it all for free for a long time before running out of money.
but what about less known artists, who are good and talented, but not just there yet and have to have a regular job on the side, and music as second profession?

Worley takes paid for his Fprime...can you buy it, install it, and then give away or sell it to others while keeping it installed?
perhaps it came on a CD, perhaps it came by an internet download, it doesnt matter..it is just a method of transportation of what is truly important, the right to use Fprime.

you paid to Worley, he lets you use it.
your friend buys/gets it from you, would Worley agree on that?..where is his share of the money now when both of you have Fprime while he got paid only once?

why is music different?
there is a lot of free music existing, really a lot...the same as you can get free plugins from people like DPont, these are generous people...but you can not make people generous without them agreeing on it, by copying...its theft.

Steamthrower
01-04-2008, 02:03 PM
Worley takes paid for his Fprime...can you buy it, install it, and then give away or sell it to others while keeping it installed?

There's a difference - a small difference, mind you, and one I'm not fully sure of. I would never pirate software like that, and never have. For one thing, everything I use a computer for makes me money in some form or the other. So making money without spending it (in this case, for Fprime) is essentially theft.

But music...maybe it's just because it's art, or because I know that for me personally I'll always end up buying an album as soon as I can find one. I really don't know. I just don't see it as theft.

But let me clarify that I think that there are limits on filesharing. Like Kazaa for instance. I just don't do that, and I don't refrain from doing it because of legal fear either, I think that whoever the peer is downloading your shared files, isn't someone who'd likely go out and buy an album. I wouldn't have any problems accepting a burned CD from a friend who thought I might like it, though.

jin choung
01-04-2008, 02:06 PM
also,

there's a degree of "LEGALISTIC" nonsense involved in militant copyright attitudes in regards to music.

i keep going back to this but if a lovestruck 16 year old kid makes a MIX TAPE (TAPE!!! not even cd!!!) for his sweetie, he is commiting a federal offense.

any law which criminalizes something like that is STUPID.

and makes little lawyers out of everyone.

that's the small but important difference.

jin

Steamthrower
01-04-2008, 02:11 PM
i keep going back to this but if a lovestruck 16 year old kid makes a MIX TAPE (TAPE!!! not even cd!!!) for his sweetie, he is commiting a federal offense.

Yeah, you keep going back to that, but man I love that analogy! :D

"Uh, honey, I might not be seeing you for a few years."
"What?!?!"
"Yeah, I'm going to jail."
"WHAT DID YOU DO?"
"Uh...remember that CD I burned for you, my favorite Guns N' Roses songs..."

*Pete*
01-04-2008, 02:35 PM
pirated software is bad, it hurts the producer of the software economically.
pirated files (objects/music/movies..you name it) is also bad, as it hurts the producers of them economically.

there is no difference, but as you have noticed, it is very easy to take it for granted that you can share music between friends, it feels less immoral than pirated software as LW, but in effect it is precisely the same.

as for copy protections on the CD's, i do understand the purpose of them, so do you..the artist in question doesnt want to give you the right to share his work for free with others.
it is not there to stop you from ripping it into mp3 as such, but it is a sideeffect that is not desired by the artist or you.


it is complicated situation, as i said earlier, i truly understand both sides in this issue.
your conveniance and the artists rights....but i do not understand why you should be able to spread copies commercial material to others, for free or not.

Steamthrower
01-04-2008, 03:02 PM
So, logically, you would have a problem of photocopying pages out of an car manual/cookbook/tutorial and giving it to a friend?

IMI
01-04-2008, 03:13 PM
Holy Burrito! That's outright sinful. Do you lie awake at night sweating in guilt-ridden anxiety over the $0.23 in royalty costs you deprived from Boston?


Nah, I bought a Tom Scholz "Power Soak" many years ago. Sort of like an external gain controller, allowing an amp to be cranked to maximum, while played quietly. It took that full natural tube overdrive and compressed it evenly - not the same as distortion. Noisy piece o' crap though, it was.
Far as I'm concerned that thing was overpriced plenty enough to justify as many Boston copies as I'd want. ;)

*Pete*
01-04-2008, 03:13 PM
So, logically, you would have a problem of photocopying pages out of an car manual/cookbook/tutorial and giving it to a friend?

I dont have a car, cant cook and no commercial tutorials ;)

no, seriously, i would do all of those things mentioned, the same as most of us, but it doest make it less illegal..why we do those things is becouse it is too easy.
If however, music, car manuals cookbooks and what ever would be tied to an identity the same way as lightwaves dongle (dont get any ideas about the dongle now, funny guy), most people would not bother self with trying to bypass the security in order to give to friends.

my point is not that you should restrain yourself from giving things to friends, but that you understand the large scale effects of it if everyone does it, and that there is a need for a working solution that will make it so difficult to give that you wont even bother, and the same time the solution should be flexible enough to grant you the freedom to copy the music to any media of taste, for personal use.

Steamthrower
01-04-2008, 03:19 PM
my point is not that you should restrain yourself from giving things to friends, but that you understand the large scale effects of it if everyone does it, and that there is a need for a working solution that will make it so difficult to give that you wont even bother, and the same time the solution should be flexible enough to grant you the freedom to copy the music to any media of taste, for personal use.

Well put. It's a very legitimate concern and I understand where you are coming from. And I agree. If people could magically duplicate a dollar bill with no effort then our currencies would be flattened overnight...even more than it is now....so any commercial industry is the same.


(dont get any ideas about the dongle now, funny guy)

Have I been LABELED?!?!?

Martin Adams
01-04-2008, 04:03 PM
I have one pair of ears, so I feel I shouldn't pay more than once for the same song just because I have an iPod for the gym, CD player in my car and iTunes on my computer.

I also I have more than one computer, which only I use, yet software licences say that I must pay multiple times. (Except LW with the use of a dongle).

If I buy a CD, I can give it as a present, or sell it second hand. If I buy a DVD, I can take it round a friends house to watch on a Thursday night. But if I download a DRM'd movie or music, I can do none of that.

Here's a question for you! A married couple buy a track off iTunes to play on their computer. They paid for it from a shared account and have a shared email address. They burn the tracks to an audio CD which iTunes allows. Who is licenced to listen to it?

Not sure if it's a valid point, but I wish for once the RIAA stopped making me feel like I'm hard done by and will be going to jail.

One day, garden centres will be trying to stop people making illegal copies of plants by taking cuttings, growing them and giving them to friends.

Andyjaggy
01-04-2008, 04:04 PM
Screw the RIAA.

Everyone may have different opinions on this situation but it seem the opinion that the RIAA is evil is pretty unanimous.

Matt
01-04-2008, 04:18 PM
Its well documented that CDs leave out small tidbits of music, even on Digital recordings, and tend to sound too "bright" at times. But the whole 192 kbps download (higher than Itunes) is equal to CD quality has been shown to be completely false. To get even close (for the true Audiophile), you would need upwards of 400+ kbps lossless. Ofcourse, proper stereophile equipment required.

Slightly OT, but is it me or does anyone else find that the sound on DVDs is totally naff?

I am forever turning up the volume to hear the dialogue, then in the next scene there's an explosion or some music kicks in and it's loud as hell!

I'm up and down on the volume throughout the whole film, p!sses me off!

Maybe I'm just getting old and my hearing is going, or my sound setup is all to cock!

cholo
01-04-2008, 05:11 PM
Here's a thought. Say I have a box full of old audio tapes gathering dust somewhere in my house. I don't even own a tape player to listen to them anymore, but the tapes are there. If I were to download those song off Kazaa or whatever, would that be considered illegal?

jin choung
01-04-2008, 05:15 PM
shouldn't be. and i wouldn't give it a second thought.

jin

Andyjaggy
01-04-2008, 06:26 PM
Slightly OT, but is it me or does anyone else find that the sound on DVDs is totally naff?

I am forever turning up the volume to hear the dialogue, then in the next scene there's an explosion or some music kicks in and it's loud as hell!

I'm up and down on the volume throughout the whole film, p!sses me off!

Maybe I'm just getting old and my hearing is going, or my sound setup is all to cock!

Sounds like you need a decent center channel. Do you have a 5.1 setup?

art
01-04-2008, 07:31 PM
Slightly OT, but is it me or does anyone else find that the sound on DVDs is totally naff?

I am forever turning up the volume to hear the dialogue, then in the next scene there's an explosion or some music kicks in and it's loud as hell!

I'm up and down on the volume throughout the whole film, p!sses me off!

Maybe I'm just getting old and my hearing is going, or my sound setup is all to cock!
You're not the only one, I complain about this, my wife complains about this.. all my friends who watch DVDs seem to notice this as well. It must be the way they master the DVDs. It's not only sfx, but music as well. My guess it that they try to mimic the theatre(cinema) sound. The dialogue is normal level and everything else is loud.
I'm not sure if I have a decent center channel or not, but I always make it louder than the rest to somewhat alleviate the problem.

Oh, RIAA... they are lousy copies, but I copied many of my CDs to my brain :)

meathead
01-04-2008, 11:53 PM
AndyJaggy is 100% right.

This is the key reason I do not see movies at the theater (unless its Beowolf in 3d IMAX or something).

If you buy a solid center channel speaker, the dialogue will no longer be hard to hear.

For music, two great speakers is all you need, but for DVD home theater, 5.1 and 7.1 one is probably best.

Steamthrower
01-05-2008, 06:22 AM
Here's a thought. Say I have a box full of old audio tapes gathering dust somewhere in my house. I don't even own a tape player to listen to them anymore, but the tapes are there. If I were to download those song off Kazaa or whatever, would that be considered illegal?

I think that technically, yes, it's "illegal". But there's this fine line between illegal and wrong. Is it wrong? No way. I actually have some old tapes that sound really good, but they're tapes...Dire Straits, Boston, The Police...and it's so much hassle trying to convert them to MP3s that I've just considered finding some for download. Took me about 30 minutes just to record Wrapped Around Your Finger to my computer...


One day, garden centres will be trying to stop people making illegal copies of plants by taking cuttings, growing them and giving them to friends.

They already do to a certain extent. With hybrid strawberry strains, peanuts, etc. It's a federal offense. Chew on that.

*Pete*
01-05-2008, 07:40 AM
Downloading song that you have on tape already, should not be problematic..no matter what the law says.
you bought the music, not the medium it is stored on, the artist got his money for it.

downloading the same music, not having it on tape before, without paying for it either earlier or later, is and should be illegal.

as for garden centers and plants...it can not be, and never will be, illegal to grow your own ones from those that you bought...if you buy a cat or a dog, and it gives you kittens/puppies, your the one who feeds them, houses them and does all the work...the previous seller has nothing what so ever to do with it, as with plants...it is you who "create" them by making sure that they get enough sun and water.

copying an mp3 to someone else, is not copying the media...it is giving away the song to someone who didnt pay for it, you didnt make the song either, you didnt spend years practising to become a good musician, you didnt pay for the equipment the music is made with...copying music to others, is and should be illegal, or else we can simply expect to pay 2 million dollar for each song from the musicians, but then get free right to copy it freely to who you want.
either a million sales for 2 dollar each without the right to copy, or one sale for 2 million dollars with the right to copy.
the artists need to get payed for the creations they make.
you can not expect to pay 2 dollar for something and then get free rights to copy it, its not even enough to pay for a hamburger for the artist, let alone finanse his career, training and equipment.

Martin Adams
01-05-2008, 09:19 AM
When I copy a CD, I supply the computer, the electricity and the blank disc, just like the food, water, sunshine for a plant or animal. The DNA is what makes the copy what it is, just like the arrangment of binary data on the surface of the CD. I guess the difference being is that someone can take intellectual property of that arrangment for music, but not really for DNA. So if science engineered the DNA of a plant or animal, they will probably want to protect that intellectual property. Just as inigo07 said with hybrid strawberries and peanuts, etc.

When it comes to tapes, would this be legal... You go into a shop, there is a brand new tape version of a new album for $5 and a CD version for $10. What would it mean then if I brought the tape version, then downloaded the MP3s free off the net and burnt it to CD?

What I'm struggling to understand is whether music is a product - i.e. I can do what I want with it, or if it is a licence to listen to music - i.e. am I licenced to listen to it in any form as I please - MP3, CD, tape, etc. The problem simply stems from the fact that people, as a whole, can't be trusted to not give copies of their music away. Someone will always lose.

*Pete*
01-05-2008, 11:42 AM
What I'm struggling to understand is whether music is a product - i.e. I can do what I want with it, or if it is a licence to listen to music - i.e. am I licenced to listen to it in any form as I please - MP3, CD, tape, etc. The problem simply stems from the fact that people, as a whole, can't be trusted to not give copies of their music away. Someone will always lose.

thats exactly my point...I consider music as a licence, meaning i buy an CD, i would not think twice before downloading it as MP3 if it turns out to be copy protected.
personal use...it should be allowed.

but as you say, people cant be trusted not to give copies to others..and this is a loss for the musicians.

the difference between sharing a copy of LW, or any other software, and music is non existent....its identical in action and consequence.
I have LW installed on 4 computers, the dongle ensures that i can use one at the time...giving a copy LW to my friends would not let them use it, as i have the dongle.
I cant see how it should be done, but music should have a similiar system of protection.

ted
01-05-2008, 11:59 AM
You know Big Brother is watching this thread. All of you who have admitted to making copies will hear a knock on the door soon!

I've NEVER made a copy of ANYTHING. :hey:
As I sit here with my new VHS-DVD duplication machine. :D

Martin Adams
01-05-2008, 12:39 PM
You know Big Brother is watching this thread.

What I meant to say was...


When I copy a CD...

If I were to copy a CD...

:D

Verlon
01-05-2008, 12:54 PM
As far as used CDs go... they would like to put a stop to that as well. Basically, Take the most draconian EULA you ever read for any software product and THAT is a little shy of the RIAA ideal.

They would prefer you have to pay them every time you listen to a song (or watch a movie to jump genres).

Read the EULA on the infamous sony Rootkit CDs. Like Jin said, they want the rights of a license without the responsibilities of it.

And the ABILITY to commit a crime is not the same thing as ACTUALLY committing the crime. That was the argument around VCRs back in the day.

Now we are just stealing from the suits by not watching the previews and fast forwarding through commericals (their words, not mine).

dballesg
01-05-2008, 03:21 PM
Thing is, they make such a big deal about "the artist not getting paid".

Well, come on. An artist doesn't make their big bucks from CD sales. They make the real money from tours. Whereas they get maybe $1 per CD sold, they get $25 or $30 per person in an arena that holds 15,000...day after day after day on a tour.

Every bootlegged CD that someone has given me has caused me to do either two things: 1, go out and buy more CDs and go see their concerts, or 2, throw the CD away.

Copying for personal use is in my opinion a moot point - I have no problems with it. Copying for commercial use is another thing. I'm against it totally.

Maybe it is true for the big stablisehd bands, but writers get moeny as well, I remember a program with Dolly Parton thanks Whitney Houston for do a version of her song "I Will Always Love You". Was something like "I will never be poor thanks to Whitney!!" :)

Or Diane Warren (Star Trek Enterprise theme song writer). I cannot imagine how much money that woman has with so MANY great songs written.

A LOT of money for the artists come from the rights of their songs, if someone else cover them and make a hit. Or if they are played a lot on TV and radio.

And on the concerts, on a program about Country Music on Biography Channel, a famous women duet (sorry I forgot the name) was complaining about a concert were 17000 people assisted and they got like 1700 full priced tickets as their payment. That it is only a 10% of the concert revenue.

A friend of mine here in Spain is a very big mixing artist (Pumpin Dolls its his group) , he always has work, but I remember when he made a compilation CD of another Spanish artist (years ago deceased) and they lost a lot of money because some moron bought the CD and put it to a P2P network to download the first day it came out.

In fact he was preparing a second compilation, and he sttoped it, so he did not lose money! :(

ted
01-05-2008, 11:42 PM
You think this is bad, I asked GlobalStreams, (formerly Play) what I needed to do to sell one of my GlobeCasters.

They said I could transfer the software to the new owner for $5,000.00.

WTF? I only paid $5,000.00 for the entire new box AND software.

Now that's jacked up.

jin choung
01-06-2008, 12:31 AM
the difference between sharing a copy of LW, or any other software, and music is non existent....its identical in action and consequence.



no it's not.

consider. it is NOT illegal for me to record something off of cable or network tv. it is NOT illegal for me to record songs from the radio. and there are some stations that for special occasions, play an album straight through from beginning to end without commercial interruption.

because of this kind of unerasable HISTORY of recording and home use, the issue is MUDDY not only legally but more importantly, to the PUBLIC.

and as i said, when it is a federal crime to make a mix tape of love songs for your sweetie... it MAY TECHNICALLY BE ILLEGAL but i will NEVER respect such a law.

it is TOO intrusive, too invasive, too PETTY and ridiculous. it is BENEATH MY CONSIDERATION. i will no more take ONE SECOND to consider the ramifications of such an action as i would spare ONE SECOND to make sure that i NEVER exceed the speed limit by so much as a mile.

beneath my consideration.

are you familiar with the notion of being LEGALISTIC? not as it pertains directly to law? it refers to rigidity. most people can't be that rigid.

and if that somehow hurts artists... at that level... tough cookies. they can rest assured that i am playing a sad song on the world's smallest violin for them.

jin

*Pete*
01-06-2008, 02:39 AM
Jin, I know what you are speaking about.

it is like traffic lights...nobody drives against red light, but almost all of us will walk against red light if we have an opportunity for that.

the "crime" is seen harmless, and therefore not respected.
it is like me buying one of your objects/textures from you, and then giving/selling it to others..its a small thing, easy to do and doesnt feel criminal, but in the end you will loose on it, being outcompeted by your illegally spread objects or textures, hindering your sales.

now, as i mentioned...as long it is not copyprotected, people will copy..as soon it is copyprotected, people will be far too limited in their personal use of it.
i do not respect this law either...just as walking against the red light, its too small of a crime.
but as mentioned earlier..when enough people break the law of sharing music. the musicians go out of business.

Sande
01-07-2008, 02:50 AM
pirated software is bad, it hurts the producer of the software economically.
original software is bad, it hurts the user mentally and economically - there, I fixed that for you... :devil:

Njah, seriously, I agree with you - but I've just been re-installing all my apps to my new comp and I'm getting SO fed up with all these f*king serials, license keys, activations, upgrade installs where I have to dig up and install some ancient Photoshop just to install current version, fetching new licence keys for 64bit version, etc etc etc...

I vaguely remember days when buying a software not just meant supporting the developer and having a clean conscience, but also provided better and care free user experience. Nowadays it seems to be just the opposite with all this copyprotection/dongle/license key/serial number/activation/registration-********... With pirated software everything would have been installed in a matter of minutes without wasting time with all these idiotic copyprotections which HURT ONLY THE PAYING CUSTOMER! Grrrr! :cursin:

Ok, sorry, my ranting was a bit off topic, but I just needed to vent somewhere. ;)
In principle the same goes with all the DRM-crap and copyprotected audio cd's though...

Steamthrower
01-07-2008, 06:46 AM
One of the main reasons I switched to Mac is that it doesn't require online activation like Windows. Once when I had to wipe an XP box and reinstall, I found that the sticker had come off from the bottom and I didn't have the OEM serial number anymore. So I had an option (it was really my fault that I hadn't copied the number down). I could either spend $300 on a new copy of XP Pro, or I could "illegally" download a cracked version. Which do you think I did? Yeah...and in my mind I was perfectly justified in doing so. I'd already paid for XP.

Same goes with DRM, like Sande said. DRM is just...just...not good.

*Pete*
01-07-2008, 09:50 AM
Inigo and Sande, i agree with both of your posts.

copyprotection is a hassle and mainly in the way, sometimes i wish i would have a pirated copy of LW, if for nothing else so that i dont need to be so afraid of loosing/breaking the dongle every time i take my laptop somewhere and use LW on it.

im only relaxed when the dongle sits on the back of my computer, safe from harm.

there was a time, as Sande says, when bying a legal, original copy of a program gave you a perfectly working program, no problems and a clear consience...but its the people without need for clear consience who later ruined it all for us, and thats why the dongles, codes and what so ever..its them we should hang, not the ones who install all the protections (we just shoot them, in the knees).

as i repeatedly said, its a complicated issue where either legal customers get hurt, or producers of the software/music get hurt.
and only ones who get by without consequences, are the pirates..as they will always find a way past any protection.
copy protection will never stop piracy, but it will naturally limit the "friendly sharing" piracy as most of us will not download pirated stuff as easily as get them from our friends.

the best solution would be, if we had one code for all our programs...perhaps like that small code-thingy we who use internet bank services get.
use it to install the program and your done...the program is tied to your computer, install to your second computer goes the same way..but if someone gets catched with a copy that originates from you (that code thingy is personal and should leave a id-mark when installing, to show who is owner/buyer), you should be responsible for the conseguences and hung together with other pirates.

just dont know how it would work if you want to sell a program...hmmm

Andyjaggy
01-07-2008, 10:01 AM
DRM is dead.

http://gizmodo.com/340598/drm-officially-dead-last-major-label-sony-bmg-plans-to-finally-drop-drm

Steamthrower
01-07-2008, 10:06 AM
not the ones who install all the protections (we just shoot them, in the knees).
Good idea. Let's do that. :D


as i repeatedly said, its a complicated issue where either legal customers get hurt, or producers of the software/music get hurt.
I think that one of the big issues we're dealing with here is corporate bloating. We're dealing with gigantic corporations like Microsoft, BMG, Adobe, you name it...and because they're so huge we have to take the load that their corporate ergonomics just don't provide. They're treating millions of customers. It's like banking at a local bank, or banking at the world's largest bank franchise...there's a level of personal one-on-one service that you can't get. A small software company like NT is good in that they explore alternative protection options like a dongle. You know, maybe it doesn't work seamlessly but at least it's better than the crap you have to go through with Microsoft or Autodesk.

Steamthrower
01-07-2008, 10:09 AM
DRM is dead.

http://gizmodo.com/340598/drm-officially-dead-last-major-label-sony-bmg-plans-to-finally-drop-drm

Holy Crap! That's great news. But really, it doesn't have much to do with the RIAA, which definitely isn't going to "retire" their nonsense.

Andyjaggy
01-07-2008, 10:24 AM
Well us much I think the RIAA is evil I am personally still against sharing of music. What the death of DRM means to me is that I can now use my music however I want, with the exception of sharing it online etc....

What I will be curious to see though is if itunes and other places still incorporate DRM data into their songs. Just because the record labels have dropped it doesn't mean the resellers will. If they don't though I will just start downloading my music from Amazon.

Steamthrower
01-07-2008, 10:48 AM
Well us much I think the RIAA is evil I am personally still against sharing of music.

I'm somewhat ambivalent towards the sharing of music by means of P2P networks, i.e. Kazaa, tending to not like it, but I'm all for the sharing of music between friends. I think that the sharing of music between friends is not either ethically wrong or financially damaging to the artist.

As Jin says, some guy making a mix tape for his girlfriend just shouldn't be illegal...or wrong for that matter.

Andyjaggy
01-07-2008, 10:58 AM
Yeah that's true. I haven't downloaded music from P2P since I was in high school and Napster was still in it's heyday, 1999-2000.

The sharing between friends though... that's more of a gray line for me. I don't like most peoples music anyway so I wouldn't bother :)

*Pete*
01-07-2008, 11:19 AM
The sharing between friends though... that's more of a gray line for me.

I absolutely agree...sharing music to friends should be legal, but to people you dont like should be illegal :thumbsup:

statistically, there is a 4 person link to anyone in the world, like..a friend of mine is married to a woman whose old teacher had George Bush as friend in kindergarden. (disclaimer, i made that up and have no connection what so ever to George bush)

so, your friends have more friends than just you, most likely..im not saying that you are not a nice enough guy to be the only friend to your friends, but if they have other friends..the music you gave to your friends will continue its path to those..and from them onward.

similiarly, music you get from your friends, comes from people you never knew, never going to meet and perhaps even use 3Dsmax or hate kittens.

Steamthrower
01-07-2008, 11:29 AM
I completely understand what you're saying, Pete.

But also, if music is passed to me by someone, they probably think I'll like it. And I usually do (if they offer to give me a Britney Spears CD, I'll refuse, but if they offer me an Eagles CD, I'll accept). And though usually the CDs they give me are their own, even if it originated with someone halfway across the world I'll still go to so-and-so's concerts, buy more of so-and-so's CDs, and buy so-and-so's T-shirts if I like them.

Except wait. I don't wear T-shirts. Never mind. I'm classy. I'll buy an Eagles leather jacket.


statistically, there is a 4 person link to anyone in the world

My grandmother's friend's daughter is Steven Spielberg's wife, Kate Capshaw. Does that count?

Andyjaggy
01-07-2008, 11:30 AM
3ds max kitten haters. Shutter....

*Pete*
01-07-2008, 11:55 AM
3ds max kitten haters. Shutter....

yes, and to those you are willing to share your favourite music!!:devil:


Inigo: yes..it counts, my wife has shaken the hand of Bill clinton during his Oslo visit and that hand has been in Monica Lewinsky, so im 4 persons away from a celebrity.

Andyjaggy
01-07-2008, 12:08 PM
Hey Pete, how do you like Norway. I have Norwegian ancestors and have always wanted to visit.

*Pete*
01-07-2008, 12:21 PM
Hey Pete, how do you like Norway. I have Norwegian ancestors and have always wanted to visit.

Since im not norwegian, ill give you a honest answer.
you wont find a more beatifull country in the world, with the fjords, mountains and forests, summer or winter, its pure beaty.

But the society is infested with incompetence and some strange need to complain and whine over just about everything, nobody in the world complains over having a bad life than Norwegians, who happen to be the richest in the world and live in an incredible beatifull nation.

If you plan to visit Oslo, let me know and ill show you the city and its best places.

Andyjaggy
01-07-2008, 01:02 PM
I have always heard it is gorgeous there. I would love to visit, are you planning on being there for a long time?

*Pete*
01-07-2008, 01:19 PM
I have always heard it is gorgeous there. I would love to visit, are you planning on being there for a long time?

it looks like it, i have been here 6 years now.
and now as i just started working for myself with 3D and getting customers (norwegian commercial companies/architects) i think ill stay for a long long time to come :D

T-Light
01-08-2008, 11:19 AM
Well, I never thought I'd say this about HM Gov, I'm usually just harping on about how many millions of people they've dealt a swift kick to the nadgers too.

But not today... News just in (BBC)

Copying CDs could be made legal.
Copying music from a CD to a home computer could be made legal under new proposals from the UK government.
Millions of people already "rip" discs to their computers and move the files to MP3 players, although the process is technically against copyright law.

Intellectual property minister Lord Triesman said the law should be changed so it "keeps up with the times".

Music industry bodies gave a cautious welcome to the proposals, which are up for public consultation until 8 April.

The changes would apply only to people copying music for personal use - meaning multiple copying and internet file-sharing would still be banned.

Owners would not be allowed to sell or give away their original discs once they had made a copy.

OK, it won't help anyone else on the planet but it's still rather unbelievable, surely there must be some mistake?

Here's the link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7176538.stm

Andyjaggy
01-08-2008, 11:22 AM
What a load of BS. And they wonder why everyone hates the record companies.

Steamthrower
01-08-2008, 11:32 AM
So...can you buy a CD, make a copy so you don't scratch it in the car, and once you decide to sell the CD, can you throw away the burned CD?

Or is there a printable PDF that you can sign and have notarized and send in to the Powers That Be?

Martin Adams
01-08-2008, 11:50 AM
OK, it won't help anyone else on the planet but it's still rather unbelievable, surely there must be some mistake?

Here's the link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7176538.stm

Well, the UK just lost Pandora (http://www.pandora.com/) (the brilliant music online player) (info) (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/08/pandora_uk_closes/). I guess we can't win them all. :cry:

Steamthrower
01-08-2008, 11:57 AM
Bummer. I guess there's always proxies. :cool:

I keep Pandora on 8 hours a day...it's definitely very very nice.

Elmar Moelzer
01-08-2008, 01:46 PM
I am somewhat confused?
Seems like the likes of Sony have a slight case of multiple personality disorder or something. I mean on one hand, they are producing and selling MP3- players, on the other they are having an issue with people actually using them.
Where the hell do they think people are going to get the music from that they are going to put on those things?
CU
Elmar

Steamthrower
01-08-2008, 02:20 PM
I guess from online music stores like iTunes or Walmart...but I'm really clueless as well. I have no idea. It may be an issue of different divisions of Sony fighting each other...which, being a major world power with navies and armies and such, wouldn't be too far of a stretch to say.

EDIT: Then, Sony makes CD players and stereos, which therefore implies that they want you to buy a CD to listen at home, and a digital download, again, to listen to in your MP3 player.

Maybe these folks need help. Maybe they don't even know that we listen to the same songs on both devices. Maybe they're not evil, they're just retarded. Perhaps we need to show compassion...:D

*Pete*
01-08-2008, 02:43 PM
personally, i wouldnt even bother my time with selling a CD, they are cheap to begin with and my economy would not improve a bit for the money i would get from selling a used CD.

besides, you cant get everything your way, not being able to sell the CD (not much money in it anyway) but to be able and allowed to legally make several copies for personal use, for your mp3player, computer, backup CD and so on, is a fair price to pay for the benefits (not having to bother with pesky copyprotections).

just my opinion about it.

Steamthrower
01-08-2008, 02:55 PM
they are cheap to begin with and my economy would not improve a bit for the money i would get from selling a used CD.

Hardly anyone's economy would improve...you'd only get five or six bucks...but that's not the point. The point is the principle behind it: is it your property or not? If it's truly your property then you can darn well do whatever you want with it. You can coat it with peanut butter and fry it if you want.

There's something to be said about laws and how they're enforced. For example here in Little Rock, it is illegal to kiss your girlfriend/wife in public.

Okay.

Great.

But that law was made a hundred years ago. And naturally, now you can kiss your wife in front of a police officer without fear of going to jail. (It's also illegal for the Arkansas River to rise higher than the Main Street Bridge, but that's beside the point).

So it's illegal to copy CDs. How many times is it enforced? Maybe...five times a year? About as often as jaywalkers get apprehended? So that points out that the laws are technical squabbling laws, not actual laws which the government is actually concerned about enforcing.

Anyway...just a thought.

*Pete*
01-08-2008, 03:15 PM
i could consider to trade one CD i dont like that much to a CD i like very much, so yes..i do understand your point.

buuut...if we consider that buying a CD, you buy a licence to listen that music.
the same argument could be me paying for my drivers licence, do i own it??..hell yes, can fry it in peanutbutter, sure..and most likely ill even get a new drivers license after that, for free.
but can i sell it?..can the new buyer use it?..or even give it away, or trade it into a helicopter pilots license..that would be cool :D

in my opinion, you DO buy a license to listen to the music, it would make the most sence when creating a law to govern legality in selling/giving away and user rights of the buyer.

the CD is just a medium, it could be anything in it, data, music or even video..so you are not buying the CD as such, nor the full rights for the contents, but you are buying user right for the music.

but, i do understand your point, it gets even more valid when it comes to expensive software.

Steamthrower
01-08-2008, 03:39 PM
Good points. I really think our point here is boiling down to this: is the music you buy a license, or is it the music?

Is the physical CD the "license"? Or is your account history in iTunes the "license"?

I wonder if there's anything written in the law about music on CDs being a license or not...if there was it would clear up a lot of confusion I'm sure.

Now I'm going off to fry my driver's license in peanut butter, then take it to the DMV office and ask for a replacement "because I fried it in peanut butter".

I bet I'll have to pay. :D

Andyjaggy
01-08-2008, 04:06 PM
I read a good article the other day, wish I could remember where, about how the record companies see is as we are buying a license to listen to their music, while we see it as we are buying the music.

*Pete*
01-08-2008, 10:08 PM
Good points. I really think our point here is boiling down to this: is the music you buy a license, or is it the music?



Now I'm going off to fry my driver's license in peanut butter, then take it to the DMV office and ask for a replacement "because I fried it in peanut butter".

I bet I'll have to pay. :D


When you sell your art, the copyright still belongs to you, but the buyer gets user rights (license to use it), unless specially stated that you give away your copyright, its always a lisence that you are selling, and that license can be limited to...say 4 copies for newspaper, 2 for web and not at all for tv, and they would have to follow the rules set by you.


better not to hand them the fried drivers license, they will think that you are :screwy: , and might not give you a license at all...tell them your dog age it.

Red_Oddity
01-09-2008, 02:41 AM
personally, i wouldnt even bother my time with selling a CD, they are cheap to begin with and my economy would not improve a bit for the money i would get from selling a used CD.

Well, not sure how much price differences are between the Netherlands and Norway, but i find 20 euros for a mainstream CD still too steep (that's the average price for a new CD, new releases are often priced higher), not to mention the prices you have to pay for CDs from less known bands (as in, finding the CD in a actual small music shop rather than a supermarket type Media store)

Still, i rather buy used copies (hell even if they are damaged and won't play for ****) just as proof i've paid a 'license' fee, i'll then just download the MP3 album.


Also, the whole copyright issue is a mess, every country does it his own way, and not one consumer seems to know what is allowed and what is not.
For example, in the Netherlands you pay a license fee on blank CDs, just in case you burn MP3s on it, and yes, those can be MP3 files you don't have the original CD of, as long as you download them via a network that is not P2P, as downloading over here is legal but uploading/sharing is not. (or atleast it is endorsed, like weed)

T-Light
01-09-2008, 09:24 AM
Heard something on the news in the car today, the EU has a new regulation regarding I-Tunes, Apple have been forced to charge the same for all music across the EU, some countries were paying more than their neighbours. Don't know if that's significant to the Norway vs Netherlands pricing.

Steamthrower
01-09-2008, 09:32 AM
So now everybody has to pay the higher price...because of the wonderful European Onion.

T-Light
01-09-2008, 09:40 AM
I think everyone's supposed to pay the lower price, but it is the EU comission, you're probably right.

After all, this is the same commision that has successfully won the court battle against Microsoft for supplying too many goodies with its OS because it was anti competitive.

It actually means

A) We're still paying twice the price that US citizens have to pay for an MS OS.

B) Now we're even going to get LESS for our money.

Nice to know all of our EU contributions aren't going to waste :(

Steamthrower
01-09-2008, 09:54 AM
The UK, Germany, and France are supporting Turkey, Albania, Croatia...which are literally freeloading off their rich neighbors...and using P2P networks anyway...

Andyjaggy
01-09-2008, 09:55 AM
what is the general opinion of the EU over there? I've always been curious.

Steamthrower
01-09-2008, 10:01 AM
I know that all my German friends are somewhat ambivalent to it all. Some tend to like it, some don't, but none hate it or love it. They don't like providing 35% or whatever the number is of all EU revenue. Plus they don't like the redundant and innumerous laws that it forces upon them.

But my Swiss friends treat it (naturally) like it's a joke that they're watching get played. They call themselves, literally, an "island of freedom".

But I'd also like to know the European's take who are on these boards...my European friends aren't always the most typical...

*Pete*
01-09-2008, 10:03 AM
So now everybody has to pay the higher price...because of the wonderful European Onion.


hmm...but there is still a big difference in salaries, Norway coming out in the top end of the scale.

I think the minimum salary in Norway is about 100 NOK per hour now, this would equal to about $20/h.


hmm..now as i think about it, Norway is not part of the European Onion....

Steamthrower
01-09-2008, 10:07 AM
$20/hr minimum salary...holy crap that's high. It's a little over $7 here.

Good for Norway, staying out of the EU (or EO).

Andyjaggy
01-09-2008, 10:15 AM
Edit. Never mind.

*Pete*
01-09-2008, 10:19 AM
what is the general opinion of the EU over there? I've always been curious.

positive to neutral id say...but when ever something goes wrong or seems too stupid, we blame it on the EU.

there was a incident when the EU wanted to stop swedish (EU nation) from importing Norwegian (not EU nation) cucumbers....why?..becouse they were not straight enough.:D

but all in all, EU is positive thing, giving us economical growth, common currency, stability and far easier acces to countries within the EU (or the so called schengen, of which Norway is a part of).

Inigo: I think few things would be different even if Norway was a part of the EU, we are part of the EOS which is the same thing except without the right to decide anything.
our salary is high mainly thanks to very low rates of unemployment (2%)...which comes as a result of Norwegian Oil (complicated).

Steamthrower
01-09-2008, 10:21 AM
mainly thanks to very low rates of unemployment (2%)...which comes as a result of Norwegian Oil (complicated).

...or a work ethic? :hey:

*Pete*
01-09-2008, 10:28 AM
...or a work ethic? :hey:

to begin with, i wanted to say that work ethic is nearly nonexistant here, but then i understod that it was exactly what you were suggesting :D :thumbsup:

Steamthrower
01-09-2008, 10:35 AM
Ahem. I didn't mean that! But I'll take your word for it. I know that in Germany for example the work ethic is a bit overdone...I mean some Germans won't even stop work for three minutes to take a personal phone call...and over here it's sometimes the other extreme.

Right now, from where I'm sitting waiting on Autodesk products to install right, I can see people taking smoking breaks outside. Except they've been taking a smoke break for the past hour...

Andyjaggy
01-09-2008, 10:40 AM
It always seems unfair that people who smoke get more breaks then everyone else. If you call them on it they get all offended and start screaming "discrimination".

*Pete*
01-09-2008, 10:43 AM
the big, ongoing battle at my work is that the workers sneak to the showers 20 minutes before the working time finishes...after several tries and threats, the leadership just got tired and put a big note about the issue, with correct times and a copy of an old agreement where the workers agreed to respect the times set in return for a higher salary...naturally, that sign gets the same disrespect as the time we are supposed to keep.

German work ethic is legendary, Japanese too...but in both those nations the workers are so effective, that a few of them are needed to do the job, hence the much higher unemployement rates in those nations. :D

Steamthrower
01-09-2008, 10:58 AM
So in Norway you get showers...that's a rare benefit here...but of course here we don't wade through four foot drifts of snow to get to our cars.

I just heard a good term from an Air Force friend...what they call new postmodern recruits that they have to train...SNAKs. Sensitive New Age Kid. That's pretty descriptive of what the work ethic is going to nowadays...here, there, and everywhere.

Andyjaggy
01-09-2008, 11:29 AM
I lived in Japan for a while, I would never want the lifestyle of half of those men. Working 18 hour days, spending no time with your family. Call me lazy if you will but all work and no play makes Andy grumpy.

*Pete*
01-09-2008, 11:45 AM
How are the working hours in USA?..in Norway its 37,5 hour weeks, or 7,5 hour working days.

Steamthrower
01-09-2008, 11:57 AM
It varies, but my working hours are from 8 to 5 with an hour lunch break...generally it boils down to 8 hour days, 40 hour weeks.

Andyjaggy
01-09-2008, 12:04 PM
yep 40. although by law anything from 30-40 is considered full-time.

Red_Oddity
01-09-2008, 12:06 PM
The dutch pay most per person per country to EU contributions, we have (last time i checked) 35-40 hour work weeks (unless offourse when you run your own business or work in the creative industry) and i believe the minimum net income is somewhere around 1200 euro's

Ah, yes, the EU did so many good for us, most of the people in Holland living on wellfare now live far under the bare minumum standard because our minister of finances sold the guilder for a fraction of its worth (probably to get CEO on some board to pay for his 3rd house and his 4th mistress), we pay exorbitant prices for our social medical care and get too little in return, there are not enough people working health and people care, pension funds slowly get worth less and less while the the pension age is being set higher and higher, the goverment is busily wrecking all corner stones that our grandparents fought for (health care, education, pensions, etc).

Course, not all of it can be attributed to the EU, but when we got that damn euro shoved down our throats we all saw prices for food and non-foods being doubled but our wages never have gone up to match.

Ahwell, atleast we can download mp3s and we get to smoke weed.

Andyjaggy
01-09-2008, 12:12 PM
Pensions. Those disappeared here in the US a long time ago.

Steamthrower
01-09-2008, 12:13 PM
Ahwell, atleast we can download mp3s and we get to smoke weed.
At least you're mighty happy while everything goes down in shambles...

most of the people in Holland living on wellfare now live far under the bare minumum standard
That's good initiative for people to get off their butts and actually work for a living.

jin choung
01-11-2008, 01:32 AM
The dutch pay most per person per country to EU contributions, we have (last time i checked) 35-40 hour work weeks (unless offourse when you run your own business or work in the creative industry) and i believe the minimum net income is somewhere around 1200 euro's

Ah, yes, the EU did so many good for us, most of the people in Holland living on wellfare now live far under the bare minumum standard because our minister of finances sold the guilder for a fraction of its worth (probably to get CEO on some board to pay for his 3rd house and his 4th mistress), we pay exorbitant prices for our social medical care and get too little in return, there are not enough people working health and people care, pension funds slowly get worth less and less while the the pension age is being set higher and higher, the goverment is busily wrecking all corner stones that our grandparents fought for (health care, education, pensions, etc).

Course, not all of it can be attributed to the EU, but when we got that damn euro shoved down our throats we all saw prices for food and non-foods being doubled but our wages never have gone up to match.

Ahwell, atleast we can download mp3s and we get to smoke weed.

hmmm, interesting.

i posted an article in the enviro thread about denmark. they have the highest rate of happiness of any country!

and if the article is correct, i really LOVE the idea of a "post-consumer" or possibly, "post-capitalist" society.

kinda sounds like communism++ ... : ) like what that c word was supposed to be. not everybody being equally miserable and impoverished but everybody has what they want and is free to do what they want.

there was a really interesting point that the taxes were so high that the disparity between rich and poor is diminished and therefore, there wasn't a dog eat dog mentality there or a "keeping up with the jones' " philosophy.

instead of everybody trying to be a banker or doctor to make the most money possible, they're free to pursue what they want to.

you wouldn't agree with the article r.o.?

man but seriously, along with legalized prostitution, if that article is even halfway accurate, i might have to move.

jin

jin choung
01-11-2008, 01:38 AM
back to intellectual property: you know what i think might work?

do any of you belong to STEAM? (steampowered.com)

basically it's valve's (of halflife game fame) online store.

thing is i bought a game from them several years ago and i've since reformatted and changed computers more times than i can count. but i bought that game online and didn't make any backups and found myself wanting to play again.

i went to check my account and see if i can email them to see if they have my purchase on record.

guess what?

no need to email.

my game purchase is ON RECORD on my customer page and i can just download it whenever i want... in PERPETUITY.

now THAT, is intellectual property done right. sure, it uses an online validation process that actually works because it can check every time you install... that is what they mandate. but they also fulfill their OBLIGATIONS.

itunes should be like that.

and i love the fact that newtek and adobe both have registration pages where i can see my purchases on record.

i think instead of going on a litigation inquisition, they should play up PRIDE OF OWNERSHIP.

emphasize the ADVANTAGES.... really make MEMBERSHIP HAVE ITS PRIVELEGES.

for music, online forums that are only accessible to registered users, stuff like that.

i think THAT could really work.

jin

Red_Oddity
01-11-2008, 02:41 AM
If it is anything like steam it certainly might work...

I'll check the article you posted Jin (also, it's not that we're a poor country, we're a very rich country, but then again, so is the US of A)

hrgiger
01-11-2008, 04:08 AM
I haven't bought a music CD for about 8 years now. As far as I'm concerned, the CD business is dead to me.

Sil3
01-11-2008, 06:26 AM
Course, not all of it can be attributed to the EU, but when we got that damn euro shoved down our throats we all saw prices for food and non-foods being doubled but our wages never have gone up to match.







Remember that Europe is getting OLD (population terms) faster that anyone wants... Couples this days dont have kids, Medicine keeps evolving making people live longer and longer, if there are no new Blood to keep uf the balance between Social Security payers and Pensionists things start to get drastic, like they are now in almost every country on Europe.

In Portugal we are facing the same problem... 20 years ago we had like 10-14 people for each Pensionist, now we have like 2-3... as you can see the balance is not really balanced and the Future of a Social Security is questionable... making people like me thinking if I ever will get any Pension when im older, wich I really doubt...and if thats so... why am I paying for it now??

I keep saying to my friends that we are getting back to the old Industrial Revolution days, where "Bosses" keep getting richer and richer and workers lived in miserable ways working 12-14 hours a day 7 days a week... I keep seing Banks and other Huge corporations having record Profits of Bilions every year, the more Crise there seems to be the more they earn...





Ahwell, atleast we can download mp3s and we get to smoke weed.



LOL... yeah only country in Europe were people can take whatever they want at will.. all others only allow the other "legal Drugs" normally known as Cigarrets and Alchool...

Steamthrower
01-11-2008, 07:47 AM
LOL... yeah only country in Europe were people can take whatever they want at will.. all others only allow the other "legal Drugs" normally known as Cigarrets and Alchool...
That's not very accurate, I'd say. If you illegalized cigarettes and alcohol as "drugs" then you might as well ban spray paint, nail polish, sharpies, and gasoline...

It's the people who abuse it, not the substance itself.

Sil3
01-11-2008, 08:13 AM
Do you buy Nail Polish to sniff? or Gasoline or Spray paint?

People buy cigarrets because they are addicted to them, people drink Alchool to get drunk, I consider both to be Drugs, legal Drugs, but still Drugs.

Once addicted to any of them its very hard to let them go, of course there are also people that only smoke one cigarret a day or drink a beer/glass of Wine at meals etc and those are the ones that ENJOY those products, they dont drink or smoke because they HAVE to.

Steamthrower
01-11-2008, 08:24 AM
Do you buy Nail Polish to sniff? or Gasoline or Spray paint?

No, never have, never will. Actually it used to make me mad when as a kid I would try to buy some Testor's model paint at the store to paint up my little F4U Corsair models...and the woman at the counter wouldn't let me buy it...so it had methyl ethyl ketone in it? So?

Andyjaggy
01-11-2008, 08:31 AM
Who needs drugs when you have Lightwave!

Red_Oddity
01-12-2008, 09:10 AM
That's not very accurate, I'd say. If you illegalized cigarettes and alcohol as "drugs" then you might as well ban spray paint, nail polish, sharpies, and gasoline...

It's the people who abuse it, not the substance itself.

Ah, but alcohol and cigarettes ARE drugs.
There is however a difference between illegal, legalized and tolerated (yet not truely legal) drugs, but then again, we weren't arguing the meaning of the word drugs : http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=drugs&x=0&y=0

Bill Carey
01-12-2008, 10:00 AM
Actually I think alcohol is technically a poison, since ingesting it impairs health. Nicotine might be a drug, putting anything but air directly in to your lungs is a bad idea though.

Anyway, I'll think about it over a Mike's hard lemonade.

Lightwolf
01-12-2008, 10:11 AM
Actually I think alcohol is technically a poison, since ingesting it impairs health.
So is Nicotine... lethal at a much smaller dose as well.

Cheers,
Mike

Andyjaggy
01-12-2008, 01:56 PM
So are half the things we eat and drink of done in large enough quantities. Water can kill you if you drink to much.
Moderation is key.

Steamthrower
01-12-2008, 03:17 PM
Moderation is everything. Some tests have shown that drinking alcohol moderately can prolong your live and prevent against cancer. Smoking non-nicotine tobacco (such as pipes or cigars) moderately is supposed to improve your heart.

But drug drugs - like meth or crack or weed - there's nothing good about them. They're addictive, and addictive is what is bad (like the nicotine in cigarettes). And that's why drugs are dangerous and harmful to your health - you can't stop taking them.

jin choung
01-12-2008, 03:26 PM
ehhhh? non-nicotine tobacco? i've never heard of such a thing....

also never heard that moderate smoking has a BENEFIT?! really? would be wonderful if it were true. i took up cigs when i was in college and gave them up half a dozen years ago... occasionally, it's a habit that one can miss.

and definitely agree, tobacco and alcohol are indeed drugs. and different from nail polish and compressed air canisters because they are MEANT TO BE INGESTED.

jin

jin choung
01-12-2008, 03:33 PM
weed

lots of debate over this one! : )

some say it's less addicting than alcohol. some say it's less detrimental to health. compounds in it are helpful pharmaceutically to treat diseases.

i've never had so much as a whiff but personally, i would not begrudge anyone's right to indulge.

no doubt there are drugs out there that are life-ruiners.... but seems to me then the question is should we be allowed to ruin our own lives?

i would say yes. but make them sign a waiver so that they don't become a burden to the system.

you can behave however you want but when the time comes due to pay the piper, there will be no social safety net. tax payer dollars will not go towards saving your life from drug related consequences.

and they wear a bracelet. kind of an opposite 'life alert' bracelet... a 'death alert' bracelet.

jin

Andyjaggy
01-12-2008, 05:18 PM
You have some interesting opinions Jin. I would be tempted to agree with you except for the fact that in the act of ruining their own lives they will usually ruin other peoples as well.

Lightwolf
01-12-2008, 05:26 PM
You have some interesting opinions Jin. I would be tempted to agree with you except for the fact that in the act of ruining their own lives they will usually ruin other peoples as well.
To quote the NRA: Drugs don't ruin lives, people do ;)

... and so far alcohol and tobacco have ruined more peoples lives than weed (which is indeed used for therapeutical purposes - as is alcohol but only as a solvent).

Have we completely derailed the thread yet? Did anybody mention the non DRM Sony MP3s sold on Amazon yet?

Cheers,
Mike

Steamthrower
01-12-2008, 09:48 PM
Sorry about that non-nicotine comment I made. That was incorrect; I should have said "little-nicotine" or "less-nicotine" or something of that sort.

Here's a link to one study (of course it's biased, coming from tobacco.org, but it seems valid): http://www.tobacco.org/news/174775.html

And a link to the blurb in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_smoking#Health_benefits_of_smoking

Steamthrower
01-12-2008, 09:51 PM
And by the way, I'm against the laws that say it is illegal to possess, say, weed or meth.

I do not condone the use of drugs in any way, but I believe that the only way in which the government should be able to exercise authority over someone using drugs is if they are affecting someone else by their behaviour.

Just like alcohol. Anybody can have a bottle of whiskey, and get drunk in the privacy of their homes, but they're not arrested unless they're beating up their wife or out on the street while drunk.

I think drugs should be treated the same way by the government...like my paltry opinion will matter though...:D

*Pete*
01-13-2008, 03:02 AM
people under drugs/alcohol are not allowed to drive a car, and imho...should not be allowed to be outside of there own homes either while in that condition.

but i quess my opinion is as it is, becouse here we have far bigger problems with alcohol and drugs than most nations.

StereoMike
01-13-2008, 10:09 AM
Radiohead hit #1 with their new (physically available) album. And that after they offered it nearly for free online (customer could decide how much he wants to donate to radiohead).
That's pretty cool :)

I think we must say goodbye to all this laws which were based on physical available content. Everyone who owns a computer has mp3s, watches movies online, ripps his cds etc. The only alternative to sue civilization as a whole is introducing something like a flatrate on content. Everybody pays a bit, but therefore P2P is allowed (in a nutshell; still lots of points to clear)

mike