On TechRepublic: 12 tech terms that make you sound old
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 27 of 57:
Next »
« Previous
The big difference
---If I can take a song and rip it MP3, tape to casset, burn
it a DVD or what ever then why can't the Recording
Industry give two formats on CD.---

While it's a grey area, I'd say the big difference is that
while you are copying your song for personal use, the
RIAA is selling copies of that song. That makes a big
difference, particularly if you have a contract that says you
get paid for every physical copy of a song sold.

---It's kind of like songwriters don't get it. So they want
piracy of thier songs stopped but are going out of their
way to hinder processes to stop piracy. Doesn't make
much sense to me.---

I think your confusion comes from mixing up two issues.
First, you assume that this method will stop "piracy". This
is clearly wrong, as "piracy" refers to wholesale copying of
cds and re-selling them (also called bootlegging). These
measures will not stop this practice in the slightest.
Bootleggers will merely copy the entire cd, copy protection
mechanism and all, and sell copies on the street. You still
won't be able to rip an mp3 from the bootleg though. And
remember that bootlegging is a much, much bigger
financial problem for the RIAA than song sharing.

What I'm guessing you meant is that songwriters want to
stop song sharing over p2p networks. This is also not a
great assumption, as many songwriters have publicly
announced support for p2p.

Now, as to the most glaring confusion, what we're dealing
with here is two different issues. What the songwriters
really want, is to get paid what they're owed. The RIAA
companies have ripped them off for years. They have a
contract with the RIAA companies that calls for a specific
payment for a specific reason, and that's what they're
asking for here. Perhaps it will hinder the RIAA's
misguided attempts to destroy sales, er, stop song
swapping. But that's no big deal. Protected cds aren't
going to sell. Maybe the songwriters are smart enough to
realize that crippled cds will hurt their royalties in the long
run through lower sales, and this is their method of
cutting off the RIAA from doing something stupid.
Posted by: tic swayback   Posted on: 01/16/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Some folks are REAL slow learners...  realitycheck101 | 01/16/04
Get a life Itty  SloooeShflu | 01/16/04
What about the money?  WhoIsDaMan | 01/16/04
Not enough  RedHat9User | 01/16/04
You're just jealous!  WhoIsDaMan | 01/16/04
actually  RedHat9User | 01/16/04
funny  fr33dom101@... | 01/16/04
Mike!  BitTwiddler | 01/16/04
thx for the tip  prrawlins | 01/16/04
Jail time, haha...  Delaware Boy | 01/16/04
Garnishing Wage would have an economic impact  voska | 01/16/04
Diminishing Returns  Publius_z | 01/16/04
Plus  tic swayback | 01/16/04
Arrrg me m8ty  Pongo13 | 01/18/04
The Courts arern't likely to "up the fines"....  James T. Kirk | 01/16/04
What fines?  tic swayback | 01/16/04
Why?  d_jedi | 01/19/04
There hasn't been a court case yet  voska | 01/16/04
who's dumb?  ryusen | 01/16/04
Sure....  AbsolutelyNot | 01/20/04
Guess they're finally swapping songs they bought  FilledOut | 01/16/04
Time for a few more "examples".  No_Ax_to_Grind | 01/16/04
Maybe not  tic swayback | 01/16/04
Or maybe no one cares anymore the way you do Itty  SloooeShflu | 01/16/04
Agreed  Robert Crocker | 01/16/04
It's called fair use  voska | 01/16/04
The big difference  tic swayback | 01/16/04
better than trying to find loopholes  ryusen | 01/16/04
Tough against a cartel  tic swayback | 01/16/04
i understand your point...  ryusen | 01/16/04
They sort of have  tic swayback | 01/17/04
Contracts? More like indentured servitude agreements!  AbsolutelyNot | 01/20/04
Congress disagrees with you  tic swayback | 01/16/04
Examples don't work, look at the stats  voska | 01/16/04
Lets sum this up.  doe_z | 01/16/04
Re: Lets sum this up  Publius_z | 01/16/04
The Courts have NEVER declared P2P illegal  bidemytime | 01/16/04
The settlers have settled  StorageGuru | 01/16/04
The Courts have NEVER declared P2P illegal  prrawlins | 01/16/04
p2p is legal  el1jones | 01/16/04
To put a finer point on it  bidemytime | 01/16/04
exactly  JWatson77 | 01/17/04
Correction  AbsolutelyNot | 01/20/04
Bogus studies  tic swayback | 01/16/04
Like we should give a hoot!  smarti21@... | 01/16/04
What Gives  ParadigmOdyssey | 01/16/04
enough of this foolishness  Louisiana oilman | 01/16/04
Time to listen to music  AbsolutelyNot | 01/20/04
Why surprised and why not?  solprovider | 01/16/04
Not always free  Louisiana oilman | 01/16/04
How about this  voska | 01/16/04
Correction  tic swayback | 01/16/04
Big Suprise  hetar | 01/16/04
Good Point  voska | 01/16/04
Another good point  AbsolutelyNot | 01/20/04
Plz explain  Pongo13 | 01/18/04
discounts available  tic swayback | 01/20/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here