Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Isn't about RIAA/copyright, is social engineeri (Score -1) 153

Exactly. This has nothing to do with the RIAA or their methods. This is simply a scan artist conducting an illegal scam by making false copyright claim. As opposed to the RIAA who represents people who have actual copyright material that is actually being stolen. If anyone here had property of theirs stolen, they would immediately call the police. The artists and record labels don't have the ability to call the police and legal action is their only protection. And now everyone can unleash their negative karma points because someone dare not support stealing other people's property so long as it's music or movies.

Comment The reason for the large fines (Score -1, Troll) 528

The fine's arne't simply based on the damages on the download of the individual song itself. When someone downloads those songs with the file sharing client, almost always it then makes that song available or downloading by others. So the damages done by that person are far more than the cost o a single song. The damage don is how many copies of that song are then downloaded from that copy which could be in the 1000's easily. But of course everyone would much prefer to pretend there's some big government conspiracy because that's so much easier than actually looking at the details of the issue.

Comment What business model? (Score 0) 300

The OP claims that music and film industries are not using the new business model, hence their losses. I hear this a lot. Can someone lay out this business model that would make them successful? If it's that simple, then someone just explain what this supposed model is and how it works. Or is it like saying the only reason we haven't eliminated spam from the internet is because everyone has been too lazy to use the proper spam elimination model?

Comment Good (Score -1, Troll) 775

While I know is almost completely pro piracy, I am glad to see something finally being done about the rampant piracy which is ruining so many lives and helping to kill an already damaged economy. Stealing is stealing and it not only breaks the law, but it hurts others. The problem has always been a lack of enforcement of the law and protection of people's rights. Of course people are going to continue to steal if there are no consequences for stealing. If we didn't arrest people who break into stores and steal merchandise stores would go out of business. Just like what is happening with media right now. While most try to justify their stealing by pretending they are only stealing from rich corporations who are gouging everyone, the truth is that they are putting hundreds of thousands of people who just want to feed their families out of work. Most people here don't have to witness the outcome of the stealing. Some of us do. Some of us want to support music, not steal it. The vast majority of people in the music business are not millionaire and not rich. They are poor people. THEY are the ones hit the most by stealing, not the few rich people.

Comment Re:Good (Score 0) 294

You’re assuming 1) there was a cheaper store in my area and 2) whatever you pay in your area is the norm.

Well then the problem is the area you live in. That is an absurdly high price which in no way is indicative of the market. I don't recall seeing any prices over $12 except in high profile shopping malls which jack up the prices of everything. But having traveled around a lot, I am can say that that's not the usual cost.

I’m pretty sure I said if I like something I buy it. When did paying for something become stealing? They use this concept in grocery stores; I had a mini-pizza the other day and bought a whole box of them.

Yes I understand. But I meant to yous "You" in a proverbial sense, and not you personally. In fact I have never met anyone on the internet that actually steals music from torrents. everyone just does it to later buy the same material. And the other 99.999% are just other people. But your position is anything but the norm. But in your example, the store had the choice of offering a small sample, just like is the case with music. And you aren't able to take an unlimited number of samples, thus removing the need to buy the product.

I’m conceding this point to you. All we have here is speculation that IF Napster hadn’t made file sharing popular and IF the XYZ industry had of been the one to kick the snowball instead of the one trying to stop the avalanche things might have been different.

But this is simply how business works. Any large business is not going to be able to be the first to jump on a new technology. The machine in any area of large business is simply too big to make sudden changes. And had they been there first it would not change the fact that someone can still get their products for free and not pay. The issue isn't about who came out first, it's that no one can compete with free. Not even itunes who make their profit on ipod sales.

Yes it does, people have gotten use to doing something easy, doing things the “hard” way is illogical. Alienating them by imposing DRMs, ridiculous EULAs and making laws that will most likely only affect “innocent” people only makes things worse. Sorry the box is open you can’t put the bad things back in

Most people that steal from torrents now were not old enough to have been downloading when the Napster issue happened. Many don't even know what the issue was. They only know that they can download a simply program and have any song they want and never have to pay for it. Again, no one can compete with free. Nothing can be easier than free. And DRM was not implemented from the start. It was added after it was realized how rampant theft was. But it was still a failure, because no one can compete with free. So they can not use copy protection and people will steal. Or they can use copy protection and peal will steal AND complain about copy protection. Either way, they have no means to protect their business.

The cap is what the market is willing to pay.

Now that's a contradiction to your previous statement. They should be able to make what the market will bear, but when they do you have a problem with it. Isn't that a bit unfair?

The music industry makes an initial investment to record something, and then makes money indefinitely off distribution of the product. They recover the cost and then make profit hand over foot only having to pay for the media the product is distributed on. If only there was a magical way to distribute a product over a large “digital” network using other peoples machines as a place to store it.

This is a misconception. Because what you may not be aware of is that for every successful album that sells well, there are 20 that lose money. Music is an art and there is no way to predict what will and won't be a commercial success. The big profit you see from a hit is eaten up by all the rest of the projects. And by taking away that profit you are also taking away from the ability to finance developing new artists. it also means there is not enough budget to work on artists that might be more risky and artistic because a loss is could put the company out of business. So by stealing, people aren't simply taking money from some evil corp, they are hurting new artists who are trying to be different. This is why you see so much of the Disney pop crap. This is the must that people who buy music are still buying. If people would buy the good stuff instead of stealing it, then that's what you would hear on radio and see promoted.

And the costs don't just go to the label. You have the song writers, the artists, the producers, the advertisers, the video artists, engineers. The list goes on and on. That pie gets cut up very quickly. It's amazing any money is made at all.

I picked a good profession, went to university and worked hard for the money I make. No one else has to decide for me that I make too much money, because I do. I’d do my job for free if I didn’t need to eat and live somewhere. Seems to me actors and musicians living in Hollywood live in Multi-million dollar homes and spend close to if not more what I make in a year on a dress/suit and jewellery for a night at an award ceremony.

So some professions should not have caps and others should. And anyone who's calling and love in life is music, art, or writing should just suck it? And so everyone who wants to be in those fields should not be in them? Most people in music, video, and writing would do what they do for free if they could too. But like you they have a right to earn a living. And like you, no one should be deciding for them how much money they should be allowed to make. What would you do if your customers decided they didn't feel like paying you? Would you agree with them? They could justify it as them feeling like you make too much money and the work you put into it isn't enough to justify paying you.

Most people don't live in multi-million dollar homes. You just watch some TV and think that that somehow represents an entire industry. That everyone is jet setting around. But they aren't. Sure there's some top people who are. Just like in ALL business. Donald Trump is living it up. Should he be stopped too? Should we justify stealing from him because he doesn't deserve to live that life style?

And again, what about the majority who are just trying to put food on their table?

I worked my way through university at a fast-food restraint, I’m telling you, they have a right to complain about how much I make. Their jobs have to be 100 times more stressful then mine, they work harder hours and don’t get nearly the respect they deserve. Hopefully they will make as much as me eventually. Can I ever hope to make as much as Jessica Simpson, Our Lady Peace, Three doors down, etc!! No. What did they do to get where they are? Sure they must have worked hard, but harder then me It’s kind of an apples and oranges comparison.

And most people in the media business have to. Some have done more education than you and some have done less. And having not worked all the jobs in media, how do you have a right to say you work more? Most people in those buinesses have an average 16 hour work day 6 days a week. Most have to give up most of their life just to be a part of it. There's a misconception that it's all easy and no work, but nothing could be further than the truth. The people who work in music and TV make up a large part of the working force of the country. And they work harder and longer than most. They have more to complain about than most of us. People like Jessica Simpson are not representative of several entire industries. There are million and millions of people working in these industries, and people like Jessica Simpson and the rest of the big stars make up maybe a couple thousand people at best. And their success only lasts for a couple of years. If they have a 10 year run, that's very lucky.

Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha oh, you’re serious.

DEAD serious. And it's these kinds of misconceptions that need to be addressed. Maybe you watch MTV or E and think that's representative of several entire industries. And it's not. This doesn't mean there isn't gluttany, or people making money they don't deserve. That's jut a fact of life found in every business. That's not something unique to any business. How many people made millions by happening to register a certain domain name? How many people just happened to invest in a tech stock that took off? Do they represent the computer industry? Should we steal from online companies because some people make easy money while we have to work hard?

If by steal you mean make a copy of something they have without degrading it in anyway and leave them with the original so they can continue to use it sure.

Yes that IS stealing. You are copying someones intellectual property without permission which is a violation of the law.

What if I decide not to pay my doctor for a service they provided? After all they aren't losing anything right?

What if you were a band selling CDs at your show. You spent $1000 and made 100 CDs to sell for $10 in hopes you could pay for the production costs. I buy one of your CDs, and I make all the copies I want and set up a booth next to yours and give them away for free. It cost you $1000 to make yours, it cost me $10. Now everyone takes the free ones and you're out $990. I didn't actually take anything from you. I just made copies. So no harm done right? After all you should just be glad to do it for free right (oops, not free, you paid $990).

I am not trying to be snide or anything. I am simply trying to offer you a perspective from the other side. It sounds like no damage is being done because it's just a copy, but can you see how it actually is?

It’s not stealing if I give it to you.

But the artists and media companies aren't giving it to you. You (and I don't mean specifically you) are taking it without permission.

I think you deserve to be modded up. You’ve encouraged discussion, made some valid points and it’s never easy to take a P.O.V. that’s different then the majority. Taking an opposite P.O.V. proves you’re an individual and not just another sheep, although taking the same P.O.V. as the majority doesn’t automatically make you a sheep either, it could just mean you’re right.

Well thank you for the kind words. But unfortunately most people take my responses as hostile or as trolling as it's the unpopular one here. And I thank you for having a respectful and civil argument. I don't think there is a wrong or right. I think it's a gray issue. And there are valid points on all side. I just tend to think the one I bring is one not well represented. And I imagine my wording probably comes off in the wrong tone.

Funny there’s still music being made. Are they able to make music without said people? Why were they needed in the first place? Why would the do something for profit if they weren't making any?

There is and always will be. But it's becoming more of a hobby. But what's happening is that talented people are being discouraged from making music now. People won't be able to make a living at it. Which means having a different job will have to be a priority. What if Led Zepplin couldn't make a living in music? Would they be able to make the music they did? Certainly it would suffer. What if the Beatles had to all have 40 hour a week day jobs?

People do it with the hopes that they will be that one in a million that is successful. Most don't and end up poor and starving. The business has always been a gamble even in its hey day. As for every success you see, there are 100s of failures. Though I guess that may be true of all industries.

Either way, thank you for a good discussion!

Comment Re:Good (Score 0) 294

I have never paid $30 for a CD. Perhaps you should have gone to a cheaper store? And while iTunes is not financially successful, it demonstrates that your argument of wanting only certain songs is nor an excuse for stealing. You can do it legally. But most choose not to. And it seems the argument is that people now still steal because it took too long for an industry to provide content online. Yet now that they do, most people still steal. Does that really sound logical? I steal because of how things once were and that it took too long for someone to change something 10 years ago. So you think that everyone should have a cap on how much money they can make? That someone should say that at a certain point no one is allowed to make any more money? What if someone decided that you make too much money now. Someone who made less money than you decided that it's unfair that you make more than them. Would you agree? Most artist don't make more than doctors. Most people make more than teachers. Does that mean we should all be able to steal from anyone who makes more money than teachers? If you make more money than a teacher, is it OK for me to steal from you? And yes, I am not in favor of piracy, so here come all the negative scores because I don't share the same opinion and I dare support the artists who are being ripped off, the majority of which are poor. And let's not forget about the millions of people who all work to make the music possible, most of which make minimum wage and just want to put food on their table. But are now being put out of work.

Comment Re:Good (Score 0) 294

Yes I suppose anyone who doesn't go along with your opinion is a troll right? I seem to recall Hitler having the same mentality. Anyone who doesn't support piracy is ranted down, and labeled as a troll. Does anyone really care about the people being ripped off? Would you have the same opinion if it was you who's work was being stolen?

Comment Good (Score -1, Troll) 294

I suppose I may be the only one here that thinks protecting the rights of the people who's work is being stolen is a good thing? The whole point of the 3 strikes is in case mistakes are made and there are plenty of points to appeal etc. Is it really that unfair for their to be at least some sort of protection for people to prevent their worked from being stolen and to prevent them from being put out of business by theives? Of is the mentality that anyone who creates content that is digital has no rights to make a living? Perhaps if people who are against these protections would simply come up with a better way to protect digital content from rampant theft, then this wouldn't be an issue. If someone did, they would be rich. So there's plenty of incentive, yet no one does. Why? The people creating the content certainly have been trying. So is everyone really against this because they really think it's against the law, or is it because many people simply enjoy the ability to steal anything they want and have no regard for the people who are being put out of work?

Comment Re:An artist's view. (Score -1, Troll) 382

This claim that record labels don't give bands any money form record sales is a complete lie. That would be illegal. This claim is made by groups who simply don't understand how business works and simply don't produce enough sales in order to sell albums. Yes artists DO have to sell a certain amount of albums in order to make a profit. This goes for ALL businesses. Before you can make a profit, you have to first recoup the expenses paid. The expenses that the record label pays for and that the artist has absolutely no obligation to pay if the album doesn't sell. In any other business you are obligated to pay all loans back no matter what. Artists on the other hand get a free pass from record labels who have to take on all of the loss themselves. It's these kind of false claims such as the ones you make that cause people to have this baseless hatred towards record labels. If consumers would educate themselves on how the music business worked instead of making up false claims about it, we might be able to find a solution. And the primary reason this false information spreads so much is that so many people simply make it up in order to justify stealing (and of course EVERYONE claims they themselves don't steal).

Comment Re:Wow, talk about sending people off to Bittorren (Score 0) 334

This is happening a good part because of illegal file sharing. IF the sales from indi stores are atoo low to justify the distribution costs, why do you think those stores aren't selling enough? Because they too cannot compare to free downloading. If your competition is theft, you cannot compete. Now if you're busy stealing and not buying from those indie stores, then it's YOUR fault, not the people you are stealing from. When you buy a used CD, the label and artist already made their profit from that CD to one person and it continues to be held by one person. That's how it should be. When you steal, and distribute it to millions of others to steal, profit is lost. Cuts have to be made form these losses to thieves, and stuff like this happens. Thanks to the thieves. So yes, fight back. Stop thieves from destroying music.

Comment Re:Where the profit goes. (Score 1) 174

The artist gets a cut of the album sales. And this is where their real income comes from more so that concerts. Most often they make no money from concerts and use it just to promote the album sales. Many pirates try to use examples of bands who do make money in concerts to claim that they all do and thus try to not feel guilty about stealing from artists. As if that by stealing you are helping artists. Artists are not being ripped off by record labels. There are bad deals from time to time, just like in every business. But trying to make up the claim that artists are getting ripping off by labels just to justify stealing from those artists is wrong. And the irony is that its ticket sales where artists really do get ripped off. Companies like ticketmaster abuse they monopoly.

Comment Re:To hear the accountants tell it (Score 1) 174

The cost of the media is not even note worthy. You're not paying for a piece of plastic. You're paying for the contents on it. Those contents cost hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to produce an put on that piece of plastic. The cost of living has gone up. You don't complain that a gallon of milk costs more than it did when you bought records instead of CDs do you? The cost of everything goes up because of inflation. The cost to produce a record has gone up as well. Pricing is not magic. They don't pick some random price and have a committee on it. The prices SHOULD go up. Just like in every other industry in the world. But for music you want the prices to go down even though the costs for the producers goes up.

Comment Re:Well Good (Score 1) 174

You're saying that if people who steel then had the option of paying for a tracker instead of using a free one that they would then start paying money? Right now the service you speak of does exist. It's been tried many times and has failed. Because you simply cannot compete with free. The record companies ARE seeking listeners and they are using online methods. But again, nothing can compare with free. The record companies didn't figure out iTunes, apple did. And not much money is being made on iTunes. The reason Apple has iTunes is because it helps them sell iPods. They take a loss on music so they can sell hardware. The record labels HAVE started online stores and subscriptions just like you described. But they all fail because they can't compete with free. By stealing you are simply causing artists to have to be come trinket sales people. You don't want to pay them for their work, you want them to have to sell crap on the side so you can continue to steal from them. And you're stealing money from the band by stealing the records because they have to pay for that. In addition, by stealing records, there is then no money to develop artists. The reason record labels take a big chunk is because they have to fund all the artists that flop. For every successful artist you know of, there are 10-15 failures. No one can predict what will or won't sell. So they have to take risks. Piracy is the major reason why there isn't much variety in music these days. And it's the criminals who steal that are to blame, not the record labels.

Comment It's not improving (Score 0, Troll) 174

As someone who works in the music business and works with the major record labels and artists I can tell you that most of the people in the business are now out of work of struggling just to pay bills. Most of the labels are out of business, most of the facilities are closing down, and many of the people in the industry are suffering. It's sad to see so many people touting stealing. I wonder how many would feel if people were stealing from them and taking pride in it. And most of the arguments people here are making are false claims that they are making up simply so they can talk themselves out of feeling guilty for stealing from other people.

Slashdot Top Deals

Over the shoulder supervision is more a need of the manager than the programming task.