Hard News: The song is not the same
314 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 13 Newer→ Last
-
good to see why you're so anti this too, cos it means extra work for you personally :) not that you're bias or anything
Doesn't mean any extra work for me. I'm well out of the ISP sphere, and I don't work in central IT services for the university so I wouldn't be implementing anything there, either. I'm just against attempts to prop up a dying business model through statutory extortion, and against one group demanding that another group do things that benefit the first group and have no benefit for the second group, but expect that the second group should pay all the associated costs. That pretty much sums up everything that has been enacted in legislation thus far, and also sums up this suggested wholesale filtering. It's bullshit. In the real world, if someone does something that costs them and benefits you, you pay for it.
-
In the real world, if someone does something that costs them and benefits you, you pay for it.
in the real world business exploits are sometimes expected to take responsibility for the results of their product.
take cigarettes and the tax put on them to cover the health issues the country has to address because of them. -
so the expanding marketplace isn't relevant to it but the increase in the us and uk market place as would be expected from population increase is.
Surely you are not being serious Rob. In the midst of a financial downturn where a population grew in the US by about 1%, unit sales in the US grew by 11%.
It's a fact and even the RIAA are not arguing it. Their point is that dollar numbers and full album sales fell. Which is, I would argue, grossly, missing the point on their part either wilfully or because they are out of touch.
-
unit sales in the US grew by 11%.
so that's a yes, they did meet and surpass projected figures then. I was asking a question, for clarification not making a statement, as indicated by the ? at the end of the sentence.
how do you explain the downturn in the local indie market over the last 7-10 years. this is information directly from indie distributors and labels. You probably know a lot of em. They're quoting figures that directly contradict an 11% increase. is nz just a bubble in an otherwise buoyant industry?
-
how do you explain the downturn in the local indie market over the last 7-10 years. this is information directly from indie distributors and labels. You probably know a lot of em. They're quoting figures that directly contradict an 11% increase. is nz just a bubble in an otherwise buoyant industry?
As I said above, unit sales are up..that is all units, be they singles are albums or digital tracks bought as tracks, not albums. Album sales and dollar value continues to fall with the realignment to the digital market:
Music purchases are "astronomically high," says Rob Sisco, Nielsen's president of music, "but it's a marketplace in transition from physical to digital."
and, from the BBC:
UK singles sales grew by 33% in 2008 thanks to a growth in download sales, the BPI has said.
Figures from the body, which represents record labels, showed more than 115 million singles were sold across digital and physical formats.
Releases from groups like The Killers, Girls Aloud and Take That also helped the album market finish the year with stronger than expected sales.
However UK albums sales generally fell by 3.2% in 2008.
The digital albums market grew during strongly over the year with 10 million sold - a 65% increase compared to 2007.
The format now holds 7.7% of the albums market as a whole.
'Remarkable result'
But Mark Sutherland, global editor of Billboard magazine, told the BBC News website that overall decline in album sales was not wholly bad news.
"In the context of the world, declining just 3.2% is a pretty remarkable result - in the US, album sales for the whole year are down 14%," he said.
It's about looking forward, not back. The trad industry is fucked, but there is a healthy future out there for anyone that wants to grab it.
-
but there is a healthy future out there for anyone that wants to grab it.
oh, well, when you put it like that.....
you lookin' to stake your claim in the new frontier partner?, since its all rivers full of gold for the takin' and all that. -
In the real world, if someone does something that costs them and benefits you, you pay for it.
in the real world business exploits are sometimes expected to take responsibility for the results of their product.
take cigarettes and the tax put on them to cover the health issues the country has to address because of them.Cigarettes are a perfect example. Providing healthcare for smoking-related illnesses costs society. The tax is a way of making smokers pay that cost. In economics lingo, the cost to the country is an externality and the tax is a way of internalising it.
Plus, making ISPs pay for an extortionately-expensive filtering system isn't the same thing. Making them pay a byte tax for all infringing downloads would be, but we're back to the same issue of requiring that it be verified that a user is downloading an infringing file before a tax can be calculated. So, same problem, the costs associated with it will be astronomical and the media industry (I know, Simon, I know, but I'm not going to try and come up with a sentence-long summary of the actual situation just to avoid being overly-inclusive :P ) will demand that the ISPs pony up for the whole lot. That is, fork out for something that is of detriment to the ISPs (expensive to setup, costs to administer, etc) and only benefits the media industry. That's one of those externalities again, only the media industry will fight tooth-and-nail to avoid having it internalised back onto them.
-
and only benefits the media industry.
it benefits society by enforcing law. rights of ownership. it isn't in societies interest to encourage the breach of it laws by ignoring wholesale infringement. part of this piracy thing is that its taking the piss of law and up till recently there appears to be nothing that could be done about it.
-
and only benefits the media industry.
it benefits society by enforcing law. rights of ownership. it isn't in societies interest to encourage the breach of it laws by ignoring wholesale infringement. part of this piracy thing is that its taking the piss of law and up till recently there appears to be nothing that could be done about it.
This only holds if you accept that the only model that's good for making money out of music/movies is the current one. If one doesn't, and I don't, then why would one accept that enforcing that model, which is what ISP filtering is all about, is beneficial to anyone other than big media?
Society changes. Change with it or die. Don't expect society to legislate to support the dying model, and don't expect society to wear the externalities of propping up that model, either.
Also, there's a widely-held view that, if a large portion of society ignores a law, the law should be changed. Making the consequences of breach ever-more-draconian doesn't make the law any better, it just makes it more of an ass.
-
There's no sensible model by which ISPs can be made responsible for catching illegal downloading. There might be a way they could do it now, but there wouldn't be a week later when some geek writes new software.
You'd just need to stick strong encryption into the packets, add a little overhead, and then include the key with the torrent file. The independence would make it practically impossible to crack.
You'd actually be encouraging the creation of software and systems that would make it harder to find the really bad downloading - child pornography etc.
The site that I torrent files from is independent from the site that torrents the files - it just provides links. So even if the torrent site is killed, the forum will still be there and just switch to another torrent site. Both are members only sites, though I suspect that's fairly unusual.
-
Society changes. Change with it or die. Don't expect society to legislate to support the dying model
If only that last sentence were true. Sadly society often legislates to support those with the biggest voice and the most money to push their case.
-
Often? Nearly all the time, surely..
-
thought piece for you matthew.
in the near future scientist perfect matter transportation.
it works on a similar structure as present day internet transfers data in that matter is transported through a network of channels run through service providers who allow you to transport physical items from one point to another. The networks are controlled by the services providers.Trouble is some devious buggers figure they can open a link into various places and transport items of value to new locations to benefit themselves essential using the new technology for theft.
The police are pretty powerless to stop it cos they don't know where the thieves are going to target, or where they are. They're nicking from peoples homes, museums, galleries, sidewalks and service stations.
The service providers say they're not responsible for what happens on their networks.
how would you address this situation?
would you make all property shared to keep pace with developments in technology so these people wouldn't be stealing anything as no one owns anything. ie change the law to match the behaviour? make it the laws fault and change the law.
would you make the operators of the channels that people are stealing things through (service providers) responsible for making sure their traffic is in keeping with the laws of the time?
would you say its the individuals problem to deal with the possibility that they will be targeted and not the responsibility of society to enforce current laws for all of its citizens, just the majority, and not where it seems a bit of a bother to keep order?
you may have your own solutions.
-
Sadly society often legislates to support those with the biggest voice and the most money to push their case.
what comic book world do you live in. most of our laws have progressively been put in place to protect the members of society fairly, or at least that's the idea. they're not necessarily supposed to favour the majority, but enforce the general concept of protecting the individual, fairly. thats the idea behind it, right?
There was that anti slavery one, the don't go murdering people one, the don't steal what belongs to someone else one, something to do with don't violate a person in a way contrary to their wishes, etc etc. some classics in there and plenty of legislation to try and deal with various ways individuals try and get round the intent of the law to try and benefit themselves.
the legislation you're objecting to is the one dealing with 'don't take things from other people that is not yours. kind of a foundation law for the society we live in. shall we get rid if it?
-
FFS, how hard is it to understand the difference between taking something and copying it?
-
FFS, how hard is it to understand the difference between taking something and copying it?
FFS how hard is to understand the current laws. enforcing the current laws.
we don't have to make a distinction between taking and copying cos the current laws saw copying = illegal.
Its just un enforced for now and we're about to enter a situation where further attempts are going to be made to enforce them, how ever problematic that might be.I gave you (well not you cos I thought we'd agreed not to acknowledge each others existence and I specifically addressed my scenario to matthew although I'd like cameron's take on it too,) a hypothetical situation to put the current situation in a similar but different light and see the response to that. so how's about you let matthew deal with it. ffs, please.
he's the one that is saying he objects to IP level policing cos its too much work for his mates.
-
Copyright is civil law, theft of real property is not. This has been explained here many times. If only oxygen theft were also illegal..
-
Troll is as troll does.
-
But Mark I don't know what a troll is so how can I be offended by it but I know I'm misbehaving and I'm just a really cool guy so respect my authoritah and what if the moon were made of cheese..
blah blah blah
-
Copyright is civil law, theft of real property is not. This has been explained here many times.
not asking you,
using lateral thinking, feel free to sit this one out. -
And there's really no reason why Album X couldn't be recorded in 7.2 with a two track desk even though I'm no engineer but if I say it enough times it must be true..
Hey this is easy. Boring and no doubt irritating, but real easy. Heck, you could do it stoned to th eyeballs.. -
Troll is as troll does.
I thought you'd be into this one mark cos its sci fi,
but its not mythical woodland creatures. sorry, maybe next time I can slip in a leprechaun or something for you. I know you like that shit.
-
The cheesy moon is quite lateral, y'know. Salute my incredible creativity..
-
Shit is right. I want what he's having..
-
just out of interest sacha although I am ignoring you, how old are you?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.