http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/business/technology/10630856.htm?1c
Thu, Jan. 13, 2005

Recording industry. The music recording industry presents its piracy primer at this site. The industry battles not only illegal music downloads, but a huge illicit trade in pirated and counterfeit CDs. The music industry claims to lose more than $4 billion a year to piracy.www.riaa.com/issues/piracy

Alternative views. Critics who contend that the recording industry is heavy-handed have their say here in a blog format. Visitors can buy "Free the Music" posters.www.boycott-riaa.com :noriaa:

Movie piracy. The film industry has joined the battle with reports that its own losses exceed $3 billion per year in unauthorized downloads and tapes and DVDs made from stolen copies or from poor camcorder versions recorded surreptitiously in theaters.www.mpaa.org/anti-piracy

Business software. In the boring world of business software, the Business Software Alliance pursues legal action against individuals, companies, and even governmental bodies that it catches allegedly using illegally copied computer software.www.bsa.org/usa

why do we have to sign up for a membership to read the article?

Good question... I got to it through google news this morning. The only thing I left out was the "whistle blower" link. So with the exception of one P.O.S. link the article is complete.

I think someone committed "ethical piracy" on Sherman and the "boyz" at the RIAA...they obviously had any ethics or conscience stolen at birth or thereabouts.

That's the link I posted earlier in the other thread--I don't know why you couldn't see it, comp. I never registered with them either, but I Googled it and it came right up without any problem. Sorry, I should have come back and posted it, but I had a lot of soccer mom stuff to do today.

don't know what I'm doing wrong. went through google to the site and navagated through the business section but when I clicked on the article link in Philly.com's site it asked me to register. oh well

I think it might be because I was searching for RIAA on Google--I never got the opening page. Don't worry about it, though, it looks like the whole story is posted here. It was very short.

MPAA has it all wrong. I would never buy some of those crappy movies that they sell. About 9 in 10 are pure shit. Also, they are nuts if they think the mostly grainy downloads are a real substitute for a quality DVD or seeing a movie on the big screen. If I like the grainy version, I am more apt to want to see the quality version.

And what about rentals? They loose money on those because a video store buys a copy and rents it dozens of times. If you think about it, what's the difference in renting a copy and watching it and just downloading it? Either way the MPAA doesn't get a dime.

Those people have some real serious issues!

They pay the original copies ten times the price.

To be a "legit" vendor of rented movies, the movie store pays out the wahzoo for rental licensing rights.

Joe Blow can't legally put his own store bought DVD collection up for rent. (I personally have no problem with this fact... but I DO get miffed off when the MPAA says you cant lend your DVD to a friend or make backup copies.)

Shmoo

The MPAA is trying to head off the problem ahead of time. In truth, at the present rate of d/l, even if you have broadband, the quality you recieve (or so I have heard) is far inferior to a purchased product.

Since this also looks much the same as the majors for sewing up the market and not allowing the idies in, it is once again a controlled market. Don't be fooled, the major video rental chains are owned by the major studios or somewhere along the line as you go up parent chains of corporations.

Since you can't legally make a backup copy of a recent dvd movie, there isn't much there I want. Used to be I was a paying customer and purchased movies for my own regularly. I don't anymore. When the MPAA decided that sueing for d/ling was fair game, I decided they didn't need my money anymore. They will have to survive on the law suits to make up the difference and I am sure there are others that feel the same way.

The studios are still sore over the idea that the superhyped and poorly done movie "The Hulk" flopped. Hunting for a reason naturally p2p was convient as a scape goat. They have been releasing copycat and poor done movies forever. Word of mouth and critics alone have shut down many potential sales, I have yet to hear them blame or try to sue those sources of nay sayers. Most likely because those same nay sayers are for now protected by Free Speech. How unconvient it must be for them not to be able to throttle any disagreement with the idea that the latest release isn't worth your money. It must rankle them deeply not to be able to control that descenting opinion.

Much of software piracy isn't worth the time either. Lots of it is loaded with all sorts of stuff and you must trust that the hacker or cracker didn't have ulterior motives when the supplied program was released. Sorry I am not that trusting that I want to load such as this on a computer. Certainly not one that I own. Every corporation and every business feels you must supply them with a steady income and you should do that through the latest scheme to get you to part with your money. Used to be you bought a program and it was yours. Not anymore. You buy the program and it needs updates and patches. For the most part they also have some sort of renewal fee. Once again what you bought isn't yours. Why pray tell should I downloan such?

First of all speaking of software Linux is the way to go (GPL) now only if half of the music was creative commons all of this junk about DRM and everybody locking up the content to make you pay over and over for the same crap would be a thing of the past I cannot believe the garbage people download from those pay sites full of crippleware now check out the news at theregister.co.uk under the heading about macrovision and their new DRM feature getting ready to mess with p2p apps.

"now only if half of the music was creative commons"

...well, by my unscientific estimation, more than %80 of the music IS non-riaa and the copyright holders (we independents whom are in the majority) do NOT mind folks downloading and sharing. It boosts our "visibility" and thus, our sales! We WANT to be able to compete for the consumer's dollar.

The RIAA don't WANT the competition. They pretend that sharing songs on the Internet is stealing because they don't want unsigned artists "stealing" sales.

...thus the crux of the whole matter.

what the riaa and mpaa dont seem to realize is that: yes, the internet is killing them, but not in the way they think.

when a movie gets released, you have access to literally hundreds of reviews and synopses on the net. before the net, you could only get maybe one or two reviews (say the local paper and leonard maltin.) but now you can get reviews from every major paper and alot of minor papers.

with the explosion of blogging now, you can get thousands of individual reviews of any song, album or movie.

it wont be the sharing of their so-called precious 'intellectual property' that kills them. It will be stuff like this:

friday january 14, 2005:

Dear Blog:
'I listened to the new (insert riaa star here) album, and to tell you the truth, its not that great. I think (insert dmusic artist here) sounds better and puts alot more heart in their music than (insert riaa star here)'

you know why people like to read blogs? people are voyeuristic by nature (at least I am anyways) Its like reading someones diary. You get an good feel of a person by what they write, and if you feel like they do, then you might share their tastes.

that will be the death of the riaa/mpaa. not people swapping copies of the songs/movies, but people swapping their feelings about them.

take a year from now, or even this year.

30 people go and buy the latest riaa star album, they think it sucks, and write about it in their blog. 1000 people read each of those blogs. 29,999 dont buy the album.

-end epiphany-

That's a good point, deskyrider. We don't have to depend on their press releases and paid reviews and paid-off radio stations anymore to tell us which new albums are good and which are bad. As long as we can communicate without their meddling, we can always find good music. One more reason they want to control the internet.

(I love You ShadowMom!) You just eliminated/lifted 6-8 hrs of "work" off my shoulders!

I love you, too, Shmoo.

"To be a "legit" vendor of rented movies, the movie store pays out the wahzoo for rental licensing rights."

"Joe Blow can't legally put his own store bought DVD collection up for rent."

There is a well known used CD/DVD chain with locations in my area that rents out it's used collection of DVDs for $1/night. Are you saying that what they are doing is illegal, Shmoo? I thought that the First Sale Doctrine made this practice okay. I could be wrong.

Help me out here folks.

http://www.bugmenot.com
Free registration for almost any articles.

Also, cool, publicity!

I know a guy who runs a store that is 30% his own collection of anime dvds, he rents them for $3 each (or rent 3 get 4). The rest of the store is all new releases. I've yet to see any legal complaints against him or his partner store.