Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 70 million Americans are now federal criminals

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » 70 million Americans are now federal criminals (Page 4)

This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Author

Topic: 70 million Americans are now federal criminals

Robert E. Allen
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1078
From: Checotah, Oklahoma
Registered: Jul 2002

posted 08-26-2002 01:08 AM

I'm safe. It's all I can do to post and e-mail. If I tried to copy anything I'd probably blow this thing up. A friend of my said I am a "techno-idiot". But the rest of you'd better watch out.

Bob
The Old Showman

| IP: Logged

William Hooper
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1879
From: Mobile, AL USA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-26-2002 01:32 AM

quote:
Then kindly explain how 'NSYNC's (I know a bad group to illustrate with but the facts use them as the example) second-to-last album even though it was available on Napster almost a month previous to its street date was one of, if not *the* biggest selling album of that year???

Aaron, NSYNC's an off the curve example because it's basically marketing driven - to own ALL the NSYNC merchandise. Even after downloading the music, the NSYNC base must also be able to have the physical item, & every other NSYNC item made: the lunchbox, the videos, millions of pictures & cards, pencils, concert tickets, it goes on & on. "I've got that!" NKOTB & the Monkees were the same way, the music was actually to move the merchandise.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 08-26-2002 02:51 PM

Here is another wrinkle to add to the fallacy Internet copying is costing the industry millions: most people do not have high speed Internet access. And even when they do, getting a good download connection can be problematic. The new Morpheus 2.0 seems really flaky at that.

The point is, most people don't feel like going through all the time and trouble to do a lot of copying. What is your time worth to you? In the amount of time it takes me to download an album's worth of mere-radio-quality MP3 files (I'm sorry, but MP3 is NOT CD quality), I could have made more than three times the cost of that CD by doing some artwork. It is actually cheaper and much more convenient for most people to just go and buy the disc. The trouble is, these days, there is very little content out there worth buying at all --much less wasting your time downloading.

Another thing the recording industry should consider is the amount of "value" perceived in a plain CD. Is it really worth $20 anymore? Or even $10? C'mon, I get a hell of a lot more for my dollars buying DVDs. Case in point: The Eurhythmics Greatist Hits. Regardless of whether you like them or hate them, consider the differences in their Greatest Hits music CD versus the Greatist Hits music video DVD. I bought a copy of the DVD for $15. That's less than what I paid for the CD. Yet the DVD has nearly twice as many songs with 2.0 channel audio in full Linear PCM 16-bit 48kHz. I've got the songs, with video and true CD quality audio for less than that bare bones CD.

The music industry has to put more work and value into their product to compete against DVD, video games and lots of other home entertainment products. They can't just blame it all on home CD dubbing and downloads of MP3s. That's a cop out for them providing what has, in general, degraded into a shit product.

Look how DVD-A is languishing. My father has a $1500 Denon 5-disc DVD changer with DVD-A capability, yet he owns no DVD-A discs. Why? They're plain vanilla products with no extras, no videos, no lyrics, no interviews, no other ancillary content --not to mention most of the popular music titles are from 20 to 30 year old classic rock albums, that if anyone liked them at all they would already have bought the CD version by now.

DVD-V is selling very well because it is an excellent product that is continually being improved. I see nothing in terms of improvement for standard music CD, DVD-A or SACD.

| IP: Logged

Thomas Procyk
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1842
From: Royal Palm Beach, FL, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 08-26-2002 03:47 PM

Dave --

quote:
As for dumb questions should get you shot, I agree. I should have been shot a long time ago.

No no no. I never said that. Dumb suggestions should warrant an equally severe penalty. IMHO, nobody should be shot, but I'm not getting into that here.

=TMP=

| IP: Logged

Charles Everett
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1470
From: New Jersey
Registered: May 2001

posted 08-29-2002 04:24 PM

Some of these so-called "federal criminals" sing the praises of downloading music. How do they get the word out? Via the apologists for the greedy record industry -- the RIAA!

| IP: Logged

Paul G. Thompson
The Weenie Man

Posts: 4718
From: Mount Vernon WA USA
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 01-21-2003 09:06 PM

Bringing this back to life....

I see in the news that Internet providers must abide by music industry requests to track down computer users who illegally download music, a federal judge ruled Tuesday in a case that could dramatically increase online pirates' risk of being caught.

I guess a district judge upheld the recording industry's powers under a 1998 law to compel Verizon Communications Inc. to identify one of its Internet subscribers who was suspected of illegally trading music or movies online. The music industry knew only a numerical Internet address this person was using.

Well, there goes Limewire, Kazaa, Morpheus, and WinMX. [Roll Eyes]

[ 01-22-2003, 12:09 AM: Message edited by: Paul G. Thompson ]

| IP: Logged

Steve Kraus
Film God

Posts: 4094
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: May 2000

posted 01-22-2003 04:32 PM

Sounds like the market is ripe for an offshore proxy service.

| IP: Logged

Daryl C. W. O'Shea
Film God

Posts: 3977
From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from)
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 01-22-2003 04:56 PM

Then 'they' would want us to block customers access to offshore proxy servers. Yippee! That sounds like fun.

Paul, Verizon has refused to comply and is planning to appeal the ruling ( Forbes ). Personally I'm surprised the RIAA isn't going after colleges and universities like crazy. I guess they realize most of the students don't have the money to spend on the crap the industry sells anyway.

| IP: Logged

Jack Ondracek
Film God

Posts: 2348
From: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Registered: Oct 2002

posted 01-22-2003 05:14 PM

quote:
...from Bobby Henderson:
...payola-taking radio stations?

That may be taking the complaint a bit far, unless you know of specific cases. It's been an item with the FCC longer than anyone here cares to remember.

On the other hand, if you could prove payola, especially on the case of a monster like Clear Channel, you'd probably cure that problem right fast... maybe even get another look at these insane rules that have allowed these corporations to gobble up most every station worth having in the first place.

| IP: Logged

Steve Kraus
Film God

Posts: 4094
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: May 2000

posted 01-22-2003 05:26 PM

I've never understood why payola is a crime. If a DJ is empowered to choose his/her own playlist based on taste, knowledge, etc. and then they abuse this by taking money to play a song it seems to me this that this is an infraction between employer and employee, not a matter of law.

As for corporate payola I don't think that fits the definition. If a radio station wants to take money to play a song how is that any different than a commercial or infomercial? OK, perhaps they should bracket it with disclaimers stating that it is a paid broadcast but otherwise I see nothing wrong with it.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 01-22-2003 05:51 PM

Jack,

Maybe you missed some of the recent documentaries on programs like Primetime Live which show exactly how modern payola works. Corporate conglomerates like ClearChannel are paid money through "independent consultants" to play certain music. Those consultants are given the money to pay radio stations by the record companies. The program I watched showed itemized reports from these companies to get airplay for specific albums. For instance, one report showed a $600,000+ price tag to get air play for Fiona Apple's "Tidal" CD.

The middleman element is what makes modern corporate radio payola legal. The situation is definitely NOT one where an enterprising single DJ is getting some extra bucks to spin the records of a struggling band. The situation is why the prevailing majority of all radio stations seem to play the same few songs over and over and over again for months on end.

The problem is made worse when companies like ClearChannel buy out most, if not all, of the radio stations in a given market. ClearChannel owns damned near every radio station in my home market. Consequently, I don't listen to the radio much anymore.

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 01-22-2003 05:54 PM

This is just a guess, but I bet the ban on payola is related to the fact that in the US, the airwaves belong to the public, and stations are granted the right to use them, subject to certain "fair use" restrictions. If an entity pays a broadcaster to play their product, that's no different from a commercial. Commercials are clearly identified as airtime paid-for specifically to promote a product.

Bobby, I don't get how money would be changing hands in the case of the "independent consultants" working for, say, ClearChannel. Wouldn't the money go in the other direction (broadcaster to the consultant)? Just trying to understand how that would work. If the consultants are working for record labels and are indeed passing money to the broadcasters in order to get airtime, and everyone knows it, why would that be different from payola? [Confused]

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 01-22-2003 06:02 PM

The latest news about the RIAA's wants --and attempts to flush the bill of rights down the toilet-- is just ridiculous. In short, the RIAA is basically wanting to WIRETAP all of our internet activity.

In addition to the privacy concerns, I smell the RIAA searching ways to collect personal identity data to sell off to marketing people (or whoever wants to pay for it). I also smell the record industry wanting to CASH IN and grab a monthly bill out of our wallets whether any of us are downloading music or not. The greedy bastards.

Here is something the RIAA and record industry in general need to realize about their product: it is not a necessity.

My survival does not depend on a CD purchase. If the record industry blockheads keep up this shit, I'll just stop buying CDs altogether. I'm not downloading anything at all either. Most new music FLAT OUT SUCKS.

In short, I can happily do without new music. I'll go on surviving. If the RIAA pisses off enough CUSTOMERS, many more people will take my attitude and do without as well. And they'll go on living happily...

...But the music industry assholes will not.

The RIAA had better get their focus on making new music that's actually worth listening to and buying. Right now they are doing NOTHING on that front. If they want to keep the music style locked into 1994 and padlock the operations of computers in general, they'll not only fuck up their industry, but they'll do a great job of screwing up the computer industry in a much much worse fashion and plunge the American economy down from a recession into a bona-fide depression.

The politicians kissing music industry ass had also better realize there are many many more pissed off music fans than music industry executives. And I do get out and vote.

| IP: Logged

Paul G. Thompson
The Weenie Man

Posts: 4718
From: Mount Vernon WA USA
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 01-22-2003 08:30 PM

Daryl said:

quote:
.....Verizon has refused to comply and is planning to appeal the ruling....

Yes, you are correct. Verizon planned no immediate changes to disrupt sharing of computer files among its customers. However, eventually they will be forced to comply.

What frosts my cage is that I download a song to see if I like it before I buy the CD. I heard one not too long ago, and I didn't know what the title of the song actually was. So I made a search on Limewire and WinMX, and had a couple of possibilities. One was correct, so I went out and purchased the CD. Naturally, as like mentioned before the rest of the songs were pure [bs]

If the music share programs are killed off one by one, the music industry can just KMRRHA, [fu]

and I doubt if I will buy anymore of them. I'll just record the damn song off the FM radio airwaves.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-22-2003 10:10 PM

quote:
The RIAA had better get their focus on making new music that's actually worth listening to and buying.

I'm looking forward to the next RIAA album.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.