backtop

Internet War: Hackers Strike Hard Against RIAA Ally
Tom Corelis (Blog) - September 21, 2007 12:11 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 134 comment(s) - last by DeafMute.. on Oct 2 at 12:38 AM
Copyright infringement monitors are the latest target of a well-organized, motivated hacking group

The group calling itself the MediaDefender-Defenders (MDD) has, as promised, struck again, this time leaking what appears to be the full, uncompiled source code to anti-piracy watchdog MediaDefender’s toolset.
 
MediaDefender's software is used internally on behalf of clients like the RIAA and Sony BMG to control the illegal distribution of copyright movies, music and other media online. One company e-mail, leaked last Saturday, detailed the performance of the company's attempts to poison the distribution of pirated copies of "Spiderman 3" just days after its theatrical release.

“The [leak] is complete for their operations regarding Kazaa, bittorrent, gnutella etc. This system is … released for the public in order to identify the decoys [MediaDefender] set up,” states the leak’s accompanying NFO file.

The leak is a treasure trove of information for anyone seeking to better understand the anti-piracy operations of MediaDefender and its ilk.  Judging by the sheer quantity of different programs written for each network, BitTorrent seems to be MediaDefender’s largest target, with the leak containing 16 different tools target it. In addition to software for creating bogus media files, the leak includes tools for to control the who’s who of filesharing networks: Ares, DirectConnect, eDonkey2000, FastTrack/Kazaa, Gnutella, Kademlia, Overnet, Piolet, SoulSeek and WinMX networks, among others.  
 
Unlike the previous two leaks, MDD claims it received the leaked source code directly from a MediaDefender employee. and the NFO file ends with “a special thanks to the MD employee that gave this to us.”
 
While DailyTech has been unable to verify the authenticity of any of the leaked materials, MediaDefender has indirectly validated them through a series of cease-and-desist notices sent to various BitTorrent trackers earlier this week; the letters admit that “despite security precautions by our client, a person or persons illegally accessed MediaDefender's email and other files,” and that the sites in question “immediately and permanently cease and desist from posting, distributing or otherwise making available MediaDefender's trade secrets and confidential information.”
 
Responses have varied, ranging from compliance to outright mockery. In one case, Meganova.org replied publicly in a profanity-laden tirade against MediaDefender’s legal firm.

MediaDefender’s woes began last Saturday, when almost 700MB of the company’s e-mails hit the underground. The following day, MDD released copies of a VOIP conversation between MediaDefender and the New York Attorney General. In a previous NFO file, MDD promised that there was “more to come,” and it looks like the group will continue to make good on its claim.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Patriots
By Randomblame on 9/21/2007 1:45:35 AM , Rating: 5
It's about time we start fighting back against the RIAA's bullshit. The trouble with these large corporations is they have large customer bases. That makes people feel like their buying decisions do not matter in the long run, they think that boycotting them won't do anything. Thats true, one person can't make a difference unless they are joined by many others. It's time American consumers took control again, it's time we had a say in what we are buying. It's time the corporations FEARED us and RESPECTED us for it is not us that need them but the other way around! I don't know about you all but I'm getting tired of all these new copywright laws designed to protect the corporations, what ever happened to consumer rights? Whatever happened to the freedom of expression and the free exchange of information that was the internet? I say Viva La Resistance! Keep up the good work boys!




RE: Patriots
By ZavyZavy on 9/21/2007 1:58:30 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Whatever happened to the freedom of expression...


It's not gone anywhere. You got to post, didn't you?


RE: Patriots
By Ard on 9/21/2007 2:24:43 AM , Rating: 5
I think he's referring more so to the concept of the public domain and the free exchange of ideas that copyright, and subsequently the internet, were meant to facilitate.


RE: Patriots
By ZavyZavy on 9/21/2007 5:12:01 AM , Rating: 5
Yes, I understand that.

But, I’m trying to hint that we are slowly using our civil liberties to blur the issue of piracy.

I’m not here to discuss the complexities of intellectual property and its distribution, but I find it interesting that we are cheering for the hackers and pirates who have total disregard for the value of another person’s property, intellectual or otherwise.


RE: Patriots
By Polynikes on 9/21/2007 8:19:29 AM , Rating: 5
It's not about that, it's about fighting a collaboration of corporations which have attacked their own customers. A lot of retail stores tell their employees to just let people go when an employee SEES them steal something. I know a guy who almost lost his job for attempting to chase a thief down. Lowe's policy on people that return items from other stores that they don't stock? No, don't turn them away, accept it, because it's cheaper than processing that "customer"'s complaint. The RIAA and their lapdog company deserve what they're getting right now. Maybe, after all the piracy and hackers messing up their piracy disruption operation, they'll realize that they don't need to force their customers to pay $x for a CD, they need to adapt to the market and find a way to reduce their costs so they don't have to charge as much. That's what every other business does. The RIAA thinks it's immune to market change. Their business model is dated and all they're doing is futilely trying to hold on to it.


RE: Patriots
By Proteusza on 9/21/2007 9:10:37 AM , Rating: 5
Very true.

The RIAA is a dinosaur in the age of the internet - it thinks it needs to maintain control over everything at all costs, and that it knows better than its customers.

I wont have any software on my pc that I dont approve. no rootkits, no copy protection tools. I dont care what game it is, if they subvert my computer's security for their own profit, when I'm a paying customer, then they dont get my money.

if I have to, I will pay for the software and then use a pirated copy, because pirated copies of software are healthier for your system these days (except for windows because of the geniune advantage program, but then again you could just use linux).


RE: Patriots
By grenableu on 9/21/2007 10:22:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A lot of retail stores tell their employees to just let people go when an employee SEES them steal something
But most of them still prosecute shoplifters, so whats your point?

Anyway, most hardcore downloaders aren't customers at all. Go to any college, and you'll find thousands of people who download music continuously, but haven't bought a CD in years.

They're not "customers". They're just pirates, looking to justify their thievery.


RE: Patriots
By Polynikes on 9/21/2007 12:40:23 PM , Rating: 4
Not if they can't identify them. And most stores' policy is simply to keep an eye out for previous shoplifters, so if they come back they're simply escorted out of the store.

The average college student cannot afford to buy all the music they'd like to buy. A lot of them will also buy the albums of the bands they REALLY like, and go see their shows, so it's not like they're letting down their favorite artists. The RIAA isn't losing THAT much money from that demographic, really. Lots of college kids have thousands of albums, which is larger than only the most die-hard hard-copy music fan has. Such a person must also be insanely rich, or they've been buying all those albums over decades. It's impossible for most people to be able to throw down $12+ for every album they want.

I'm not saying it's right, but if people want to listen to music but can't afford it and have an easy, anonymous, relatively "safe" way of getting it, why wouldn't they? If a bank had a back door to their vault unlocked and people found out, would you seriously expect them to stay away from it? I'd say they deserve to have it stolen.

Same goes for the RIAA. They've gotten fat and lazy on top of their mountain of cash, and don't understand that they have to adapt to their customers' desires. If a product is crap, people won't buy it. If it's too expensive, people won't buy it. The company must adapt or fail, and the RIAA is failing miserably.


RE: Patriots
By Treckin on 9/21/2007 1:37:36 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps there's a REASON people haven't bought CD's in years...

ITS OLD TECHNOLOGY, WHICH CARRIES FUCKING BAGGAGE and LICENSE AGREEMENTS custom tailored to the financial needs of the monopolistic recording industry. If there were other options beyond these companies, no one would be complaining. However, with the entertainment industry monolithically controlled as it is, there is no flexibility in which a free market may operate.

The fact that the same few companies control the rights to the content, the distributors, and finally even the consumer creates a market in which these same few corporations may make handshake contracts regarding pricing, medium, or generally anything else, means trouble for the consumer.

FUCK THE RIAA IN THE MOUTH!

I would have hoped honestly that MDD would have wreaked havoc in their servers, deleting and generally maiming every 1 and 0 they could get their hands on.


RE: Patriots
By TomCorelis (blog) on 9/24/2007 2:46:40 AM , Rating: 2
Are you describing CDs, or are you describing DRM-ed downloads from iTunes and the like? CDs are probably the last medium that gives you total freedom... and that's why people need to keep buying CDs.


RE: Patriots
By Hokum on 9/24/2007 8:13:29 AM , Rating: 3
Assuming you are dealing with CD's which dont contain rootkits or kill your CDRW drive...


RE: Patriots
By Pythias on 9/27/2007 6:34:47 PM , Rating: 2
Turn off autoplay, genius.


RE: Patriots
By Locutus465 on 9/21/2007 1:53:48 PM , Rating: 2
Well, since the U.S. government FORCED the RIAA to lower prices because they were found to be a monopoly harming customers through artifically high prices I'm sure they will find that the situation with priacy will have gotten better. I know of many people who downloaded specifically because $20 per CD (average) was absolutly outragous. The current $10/$12 you get off of iTunes or Urge (R.I.P) is much better, and I'm sure over time the RIAA (assuming they don't jack prices back up, and stop with the rootkits/copy protection) will find less of this justified attitude regarding this type of crime (yes, it is a crime).

The moral of the story, if the RIAA would stop attacking their customers for downloading when they're trying to fleace every last penny from them, they would find they have fewer issues, and find that people will defend "theft" of music less frequently. Look at the MPAA for instance... While some do hate the MPAA, I think you'll find that there are fewer who do and that the feelings are less intense. Why? Well while they do attack customers in some cases for downloading, by the same token video technology has gotten reasnobly cheaper over time like it should. You could always buy movies at a reasnoble price, and now (at least with HD-DVD) it seems like the studios are experimenting with tearing down certain DRM barriers (at least in so far as HD-DVDs are not region locked and will even convert PAL to NTSC for you). It's amazing what can happen if you make any copy protection non-invasive and charge reasnoble prices for your product.


RE: Patriots
By mars777 on 9/22/2007 12:53:30 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
thousands of people who download music continuously, but haven't bought a CD in years. They're not "customers". They're just pirates, looking to justify their thievery.


A (digital) pirate is a person who does a copyright infringement, the person who makes profit on others intellectual property.

They often release others software / music / movies under their own label. Like Orion, Heretic, Explosion and others.

The people downloading movies and music at the university are surely not pirates, they are using the stuff and thus not committing copyright infringement (or they do it occasionally to copy the stuff to a friend).

RIAA is persecuting the last ones, and that is a bad thing. These are potential customers (if the first are caught up, and RIAA adopts a new pricing and business model).

By doing it this way they only distance themselves from actual and possible customers. Or at least this is how it should be.

Fight them, they are morally wrong and do nothing to change that!


RE: Patriots
By Pythias on 9/27/2007 6:37:20 PM , Rating: 2
I don't buy that. I know a lot of torrent freaks and they NEVER buy because they can get it for free.


RE: Patriots
By Pandamonium on 9/23/2007 1:20:28 PM , Rating: 2
Wow- what a generalization of the college crowd. I'm two years out, but I assure you that my peers and I spent more via iTunes than we would have at any brick & mortar establishment.


RE: Patriots
By mindless1 on 9/25/2007 4:59:00 PM , Rating: 3
If they're not customers (too), then the RIAA has lost nothing by their MP3 sharing. RIAA wants to claim a pirated song is a loss of sale when we all know the amount of music bought is a function of disposible income, and pricing, not availability.


RE: Patriots
By jp7189 on 9/21/2007 2:39:31 PM , Rating: 2
In reality, RIAA will spend billions to make a new protection system that is more difficult to get a long with(for hackers and consumers alike), and pass the cost on to the consumers.


RE: Patriots
By afkrotch on 9/21/2007 8:39:07 PM , Rating: 2
I feel dumber having read these postings. Do you backlash a neighbor, cause they put up a fence to keep burglars out?

While I don't condone the RIAA's actions of simply suing everyone and their mothers (literally), I do feel it's justified that they protect what is rightfully theirs.

With placing fake files throughout different file sharing networks, it's really nothing more than a honeypot. The only ppl they'll really hit with a honeypot is those who were going to illegally download the material anyways. Hardly hurting their customer base, as their customer base will legally purchase the material via download services (iTunes, Amazon, whatever) or directly from a brick and mortar store.

As for the cost of a cd versus the cost of downloading it via iTunes and such, I feel it's perfectly justified that the cost of a cd is more. You have the materials, such as cd, casing, slip cover, and protective plastic sleeving. Then the cost of warehouse storage, shipping cost, and cost of shelf space in the store.

Also pirated copies of software are safer? Can you truely make that statement? Can you verify for me that those little cd cracks aren't secretly implanting their own rootkit? Odds are high that you can't.

As for the MPAA, has the cost of a DVD gone down? No, it's no different than CDs. I'm still paying $20+ dollars for a new dvd and now, I'm paying $30 for a blu-ray movie.

Also, guess what? CDs are reasonably prices and their old copy protection was non-invasive. Piracy was rampant. There was nothing slowing it down. By far, music is the number one most pirated. It was the piracy that has lead to a more invasive copy protection scheme and leading up to where we are now. Personally, I haven't seen CD prices change since the mid-90s. Maybe less, with all these different online stores.

Also, copyright laws are there to protect the person/company's work. It's meant to protect everyone. In this case, the RIAA's work.


RE: Patriots
By Locutus465 on 9/22/2007 1:38:18 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
As for the cost of a cd versus the cost of downloading it via iTunes and such, I feel it's perfectly justified that the cost of a cd is more.


Back in my high school days when I dreamed of being a rocker (hey, who didn't?) I actually decided to investigate how much it would cost to have CD's made for me (never actually did). I found that for what any studio would consider low volumn (5,000 cds or less) I could have CD's made with 3 color covers for about $2/per disk.... No, the price difference is not justified, sorry. $20 per CD (like the average used to be) sure as hell isn't considering you don't get the same production costs associated with a CD as you do a movie (for instance).

quote:
As for the MPAA, has the cost of a DVD gone down? No, it's no different than CDs.


No, you can get all kinds of movies (great ones infact) for $5 or less! And I'm noticing that it is quite easy to find new hot just realeased films for $15 or less at major retailers. The MPAA shares some of the RIAA's bad practices (going after customers on occation), but not so bad as trying to fleace their customers.


RE: Patriots
By afkrotch on 9/22/2007 6:12:51 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Back in my high school days when I dreamed of being a rocker (hey, who didn't?) I actually decided to investigate how much it would cost to have CD's made for me (never actually did). I found that for what any studio would consider low volumn (5,000 cds or less) I could have CD's made with 3 color covers for about $2/per disk.... No, the price difference is not justified, sorry. $20 per CD (like the average used to be) sure as hell isn't considering you don't get the same production costs associated with a CD as you do a movie (for instance).


Did you look up how much it would cost for studio time? How much it costs to pay the artists. How much it'll cost to make multiple videos for certain songs for that cd.

Course some companies are large enough that they have their own studios, so you'd need to factor in how much it costs to get all the equipment. All in all, it's a whole lot of money that they invested into.

Also $2/per disk. That has got to be the most BS statement ever. You are telling me that I can go to the studio, have them setup their production line to produce 1 cd for just $2. CD mastering alone will probably cost me $500 - $1000. $2 a disc if you buy like 500+ cds with no cd mastering. That's after whatever costs to make your initial cd.

Course it's easier nowadays to press a cd at home. $2000 gets you a press machine. Don't know how well a cheap ghetto press works out though. Also having a dvd pressed, costs as much as pressing a cd pressed. Course the cost to produce an actual movie is more than the cost to produce music, but most theatre grade movies will make their money back, before they go to dvd. Straight to dvd movies don't cost nearly as much, so they'll make back their money on dvd sales in no time.

quote:
No, you can get all kinds of movies (great ones infact) for $5 or less! And I'm noticing that it is quite easy to find new hot just realeased films for $15 or less at major retailers. The MPAA shares some of the RIAA's bad practices (going after customers on occation), but not so bad as trying to fleace their customers.


Guess what? You can do the same thing with cds. You can find great CDs for $5 or less. I bought a 3 disc set (This is Rave) for $3.99 at Mediaplay. As for recent hot releases, you can get a new, just released cd for $13.99. You can get Kanye West's Graduation for $13.99 retail (normally find it for $10). It was released 11 days ago.

All in all, who really justifies costs? A car is built out of roughly $5000 worth of parts, but can cost triple or more.


RE: Patriots
By Locutus465 on 9/22/2007 7:29:58 PM , Rating: 3
Well yes, as I've said the federal government has helped the situation immensily by calling out the RIAA for what it was... A monopoly that is harming consumers with unjustified prices. It took some time after the judgment, but now albums can be purchased at a much more reasonble average of $10/$12 per "hot" title. The difference is that the MPAA never needed this kind of injunction.


RE: Patriots
By Vanners on 9/24/2007 1:03:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I do feel it's justified that they protect what is rightfully theirs.

Interresting idea, if they reeeally wanted to "protect" what is "rightfully" theirs the best way is to never let it out to the public!
They don't care about ownership, they care about money, as do the consumers/pirates. The argument is not about transfer of media, its about price. Pirates want to pay $0 while the RIAA want consumers to pay all they have +10%.
Unfortunately since they both assume they have total control over the other they both try to dictate terms. Fortunately for honest consumers RIAA doesn't have absolute power or we would each be required by law to give them all our lunch-money for the privilege to turn on a radio.


RE: Patriots
By jonmcc33 on 9/22/2007 1:41:35 PM , Rating: 3
You fail to understand the entire process it seems. It isn't just the RIAA but everyone in between that loses that money. From the company that creates the CD to the company that packages it to the company that distributes it and the store that sells it. You're robbing ALL of them of money. Each part of that huge chain makes a small part off of each sale but when you pirate something and distribute it over something as large as the internet it whacks a huge chunk of money out of a LOT of pockets, not even including the music artist. You like their music enough to download it then why can't you show the appreciation by purchasing it?


RE: Patriots
By elpresidente2075 on 9/23/2007 2:56:13 PM , Rating: 2
Early 1900's Headline:
quote:
The Wagon Maker Consortium is serving lawsuits to every Ford customer they can prove. It seems that this new innovation, the "Automobile" is taking large portions of their profits, and is doing so without their consent. Cease and desist orders are being mailed out with an option to settle out of court for a marginal fee, $500, rather than sue each auto owner $50 for each mile that has been driven with the vehicle. So far thousands of orders have been sent out, and many, fearing the extensive and expensive legal battle that would ensue, have elected to settle. More on this in the next issue...


Now, as much as that wasn't an actual headline, doesn't it sound familiar? It's time for the wagon maker (RIAA) to adapt and figure out this little thing called an "Internal Combustion Engine" (AKA, The Internet) and stop screwing it's [potential] customers into oblivion and causing general public hatred for itself.

To sum up: Adapt or become extinct.


RE: Patriots
By mindless1 on 9/25/2007 5:07:45 PM , Rating: 2
You fail to understand that they aren't robbing all these people.

1) A person is not compelled to buy a product. That they can copy it for nearly free is obviously not an evidence they would pay for it if they couldn't get it for free.

2) Anyone who chooses to be a a business that hopes to profit from content distribution and sales, has made a CHOICE. If they find the pay isn't enough, they can make a choice to do something else for pay instead.

3) That these industries exist at all is an evidence of people doing exactly what you suggested, purchasing it. Hint - if a company presses 30 million CDs, that doesn't create more customers than if they had only pressed 20 million, there is always an attempt at greater supply than demand.


RE: Patriots
By Grast on 9/25/2007 5:19:04 PM , Rating: 2
Patriot,

Your comment about Lowe's is wrong. It has nothing to do with cost to process. It has to do with customer service. A very small percentage of returns are from illegal activites. The majority of returns are from legidimate customers who have made a misake. By taking all returns, Lowe's is building customer loyalty and altering their normal spending habits. Additionally, customers buying habbits have show that any customer which returns an item spends that same amount or more in the store where the return occured.

In the end, a good return and no hassle policy increase the amount of returning customers. It takes on the average of over 5,000 dollars of advertising to get one customer. That customer will typically spend 10 times that amount over the life of the customer. It is worth to lose a few hundred dollars to that customer in return for furture sells.

This is basic economics and advertising. I think you need to go back to school and learn how the retail environment actually works.

later..


RE: Patriots
By PrezWeezy on 9/24/2007 2:14:48 PM , Rating: 2
And the Boston Tea Party was a terrible disreguard of other's personal property too. Our Country was founded on the idea that a people should be able to stand up and fight back when the corporations and/or government are doing them wrong...kinda...unless you follow Madison anyway.


RE: Patriots
By Pythias on 9/27/2007 6:31:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah. The internet is about the free exchange of other peoples' ideas!


RE: Patriots
By Ard on 9/21/2007 2:20:34 AM , Rating: 5
I agree wholeheartedly. The balance of power in the grand scheme that is copyright law has long since been skewed in favor of large corporations and content creators, lending itself to the large scale abuse we see now with the RIAA and the like. If this information is legit, it stands as a major blow to MediaDefender, one they've had coming for a long time. Damn, I love hackers!


RE: Patriots
By Grast on 9/25/2007 5:37:39 PM , Rating: 2
Ard,

Ohh my god, copyright law in the favor of content creators. Hey stop the presses a great injustice is being committed. The copyright laws SHOULD favor anyone who is creating content and wishing to protect it for the purpose of makeing profit. That is the American way. If you believe, that all content should be free and exchanged openly, grow-up and look at how the world works.

If copyright laws did not exist, 90% of new products and ideas would never be created. In the late 1800's and early 1900's prior to major copyright reform, it was very common for a successful product to be exactly copied and sold by anyone trying to make a buck. The creator did not recieve any credit for the idea. This is wrong. With out the guarantee that content created is protected, no one would go through the EXPENSE and EFFORT of creating new things or ideas.

I believe that everyone has the right to copyright and protect your personal created content. If I am more successfully than you do to my invention, idea, or product, that is YOUR fault not MINE. Find your own idea.

Corporations have the RIGHT to protect their property. You also make it sound like corporations are people. If you think a certain company is making too much money or too successful, buy some stock get on the band wagon. Corporation were created to be functions of profit.

I digress. The point is that music companies have the RIGHT to try an processcute poeple that are STEALING their property. Every song and movie downloaded without giving compensation to the author is STEALING; PLAIN AND SIMPLE

You can make all of the excuses you want. But truth regarding this subject is simple, you want a product; PAY FOR IT.

Now if you want to talk about DRM, I am completly upset with the issue due to the customer not getting what they are paying for.

Later...


RE: Patriots
By elgoliath on 9/25/2007 6:04:38 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think he said copyright protection should go away, he said it is skewed towards the creators. Contrary to what ever you believe, it should not be skewed either way but should offer equal protection to both parties.

Regarding downloading for free, I don't think I have seen anyone say that it is legal, and those that do it are pretty much aware of what they are doing. But, legal does not mean right. If I had the time or the energy I'd 'illegally' download all the music I have purchased that has DRM on it in a heartbeat from somewhere that I can get a straight mp3.


RE: Patriots
By tdawg on 9/21/2007 2:21:57 AM , Rating: 5
Remember remember the 5th of November.


RE: Patriots
By Randomblame on 9/21/2007 2:51:14 AM , Rating: 5
We live in a world ruled by fear. Our government officials will look straight into the camera and lie DIRECTLY to millions of our faces. They spread fear of terrorism to further their political agendas. The RIAA has filed over 20,000 lawsuits against it's very own customers in the last 4 years! Why do they do this? So it goes on the news, so people read about it and hear about it. It's to spread fear. We are all going along with it too. If America has one voice it is saying "BAAAAhhhhhh" Wake up guys we are SHEEP!

If they want to end piracy they could do it very easily and very simply. They could lower prices and compromise with us for fair usage!


RE: Patriots
By michal1980 on 9/21/2007 6:44:00 AM , Rating: 1
while the RIAA is over the top, I doubt that most of those 20,000 were customers.

I love how you thievs like to justifiy your actions based on the wrongs of others.

Just because the RIAA acts wrongly. Does not mean its right to steal music, movies and software. Just get a job and pay for it.

I'm a getting sick of this internet cry babies 'everything should be free' crowd, that do nothing but help destory peoples work.


RE: Patriots
By SavagePotato on 9/21/2007 9:47:25 AM , Rating: 4
There are alot of people out there that pirate to save a dollar. Myself I've pirated games, music, movies, pretty much anything you can pirate besides the carribean.

Sometimes just because it was easy. Many times though because I didn't feel what I was pirating was worth the cost. In the case of computer games, I always support games I think are worth it. One example, Oblivion, bought a copy without question, tons of value, and no crazy copy protection software on their disc. Most of the legit software I do buy, I still end up cracking just so I don't have to sit and put the cd in for every game I play.

In some cases I have avoided buying a game specificaly because of it's copy protection software. Example, Bioshock, I don't want that quasi rootkit drm crapfest of antipiracy software anywhere near my computer. So I pirated it.

There is where the problem lies, the thing is copy protection doesn't work, Period. A game like Bioshock that was wrapped in so much copy protection it was stupid, no problem, the crackers got copies of it out in no time. The PAYING customers have gotten more grief out of Bioshock than the ones that have stolen it. If you can't see that then you just aren't paying attention. This is just misguided and stupid, and it is the problem that pretty much EVERYONE pirate or not has with the aproach these bozo's take to copy protection.

Make games reasonably priced, fun to play, deviod of crap that infests my computer, and I will buy a good game everytime. I ain't protending to be some robin hood of the software piracy world, everyone knows pirating material is wrong, they aren't whining for free content. They are just demanding not to be punished as a paying customer when the so called targets laugh and download a crack.


RE: Patriots
By CrystalBay on 9/21/2007 10:18:42 PM , Rating: 2
Are you saying paying 30-40 dollars PC version (IF your a smart shopper)is to much . I think thats a very fair price for legally obtaining 15-20+ hours of entertainment.

How much cheaper do pirates expect for software? unless it's free? Sheesh....


RE: Patriots
By SavagePotato on 9/23/2007 6:12:22 PM , Rating: 2
I think you sort of missed the point entirely. The main point being drm does not work, it punishes the legitimate customer and the pirate laughs at it.

As a matter of fact I didn't say anything about what I felt was a fair price point for a game. Here in canada most software starts at a minimum of $59 for new games, most are more like $70. The only thing that clocks in in the $30 neighborhood are expantion packs.

I payed close to 80 bucks for my copy of Oblivion and did so without regret. The value of the game is directly proportional to how good it is. Don't waste your time boo hooing me over stealing from the poor entertainment industry. It isn't something I have any remorse for. Pirating software is illegal, wrong etc etc. Noone will debate that. At least they shouldn't. However I realy have no sympathy or remorse for multi billion dollar industries to the point of actualy caring that they lose money on piracy.

Regardless of what my morals are, it's a fact that these companies are foolishly punishing their paying customers with restrictive assinine DRM (such as bioshock, the worst example yet) and creating even more piracy with their redicoulous efforts.


RE: Patriots
By BladeVenom on 9/21/2007 12:03:58 PM , Rating: 5
You sound like someone who would have told the Sons of Liberty not to dump the tea into the harbor. You probably would have told Rosa to go to the back of the bus.


RE: Patriots
By ZmaxDP on 9/24/2007 2:27:20 PM , Rating: 2
Now that's just ridiculous. You are trying to imply there is some similarity between more than a century of repression/exploitation of african slaves in this country to the fact that you think music is too expensive and are "forced" to steal it. Poor you. I bet those people who spent their entire lives in slavery can really feel your pain. And taxation without representation? Hey, guess what, you're represented in the market! Choose not to buy their product, and you're voting. Wait, you already did that. Hmmm, so what rights of yours has the RIAA violated? Your right to free stuff? Wait a minute, I didn't know that was in the constitution...

Seriously, have a thought before you make such bad comparisons. I don't like the RIAA or what it is doing, so I don't buy their product. Period. But I don't steal either, cause that's also wrong. Plain and simple, deal with it.


RE: Patriots
By retrospooty on 9/21/2007 9:02:23 AM , Rating: 3
"We live in a world ruled by fear. Our government officials will look straight into the camera and lie DIRECTLY to millions of our faces. They spread fear of terrorism to further their political agendas. The RIAA has filed over 20,000 lawsuits against it's very own customers in the last 4 years! Why do they do this? So it goes on the news, so people read about it and hear about it. It's to spread fear. "

You are absolutly right... I totally agree, but the problem is that most of the sheep are too blind to see it, and to sheepish to act.


RE: Patriots
By jskirwin on 9/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: Patriots
By Nfarce on 9/21/2007 1:11:02 PM , Rating: 1
LOL! Good job dude. Note how no leftwinger rebutted what you said and instead just voted you down to zero. Stupid kids.


RE: Patriots
By jskirwin on 9/21/2007 1:57:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Note how no leftwinger rebutted what you said and instead just voted you down to zero.


Yeah, I saw that. It's a function of cognitive dissonance on their part - trying to square the evils of Republican GWOT supporters with the corporations behind RIAA in their minds.

Unfortunately, most of the people behind RIAA happen to be on the Left, while we evil libertarian-leaning "Rethuglicans" are the often the ones fighting against the DMCA (signed into law by Pres. Clinton in 1998).

It doesn't fit their absolutist world view that everyone who supports GWOT and the "Rethuglicans" aren't stupid sheep.

quote:
Stupid kids.

Meh. I was one once - a looong time ago. They'll grow out of it.

Unless they get tenure. Then their development will be arrested for life.


RE: Patriots
By The Sword 88 on 9/22/2007 1:04:19 PM , Rating: 2
True getting tenure leaves most people, not all, in a perpetual state of ignorant liberalism


RE: Patriots
By floffe on 9/23/2007 4:39:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the DMCA (signed into law by Pres. Clinton in 1998).

Yup, and voted through by a solidly Republican congress. Neither major US party goes blameless there.


RE: Patriots
By Ard on 9/21/2007 3:18:07 PM , Rating: 2
Are you going to sit there and admit that this country isn't ruled by fear? Fear is the reason this administration has been able to push its ridiculous policies. Fear is the reason we're fighting a war in a country we have no business being in. Fear is the reason why the Patriot Act exists. Fear is the reason why so many of our civil liberties are damn near non-existent. What? You're going to tell me we're "safer" now? Please, we're worse off now than we ever were and no one even realizes it. Does terrorism exist? Most certainly. Does it have anything to do with what this country is currently involved in? Absolutely not. And if you think otherwise, you're the true sheep.


RE: Patriots
By ebakke on 9/21/2007 5:40:09 PM , Rating: 2
Are you really that obtuse to believe that the statement "this country is ruled by fear" means anything? Everything is done out of fear. Here are 5 simple examples to prove my point:

1. Speed limits are imposed for fear of horrific car accidents.
2. Sunscreen is used for fear of getting skin cancer.
3. Condoms (and other contraception methods) are used for fear of children (and some STDs).
4. Education is used for fear of getting our asses handed to us by the rest of the world.
5. Every part of our founding documents was created out of fear - fear of uncontrolled government power.

So yeah, this country is ruled by fear. But that's about as revolutionary as saying "I need water to survive". Ok... great... Tell me something I don't already know.


RE: Patriots
By elgoliath on 9/24/2007 4:56:33 PM , Rating: 2
There is a difference between reasonable fear and unreasonable fear. The whole war on terror is based on unreasonable fear (as it is currently portrayed by the executive branch, and yes that includes cheney) and is likely to be as successful as the 'war' on drugs.

For example, educating our children out of fear of being passed up by other countries- guess what, that is a real fear and will happen if we don't educate people.

At this time I think we are less secure with all of the legislation that has passed since 9/11 than before, but that is an opinion. The fact of the matter is that all those mean nasty horrible things the government says we need to be protected against are largely made up or facts twisted to fit their own agenda. You have to ask yourself how many terrorist attacks happened on our land before and after 9/11 and you might be surprised. And btw, the OK City bombing was not a terrorist attach either, tho it seems to be confused as such fairly often.


RE: Patriots
By acer905 on 9/25/2007 7:47:30 AM , Rating: 2
What the hell are you talking about? Yes, it was a terrorist attack. It wasn't the same people who did the attack on the twin towers, but it was still a group of people using fear (aka terror) to force someone to do what they want.


RE: Patriots
By elgoliath on 9/25/2007 1:05:33 PM , Rating: 2
I suggest you read up on the OK City bombing- it was an attack against the government, payback if you want, for perceived wrongdoings in the past (Ruby Ridge etc.)- it was not to strike terror in the people. Just because it was a bomb does not mean it was a terrorist attack. The distinction is a terrorist attack targets the people- in OK City he was targeting the government- the people that died, while it was an obvious outcome, were not his targets.


RE: Patriots
By Christopher1 on 9/23/2007 9:15:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If they want to end piracy they could do it very easily and very simply. They could lower prices and compromise with us for fair usage!


Quite right! Prices for DVD's and CD's are nowhere near what they should be, and we should have kiosks where we can burn the latest movie on our OWN BOUGHT DISKS (which are less expensive than to buy the thing on the movie, music and game companies discs).
In fact, that second thing would save the movie, music and game companies money by not having to ship tons of discs around the world! They could just let us buy the disk, burn them ourselves (with no DRM), and simply put a fingerprint on the disks somehow that cannot be removed, which I would be all for as long as it could not be faked or at least not EASILY faked.


RE: Patriots
By hrah20 on 9/21/2007 4:54:31 AM , Rating: 1
YES !!!, let's give these biaaaaatches what they deserve, a taste of their own soup


RE: Patriots
By Proteusza on 9/21/2007 4:10:46 AM , Rating: 2
I wholeheartedly agree.

I'm not going to buy anything affiliated with the record companies until they change their attitude.

I dont mean I'm going to pirate, I mean I'm going to listen to what I already have. Besides, the new music is largely whatever the record companies want to promote, not music I'd like to hear.

But, if just a few other people agreed to not buy anything from the RIAA and its affiliates, and got some of their friends to do likewise, excuse the bad pun but that would be music to my ears.


RE: Patriots
By FITCamaro on 9/21/2007 7:02:02 AM , Rating: 2
This group may be doing something good, but they are far from Patriots.

The fact of the matter is that consumers are sheep. It has nothing to do with a lack of fear and respect. It has to do with a corporation selling a product that you want. They set the price, terms, and conditions. If you don't like it, don't buy it. If enough people don't buy it, the terms, conditions, and price will change. But people don't do that. They still prove to the corporations that they want it by pirating it. So the corporations know they have leverage.

And I'm guessing you've never written or created something others might want. I think you'd be pretty pissed too if something you worked for years on hoping to make a profit started getting copied on the internet and given away for free.


RE: Patriots
By ChristopherO on 9/21/2007 12:44:13 PM , Rating: 1
I agree whole heartedly. It makes me think a lot of people in this thread would be well-served by reading Atlas Shrugged.

If I want something, I buy it, if I don't want it, I don't buy it. I don't care about DRM as long as it doesn't get in my way. I have absolutely no problem with corporations protecting themselves from theft because tens of millions of people don't care if they steal. The people entitled to the fruits of others are those who rightfully pay whatever the person demands in return. There is no "right" to possess something which you yourself didn't earn through your efforts. The only "just" exchange of goods (any goods) is one where both sides benefit.

I also don't see why it is patriotic to band together. I would prefer that those other people are only concerned about themselves. Society devolves into a disaster when other people start believing they speak for you and can initiate decisions on your behalf. I can state with absolute certainty, I never want another person anywhere, ever, to speak on my behalf.

I create intellectual property for a living. It pays for my home, and will eventually send my kids to college. I get spitting mad when someone attempts to steal my work. I'm not putting in 12-hour-days because of charity. I get ticked-off enough looking at my tax withholdings, let alone worrying about people *other* than the government stealing from me.

Go read that book I mentioned earlier. It will be a lot more entertaining, thought provoking, and better than just about everything that's being pirated these days. Plus it will keep you entertained for a week or so, as opposed to the 40 minutes of most albums these days.


RE: Patriots
By Ard on 9/21/2007 3:25:13 PM , Rating: 2
There are always going to be those who would rather steal a work than pay for it. I have the utmost respect for Intellectual Property (it's what I practice) and I completely see the merits in the system. It is largely broken at this point, but the reason for its existence is clear. However, when your actions (DRM, abuse of the DMCA and copyright law in general, etc.) are driving normal consumers to those same ends, it's time to start analyzing your own policies, rather than the morality of the consumer. Furthermore, attacking those consumers only exacerbates the problem. As many have said before, DRM doesn't do anything to stop piracy. It merely frustrates average consumers in the legitimate use of the product they purchased. One need look no further than BioShock to see the real-world proof.


RE: Patriots
By AlexWade on 9/21/2007 8:12:33 AM , Rating: 5
First off, piracy is wrong and stealing music is wrong. I don't do it and I've told others not to do it too.

Having said that, two wrongs don't make a right. How much money does the crooked RIAA spend on MediaDefender and their like? Why don't instead not spend that money and lower costs? But what do the RIAA want to do? Increase iTunes songs from a reasonable $0.99 to an unreasonable $1.99 all the while wondering why consumers pirate music. What angers me even more is that they want more money when they have no overhead with iTunes. Apple fronts all the credit card costs and all the bandwidth costs. Record companies make pure profit.

Their thinking is obsolete, yet they refuse to change. So instead of adapting, they lobby for more laws. Lobbying ain't cheap either. The RIAA wants to raise prices to pay for ineffective measures and to bride Congress. Instead, they should keep that money so that they can lower costs and give people less of a reason to pirate music.

And to top it all off, they insist of DRM which is a method that assumes guilt before proven innocent.

The MPAA isn't any better.

Can you see why people want to pirate? A cartel that conspires to inflate prices, millions of dollars dumped into ineffective anti-piracy sites, and a lack of regard for the consumer.


RE: Patriots
By rcc on 9/21/2007 2:19:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Can you see why people want to pirate? A cartel that conspires to inflate prices, millions of dollars dumped into ineffective anti-piracy sites, and a lack of regard for the consumer.


They pirate because they want the product and won't/can't pay for it, and because it's easy. The rest is all cover up.

As has been mentioned a multitude of times, if you don't like the pricing or policies of a company..... don't buy, get the laws changed, but don't steal. All that will accomplish is feeding the perps self of entitlement, and raising prices further.


No Gray area here. How has this become a blender?
By Dfere on 9/21/2007 7:53:55 AM , Rating: 5
What is the confusion I read above about? Everyone is blending together several issues at once. Piracy is illegal, immoral, and for the simplest Golden Rule reason- as FIT puts it, wrong. Yet everyone is somehow trying to balance it (even when taking a stand against piracy), that it is somehow offsetting corporate greed.

What?

Corporate officers are greedy, look at the multiples to average salary (I do not have the latest). OK. Shareholders are greedy. OK. Employees are greedy. OK. Consumers are greedy. OK. Where does this justify anything? And where did the anti Bush rant and terrorism comment come in on this one?

This article was about hackers getting access to data. It is a shame so many people here who are talented and have the time didn't do a little digging to find ot more about what exactly was hacked and how, so we might be able to figure out if the hackers did anything illegal. The funny part is that they may have been able to get information without breaking into any company networks.... And that would make what they did all the sweeter.

In a way- this almost becomes investigative journalism, if no laws were broken..........




By acer905 on 9/21/2007 8:34:07 AM , Rating: 2
Question. Does something simply being illegal make it immoral? Because if so, then Jaywalking would be immoral, yet people do it so commonly (especially in New York) that cops hardly care to do anything. Or what about speeding? is that immoral? Look at Michigan's freeways. Speed limit is 70, traffic flows at 80. The cops will let people doing 80 fly by while waiting for the guy doing 100. Do a google search for "stupid laws" and look at some of the stuff thats illegal out there. Yet people do some of these things without even thinking or caring.


By Nfarce on 9/21/2007 9:19:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Or what about speeding? is that immoral? Look at Michigan's freeways. Speed limit is 70, traffic flows at 80.


That's a poor analogy. Speed limits are set up artificially low to begin with, which answers your issue about people going 80 in a 70 zone, which is right on the money. Lawmakers know that if they put the speed limit at 80mph, people will drive 85-90mph, and on and on. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and states and municipalities set the bar low for the target they want traffic to drive, which is 5-10 mph "window" above the limit - at least that's what my cop buddy tells me anyway. You will find very few tickets being written for driving 1-10 mph over the limit (depending on driving conditions of course). However, your chances of getting a ticket above 10mph over increases exponentially. The bottom line is that you cannot measure speed limits as a defacto moral establishment benchmark when 90% of the traffic flow drives with what they feel comfortable with and more to the point here, what the law enforcement officers allow them to drive at.

Regarding "stupid laws," you have to remember that there are a lot of laws still on the books out there from the 1800s in America. Technically in Kennesaw, GA, it is "illegal" to not own a gun (and they have one of the lowest per capita crime rates in the nation LOL). So, is it immoral to not own a gun because a law says you have to?

That said, I'd hardly compare dissing stupid or outdated laws as not necessarily immoral to qualify the illegal activity of stealing copyrighted material. Apples and oranges IMO.


By acer905 on 9/21/2007 9:43:05 AM , Rating: 2
One of the things i was trying to get at was that "morality" is not a solid black and white subject. Nobody is ever going to agree on what is morally right or wrong. There are simply too many people for that. So with any law, some people will find it stupid and disregard it without any "moral" problems, while others will see it as horible to do so. And this is a prime example of that. Personally the way i see it, ripping the music off of the cd, then throwing it out to a file sharing network is wrong. However if its out there, its fair game. Its the same as finding somethin in the middle of the street.

And while you have a valid point about speed limits, it still is illegal to drive at any speed past the posted limit. It may not have the same punishment, but its just as illegal as walking up to someone and punching them in the face. You are not allowed, by law, to do it.

Oh, and i have to say go Kennesaw! i've always said. Which would you prefer if you were a criminal. Breaking into someplace where guns have been banned, or breaking into someplace where there is a strong chance there is guy with a gun. I'd rather not risk it and go where they banned guns


By jskirwin on 9/21/2007 1:24:58 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
One of the things i was trying to get at was that "morality" is not a solid black and white subject. Nobody is ever going to agree on what is morally right or wrong.


An absolutist statement saying there aren't absolutes...

I hope you mean to say that while there are some moral absolutes, IP theft isn't one of them.

I'm not sure how well that works; you'd have to ask the content creators how they feel about seeing the result of their effort stolen without compensation. My guess is that you would tend to get a solid opinion against IP theft and piracy. I've had the occasion to see my writing hijacked and attributed to another author, and I didn't feel very good about it. I felt pretty ripped off.

I doubt you're going to find too many downloaders who admit to stealing songs, software, etc and recognize that it's wrong. People will twist themselves into psychological knots in order to justify even the most heinous acts. I once heard a child killer state that the little girl deserved to be raped and murdered by him because she chose to get into his car.

Where the confusion lies is in RIAA's propaganda efforts. RIAA represents the record industry - not the artists themselves. They like to pretend they do, but most acts make money off touring - not record sales.

It's easier for a pirate to ease his conscience by thinking he's sticking it to a faceless corporation, than to an artist. Hence you've got both sides muddying the moral waters.

But the bottom line remains: it's theft.


By acer905 on 9/21/2007 2:10:04 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, no. I simply meant that "morality" is simply a personal system of right and wrong with no guidelines except for the general view of a specific society. What is morally right to one person from one culture could be morally wrong to anyone else. How many people would think it is morally right to just cast aside babies because they have some illness or are disfigured. During the time of Sparta this was common practice. Many people will react to that by saying that they were savages or something of the like, but that is only because they are from a different society. It is the same as religion, or any other beliefs. But people are never the same, even identical twins, are different. What everyone thinks and believes is shaped and molded by whats around them.

Yes, its an absolute. The same as gravity. People are different, and will think and believe different things.

But i stand by my statement. You cannot steal something that is simply available to everyone. The people at fault are the ones who make it available to everyone


RE: No Gray area here. How has this become a blender?
By Ard on 9/21/2007 3:34:19 PM , Rating: 2
This is actually a discussion I had with my IP professor before I graduated. You can't really "steal" IP because IP, by it's very nature, is an intangible property of which multiple copies exist. If I download a song, I haven't impacted the artist in the slightest. All I have is a copy. They still have their original work and, assuming I wouldn't have purchased the song in the first, they haven't lost any money. The only thing anyone ever loses with IP "theft" is potential income.


RE: No Gray area here. How has this become a blender?
By rcc on 9/21/2007 6:27:38 PM , Rating: 2
When the creator of a piece of "IP" creates his work, music, white paper, news article, book, etc. he/she does so for a reason, generally income but sometimes for a cause, gift, etc.

If they create it for commercial reasons, they do so because they hope to make money from it. It may be "potential" income, but you still stole their chance at it. Even if you don't like it, you still have the experience, can discuss it, etc. Through your selfishness you have potentially damaged their ability to make a living.

From a more practical standpoint, say you "acquire" a new song along with 20,000 other pirates (this could be a game, book, etc.)effectively cutting the artists earnings in half. The artist decides that he/she can make better money flipping burgers, working on cars, or running a company and the world may miss out on the next (insert your favorite artist here). TANSTAAFL, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, believe it, someone somewhere pays for everything.

I know I'll draw flak for this, but, a murderer only "potentially" reduces his victim's lifespan, after all, he/she could have been hit by a bus a half second later. Was it really a crime?

Bottom line? You take what's not yours, or use it, you are a thief. No amount of dodging or sophistry will make a thief other than what he/she is. It's time people in our society started taking responsibility for their actions and quit blaming victims, parents, future sunspots, etc.


By Ard on 9/22/2007 12:21:09 PM , Rating: 2
The murder analogy isn't comparable at all. And, again, the content creator doesn't lose any income at all. If I never intended on purchasing the work in the first place, then the creator never expected to make money off me. My download did not effect him. Again, you can't call downloading a work "stealing". Stealing requires the taking/converting of tangible property, thereby depriving the original owner of said property. If I download a song, have I deprived the owner of that property? No.


By Vanners on 9/24/2007 1:25:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
TANSTAAFL, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, believe it, someone somewhere pays for everything.

Sad, but even sadder because it is completely untrue. This is merely a lullabye mantra that corporate sharks use to get themselves off to sleep every night.
There is nothing moral about grinding the face of the poor.

These chat sessions aren't about legality, it is about frustrated people who can't get a voice over the immorality of corporations to be heard any other way.

Imagine what could be done if all these passionate people lobbied their local politician with reasonable arguments instead of writing these posts...

<cinicism>...absolutely nothing because of corruption in govenments that trade money for life (even little slivers of it) just like the big corporations do. <\cinicism>


RE: No Gray area here. How has this become a blender?
By rcc on 9/25/2007 3:01:07 PM , Rating: 2
Lol, it's pretty much a universal truism. It has nothing to do with corporations.

You may succeed in putting the cost off on someone else, but there is a cost for pretty much everything you do. Except breath, maybe, but that could change.

It also has nothing to do with morality, it just is.


By mindless1 on 9/25/2007 5:35:04 PM , Rating: 2
You must be surrounded by some very greedy people. Lots of things in life are free, there really is free lunch.

If you were our guest for dinner you'd get a free dinner. If your car battery died you'd get a free jump from me. If your pet were lost I'd help you look for it for free. The list is endless, including freeware software, (music) concerts, etc., etc.

Try it for a change, do something for someone without asking for anything in return. Make the world a better place instead of worse.


RE: No Gray area here. How has this become a blender?
By rcc on 9/25/2007 6:50:21 PM , Rating: 2
Lol, you are misinterpreting the cost/free element. It may not cost me, or thee, money, but there is always a cost. In your example, there is no monetary cost to me, for which I thank you. But the groceries cost you. Even if you grew them they cost you time.

I do things for people everyday, for which I don't charge them money. Bonds of politeness, friendship, family, obligation, gratitude, cost has many forms.

I live it your world, it's pretty cool. But TANSTAAFL still holds true, just don't try to take it literally.


By mindless1 on 9/26/2007 1:32:47 AM , Rating: 2
The only cost is time, ultimately. There really isn't any other true cost, and your time has to be spent either way, it's not as though you can save it in a bottle instead.


By acer905 on 9/24/2007 8:48:34 AM , Rating: 2
Again. I would never pay for music for one reason. It is free for me to listen to. Whenever i want. All i have to do is turn on the radio. And if i want a certain song, most radio stations take requests. Amazing! music for free whenever you want it! And nobody complains. But when the same person actually gets a copy of that song that they have listened to for free a thousand times without "buying" it, then instantly they are a criminal and are horribly immoral. I am paying for music every day, i actually listen to the commercials on the radio, rather than just flipping stations when a commercial comes on.

Oh, and even my MP3 player has an fm tuner in it (plus the ability to record stuff off the radio)


By mindless1 on 9/25/2007 5:28:17 PM , Rating: 2
No, you can't steal a "Chance" at potential income, as the pirate did still have the opportunity to buy it if they had the money.


By jskirwin on 9/21/2007 4:06:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I simply meant that "morality" is simply a personal system of right and wrong with no guidelines except for the general view of a specific society.


Uhm... No. The fact that people or cultures disagree about something does not mean there is no objective truth. We could argue about whether the earth is round, but that's not proof that the earth has no shape.

A Klansman and I might disagree over whether African-Americans are human beings and should be treated as such, but that disagreement does not deny their humanity.

Just because Spartans let defective children die does not mean that they lacked the value that murder is wrong.

Similarly, Hindus may not eat cows while we atheists gobble them up by the herd in the USA. This may appear to be a difference of values. However when you look deeper at the issue, you'll see that the Hindus don't eat cows because they believe in Reincarnation, and that cow just might be the reincarnated soul of Grandpa. Since we in the USA don't believe that cows have souls, we eat them - but we don't eat Grandpa.

Your statement also ignores the values shared between people. While we may disagree on downloading songs, I doubt few readers of this forum believe that its okay to steal private property. Most would also agree that killing people is wrong, women are human and not property, and children should not be molested by adults. NAMBLA and some jihadis might disagree with us, but that should not deny the existence of the value that women are equal to men and that children should not be sex toys for adults.


By acer905 on 9/24/2007 9:00:03 AM , Rating: 2
Any values that are shared between people are shared because those people were raised to share them. Get off your damn high horse. Humans are not all that great. We are animals. Pure and simple. We will do whatever we can to ensure our survival and the survival of our offspring.

All you have done in your post is push your views and beliefs as fact, something that people do constantly. However there are many people out there who would easily say that you are the one who is wrong. Everything we as humans believe comes from what we have learned from our society. And if a "mass murderer" were to gather some supporters, make a country, go to war with someone, and win, then history would make him a hero and anyone he "murdered" would not matter. If Hitler had won, history would never have shown him causing any evils. He would be a hero. However some people felt that he was wrong, so we went to war and we won, and so now he is evil. Face it, the simple fact that people disagree is what makes there no universal truth. Because no matter how you try to force feed someone some "truth" those same people will try to force their truth on you, unless you can give someone total proof (for example take them up into space and take a quick look at what the earth looks like). And thats just something you can't do with philosophical or psychological things. There is no "fact" there is only belief. Now, prove me wrong!


By mindless1 on 9/25/2007 5:45:50 PM , Rating: 2
You might be wrong, most of us wouldn't consider it wrong to make a copy of private property (as a general concept).

Your neighbor builds a shed to store things outside. You copy that (intellectually produced property) and build a shed in your yard. You didn't take his wood, didn't ask to borrow his hammer, and won't have a fair complaint if another of your neighbors then decides to build a shed too.


RE: No Gray area here. How has this become a blender?
By rcc on 9/21/2007 5:54:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But i stand by my statement. You cannot steal something that is simply available to everyone. The people at fault are the ones who make it available to everyone


Yeah, I know. And people that leave their houses unlocked deserve to be burglarized. Companies that can be hacked deserve to be hacked. Just more excuses. You find a current hit on the Internet, you know you didn't buy it, it isn't yours, don't take it.


By acer905 on 9/24/2007 9:04:04 AM , Rating: 2
By your statements i would assume that you would also say that everyone should give money to the poor sap whose house burned down and didn't have insurance. Guess what, there is a point to a lock. There is a point to insurance. if you don't lock your doors and get robbed its your own damn fault, don't cry about it.


RE: No Gray area here. How has this become a blender?
By rcc on 9/25/2007 3:16:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
By your statements i would assume that you would also say that everyone should give money to the poor sap whose house burned down


That is so far out in left field it's hard to figure out where to start. It's not even a discussion of the same princples.

However, if someone burned down the persons house, it is the burner's responsibility, not the burnee's. But I suppose you think if he didn't build out of asbestos he deserved to have his house burned.

In any case, no, I'm not giving him money; unless I felt responsible in some way.

Of course there is a point to a lock, and for having insurance. But dude, if someone enters my house, locked or not, he's a burglar. No one made him do it, his actions are his responsibility. As are mine when I shoot his dumb ass. But I suppose you think I should be responsible for him entering because I didn't make it harder.


By acer905 on 9/25/2007 3:24:47 PM , Rating: 2
lol, sorry. That was me seeing what type of response i could get by throwing out the most outrageous thing i could think of.


By mindless1 on 9/25/2007 5:56:14 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, no it's not your fault if you get robbed when your doors aren't locked. Taking that kind of argument we could say it's your fault if someone knocks you unconscious with a baseball bat because you don't always wear a helmit.

It's also wrong that there is no fact, only belief, unless you are attempting to consider all of humanity a subjective collaboration in which case there could be no such thing as objectivity and yet we subjects have created and do understand the term objectivity as a distinction.

There is objective truth and fact, welcome to a thing called science.


By acer905 on 9/26/2007 7:36:28 AM , Rating: 2
I was talking about philosophical concepts, i thought i had made that clear


By DokGonzo on 9/21/2007 6:06:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I hope you mean to say that while there are some moral absolutes, IP theft isn't one of them.

I'm not sure how well that works; you'd have to ask the content creators how they feel about seeing the result of their effort stolen without compensation. My guess is that you would tend to get a solid opinion against IP theft and piracy. I've had the occasion to see my writing hijacked and attributed to another author, and I didn't feel very good about it. I felt pretty ripped off.


IP theft is wrong only as long as the author of the work doesn't get compensated. I don't have any moral objections to "stealing" from the megacorporations. If you study the history of copyright laws you will see that they were put forth to protect the author from plagiarism and to ensure that the author gets properly compensated. The term this applied to in the beginning was short. For example 5-10 expiration period is plenty of time to get your work recognized and make a handsome profit of it (if it's worth anything).

That's the kind of copyright law I would support. Making it life of the author + 70 years is beyond ridiculous. When will Disney's works be in Public Domain? If you ask the execs at Disney corp - never. They'll make sure of it through political pressure, they've been doing it for the last 50+ years. These days, ironically, the copyright laws are invoked mostly by non-authors, distributors and others, and the author ends up getting the smallest piece of the profit from his OWN WORK. It's not fair to the author, and it's not fair to the consumer.

The middle man i.e. RIAA, MPAA and all others like them need to be cut out of the process. We have the technology, all we need now is political will. Copyright laws need to change, and soon, or we'll all become criminals before long. It's classic FUD tactics, with extreme orvellian overtones. Call me paranoid if you will but every day, I come here and read only bad news. There are no more laws being passed to protect the consumer, or author, there are only laws that chip away at our fundamental freedoms and rights until they're all gone and **AA reigns supreme.


By AmbroseAthan on 9/21/2007 9:30:59 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, the "people here who are talented and have the time" took the time to read the article; its amazing how the talented know to do this.

quote:
Unlike the previous two leaks, MDD claims it received the leaked source code directly from a MediaDefender employee. and the NFO file ends with “a special thanks to the MD employee that gave this to us.”


By mindless1 on 9/25/2007 5:22:48 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone is entitled to enjoy the culture in which they live. Music is a part of that culture. Since creation and distribution is not without costs, so should the product price cover these costs and result in a profit.

The problem is, the product cost exceeds this goal, and it would be wrong to reward the industry for using it's monopoly power to force this on the public. Thus, many people buy what content they can afford as a portion of their income as a working citizen, but as that citizen they are also entitled to all of our culture.

This leads to the idea some have had about a per citizen tax to fund the industry, but the problem with that is it subsidizes them without the same incentive to produce content the customer considers quality and worthy, which the consumer demands as reflected by choosing to purchase it or not.


RE: No Gray area here. How has this become a blender?
By rcc on 9/25/2007 7:19:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Everyone is entitled to enjoy the culture in which they live.


Ah, the imfamous sense of entitlement. Where exactly is this written?

Don't get me wrong, I think culture is great, and should be shared. But you are not entitled to see the next concert of your favorite artist, you can, however, purchase a ticket.

And, is a deaf person also "entitled" to listen to music? And if so, what good does it do them?

Forget the entitlement crap, if someone that owns something gives you a deed to it, then you are entitled to it. Until then you are "entitled" to wish you had it. If they sell you a license to use something in a particular manner, you are entitled to do so, but you don't own it.

We the people can change the system if enough of us want to, at least we can in most "free" countries. Stealing music because you think you're "entitled" isn't the way.


By mindless1 on 9/26/2007 12:47:24 AM , Rating: 2
Where is it written that they AREN'T entitled?

I didn't write "entitled to attend a specific concert even" did I?

Don't be silly about deaf people.

You are a puppet to those who conspired to take away your culture then give it back a dollar at a time. It only persists so long as you allow it to.

The way to change things is not to allow profit from withholding it. Don't buy it. Putting random non-applicable labels on it like stealing is just as wrong as what you oppose, because they are both concepts not real loss of physical property or time. We all know pirates aren't going to buy the music if they couldn't pirate it, and we all know steal <> copy. Consult a dictionary if you doubt this.

Learn that and you have begun to understand.


RE: No Gray area here. How has this become a blender?
By rcc on 9/26/2007 1:24:25 PM , Rating: 2
Your statement is non-sensical. No where is it written that I'm not entitled to the contents of your wallet. The law says I may not take it, at least without ramifications.

I agree, if you want to change the way a company does something, don't buy their product. If you get enough people to agree with you, and they don't buy, the company will change, or die/downsize.

If you want to change the law, change it, don't break it.

We have to agree to disagree on your last line. I learned, I understand; you, however, have a few years to go.


By mindless1 on 9/28/2007 3:04:13 AM , Rating: 2
No actually your puppet mentality was evolved beyond by most, around age 24 or so. Only those who have no concept of right and wrong nor civil disobedience will wait for others to tell them what to do.

I hope you outgrow that mindset. We need more thinkers not puppets.


By mindless1 on 9/25/2007 5:26:09 PM , Rating: 2
You're entitled to your opinion, but the moment you feel others have to change theirs to align with yours about justice, morality, etc., then you are fighting a losing battle and by trying to have a battle at all you are in the wrong and in opposition to the very principles you try to selectively use for a one sided argument.


Mixed feelings
By FITCamaro on 9/21/2007 6:54:18 AM , Rating: 5
While I am overall against piracy, I don't feel that this particular act is a bad thing.

For one they apparently didn't do any hacking to get their hands on this stuff. It was given to them.

Two, while I am against the pirating of music, movies, and games, TV shows are where I draw the line. Most of us pay for cable and even if you don't, the networks are funded by commercials which the large majority of us still watch. So they're making their money. So if I want to download an episode someone else recorded, which is something I can legitimately do myself, I don't view that as illegal. Now if I'm trying to sell said episode, thats wrong. But if I want to so I can view it? No.




RE: Mixed feelings
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/21/2007 7:08:55 AM , Rating: 3
Yea, this leaves me divided. I don't condone hacking, cracking, etc.... but at the same time it kind of reminds me of ole Robin Hood and his merry men. Or the American Revolutionary war. In either case, history is written by the winner, so who ever wins will paint the other as evil.


RE: Mixed feelings
By acer905 on 9/21/2007 7:26:48 AM , Rating: 4
That seems to be a large problem too, so many people that i know seem to be stuck trying to decide how to think of pirating. I know a few people who simply find it wrong, but most don't. From what i've gathered a lot of people have the mentality that if songs had a "proper" price, then pirating would stop. IF you think about it, the entertainment buisness (be it movies, tv shows, songs, or whatever) is always horribly exploiting the fact that people want to be entertained. And it makes perfect sense because there is a lot to be made in that buisness. But, at the same time you have to ask, are they making too much? Compare a pop star to someone who has a masters degree in say engineering. Who will make more? Who put more effort into their career? I'm not saying that being a singer is easy. I wouldn't know. But i do know how much effort (and money) it takes to make any good amount of money without being the singer.

But, if i could sing, then i would instantly try to jump in with everyone else. As i said, there is a lot to be made in the entertainment business


RE: Mixed feelings
By mindless1 on 9/25/2007 6:12:44 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, of course the best musicians make too much but this is ingrained into our society to exploit the many in order to create examples of the few as a goal to motivate the working class. Consider who deserves more pay, a Corp. Exec that sits on his rear all day or your local garbage man, factory worker, etc.

We as a society think "oh but that takes skill and dedication" but the truth is the student wasn't any more dedicated while studying than the garbage man was while working, actively contributing to society during the same period of time. We could say the student both works and studies but not nearly so much work as many lower class employees do.

More than anything pay is the incentive to pursue excellence, but pay scale has nothing at all to do with right and wrong. In that it helps mankind to evolve it is a good thing but once mankind evolves enough it should be an unnecessary motivator.


Why should you be able to download music for free?
By Schrag4 on 9/21/2007 10:21:16 AM , Rating: 2
It costs money to produce and market music, so why should it be free? If nearly everyone pirated music (and basically nobody bought CDs or MP3s online) then the musicians wouldn't be able to produce music. The argument that music should be free is no different than the argument that houses, or cars should be free. Is that really how you all feel?

Here's an idea, take advantage of the free market system. If you think that the record companies are charging too much for music then why don't you get together your own musicians, crank out some songs, and then sell them for a dime a piece? Oh wait, you'd be broke in no time. And no musicians would work for that kind of money, or at least not the ones that would produce music that would sell at the volume that you'd need to survive.

The simple fact is this: If the artists wanted you to listen to their music, free of charge, then they would distribute the music themselves for free. They want to get paid though. And I can't blame them. I mean, somebody has to pay for the production, marketing, and distribution of the music. If you think it should be free then where is that money going to come from? Should the government step in and put tax money toward making sure we all have free music?

Seriously, have you guys even thought about why the music is there in the first place? Yes, it's the consumers that made it possible. But just because the consumers want to pay less for something doesn't mean they have the right to. All they can do is withhold their dollars until the price comes down. If the consumers withhold their money but take the product anyway, then the system breaks down. It really is no different than someone stealing a car off the lot, just at a smaller scale. The paying constumers are the ones that get screwed in the end, because the companies that get stolen from have to keep their prices higher to offset the added costs associated with theft (insurance deductible and lost time for car lots as an example).




By acer905 on 9/21/2007 10:43:30 AM , Rating: 2
The answer to your question is actually quite simple. However, i must first say that it is already available to everyone for free. And no, i don't mean pirated downloads. I simply mean the radio. Sure, you don't get exactly what you want when you want it, but its there. And you could do what people have done for years, put in a cassette tape, and then just hit record when a song you like is about to start.

Now, to answer you i gotta ask a question. Say you were to go see an artist in concert, you have then heard some of their songs. You have paid the artist for their songs. if you have a perfect memory, you could play that song back in your head as often as you wish. Now. What if when you went to a concert you were given a recording of the songs that you heard them play? Of course you could still have the ability to buy a cd or an mp3 of the song, but what if by just going to the concert you could actually get a copy of the song? I have heard of some bands that have told their fans to just go see them in concert, and that they don't care if their music is downloaded because they get more money from concerts. The same thing could be done with movies. Go see it in theater, get a copy of it to take with you. I personally would rather go to a theater or concert simply because its a much more powerful experience. So why should you be able to download music for free? I say because you should never have to pay for the same thing twice.


By Schrag4 on 9/21/2007 12:19:57 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure I quite see eye-to-eye with your final argument. If you really were paying for the same thing twice when you simply wouldn't watch or listen to the movie or song the second time. The performance at a concert is a different thing than a recording in a studio. I do, however, like how you pointed out that all this music is available to pretty much everyone for free on the radio.

I think really the point of a movie theatre or concert is that you're not paying for the right to watch the movie or listen to the concert over and over again, you're paying for the powerful experience that you mentioned. That's why you have to pay for it 'twice', or I'd say 'separately from the CD or DVD experience'.

Basically what I'm saying is that you should make the suggestion to the bands that they give away a CD for each ticketholder, and if they think it'll help them make money in the long run then they'll go for it.


By MGSsancho on 9/21/2007 5:14:02 PM , Rating: 2
that would also drive up the cost for concerts. sadly their expensive enough as it is.


By teckytech9 on 9/22/2007 5:18:19 AM , Rating: 3
The Internet is a paradigm shift from bricks to bits. The cars you mentioned are bricks, the bits when concatenated, assembled, and constructed in a certain order can make mp3s. Bits are made to flow freely and bricks stay put. Call it tangible or intangible assets or whatever it maybe, the truth is that once music gets digitized, its made to freely distribute and traverse the net.

Today’s economics of digitalization favors ridding of the middleagents whose sole mission is to exceed profits of media companies who promote unfair pricing, unfair trade, and unfair "fair use" policies. Media corporate greed, stockholder accountability, market forces, and the Internet, have all favored the ease of widespread mp3 distribution.

Artists and their fans are both utilizing the net to connect, collaborate, and share in ways not possible in the old radio station days. What will happen if the major record labels disappear altogether and fans are allowed to compensate their artists more directly thereby increasing profits and lowering prices at the same time? Fans are intelligent to know to compensate their favorite artist(s) directly instead of to the big media conglomerates.

I have seen examples of artists websites where all of their music was made downloadable at a lower mp3 encode rate for free. This allowed the fans the ability to download and sample the demo of each mp3. The option to download a particular song with higher mp3 bit rates was an option at a lower pricepoint than traditional download sites offer.


By EODetroit on 9/21/2007 9:22:38 AM , Rating: 5
I would be outraged that hackers could and would do that to another corporation. But it is the RIAA, so carry on.




By 3kliksphilip on 9/22/2007 12:47:37 PM , Rating: 3
It's just like Deus Ex, where you find out the dirty secrets of large corporations. All of these emails seem too good to be true. I wish that they could send something like 'Project X is ready. LA will be the first target. Make sure you're at least 50 miles away by Sept 25th' or something. Think of the chaos!

I find it interesting, seeing what they put in their emails. For a company protecting media, they don't seem very adept at protecting their own details...


entrapment?
By elfy6x on 9/22/2007 2:05:21 AM , Rating: 2
Forgive me if I'm wrong about this, but isn't this similar to entrapment? (using bogus torrents to snag people in the act of downloading movies/music) I know police have exercised 'sting operations' on drug deals and things like that, but MediaDefender is NOT a law enforcement agency. Last time I checked, you can't engage in illegal activities in an attempt to catch someone else breaking the law. Just my two cents.




RE: entrapment?
By floffe on 9/23/2007 4:49:01 PM , Rating: 2
To whatever extent that they actually upload anything real, I'm pretty sure that they have permission from the copyright holders to distribute it like that, in which case they are within the bounds of the law.


RE: entrapment?
By Christopher1 on 9/23/2007 9:23:41 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, no, they aren't. I talked with a person who specializes in copyright law and he said that even if they have the permission of the copyright holders to distribute it like that, they are not able to go after the people who download it.

Why? Because as the first poster said, it is ENTRAPMENT. They are offering something to you saying "It's okay to download this, you won't get in trouble!" then try to get you in trouble.
It's like if you break into a house in order to catch a rapist. You are still breaking into his house illegally and doing something illegal, so you can be held for B&E.


RE: entrapment?
By floffe on 9/24/2007 11:45:09 AM , Rating: 2
As far as I know MD is in the business of making file-sharing a PITA moreso than actually trying to catch people who use it (see http://mediadefender.com/antipiracy.html, no mention of tracking downloaders). "We make it harder to find the real file than a needle in a haystack".

So if they use a little part of the real thing to get people to start downloading their fake files, they do have permission to spread that (or in the "P2P marketing" section, where they upload some real material that also includes promotions etc).

If you can show me that they have gone after someone (or provided the actual copyright holder with evidence from one of their files), I'll buy your argument, but it really doesn't seem like their thing to do.


Goods are Services are meant for us
By InternetGeek on 9/21/2007 2:57:42 AM , Rating: 2
Well done MDD! It's time the status quo reverted to its correct state: Consumers demand goods and services and enterprises try to provide. Not the other way around: Enterprises put what they want in the market and consumers are forced to buy it.




RE: Goods are Services are meant for us
By Schrag4 on 9/21/2007 10:24:22 AM , Rating: 2
Nobody's forcing you to buy any music or movies. Period.

The only products that you are 'forced' to buy are ones that are required by law, such as child car seats. But then one could argue that nobody's forcing anybody to drive, and that a child car seat is simply an associated cost with driving, much like gasoline.


By Schrag4 on 9/21/2007 3:11:01 PM , Rating: 2
Nice, I get voted down for pointing out that the original post was moronic. Here's what it said:

"Enterprises put what they want in the market and consumers are forced to buy it."

Although this might be true to some slight degree, I can guarantee you that without government invervention, an enterprise will NOT succeed if there are not consumers that want the product. What's utterly false about your statement is the notion that we're forced to buy anything, especially music and movies, which are by no means considered a basic need.

So how many homeless people were forced to buy a song on iTunes today instead of a cheap, life sustaining meal? I wonder how many iTunes deaths there are to date...


Ya gotta wonder
By DigitalFreak on 9/21/2007 8:36:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
“a special thanks to the MD employee that gave this to us.”


I wonder if this isn't just something they threw in there to stir up more shit at MD?




RE: Ya gotta wonder
By ThisSpaceForRent on 9/21/2007 8:44:07 AM , Rating: 3
Man I wish I could be a fly on the wall in that office. If there is someone they'll tear the place apart looking for them. If it's all made up...they'll tear the place apart looking for them. =)


Meganova.org
By OblivionMage on 9/21/2007 2:40:11 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but I think that you mean http://www.meganova.org/ instead of http://www.meganova.com/ Not trying to be annoying or anything.

Cheers,




RE: Meganova.org
By TomCorelis (blog) on 9/21/2007 1:54:37 PM , Rating: 2
A minor error. Let's get that fixed though :-)

tom


The truth about Mp3s
By Setsunayaki on 9/21/2007 6:06:05 AM , Rating: 1
Isn't it great that many people are ignorant and that many defend the music industry. Isn't it great that those who oppose them are not intelligent enough to find real reasoning as to why?

Here is some real reasoning:

Suppose a CD was released with 10 songs for $10. What one pays for is basically for the Cover, the Music, The jewel case, the idiotic lyric sheet...and the CD itself...

ONline you get ripped off for any MP3.

Specification of a CD is 1411kbps bitrate, 16 bit @44.1 Khz

Online in many places you find 128kbps MP3s...Specially when Itunes and Microsoft would sell them for $1 per MP3.

So the RIAA wants to SUE people who download an Incomplete product? I can make the argument that since all the gains are squashed together and the quality is not complete.....that I am PAYING FOR AN INCOMPLETE PRODUCT.

So lets say that 20% of the cost of the CD was in packaging..Leaving $8 to contend with...Well I am getting 1/11th CD quality...So...

if I were to pay $1 for 1/11th of a product, then LOGICALLY I can state that for the complete product, it would be $11.

What should the actual cost be?

The answer is in the following equation

(Base price of CD x .8 / Number of Songs) = Value Per Song
Value Per Song /(1411 / Seller's bitrate Quality) = True Online Value per Track

Example...

A CD with 10 songs sold for 10 at a store.

$10 x .8 = $8/ 10 = .8
.8 / (1411 / 128) = .07

Note: Please remember the Order of Operations when calculating this. Parenthesis FIRST ^_^

So each track is WORTH 7 cents...but they want me to pay $1 for each track? Also what about the butchering of the track through remastering?

What about FAIR PLAY ACT?

How about I start paying for CDs when Corporations stop creating Internal NON-PROFIT organizations, moving their assets there...so that they can make the claim that they made no profits and pay no taxes and write off all expenses through the non-profit organization.....

I love how average people are persecuted and arrested when Corporations and government are responsible for the majority of the worlds problems and our problems.




RE: The truth about Mp3s
By pomaikai on 9/21/2007 12:24:42 PM , Rating: 3
The reason the RIAA wants to increase the price per song is because many people spend $10-15 on a CD for one or 2 songs. With online purchase they only spend $1-2 instead of having to buy the whole CD. That is why they are fighting online sales. Some artists have put to much filler audio on there CD. For example in rap there are alot of one hit artists.

I have had a subscription to one of the pay per month music sites and purchased a program to record the sound coming out of my sound card. Everyone that has heard it couldnt tell a quality difference between my songs and itunes download. The best part is it is I pay $10 a month for all the songs I want and its legal.


A New Business Model Maybe???
By BetaUser32 on 9/21/2007 11:17:14 AM , Rating: 2
The biggest thing about the internet is that it has allowed unprecedented access to information. I mean someone can create a video in a remote part of China, paste it on youtube somehow and I can watch it in podunk Iowa in a matter of seconds. It should have occurred to at least one of these music, movie execs that just like any other industry that has seen a paradigm shift (steal, cotton, etc), they would have to change thier business model.

They seem to want people to feel sorry for them, but they don't seem to be feeling sorry for all of the CD stores (large and small) that are going out of business because more people are buying music online. Aren't we hurting the "livelihood" of the cd store owner if we don't buy from him/her so we can have our 99cent downloads. No sain person would say that we are, that they just need to change how they do business. Well, the same goes for the music industry. Should we feel sorry for them because they can't make as much as THEY would like also. That we are hurting thier "livelihood". Well a sain person should be saying that they need to change thier business model also. Maybe the information age is showing that we, nor the artist don't need them. We definitely don't need thier old way of doing business.

And as far as the artists who actually make the music, just look at all of the historical and current battles that they have had with the music industry. I mean the RIAA and its ilk is shafting everybody. Any artist will tell you that they don't make the big money through CD sales exactly because of all the overhead costs (distribution, promotion, etc). The artists make thier money through concerts and name promotion. For the enterprising artist who can do it themselves or get some web geeks to do it, alot of money can be made without ever selling a song (or even selling them cheaply). The internet provides practically free (you do have to pay for bandwith) promotion, distribution, etc. All the artist has to do is concentrate on making good music and doing alot of concerts.

Come on artists, the internet is the best thing that ever happened to you. The recording industry tells you that your music won't sell, the internet says let the people decide. The recording industry tells you that you need them to be famous and make money, the internet says that you only need real talent and a work ethic to be famous and make money.

So to that question about being an artist and working for years to make a profit. I would say that I would fight for programs like "one laptop per child" and others like it so that the whole world can know and like my music. Then I would get other artists together to do the same, even produce some of my own artists. Then we would, through our website, promote world tours. Do you know how much money you could make with a world tour, plus there is no recording industry to decide what music you'll play or what your cut should be.

So like Trent Reznor says, "steal and steal somemore".




RE: A New Business Model Maybe???
By SirLucius on 9/21/2007 11:58:02 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Artists don't make the bulk of their money on CD sales. It's always been that way. They get more money if I give $10 directly to a band member after a show than if I buy a CD. Now that 10 bucks won't promote or give incentive for a label to push an artist, but the artists themeselves would get more. I rarely buy CD's anymore. Instead I go to upwards of 30 concerts a year, and will buy a $25 T-shirt. I give more of my money to the artists that way.

Honestly, I have no problem with what the RIAA says they're out to do. As a musician, I'm all for other artists getting payed for their works (although I'm sure many would continue to produce even if they weren't making money.) But the problem is that I don't see them doing what they say they're out to do. I see them trying to line their own pockets, limit what I can do with a product I payed for, and control every aspect of the music industry, even for artists not signed with them.

I see piracy as a double edged sword. It is illegal, but I think that the benefits to the artist are too high to ignore, especially for smaller groups. There are many bands that put their music out on torrent sites even while producing CD's, just for the exposure. There are plenty of groups that can only afford to produce a limited number of CD's, and they rely on piracy to get their name out there.

Another point to make is that the quality of home recordings is getting closer and closer to that of a production studio, especially if you really learn how to use your software/hardware configurations. Granted, it's not there yet, but in the next few 5-10 years I expect to see more self producing/distrubiting/promoting artists, effectively getting rid of the need to sign to a label and pay others. The RIAA needs to understand that they are no longer in control of the industry, and that their very existence in the industry is becoming less and less needed. Once they realize these two points (if they haven't already), they need to come up with an effective strategy to stay relevant. While they may not be turning the obnoxious profits they were before, they will still be able to make a boatload of cash.


Good for them
By MrVTEC on 9/21/2007 2:41:00 PM , Rating: 2
The RIAA is acting like a bunch of extorting mobsters in their lawsuits against even elderly women without computers, so they deserve whatever they get.

Trying to stop Piracy is like trying to have peace in the Middle East. It's not going to happen, period, end of story, no matter how much we want it.

People have been sharing music and movies for so long that everyone thinks it's ok to do. The only difference now is that it's easier to copy media than it has ever been. So instead of my CD or DVD being gone to a friends house for weeks on end, it can sit in it's box on the shelf not being used since I ripped it all to my Media PC and Zen. Musicians need to go back to actually putting in some time on the road and doing shows to make money instead of sitting in the studios spitting out remade unoriginal music. Hell I'd even pay to see a cover band play random songs if they put on an awesome show.

The RIAA needs to focus on customer retention instead of customer prosecution.

More GOOD music on albums would be a start. I remember 10-15 years it was strange to find a CD that you didn't like the whole thing. Now it's more like you get a CD and hope their's more than 1 or 2 good songs on it. Let us do what we want with the music as we always have (pending it's not for commercial use), keep lowering your prices on old products like every other industry, and continue to INNOVATE and come out with NEW products like every other industry.




RE: Good for them
By RedAlice on 9/21/2007 4:00:37 PM , Rating: 2
I remember the days when you could get a CD for $9.99 and you'd like all but maybe 1 or 2 of the songs.
I buy a CD now and cringe as I "fast forward" to the one, maybe two songs that I like.
I love being able to d/l NEW music. I'm originally from a farming area, where all of our radio stations are popular, classic rock, country, or Christian. Being able to share MP3's over the internet has opened my ears to bands I normally never would have heard of. Which has then led me to buy their CD's, purchase their concert tickets (at outrageous prices through Ticketmaster...another evil entity). Yes, I d/l a few MP3's illegally, but in the end, doesn't it work out as promotion for the ones who actually matter in this? The musicians? The artists? They are getting free promotion because someone sends me an MP3 and says "Listen to this."
Sure, CD Sales are "down" but is the music industry as a whole really suffering from people sharing mp3's?


The movie
By Schadenfroh on 9/22/2007 12:33:13 PM , Rating: 2
What movie is that picture from (assuming that it is a movie)? I see it all the time in dailytech articles.




RE: The movie
By vbNetGuy on 9/23/2007 9:31:30 PM , Rating: 2
It's from the move "Hackers" - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113243/


Simplifying the debate (appropriately)
By Rampage on 9/25/2007 4:23:36 PM , Rating: 2
For the vast majority- those who are for stopping piracy are either moral people who don't believe in stealing.

Those who are for piracy are cheap individuals who do not want to pay for things, but want them anyway.

All the talk of civil liberties and silly charades are useless.. it's about people who are either tightwads or not.. or simply those who choose to not get a good job and/or education to afford the things they want.

Thats the last word on this whole issue whether people want to recognize it or not.




By mindless1 on 9/28/2007 3:08:40 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe you have no other agenda than paying or stealing, but other people put some forethough into what they support.

It is useless for you to pretend you know better. We didn't ask and won't conform to your beliefs, unless you get off the high and mighty horse and pay for servitude. Does that make pirating right? Not necessarily, but it definitely makes your ignorant comment wrong.

You are speaking of what would motivate YOU. Don't pretend you know others' motivations, that would be foolish.


If you want a good laugh...
By Spartan Niner on 9/21/2007 9:27:14 PM , Rating: 2
Read how the P2P sites are ridiculing MediaDefender's takedown notices:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070919-p2p-...

Some juicy excerpts:

quote:
In closing, the isoHunt administrator says that the he will comply with the request if it is properly submitted. "Despite us being located in Canada, if you do actually figure out how to compose a valid DMCA notice, we will honor it," he concedes, "just as soon as we're done laughing at you."


quote:
Torrent site Meganova received an identical letter from SMR&H, but responded publicly and with a bit less civility. "Dearest little asstunnels, Let me start off by thanking you for your pitiful attempt to have your e-mails removed from the entire internet," Meganova's response says. "In case you haven't noticed, this site is located in Europe (I hope you can point it out on a map) where your stupid copyright claims have no base. But fair is fair you guys did suffer over the past week so here's bit of advice to you guys: F*** you! F*** you again! F*** you again and again and again!" (I'm guessing that an "asstunnel" is what you get when a European whose first language isn't English tries to say "asshole." It seemed awkward when I first read the response, but the expression has since grown on me.)




RE: If you want a good laugh...
By Holytrinity on 9/22/2007 4:55:10 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
..."just as soon as we're done laughing at you."


I love you isoHunt.


Whose Watching the Watchers?
By Yeah on 9/21/2007 11:48:22 PM , Rating: 3
This just made me think of that old addage of ' Whose Watching the Watchers? '

I think we have our answer ... ' The Hackers! '




lol, it's a tough life.
By R3MF on 9/21/2007 3:32:29 AM , Rating: 2
i have very little sympathy with Media Defender, and can only laugh at their miserable plight.




New Thinking
By kd4yum on 9/21/2007 4:55:54 AM , Rating: 2
Forget the adversary bs. Decades have proven that all protections are vulnerable. Only solution is to re-organize the situation. There have been good ideas out there. 'nuff said.




Ironic
By Murst on 9/21/2007 10:38:31 AM , Rating: 2
The most ironic aspect of this is that MD existed because record companies realized that lawsuits will not remove all content from the P2P networks. Their business model is built around the fact that they claim they can disrupt the P2P networks in such a way as to prevent the actual file being distributed.

However, by filing these DMCA notices and threatening to sue, they have just proved that everything their business model is built on... it doesn't work. If their software was successful, they would have no problem stopping their own files from spreading. Obviously, this is not the case.




By P4blo on 10/1/2007 11:44:12 AM , Rating: 2
These companies are in denial. The Internet is here, it's here to stay (I seriously hope) and it changes the pricing rules of the game for digital media.

The more you overprice an item such as a music CD or movie, the harder you push people to look for alternatives. They like your product, they want your product but not at that price. Or they can't buy as many as they would like to, at that price. Add to that the ever improving Internet speeds and they've created a real problem for themselves.

The bigger the corporate profit margins the more risks people will take to protect what they perceive as *their* hard earned cash funding 6 figure salaries for corporate gangsters who wipe their backsides with 50 Dollar bills while the vast majority merely scratch around for a living. I'm not anticapitalist at all, but I do strongly believe that Govornments don't do enough to protect the consumer. They're too obsessed with free markets and keeping the corporations happy. The result is that many companies are able to rob people on a daily basis.

I see Internet file sharing users as being like a pressure valve on rampant overpricing. If they try to push anyone too hard, the numbers of data swappers increases and their profits go down. If I was them I would be acting right now, the problem will only get worse if they dont. It's easy to drive people into file sharing but it's probably a DAMN site harder to get them back off it.

If they combined their brain dead legal efforts (LOL @ reading the letters on the Pirate Bay) with a substantial drop in pricing (paid for by cheaper manufacturing and distribution costs), the vast majority of people would appreciate staying the right side of the law. Most of us have something to loose for getting into trouble. There are very few that dont.

God bless the Internet. At last we have a big stick to hit these companies with if they're too stupid to understand the game. The game has changed whether they like it or not.




Terrorism
By DeafMute on 10/2/2007 12:38:41 AM , Rating: 2
At least 90% of the people I know (though admitedly this is not representative of the whole world) own a substantial collection of DVDs, Albums and/or Games (interestingly enough they usually buy the works that they truly apreciate). The other 10%, well... they've been doing it forever - with vhs before macrovision, with audio tapes when dual cassete players came out... etc... And if they ever couldn't find a way to do it they would just deal and not buy anything still.

All these invasive drm and anti-piracy mechanism do is piss me off and make me hate the companies that use them (presumably alot of other people too). If anything making me want to pirate out of spite (disclamer I would never pirate copyright work, I fart roses and have a halo above my head, my piss cures cancer).
Sure a little bit of anti-piracy is ok, like winrar telling me my trial has expired and making me wait or refusing me updates for gal civ 2).

On that note, case in point - Gal Civ 2 - a quality title by a small developer published by stardock (if im not mistaken). The game didn't even force you to enter a cd key (though you were prompted for one) unless you wanted to update. Which was supposedly an intentional move by the company as a proof of concept for a business model. Long story short the game was available on every torrent site the day it came out and plenty of people tried it out without buying a key, however despite all that the game still more than exceeded the company's expectations. Some asshat programmer or someother from securom/safedisk/whatever even posted a torrent link on the company's own forum as a scare tactic to push the developer to use their product (kinda like terrorism - yknow, using fear to get your way, which is interesting to note). I dunno, in all honesty it could have been someone impersonating them but I remember it being quite elaborate and there being some legitimate corroborating evidence.

In any case I like to think of that example as a proof for how a more relaxed distribution regulation model MIGHT work.
Though applied throughout it might possibly not, who knows - not like they'd ever do that anyways.

In the end I'm not gonna lose any sleep because some exec has to wait a week or two before he can afford his marble topped gold plated swim-up sharktank bar for his acre-in-diameter heated pool.

And kudos to stevie jobs (who I personally hate - not for any legitimate reason) for realizing that he basically created online music distribution (ok, there might have been something before but I think it's now like >90% of all music bought online is through itunes) so when the labels started threatening to pull out unless he changed the pricing scheme he cooly replied "no." - I mean honestly, Itunes never had to be an online distribution system and if it wasn't, the ever-growing percentage of people who actually buy music for their majority-of-the-market occupying ipods would instead be filling them with pirated music. In reality, everytime Jobs deffecates a record exec should be there to lick his anus clean, thanking him for the oppurtunity to do so. Oh and if he has the squirts someone should be there to lick the backsplash off the toilet too.

I still like my terrorists analogy, (though stretched) something about calling 'crap' that interferes with my ability to enjoy something I payed good money for (not to mention my inability to do anything about it) terrorism just clicks. I can see it now, a commercial comes on and you see people strapping bombs to their chests and loading AKs then explosions and gunfire - all of a sudden it fades to black then comes back and you see some kid putting a cd in his discman all of a sudden a caption comes on in white with a plain back background and says "Hamrless?" .

...Gal Civ 2 was amazing by the way, until of course all your people started losing moral forcing you to create planets occupied entirely by entertainment complexes *curses*. Kinda like MOO2, but newer though not quite as cool. Too bad MOO3 sucked unless you were willing to commit your entire life to it.

My 2 canadian pennies or if you prefer 2.002002 US cents w00t - shameless I know, despite my misplaced pride the exchange rate is actually killing our exports :(




History
By Holytrinity on 9/21/2007 11:20:41 PM , Rating: 1
MediaDefender - The story 2007 will be remembered for.




greedy a.ss.holes
By gescom on 9/21/07, Rating: 0
"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il

DailyTech Poll
Do you use copy/paste on your smartphone? 




17 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki