http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=4206&t=innovation

This is a story on the study.

As far as movie files . . . honestly, it was bound to happen eventually, it's the modern equivalent of taping off of HBO or from a rented video. Either the MPAA will have to spend millions to develop increasingly stronger proprietary encryption for DVDs, or they can 'lose millions' in potential sales. You pick, and at the same time I'll continue to not really be concerned about commercial movie profits. That is one industry that is NOT hurting for funds. [/B][/QUOTE]

I think those at the top of the film industry, top actors, directors, etc. are obviously making a lot of money but there are a lot of other people making a living off DVD sales that suffer from this sort of thing.

Decentralized bit torrent and irc are the safest spots right now, but not many people are smart enough to use them still...

what do you mean by decentralized Bit Torrent. It looks like they are not operational right now.

http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...717#post925717

OK - so the solution is prosecuting college kids, and not decreasing the incredibly steep salary structure?

You let me know when a college kid does enough damage to cause $5 million in damage to DVD sales (which is 33% of what a tier-2 actor would receive from a major motion picture).

It's nonsense, and it does nothing, I might add, to offset the "artists getting theirs" portion of your argument.

The reality is that the MPAA and RIAA are simply fighting against the quicksand - they'll only sink faster, b/c they are literally driving innovation to make downloading these things faster, safer, and more secure. The future wins, every time.

You will always have more people buying stuff than pirating it.

A lot of Piraters are people that hate to pay retail, like to be clever, or just hate the establishment in general.

And movies are less likely to be pirated enmasse than music.

How much is your time worth? Are you going to look up a movie source online, download it and then burn it? When you can go to hollywood video and buy 3 DVD's for $25.00?

Too much effort most of the time.

I think those at the top of the film industry, top actors, directors, etc. are obviously making a lot of money but there are a lot of other people making a living off DVD sales that suffer from this sort of thing. [/B][/QUOTE]

I remember the days (Holy fuck, I'm 22 saying that) when people would WANT to buy the ENTIRE album. One of the many complaints from downloaders is that they only want to hear a few songs (if not a couple singles) from the album....

That doesn't make it right, but when these artists stop sitting on their asses, only making a couple good songs then puting in filler, then maybe there'll be an incentive to buy a whole album as opposed to taking the time to download one.....

If they sue me, will you be my lawyer?

I'm going with Rob on this one though -- regardless of whether or not you think it's wrong (and I think it's a little bit wrong, like maybe 5% wrong, but not enough that I'm not gonna do it), suing people is not going to fix anything. They're fighting a losing battle here; downloading is too entrenched in the culture for them to end it. What they need to be doing is thinking of other ways they can capitalize on the downloading culture, not attempt to eradicate it.

My main reason for downloading music is because I don't want to buy the whole album. Why pay $15 for an album when I can download 2 songs for free? Like Stan said, the artists need to make an album of all good songs instead of just a few good songs. I can listen to an entire Beatles album and think every song is great but I could never do the same with a Metallica album (I use Metallica since they're so against downloading).

The music industry needs to go with the new technology instead of trying to fight against it. It will only be an uphill, losing battle if they keep suing people. From the very beginning of when downloading music started to become popular, they should have capitalized on it instead of fought against it. They should have provided people with good quality downloads for a small price (maybe 50 cents a download). Over the years, the quality of the downloads has improved and people have been getting free music and movies for so long that they'd never fork over the cash an mp3. The RIA has shot themselves in the foot.

do you see, over there? That's where Lars was going to put his gold-plated shark tank. now, there will be no gold plated shark tank. Don't you see what you're doing, boys?!

I think the best point from the study may have been that these songs are being downloaded by college students who don't have the money to buy CD and albums anyway. The record company can't claim lost wages on products that they wouldn't have sold anyway.

The claims of the industry are overblown, and until they quit their agressive attitude towards these downloads, they'll continue to make themselves look foolish.

1) Piracy has increased? Hey guess what? Music sales have increased recently as well.

2) There is a huge difference between someone who won't buy a product anyway and downloads it and someone who will and chooses to download it. This isn't like taking a car - a physical product one person won't be able to use if stolen.

3) The profits coming into the music industry in the 1990s were considered a "bubble" along with the economy and are in no way the standard by which to measure all future sales against.

4) Forget about fair and not fair. It was not fair that when the industry switched to CDs from tapes, prices went up, but hey whatever. How about how dirty the industry is already? Record producers are not saints.

For the PC, my friends use shareaza.com. For the Mac, acquisition and poisoned are great programs.

-Rudey

This is such a fantastic point, I'd like to repeat it - the major advantage to CDs, to record labels, was never digital quality . . . but rather that CDs can be mass-produced and packaged FAR cheaper (something like 5% of the cost) than other methods. But yet prices went up . . . interesting.

F- the RIAA.

You let me know when a college kid does enough damage to cause $5 million in damage to DVD sales (which is 33% of what a tier-2 actor would receive from a major motion picture).

That's a very good arguement, but its not just about the numbers. Its more about the idea of not being compensated for work you did that others are enjoying.

Also we are of course not looking at the impact of one indicudual, but of the large number of college students and others word wide.

I think Nutty McShithead explained it the best...


RUgreek

it looks like they are continuing to fight against piracy: http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2006/04/06/1548610.htm

i always wondered what they did about people selling this stuff. i think its good to see they are standing up on all parts of this issue. what do you think?