(01-29-2008) U2 manager 'wants end to piracy' - BBC News* - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > 'Zine (archived) > U2 News
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-31-2008, 09:16 PM   #21
ONE
love, blood, life
 
MrBrau1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Verplexed in Vermont
Posts: 10,436
Local Time: 06:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by vociti
Hi Cydewaze,
Good conversation. Let's keep this going.
Most of this is already touched on here.

http://forum.interference.com/t183685.html
__________________

__________________
"If you needed my autograph, I'd give it to you." Bob Dylan
MrBrau1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2008, 09:19 PM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
MrBrau1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Verplexed in Vermont
Posts: 10,436
Local Time: 06:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by cydewaze


So, rather than trying to shut down the internet, why not find a solution that 1) still makes money for the artists, and 2) stops punishing people without having evidence against them.
yeah, you do that. Write a successful business plan for any product/service where your main competition offers "free" product/service.

It's so simple.
__________________

__________________
"If you needed my autograph, I'd give it to you." Bob Dylan
MrBrau1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2008, 10:33 PM   #23
Refugee
 
cydewaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,256
Local Time: 07:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrBrau1
yeah, you do that. Write a successful business plan for any product/service where your main competition offers "free" product/service.

It's so simple.
Ok, let's try your way.

First we get rid of Limewire, which means closing down the company that makes it. Then we do the same for all the countless other file sharing programs out there. But there's only one problem. There are still millions of copies of all of them out there, running on people's machines, so now you have to go after all the same people you were going after to start with.

Then there's the problem that the people that already have these programs will just stick them on gnutella, so people will still be able to get them. And since these programs are all easily modified by someone with a little programming experience, they could easily build in a feature that makes them use an open proxy. Now the IP address of each person means nothing, and you end up chasing a bunch of people whose only crime is being behind on Windows updates and having their internet service poached.

Do you understand what I'm getting at? There is no way to fix this by going after the software itself. You cannot use technical solutions for social problems. If suing people indiscriminately for hundreds of thousands of dollars isn't stopping piracy, then how effective is it going to be to make the program they use a tiny bit harder to get ahold of?

@vociti:

Item 1) I agree on all points. I'm just trying to explain that banning the software isn't going to do a thing. I'm all for punishing the pirates. What I'm against is punishing people without adequate proof.

Incidentally, your item #1 seems to be a 180 turn-around from your previous position of going after the software.

Item 2) I agree again, of course, because you're proving that the offender is actually breaking the law. The RIAA however, is not.

Item 3) There's nothing wrong with policing the service, as long as you're punish the people who are actually committing the crimes. The problem though is that they've been doing this for going on 6 years, and it's not stopping the piracy at all. Mr McGuiness is suggesting now that we go after ISPs, which is a little worrisome, because the second they do this, the pirates will come up with a way to poach IP addresses from someone else, and now we're back to punishing the wrong person.

For every technical solution to this problem, there are countless countermeasures, and in the end the bill ends up being footed by people who have nothing to do with the problem.

Item 4) More of the same as above.

I agree that if you purchase a CD, you should be able to make an mp3 copy for yourself, keeping the physical CD for backup if nothing else. But that's not how the way things are going.

Recently I found out that we had someone poaching our wireless Internet. This was a 128-bit WEP encrypted system, but two kids who were parked out in front of our house in the middle of the night managed to get into it anyway (I have since beefed up the security further). I got paranoid that they might have been downloading music or movies, so I spent the next three weeks researching things online.

What I found is that the RIAA sues tens of thousands of people per year for "sharing music", and they do it without ever trying to download a song from them. The RIAA is legally allowed to scan your machine, and if they find music, they assume you're sharing it, and they do some law bending to get your personal info from your ISP. Then they send you what's called a "pre-settlement letter". This letter tells you that if you give them a certain amount of money - usually $3000-$5000 - then they won't sue you.

Most of the legal advice from lawyers in most of these cases recommends that you pay the fine, guilty or not, because you spend as much or more trying to prove your innocence, and then there's always the chance that you'll lose and owe $200,000+, so it's not worth the chance.

If they were doing this to people like your friends with 500GB song collections, hey, no problem. But they aren't. They're doing it to anyone they can find who has music on their system, and who they can say were "sharing" it. To make it stick, they try these cases in civil court, because the evidence is too shoddy to hold up in criminal court.

Oh, and FYI, when the record companies say they lost X amount of music sales because of illegal downloads, that figure assumes that people like your friends with the 500GB collections would have run out and purchased ALL that music if they were not able to download it. Call me crazy, but I have a feeling that's not the case. In reality, they have no way of knowing how much piracy is costing them, so they just calculate the highest possible number and throw that out.

Again, not trying to defend the pirates, just sharing what I learned.
cydewaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2008, 10:55 PM   #24
Babyface
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 15
Local Time: 11:47 AM
Sorry if it seemed like I was doing a 180. I pretty much think both users and company are guilty. I think the people are mainly responsible and I think Limewire should put more in to place to help stop illegal activity. We put laws into action to help prevent illegal acts in society. Same thing should go with companies that provide this type of service. Youtube monitors their content for things that may cause copyright issues. There is no reason you should be able to type in with or without you by u2 in Limewire and see any results. And then download it!

Also, you can't police millions of people. I mean, think about the task at hand of policing 200 million people that download online. Wow. It would be impossible. Which is why I think the only way to work on this problem is to go after sites that offer these services. Or, you change the whole business structure.

1) I think everything should go subscription like Rhapsody. However, here's how it should be done. When you go to a site like rhapsody, in order to listen or download any music, you must go to the Artist's Rhapsody page. Within that page, advertisements are shown. The advertiser pays the artist to show their ads on the artist's rhapsody page. I mean, how much would it be worth to an advertiser to put ads on the U2 Rhapsody page knowing that million upon millions people will view that rhapsody page.

2) I also think rock stars should promote products, just like a professional athlete. Hell, Tiger makes 5-10 million a year off golf? 70 million off Nike, Buick, etc. If I became a rock star, I would have companies pay me to promote their products. Watches, clothing, etc. Why not!
vociti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2008, 11:00 PM   #25
Babyface
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 15
Local Time: 11:47 AM
couldn't filters be made so if a band doesn't want their material transferred on limewire, the company that owns Limewire could apply filters so certain search terms are filtered out. So, anyone looking for an mp3 of with or without would have a hard time finding it. This would be by band or record label request.
vociti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2008, 11:44 PM   #26
Refugee
 
cydewaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,256
Local Time: 07:47 AM
Ok, now we're getting somewhere.

Let's look at a few of your ideas, but before we do, I agree that policing all those people is a daunting task, especially since a huge number of them are going to be in countries that won't honor US laws. How are you going to police people in China or Nigeria when you're in the US or Canada? That's one of the problems.

Your #1 above. Sites like Rhapsody are cool, but they are actually contributing to piracy a little. How? Well, I'll try to explain (and this also explains why I still buy CDs).

I can't use Rhapsody. I can't use iTunes. In fact, I can't use any online music stores. Why? Because I don't use MS Windows, or IE, or a Mac, and either one or more of those are required for 99% of those sites to work. I have yet to find a pay music site that works with Linux, my OS of choice.

When a music site tries to dictate what operating system people use, most of the ones who use an alternate one will just not bother with the site. I'm not going to have a whole separate Windows installation just for my music, and Linux for everything else. It doesn't make sense.

And don't even get my started about how songs from one music player don't always play on another music player. That's a whole 'nother can of worms.

The other problem with sites like Rhapsody is that none of them ever seem to have a full selection of music, except for maybe iTunes. Of course, it's been a while since I've checked any of them, but as of a few months ago, the selection was pretty abysmal. If I buy a CD, I can get anything.

I'm a member of a Linux user group, and I can't tell you how many times I've heard, "Man, I really like this ONE song, but the rest of the CD sucks. I wish I could just buy this one song from a pay site, but none of them support Linux". Maybe this dude breaks down and buys the CD, or maybe he goes and downloads it.

As far as filters go, remember, Limewire is not a service like Napster was. It's just a piece of software, and there are many such pieces of software available that do the same thing. And they aren't hard to modify. Have you ever heard of Kazaa? Well, the original Kazaa was packed with spyware, so one of the Kazaa users decided to crack it open and pull out all the spyware. He then offered his new Kazaa (called Kazaa Lite) to whomever wanted it. It wasn't tough, and it would be equally as easy to remove any filters.

I don't have a good answer as to how to fix this problem (if I did, I'd be rich, heh) but I think a step in the right direction would be to make it easier for people to buy music online without dictating what operating system they must run, without dictating which web browser they must run, and without making them download and install special software.

For example, Linux has a media player called Amarok that has a built-in online music store (magnatunes.com). It's all independent artists, and you can sample any songs you want before you buy. And you don't even have to install Amarok to get to it, as it's all available in whatever web browser you wish to use by going to the website. Very straightforward and very easy, and it's been doing really well, as the music selection has increased tenfold since I first started using it.

Also look at what Radiohead just did back in October. They released their own CD online, and let people buy it straight from their site. Maybe it's the way of the future. Who knows?

Honestly, there are a lot of brilliant people in the record industry, so someone has GOT to be able to figure out a way to work around this problem without making enemies of music fans. If you can make it more attractive for people to buy music online than it is to steal it (better quality, good selection, ease of use, etc) then they'll stop downloading. I mean, the price is already right (a buck per song? Maybe less? Who can't afford that?) so there's got to be some other limiting factor, and I think it's the other things I've mentioned.
cydewaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2008, 10:40 AM   #27
Babyface
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10
Local Time: 06:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Harry Vest
Shut up Paul...you stinkin rich ###!!!
Geez, of all the things to complain about in this stage of your "career". Just shut up already pal.
I'm with you on this one. Fans will buy the music. Curious fans have a chance to hear the songs, which will most likely make them want to buy the cd or downloads for their music players. I'm getting so frustrated with U2 these days.
Bonoho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2008, 10:49 AM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
MrBrau1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Verplexed in Vermont
Posts: 10,436
Local Time: 06:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Bonoho


I'm with you on this one. Fans will buy the music. Curious fans have a chance to hear the songs, which will most likely make them want to buy the cd or downloads for their music players. I'm getting so frustrated with U2 these days.
If downloading leads to sales how are CD sales down year, after year.

All this exploring should be leading to an explosion of new cd purchases.
__________________
"If you needed my autograph, I'd give it to you." Bob Dylan
MrBrau1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2008, 11:13 AM   #29
Refugee
 
cydewaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,256
Local Time: 07:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrBrau1
If downloading leads to sales how are CD sales down year, after year.
Because every year, online sales are up by the same amount that CD sales are down. People are buying more from iTunes and less from physical stores.

But the record companies are still losing money because online songs cost less than CDs, and when you buy online, you can buy one song for 99 cents instead of having to buy the whole CD for $12.99 just to get that one song.

10 songs from 10 different albums on iTunes is ten bucks. Ten CDs are $120+. It's a big difference. The record companies are upset because if everyone switches to online purchases, their bottom like drops, even if it's all done 100% legally. I think they've convinced themselves that every pirated online music file is a lost sale, but I don't think that's realistic. If they stopped music piracy tomorrow, I don't think they'd be back up to their old profits.

The way people listen to music is changing, and they need to adapt to the current market. That's just the way it goes.
cydewaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2008, 11:20 AM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
MrBrau1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Verplexed in Vermont
Posts: 10,436
Local Time: 06:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by cydewaze

Because every year, online sales are up by the same amount that CD sales are down. People are buying more from iTunes and less from physical stores.

But the record companies are still losing money because online songs cost less than CDs, and when you buy online, you can buy one song for 99 cents instead of having to buy the whole CD for $12.99 just to get that one song.

10 songs from 10 different albums on iTunes is ten bucks. Ten CDs are $120+. It's a big difference. The record companies are upset because if everyone switches to online purchases, their bottom like drops, even if it's all done 100% legally. I think they've convinced themselves that every pirated online music file is a lost sale, but I don't think that's realistic. If they stopped music piracy tomorrow, I don't think they'd be back up to their old profits.

The way people listen to music is changing, and they need to adapt to the current market. That's just the way it goes.
Do you really think someone steals an album at 192 kbps with no DRM, then goes and buys a copy protected version at 128kbps?
__________________
"If you needed my autograph, I'd give it to you." Bob Dylan
MrBrau1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2008, 11:29 AM   #31
Refugee
 
cydewaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,256
Local Time: 07:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrBrau1
Do you really think someone steals an album at 192 kbps with no DRM, then goes and buys a copy protected version at 128kbps?
No, which is why I never said that. Perhaps you quoted the wrong post?

And for the record, I also don't think that a 12 year old kid with 2000 mp3s in his collection would have dropped $2000 to buy them all on iTunes either, and he certainly wouldn't have dropped $10k to buy the CDs to get them.

Anyway, I was a bit off in my last post about online sales being up by the same amount that CD sales are down. Online sales are actually up waaaay more than CD sales are down.

CD sales down 9.2%, but online sales are up 45%
cydewaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2008, 11:43 AM   #32
ONE
love, blood, life
 
MrBrau1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Verplexed in Vermont
Posts: 10,436
Local Time: 06:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by cydewaze

No, which is why I never said that. Perhaps you quoted the wrong post?
[/URL]
Um, ok.

So, if stolen music doesn't translate into CD sales, and it doesn't translate into online sales, how do you feel about the point that stealing music is an exploratory tool used to guide future purchases?
__________________
"If you needed my autograph, I'd give it to you." Bob Dylan
MrBrau1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2008, 12:46 PM   #33
Refugee
 
cydewaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,256
Local Time: 07:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrBrau1
So, if stolen music doesn't translate into CD sales, and it doesn't translate into online sales, how do you feel about the point that stealing music is an exploratory tool used to guide future purchases?
Ahh, a "what if"! I usually love what ifs, but the problem with this one is that it assumes both "ifs" as fact. Since we have no way of knowing whether stolen music leads to sales or not, your "what if" is nothing more than a trap to either get me to 1) agree with you, or 2) say that I support the thieves.

How about this one: "If banning computers stops all child pornography, then how do you feel about banning computers?"

Fun stuff, eh?

For what it's worth, I don't have a very strong opinion as to whether illegal downloads lead to more sales. For some people they might, and for others they probably won't. I know I recently bought a Coldplay CD as a result of hearing a song from it as background music for a Youtube video (and I'm completely capable of capturing that music in mp3 format, so I could have easily had it for free), so there's an example of sampling leading to purchase.

But I don't believe that the 12 year old kid with the 2000 illegal songs is going to purchase much of that (as I stated in a previous post) because he obviously doesn't have two grand lying around.

My point has never been that piracy leads to sales. Someone else said that. My point is that you can't assume that every stolen song is a lost sale. You also can't assume that just because CD sales are down, the music industry is in trouble. There's just no evidence to support that.

Overall music purchases (counting CDs, downloads, DVDs, etc combined) were up for 2007 over 2006. Overall sales at the end of last year were higher than ever. I don't see how that equals artists or record companies going broke.
cydewaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2008, 12:51 PM   #34
ONE
love, blood, life
 
MrBrau1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Verplexed in Vermont
Posts: 10,436
Local Time: 06:47 AM
How do ISP's police Child Pornography?

Are they morally obligated to?
__________________
"If you needed my autograph, I'd give it to you." Bob Dylan
MrBrau1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2008, 12:54 PM   #35
Babyface
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10
Local Time: 06:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrBrau1


If downloading leads to sales how are CD sales down year, after year.

All this exploring should be leading to an explosion of new cd purchases.

Perhaps not cd purchases, but purchases through iTunes, etc. Either way, the bands profit. CD's will go the way of the cassette tape. It's just the way it is. If someone is interested in U2 and downloads a few songs, say through Limewire, and the songs really get to them, they'll buy. I've tried Limewire, it can be alot of work. If you have the funds to have an album downloaded and backed up through iTunes, that's the way you should go. Paul McG is rich, as is the band. They shouldn't complain about 'free' downloads.
Bonoho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2008, 01:01 PM   #36
ONE
love, blood, life
 
MrBrau1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Verplexed in Vermont
Posts: 10,436
Local Time: 06:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Bonoho



Perhaps not cd purchases, but purchases through iTunes, etc. Either way, the bands profit. CD's will go the way of the cassette tape. It's just the way it is. If someone is interested in U2 and downloads a few songs, say through Limewire, and the songs really get to them, they'll buy. I've tried Limewire, it can be alot of work. If you have the funds to have an album downloaded and backed up through iTunes, that's the way you should go. Paul McG is rich, as is the band. They shouldn't complain about 'free' downloads.
Hmmm?

Here is an example I noted last nite in another thread.

Mininova currently has a "Complete Beatles" torrent.

360kbps

--Please Please Me
--With the Beatles
--A Hard Day's Night
--Beatles For Sale
--Help!
--Rubber Soul
--Revolver
--Yellow Submarine
--Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
--Abbey Road
--Magical Mystery Tour
--The Beatles (White Album)
--Let It Be
--The Beatles 1962-1965 (Greatest Hits Vol. 1)
--The Beatles 1967-1970 (Greatest Hits Vol. 2)
--Past Masters, Volume One
--Past Masters, Volume Two
--Anthology, Vol. 1
--Anthology, Vol. 2
--Anthology, Vol. 3
--Live at the BBC
--The Early Tapes (With Tony Sheridan)
--The Decca Tapes
--The Beatles 1
--Love Songs
--In The Beginning

444 people are downloading it. 1034 sharing.

How many Beatles albums do you think those 444 people are going to buy?

How many of those 1034 seeders are sharing rips from original copies?

Seem slightly selfish to me. To need the ENTIRE discography of a band to determine if you like them or not.

Whether the rights holder to the Beatles music is rich or not is irrelevant. Stealing from poor people is wrong, as is stealing from rich people.
__________________
"If you needed my autograph, I'd give it to you." Bob Dylan
MrBrau1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2008, 01:30 PM   #37
Refugee
 
cydewaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,256
Local Time: 07:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrBrau1
How do ISP's police Child Pornography?
They don't.


Quote:
Originally posted by MrBrau1
Whether the rights holder to the Beatles music is rich or not is irrelevant. Stealing from poor people is wrong, as is stealing from rich people.
Ok, so what's next. What in your opinion is the best course of action from here? What should be done about all this?
cydewaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2008, 01:32 PM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
MrBrau1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Verplexed in Vermont
Posts: 10,436
Local Time: 06:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrBrau1
Are they morally obligated to?
why did you avoid this one?
__________________
"If you needed my autograph, I'd give it to you." Bob Dylan
MrBrau1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2008, 01:37 PM   #39
ONE
love, blood, life
 
MrBrau1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Verplexed in Vermont
Posts: 10,436
Local Time: 06:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by cydewaze

They don't.



Ok, so what's next. What in your opinion is the best course of action from here? What should be done about all this?
nothing is going to happen.

This is it.

Downloaders stuffing their faces with as much stolen music as they can get their hands on.

And the RIAA going after people for thousands of $.
__________________
"If you needed my autograph, I'd give it to you." Bob Dylan
MrBrau1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2008, 02:01 PM   #40
Refugee
 
cydewaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,256
Local Time: 07:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrBrau1
why did you avoid this one?
Because moral obligation is not for me to decide. And whether or not ISPs are obligated to police child porn doesn't have anything to do with music, other than they're both illegal things that happen online.

The difference is that when people are convicted of child porn, it's a criminal offense, so they get have the luxury of due process. File sharing cases are not tried in criminal court, so there burden of proof is not the same. If piracy cases were prosecuted like child porn cases, almost no one would ever be sued for piracy, and that says something.


Quote:
Originally posted by MrBrau1
nothing is going to happen.

This is it.

Downloaders stuffing their faces with as much stolen music as they can get their hands on.

And the RIAA going after people for thousands of $.
Fair enough.
__________________

cydewaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×