Kolya on 8/3/2007 at 14:14
Talking about artists earning money, I noticed that a lot more go on long tours today than only a few years ago. You could call that a positive side effect of music piracy. Well from a listeners point of view.
RootbeerTapper on 9/3/2007 at 04:18
Quote Posted by Vigil
I have no quibble with the rest of your post, but...
Napster didn't
have a business model. The downloads were completely free, they weren't hosted, organised or (at first) policed by Napster in any way, and the only thing Napster sold were
tshirts.
When your distribution model is "anything you want, for free" you're damn right it's more successful than regular retail. The point at which the RIAA got "jealous", though, was the point at which music was being distributed without anyone involved (besides tshirt manufacturers) seeing a cent.
After getting buried under lawsuits Napster eventually reincarnated with much the same business model as iTunes - single-track downloads of commercial music, for a small cost per track. While the RIAA may
resent this distribution model, it's perfectly legal, earns artists money, and they're not doing anything to prevent or discourage it.
Oh, I thought Napster formed single track listings before iTunes. Sorry for the confusion.
ilweran on 9/3/2007 at 14:10
Quote Posted by Bomb Bloke
In Australia at least, it's illegal to record TV shows, let alone share them around. Of course, VCRs and tapes are just as common here as anywhere else; it's one of those laws that just don't get enforced. Like the one about backing out of your drive way.
They'd have to arrest a lot of people. I think in the UK it used to be that you were allowed to record tv shows but you weren't allowed to keep the recording indefinitely- I guess you were expected to watch it then tape over it. I don't know if that has changed.
Firefreak on 9/3/2007 at 15:46
Isn't recording of radio/TV data somewhat handled by some taxes on the casettes (now DVDs) you buy?
A small sidenote: bdp612 (= thread starter) - are you still following this thread, possibly with a clipboard, taking notes with a pencil and whispering words like "interesting..." ? I somehow have the feeling of being in a maze, searching for the exit with the cheese hidden behind... :P
Matthew on 9/3/2007 at 15:58
Only in some countries.
Ringer on 14/3/2007 at 09:28
Quote Posted by Bomb Bloke
In Australia at least, it's illegal to record TV shows, let alone share them around. Of course, VCRs and tapes are just as common here as anywhere else; it's one of those laws that just don't get enforced. Like the one about backing out of your drive way.
Also here the companies who are getting "ripped off" by pirates cannot sue you for X millions of dollars....They can only sue you for what they have actually lost..
I consider pirating OK if the publisher does not make the game easily available any more..I downloaded Thief Gold simply because
A: I could not purchase it from a local shop..
B: I only played the two extra missions in it anyway..
It is the only game I have downloaded...If I want a cheap game I would simply buy from Zest, since there in no way I would pay $100 for a new game...
G'len on 17/3/2007 at 16:33
Does anyone anywhere have an accurate record of the exact economic effect of filesharing on the overall profits of the big media corporations? Or, more importantly, on the artists themselves (as opposed to the distributors)? It is difficult to discuss the economical sides of this subject without hard and verifyable data.
Bomb Bloke on 19/3/2007 at 01:55
That data doesn't exist. The only way to tell what the impact was is to subtract what they actually made from what they would have made if there was no piracy, and the difference is how much they "lost".
Because there's no way of knowing how much they could potentially have earned, there's no way of knowing the impact. The usual method of research involves some company making that number up.
daprdan on 19/3/2007 at 11:02
I was about to expund on my thoughts on abandon ware and I realised just how drunk I am...so never mind.:thumb:
