First of all this is supposed to be a reaction to multinational companies losing profits right?. Well how much is being wasted on trying to make these stupid laws?, and I bet these people involved make craploads of money them selves so don't have any perspective of average people out there working all week to earn a living. I think things break down from the obselence of these people to realise that the price of these things which people may want to download "without paying the price" have a significance to many people, especialy if they are expensive, such as much software, and/or are a waste of money, such as som movies, which is the primary things being targeted by these stupid copyright laws. Over here in new zealand one of the larger music retailers "Ecm/sounds" has shut down and this was blamed partly on downloading, although i say it was really because they were such a rip off, they were retailing cd's at 30+ dolars each, which I have found cost them about $2.70 each, which I would consider a huge mark up!, and rediculous that you could buy music dvd's for cheaper than the audio albums, um confusing but true. The other factors are that due to the huge mark up other places started selling cd's for cheaper, so of course people would buy from others as they are cheaper. Now to consider people like myself $30+ is of significance and admitedly, why would I go down the road and spend the effort and hassle, as well as the money, which i couldn't practically afford to buy what could be a crap album, when i could type it up on the computer and have it on the spot in minutes, and cost closer to 20 cents, all without even getting of the seat i'm sitting on never mind batteling the weather at times as well to go to a store. But realisticaly it is a thing between affordability and value. there are two albums which I am going to buy, which I could download for near nothing, but I think they are worth paying for, both the music and due to the artist(s). one is from serj tankian, who fights for peoples rights. I just wish I could use p2p and pay him directly instead of supporting a large business more than him, who put the effort in and deserves the money most. this is whre it is stupid, because firstly in many cases prices are already to high, such as three people going to the cinemas cost more than the dvd of a movie, so why would you want to pay more for three to watch it once than to legally own it?. Secondly lots of what is being released isn't really that good anyway, why spend what you have left at the end of the week on something which isn't any good anyway?. And also in the case of music at least the companies which are just putting it on a shelf, which musicans can (but don't start with a big name of) put it on the internet for minimal cost themselves so these companies are really ripping the artists off by having a "name" anyway, so why is allright for large/rich companies to profiteer from names, but not for poor people to try to avoid being ripped off by them?. Then when you look at it these pople without much money them selves find it too expensive to pay the big companies what they want, so they download, then the companies complain so they hire lawyers to try to stop these people from bypassing their profits, which costs them alot of money, as well as public when it is going through courts, tying up time of high paid people who could be better using their time for more productive things, and the companies try to comensate for this by incrasing prices, and promoting rubbish, which makes things less affordable, so decreases sales. This then gets blamed on the poor people downloading (just they arn't poor but rich so they don't recognise real world finances) which causes a cycle blaming downloading, when in actual fact it is that people can't easily afford what they want and what is being put out there to try to pick up money for sales isn't worth it anyway. So as far as I se the best thing is to make it worth the value anyway and even better to be able to guarentee that a prepotion of what is spent on legally purchasing these goes to the people putting the effort in to make them. So I think p2p should be utilised by artists more as the new version of the "multinational business, which is really a name" and what people think it is really worth, and they can afford then credited to them directly, as well as support for these resources putting them out there, which are realistically not a high profit business, but a resource put out there in understanding of our situation and there to help us all out, so MUST NOT BE SHUT OUT!!!. I think this would help those out which really could do with it and is necessary for peoples sake. The effect of privatisation into large companies is allready being seen here in New Zealand is allready being seen with it becoming harder for smaller businesses to exist, then causing more people to be without jobs as they are replaced by large expensive machines which smaller business can't afford and because intiative is quased by existing in business being too expensive, with licences and compliance costs, which then puts taxes up to pay for the larger number of benificiaries due to lack of work which makes it harder still for smaller businesses and working people, as well as sucking money in general out of the economy, which causes everyone to lose out (except mabey a cople of the larger businesses, which have owners rolling in dough, and too high up to care about the average joe).
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Ian.
This is stupid!!!.
First of all this is supposed to be a reaction to multinational companies losing profits right?. Well how much is being wasted on trying to make these stupid laws?, and I bet these people involved make craploads of money them selves so don't have any perspective of average people out there working all week to earn a living. I think things break down from the obselence of these people to realise that the price of these things which people may want to download "without paying the price" have a significance to many people, especialy if they are expensive, such as much software, and/or are a waste of money, such as som movies, which is the primary things being targeted by these stupid copyright laws. Over here in new zealand one of the larger music retailers "Ecm/sounds" has shut down and this was blamed partly on downloading, although i say it was really because they were such a rip off, they were retailing cd's at 30+ dolars each, which I have found cost them about $2.70 each, which I would consider a huge mark up!, and rediculous that you could buy music dvd's for cheaper than the audio albums, um confusing but true. The other factors are that due to the huge mark up other places started selling cd's for cheaper, so of course people would buy from others as they are cheaper. Now to consider people like myself $30+ is of significance and admitedly, why would I go down the road and spend the effort and hassle, as well as the money, which i couldn't practically afford to buy what could be a crap album, when i could type it up on the computer and have it on the spot in minutes, and cost closer to 20 cents, all without even getting of the seat i'm sitting on never mind batteling the weather at times as well to go to a store. But realisticaly it is a thing between affordability and value. there are two albums which I am going to buy, which I could download for near nothing, but I think they are worth paying for, both the music and due to the artist(s). one is from serj tankian, who fights for peoples rights. I just wish I could use p2p and pay him directly instead of supporting a large business more than him, who put the effort in and deserves the money most. this is whre it is stupid, because firstly in many cases prices are already to high, such as three people going to the cinemas cost more than the dvd of a movie, so why would you want to pay more for three to watch it once than to legally own it?. Secondly lots of what is being released isn't really that good anyway, why spend what you have left at the end of the week on something which isn't any good anyway?. And also in the case of music at least the companies which are just putting it on a shelf, which musicans can (but don't start with a big name of) put it on the internet for minimal cost themselves so these companies are really ripping the artists off by having a "name" anyway, so why is allright for large/rich companies to profiteer from names, but not for poor people to try to avoid being ripped off by them?. Then when you look at it these pople without much money them selves find it too expensive to pay the big companies what they want, so they download, then the companies complain so they hire lawyers to try to stop these people from bypassing their profits, which costs them alot of money, as well as public when it is going through courts, tying up time of high paid people who could be better using their time for more productive things, and the companies try to comensate for this by incrasing prices, and promoting rubbish, which makes things less affordable, so decreases sales. This then gets blamed on the poor people downloading (just they arn't poor but rich so they don't recognise real world finances) which causes a cycle blaming downloading, when in actual fact it is that people can't easily afford what they want and what is being put out there to try to pick up money for sales isn't worth it anyway. So as far as I se the best thing is to make it worth the value anyway and even better to be able to guarentee that a prepotion of what is spent on legally purchasing these goes to the people putting the effort in to make them. So I think p2p should be utilised by artists more as the new version of the "multinational business, which is really a name" and what people think it is really worth, and they can afford then credited to them directly, as well as support for these resources putting them out there, which are realistically not a high profit business, but a resource put out there in understanding of our situation and there to help us all out, so MUST NOT BE SHUT OUT!!!. I think this would help those out which really could do with it and is necessary for peoples sake. The effect of privatisation into large companies is allready being seen here in New Zealand is allready being seen with it becoming harder for smaller businesses to exist, then causing more people to be without jobs as they are replaced by large expensive machines which smaller business can't afford and because intiative is quased by existing in business being too expensive, with licences and compliance costs, which then puts taxes up to pay for the larger number of benificiaries due to lack of work which makes it harder still for smaller businesses and working people, as well as sucking money in general out of the economy, which causes everyone to lose out (except mabey a cople of the larger businesses, which have owners rolling in dough, and too high up to care about the average joe).