Kicking People Off The Internet Will Encourage Musical Diversity?
from the please-explain dept
After the surprising rejection of Nicholas Sarkozy’s “three strikes” law in France to kick file sharers off the internet, Sarkozy and the bill’s supporters have decided to bring the law back for another vote on April 29th. While plenty of politicians and consumer groups have urged supporters not to resubmit the bill, Sarkozy apparently will hear nothing of it, insisting that this bill is somehow necessary to “protect creative diversity.” Can we ask how? What does kicking people off the internet have to do with creative diversity? It’s the same question we asked when U2’s manager seemed to think that kicking people off the internet would get people to buy music again. It’s fantasy thinking. You don’t force people to buy a product they don’t want to pay for. It’s not clear why so many people think that kicking people off the internet is a viable business model for the recording industry.
Filed Under: france, music, nicholas sarkozy, three strikes
Comments on “Kicking People Off The Internet Will Encourage Musical Diversity?”
it's pretty clear
**This post may contain sarcasm
Haven’t you been reading the RIAA reports on how “piracy” (using that term loosely given current events) is causing the death of the CD sale. If people can’t get the music online they will be forced to buy the CD and not get it any other way. It is simple cause and effect, If I can’t get my music my way I will have to get it your way. Somehow the labels need to be kept in the loop so they can rake in money for doing jack shit to really help the artists out. It is not about the customer, it is all about making money and lots of it. Who care if they alienate the customers enough where they don’t buy music, They can always pay off some politicians to make a back door deal and buy a different law so we have to pay them.
I find it really funny that they had to trick the people who are against this into thinking the vote was at a different time. this makes me think even less of the RIAA and that anything they do is worth while
Re: it's pretty clear
Just wait until the writer’s guild starts lobbying for a surcharge on pens and paper, because, well, somebody might just copy a copyrighted book by hand, the technology’s definitely there to do it…
Of course its a viable business model, and as soon as I have my army of flying monkeys and create my global dictatorship I shall prove this!
Single best comment on a news story ever! LMAO
Re: Re: Re:
acai berry oprah
Flying monkeys actually sound like more of a liability to a dictator than a viable, destructive, and disciplined army.
Kicking people off the Internet to increase CD sales. Is the as saying lets shove people down an escalator that is going up so more people will fly.
They’re all idiots. The lessons are out there for anyone who wants to bother learning. Taking away the means to something that people want (the internet in this case, as people want to download music) does not stop people from getting what they want, it simply forces those people to find other means (pooling resources to buy a single CD and copying it for each friend in the pool?) The consumer dictates the market, not the other way around. Try to fight it and you will fail.
Conflict of Interest?
Sarkozy is married to singer-songwriter Carla Bruni. What’s the French word for conflict-of-interest?
Re: Conflict of Interest?
I think it’s coucher-avec-moi.
Re: Conflict of Interest?
More than a mere conflict of interest, I think it’s that her most recent album tanked (according to wikipedia), and so she’s pissed about it. And, by extension, so is he.
Re: Conflict of Interest?
Evidence states that having agressive laws will turn sharers into legal buyers (at least in Sweden). It’s troubling, as I agree that all those laws are stupid and most are fascist, and it’s still not time tested… but it is what’s happening and I don’t think we can easily ignore it.
But what is it that they’re buying?
The biggest effect that sharing had on my purchases (aside from finding more stuff I wanted to buy, across the board) was that I found a lot more non-RIAA-label music that I liked and purchased.
Perhaps that’s their real fear: people will see forgettable manufactured pop for what it is.
BTW, “sharers”… can that be the new name for “pirates” now that “pirates” is back to real criminals in ships?
We’d better decide now before the RIAA picks another emotionally loaded word to describe it.
I don’t want to be labeled a “copyright rapist”.
“copyright rapist” may be too strong… but I surely like the ring of “copyright molester”!
Pirates.. will the term change?
Pirates. I mentioned this misuse of the word a few weeks ago. I too await the next term industry comes up with for the cyber phenomenon.
Re: Pirates.. will the term change?
With the added publicity real pirates are getting now, and the imminent ruling on The Pirate Bay, the RIAA & co. will probably cling even more strongly to the term “pirate”.
Yes, it’s never been particularly accurate, and to everyone else it’s clearly even less so now, but they’ve already demonstrated how out of touch they are with reality. I think they’ll play it for all it’s worth until the news channels themselves start ridiculing it.
“You don’t force people to buy a product they don’t want to pay for.”
You’ve stated time and again that people WILL pay if there’s a reason to do so.
How about not being able to easily steal it?
Hell, yeah! Let zem eat cake, right cher?
Yeah, great plan… except where do you get the CDs from? Independent record shops are shutting down all the time, and if you’re not online then you can’t order them easily from outside of your local area. So, that leaves the supermarket aisles, which typically only stock a few major label releases.
Yeah, nice diversity there. Stop people from discovering and obtaining new & interesting independent product so they have to buy from a handful of corporations. Companies that happen to have a long history of ignoring creative trends that aren’t instantly commercial, and create homogenised generic product rather than anything innovative.
That will help protect creative diversity, right? Especially when people kicked off the internet for downloading music *have* to buy new music, and not just listen to the radio or buy used discs, videogames, books, DVDs, TV subscriptions and other forms of entertainment instead? I mean surely anyone barred from the internet would be happy to give their money to the industry responsible, right?
Cunning plan. Thought it through they have not.
spam two above this comment
is just spam. delete please