Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

• 

  Hephaestus (profile), 17 Jun 2010 @ 1:15pm

  
  

  It depends

  "And, we're still wondering will anyone actually buy more music?"
  
  This is already a historical event if you look at sweden. If there is an increase in music and movie advertising at the same time or before this is actually implemented then yes for a short period people will buy more content. If there is no increase in advertising then there will be no increase.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Hephaestus (profile), 17 Jun 2010 @ 1:23pm

    
    

    Re: It depends

    submitted instead of previewed ...
    
    From a purely financial perspective, the amount they need to spend on advertising, to sell the same amount of product, has been increasing. I havent looked at the advertising cost -vs- profit curve for music recently but it wouldnt surprise me if it cost more to advertise than they will make back in the profit off of sales.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2010 @ 1:29pm

      
      

      Re: Re: It depends

      And the question remains...
      
      Is this increase due to the law enforcement, or because of the increase in advertising?
      
      Because...you know, that's what advertising is for. Increasing customers.

      [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • 

        Hephaestus (profile), 17 Jun 2010 @ 1:43pm

        
        

        Re: Re: Re: It depends

        "Because...you know, that's what advertising is for. Increasing customers."
        
        What I was pointing out was that, it is getting to or has passed the point where the record labels can make money by advertising. It costs more to advertise than they make back. That is country dependant, spain, and south korea, china, have already passed the point, most others are going to be there in a staggered pattern over the next couple years.

        [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • 

          Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2010 @ 1:57pm

          
          

          Re: Re: Re: Re: It depends

          Well, that's because record labels think "advertising" means TV commercials and billboards.
          
          No matter who you are, you can always benefit from more (effective) exposure. It's up to the record labels to actual use the options that are cost efficient.

          [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Jay (profile), 17 Jun 2010 @ 1:32pm

  
  

  So here's a question:
  
  When will the big government listen to the economists that tell them about bad ideas?

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2010 @ 8:20pm

    
    

    Re:

    Oh, oh, I know this one.
    
    It's when those economists start giving bigger kickbacks than corporate lobbyists.
    
    Did I get it right?

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Kurata, 17 Jun 2010 @ 1:49pm

  
  

  According to what i remember, the system works as follow :
  
  First, a mail is sent to you as a warning
  Second, a real mail is sent
  Last, you're summoned for trial.
  
  However, here's the trick : there is a database system, lasting 6 months. After 6 months, the database is cleared. Also, it's set up to find at most 600 000 different persons within those 6 months.
  If I'm not wrong, there are about 48M internet users. In other words, slim chance of being warned thrice.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2010 @ 1:58pm

  
  

  Selective Enforcement

  It sounds like the French are learning how to use good old "selective enforcement". In this case, it looks like the agency responsible for enforcing the data protection laws has decided not to do so. I'm sure they decided that it "just didn't make sense" to enforce the laws as written. I seem to remember Mike being a supporter of selective law enforcement, too. Well, here you go.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  IRSMARTR, 17 Jun 2010 @ 2:07pm

  
  

  everyone should turn off there net for a few months

  in protest ...turn off the net. THEN when they lose billions in taxes there economy can be even better
  
  
  P.S. WHAT ever you paid to ISP DO NOT SPEND IT ANYWHERE
  just save it. THATS HOW YOU GET EVEN WITH MORONS IN GOVT.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2010 @ 2:49pm

  
  

  "we're still wondering will anyone actually buy more music?" - i dont think that is the question. it isnt about selling anything. it is about getting online users to respect the same laws they would have to respect in the real world. you couldnt walk into a music store and randomly rip cds onto your laptop in the middle of the store, why should you be allowed to do that online?

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Niall (profile), 17 Jun 2010 @ 3:18pm

    
    

    Re:

    Wow, points for NOT talking about physically stealing a disc!.
    
    Still, if you could manage it quickly and relatively anonymously, then you might find a few people doing it. Depends how likely you are to be caught, and how much effort it is.
    
    The model breaks down in that you can only be physically present in one shop, but can download from many sources at once

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      btrussell (profile), 17 Jun 2010 @ 3:57pm

      
      

      Re: Re:

      "The model breaks down in that you can only be physically present in one shop, but can download from many sources at once"
      
      But you can still only download at XMb/s, whether it be one file or one hundred.

      [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2010 @ 4:05pm

      
      

      Re: Re:

      i am trying to come up with a way to better explain the situation. if you sat ripping stuff in the middle of the store, they would likely throw you out, and potentially call the police (as there is a sort of theft going on). the internet basically removes the shop keeper and every other watching eye, and allows you to rip with impunity. all three strikes laws attempt to do is put a sort of balance back into the situation, making people understand that their actions arent any more acceptable online than they would be in the middle of a busy store.

      [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • 

        Another User, 17 Jun 2010 @ 4:14pm

        
        

        Re: Re: Re:

        Well with the way sharing works it is more like someone bought it then is offering a ripped version of it. So a better example would be you go to the store and bought CD/DVD then go home make copies of it and offer it free to who ever stops by. Still wrong but I think that is closer to what happens to most files.

        [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2010 @ 4:50pm

    
    

    Re:

    And, if upon being accused (not proven to be) doing that 3 times you were banned from all retail stores forever, you might have a point.
    
    Of course, as usual, you don't.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2010 @ 7:21pm

    
    

    Re:

    Douchy Mac Strawman strikes again.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  abc gum, 17 Jun 2010 @ 6:06pm

  
  

  This is bad news for all those internet connected printers. I imagine that they will getting a bunch of letters - woohoo !
  
  http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9178128/HP_partners_with_Yahoo_for_targeted_ads

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Mr. Oizo, 18 Jun 2010 @ 1:53am

  
  

  How can you defend yourself ?

  Aside from having a clear defense if the IP was that of a printer, it is somewhat problematic that you cannot defend yourself against a random attack. Suppose they just take 600'000 random internet IPs and send a notice without even having any proof. How can you defend against that ?

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    abc gum, 18 Jun 2010 @ 4:56am

    
    

    Re: How can you defend yourself ?

    Threaten to actually go to court ?

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      Mr. Oizo, 18 Jun 2010 @ 6:54am

      
      

      Re: Re: How can you defend yourself ?

      And then ? What do you do in court ? They have no solid proof and you should not prove your innocence. How would you do that anyway ?

      [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Lakanal, 1 Jul 2010 @ 12:48pm

  
  

  Actually the Rennes University report showed that file-sharing as such went down after HADOPI, even though the law had not come into full force. Similarly in Sweden the IPRED law and conviction of the Piratebay thieves coincided with a massive fall in infringement. Then legitimate sales took off. Freetards and the ISPs will continue to call black white, however.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Add Your Comment