Go Back   Professional Soldiers ® > Technical FAQ Forum > Technology News and Reviews

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-01-2012, 09:21   #1
Mr Furious
Quiet Professional
 
Mr Furious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Center of the Universe, NC
Posts: 652
"six strikes" takes effect July 1st

Looks like the ISPs and the entertainment industry are moving forward on July 1st with their anti-piracy program.

http://news.yahoo.com/six-strikes-yo...144559247.html


"Starting July 1, the nation’s largest Internet service providers (ISPs) have agreed to adopt a “Graduated Response” program intended to cut down on illegal file sharing. The program, colloquially known as the “six-strikes” system, is the brainchild of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) — the same industry groups that conjured up SOPA and PIPA. The system will affect millions of Internet users across the country. Whether you download your music and movies from the Internet or not, it is important for everyone to understand what the plan is, and how it could affect your life. Here is everything you need to know about “six-strikes.”"
Mr Furious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2012, 12:29   #2
Kyobanim
Moderator
 
Kyobanim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,045
What I want to know is . . .

1. Why aren't people allowed to protect their intellectual properties on the internet?
2. Why do most internet users think the internet is free?
3. Why do internet users think they can steal and not be held accountable/responsable?
__________________
"Are you listening or just waiting to talk?"


Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

"Fate rarely calls upon us at a moment of our choosing."
Optimus Prime
Kyobanim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2012, 12:33   #3
x SF med
Quiet Professional
 
x SF med's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In transit somewhere
Posts: 4,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyobanim View Post
What I want to know is . . .

1. Why aren't people allowed to protect their intellectual properties on the internet?
2. Why do most internet users think the internet is free?
3. Why do internet users think they can steal and not be held accountable/responsable?
+1
__________________
In the business of war, there is no invariable stategic advantage (shih) which can be relied upon at all times.
Sun-Tzu, "The Art of Warfare"

Hearing, I forget. Seeing, I remember. Writing (doing), I understand. Chinese Proverb

Too many people are looking for a magic bullet. As always, shot placement is the key. ~TR
x SF med is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2012, 14:44   #4
longrange1947
Quiet Professional
 
longrange1947's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Fayetteville NC
Posts: 3,533
Because a majority of young people today feel that everything should be free OR provided by the government.
__________________
Hold Hard guys

Rick B.

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit.
Wisdom is knowing it is great on a hamburger but not so great sticking one up your ass.

Author - Richard.

Experience is what you get right after you need it.

Author unknown.
longrange1947 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2012, 15:04   #5
DJ Urbanovsky
Guerrilla Chief
 
DJ Urbanovsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 694
What I want to know is why I ever see people supporting organizations such as RIAA at all... Because they don't protect the artist, they protect the record company. The record company doesn't care one whit about the artist.

Read this: http://news.yahoo.com/six-strikes-yo...144559247.html

If you ever wondered why a band spends three years on the road touring between albums, it's because tours and merch are where they make their real money. And they're lucky if they get any label support at all, unless they're a super huge act, at which point they don't really need the support because their name is already out there.

You know what a record company will do? They'll tell you what you can and can't put on your album. They'll cut songs from your album. They'll tell you what the singles are going to be. They'll refuse to release your album. They'll withdraw tour and marketing support. They'll use your music to sell cars or laundry detergent or cell phone service. They'll sit on a completed album for two years, and when you try to release music under a different name because you do this for a living and you need to eat, they'll sue you to try and prevent you from doing that. They'll have RIAA sue people for downloading and sharing content that you as an artist have declared to be open source and physically placed in the market yourself. They'll find you a top name producer for your album, and then hold up the recording and production process for a year while he works other more lucrative projects. If you need actual examples of this kind of abuse, all you have to do is Google Tori Amos, Tool, Nine Inch Nails, and Hank Williams III. And that's just for starters.

Kyobanim:

1) This stuff isn't being set up to protect regular people like you and I. It's set up to protect entities. Oops... I forgot. Now corporations are people too. Sorry about that... And do you know what sort of red tape and money are involved in protecting your intellectual property as an individual? Because I do. It's practically unachievable if you aren't loaded. Lawyers. Courtrooms. Travel. And all the time you spend not doing your actual work, because you're fighting a protracted legal battle. Think around $20-$50K per incident of IP theft. My pockets aren't that deep.

2) I don't know about anybody else, but every time I write that monthly $50 check to my ISP, I am quite aware that the Internet isn't free.

3) Who does Internet piracy hurt again? Because it ain't the artist. Despite what Metallica would have you believe. Back in the 80's we used to copy and swap tapes. In the 90's, it was burning CDs. These days, it's downloading audio files. When you were a kid, did you ever put a cassette recorder up to your speakers to record your favorite song as it was being played on the radio? THAT is copyright infringement. Ever make a friend or love interest a mix tape? That's copyright infringement. Ever record a movie on VHS off of HBO so your could watch it later, or show it to a friend? Copyright infringement. Ever copy and paste text from an article that you read on-line? Copyright infringement.

Speaking of Metallica, I'd like to tell you a story to illustrate what I'm trying to say. I remember the first time I heard Metallica. It was 1986 and Master Of Puppets had just been released. But I didn't know about that, because what I heard first was their 1983 album, Kill 'Em All. We were in my friend Pat's basement, and our friend Jimmy had a second or third generation copy on cassette that he'd gotten from God knows where. The sound quality was terrible, but turned up loud? We didn't care, and I was immediately hooked. I had never heard anything like that before. I don't know how much money I spent on Metallica T-shirts, albums, and actually seeing them play live over the years, but is hasn't been insignificant. I've gone out and bought physical copies of every single major album they ever put out, in some cases being the first person in line at the store. I even re-purchased when I wore some of my existing copies out. Some of those albums, like both of the Loads, Some Kind Of Monster, and that abortion of an album they did with Lou Reed, were pretty much total garbage, but they've got my money already. In all of those years, I've made countless copies of their music to share with my friends and loved ones, many of whom went on to become die-hard fans and who also ended up spending their hard earned dollars on Metallica related stuff. Guess what? It is because of all of that early tape copying and sharing that Metallica is now one of the hugest names in rock music. There probably isn't a person who reads this that doesn't know who Metallica is. Back in the day, that was the only real way to get your name out there, and bands supported it. The difference is now, Metallica doesn't want you copying their music...

My point in saying any of this is simply to illustrate, once again, that organizations such as RIAA are about supporting corporations, not the regular guy, and are about stifling and controlling the flow of data and raking in money for those corporations, all the while keeping a boot on the neck of the artist and keeping them hungry so they'll obey the will of the corporation. When my band releases its album, I'm pushing for digital format only. If people like it, they can donate money via Paypal or buy it outright either from us or from a digital online retailer such as I-tunes. The vast majority of record labels can suck it and go to hell. They are evil dinosaurs, terrified of their own dying futures, and are fighting to stay alive in a climate that has rendered them virtually obsolete. A climate, ironically, that they have created via their own actions and greed. Why do you think they've been trying to stifle Youtube?

Last edited by DJ Urbanovsky; 04-01-2012 at 15:11.
DJ Urbanovsky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2012, 15:24   #6
DJ Urbanovsky
Guerrilla Chief
 
DJ Urbanovsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 694
And then there is this: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...82610186.shtml
DJ Urbanovsky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2012, 16:10   #7
Kyobanim
Moderator
 
Kyobanim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,045
I get a check from BMI every 6 months, based on song performance and plays by different venues like bars, hotels, whatever. If someone downloads a song from the internet and plays it for themselves I really don't give a shit.

But when someone downloads a song and plays in in their bar, business establishment, burns a copy and gives/sells it to someone else, etc., I have a problem with it.

The business model for the music industry hasn't changed in 40 years. You want to know why the corporation make all the money? They are the ones that:
1. Pay for the studio time. Usually at a large cost, depending on the studio.
2. Pays for a top notch engineer. Price usually not negotiable,
3. Pays for the producer, again, price not negotiable.
Needless to say, the cost of producing an albumn is not cheap, average cost 250 to 500k.

Now, the company puts up the cash to make this record, pays to market it, advertising, whatever. They have also paid the artist a piece of change based on negotiations and what the company thinks they are going to make in profits, most often it isn't much, but sometimes it a big chunk of change. That's why they can tell you what you can and can't do.

So the first person to get paid IF the cash starts rolling in is the company. Usually they don't make enough money to pay for what they got but that's the nature of the beast.

Here's the good part, the artist knows going in how this is all going to play out and how much they are going to get out of it. They know that they will have to tour to make money. That's how it works. The artist only see's money from an albumn if they're on par with michael jackson or linkin park or someone like that. You have to literally earn the right to have a say in your album creation.

Now, by making copies of metallica songs and giving them to your friends you robbed the writers of those songs (metallica) of royalties. Now, the question isn't 'how many fans did they get from you're pirated songs' but, was a crime committed?

According to U.S. laws, you can be charged and fined if found guilty.

I could go on but I have found from past conversations that arguing sides in this is pointless. No one wants to follow the law when it comes to intellectual rights.
__________________
"Are you listening or just waiting to talk?"


Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

"Fate rarely calls upon us at a moment of our choosing."
Optimus Prime

Last edited by Kyobanim; 04-01-2012 at 16:23.
Kyobanim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2012, 16:15   #8
Kyobanim
Moderator
 
Kyobanim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Urbanovsky View Post
What that article neglects to tell you is how mych money the company has invested in the creation of that product. And it neglects to tell you that the artist has a piece of paper called a contract that they have to read and sign. If they don't read it then it's their bad.
__________________
"Are you listening or just waiting to talk?"


Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

"Fate rarely calls upon us at a moment of our choosing."
Optimus Prime
Kyobanim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2012, 17:28   #9
Streck-Fu
Area Commander
 
Streck-Fu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 2,086
I just want to be able to back up my movies and play them on any device I own just like I can with music.
__________________
Daniel
GM1 USNR (RET)

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Streck-Fu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2012, 17:43   #10
DJ Urbanovsky
Guerrilla Chief
 
DJ Urbanovsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 694
Actually, the article does indeed talk about that.

Believe me, I am aware of what recording contracts can be like. None of my bands have ever been courted by a label, major or otherwise, but I've done my homework, and I have a solid understanding of how the industry works. If a production knife company approached me to do one of my designs and their contract contained any of the terms you might see in a standard music industry recording contract, I would first laugh in their faces, and then light the thing on fire and tell them to go and pound sand. And yet recording artists sign contracts like these every day.

You will get absolutely no disagreement from me about how stupid it is to sign something you haven't read. Again, artists do it every day.

This is the digital age, my friend. For under $10k, you can build a home studio that will produce a polished, mastered, finished product that's as good or better than anything any major label is putting out. You can take your time making sure everything is exactly the way you want it, you don't need a big name producer or a label breathing down your neck , and you don't need to spend a fortune to do it. Shit, you don't even need to be an educated musician, you just need to be fluent with your instrument and equipment. More and more people are doing it every day. And you don't need a major label to spend a fortune promoting you. If you're doing good work and people like it, your public will do a lot of the promoting for you. And then there's Youtube and the various other social networking sites.

And this is why we're seeing all of this RIAA related horseshit. It's because now, in the digital age, it is more possible than ever before to completely bypass the record labels, and do things guerrilla style. And that's a GOOD thing! Because it means more artists able to maintain creative control over their finished product, earn a sustainable income, and far less record label sodomy.

Check this guy Jack Conte out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBUUO...1&feature=plcp

And: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Conte#Jack_Conte

Awesome compositional structures, extremely polished and tight, video and audio all done by him in his home studio. Zero label support. Zero radio play. And zero record label meddling. Almost A MILLION hits, just on that ONE song. Let me tell you something - this dude is getting PAID right now, and he's doing it on his own terms. If he were on a major label, right now he'd owe THEM money. And I guarantee you, his compositions wouldn't be what they are because a label would say it's not marketable and it needs to be dumbed down. In fact, a label probably wouldn't let this guy do a quarter of the stuff he's doing now.

And personally, I'd rather give my money to artists than to a record company that abuses them, stifles their creative spirit, and then throws them in the gutter when they burn out.

So tell me again how RIAA and the old school recording industry are good things?

You say the business model for the recording industry hasn't changed in 40 years? That's true. And that is why the traditional recording industry is dying. I say good riddance.







Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyobanim View Post
What that article neglects to tell you is how mych money the company has invested in the creation of that product. And it neglects to tell you that the artist has a piece of paper called a contract that they have to read and sign. If they don't read it then it's their bad.
DJ Urbanovsky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2012, 18:19   #11
Streck-Fu
Area Commander
 
Streck-Fu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 2,086
Quote:
You say the business model for the recording industry hasn't changed in 40 years? That's true. And that is why the traditional recording industry is dying. I say good riddance.
I agree with this sentiment exactly.
__________________
Daniel
GM1 USNR (RET)

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Streck-Fu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2012, 19:29   #12
Mills
Quiet Professional
 
Mills's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Occupied Pineland
Posts: 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by longrange1947 View Post
Because a majority of young people today feel that everything should be free OR provided by the government.
What do you mean? I can't study liberal arts and then get a 6 figure job?

Well fuck it, im just not going to work then............

Screw you 01% !!!!



Morons.
Mills is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2012, 21:14   #13
Kyobanim
Moderator
 
Kyobanim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,045
Thank you for edumacating me on the current status of recording at home, I never would have figured that one out.

Jack Conte is making money on the new business model. That's not the issue here. The issue is content that is owned by someone else. Jack can do this because he retained all the rights to his stuff. There are countless places where I can post music, put a price on it, and watch people ignore me; but I still own 100% of the rights to the music. Go back 20 years ago; and those artists didn't have an outlet like the internet, so they are reliant on collecting under the old model. Shouldn't they collect what is theirs?

Let's move this up into the next century. It's 2112, you're a knife maker. Pictures of your knife are on whatever social media is in place of the internet. I like the knife so I find a file sharing site that has hacked your site, copied your plans and posted them on the current Pirate Bay. I drop those plans into my nifty gadget the builds me a knife based on those plans. Cool, I have a great knife and it didn't cost me anything. I think I'll make some for my friends. Maybe other people will see these knives and go to a store and actually pourchase one. Though, probably not. Why pay for something when you can get it legally(lol) for free.

Who's protecting your intellectual property? How do you collect payment for your product?

This is the same type of thing that's going on now with music, books, movies, etc.
__________________
"Are you listening or just waiting to talk?"


Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

"Fate rarely calls upon us at a moment of our choosing."
Optimus Prime
Kyobanim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2012, 22:08   #14
Sigaba
Area Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,476
Not arguing...just asking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Urbanovsky View Post
And this is why we're seeing all of this RIAA related horseshit. It's because now, in the digital age, it is more possible than ever before to completely bypass the record labels, and do things guerrilla style. And that's a GOOD thing! Because it means more artists able to maintain creative control over their finished product, earn a sustainable income, and far less record label sodomy.
Thanks to your very eloquent comments about Metallica, I understand much better the backlash that band has received from its long time fans for the band's stance on copyright infringement.

But I respectfully ask: What happens when this frame of mind is applied to knives and "tacticool" gear?

Over on another BB, customers and supporters of TAD Gear help Prometheus and his crew keep an eye out for knockoffs from here in America and over seas by firms that take a guerrilla approach to product development. By the time they chase down the bouncing ball, their margins have taken a ding.

Here's another issue that your comments about Metallica raise: quality control. If a well-intended customer buys an American Kami knock off because it looks exactly the same but costs half as much, there could be two losers in the exchange: you and the customer if he/she uses the piece in a life critical situation.

Tie the two strings together and one has a snare for honest proprietors. While that customer is picking up the pieces of his/her life, you might have to deal with the undeserved fall out of the purchase. Thanks to a lawsuit, you might have to prove legally that the knife didn't come from your shop. Because of some chatter in the blogosphere, you'd have to re-establish your reputation in a niche industry.

A large corporation will have methods and people in place to handle these kinds of situations (and I'm speaking from my experience from working for a global industrial/consumer electronics company years ago). Yet, a craftsman in your position might find such a scenario a significant PITA and an equally big hit to your bottom line.

Yes, because of your reputation and the respect you've earned as a craftsman, individuals might contribute their money and their expertise to the cause--but would that be enough to balance out the time and money you'd still have to spend to address an issue that, arguably, should never cross your path?

Make no mistake, I do understand the broader indictment of the music industry and that its 'best practices' do not work in the interests of the artists or the customers (end users, at the rate things are going). However, I wonder if the 'big picture' should revolve around the points Kyobanim has raised regarding the rule of law rather than a debate over our respective views of the players involved.

Last edited by Sigaba; 04-01-2012 at 22:11.
Sigaba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2012, 08:49   #15
BOfH
Guerrilla Chief
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NYC Area
Posts: 828
MOO: The issue here isn't so much whether taking one's intellectual property without recourse is theft or not, it's the enforcement of triage laws and agreements. To draw a parallel, a shoplifter caught on camera and busted after he/she walks past the register with the merchandise in hand gives reasonable suspicion for the loss prevention personnel to act in the first place, even so, said person is still innocent 'till proven guilty. In the case of the "six strike" plan, the onus of innocence is placed on the person, with RIAA and the ISPs, judge, jury and executioner. That's NOT how our judicial system works, and the traditional means of determining reasonable suspicion do not fare well on the internet, essentially making everyone guilty until proven innocent. It's like the gun control crowds assertion "everyone is a potential criminal", all they need is a gun.
__________________
"Crime is an extension of business through illegal means, politics is an extension of crime through *legal* means."
BOfH is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
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

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:29.



Copyright 2004-2022 by Professional Soldiers ®
Site Designed, Maintained, & Hosted by Hilliker Technologies