Quake3World

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,120425,00.asp

They want the internet2 to have the ability to filter 'unauthorized' file transfers.

What a bunch of degenerative cunts.

FUCK THOSE DUDES FOR TRYING TO STOP YOU STEALING THEIR SHITS

http://www.internet2.edu/

They admit it's a problem right on the front page.

so much for thinking you were safe under the inet2 umbrella :lol:

disclaimer: i don't condone the RIAA's goofball antics NOR do i condone copyrighted file trading.

LOL INTERNET wrote:FUCK THOSE DUDES FOR TRYING TO STOP YOU STEALING THEIR SHITS

No, fuck them for impeding progress under the name of greed.

They refuse to acknowledge they have to play the same rules as all other businesses to stay alive; have a good product, do a good job getting it to your customer, and run an effecient organization.

All of which they fail at.


It's funny that all the GOOD artists, support file sharing as it grows the fan base, but the shitty ones that can't sell a million records without a Walmart commercial are against it. This is no coincidence.

YEAH FUCK EM FOR TRYING TO EARN A BUCK IN THIS CRAZY FREE WORLD

it seems the "200 university members" are monitoring and reporting to the RIAA?

Cool Blue wrote:No, fuck them for impeding progress under the name of greed.

so because the record industry is overly retarded and charging too much for cd's, it makes it ok to swap files because "hey, it's too damn expensive."?

no, but they need to rethink their business model, and stop crying about it

Grudge wrote:no, but they need to rethink their business model,

i totally agree, but it doesn't make it ok for anyone to load up a client and go to town.

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:

Cool Blue wrote:No, fuck them for impeding progress under the name of greed.

so because the record industry is overly retarded and charging too much for cd's, it makes it ok to swap files because "hey, it's too damn expensive."?

Putting words in peoples mouths takes away your credibility.

I'm simply stating they are suffering due to their own ignorance and arrogance. A problem they can solve, but choose not to.

Lets say for example, you go and purchase a new computer monitor. YOu take it home, set it up, begin using it an realize it's far less than you expected. What would you do? You'd take it back. That's what you would do. Why? Because it has no value to you, or at the very least, it's not worth the money you spent on it. So you take it back and get a different one and hope it works better than the last.

This is what's happening to the RIAA. People are, nay, were, buying their shit products then realizing this isn't worth the toilet paper they smeared their feces on that morning. And thus have stopped paying for music until AFTER they've sampled it. Pretty much everybody I know, purchases the CDs of musicians they enjoy because they're not so stupid as to not understand they need to support their artists.

This cycle could be severly reduced if the RIAA stopped mass producing one hit wonder bands and over saturating their market. There *was* a time when you had to have talent to be successful in music. Those days are gone, lost to overproduction and marketing.


Bands today (singers too) are manufactured like cheap plastic toys from China. One parts teenie bopper, one part cunt/bitch, one part generic love lyrics, one part choreography lessons, and one part publicist. Mix them up, add some make-up and a drum machine and PRESTO! You have an industry just waiting to flop.

Cool Blue wrote:Putting words in peoples mouths takes away your credibility.

don't be naive, you know damn well that's what happening.

Cool Blue wrote:I'm simply stating they are suffering due to their own ignorance and arrogance. A problem they can solve, but choose not to.

Lets say for example, you go and purchase a new computer monitor. YOu take it home, set it up, begin using it an realize it's far less than you expected. What would you do? You'd take it back. That's what you would do. Why? Because it has no value to you, or at the very least, it's not worth the money you spent on it. So you take it back and get a different one and hope it works better than the last.

This is what's happening to the RIAA. People are, nay, were, buying their shit products then realizing this isn't worth the toilet paper they smeared their feces on that morning. And thus have stopped paying for music until AFTER they've sampled it. Pretty much everybody I know, purchases the CDs of musicians they enjoy because they're not so stupid as to not understand they need to support their artists.

This cycle could be severly reduced if the RIAA stopped mass producing one hit wonder bands and over saturating their market. There *was* a time when you had to have talent to be successful in music. Those days are gone, lost to overproduction and marketing.


Bands today (singers too) are manufactured like cheap plastic toys from China. One parts teenie bopper, one part cunt/bitch, one part generic love lyrics, one part choreography lessons, and one part publicist. Mix them up, add some make-up and a drum machine and PRESTO! You have an industry just waiting to flop.

i'm addressing the ethics of trading copyrighted material, NOT how sh*tty the music industry is right now. i'm in total agreement that most albums are not worth purchasing because of fillers and that the music industry in a whole is on a downward spiral.

sampling turns into "ah screw it, there's only two good tracks on this album, i'll just keep it." that's just how it is. and the excuse of "i'm a poor college student", which lots of punks cry out, doesn't hold water.

don't let the lack of creativity from artists/labels fuel the "need" for file sharing. it's ridiculous.

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:i'm addressing the ethics of trading copyrighted material, NOT how sh*tty the music industry is right now. i'm in total agreement that most albums are not worth purchasing because of fillers and that the music industry in a whole is on a downward spiral.

sampling turns into "ah screw it, there's only two good tracks on this album, i'll just keep it." that's just how it is. and the excuse of "i'm a poor college student", which lots of punks cry out, doesn't hold water.

don't let the lack of creativity from artists/labels fuel the "need" for file sharing. it's ridiculous.

There is a good deal of legitimate file sharing going on. Just becuase most people only focus on the exchange of copyrighted material is not cause to label the entire exchange bad and criminal (jokes, funny home videos, flash movies, user created media, freeware, pics, etc.).

I support their efforts to encrypt and encode their products to protect from illegal distribution, but I refuse to let them take away on of my freedoms to ensure their profits. And this is what they are trying to do. If I wanted to create and distribute my own movie, I should be allowed to, however they would have it so I must obtain 'authorization' to do it. Authorization from, I don't know, they haven't thought that far ahead (which is a scary thought too).

If these guys controlled literature they way they control music, nobody would be allowed to quote or reference any published work without paying royalties to these greedy people.

+JuggerNaut+ wrote: i don't condone the RIAA's goofball antics NOR do i condone copyrighted file trading.

ditto

..and i understand your point. but the fact remains that most people use filesharing illegaly. i myself use bittorrent for linux distros and .shn files. again, i'm not condoning what the RIAA is doing/has done, but at the same time i certainly don't condone the sharing of copyright material. i don't have a solution, only making comments.

Same here.

I'm in business for myself, so I completely understand their plight. But at the same time, know better than to let them tell lies and state they are losing money because of file sharing. *If* they are losing money, it's because of their business model and practices.


One can't count thefts as lost sales, because it's doubtful the people who stole it would have paid for it anyway had there been no other alternative.

one of the main things that would curb alot of this is lowering the price point of a standard cd to something like $9.99. i'll pay $15-$20 for music, but only in a hi-def format or hybrids.

Cool Blue wrote:

LOL INTERNET wrote:FUCK THOSE DUDES FOR TRYING TO STOP YOU STEALING THEIR SHITS

No, fuck them for impeding progress under the name of greed.

They refuse to acknowledge they have to play the same rules as all other businesses to stay alive; have a good product, do a good job getting it to your customer, and run an effecient organization.

All of which they fail at.


It's funny that all the GOOD artists, support file sharing as it grows the fan base, but the shitty ones that can't sell a million records without a Walmart commercial are against it. This is no coincidence.

That sounds like ultra-liberal nerd justification IMO. I'm all for the advancement of technology and hate to see large companies crap on the smaller guy, but I cant condone and justify straight-up theft as a proper way of going about things because I dont agree with a rich company getting richer. However, their strive to filter and limit the advancement of technology is something that I'm cautious about accepting. I understand the need to control the theft, but I dont think limitations that apply to everyone is the way to go about it.

Grudge wrote:no, but they need to rethink their business model, and stop crying about it

free > business model

They can't compete.

bitWISE wrote:

Grudge wrote:no, but they need to rethink their business model, and stop crying about it

free > business model

They can't compete.

free < low-cost business model
they can

LeonardoP wrote:

bitWISE wrote:

Grudge wrote:no, but they need to rethink their business model, and stop crying about it

free > business model

They can't compete.

free < low-cost business model
they can

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:one of the main things that would curb alot of this is lowering the price point of a standard cd to something like $9.99. i'll pay $15-$20 for music, but only in a hi-def format or hybrids.

woof

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:

LeonardoP wrote:

bitWISE wrote: free > business model

They can't compete.

free < low-cost business model
they can

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:one of the main things that would curb alot of this is lowering the price point of a standard cd to something like $9.99. i'll pay $15-$20 for music, but only in a hi-def format or hybrids.

woof

didnt read your post.
why the woof? lol you think im copying you or something?

High quality free shit is always preferred. That's already quite easy to get, so the business model would have to be ultra-low cost and also be ultra convenient to have a chance...

Canis wrote:High quality free shit is always preferred. That's already quite easy to get, so the business model would have to be ultra-low cost and also be ultra convenient to have a chance...

high quality? that's arguable.

low cost is not there yet, but how can it get any more convenient than hitting itunes or its other clones?

Canis wrote:High quality free shit is always preferred. That's already quite easy to get, so the business model would have to be ultra-low cost and also be ultra convenient to have a chance...

well almost everyone prefers the original business model, so if you make it more cost-effective it would definitely work.