[batphink]

 

[Aynjell]

 
Quote:

 
This is strong evidence for another theory I have for why sales are poor. Personally, companies need to realize that we don't want all that crap, the thing is, 99% of the time it's easier and more cinvenient to pirate something. I'm wanting companies to beat that. Money isn't the issue for me, it's the ease of use with something I paid for. Games are a huge issue when it comes to this:
 
Only a paying customer has to insert a CD, register with some CD key, get limited numbers of installs, and get questioned on their honesty every time they decide to play the damned game. Companies need to realize that pirates are getting what paying customers should get. I just wish there was some way to show this to the big wigs at major organizations. This is exactly why I vote with my wallet. Steam is the dawn of the new era, the convenience I'd expect from a "rip", but the knowledge I paid for it and I'm not potentially going to jail. Again, I can prove very well I'm not a pirate... my steam account is 1500$ strong.
 
I'm just particularly vocal on the subject of digital rights management.
 
Basically just in line with the above:
 
Pirates : download the game -> play the game.
Customers: install the game, have to endure a "test" as to whether they're a legitimately paying customer that doesn't always work mind you, sometimes it fails and the customer's money is in the crapper, and maybe just maybe if it all goes right, they can play. Oh, and they paid 50-60$ to do so.
 
Steam is the experience of piracy, minus the legal issues.

 

[SP Wild]

Quote:

 
 
This is strong evidence for another theory I have for why sales are poor. Personally, companies need to realize that we don't want all that crap, the thing is, 99% of the time it's easier and more cinvenient to pirate something. I'm wanting companies to beat that. Money isn't the issue for me, it's the ease of use with something I paid for. Games are a huge issue when it comes to this:
 
Only a paying customer has to insert a CD, register with some CD key, get limited numbers of installs, and get questioned on their honesty every time they decide to play the damned game. Companies need to realize that pirates are getting what paying customers should get. I just wish there was some way to show this to the big wigs at major organizations. This is exactly why I vote with my wallet. Steam is the dawn of the new era, the convenience I'd expect from a "rip", but the knowledge I paid for it and I'm not potentially going to jail. Again, I can prove very well I'm not a pirate... my steam account is 1500$ strong.
 
I'm just particularly vocal on the subject of digital rights management.
 
Basically just in line with the above:
 
Pirates : download the game -> play the game.
Customers: install the game, have to endure a "test" as to whether they're a legitimately paying customer that doesn't always work mind you, sometimes it fails and the customer's money is in the crapper, and maybe just maybe if it all goes right, they can play. Oh, and they paid 50-60$ to do so.
 
Steam is the experience of piracy, minus the legal issues.

Games are a bit different.  In Australia most new games retail at the 100 dollar mark - I think this pricing strategy, necessary or not to recoup development costs, have killed the PC gaming scene - this high cost encourages piracy in the PC format - hence publishers now will never develop purely for PC, its console that receives first priority now. 
 
The cost of developing a blockbuster game is similar to the cost of making a blockbuster movie - but I think the sales volume is significantly lower, so blockbuster games cannot be priced at 10 bucks - however they do approach the 20 dollar mark after a 1 year or so after release, if somehow the store is trying to get rid of unwanted stock.
 
CD and DVD sales have never been better - so the music industry should shut up and enjoy their record sales (including legal downloads).

 

[Uncle Erik]

batphink, you have a point. I don't like all the unskippable content and Disney is particularly evil. I've watched innumerable DVDs with the kiddos and Disney certainly markets to that audience. I won't start pirating, but I will switch the TV to something else while they run through the pushy crap.

Painful, because I remember the days before Disney went to the dark side. When I was a kid, Disney didn't have pernicious marketing tie-ins and Disneyland was relatively cheap. You bought books of tickets for rides - the E tickets were the best.

 

[Meliboeus]

It's correct that when you purchase a CD, you pay for the physical medium as well as for a limited license which limits the use of the material contained in the physical medium;
 
What i never understood is how is the owner of that license properly determined, there isn't any solid proof that you own that record, you don't sign any contract to get in possession of it, for example imagine i have a brother who lives in my same homem has a CD collection and lets me rip some of them,  obviously it's a fair use of the artist's intellectual property, and no one will complain about it;
 
But now suppose my brother moves to another city with his collection, am i obliged to delete all the rips i made from his CDs ?  In theory i should because if an imaginary RIAA officer finds those files on my computer and asks where i obtained them, i'll have no ways to prove i obtained them fairly. 
 
If we replace my brother with a close friend, do we move further into the gray area ? And what if my brother lent his CDs to rip not only to me but to my uncle also, is it still fair ? Now we have three people using a single "license", then why not four, five, fifty people as long as it's a limited number controlled by the original "owner" of the license ? That is a pretty different situation than sharing on the internet to potentially anyone ( = piracy ), which i can clearly see as an unfair use of your limited rights.

 

[LevA]

interesting thought....
 
first point, I think if you are unaware the goods were stolen or had no reasonable doubt when obtaining the CD, then I think its not a gray area, in which I agree with Uncle eric in that 'intent' is not there. especially if you purchased through a shop which is registered as a business. in that case i would suspect the govt is more at fault for giving business licence to them rather than you. 
 
public viewing/listening is another matter. lets say you have a big party and you put on some music. would that be considered as public viewing and need special licencing or permission? or say you put the CD at work  with 50 workers? etc..
 
as for used CDs, as you  have mentioned there is no proof of record of ownership, so the logical conclusion would be that the ownership is linked to the actual product, so whoever has the CD is considered the owner. otherwise, enforcing such a law with proof would be too difficult, needing copy of reciept or similar documents. 
 

 

[terriblepaulz]

Quote:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09/first-sale-doctrine/
 
This 9th Cir. decision should probably kill the used CD market in about 2 years for the recently released CDs (depending on how fast RIAA moves to sue people who resells CDs).  It will probably go something like "STOP. By breaking this seal, you are agreeing to blah blah blah  blah . . . . may not sell, transfer, exchange, alienate or otherwise dispose of such CD/SACD/DVD-A without the prior written consent of your neighborhood Big Music, the consent of which may be withheld for any reason or no reason at all . . blah blah blah. . . Enjoy the music!"
 
Bye bye used CD market.
 
 
 

Any IP counsel care to chime in on the application of this decision outside the context of specialty software, or the likelihood of the 9th Circuit affirming en banc?

 

[Aynjell]

Quote:

Games are a bit different.  In Australia most new games retail at the 100 dollar mark - I think this pricing strategy, necessary or not to recoup development costs, have killed the PC gaming scene - this high cost encourages piracy in the PC format - hence publishers now will never develop purely for PC, its console that receives first priority now. 
 
The cost of developing a blockbuster game is similar to the cost of making a blockbuster movie - but I think the sales volume is significantly lower, so blockbuster games cannot be priced at 10 bucks - however they do approach the 20 dollar mark after a 1 year or so after release, if somehow the store is trying to get rid of unwanted stock.
 
CD and DVD sales have never been better - so the music industry should shut up and enjoy their record sales (including legal downloads).

No they aren't. In terms of what I should be able to do with my product and how easily I should be able to enjoy it, putting the disc in when no content required is still stored on the disc (the luxury of PC) is just disgusting. Thus I vote with my wallet and buy steam.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Taking out the second hand market, which employs millions directly and indirectly is economic madness.

 

[Albedo]

This whole business model is so outdated, it's already imploded as younger generations download without much concerns. The only way as I see it is multiple choices to support your favorite artists, like what Brian Eno offers besides the physical media: http://brian-eno.net/#headlines
 

High Quality Download
- Available 1st November

* 24-bit audiophile quality WAV download.
* 16-bit WAV downloads.
* Standard MP3/AAC downloads.

 

[SP Wild]

Quote:

No they aren't. In terms of what I should be able to do with my product and how easily I should be able to enjoy it, putting the disc in when no content required is still stored on the disc (the luxury of PC) is just disgusting. Thus I vote with my wallet and buy steam.

What I meant was that in the case of PC games, piracy has indeed killed sales as opposed to the DVD and CD insdustry, but yeah - Steam rocks!

 

[terriblepaulz]

Quote:

Taking out the second hand market, which employs millions directly and indirectly is economic madness.

Unfortunately, your statement, whether it is true or not, is of little or no interest to the litigants. 

 

[SkiesOfAzel]

  When you buy your music, you pay for the right to use it, you don't really own it. Most of the times not even the composer owns the rights to their own music, the big record/distribution companies get those. Most artists get less than 15% back from the cost of every cd of theirs sold. The rest of the money goes again to the distribution company.
 
  This model is unfair, old, and abuses both the artist and the buyer. It only benefits the middle man, that today, frankly isn't needed anymore. With the internet and digital distribution any band/artist can sell their tracks directly to consumers for the 1/3 of the cost they buy their cd's today, and still make a better profit. They can even let the consumer decide how much he want's/can pay for their music like Radiohead did with "In Rainbows".

 

[mralexosborn]

Quote:

I got to thinking tonite while listening to my headphones... what constitutes legal ownership of an album, or even what logical reasoning is there to buy an album? What fullproof argument is there?
 
Suppose we say "To support the artist", an equally powerful counter argument is the second hand market. What benefit exists to the artist when I purchased my copy of Ok Computer used at a local store? What about the copy of Overseer's Wreckage I bought that was a promotional copy (as in, gold lettering supposedly not for sale but I always buy these on the spot since they're special in some way).
 
Let's say we draw the line at having the album and being able to hold it... doesn't that rule out the digital distribution methods that exist (though I will justify myself in saying I don't ever buy music digitally, though amazon is usually nice enough to give me money towards mp3's on a lot of my purchases)?
 
What about just being able to say "I paid for it"? What good is that even? I could pay for an illegal copy just as well (though I wouldn't do so). Or somebody else could gift it to me, and who's to say they didn't steal it? What's to say the CD's I bought at a second hand store weren't originally stolen?
 
You can't even legally distinguish it as "I can sell it legally" because of above arguments (digital distribution, possibly stolen earlier on in the products lifetime).
 
What is the logic of not pirating the music? What distinguishes you from a pirate? What common and central theme exists when you PAY for something legally? How do you set the rule? At what point do you legally own the album without ruling the many possible methods of purchasing said album out? At what point am I justified? Every album in my collection is legally owned, but so many of them were bought second hand that I couldn't help but question it...
 
Hrm, here's a thought: "At some point either the artist agreed that this album should be free, or that it was purchased legally by it's first owner/licensee." That seems to ring true with just about everything, although it still raises the red flag or two about buying used because you can't verify it.
 
As a disclaimer, I am not endorsing piracy nor am I saying I do so... personally I think the effort put into finding good high quality verifiable (as in, bitaccurate) gapless copies tedious. Hell I can't even get such a high quality album from Nine Inch Nails when they put out their free album.

I guess one could argue if you want to support the artist then buy memorabilia or buy tickets for a concert or physical media. Piracy exists, all efforts to stop it are simply restricting what I can do and add censorship.
Also, why in the hell should I pay $0.99 for a song in 192kbps?! If I can pirate music and get lossless, then shoot I would do it just for the convenience of not going to the store, not to mention money.
Ahh, the complexity of digital media...

 

[SP Wild]

Aint that the truth.  Just sayin it how it is, thats all, huh?