• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Who's side is the media on? RIAA or Crackers/Hackers

F

FrustratedUser

Lifer
Just a thought!

The media is not helping the big companies with anti-piracy because they publish how it's done all over the world ---> letting 'normal' people in on the secret.
The case I'm thinking of is the marker-pen trick on 'copy-protected-CD's'.
 
not really taking sides, it's just a great lead story when millions in R&D can be foiled so easily. It's human nature to laugh at foolish pride.
 
I've seen newspaper or magazine articles telling of how much money the industry and recording artists are losing due to the ease of digital copying and stuff, and I've seen them written from the opposing view as well. You should be happy that the media is reporting both sides and not just one.
 
The media just reports what sells. Think of the headlines like "US Army planning surprise attack on Iraq."

They arent that bad in the real world, but sometimes they get close to being that bad.
 
Yet on the other hand you never saw mass-media coverage of the Sklyarov issue, nor do you hear much about the DMCA/SSSCA/CBDTPA. Part of the reason for this is that most mass-media is owned by AOL/Time-Warner or Disney; two organizations with a vested interest in making sure no such stories get aired.
 
Yet on the other hand you never saw mass-media coverage of the Sklyarov issue, nor do you hear much about the DMCA/SSSCA/CBDTPA. Part of the reason for this is that most mass-media is owned by AOL/Time-Warner or Disney; two organizations with a vested interest in making sure no such stories get aired.
Click to expand...
That would be a great contender for the 'conspiracy theory' page, except that the major news organizations rarely if ever cover proposed legislation that isn't even out of the originating Congressional subcommittee. There are only about a billion laws introduced every year that never make it out of committee, many of them are pretty zaney. It would be a monumental waste of time to try and report them all, since the vast majority never even make it anywhere near the floor for a vote.

Peddle your conspiracy theories to a bunch of uneducated dolts who are too ignorant about the political process to know better, mmm...K?
 
Originally posted by: tcsenter
Yet on the other hand you never saw mass-media coverage of the Sklyarov issue, nor do you hear much about the DMCA/SSSCA/CBDTPA. Part of the reason for this is that most mass-media is owned by AOL/Time-Warner or Disney; two organizations with a vested interest in making sure no such stories get aired.
Click to expand...
That would be a great contender for the 'conspiracy theory' page, except that the major news organizations rarely if ever cover proposed legislation that isn't even out of the originating Congressional subcommittee. There are only about a billion laws introduced every year that never make it out of committee, many of them are pretty zaney. It would be a monumental waste of time to try and report them all, since the vast majority never even make it anywhere near the floor for a vote.

Pander your conspiracy theories to a bunch of uneducated dolts who are too ignorant about the political process to know better, mmm...K?
Click to expand...

So it's a conspiracy theory when a company clearly acts in its own best interest?

edit: clearly it's also in the company's best interest to put out what's newsworthy. However, I think that the former clearly outweights the latter. A company isn't going to tell you how to steal its own property.
 
So it's a conspiracy theory when a company clearly acts in its own best interest?

edit: clearly it's also in the company's best interest to put out what's newsworthy. However, I think that the former clearly outweights the latter. A company isn't going to tell you how to steal its own property.



Sorry, but as someone who works in the media, I can tell you that news decisions are RARELY made out of corporate pressure. Most editorial decisions on content are made locally by editors. I dont deny there have been some cases where a network has told a news show (dateline, 48 hours, etc.) to drop a segment, but those decisions are rare and not the norm.
 
So it's a conspiracy theory when a company clearly acts in its own best interest?
Click to expand...
Ah look, an uneducated dolt I was talking about...

Neither AOL/Time Warner nor Disney owns one-tenth of the major news agencies or outlets in the US news market nor does either company own but a fraction of the major copyright holding companies who are backing DMCA/CBDTPA type legislation.

It is a conspiracy theory to believe that a company which owns so little of the news media market can exert near total editorial control over that market. AOL/Time Warner and Disney are "entertainment media" conglomerates, substantially less are they "news media" conglomerates. They have plenty of competition which would LOVE to break any news AOL/Time Warner or Disney wouldn't want reported.

But, beyond all that, even the most CASUAL search of ANY major news organziation's archives, INCLUDING those with some connection to AOL/Time Warner, will show DOZENS of articles covering the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Sklyarov case: Rueters, The Associated Press, The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Detroit Free Press, San Jose Mercury News, The Washington Post, et al.

Whose fault is it that this guy doesn't know how to read or has a terrible memory??

With respect to the CBDTPA, it NEVER made it out of legislative committee, and few news agencies waste air time or print space reporting on proposed legislation that has no chance of ever coming to a vote because it was tabled or killed in committee. Thousands of proposals are introduced every year that never make it out of committee, and as I said earlier, it would be a momumental waste of time to cover DEAD bills.

On edit: LMAO!! I just searched the archive of Time Magazine. You know, the "Time" Magazine of AOL/Time Warner fame? Guess what case was reported in the pages of Time Magazine on 08/12/01?

You guessed it, the Sklyarov case. Article is entitled "Throwing the E-Book at Him". Rather odd for a company trying to keep a tight lid on copyright issues to protect its own interests, wouldn't you say?

Or, what about the Digital Millennium Copyright Act article entitled "Digital Divisiveness" dated 08/28/00? Perhaps that was a "Wired.com" story? Nope, Time Magazine.

In lieu of an apology from Astaroth33 and Bizmark, I will accept the following proclamation:

"I [insert name here] am a complete idiot and I promise not to make another statement on any matter about which I know absolutely nothing."

Feel free to cut and paste, I don't mind.
 
I think the media has to compete with other media for lead stories... however what they release is almost always useless... Most people who would copy a Sony disk would already know how to... so they didn't hurt Sony any. When I saw a report about Star Wars 2 being available before it was out, they failed to mention that it was so horribly copied that no one would really want to watch it that way. Meanwhile there was a decent copy of Spiderman. Now take the example of them saying how they "found" such and such a movie on Kazaa.... Who the hell uses Kazaa for movies? Maybe IRC, eDonkey2000, or Newsgroups.... but NOT Kazaa!!! I could just picture the quality, and library of movies shared on Kazaa... *shudders*. I think the media may be letting people know about the "crap" that's online so that once they try it they'll get a sour taste in thier mouth from it.
 
Who's side is the media on?
Click to expand...
Why, their side of course. While I don't believe media conglomorates have hidden mind control agendas I'm very aware of individual bias. But we're all human and each one of us must learn how to tell reality from fiction even in reporting.
 
i use kazaa for movies ad know a lot of other people that do as well. and the movies are great quality that i get off there. there are the ones that you DL that plain suck but then you just get a diff version and it all good.

This hole music industry loosing money isnt cause of people downloading mp3s or copying CDs its because the music that has been but out in teh past 5 yeears is total crap and people just dont wanna listen to it anymore
 
This hole music industry loosing money isnt cause of people downloading mp3s or copying CDs its because the music that has been but out in teh past 5 yeears is total crap and people just dont wanna listen to it anymore
Click to expand...
That's the dumbest reason I've ever heard. Please don't include me when you speak for the general public.
 
RIAA can lick it...

Artists make their money from concerts, and if they don't feel they are making enough... TOUGH, go get a real fuggin job, see how it feels to get paid $35,000 as a fire fighter where you put your LIFE on the line.
 
Originally posted by: Mookow
The media just reports what sells. Think of the headlines like "US Army planning surprise attack on Iraq."

They arent that bad in the real world, but sometimes they get close to being that bad.
Click to expand...

Right on... they really don't care as long as they are the ones giving it and not taking it (if you know what I mean 😉 )
 
Artists make their money from concerts, and if they don't feel they are making enough...
Click to expand...

I'll disagree with that. A lot of people seem to think that concerts are these huge money making megabuck shows. Maybe for a mega artist like Garth Brooks, U2, or Elton John that charge $50 a pop or more for tickets and can sell out a 50,000 person stadium.

For many lesser bands, the mega bucks aren't very "mega".

Take for example your average rock/hard rock concert.

There's 4 bands in the lineup, 3 openers and a headliner. Tickets are $35 a piece which aren't too uncommon of prices.

Figure in that the headliner takes in nearly half that money. That leaves about $17 to be distributed to the other three bands. That works out to about $5.30 a ticket for each band. An average band has 4 members. Each member is now making $1.35 a ticket. Take this times 4,000 tickets and each band member brings in about $4300 per show. They'll maybe do 20 shows a year so they'll make about $85,000.

Now, I haven't taken out stage hand and roadie costs. I haven't taken out stage and equipment costs. I haven't taken out venue costs. I haven't taken out traveling costs. I haven't taken out management costs. I haven't taken out living expenses. And I certainly haven't taken out taxes.

After it's all said and done, the non-megastar artists probably don't do a whole lot better than your average middle class family off of ticket sales.
 

its not all money😛 for every band that they make mega bux on, theres another they lost bux on😛 same goes for movies.. for every mega movie, there are like 2 failures it has to makeup for.
 
Artists make their money from concerts, and if they don't feel they are making enough... TOUGH, go get a real fuggin job, see how it feels to get paid $35,000 as a fire fighter where you put your LIFE on the line.
Click to expand...
Ahhh...how we try to rationalize our dishonorable behavior.

Only the top 10 or so artists/bands at any give time are going to make a substantial income from their concert tours. The purpose of concert tours is to DRIVE ALBUM SALES (and make concert promoters rich), not the other way around. For the majority of artists, concert tours are only fairly better than a wash (break even) financially and their money comes largely from albums sales. Only the fortunate few top-grossing acts are really cashing in from both.

And if you think that $35,000 isn't enough money, you can always change professions and go where the money is, which is how everyone else makes more money. The 'someone else makes more money than me so I'm entitled to steal from them' mentality is not just juvenile, its getting a little old and pathetic. Lots of people put their life on the line for less every day and never complain about what they make, there's nothing special about you.
 
What is this marker pen trick on "copy protected" cds?

Anyways, if the RIAA really wanted to make more money, they wouldn't sell CDs for the high prices that they do, and they would pay musicians what they're worth, and it isn't millions of dollars a year. Very VERY few musicians deserve more than 100 grand a year. I don't care about all this "hard work" and "working for free" that they do. Lawyers do the same thing with their non-paid internships, as well as millions of more respectable Americans. Why a music CD costs more than a DVD video is beyond me. Why untalented peple like Britney Spears can make millions of dollars a year because they have nice bodies is also beyond me. There wouldn't be the drug problems in the music industry either, if they didn't have all that money. How often is a movie star killing himself due to an overdose, or blowing his/her head off with a shotgun?

Especially with this rap crap. They are getting more money, and then the idiot consumers buy their stupid music which just talks about big screen tvs, mad hoes, and how much money they are making. Is Mariah Carey really worth 50 million dollars? Um...no. NO NO NO!!! If you say yes, you should just crawl into a hole and live there for 10 years or so.

RIAA is a bunch of crap. They are losing money supposedly because people are not willing to pay $18 for a MUSIC CD. 1 hour of entertainment! That's more than a lot of people (especially the teenagers and college students who buy the most cds) make in an hour. If they wanted to double, or even triple their sales, they should make CD's for about $8 apiece, and that should be the most. It's not like it costs much more than 30 cents to press a CD from start to finish. These companies just need to justify their existence.

Sorry for the length, but I had to rant about their bs.
 
Originally posted by: vi_edit
After it's all said and done, the non-megastar artists probably don't do a whole lot better than your average middle class family off of ticket sales.
Click to expand...

Is there a reason why being an artist should be such a glorified occupation and that their right to be wealthy should be protected?

tcsenter, you are right... firefighters who save people's homes and lives deserve to make squat while artists deserve to be multi-millionaires. :disgust:
Anyway, we've had this conversation before, you didn't get it then and I don't expect you to understand now. We just don't need the recording companies anymore. They're the latest buggy whip manufacturers. We as patrons of the arts don't need them, the artists themselves don't need them and, with the exception of the extreme few whom the RIAA gods smile upon, the artists will be better off without them.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by: LAUST
RIAA can lick it...

Artists make their money from concerts, and if they don't feel they are making enough... TOUGH, go get a real fuggin job, see how it feels to get paid $35,000 as a fire fighter where you put your LIFE on the line.
Click to expand...

My brother is a firefighter, and I want to go into law enfocement, so i feel that I should applaud this statement
 
Why a music CD costs more than a DVD video is beyond me.
Click to expand...
i think CDs, good ones at least, have a higher inherent value than most good movies. of course theres a lot of bad movies and a lot of bad albums
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top