>> ^Trancecoach:
Yes, bye bye telco's. Unless they're restricted to data carrying (they have good infrastructure for that), they'll be replaced.


Yes, of course they will be replaced. Just like how we've gotten rid of the MPAA and the RIAA since they started illegal practices 10 years ago. Wait, we haven't? Ahh, crap.

Telco will never disappear because they will always be viewed as essential. They have one of the best business positions to be in (an oligopoly that has a start up cost, but virtually zero operating costs for each client) and they still serve an essential function that they can't be cut out for. Deathcow's right. Go improve BitTorrent algorithms because you're dead wrong, Bram.

One game that handled sexual content well is Max Payne 2.

This is the exact same as movies, but the difference is that if a game gets the Ao rating, it's dead in the water, because the big outlets won't sell them. X-rated movies are still sold to adults, even if the Internet is killing the industry.

But still MPAA and ESRB are terribly misguided in that the least bit sexual content skyrockets the rating and a game like Soldier of Fortune get's an M. It's even worse if there's even a hint of gay sexuality, don't get me started. But that's more common in movies, videogames take a huge circle around that.

Having dabbled in the music industry I can tell you that artists make almost 3 times as much from concerts as they do for albums. Unless your selling them yourselves at shows. But that's still money made at concerts. Record labels seem to make the majority of the profits when it comes to the work of a musician. The better the label is at selling your product the more money you both make but it still doesn't beat the money you make doing concerts.

What it record labels do is offer a trade, they have the capital and the resources to spread your bands name to millions of people. Doing that on your own as a indie artist is nearly impossible.

The internet has changed that somewhat. Now as an artist you don't need a record label you just need a lot of fans or band members who spend a good amount of time spreading your name on indie music sites (i.e. purevolume) or making a good myspace page.

The reason companys fail is because they would rather fight change then embrace it. For big record labels the industry has been the same for almost 40 years. And it's sometimes hard for corporate execs to find ways to adapt to a changing industry. (Hense organizations such as the RIAA,MPAA and DMCA are set up to keep the industry the way it is.)

Illegal downloading is a concern because it drives prices up. But driving up prices only increases illegal downloading. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing because it encourages artists to produce quality work and actually work for it. Take Mettalica for instance, the internet helped people realize that 90% of their work is utter crap. In order for them to survive they need to produce more hits and less filler. That's a tall order for artists who are in it for money and not the love of music.

Ripping your own CDs is not a violation.

What I believe the RIAA and MPAA is missing out on is a larger worldwide market by restricting the exposure of their products. How would I ever know about obscure artists in the US if I live in the Gulf or Japan or South Africa? The internet is the largest free marketing base.

Furthermore, both these companies sit on close to a centuries worth of media content that is completely stagnant and kept in vaults, its not being sold, its not being aired it simply lies stagnant. That is a loss of probable sales (I want DVD of older flicks! rentals, and so on. I realized this when Warner started pulling old clips from films due to copyright.

We are not talking morality or ethics in anyway here, this is about the middle men who are quickly running out of power, it is now possibly for artists to have an intimate relationship with their fans, instead of having recording companies.

This is only more power to the artist.

I agree with the RIAA and MPAA being fat, crooked beheomoths because all of the damages they've gotten off of college students never found it back to the artists, naturally. They obviously are way behind the curve when it comes to adjusting to this new media distribution and probably won't survive it. I guess my biggest gripe is an emotional response, the smug look on their faces, their insistence that they have the right to share in other people's property, if that's in fact what it is.

I guess I'm just wired to think 'nothing is free'.

^Schmawy
I hear what you're saying, the argument that because BMW probably paid MGM a decent amount of money to use their car, it suddenly becomes alright to pirate the film. And I think its absurd to suggest they're heroes of morality.

On the other hand the RIAA and MPAA are such immoral bastards themselves there aren't too many consumers willing to fly their banner (lest they get sued for flying a banner without copyright permission).

I think a lot of us dance around in the grey area, not really right, but not exactly outright thievery. I really don't think a "right/fair" option exists at the moment.

>> ^Bidouleroux:

lol. Don't you realize that by watching videos on the sift you're breaking the copyright laws of most industrial countries?


Sorry if it was unclear, the eye patch and peg leg bit was directed at myself

Just a nitpick about the desc...I think you mean MPAA and not the FCC. The FCC deals with censoring television and radio...the MPAA censors movies and was actually known as the MPPDAA aka the "Hays Code" back in 1934.

fantastic movie. was featured in "this film is not yet rated" for the awful treatment it received from the MPAA ratings board in spite of resorting almost entirely to innuendo for its sexual content

Hmm, I thought the new Donald Trump biography wasn't out yet. Who leaked this? I'm calling the MPAA and naming names.

JUDO CHOP!

That would be a true battle of the titans.


The only problem is that it would end up costing the american public hundreds of thousands in court fees, etc. Best outcome? The judge takes away their suing sticks. Scientology and RIAA/MPAA no longer have the power to sue anybody, ever.

>> ^rottenseed:
er...I'm gonna stop downloading...like right now. I don't have the money to buy the movie legit let alone settle with some high power lawyers.
I think we need to set up some sabotage where the MPAA's lawyers end up going against the Scientologist's lawyers.

^LOL at blankfist. Thanks for sharing your story dgandhi. The MPAA certainly controls the whole proceedings... giving choices that aren't really choices.

for any bit torrent users...please protect your I.P. address !
use PROTOWALL or BLOCKLIST MANAGER

>> ^blankfist:
Where do you live?

At the time, California.

er...I'm gonna stop downloading...like right now. I don't have the money to buy the movie legit let alone settle with some high power lawyers.

I think we need to set up some sabotage where the MPAA's lawyers end up going against the Scientologist's lawyers.

I don't know what to say, that's horrible.

When I first discovered BT, I downloaded a bunch of BSG episodes. Shortly after, I got a letter from my ISP that listed a number of fake torrents I had attempted to download - presumably hosted by the MPAA - and threatened to cancel my service if I ever did it again. I guess I got off easy.

I've heard that they are changing their litigious strategy because it is a big money loser for them.

I owe you a * quality for this in 1 day 8 hours 24 minutes.

>> ^blankfist:
dghandi, do tell more!


I just sat down and wrote a nice long explanation, but I don't think my settlement with the MPAA will allow me to post it without risking everything I own, or will ever own. I'll go dig out the settlement papers and see what I am allowed to say.

Edit:
It's kinda long and off topic, so I dropped it in sifttalk Here