ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
  Search
 
 
Users Threads  
  Forums  
SHORTNEWS
SUPPORT
WHAT'S NEW?
POLL
AUTOMOTIVE
CURRENT EVENTS
ECONOMY
ENTERTAINMENT
HEALTH
HIGH TECH
POLITICS
RECREATION
REGIONAL
SCIENCE
SOCIETY AND CULTURE
SPORTS
ShortNewser of the month
  8 comments
      Back to Forum
 
  File Sharing good for society  
  
"Has file-sharing helped society? Looked at from the narrow perspective of existing record labels, the question must seem absurd; profits have dropped sharply in the years since tools like Napster first appeared. But a pair of well-known academics argue peer-to-peer file sharing has weakened copyright in the US... and managed to benefit all of us at the same time...."

http://arstechnica.com/...
 
 From: tuogh     06/21/2010 07:37 PM     
  So true  
  
For one thing digital copies cost next to nothing to produce & share so why be forced to pay for something that doesn´t cost anything to produce. Though it is good to support what you like, so they can produce more. What I liked from Microsoft I heard recently is that they are ok with it because by attacking those who like their products they are attacking their user base, & that most people pirate because they don´t have the money to get it legitimately & by allowing this to happen when they grow & advance themselves until they are capable of buying their product they will in support of their work.

As well, copyright slows progress. Fundamentally greed slows progress. What is happening is that things are changing & those who are greedy can´t keep up with the change & are trying to force or slow the change to say. They are differently working against the flow & slowing it as they do so. Instead they should embrace it I swim with it. Only because by focusing their energy into working against it that they could have been using to work with it they could be making more profits (& not spending it on a losing battle, which slows their own progress along with it).

Things like the music industry are not about the music, they are about the money & should just be considered that (money industry through music). If they where a music industry they would show it more & be open to the creative process through sharing. Because that is all what it is about, creating something to share artistically. They have lost their roots & are slowly dieing, & I can´t wait until this weed dies.
 
  by: vhan     06/21/2010 09:10 PM     
  Depends  
  
Peer-To-Peer is bad for society. The bandwidth is too damn unreliable and slow. It also opens you up to all kinds of system vulnerabilities.

I would much rather pay for faster direct downloads that don´t put your system up for risk of notice and attack like bit-torrent does. In fact I already do. Its called mega upload.

That should be a hint to business models out there. I actually PAY to file share. I´d much rather PAY companies, if they were priced around the same amount Mega-Upload is per month.

For instance I pay for netflix, although I´ve never ordered a DVD from them ever. I pay for their streaming movie archive. Its a monthly fee, and 10,000+ titles I don´t have to illegally download. I could download all those titles, but Netflix is more of a convenience, thus worth the cost. (I don´t need a 10 Peta-byte hard drive to store it all either)

If the industries moved to a subscription based service for direct-downloads or streaming content I would never file share.

Paying for music should never happen under any circumstances however at this point in our development. 3 Megabytes is not even worth a penny. The only way I can ever see paying for music, is maybe if they improved Pandora to let people build their own playlists, and stop forcing crap music into the radio stations. Even then more then $5 a month would be pushing it. (Most music can be ripped off YouTube for free. Again the only value in paying would be the convenience.
 
  by: Tetsuru Uzuki     06/21/2010 10:52 PM     
  @vhan  
  
"why be forced to pay for something that doesn´t cost anything to produce"

I totally disagree. Is a book only worth the paper it´s printed on, or a painting only worth the sum of the value of the canvass and the paint? You´re talking about something somebody worked very hard to create. Not to mention that musical instruments, studio time and the services of technicians and producers cost money, too.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     06/21/2010 11:30 PM     
  it all depends..  
  
On the creator.

Plus with peer to peer the biggest concern are the ISP & that uploading cause more prob lems of congestion then downloading.
 
  by: vhan     06/21/2010 11:36 PM     
  meant than  
  
& no Ben, try to understasnd because I think these people diserve something from their work, it´s that the big buisnesses are out to maximize profit @ the expense of their artists, & I would rather support the creator & not the ring leader, who is creating the problems I already mentioned.
 
  by: vhan     06/21/2010 11:41 PM     
  guilty feeling  
  
I´ve worked in film and publishing industries- I´ve seen a movie that I worked on that was online, and guess what....I didn´t download it because I felt like I was robbing myself.

I don´t care about anyone else other than myself, you see.
 
  by: theironboard     06/24/2010 08:41 PM     
  I´ll tell you what  
  
Outrageous rental and purchase prices, followed by 0 demos released by publishers in the gaming world (and hell movies for renting), has pushed me to consider pirating first and if the game is then worth it after playing to purchase it.
 
  by: jediman3     06/27/2010 08:04 PM     
  i totally agree jedi  
  
Plus just think about how much waste there is when you buy CDs instead of downloading it come to find out you don´t like it & throw it away.
 
  by: vhan     06/27/2010 11:02 PM     
  8 comments
   Back to Forum
 
 
 
Copyright ©2017 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com