![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
http://news.com.com/The+farce+behind+Digital+Freedom/2010-1025_3-6134620.html
This story was posted on the main page but this bit caught my attention:
"Devices and technologies are only as good as the content they use. As the U.S. Chamber of Commerce noted: "The coalition led by the Consumers Electronics Association is pursuing a self-defeating strategy. Demolishing the rights of creative artists will hurt consumers and technology providers, not help them. Musicians, artists, filmmakers and others won't produce rich, diverse content if they don't believe their creations will be adequately protected from IP theft and other unfair, illegal uses. Without content, the market for technology designed to deliver it will dry up quickly."
To me this statement is exceedingly contradictory and is the exact reson I could care less about piracy as it relates to movies, music and TV (I do not engage in the act). To me the problem is that Music, TV and Movies have now become so entrenched in the 'entertainment' classification that true artists are fast becoming legend and lore.
The problem with Mr. RIAAs comments is that he does not consider what we are doing to the world of "Musicians, artists, filmmakers" when the economic incentives are so great. The subtext here is that the economy of Media has now led to the proliferation of Britney, WifeSwap and The Santa Clause 3.
My point is that the RIAA does not see anything as 'broke' with the IP they offer to consumers but to me it is very sad that creativity is barely an afterthought in the majority of of the media that is produced today.
I personally see piracy as the pandemic virus of the media world. It claims a lot of victims but also serves it's purpose for the population at large.
Here is an idea, try to find a pirate version of the London Symphony performance of Beethoven's Lenore Overture #2. No luck? OK, now try to find the latest K. Fed CD. BINGO!
So it seems that piracy typically affects that which is most commercially viable to begin with (to think K. Fed is commercially viable...what a sad state of affairs) and yet manufactured hacks like Kelly Clarkson (sp?) still make millions.
It seems to me that the consuming populous is trying to send a message to RIAA who is simply choosing not to listen to it.
"Yes sir, I like Avril for a few hours if time and some HD space, but not for $15.99" The more and more we de-incentivize the labels to sign no-talent tools up, the less they will be willing to pay for the extravagances of their bling-bling artists, entourages and other flunkies.
In a world where economics factors are downplayed, artists will flourish and people will actually find something worth buying.
I myself have not bought a CD since 1996 which is the same time I started to listen NPR and to watch PBS. I am still waiting for some sort of meaningful reaction to terrible rap/hip-hop and reality TV and all that seems to emerge is more and more garbage.
This story was posted on the main page but this bit caught my attention:
"Devices and technologies are only as good as the content they use. As the U.S. Chamber of Commerce noted: "The coalition led by the Consumers Electronics Association is pursuing a self-defeating strategy. Demolishing the rights of creative artists will hurt consumers and technology providers, not help them. Musicians, artists, filmmakers and others won't produce rich, diverse content if they don't believe their creations will be adequately protected from IP theft and other unfair, illegal uses. Without content, the market for technology designed to deliver it will dry up quickly."
To me this statement is exceedingly contradictory and is the exact reson I could care less about piracy as it relates to movies, music and TV (I do not engage in the act). To me the problem is that Music, TV and Movies have now become so entrenched in the 'entertainment' classification that true artists are fast becoming legend and lore.
The problem with Mr. RIAAs comments is that he does not consider what we are doing to the world of "Musicians, artists, filmmakers" when the economic incentives are so great. The subtext here is that the economy of Media has now led to the proliferation of Britney, WifeSwap and The Santa Clause 3.
My point is that the RIAA does not see anything as 'broke' with the IP they offer to consumers but to me it is very sad that creativity is barely an afterthought in the majority of of the media that is produced today.
I personally see piracy as the pandemic virus of the media world. It claims a lot of victims but also serves it's purpose for the population at large.
Here is an idea, try to find a pirate version of the London Symphony performance of Beethoven's Lenore Overture #2. No luck? OK, now try to find the latest K. Fed CD. BINGO!
So it seems that piracy typically affects that which is most commercially viable to begin with (to think K. Fed is commercially viable...what a sad state of affairs) and yet manufactured hacks like Kelly Clarkson (sp?) still make millions.
It seems to me that the consuming populous is trying to send a message to RIAA who is simply choosing not to listen to it.
"Yes sir, I like Avril for a few hours if time and some HD space, but not for $15.99" The more and more we de-incentivize the labels to sign no-talent tools up, the less they will be willing to pay for the extravagances of their bling-bling artists, entourages and other flunkies.
In a world where economics factors are downplayed, artists will flourish and people will actually find something worth buying.
I myself have not bought a CD since 1996 which is the same time I started to listen NPR and to watch PBS. I am still waiting for some sort of meaningful reaction to terrible rap/hip-hop and reality TV and all that seems to emerge is more and more garbage.
