Comments on: University p2p ‘report’ http://www.p2pnet.net/story/2246 p2pnet.net - reader powered Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:03:58 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/2246/comment-page-1#comment-14027 Reader's Write Sat, 21 May 2005 00:02:32 +0000 #comment-14027 Sessenbrenner is the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. He is a member of the House of Representatives, not the Senate. Sessenbrenner is the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. He is a member of the House of Representatives, not the Senate.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/2246/comment-page-1#comment-5531 Reader's Write Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:07:01 +0000 #comment-5531 I've read somewhere that there was a study performed that tried to mitigate the issues that P2P brings with it. The biggest being the lack of money making its way to the artists. After the study was concluded, the obvious message was that P2P will not die and another idea with dealing with it needs to be persued (sort of like drugs and prostitution, but that's a another story). Anyway, the recommendation was that a users ISP would charge a nominal amount of money ( I think they were saying $5 a month) and that money would go directly into a pot of money to pay out artists. This models the RADIO industry where the station pays money to SOCAN, ASCAP, etc.. they sample radio play and pay artists based on statistics. Any user that pays the $5 a month will be free to use ANY P2P of choice and download as much as they want. Someone or some process will perform the statistical anaylsis (this is already happening) and pay the artists accordingly. The figures I saw were revenue generation of $3Billion a year. From nothing now to $3billion. This makes a lot of sense and I think is the way the internet community NEEDS to go and users NEEDS to push. For the price of 4-5 CDs today, you get as many as you want. The problem that the Big FOUR and whoever are encountering is that they can't sue everyone. When you shut down one P2P service another 3 pop up. The bigger issue is that the record companies will spend more money litigating than they can actually recover. Its a losing game on either side. This situation is just like when Radio first came out and the record comapines "sued them all". Eventually they realised its a losing war and they needed to take another measure to collect money for their artists. Now, every time a song is played on the radio, the artist gets 25 cents and the songwriter gets 25 cents. So basically doing this on P2P is where I think we need to go. I'm not sure what portion of the $5 would go to the record company, but as far as I am concerned, the message the record companies are giving is that P2P is infringing on the artist. So let them back their words up and get their artists money from an extremely viable distribution medium. I'm an artist and would gladly pay $60 a year to be able to support other artists and in turn have myself supported. Pretty simple solution. Thoughts? Has anyone else heard of this study and proposal and know where it stands? I’ve read somewhere that there was a study performed that tried to mitigate the issues that P2P brings with it. The biggest being the lack of money making its way to the artists. After the study was concluded, the obvious message was that P2P will not die and another idea with dealing with it needs to be persued (sort of like drugs and prostitution, but that’s a another story). Anyway, the recommendation was that a users ISP would charge a nominal amount of money ( I think they were saying $5 a month) and that money would go directly into a pot of money to pay out artists. This models the RADIO industry where the station pays money to SOCAN, ASCAP, etc.. they sample radio play and pay artists based on statistics. Any user that pays the $5 a month will be free to use ANY P2P of choice and download as much as they want. Someone or some process will perform the statistical anaylsis (this is already happening) and pay the artists accordingly. The figures I saw were revenue generation of $3Billion a year. From nothing now to $3billion. This makes a lot of sense and I think is the way the internet community NEEDS to go and users NEEDS to push. For the price of 4-5 CDs today, you get as many as you want. The problem that the Big FOUR and whoever are encountering is that they can’t sue everyone. When you shut down one P2P service another 3 pop up. The bigger issue is that the record companies will spend more money litigating than they can actually recover. Its a losing game on either side. This situation is just like when Radio first came out and the record comapines “sued them all”. Eventually they realised its a losing war and they needed to take another measure to collect money for their artists. Now, every time a song is played on the radio, the artist gets 25 cents and the songwriter gets 25 cents. So basically doing this on P2P is where I think we need to go. I’m not sure what portion of the $5 would go to the record company, but as far as I am concerned, the message the record companies are giving is that P2P is infringing on the artist. So let them back their words up and get their artists money from an extremely viable distribution medium. I’m an artist and would gladly pay $60 a year to be able to support other artists and in turn have myself supported. Pretty simple solution. Thoughts?

Has anyone else heard of this study and proposal and know where it stands?

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/2246/comment-page-1#comment-4888 Reader's Write Sun, 29 Aug 2004 11:56:17 +0000 #comment-4888 The only thing the RIAA and MPAA are doing is ticking people off .. and when the general American public eventually figure it out and come together as a unifed force then all hell will break loose .. and I for one will be happy when it happens. They can't stop technology .. it's already here and the only thing they're doing is causing a p2p technology innovation by forcing the p2p companies to outwit the Big Four (and doing a decent job I might add). The only thing the RIAA and MPAA are doing is ticking people off .. and when the general American public eventually figure it out and come together as a unifed force then all hell will break loose .. and I for one will be happy when it happens.

They can’t stop technology .. it’s already here and the only thing they’re doing is causing a p2p technology innovation by forcing the p2p companies to outwit the Big Four (and doing a decent job I might add).

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/2246/comment-page-1#comment-4731 Reader's Write Thu, 26 Aug 2004 03:08:32 +0000 #comment-4731 Maybe the RIAA does indeed provide a service. Kind of like the old Mafia "Protection Service" in which business owners could choose to pay up, and get protection from arson, robbery, and a host of other financial losses. The protection racket lives on. Maybe the RIAA does indeed provide a service. Kind of like the old Mafia “Protection Service” in which business owners could choose to pay up, and get protection from arson, robbery, and a host of other financial losses.

The protection racket lives on.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/2246/comment-page-1#comment-4730 Reader's Write Thu, 26 Aug 2004 02:37:10 +0000 #comment-4730 Thanks for the reply. I don't however thank you for assuming that I don't approve of protecting the rights of the creators of music--I am a musician, and I do care about those rights. What I do disapprove of is the way the current copyright laws work. Make no mistake, the copyright laws as currently written protect the middlemen. And why not? They were *written" by the middlemen. In the current system, the creators of music get screwed, the listeners get screwed--the only ones who make out like bandits are the toll collectors who sit between the two. The current copyright laws are an imperfect solution to a real problem. The RIAA / record labels have a long and chequered history of abusing and extending those imperfections for the sole reason of profit--their own. If you think letting "service companies" whose sole motivation is profit into the educational world--whether it be for food distribution, or music distribution--won't end up with the schools and students getting the shaft, then you haven't been paying attention: Check out this interview with Morgan Spurlock creator of "Supersize Me": http://www.valleyadvocate.com/gbase/News/content.html?oid=oid:67290 Take note of the part where he talks about how corporations have purposefully malnourished kids when it means they can get a bigger profit. And why not? The sole group that ever holds them to account are shareholders--and the only question they ever ask is "What's my stock price at today?" It is utterly illogical for an institution who's highest priority is to educate, to assume that a corporation they make deals with will share that priority. The last paragraph in which you make the suggestion that liberty and justice should be for sale simply because other things happen to be for sale troubles me the most. Perhaps you don't remember how the original pledge reads: "...with liberty and justice for ALL". I was under the impression that "for all" meant just that--for everyone regardless of wealth. Thanks for the reply. I don’t however thank you for assuming that I don’t approve of protecting the rights of the creators of music–I am a musician, and I do care about those rights. What I do disapprove of is the way the current copyright laws work. Make no mistake, the copyright laws as currently written protect the middlemen. And why not? They were *written” by the middlemen. In the current system, the creators of music get screwed, the listeners get screwed–the only ones who make out like bandits are the toll collectors who sit between the two. The current copyright laws are an imperfect solution to a real problem. The RIAA / record labels have a long and chequered history of abusing and extending those imperfections for the sole reason of profit–their own.

If you think letting “service companies” whose sole motivation is profit into the educational world–whether it be for food distribution, or music distribution–won’t end up with the schools and students getting the shaft, then you haven’t been paying attention:

Check out this interview with Morgan Spurlock creator of “Supersize Me”:
http://www.valleyadvocate.com/gbase/News/content.html?oid=oid:67290

Take note of the part where he talks about how corporations have purposefully malnourished kids when it means they can get a bigger profit. And why not? The sole group that ever holds them to account are shareholders–and the only question they ever ask is “What’s my stock price at today?” It is utterly illogical for an institution who’s highest priority is to educate, to assume that a corporation they make deals with will share that priority.

The last paragraph in which you make the suggestion that liberty and justice should be for sale simply because other things happen to be for sale troubles me the most. Perhaps you don’t remember how the original pledge reads: “…with liberty and justice for ALL”. I was under the impression that “for all” meant just that–for everyone regardless of wealth.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/2246/comment-page-1#comment-4729 Reader's Write Thu, 26 Aug 2004 01:56:34 +0000 #comment-4729 You must have read a different article. The one I read talked about a corporate cartel using threats of lawsuits and criminal suits to intimidate schools into selling out and spying on their students. Try reading the article I read and then get back to us. You must have read a different article. The one I read talked about a corporate cartel using threats of lawsuits and criminal suits to intimidate schools into selling out and spying on their students.

Try reading the article I read and then get back to us.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/2246/comment-page-1#comment-4728 Reader's Write Thu, 26 Aug 2004 01:22:16 +0000 #comment-4728 ......Guess what? A service company runs your school's food courts. A service company runs your school's bookstore. Guess what dude - these are 'service' companies. Like they provide real services. Music 'services' ain't services. They just sell record lable crap and that's ALL they do. So stfu. ……Guess what? A service company runs your school’s food courts. A service company runs your school’s bookstore.

Guess what dude – these are ’service’ companies. Like they provide real services. Music ’services’ ain’t services. They just sell record lable crap and that’s ALL they do. So stfu.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/2246/comment-page-1#comment-4727 Reader's Write Thu, 26 Aug 2004 00:45:24 +0000 #comment-4727 What does this whole thing really mean? I'm no fan of subsidizing music services coming straight out of tuition costs, but what universities are saying is: "don't use our networks to trade copyrighted material...here's an alternative." Don't like it? Buy some CDs, dude! Guess what? A service company runs your school's food courts. A service company runs your school's bookstore. Now a service company will run a music download service. Big deal! If you're such a critic of copyright laws in this country, write your own music and share it freely with others who do the same (that's what I do). There are thousands of new titles every week and its really great music! Here are some links: http://d.webring.com/hub?ring=freemusic http://somesongs.com http://webjay.org/ "With liberty and justice for those who have enough money" HAHAHAHA. Kind of like buying a car. Buying gas. Buying lunch. Buying your date a necklace. Or should those be freely available? What does this whole thing really mean? I’m no fan of subsidizing music services coming straight out of tuition costs, but what universities are saying is: “don’t use our networks to trade copyrighted material…here’s an alternative.” Don’t like it? Buy some CDs, dude!

Guess what? A service company runs your school’s food courts. A service company runs your school’s bookstore. Now a service company will run a music download service. Big deal!

If you’re such a critic of copyright laws in this country, write your own music and share it freely with others who do the same (that’s what I do). There are thousands of new titles every week and its really great music!

Here are some links:
http://d.webring.com/hub?ring=freemusic
http://somesongs.com
http://webjay.org/

“With liberty and justice for those who have enough money” HAHAHAHA. Kind of like buying a car. Buying gas. Buying lunch. Buying your date a necklace. Or should those be freely available?

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/2246/comment-page-1#comment-4724 Reader's Write Wed, 25 Aug 2004 23:49:23 +0000 #comment-4724 Goebbels cannot take credit, his techniques were patterned after the USA's highly successful propaganda machine of WW1, which was developed by psychologists such as Edward Bernays in his work for the Creel Commission. The American-produced WW1 propaganda was so incredibly effective in shaping US public opinion, that later the Nazis put great effort into studying and applying these techniques of mass-persuasion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda Goebbels cannot take credit, his techniques were patterned after the USA’s highly successful propaganda machine of WW1, which was developed by psychologists such as Edward Bernays in his work for the Creel Commission. The American-produced WW1 propaganda was so incredibly effective in shaping US public opinion, that later the Nazis put great effort into studying and applying these techniques of mass-persuasion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/2246/comment-page-1#comment-4723 Reader's Write Wed, 25 Aug 2004 23:26:48 +0000 #comment-4723 heh - now have a look here ; ) http://p2pnet.net/story/2255 Cheers! heh – now have a look here ; ) http://p2pnet.net/story/2255

Cheers!

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/2246/comment-page-1#comment-4722 Reader's Write Wed, 25 Aug 2004 23:26:29 +0000 #comment-4722 This article makes it sound like encouraging students to pay the copyright owners for their music is wrong. This article makes it sound like copyright infringment is not wrong. This article is morally bankrupt. This article makes it sound like encouraging students to pay the copyright owners for their music is wrong. This article makes it sound like copyright infringment is not wrong. This article is morally bankrupt.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/2246/comment-page-1#comment-4720 Reader's Write Wed, 25 Aug 2004 23:08:21 +0000 #comment-4720 Help...which universities and colleges have done this? Help…which universities and colleges have done this?

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/2246/comment-page-1#comment-4718 Reader's Write Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:58:14 +0000 #comment-4718 In the new spirirt of cooperation with unversities which has been fostered by their many lawsuits, threats, and acts extortion, the RIAA has graciously offered up a new Pledge of Allegiance: "I pledge allegiance to the RIAA Of the four all-powerful Music Labels. And to the monopoly for which it stands, One corporation, above even God, Indivisible, With liberty and justice for those who have enough money to buy it." Daily recital of the new Pledge and sworn affidavits that they will spend all of their disposable income on official RIAA product will be required of every student beginning immediately. In the new spirirt of cooperation with unversities which has been fostered by their many lawsuits, threats, and acts extortion, the RIAA has graciously offered up a new Pledge of Allegiance:

“I pledge allegiance to the RIAA
Of the four all-powerful Music Labels.
And to the monopoly for which it stands,
One corporation, above even God,
Indivisible,
With liberty and justice for those who have enough money to buy it.”

Daily recital of the new Pledge and sworn affidavits that they will spend all of their disposable income on official RIAA product will be required of every student beginning immediately.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/2246/comment-page-1#comment-4715 Reader's Write Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:09:16 +0000 #comment-4715 How dare you imply that the industry is not doing this for the good of the nation! How dare you imply that the industry is not doing this for the good of the nation!

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/2246/comment-page-1#comment-4711 Reader's Write Wed, 25 Aug 2004 21:11:57 +0000 #comment-4711 senator Orrin Hatch's 'If you say it often enough people - especially the mainstream media - will eventually believe it' philosophy. Uh try Goebbel's philosophy, check google if you don't believe me. senator Orrin Hatch’s ‘If you say it often enough people – especially the mainstream media – will eventually believe it’ philosophy.

Uh try Goebbel’s philosophy, check google if you don’t believe me.

]]>