General discussion


"YouTube Ordered To Reveal User's Data"

By boxfiddler Moderator ·

I've been wondering how long it would take before something like this happened.

What do you folks think? Where will it go from here? Are we headed down a long, slippery slope to industry and government Internet content control?

(hope I got the tags right, Jaqui!)

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Score one for the fascists!

by Locrian_Lyric In reply to "YouTube Ordered To Revea ...

"Be a good citizen, turn in a friend"

Collapse -

content control

by jdclyde In reply to "YouTube Ordered To Revea ...

it would seem that this is a challenge to copyright material, and if it can/should be controlled.

Food for thought for the morons in the music industry. I USED to buy a lot of CD's. I would use Napster to check out music. What I liked, I went out and bought, what I didn't, I deleted. When punks like Lars started suing their fans is when I stopped buying ANY Metalica products, and stopped buying CD's for several years. I now buy some, but nothing new until I have a chance to check it out on one of the on-line music sites.

It would be interesting to see how different things would be if they did a few simple things.

One, quit wasting time and money coming up with new anti-copy software that is quickly defeated (sometimes with a marker...)

and two, cut the cost to a REASONABLE cost. It is unreasonable and unethical for the price of a CD to be where it is. If the price wasn't so unreasonable, most people that do copy music wouldn't because the savings would not be as great as they are now and it wouldn't be worth the time.

Collapse -

After too many years...

by boxfiddler Moderator In reply to content control

of buying LP's and CD's that contain only 1 or 2 good tunes for a premium price, I'm with you in the 'I want to hear the whole thing first' department.

I did the same with Napster, then with LimeWire. I don't anymore because of all the potential legal issues. Which also means I don't buy as much music as I used to. I don't have the time to sit in the music store and listen to the CD's I'm interested in while doing nothing else. At least with the sharing options I could get some work done while listening.

Collapse -

Buying downloads is for stupid people

by jdclyde In reply to After too many years...

Charging $1 for one song, as a music download? A fool and their money....

Collapse -

I'd rather pay $1 for a single song

by CharlieSpencer In reply to Buying downloads is for s ...

than $12 for a CD that has only three or four good songs. Why do you view this as stupid? I'm missing your point.

Collapse -

It is a unreasonable price

by jdclyde In reply to I'd rather pay $1 for a s ...

It is bad enough the price you are charge for a CD. When you take away most of the physical expenses but don't lower the price of the product, it is a suckers bet.

Collapse -

That's what I use to pay for a 45 rpm single 30 years ago.

by CharlieSpencer In reply to It is a unreasonable pric ...

Considering inflation, I don't regard it as an unreasonable expense. I guess it all depends on what you want to spend your money on and what a tune is worth to you. Where do you suggest I get songs cheaper, legally?

Collapse -

cost of production

by jdclyde In reply to That's what I use to pay ...

of a 45 that was sold in a traditional store vs a single song downloaded from a web site, yes, that price should be less than buying the whole CD. That is before you even take away shipping/manufacture/warehousing/storefront expenses.

Collapse -

My problem is not the cost

by Dumphrey In reply to That's what I use to pay ...

but the quality of the purchase. 128 or even 192 kbs is not CD quality, especially when sent in a lossy, compressed format. Its like unwrapping a Godiva box and getting Hershy's Kisses inside, still okay, but not what you paid for.

Collapse -


by Oz_Media In reply to That's what I use to pay ...

YOu mean like cover art that has to be purchased from an aritist (expensive), the booklet design, four stage printing, copy and editing, the CD run is reasonable but then there is packaging, labelling, distribution etc. That's before it hits stores.

This is one of the reasons that the big four bought out a lot of radio stations, they own the retail outlets etc. Free floorspace, no broadcast payola. They also own packaging companies of course so they don't have ot pay exorbitant costs for CD publishing.

It costs money to publish, print and package a finished CD. It costs more money to retail it.

For those who think they are paying artists by buying CD's as opposed to downloading them, don't bother. the artist gets such a small chunk of that change it's laughable (unless you are the artist, in which case it is not funny at all).

Instead, buy a concert ticket and when yuo get to the show, buy food and drink, buy a tshirt and a program, THEN the artist gets paid.

Related Discussions

Related Forums