31–40 of 90 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what are your thoughts about NPR totebags? Getting perks if you donate isn't unusual.
"Getting perks if you donate isn't unusual." Small perks usually and I am critical of those as well, as they blurry the line. But here it rather looks like a usual subscription model to buy.
In case anyone's wondering what this relates to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna%27s_Archive > Anna's Archive is a search engine for shadow libraries. > It describes itself as a project that aims to "catalog all the books in existence" May they succeed at their noble goal.
Doing something highly illegal and finding a "community" and sharing it with a "friend" would be a stupid move. Don't ever disclose your name if you do something like this, unless you are in a safe country.
I have my own written SOPs for how I make personal back ups of commercial media I own (purchased licensed instance because you never really own it even after paying for access). In this case I enjoy maintaining a media archive but my choice of words provides a fully legal context. What I find interesting is the wildly differing approach to piracy between the RIAA and the MPAA. The music industry’s current approach is…
Exactly this. And not only they do more money with digital content, see how concerts are always full and prices skyrocketed due to the demand!
The movie industry has surely more costs that music one, _but_ they act like children who lost their toys. And the book industry isn't that far away too.. a lot of content is behind stupid DRMs and what happens if the license server disappears one day?
Doing something highly illegal and finding a "community" and sharing it with a "friend" would be a stupid move. Don't ever disclose your name if you do something like this, unless you are in a safe country.
Define a safe country. I highly doubt there are any, after what happened to Aaron Swartz.
Doing something highly illegal and finding a "community" and sharing it with a "friend" would be a stupid move. Don't ever disclose your name if you do something like this, unless you are in a safe country.
I have my own written SOPs for how I make personal back ups of commercial media I own (purchased licensed instance because you never really own it even after paying for access). In this case I enjoy maintaining a media archive but my choice of words provides a fully legal context. What I find interesting is the wildly differing approach to piracy between the RIAA and the MPAA. The music industry’s current approach is…
Of course, as a content creator myself, I do believe that there should be some sort of reward and protection for creating content. However, I also know that we have become a ruthless world where inequality is enormous. And I don't just mean inequality in the traditional sense: even the middle and upper class are forced to live in a world where they are absolutely dependent on the upper tech elite for basic things, and costs are rising.
Thus, piracy of this sort is inevitable. It should not just be those who can pay who should have access to knowledge and ideas. Everyone should have that. In a fair world where there were limits to corporate power and technological development, there would be more equality and piracy would not be necessary.
So as much as I want to make money myself on my own content, I also support piracy simply because it's the only solution within the capitalistic system for some sort of equality in terms of access to knowledge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have my own written SOPs for how I make personal back ups of commercial media I own (purchased licensed instance because you never really own it even after paying for access). In this case I enjoy maintaining a media archive but my choice of words provides a fully legal context. What I find interesting is the wildly differing approach to piracy between the RIAA and the MPAA. The music industry’s current approach is…
Is this true? From what I've read musicians are hardly making anything off of streaming whereas they used to make much more prior to the popularization of Spotify. And AFAIK Spotify has never had a profitable quarter.
Almost certainly one of the things that allows streaming to be priced in a range that's palatable for consumers is that most artists make less money than ever. At $50/month, it presumably wouldn't fly. As it is, it's probably priced in about the range that a lot of people spent on physical media in pre-Napster days. (And streaming seems not to be a money printing press for at least some of the streaming services either.)
ADDED: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/music-industry-revenues-by-...
Paid streaming is somewhat lower than peak CD but about the same as peak vinyl (inflation adjusted). There are peaks and valleys but consumer music spend hasn't changed that much over time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have my own written SOPs for how I make personal back ups of commercial media I own (purchased licensed instance because you never really own it even after paying for access). In this case I enjoy maintaining a media archive but my choice of words provides a fully legal context. What I find interesting is the wildly differing approach to piracy between the RIAA and the MPAA. The music industry’s current approach is…
Is this true? From what I've read musicians are hardly making anything off of streaming whereas they used to make much more prior to the popularization of Spotify. And AFAIK Spotify has never had a profitable quarter.