Supreme Cmdr Posted October 10, 2003 Report Share Posted October 10, 2003 Yeah, its getting kinda ridiculous out here, isn't it? And CNN weighs in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wody Posted October 10, 2003 Report Share Posted October 10, 2003 Hi, I bet I can get sued next! Let's see, Hmm.. How to turn Autorun off without using a Shift key Yep! That's getting sued without actually using or doing anything. What a wonderful world we live in. Greetings, Wouter Dijkslag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Elio Jason Posted October 10, 2003 Report Share Posted October 10, 2003 the company's REAL motto: "Light years beyond stupidity." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cmdr Nova Posted October 10, 2003 Report Share Posted October 10, 2003 It's not that they're suing him over the shift key that's what I love about this. It's the fact that they created a CD protection scheme and this comp. sci. student at Princeton did some research on the protection itself, and found out it simply loads a driver on Windows autorun. Autorun. Meaning to say that any idiot could get around the copy protection anyways. The student's report is here. The slashdot article about him originally writing the report: here. Article about the possible lawsuit. Also, it seems that SunnComm decided to back off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wody Posted October 10, 2003 Report Share Posted October 10, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Cmdr Nova: Also, it seems that SunnComm decided to back off. [/QB]This article from news.com has a bit more sinister words about what SunnComm bas said: SunnComm won't sue grad student Basically saying, they are dropping it because it would take too long. Greetings, Wouter Dijkslag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korgmeister Posted October 11, 2003 Report Share Posted October 11, 2003 I'm not sure how many people here are into the business angle of things. But I had a discussion on how the principles behind these sorts of lawsuits are bad business practise: Link: discussion in a friend's LJ. (Warning: Colourful language used by me. Ph33r) Admittedly my explanations are rather simplified (and thus rather easily ripped apart). But the trouble with this whole RIAA furore is that it's not so much a new thing as a return of a cyclic phenomenon. It's quite common for organisations that deal in intellectual property to run into a problem when a more efficient method of delivery is developed. When radio first came out, there was a panic by record manufacturers that people would stop buying records. That didn't happen. When the VCR was invented, movie theatre operators were frightened they'd lose all their business. Again, that didn't happen. The nightmare scenario of record companies going broke isn't happening. Yes, their profits are down, but that is because instead of embracing a new technology of distribution they are demanding that the market stay still for their benefit. Frankly if the RIAA had put the amount of money it has put into legal action towards the creation of a marketing team who could figure out a way to make MP3 profitable for them, they probably would have done it by now. The way a business survives these days is by regularly having strategy teams figure out how a competitor could do them out of business - and then doing exactly that before anyone else does! Considering that most MP3s are encoded from badly scratched discs with an outdated codec (or at least sound like they do!) I imagine many consumers would be willing to pay money to buy 'official' MP3s rather than put up with 2nd rate copies. Are there ways to get round the filesharing dilemma with this? Not entirely sure. A combination of Read Only ID3 tags containing a special notice of officialdom along with an agreement for filesharing programs not to distribute files with that code would work well. Yes, it wouldn't work perfectly. But y'see the solution doesn't have to be perfect, just "good enough". The idea isn't to stop filesharing as much as encourage consumers to buy official MP3s created from Master copies. If the RIAA can make just as much (or more!) money from that than the irritating logistical nightmare of shipping physical CDs around, that's what really matters. All that's nescessary is to make the bypass process sufficiently niggly that Joe Six Pack has an easier time just buying the songs for 50 cents a pop instead of filesharing then RIAA makes a profit, woohoo! Any thoughts on this matter? I'm just a Biz/Jap student who frankly is woeful at computer programming, and as such not entirely savvy with the feasibility of certain operations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now