Slyck.com
 
Slyck Chatbox - And More

Sony Frees Entire Music Catalog on PlayLouder ISP

Discuss Slyck's latest news
Forum rules
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Slyck Forum Rules

Postby Drake » Sun Sep 04, 2005 8:33 pm

Sure but I don't think it will do any good. You offered up some softballs and he didn't even want to answer those. I doubt he would want to admit that the claims made on their Website are complete B.S.
User avatar
Drake
 
Posts: 2060
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 12:56 pm
Location: Meepos (where charging for MP3s is illegal!)

Postby Commons Music » Sun Sep 04, 2005 8:45 pm

Softballs? What softballs? I am trying to find what this service is about, and if it's a step forwards or a step backwards, and I don't think I've been softball about it, and I think he's been forthcoming.

In any case, I have e-mailed with your concerns, and we'll see how he responds.
Commons Music
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 8:57 am

Postby AussieMatt » Mon Sep 05, 2005 8:33 pm

Heres Commons Music part three of his email discusion with Playlouder Paul...

http://commonsmusic.com/blog/?p=121
AussieMatt
 
Posts: 1044
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 10:03 am

Postby Drake » Mon Sep 05, 2005 9:29 pm

As I expected, he completely avoided answering the questions and didn't own up to the fact the claims on his Website are bogus.

If there is a part 4, he should be told to answer the questions instead of replying by posting a whole lot of nothing.
User avatar
Drake
 
Posts: 2060
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 12:56 pm
Location: Meepos (where charging for MP3s is illegal!)

Postby BasicTek » Mon Sep 05, 2005 10:25 pm

No shit what a bunch of crap answers. How about these questions.

1) Will it cost more for playlouder if other major labels are signed? Or can they sign all labels under the current pricing?

2) When a user of playlouder shares a non saved file and the RIAA wants to sue them will playlouder give up logged info?

3) Are there any plans to sign the MPAA? And the bigger question how much will that cost?

Before fully welcoming this "new way" of file sharing I think it's important to see how much they will be taking out of your wallet.

For me I still say F*** the RIAA give me shared files or give me FM radio. lol
"The government, which was designed for the people, has got into the hands of the bosses and their employers, the special interests. An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy." - Woodrow Wilson
User avatar
BasicTek
 
Posts: 1610
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 12:59 pm
Location: Somewhere warm

Postby Commons Music » Tue Sep 06, 2005 11:43 am

Drake wrote:As I expected, he completely avoided answering the questions and didn't own up to the fact the claims on his Website are bogus.


He said they were putting systems in place to identify files that are legal to download, as well as reducing or eliminating spoofs and potential viruses. Y'know, we will see what it's like from first-hand accounts after it launches. It's not like this is going on all ISPs everywhere, it's one ISP that they hope to get 40,000 on by--when was it?--next year. Let's give it a chance, all right? No one is forcing anyone into this, and if it turns out to be shit, then I'll be sure to post that.

1) Will it cost more for playlouder if other major labels are signed? Or can they sign all labels under the current pricing?

2) When a user of playlouder shares a non saved file and the RIAA wants to sue them will playlouder give up logged info?

3) Are there any plans to sign the MPAA? And the bigger question how much will that cost?


1. I doubt that users would deal with a price hike. The market does take care of some of this, I'm quite certain. If people won't pay, the price will be lowered. Not complicated. Also, it's impossible to predict this, as they haven't spoken with the other labels yet.

2. He covered this already in the second interview. No information, other than collection for royalty (meaning files Audible Magic has identified, which will only be from labels they have agreements with) will be given to any third party without permission.

3. I believe it was mentioned in an article somewhere that this would be a nice look into the future, but isn't really relevant now. Also, the "MPAA" is a grouping organization, but doesn't speak for all the companies included in it. This is for antitrust regulation purposes. They'd have to make deals with each major studio to work something like that out.

Guys, you have to remember that this hasn't even launched yet. Can we wait for a few months to see how it goes? Then if it sucks we can start bitching. I will not damn a service that I cannot, as of yet, find anything too terribly objectionable about.
Commons Music
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 8:57 am

Postby Not Sure, But... » Tue Sep 06, 2005 1:49 pm

Commons Music wrote: I will not damn a service that I cannot, as of yet, find anything too terribly objectionable about.


See, your problem is you haven't yet learned to read between the lines.

No matter what deal a company comes up with, if they are going to charge, they are evil and trying to control us.
Not Sure, But...
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 9:56 am

Postby Drake » Tue Sep 06, 2005 1:54 pm

Not Sure, But... wrote:See, your problem is you haven't yet learned to read between the lines.


Perhaps your problem is reading comprehension.

Not Sure, But... wrote:No matter what deal a company comes up with, if they are going to charge, they are evil and trying to control us.


The price they are charging has nothing to do with the restrictive measures they will use. Their misleading claims also have nothing to do with price.

Those claims should be made only when they are able to implement them and explain how they are able to do what they claim. Simply stating that they are working on it doesn't cut it and if this is still a work in progress, they shouldn't be making those claims.

It's as simple as that.
User avatar
Drake
 
Posts: 2060
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 12:56 pm
Location: Meepos (where charging for MP3s is illegal!)

Postby Not Sure, But... » Tue Sep 06, 2005 3:40 pm

Yeah, right... In this day and age when the courts have said a p2p service(which is what this will have to be considered) can be held liable for encouraging copyright infringement, these guys have every right to "restrict" you from sharing their files outside their service.

They are capable of it, and if they do nothing to prevent it, they will more then likely be held accountable.

The missleading statements have been referred to and the guy said the faq needs updated. The service is not yet available, so I would imagine this means they have time to fix that kind of stuff.

Think of it as beta :wink: They have time to work out the kinks in wording before they actualy start charging people.

But I still stand by what I said...

"No matter what deal a company comes up with, if they are going to charge, they are evil and trying to control us."

That will still be the attitude of many until and if, this service goes mainstream.
Not Sure, But...
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 9:56 am

Postby Drake » Tue Sep 06, 2005 4:16 pm

Not Sure, But... wrote:Yeah, right... In this day and age when the courts have said a p2p service(which is what this will have to be considered) can be held liable for encouraging copyright infringement, these guys have every right to "restrict" you from sharing their files outside their service.


The courts (in the U.S. and Australia) have stated that they can be held liable if they have induced or encouraged people to download copyrighted material.

PlayLouder may legally have the right to restrict file sharing, but it should be called what it is - a restrictive service which is very anti P2P.

Not Sure, But... wrote:They are capable of it, and if they do nothing to prevent it, they will more then likely be held accountable.


PlayLouder is only capable of filtering music from the big labels. Audible Magic has never been tested in the open so it's still not known how well it will work.

Sharman is not capable of filtering their P2P network so the 2 month time limit given to them to filter their network is ridiculous.

Not Sure, But... wrote:The missleading statements have been referred to and the guy said the faq needs updated. The service is not yet available, so I would imagine this means they have time to fix that kind of stuff.


I hope so, otherwise they will look like a bunch of liars.


Not Sure, But... wrote:But I still stand by what I said...

"No matter what deal a company comes up with, if they are going to charge, they are evil and trying to control us."

That will still be the attitude of many until and if, this service goes mainstream.


I realize what you're doing. :) You're trying to dismiss this criticism by making it seem the only reason I'm against PlayLouder is because they're trying to make a profit.

The problem, in this case, is that I've barely even mentioned price so your claim doesn't apply. If you want to believe that people are against this service merely because this company wants to make a profit that's fine. But if you're going to accuse people here of having that attitude, back up your claims otherwise you'll be the one who looks like a fanatical zealot, not the people you're trying to trivialize.
User avatar
Drake
 
Posts: 2060
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 12:56 pm
Location: Meepos (where charging for MP3s is illegal!)

Postby Not Sure, But... » Tue Sep 06, 2005 5:38 pm

Drake wrote:PlayLouder is only capable of filtering music from the big labels. Audible Magic has never been tested in the open so it's still not known how well it will work.


Would be pretty funny if once this is out, it completely fails at this :lol:


Not Sure, But... wrote:But I still stand by what I said...

"No matter what deal a company comes up with, if they are going to charge, they are evil and trying to control us."

That will still be the attitude of many until and if, this service goes mainstream.


Drake wrote:I realize what you're doing. :) You're trying to dismiss this criticism by making it seem the only reason I'm against PlayLouder is because they're trying to make a profit.

The problem, in this case, is that I've barely even mentioned price so your claim doesn't apply. If you want to believe that people are against this service merely because this company wants to make a profit that's fine. But if you're going to accuse people here of having that attitude, back up your claims otherwise you'll be the one who looks like a fanatical zealot, not the people you're trying to trivialize.


Except that this was not aimed directly at you or really any specific person. It was aimed at what I perceive to be the general, honest opinion of the people in this forum. If that doesn't fit you, then great.

I have been reading statements like "I only pirate because of the prices" or becasue of the system or, or, or for several years in these forums. I used to say that myself, but then I decided if I can't even be honest with myself, how can I expect these companies to be honest with me, or treat me fairly.

Now that we are actually starting to get some real options, I think we should encourage them. If we see problems, tell them, but don't beat them into submission before they can even get off the ground.
Not Sure, But...
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 9:56 am

Postby Drake » Tue Sep 06, 2005 6:21 pm

Not Sure, But... wrote:Except that this was not aimed directly at you or really any specific person. It was aimed at what I perceive to be the general, honest opinion of the people in this forum. If that doesn't fit you, then great.


If it wasn't aimed at me or someone else who doesn't think this a good service then why bring up this "attitude" at all in this thread?

Not Sure, But... wrote:I have been reading statements like "I only pirate because of the prices" or becasue of the system or, or, or for several years in these forums. I used to say that myself, but then I decided if I can't even be honest with myself, how can I expect these companies to be honest with me, or treat me fairly.


You don't think that some people pirate because of the prices? I think you're way off. A lot of graphic/web designers download apps such as Photoshop instead of buying them because they can't even afford the student version. A lot of them end up buying the app once they start making money.

Some people are boycotting buying music since the lawsuits started. You don't have to agree with the boycott or any other reason people have for infringing copyrights, but you shouldn't automatically assume that these reasons are merely excuses for breaking copyright laws.

Not Sure, But... wrote:Now that we are actually starting to get some real options, I think we should encourage them. If we see problems, tell them, but don't beat them into submission before they can even get off the ground.


I agree. A few people here have brought up several issues and problems with PlayLouder and I interpreted your remark as trying to dismiss these concerns by trivializing them as nothing more than complaints from people who just rant and rave about big corporations.

If you want to discuss the different attitudes when it comes to corporations and copyright infringement that's fine, but it doesn't have anything to do with the issues which were being discussed on this thread.
User avatar
Drake
 
Posts: 2060
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 12:56 pm
Location: Meepos (where charging for MP3s is illegal!)

Postby Not Sure, But... » Tue Sep 06, 2005 6:37 pm

Of course there are people who pirate because of price and or "phylisophical"(sp?) reasons. I did not say otherwise. But do I think that the majority do it because of this? Not even close.

I do however think that these are reasons given by far too many people to discredit a legitimate try at comprimise from these new companies.

The attitudes towards the corporations and copyright infringement (or claimed beliefs)definately has something to do with this thread, if as I believe, most arguments and or resistence stem from those attitudes.
Not Sure, But...
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 9:56 am

Postby Commons Music » Wed Sep 07, 2005 10:14 am

For my part in this, I'm far more concerned about how indie artists can get compensated under this system. I really don't care much about Sony BMG, Warner Chappell, or whatever the hell. And they have gotten a lot of independent voices under this system, and I hope it succeeds to help them find success as well. If there's something extremely objectionable, however, I'll complain and recommend against like everyone.

Now, I don't think that giving money to a company is them trying to assert control, or is a bad thing. I give money to my ISP to provide me with broadband, and I'm actually very happy with them. I give money to my cable company to provide me with a hundred basic channels and a premium channel, and I like having all that available to me. We all give money to get things we want, and this is no different. So money isn't really the issue here.
Commons Music
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 8:57 am

Previous

Return to Slyck News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron
© 2001-2008 Slyck.com