KVR Audio

The O'Neil Twins · Post by **The O'Neil Twins** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:14 pm

I recently handed in an Economics assignment regarding the lawsuits against two p2p companies (Streamcast and Grokster), and since I've been noticing a lot of p2p threads, I was just curious if I could hear your opinions regarding one of its questions.

The first five questions required my textbook to answer them, but the last question was completely (well... mostly) opinionated and it was : "What is the future of the entertainment industry?" Since our teacher doesn't really care too much about homework and our response was only supposed to be a paragraph long (our class is truly a comprehensive learning experience....

), I quickly hashed something together and handed it in.

But I was just curious what you guys thought. For my response (since it was supposed to deal more with the music industry) I included a little blurb on less reliance on record labels, heavily reduced song prices (but not on royalty fees), more emphasis on related tangible products like t-shirts and concerts, yada-yada. Was that sort of the right direction or should I be kicking myself in the ass

Meffy · Post by **Meffy** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:20 pm

1) I can't for the life of me tell which of you is which. =O.O= Amazing.

2) If I knew the answer to that Big Question, within five years I would own the galaxy. ;-) But the ideas you mention seem reasonable, barring some sudden tech surprise.

One thing: even if you're considering just the music industry, you'll have to factor in the overlap with the movie/video and game industries. They pour significant money into the industry, and control how things go to some extent. Song placement in video games is a big biz, for instance...

[edit] Oops, I didn't read carefully enough... already handed it in, righty then, sounds pretty good as it was.

Hink · Post by **Hink** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:21 pm

everything goes full circle, in the past entertainment was either self generated or very localized (the local pub, bar, saloon...local performers ect....) that's where I feel it will get back to. Over commercialisation of the entertainment industry will be it's downfall. A good example is the little advertisements that pop up on the bottom of the screen when you're watching a tv show. People are growing tired of this and soon instead of watching american idol, they will realize there is plenty of local talent to enjoy, without having it rammed down your throat, plus you get the social benefits....

Meffy · Post by **Meffy** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:28 pm

Hink wrote:A good example is the little advertisements that pop up on the bottom of the screen when you're watching a tv show.

Train your cat to lie in front of the TV display. That way you don't have to see those.

Hink · Post by **Hink** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:30 pm

I don't have a cat

xoxos · Post by **xoxos** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:33 pm

death

there is no way to penetrate this barrier, it has the strength of a million million sould, the power of the dead.

stefancrs · Post by **stefancrs** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:36 pm

Atleast I hope that todays copyright laws gets thrown out. As I see it, the only thing the copyright really should say is "you can not make money on this without the authors given permission". That would be just beautiful.

_starcraft_ · Post by **_starcraft_** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:38 pm

i think the lawsuit towards a technology (p2p) don't make sense. infact that will fail for sure.
I favour though the lawsuits towards individuals that share/download "illegal" files , like the RIAA is doing now.
smaller labels can't do it cos they don't have the financial power to file hundreds of lawsuits....otherwise they would be involved too believe me.
in your essay looks u only posted the usual nnsense any 12 year old kid keeps repeating to justify stealing.
if u like someone's song chances are u can buy it legally online for 1$. if thats not cheap anough for you then u 're just finding excuises to support stealing.

plus the intangible -intangible debate is really stupid sorry.
half of ppl in the world are paid for their "time" .
when u will be workin in an office infront of the computer all day inserting some stupid data.....would u like your boss to turn up nd say "i'm not payin u cos your work is intangible"?
or if u were to make a website....work on it for a month....and then the client takes it for free cos its "intangible" .lol
moreover music has more presence in the real world
than u would think. it exists as fequqnecy in the "real " domain(or your ears would not be able to preceive it).

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:43 pm

Meffy quoth 1) I can't for the life of me tell which of you is which. =O.O= Amazing.

The one on the right is the other guy....

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:48 pm

stefancrs quoth Atleast I hope that todays copyright laws gets thrown out. As I see it, the only thing the copyright really should say is "you can not make money on this without the authors given permission". That would be just beautiful.

Copyright is what would allow you to enforce that. It is exactly what allows the creator of a copyrighted work to define what you can and cannot do with their work. There's a big difference; what you're actually talking about is a change in the 'default license' of copyright, ie instead of it being 'no unauthorised redistribution' you want 'no unauthorised profit from redistribution'. That can easily be catered for within current copyright law; the Creative Commons has such licenses.

Sicklecell666 · Post by **Sicklecell666** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:49 pm

xoxos wrote:death

there is no way to penetrate this barrier, it has the strength of a million million sould, the power of the dead.

Finally something that actually makes sense..

vurt · Post by **vurt** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:50 pm

WE AM THE FUTURE!

f**k did i just use capitals

The O'Neil Twins · Post by **The O'Neil Twins** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:50 pm

Hink wrote: I don't have a cat

my mom is the cat lady of the neighborhood. I'll lend you one

Btw thanks for the quick detailed responses

. I should've asked this before I handed it in

. But I don't think the teacher is going to look at my paper anyways....... last time I wrote a paper for him, I included the line "I don't think you're reading this" and I still ended up getting an "A".

Meffy wrote:I can't for the life of me tell which of you is which.

I can't tell either

. Sometimes my brother and I will switch classes and nobody will even notice

The O'Neil Twins · Post by **The O'Neil Twins** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:51 pm

vurt wrote:WE AM THE FUTURE!

f**k did i just use capitals

The O'Neil Twins · Post by **The O'Neil Twins** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:06 pm

_starcraft_ wrote:.
in your essay looks u only posted the usual nnsense any 12 year old kid keeps repeating to justify stealing.

plus the intangible -intangible debate is really stupid sorry.

Oh my goodness..... I certainly was not endorsing stealing!!!!

I'm sorry if that's what you thought I was implying...

Hell, I only had a paragraph to answer the question so how else was I supposed to approach it? I just thought that my answer was a nice general sum-up, but I guess I'm wrong

As for the tangible debate, I'm certainly not disagreeing with you (precisely due to your excellent points) but I was just saying do you think they might start endorsing the tangible products more? I mean, you can't really have t-shirts and concerts for websites, so why not take advantage of that

Once again, I'm not disagreeing with anyone. You have all made good points.

The future of the entertainment industry