Fezmid Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000270043583/ Basically says that, since Yahoo music lets you download unlimited music for $5/month, that the RIAA really should only be able to sue for that amount. The RIAA can no longer claim that students who are downloading music are costing them thousands of dollars each. They can’t claim much of anything actually. In essence, Yahoo just turned possession of a controlled music substance into a misdemeanor. Payable by a $5 per month fine. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000270043583/ Basically says that, since Yahoo music lets you download unlimited music for $5/month, that the RIAA really should only be able to sue for that amount. CW 339644[/snapback] Conveniently ignoring the fact that RIAA doesn't want money, they want control. And control costs much more than $5/month...particularly when you lose it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Wolf Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 This reminds Mr. Wolf of a time when... I was making love with Cecilia up in my bedroom. I went to wash my face, but come back to find Mark Cuban had taken my place! Oh Cecilia Mr. Wolf was down on his knees, beggin you please to come home (sing it with Mr. Wolf now *clap* *clap* *clap*) to come hoooome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 This reminds Mr. Wolf of a time when... I was making love with Cecilia up in my bedroom. I went to wash my face, but come back to find Mark Cuban had taken my place! Oh Cecilia Mr. Wolf was down on his knees, beggin you please to come home (sing it with Mr. Wolf now *clap* *clap* *clap*) to come hoooome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gross Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000270043583/ Basically says that, since Yahoo music lets you download unlimited music for $5/month, that the RIAA really should only be able to sue for that amount. CW 339644[/snapback] Except you are paying $5/month to rent unlimited music. Once you stop paying that $5 to Yahoo, say goodbye to the unlimited music including the music you've already downloaded. Say a 30 year old person wants to keep his yahoo music for the rest of his life...then you're talking thousands per person... Oh, and of course a person that's actually sharing files would be charged $5 for every person that could download those files... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Is Yahoo paying royalties to the artists, the musicians, producers, sound men etc. out of that 5 buck fee? No battle line here - I'm just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 For Yahoo! Music Unlimited songs: if your subscription has lapsed, songs will not be uploaded. As long as you maintain your Y! Unlimited subscription, Y! Unlimited songs can be uploaded to a player, and those already on the player will continue to run. If your subscription lapses, songs cannot be transferred and the songs on the player become inoperative until your subscription is reinstated. This does not affect purchased, burnable downloads, or music you imported outside the Y! Unlimited subscription service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted May 19, 2005 Author Share Posted May 19, 2005 Except you are paying $5/month to rent unlimited music. Once you stop paying that $5 to Yahoo, say goodbye to the unlimited music including the music you've already downloaded. Say a 30 year old person wants to keep his yahoo music for the rest of his life...then you're talking thousands per person... Oh, and of course a person that's actually sharing files would be charged $5 for every person that could download those files... 339834[/snapback] Assuming $5/month for 30 years, you're still only looking at $1,800. And since that 30 year old person obviously hasn't had this digital music for more than 5-7 years... Not saying I agree or disagree with Cuban (I havn't thought about it too much yet), I just thought it was an interesting observation. And I'm not so sure that they should get $5/month per person that COULD download those files. And actually, I'm not sure that they should be liable at all (assuming you agree with Cuban's analysis). If it costs $5/month to download unlimited songs, does it matter whether you download them from Yahoo, Napster, or me? Not really - the product is the same regardless. It's no different than some of the Linux distros that use BitTorrent to distrubute their latest release. Regardless, an nteresting observation by Cuban. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 It is an observation of a person that has a stake in the outcome of the MGM v Grokster suit. We're not even going to get into the specifics of illegally downloaded songs that aren't part of Yahoo's offering.... At the end, it still boils down to whether you believe that a song you hear is your property or not. Ether is free, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Mom Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 "His show is terrible and I'm really happy." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarthur31 Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Renting just isn't enough. Most people want to d/l and burn what they bought to disc! $0.99 is still too much for just 1 song. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Two things: 1. It would be nice if Cuban would bankroll someone's defense against the RIAA in order to prove his theory. It would be nice to have a court ruling that damages are this low. This would essentially stop the RIAA from enforcement. 2. I assume that the subscription services use some type of key to lock the songs if you stop paying the monthly subscription fee. How long will it be before some hacker figures out a way to crack the key? You could sign up for $5, download a million songs, crack the key, and then cancel. It would be illegal to keep the songs, but how would anyone ever enforce it? The only way would be to bust down your door and check your pc. Holy stojan! This is my 1,000th post!! Does this make me an official post whore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted May 19, 2005 Author Share Posted May 19, 2005 1. It would be nice if Cuban would bankroll someone's defense against the RIAA in order to prove his theory. It would be nice to have a court ruling that damages are this low. This would essentially stop the RIAA from enforcement As GG said, he's helping fund the MGM vs Grokster case, so at least he's putting his money where his mouth is. He's a very progressive thinker. A bit flippant, but overall he knows what he's doing. We're not even going to get into the specifics of illegally downloaded songs that aren't part of Yahoo's offering.... Pretty sure the industry isn't losing their "billions" of dollars on music that isn't available on iTunes, Y!, Napster, etc, as it sounds like all of the "big" (read: popular) crap, errr, music is there. The labels are making their money on American Idol CDs, not Shadow Gallery CDs. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 For Yahoo! Music Unlimited songs: if your subscription has lapsed, songs will not be uploaded. As long as you maintain your Y! Unlimited subscription, Y! Unlimited songs can be uploaded to a player, and those already on the player will continue to run. If your subscription lapses, songs cannot be transferred and the songs on the player become inoperative until your subscription is reinstated. This does not affect purchased, burnable downloads, or music you imported outside the Y! Unlimited subscription service. 339850[/snapback] How is that possible? Once you've downloaded the songs, they're on your player in .mp3 format. What's to stop you from burning them to a CD and keeping them for life by re-ripping them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralonzo Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Say a 30 year old person wants to keep his yahoo music for the rest of his life...then you're talking thousands per person... 339834[/snapback] 48 years (avg life expectancy) * 12 months * $5 = $2880. Technically correct, although I'm sure this trivial amount does not reinforce your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Except you are paying $5/month to rent unlimited music. Once you stop paying that $5 to Yahoo, say goodbye to the unlimited music including the music you've already downloaded. Say a 30 year old person wants to keep his yahoo music for the rest of his life...then you're talking thousands per person... Oh, and of course a person that's actually sharing files would be charged $5 for every person that could download those files... 339834[/snapback] What about the radio, and taping songs off of it? It could be argued that now people are just taping songs off of a very clear radio with a much more diverse playlist. We could also all argue that because you owned an LP of "Blizzard of Ozz," you have already paid for it and are entitled to a free CD or MP3 copy of it, rather than paying for the digital remaster. The industry's catalog is a racket. How else do you measure selling Pink Floyd CDs for 20 bucks? It's pure profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts