You might remember when Napster was the next big threat to the music industry not long ago when it was the big thing. This file sharing service used peer-to-peer technology to allow people to do music downloads for free from computers that belonged to other Napster customers.
The Napster explosion brought with it numerous violations of copyright and issues with music piracy. Music artists went through damaging dips to their sales and revenue, and that was the source of deep worry for the music industry.
The popularity of Napster and other P2P networks showed that people were OK with the idea of downloading music for free if they could. Napster went into bankruptcy after failing to win a legal battle with several music labels.
Apple’s iTunes then served as a savior for the industry by providing a way for people to legally download music for a fee. While music piracy is not totally banished, it has certainly lessened.
In making a model to fight music piracy, there are certain things it must do to become effective among music consumers. The elements that must be in place to fight music piracy include…
*It has to be convenient to use.
The new music access solution It must be easy to access and to use. Sometimes legal tools for downloading music requires a certain amount of technical savvy, users can become discouraged with confusing interfaces. When the tools to use the software are convenient, more music customers will use it.
* Provide a variety in search abilities and ease of use.
It is crucial that the music download site have a wide selection of songs. It is just as important that the songs are not hard to find. Ease of use is something illegal downloading sites fail to offer because of the service is free.
* Make them feel secure.
P2p file sharing programs scare people because of the potential that is there to download a virus along with their music from one of the free music services. Users are happy to pay for their music if they can get the music they want that danger.
* Costs that make sense.
When music companies Use the Internet to release music. that cuts down on the costs of album distribution and sales. The ?middle men? are taken out of the picture. This means that it makes sense that the price for the music goes down.
The elimination of the cost of creating hard copy album, CD when digital music is downloaded is out of the picture too. The result is that your online customers should be able to get their digital music for a reduced cost.
The music industry has have learned a great deal about What people think about illegal file sharing. Contrary to what was believed, people want to pay for the music made by their favorite artists and they do not like the idea of stealing the music that they love
Music fans, though, also want the variety, the convenience, the security and realistic cost that come from getting their music online. Every year, more legal online music downloading sites are giving their customers what they want and the result is that they are generating a new income stream for musicians and music companies. This approach is a long term solution.
There is only one online resource you need to learn how to tap the power of sensory branding
to help your marketing efforts and that online resource is DMX.
CISPA extinct monsters
Image by Mataparda
Imagen original extraida de Extinct monsters; a popular account of some of the larger forms of ancient animal life (1896) en archive.org (Lámina XII), pero descubierta a través del recomendable blog BibliOdyssey, con un fragmento de texto de la EFF
Para El #Manifiesto en la red
Rogers’ “Cybersecurity” Bill Is Broad Enough to Use Against WikiLeaks and The Pirate Bay
Congress is doing it again: they’re proposing overbroad regulations that could have dire consequences for our Internet ecology. The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 (H.R. 3523), introduced by Rep. Mike Rogers and Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, allows companies or the government1 free rein to bypass existing laws in order to monitor communications, filter content, or potentially even shut down access to online services for “cybersecurity purposes.” Companies are encouraged to share data with the government and with one another, and the government can share data in return. The idea is to facilitate detection of and defense against a serious cyber threat, but the definitions in the bill go well beyond that. The language is so broad it could be used as a blunt instrument to attack websites like The Pirate Bay or WikiLeaks. Join EFF in calling on Congress to stop the Rogers’ cybersecurity bill.
Under the proposed legislation, a company that protects itself or other companies against “cybersecurity threats” can “use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information to protect the rights and property” of the company under threat. But because “us[ing] cybersecurity systems” is incredibly vague, it could be interpreted to mean monitoring email, filtering content, or even blocking access to sites. A company acting on a “cybersecurity threat” would be able to bypass all existing laws, including laws prohibiting telcos from routinely monitoring communications, so long as it acted in “good faith.”
The broad language around what constitutes a cybersecurity threat leaves the door wide open for abuse. For example, the bill defines “cyber threat intelligence” and “cybersecurity purpose” to include “theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.”
Yes, intellectual property. It’s a little piece of SOPA wrapped up in a bill that’s supposedly designed to facilitate detection of and defense against cybersecurity threats. The language is so vague that an ISP could use it to monitor communications of subscribers for potential infringement of intellectual property. An ISP could even interpret this bill as allowing them to block accounts believed to be infringing, block access to websites like The Pirate Bay believed to carry infringing content, or take other measures provided they claimed it was motivated by cybersecurity concerns.
The language of “theft or misappropriation of private or government information” is equally concerning. Regardless of the intent of this language, the end result is that the government and Internet companies could use this language to block sites like WikiLeaks and NewYorkTimes.com, both of which have published classified information. Online publishers like WikiLeaks are currently afforded protection under the First Amendment; receiving and publishing classified documents from a whistleblower is a common journalistic practice. While there’s uncertainty about whether the Espionage Act could be brought to bear against WikiLeaks, it is difficult to imagine a situation where the Espionage Act would apply to WikiLeaks without equally applying to the New York Times, the Washington Post, and in fact everyone who reads about the cablegate releases. But under Rogers’ cybersecurity proposal, the government would have new, powerful tools to go after WikiLeaks. By claiming that WikiLeaks constituted “cyber threat intelligence” (aka “theft or misappropriation of private or government information”), the government may be empowering itself and other companies to monitor and block the site. This means that the previous tactics used to silence WikiLeaks—including a financial blockade and shutting down their accounts with online service providers—could be supplemented by very direct means. The government could proclaim that WikiLeaks constitutes a cybersecurity threat and have new, broad powers to filter and block communication with the journalistic website.
Congress is intent on passing cybersecurity legislation this year, and there are multiple proposals in the House and the Senate under debate. But none is as poorly drafted and dangerously vague as the Rogers bill. We need to stop this bill in its tracks, before it can advance in the House and before the authors can negotiate to place this overbroad language into other cybersecurity proposals.
Internet security is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. But we don’t need to sacrifice our civil liberties to do so.