Singing Cow To Attack CBDTPA 501
karmawarrior writes "Gateway is launching an advertising campaign against Senator Holling's CBDTPA bill, which, apparently will include its cow mascot encouraging computer users to legally download MP3s and burn their own CDs." Wired also has a story; see Gateway's website for more, as Gateway takes a page from Apple's "Rip-Mix-Burn" playbook.
whatever (Score:4, Insightful)
Didn't sales go up when napster started and then descreased when RIAA went and shutdown napster?
Hell I know people who used to get Mp3's so they could decide whether to buy an album who now just get them to piss off RIAA.
Surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
However, wouldn't it just be easier though for them to fight "fire with fire" and send lots of campaign bribes..er..donations to some congresspeoples?
-------rhad
Tech companies know what's good for them... (Score:4, Insightful)
Strange bedfellows (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically, both sides are rallying around a cause in order to drum up support. The recording industry is chanting, "The artists! The artists!" At the same time, tech seems to be saying, "The consumer! The consumer!" But in the end, everyone's just looking out for their own threatened business model.
Analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Do insurance companies then complain that auto manufacturers are behaving irresponsibly? No.
Should the RIAA be complaining about Gateway's ads? No.
Okay, it's a pretty funny ad, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
This ad doesn't go far enough, or bring home the true horribleness of the law. We need shock tactics, like those highway-safety ads. I want to see the cow standing in the middle of the highway with a big placard, screaming "The CBDTPA SUUUUUCKS!" and then getting run down by a Disney truck, preferably driven by a Senator Hollings impostor.
emusic? (Score:2, Insightful)
apparently this is one of gateways 'partners' and a 'good place to download music legally' or something like that.
anyone know anything about them?
They are allies, not friends (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, I've got about zero respect for Gateway products. They have effectively filled the consumer space crappy OEM PC manufacturer vacated by Packard Bell. But, at least they realize that stringent hardware requirements mandated by the government are not in their best interests. As this conicides with mine, yeah I'll support them by pointing out the issues they are bringing to light to the less tech-savvy. Doesn't mean I'll be recommending their products any time soon.
Re:errr.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Why Gateway? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
Gateway wants to retain the freedom to manufacture computers as it pleases. It sees this as potentially hurting their sales when buyers no longer want computers that restrict a buyer's possible uses for the machine.
Buyers are the prize in one sense, but the greater prize is "who gets to keep and protect their business model" - the content companies, or the computer companies--
The Car doesn't have free will to stop running reliably if it doesn't like the divorcee who wins custody. The Buyer does.
What ticks me off... (Score:5, Insightful)
Real "piracy" is rape, pillage, and murder on the high seas or some remote godforsaken mountain pass or desert wadi. It still happens in the seas around Indonesia and Malaysia, and in the Caribbean, and it still happens on land in places like Africa and continental Asia. To equate sampling a piece of music by MP3 prior to deciding to purchase it with "piracy" is all so over-the-top hysterical that it would be merely comical if it hadn't gotten widespread currency.
Jack Valenti and Hillary Rosen should have their mouths washed out with soap for hammering on this to the point that even their opponents adopted their skewed language.
i have a quote too (Score:5, Insightful)
"If only the music industry would devote a little bit of millions of dollars they're spending on lawyers and buying senators to update their distribution model into the 21st century... but that wouldn't let them fuck the artists as much would it?"
nuff said.
why the law is bad (Score:2, Insightful)
Is there anything more damning to this bill than the fact that now we are seeing political commercials from corporate entities on both sides of the issue?
When this is the case, clearly the issue is not one of laws, and the government should not be involved.
Re:Analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
It's perfectly legal to buy a handgun. It's perfectly legal to buy bullets. It's perfectly legal to use the two together. It is, however, very illegal to use the two together in certain conditions.
However, the Government does not mandate the crippling of potential gun owners' hands in order to decrease one's killing capacity. Nor does the government mandate that guns be as inaccurate as possible in order to stem victims being hit by bullets. Our Government says Here. Buy this gun. Do what you want with it. But if you use it to break the law, you're going to jail.
That's how most of our laws are, right now. Ex post facto -- you break them, you do the punishment. The RIAA/MPAA wants to undermine this situation, and prevent people from breaking the law. We already tried this once.
It was called prohibition.
The only way this bill will pass is if people aren't educated about the facts, and don't speak out against it.
It's incredibly admirable to see companies such as Gateway take a stand against the SSCA/CDCPBUATNAUWHATEVERTHEHELL; it's even moreso to see them want to educate the public on their rights in this area.
Re:What's Your Beef? (Score:2, Insightful)
though they would have you believe otherwise.
gateway only gives a damn cause it might affect their sales on this particular computer model.
Re:Newsforge has an interesting point of view... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't mean to resort to typical Microsoft bashing, but I seriously doubt that Microsoft is going to fight DRM for those reasons. Instead, I think that they'll fight DRM as a government-mandated issue, all the while working on their own Windows-integrated DRM scheme which they'll then license to major media conglomerates.
If they can pull it off, it's a Win-Win for Microsoft: No government interference on DRM and a near-instant monopoly on DRM due to buy-in from the major content providers.
Re:More FUD from the RIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Strange bedfellows (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a fundamental difference between the Content Companies' position and the Tech Companies' position. The Tech companies just want to be able to make new technology without government intervention. The Content companies see technology as a threat, and want that threat to be legislated away. The Content companies want their "right to profit" protected by Congress, and they don't care what other industries' "right to profit" gets clobbered in the process. (never mind the fact that no company has a "right to profit" - a company that doesn't profit simply fails!)
The reason why I think Gateway's support is a good thing is that the entire Copyright debate has, up until now, been framed by the Content Companies in the Media. They frame the debate in terms of what we can't do with copyrighted material. Up until now, anyone who framed it in terma of what we can do has been dismissed as a Commie Pirate Hacker. Seeing Gateway do this almost makes me want to sell my Macs and home-built Linux boxen for a computer in a cow box. almost.
If Copyright is really supposed to be a two-way street, with the government (also known as the People in the USA) granting certain rights to copyright holders in exchange for public use of their works, then we really should outline what we can do with these works, because my idea of what I can do and Michael Eisner's idea are polar opposites. The role of legislation should be to clarify what we can and can't do, and it's obviously not doing a good enough job! The bill of rights at digitalconsumer.org does, though. The more I think about it, the more I realize that THAT needs to be our next copyright law.
Re:Tech companies know what's good for them... (Score:3, Insightful)
RIAA's Comments ( and why we don't like them) (Score:5, Insightful)
Now let me get this straight? The RIAA, MPAA and others (through the Disney Senator) want to take away many of the rights that hardware manufacturers have in building their systems. And now they want these same companies to spend money to help keep the horrible music system in place? At least movie stars make money. 99% of artist's don't. Read This article [http] [Salon.com] by Courtney Love if you want to know why I personally don't like the RIAA.
I applaud Gateway for this, and I really hope that this helps bring them from the brink of going out of buisness. I plan on supporting them through corporate purchases (which I oversee). I hope supporting companies who endorse (publically) our ideals will win in the long run
WMAs considered harmful. (Score:5, Insightful)
Clever marketting strategy (Score:2, Insightful)
At the same time they are implying, "Buy us before it is too late."
The fact that they may actually prevent poor legislation being inacted is waaay down the list of benefits they get from this.
StrutterX
Re:whatever (Score:2, Insightful)
You're confusing the exception with the rule. I don't really care one way or the other, but don't kid yourself that the availability of free music somehow increases sales of non-free music.
Perhaps you're in an economic position where purchasing as many $15 CDs as you want isn't a problem, but you can bet some high school or college kid would rather spend his money on a night out, then on a bunch of music he can get for free.
It'll be very interesting to watch this unfold over the next few years. I really don't see how it will ever be stopped. And if it isn't stopped, the music industry is going to go through some big changes. Won't bother me a bit if the recording industry as we know it collapses. They lost my sympathy (and probably that of most everyone else old enough to remember) when they increased the price of an album when they switched from vinyl to CDs. The media is cheaper, the packaging is cheaper, transport is cheaper, yet the end product is more expensive?
Looks like they kind of shot themselves in the foot by doing that.
Re:Analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
It was called prohibition.
I don't see how prohibition fits this definition. In fact, in the history of American law, there is no analogous legislation I can think of to what they are proposing. The closest thing I can think of is safety regulations (you can't sell a car that doesn't incorporate seat belts, for example). And smokestacks must have scrubbers, apartment buildings must have fire escapes, restaurants must have wheelchair ramps, etc. But all these things are to prevent accidents, pollution, tragedies, etc. I can't think of one that has the sole purpose of preventing you from breaking the law.
But I don't see why we should just legislate piracy out of existence. We could stop rape with technological barriers, for example, by forcing all women to wear steel chastity belts. And why can't we do this with murder as well? Surely murder is a lot worse than piracy. And a law to mandate prevention of murder would run into problems just as easily as a law like this one that mandates prevention of piracy. We would have to ban guns, knives, axes, boxcutters, chisels, wrenches, and hammers. Buckets would have to be banned too, because you can fill one with water and hold someone's head down in it. You can also kill someone by smashing their head against a wall. Therefore all walls in all houses and buildings must be covered with foam padding to prevent this. But the padding can't be stapled or nailed on, because you can kill someone with staples or nails. And it can't be glued on, because glue is also illegal (you can glue someone's mouth shut and make them starve to death). Oh well, let's just mandate that the hardware industry come up with a solution!
Of course, like the CBDTPA, a murder-preventing law like this one would contain a meaningless provision saying, in effect, "this law shall have no effect on lawful behavior." That way, any letter a Senator receives that complains about the bill's restrictions on lawful behavior (i.e. fair use) will go straight into the trash. Keep this in mind when you write your anti-CBDTPA letters.
Re:Analogy (Score:2, Insightful)
Additionally, it seems like the record companies are hypocritcal. Do they subject the same scrutiny to their own products as far as encouraging crime? How many rap or rock records have been released which encourage illegal behavior? Yet the record companies are more than willing to defend this as free speech. Why doesn't the same defense apply to Gateway?
Re:whatever (Score:3, Insightful)