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.
Uh, launching? (Score:0, Interesting)
The commercial features Ted Waitt and a cow in a semi singing along to Devo's "Whip it".
This has been on TV for a couple MONTHS now. I'm pretty sure it had nothing to do with the bill, but was just being used as counterpoint in the article, saying that while this bill is being submitted, a computer maker is suggesting that ripping audio and burning CD's is fair use.
It's no different than Apple's "Rip. Mix. Burn." advertisement a while back.
Newsforge has an interesting point of view... (Score:4, Interesting)
Go Gateway! (Score:2, Interesting)
They seemed to use decent components, and their products felt like they had a personality, like they weren't just another mass-produced consumer computer. The cow spots added a touch of irreverance that made them feel like less of a corporate tool.
This just increases their chances of getting my business when that dreaded someday comes
Rip. Milk. Burn?
Aww, FSCK! [cafepress.com]
Head of Nail, meet Hammer... (Score:3, Interesting)
HOWEVER, indirectly, things will trickle out of legislation such as this that will affect legal users-
Maybe ISPs will start filtering for all MP3s due to fear of legal action or the such...
Finally? (Score:4, Interesting)
Gateway is only following Apple's lead, just the way the rest of the PC industry often follows their lead. Granted this is a good thing this time
Re:whatever (Score:5, Interesting)
That would have been me. My CD collection soared when Napster was online. I would spend hours going from song to song from groups I liked. The songs I found may have been from earlier CDs that I didn't no exist.
The other thing that Napster did was turn me on to other bands. I would hang out in the chat rooms and ask for suggestions based on what I liked. People were happy to show me other bands. I'd download a tune, listen to it, if I liked it I picked up a couple more. If I liked them all I'd go buy the CD online.
Why did I buy the CD? Was it for a sense of obligation? Sheepishly I'll tell you it wasn't. It was for the simple fact that I like to rip my songs at 320K. I'd buy the CD, rip the songs to 320K and use the resulting MP3s to listen to.
That is fair use in my opinion and one that the RIAA wants to take away from me.
Re:whatever (Score:5, Interesting)
What I really see is the RIAA more concerned about *power* then *profit*.
Example: I went to MP3.com and bought the Megatokyo collection - didn't like all of it, but enough of it was pretty cool (like the Megatokyo theme itself) that I figured the lost cost of $4 of an entire "CD" of MP3's was worth the cost.
I was taken to a little secure site, and allowed to download to my local computer. From there, I've transferred that music to my iPod, and everybody's happy. Kim Justice gets my $, MP3.com gets my $, and I get some nice little tunes for cheap. And if I want a "real" CD, it's $10.
Now, look at the RIAA. They still want me to shell our $15-$20 for a CD, which I'm going to burn to MP3's anyway. Why not put up a website where I can either pay $10 for the CD, or $2 per song? I'd go for that - I didn't like the entire Cherry Poppin' Daddies track, but I would have paid $2 for each MP3 track I wanted.
But no - the RIAA hasn't learned what the Software industry has learned. Go after the big illegal distributors, and leave the little guys alone. If they gave me a way to go get Britney Spears "I'm a Virgin Slut and you Know It" single for $2, I would never feel the need to go online and get it illegally because I knew of a safe, secure, simple way to get it for a cheap ass price.
But because they are afraid of losing that power, because it might cut into their profit, they won't do it.
Disney fought the VCR for the same reasons - and makes more money from it now than from all their movies combined. Yet they refuse to learn from their own history with the technology of MP3's.
Those who don't learn from history aren't doomed to repeat it. They're just doomed.
Re:Tech companies know what's good for them... (Score:2, Interesting)
One thing that I just noticed about this attitude that many of us (including me) share is that we're essentially saying that "either you're with us or you're with the anti-freedom nazi media groups"
I hope that we're not falling to the level of Dubyah. (i.e. "Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists.")
Re:whatever (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
DRM being mandatory is a whole different ballgame for tech manufacturers. I think that most PC makers either already realize or are beginning to realize that the media industry is trying to leverage them into a "media appliance" role, and that's not what sells computers.
Home computers are sold because the consumer is convinced that the computer is a magical device that will enable them to do just about anything. Even if the vast majority of home consumers buy a PC so that they can use email, surf the web, and maybe work on work-related documents at home, it's the unlimited aspect of the computer that's attractive. If it becomes harder to get the content you want from the web, or send a cool "thing" to your friends via email, you can bet that PC sales which have already started hitting commodity status will atrophy even more as some of the perceived functionality and allure is removed.
I suspect that we'll also see a huge rise in black/grey market electronic components and used computers (e.g. "Pre-2002 motherboard, $800, 2001 AMD chip, 750, 800 mhz iMac, $3000").
One other thing that is going to be interesting to watch is this: the major media companies are trying to lock down digital content at the same time that very powerful, easy-to-use content creation tools are becoming available to the average computer user (e.g. Apple's digital hub products like iMovie, iDVD, etc.). It wasn't so long ago that nearly every home had a piano in it, and a large percentage of the population knew how to play. The reason for this was that entertainment was needed, and it was often expensive and/or inconvenient to "go to a show." People entertained themselves.
I can't help but think that as major media tries so hard to make it expensive and inconvenient for people to obtain entertainment, that they won't turn to the new "pianos" that are appearing in a large number of homes - their computers. Couple that with the ease of internet distribution (assuming decent proliferation of broadband) and the model definitely changes.
Re:Computer manufacturers come to their senses. (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't let them believe its hurting the artists, cd sales were way up during napster's days, and went into a slump shortly after it was shut down.
There's really nothing wrong with cd sales at the moment, the problem for the recording companies is that with that sort of thing going on (napster), they lose a lot of control of what people listen to.
People in general like whatever music they tend to listen to... if all we hear is pop, we come to like pop, if you hear lots of heavy metal, you start to like heavy metal, and so on. As it stands now, the recording industries more or less control what you hear on the radio, and ensure that you're buying music produced by their label.
However, with something like napster available, people could just download songs from whoever, fo free (and frequently did). The recording companies saw this, and they had visions of a future where they had no control, and couldn't suddenly make whoever they felt like popular. So they got scared, and sued the pants off of napster.
Now that they've realised that people are going to swap mp3's even without napster, (and with gnutella, etc, there's nobody to sue), they're paying senators (Hollings) to write laws in the US to force computers not to be able to share copyrigthed material somehow (and I personally can't think of a good way of doing that).
I'm guessing that you and most slashdotters already know most of this story, but the point is, *don't* even say that it may hurt the artists, because it doesn't. It helps independent artists and the small record labels immensely. Its the recording companies it hurts, don't lose sight of that.
Re:errr.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, that's the problem. After the CDBTPA passes, there will be no non-commercial artists. Most of the tools a an artist would need to record and distribute their music electronically will be contraband. And the software their prospective listeners would need to listen to them will be illegal as well. Same with independant filmmakers. Of course, this is what the powers behind the bill want. It effectively installs the RIAA and MPAA as our entertainment police - they will have the final say on what music we are allowed to listen to and which movies we are allowed to watch.
What a fool (Score:2, Interesting)
Might we be missing something? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:whatever (Score:3, Interesting)
So very true, but they are still hoping to take out both 'professional' and 'casual' pirates. At least Sony is. I asked them for info on their key2audio 'protection', posing as a small record-company, and they told me it was to stop 'casual copying' (their words), which is ofcourse what (small) labels want to hear. Today they had a statement in the newspaper (here in Holland, de Volkskrant) that it was mainly meant to stop the 'big pirates', which is ofcourse what the public wants to hear.
I was glad to see the mainstream media give attention to this issue, but disappointed that they gave Sony such a nice chance to 'legitimize' their 'protection' to the public. Their answers to the questions I asked them already made it clear they don't give a fsck about the public. There were a lot of funny answers in their e-mail, I should put it on the web, maybe. Does anyone know if it's legal to make an e-mail, sent to you personaly, public? I'd rather not get sued by Sony, but it would help the public to know the other side of the story.
NachtVorst
Great quote in the Wired article: (Score:5, Interesting)
I see, it would seem that the RIAA is still of the mindset that the tool maker is responsible for the use of the tool.
There is no way that the tech industry is going to voluntarily cripple its equipment on just the media companies' say so.
Thankfully there has been NO support for the SSSCA/CD...whatever they're calling it today. Not that that means it's dead.
Rosen and company should realize that forced DRM will pan out in one of 2 directions. Either it will be defeated by some 13 year old in a matter of minutes, or it (if *unbreakable* =P )will annihilate the market for new equipment and create a huge aftermarket for pre-DRM equipment.
Both are failures for the media folk, but the second option promises to make an already ugly looking ecomony even worse. And potentially turn millions of people into felons for effectively sitting still.
There are laws already in place to handle every issue they keep bringing up, but appearantly it won't be enough until they can force feed use everything.
If they want to kick the piracy issue I have a suggestion for them. PUT SOME PORDUCTION QUALITY INTO THEIR PRODUCTS! I'm not talking about the quality of the music itself, but everything that goes along with it. Case in point, the soundtrack for "Queen of the Damned". Retailing at the local Walmart for $13.99. I think it a pretty good soundtrack, personally. However, the packaging and liner notes are TERRIBLE! No lyric sheet, tracks aren't even listed in order as they are on the disk, it's just a simple tri-fold. How about a little something more for my $14? Seriously, give me one good reason why I shoud not just d/l the tracks that I want, aside from the (il)legallity issue. There is NOTHING, no added value whatsoever in purchasing the actual CD.
This is primarily their greatest problem, they fail to see that they are selling more than simply music, and until they realize it, 'pirating' (I still hate that term) looks very appealing.
Re:whatever (Score:3, Interesting)
>>even though you only want one song. If they
>>move to your model, they get only $2 from you
>>and still have to subsidize the same volume of >>risk
Funny - i used to remember buying 45 vinyl singles all the time and the record companies were never crying poor.....
Thing is - they've gotten gready. You're exactly right - they want me to suck down $20 for a CD when I only want one song because they won't make as much if I can buy a single for $2.
Booo-fucking-hoo.
Guess what? I'm STILL not buying the CD. Now I'd grabbing the song I want off the net and they get NOTHING.
This isn't about me not wanting to pay for music, it's about me not wanting to be taken advantage of and pay for crap I don't want (please explain why this isn't 'bundling' like the anti-Microsoftites cry and moan about).
Maybe one day they'll wake up, but I'm not betting on it. Instead of giving customers the options that they want, and getting some cash, they're trying to force the issue and getting a backlash instead. They really need to realize that music is a luxury, not a necessity. I'm more than happy to spend cash to get the music that I want, but if you try to screw me (which they are absolutely) instead i'm going to go out of my way to make sure you get nothing from me.