Ebert, Gillmor on the Music Industry 521
TTop writes "Roger Ebert has weighed in with a scathing critique of the Universal Music Group and its new copy-protection scheme which renders CDs unplayable in non-Windows operating systems, DVD players, and CD-compatible game consoles. It's nice to see the mainstream press start to come out against the idiotic copy-protection war the RIAA is declaring on their best customers, music lovers. Having to agree to a legal contract to hear a CD you've purchased on your own PC? Puh-leeze. Ebert compares these copy-protection schemes to Circuit City's failed DIVX DVD format." Columnist Dan Gillmor wrote a piece a few days ago about drawing a line in the sand.
Money (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Money (Score:2, Insightful)
I like RIAA's definition of piracy (Score:3, Interesting)
I sure hope they mean the act of "selling" these types of recordings.
I can't imagine who they think they're preaching to if they mean the act of "making" these types of recordings. If they do, I'd like to see them try to haul 98% of the US population into court for violating their rights!
Re:Money (Score:4, Funny)
As I wrote earlier today [slashdot.org], I discovered three new bands this week alone through the magic of downloading MP3s from bands I'd never heard of.
What's good for musicians and bad for RIAA - one of those bands will be seeing some money the next time I'm in their area. They appear to perform frequently, and I'll check 'em out live.
What RIAA fears most - two of those bands are now defunct. The only way I could buy their stuff is to buy at a used record store - in which case neither the artist nor RIAA see any money.
RIAA are the puritans of our age: A cartel of people desperately afraid that someone, somewhere, might be enjoying music without regard for whether it's a "hit".
Re:Money (Score:5, Insightful)
Money makes the world go round
It's that very fact that will shape future events.
People aren't going to want New Locks and Chains forced down their throats by congressional legislation based on the premise the most of the citizenry are thieves depriving RIAA and MPAA of hard earned dollars.
Let the marketplace decide without legislation. Let RIAA and MPAA start to release media only in encrypted form that is playable on one device at one time after the wireless connection is made to verify the users valid VISA card number.
See how many consumers buy those devices and let the market decide.
I think we all know what would happen if we let the market decide. It's too bad RIAA and MPAA aren't willing to do that.
It's simple. Let the existing data processing and communication equipment be. If someone uses their equipment to violate a copyright, that's a separate issue; let that violation be prosecuted on its own merits under the law.
Re:Money (Score:4, Funny)
People are stupid, in general. If the new copy protection tech isn't *way* more expensive than the old stuff, people will just give in and buy it, because they saw a commercial with some copy-protected player and a bunch of bikini-clad women.
Not that I'm bitter...
Re:Money (Score:2)
See how many consumers buy those devices and let the market decide
They did. It was called DivX. It failed. Therefore, this time they are buying legislation to make sure that we *have* to buy it.
Losing customers (Score:4, Interesting)
"IF YOU DO NOT OR CANNOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO USE THE PLAYER OR CONTENT."
They are saying that this is a legal contract. They are saying that if you cannot agree then you are not allowed to use the content (listen to the music). Minors cannot agree to legal contracts. Tell me if my logic fails me, but does that mean that minors can't listen to copyprotected CD's? Shouldn't they be, therefore, prohibited from buying them?
It sounds ultra stupid, but it's the RIAA.
Re:Losing customers (Score:4, Insightful)
From what I learned of contract law when I was under 18 (3-5 years ago), here's the way I *think* it would work. By permitting the copy-protected "CD"s to be sold to those under 18, Universal is effectively agreeing to follow the contract with them. Of course, the under 18s aren't legally bound by the contract, but here's where it gets interesting.
According to the law in most states...or maybe it's federal law, I don't remember...people who are under 18 can disavow contracts they have entered into. What this essentially means is that if someone enters into a contract with an IU18 (individual under 18, I refuse to use the term 'minor'), it still becomes legally binding, but not on the IU18. The other party, though, is still bound by the terms of the contract. What this means for IU18s buying copy-protected CDs is that as long as they are permitted to purchase them, which they will be, they can pretty much ignore whatever licensing restrictions Universal throws at them.
Gonna play the 'legally binding contract' game with your customers, Universal? Guess what...two can play this game.
Re:Losing customers (Score:3, Informative)
Ah, yes, contract law. The thing about contracts is that the damages are usually enforceable as "expectancy" (meaning that the prevailing plaintiff receives the "benefit of the bargain" as damages) and, since a contract made by a minor is "voidable," the minor can disaffirm the contract and avoid those damages. "Restitution" is a different matter: "restitution" means you have to give back what you got (or its fair value) so as to avoid unjust enrichment (to you) and unfair deprivation (to the other party). So if a minor enters a contract to make X number of payments at $Y per month for a car, and doesn't make the payments, he does have to give the car back, even though the contract is not binding upon him.
What this probably means in this context is that a minor who buys a CD, makes a zillion copies and sells them, and then tries to disaffirm the contact will still have to make restitution, even if he is not bound by the contract terms. (IOW, a exception to contract law is a shield, not a sword, and the law is not always an ass).
Re:Money (Score:2, Insightful)
While it's nice that more people in the public eye are speaking out against copy protection, it's not bound to help much.
I disagree with this. Currently, it seems that only a few folk are really aware of what is being threatened. Once the rest of the public realizes that they are being affected by these idiotic measures, then they'll speak up. Especially when they buy a CD that won't work.
Money makes the world go round, as long as the RIAA and MPAA see money "lost" that could be theirs, they're not gonna stop
True, but having more folk who know about the scam means that more will be royally pissed about it. Hopefully, this will one day be the majority of customers. And even the MPAA/RIAA/Congressmen know that a majority of pissed off customers generally equates with a loss of money ;)
Re:Money (Score:2)
"...money is the root of all evils..." 1 Timothy 6:10 - KJV.
:1,$/s/money/root of all evils/g
"root of all evils makes the world go round"
FYI: before you flame me I KNOW that is out of context: it's "For the love of money..." but it's still funny.
Re:Money and Political Action (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a little story. It might seem off-topic at first, but keep reading. After September 11th, despite the fact that general aviation had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks, GA (specifically, the smallest and least harmful aircraft involved in aviation) were grounded for a LONG time (on the order of two months).
The airlines and many politicians have always wanted to get rid of light planes. They are considered a "nuisance" - and this was a way to take our freedoms away (despite the fact the FAA wanted to have GA flying again two days after Sept. 11 since the FAA knows that an aircraft weighing less than a compact car isn't a big threat).
What's this got to do with encryption, the RIAA, MPAA, SSSCA (or whatever they renamed it to this week?)
Political action worked for GA. There are only about 300,000 active GA pilots in the entire country - i.e. about the same as the total number of Slashdot readers. AOPA organized a day where all pilots would call up their local congresscritters - all on the same day.
Every representitive's office in the country got HUNDREDS of calls on the issue of VFR pilots still remaining grounded. They were still getting calls the next day. And the next day.
Very quickly, the issue was a hot topic. Not long after that, the restrictions were pretty much totally dropped.
Slashdot has at least as many regular readers as aopa.org - and this issue has MANY more than 300,000 people interested in the SSSCA (or whatever it's now called) being passed as law.
So it's time for political action. Slashdot should do the same as AOPA did - organize a single day where everyone calls their local representitive and spells out this issue. A few hundred thousand phone calls from voters and they WILL listen. It worked for AOPA and GA pilots - it should also work for us!
Re:Money (Score:4, Funny)
ok, 4 hours later and the MPAA/RIAA is bad (Score:4, Insightful)
But seriously, pirates hurt software companies just as bad, if not worse than the music industry. Why doesnt the RIAA, MPAA..etc recongonize this? Its not as if Adobe is giving away Photoshop. They only difference is that software companies have adapted to this changed their business model to surive.
Re:ok, 4 hours later and the MPAA/RIAA is bad (Score:3, Insightful)
Conclusion (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Conclusion (Score:5, Interesting)
One guy was up to like 10 or more.
Re:Conclusion (Score:3, Funny)
Ho Hum.
~Hammy
Boycott or "Piracy"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Me too.
But realize this-- the RIAA's spin will claim that any falloff in revenue is due to piracy, not a boycott-- hence their need for the copy protection.
W
However (Score:5, Informative)
For that to happen, the 12 year old girls will have to be convinced of the importance of the boycott, so that they will stop buying CDs by BoyBandOfTheWeek and J'Britney.
Maybe we could find a way to make buying CDs uncool.
Hold the music, just the image thank you. (Score:3, Interesting)
Not that I am a profesional sociologist with reams of rock hard data, or anything other than just shooting from the hip.
But I would bet that having the music on the cd is less important than having the cd itself. I'm not just saying this because nsynch sucks, but that it might be more important for their "fans" to be part of the pop-culture phenomina than to be enjoying whatever entertainment value the music has intrinsicly. As such, 12 year old girls would be one of the last groups to turn away from the music industry, their not buying the music at all.
Re:However (Score:3, Funny)
OK, what if we make it 'cool' to download music for free off the internet.
Oh wait...
Re:However (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps, but if you're pulled over, I'd rather have 100 CDR's full of pirated mp3's on the seat next to me than any amount of illegal drugs. I'd imagine that I could tell the police officer that those cdr's are illegal rips of music downloaded off the internet and assuming he isn't confused by the notion, he'd probably strike up a conversation about it, including his own music sharing habits.
-Restil
If it becomes a war on piracy, you'll find... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Boycott or "Piracy"? (Score:2)
Then let them. If the winds of change blow true, perhaps the financial losses will pile up and we can see a true revolution in the music industry.
I dream. I wish. I will not buy more CDs.
Used CDs/DVDs RULE! (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly! Give that man a cigar, or a spliff, or whatever floats his boat!
I will not buy new CDs unless the company that puts it out is NOT a member of the RIAA. I will not buy DVDs put out by signatories to the MPAA. This way, I do not have to deprive myself of the music and movies I like. It's great.
Here are some places to check out:
http://www.secondspin.com/ [secondspin.com]
http://www.half.com/ [half.com]
And even more importantly: support indie music! Support indie movies! Create your own music/movies, then SHARE AND ENJOY!!! This is the real reason Big Media is quaking in its boots.
Boycott! (Score:5, Funny)
I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to put up with it anymore!
So I filled my ears with caulk, and gouged my eyes out with a spoon.
I suggest you all do the same.
That'll show them!
This was an intentionally ludicrious inflammitory post.
RIAA always is the victim (Score:3, Insightful)
But the RIAA will always use some kind of spaghetti logic to claim that sales are down due to piracy. This is an projecting answer -- it enables them to project business failure onto others, as well as justify copy protection, pay-per-play and other schemes that are unpopular with end users.
The other answers -- the music sucks, the business model is flawed, etc will never be considered or publicly advanced. These are reflective answers -- they reflect on the RIAA member entities poor management and don't allow them to blame forces outside their control.
Re:RIAA always is the victim (Score:5, Informative)
Record company executives always find something to blame a decline in sales on. And any increase in sales they attribute to their own brilliance. Back in the 1980s, they were blaming cassettes with the "Home Taping In Killing Music" nonsense, with it's pathetic "cassette & crossbones" stickers. In the 1990s, they were blaming used CD sales, and trotted out Garth Brooks to clame that the legal "right of first resale" was taking food from his children's mouths. And before that it was:
Re:Boycott or "Piracy"? (Score:3, Interesting)
Come to Canada! (Score:4, Interesting)
If you really want to spite the RIAA, involve yourself in open piracy for no profit. Send the artists money directly or go see them in concert (which they get a larger take from, anyhow). That's what I do, personally. Look at free alternatives like Emusic.com - but don't give them another penny.
Canadian law says that the RIAA give up the right to procecute you for piracy done for personal use by your own hand. Make full use of that. The current levy hike they propose is insane, but since the government has decided to transistion music into a public good, you're stupid not to take advantage of it. I know I'll be trumpeting this little factoid at the top of my lungs to anyone who will listen if the price of an iPod goes up by over $100 or $150 because of this!
However, maybe this will give emusic.com and others the ability to break the RIAA stranglehold on music. That's what they're really afraid of.
And for those of you interested in a cool slashdot article, how about someone with a little money and time go out and get one of these copy protected CDs. Then do an analog sample with a nice quality headphone adapter cable into a reasonably standard sound card and then do some comparisons online (although, I'm not even sure if you could put samples up as fair use anymore!). Show them the futility of this first hand.
What, are ADC chips going to get banned next?
Re:Come to Canada! (Score:2)
Doh! (Score:2)
Steve
Re:Come to Canada! (Score:2)
Is it labeled a Compact Disc? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is it labeled a Compact Disc? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's weird (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's weird (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's weird (Score:2)
Re:It's weird (Score:3, Informative)
click here [suntimes.com].
It's called Pitch Black.
Re:It's weird (Score:2)
It's not like because Paul Vixie wrote cron I should trust his judgement in movies. Then again, I tend to agree with Ebert more than Roeper, so what do I know?
Re:It's weird (Score:5, Funny)
Methinks you meant to write "the older I get" :-)
Re:It's weird (Score:3)
I read his other articles on the linked site yesterday and kept telling myself, "Man, he's pretty smart. He really does get it!" We need more people like Roger Ebert in the media.
interesting.. (Score:2)
OK, my opinion of this guy has changed. I hate his movie reviews, but his writing style is pretty damn good, and he's got a sense of humor.
I think I'll see what else this guy has written.
The answer is staring people in the face (Score:5, Insightful)
Physical Commodities - Exchange or Access
What is the fundamental basis on which we deal with the customer?
One's a single-shot deal (mostly): say hello, exchange goods/money, say goodbye.
The other's a deal that lasts for a certain period. In the case of this conference, three days.
In both cases the physicality of the commodity wholly represents the product and the work that went into producing it. The property is clear, the deal is clear.
Non-Physical Commodities? (Digital Content)
An oxymoron surely?
Let's see. Here's some digital content I'd like to make available for you to download (in only twelve bytes of ASCII) - Write the following down on a piece of paper: "A, D, A, M, space, H, A, D, space, apostrophe, E, M". Thus: "Adam Had 'em."
Incidentally, I'm not the copyright holder of this work, Ogden Nash is. So all of you who've made digital copies by writing it down have just become criminals by copying the work in its entirety.
It's called 'Fleas', also known as the shortest poem in the world, and thus highly valuable. I understand that printed copies of this poem currently retail for up to £5,000 and that consequently the punitive damages for illicit copying may be quite substantial.
If literary works of art were this easy to copy a few hundred years ago, no-one would have invented copyright, let alone convinced themselves that digital content was a commodity.
Copying Physical Commodities is not inherently profitable, so it doesn't need to be controlled
There's nothing wrong with copying physical commodities, because in general the copies are just as much work to produce as the originals.
This is except for novel, patentable devices which enjoy a dispensation to retain a legal monopoly on production for a certain period (to enable the development costs to be recouped). This is to foster economic and technological progress, not to create a human right.
If a non-physical commodity doesn't represent the labour that went into it, then either we assign a right to copy it, or we stop treating it like a commodity. If the latter, then the original work represents the work.
Art is slightly different to a commodity, it's an idea given form
Art, whether written, pictorial, or sculpted is a little different though.
Once upon a time (and today if you've got the money) you could commission art, or you could buy art from artists who'd produced it for sale.
Then, forging art didn't so much hurt the artist as hurt the purchaser. Overt copying was fine, it enabled the art to be enjoyed by more people, e.g. the Bible.
In the case of popular but painstakingly original art the economics were difficult, i.e. it's difficult for an artist or author say, to communicate en masse to their potential readership and encourage them to club together in funding a new work (unlike royalty, aristocrats, etc.). So with the advent of the performance of plays and the printing of books designed for a larger audience, we see in retrospect a new revenue mechanism arise: price each performance or copy as though it were a share in funding the original work. This also requires some ability to prevent anyone else producing copies.
Copyright is Artificial, not 'self-evident'
So we see that copyright is also not a human right, it's just another expedient mechanism to enable the copy to act as the share certificate. You bought a book? You're a paid up shareholder.
The thing is though, copyright's a magic purse. It need never stop bringing in revenue (well beyond the original development costs). And in some fortunate cases, for particularly popular art, a few artists and much of the publishing industry can enjoy great wealth.
It's a brave government that would recall all these magic purses from the rich, powerful and popular. However, there is one organization more powerful than both combined.
Widespread Copying is Endemic
What happens, when there are half a billion people online (out of a planet of 6 billion), each of whom can make a copy of any art they fancy in a moment's thought?
We're talking on a scale of mankind. If people, globally, en masse, copy art, it's possible that it's not really wrong. Rather it's that the law, created to enable a revenue mechanism that requires exclusive copy privileges, is now ineffective, irrelevant and redundant. You cannot prosecute the world. It's the revenue mechanisms that must adapt or die.
Loss of Physical Media
We've lost the physical media upon which art was distributed. This served to reinforce general acceptance of the underlying revenue mechanism in people's minds. However, online, the Emperor is now wearing the finest of sheer silks (fully naked if you ask me). There's no scrap of clothing, no wodge of paper, magnetic tape, plastic box, not even an acrylic disc. It's now just a memory. The only thing that reminds us we've paid our share for the pure information that now comprises art, is the click of the I Agree button on the license page.
So what's the answer?
Don't sell the horse after you've let it out of the stable. Or in other words, don't release the digital content and then try to sell it (relying on copyright). You can't sue 5 billion people. Nor can you place a compensating levy on computers (madness!).
And of course the classic: don't try to lock the stable door after the horse has bolted. Here, I'm obviously talking of encryption and digital rights management. If the art can get into people's eyes or ears, it can be copied by a computer. Encryption is fine for keeping things exclusive when the parties concerned wish to. If you're communicating with someone who doesn't care for exclusivity, encryption won't really work, it just hinders.
Deal En Masse
So what should we do?
Sell the horse before you let it out of the stable. Go back a few hundred years and pick up the old revenue mechanisms that weren't quite so good, because it was difficult to do deals en masse.
And this is because something has changed. For the same reason that copyright is becoming ineffectual, so the public commissioning revenue mechanisms are now becoming feasible.
The biggest mental block facing business today, both online and even with interactive TV companies, is to be unable to think of dealing with the market except as a collection of individuals.
The only deal we're particularly familiar with en masse is voting, e.g. democracy, etc. We dabble with this in TV shows, even with online polls, but that's about it.
Who has dared to let people vote with their money? In the same transaction?
The new value chain
Bypass the agents, the publishers, the marketers, the advertisers, the distributors, the retailers, the packagers, etc. The new value chain is the artist and the audience. We're right back at the craftsman and the customer. Except this time, there's nothing stopping the artist doing a deal with a million people at once. Though no one's thought to create the necessary de facto e-commerce web site for such a deal. Still too busy selling to punters one by one...
The Emperor is Naked
Of course, it's very difficult to believe an emperor could possibly be naked.
If you're selling digital art, digital content, digital whatever, reserve a tiny piece of your long term strategy for the inconceivably possibility that King Canute's bottomless purse of copyright will be overrun by a tide of countless tiny infractions.
Even so, the end of copyright is not the end of commercial viability for digital content, it's the end of a particular revenue mechanism.
Consider Revenue Mechanisms that don't need Copyright
Your audience is your market - deal with it!
Check out this site for more info:
The Digital Art Auction [digitalartauction.com]
Re:The answer is staring people in the face (Score:3, Interesting)
Major Labels (was Re:Marillion, ...) (Score:3, Informative)
I'm going to say that I swaw it a couple of months ago, and it was either on public TV, or on the discovery channel.
I think it more likely that the bands can typically only come up with one or two good songs in the time frame they have to record an album. I'm not a musician though, so the whole creative process there tends to amaze me anyway
That may very well be. But I've heard guys like Dwight Yoakum talking about how his record contract says he can only put 12 songs on a disc, and that he had to pay his record company to put out a 14 song disc. It looks like the record companies are not much into supplying value for the money we spand.
The label's business is selling "units". music on a physical medium. They don't make money unless you buy the media from them, and they aren't smart enough to figure out how to make money using a software licensing model.
They were in a position to be the only ones with enough resources and access to get records made, and they exploited that fact for a long time. They are losing their grip on their market place, and those in power never give up without a fight, and they'll fight dirty as necessary.
Re:The answer is staring people in the face (Score:3, Interesting)
The biggest mental block facing business today, both online and even with interactive TV companies, is to be unable to think of dealing with the market except as a collection of individuals.
I think this can also be read backwards. Business' mental block is also being unable to deal with people as individuals first. They still cling to the myth of the "mass market" when there is no such thing. Laundry detergent is a mass market product. Everything else is a niche.
The Cluetrain has this concept down cold: craftsmanship will return to the marketplace, and the customers will come to expect it, because craftsmanship is more valuable in the long run than mass produced generic brands, especially for creative products like art and books and software.
So instead of a handful of huge corporations building things on an assembly line (which worked REAL WELL with software lemme tell ya... *gag*), there will be a thousand tiny shops each serving a tiny but growing market and making the economy a thousand times more valuable.
For those businesses that are still chasing the elusive, non-existent "next big thing:" hear that sound? It's the customers you are ignoring knocking on the door and wondering why nobody answers, and then leaving for a much smaller competitor who *does* answer the phone, and on the first ring even.
They are not "stealing" (Score:2, Insightful)
Technically they are stealing,
I must disagree with this. They are not stealing, since no-one is deprived of anything. By his own argument, the record companies are not being deprived of sales, and unlike true theft, there is no loss of material possessions. No-one's lost money, no-one's lost a shiny disc with digital data encoded on it, no-one's been stolen from.
Re:They are not "stealing" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They are not "stealing" (Score:2, Insightful)
Copyright infringement is a more appropriate term. "Piracy" is not appropriate. That's the practice of attacking and robbing ships at sea.
Re:They are not "stealing" (Score:3, Insightful)
No, if you're presenting somebody else's work as your own, then you are causing harm. If posting the picture all over the place shows that the value of the original is impacted, then you're disagreeing with the article.
Walt Mossberg did the same thing (Score:5, Informative)
In the article, he proposes a whole new digital copyright law that gives the user back their priveleges to make copies of the content they have legally obtained.
He proposed the following rights:
- The right to "time-shift" audio or video content; that is, to record it for later playback.
- The right to "space-shift" music or videos; that is, to copy material to blank CDs, multiple PCs, or portable players in different locations.
- The right to make backup copies.
- The right to use the content on any platform they choose: a Windows PC, a Macintosh, a DVD player, whatever.
- The right to translate content into different formats.
I think this, along with Roger Ebert's comments should hopefully catch the eye of Congress and the RIAA and actually get something done. Kudos to the two of them for realizing that our rights are being infringed upon.
Rights (Score:3, Informative)
the right to speak, even if the speech is describing a computer program
the right to run the computer programs of our choice on our own equipment [there is no right to use/hack someone elses equipment]
Someone needs to acknowledge these are essential rights, bound intimately with our first amendment and privacy rights.
Ebert, but what about the bands? (Score:2, Interesting)
What we really need are more BANDS (you know, the people that make the music) to stand up and speak for us. All it will take is for a few of them to say "wtf?! People are ripping them off because they don't want to pay $16 for a CD. Let's drop the costs, pass on more to the band, and give up on the protection." Then I'm sure we'd see more people buying more CDs and everyone could be happy. Besides, the greedy RIAA, of course.
Re:Ebert, but what about the bands? (Score:3, Informative)
Good reading (Score:2)
And of course, need I remind you, if ONE person does this, then theoretically no-one else has to, they can just leech the song via Audiogalaxy, like the song was never copy-protected in the first place. What this will lead to - and Ebert points this out, as well - is legitimate customers getting upset because the music they paid for won't work in the playback device they want to use. If you ask me, this will boost piracy, not vice versa.
Anyway, the short summary of the column is, interesting read, but nothing new. Always good to see articles in the "mainstream" press about stuff like this.
Re:Good reading (Score:4, Insightful)
2nd law of music-sales-dynamics (Score:2, Funny)
n = 1 - $L / $B
n = max efficiency
$L = music bought
$B = music listened to
Seems like the record companies are trying to break the 2nd law!
Fair use violations = lawsuit? (Score:2)
To be more specific, do these copy protection schemes violate my right to fair use of copyrighted material that I've purchased legally, by eliminating my ability to make personal backup copies or use the material in a different medium (transfer to an iPod or whatever)? And if they do, would I have a leg to stand on if I sued, say, Universal for this?
If a lawsuit could conceivably be successful, I wish someone like the EFF, ACLU, etc. would get one going. I for one already donate to the ACLU, and would donate to the EFF for this purpose. High-minded (but valid) arguments about treating customers like thieves aside, it seems actionable to me (although, of course, always and forever, IANAL).
-brennan
Re:Fair use violations = lawsuit? (Score:2)
Though maybe the difference is: the software company can make a legitimate claim that the difficulty of making the program work without Windows would be a huge cost or hinderence to them, while the difficulty of making the CD work on old CD players cannot possibly be claimed to be a cost (in fact companies pay to license the copy control technology).
The Grateful Dead (Score:5, Interesting)
Their reason for allowing this was the band felt that they had "made thier money" Each member had enough to keep their families set for life.
So despite this lesson, why does the RIAA continue to hurt both the artists and listeners that underwrite their business? Lars isn't selling a BILLION copies of your record enough?
A true artist likes money, but that is never their motivation. Most artists starve until they are discovered (if that happens) and are more than happy to let people MP3 their songs just to "get the word out"
Someone somewhere will write some cool little app to circumvent this little bit of copy protection i'm sure. If people are really fed up with the RIAA don't buy any more big label records then. Check out your local hip-hop, grunge, punk scene and buy music from those guys, they ARE starving and are more than happy to let you copy their stuff.
Quantity does not equal quality RIAA, i'm not buying this noise shit crap you try and schleff off as music anymore. Fuck off!
Re:The Grateful Dead (Score:5, Insightful)
Also note that after Jerry died and the tour ended, the remaining members and employees began slugging it out over the scraps left over, including the concert recordings. Things got ugly when the shows were over.
All that aside, their model was still pretty unique and should be considered by the industry as an alternative!
Re:The Grateful Dead (Score:3, Insightful)
The Grateful Dead did not allow live recording because they "had their money", they used live recordings as a promotional tool. The Dead allowed people to record their concerts from the beginning. Part of their success is owed to the distribution of live shows. JamBands such as Phish have kept with that tradition with much success. A lot of Phish's early growth (pre 95) can be traced to the distribution of bootleg tapes. People heard the tape, went to a show, and eventually bought a CD, T-shirt, etc. This paradigm works great with bands who emphasize live performances and grass routes growth.
Another whiner (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess someone towing the usually whiney l33t /. line had to get modded up. Who are you to tell someone how much money they should be allowed to make? If you don't like how they make their money, don't give them any of yours, and don't take what they have to offer either. But if other people are happy to buy into the system, that's their decision.
I also like when you mention how great it is that starving artists are happy to let you copy their music. I thought the whole point is to actually help those people make a living. I'm sure encouraging people to pass around free digital copies accomplishes that in wonderful fashion.
Finally, did someone appoint you the arbiter of who is a "true artist"? Give me a break.
Re:Another whiner (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I write for a local music magazine [zeromag.com].
I've watched many talented artist that should have gone somewhere in this
industry sit and idle because to the top players in the industry it's all about
the Benjamin's.
Music, not money should be the motivation for forming a band. The people
that do it for the money will never sit around experimenting with new sounds
because they fear it might hurt the sale of a record.
A true artist doesn't care about if they make money or not, they have a song
in their heart and they want it to be heard. They won't sit there singing
"Oops I did it again" a million times over because it's popular.
Sad truth is most of the stuff that comes out of the RIAA camp falls into this
category of cookie cutter artists that make sales based on their image or the
power of their label to promote them. A good artist does not need these things,
they will sell their music on the basis that it is good music that people like
to listen to over and over again. Some of the best artists give the
listener something to relate to, an emotion, a story, that keeps you captivated
till you just want to hear that song over and over..
understand now? Good.
I'm not alone! (Score:2, Insightful)
He actually gets it!
Wow!
Grammar (Score:3, Informative)
"it's" means "it is"
"its" is the possessive form of "it"
If you can't replace "it's" with "it is," then you're using the wrong word. It just makes the main page look like someone's guestbook. Fix it for my English teacher's sake, please!
Re:Grammar (Score:2)
Re:Grammar (Score:3, Funny)
I hate misplaced apostrophes, so that's embarassing.
Not quite as embarassing as a neon sign I saw that said "Used Car's"
Re:Grammar (Score:3, Funny)
Hmmm....
Re:Grammar (Score:3, Funny)
Anyone... anyone
-Spyky
Re:Grammar (Score:3, Interesting)
Since we're on annoying grammatical habits, anybody read "What Color is Your Parachute", or whatever it's called. I read about the first half of the first chapter. The guy writes a warning about how, he knows, he doesn't use commas correctly, but rather, he uses them, wherever he would put, a pause, during speaking. I found it, really, really, hard, to read. Feh. I don't care if the guy doesn't know how to use commas, but why the heck did he feel compelled to require the editors to leave that mess?
Samples = Potential Profit (Score:2, Insightful)
"Back when I was a member of the prime music-buying demographic, I went into Markland's Record Store on Main Street in Urbana, Illinois, and took the latest 45s into a soundproof listening booth where I could sample them. I sampled them a lot. So did all the other kids. Sometimes we would sample the same song every day for a week. The Marklands knew what we were up to. They also knew that we yearned to own those records, and that when we found the 89 cents for a 45 or the $3.98 for an LP we'd be their customers. We were fueling our enthusiasm."
I remember those days (although I didn't do it as much as some of my friends). You heard these great tunes and the first thing on your mind was "How am I going to make some money to buy this 45?" (lawn mowing, collecting pop bottles, etc.)
Its obvious the video/music cartel - just don't GET IT! They're attacking the wrong side of the
problem (piracy) instead of looking at the future.
Terry
Does anyone else... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now I don't mean the specific technology used, or the fact that it's stupid in general. I'm referring to their choices of *which* CDs to use the copy-protection on.
So far, they've all been big releases that they're going to sell a million or more copies of (N'Sync, Natalie Imbruglia). They don't do it at all to the smaller releases, which basically ensures a lack of success.
All the copy protection does is make it harder for someone to make an illegal copy. It doesn't make it anywhere near impossible. If you want a copy in mp3 bad enough, you just find a CD player that can play the disk (if you can, of course), run a line into the back of your PC, record it to wave files, then encode to mp3. I ripped a record this way, it'll certainly work for CDs. At that point the guy doing it is probably pissed off at the labels enough to make his freshly made mp3's available on a P2P network of his choice, at which time they get copied over and over again, and the whole "copy-protected" CD is all over the net. Thus all you can really accomplish by putting that crap on a blockbluster CD release is a lot of bad press and a few weeks in delay before everyone has a copy on their hard drive.
With smaller releases, however, it could work. There aren't as many people who want a copy of the music, which means less who have the knowledge and desire to rip the stuff correctly. If the labels put protection on the under-500k-sales category, they might make a serious dent in the amount of pirated music out there because it would be a pain in the ass for all the hackers to get it into the mp3 format, so fewer would bother with smaller releases and the copies would never get made that crucial first time.
It astounds me that the record companies are to stupid to even use the technology they undoubtedly paid a mint for in the correct way. I suppose I should just expect any implementation of technology by them to be exactly backwards by now.
Lost cause? (Score:2, Interesting)
If they were working for me I'd fire them.
We vote these idiots in and then can't fire them when they turn their backs on us. We vote them in, we should be able to vote them out.
Isn't that the grander problem: How to put pressure on politicians so they will do their damn jobs they already get paid for and ignore lobbyists. How do we put fire in their belly's? That feeling like - OH MY GOD I'm gonna lose my job if I don't listen to voters.
I'd like them to feel that for a change.
Greedy bastards.
Wrong forum (Score:2, Interesting)
Bumper sticker (Score:2, Funny)
Universal are incredibly stupid (Score:2)
But that scheme will turn off customers without stopping ripping. I have no idea what the hell they are trying to do. Piss off mac users?
My problem with the current CD model... (Score:5, Interesting)
So, I buy the disk, rip the tracks that she wants, and put them up on her 'puter. It's a nice feature of Real CDs (as opposed to these Pseudo CDs). Taking that away will just result in us not buying any CDs at all -- at least until those previously mentioned few years elapse.
thad
What about those without Stereos? (Score:4, Interesting)
I like Ebert's plan to take that protected CD and play it from your stereo to your computer in jack. However, I own not a single stereo system.
In the car, I listen to NPR. At home, I sometimes listen to music, from CDs that I have bought and subsequently stored in a safe place after turning them into MP3s. If I wish to listen to a radio station, again it is NPR and streamed off of the internet.
I normally never buy music. When Napster was out, I checked it out. Downloaded a few songs, used the chat feature and was turned on to a few more bands and groups. I downloaded their songs and later found myself buying them at the local music store.
Now that Napster is gone. I am back to listening to the music that my friends listen to. Sometimes, I pick up something that they listen. My listening circle has greatly shrunk these days.
All I can say is way to go RIAA! They get less of my money these days. Which works for me as it is always nice to save a few bucks.
--
.sig seperator
--
The artists' perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate to burst your bubble, but... (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm sorry, I can't let such a statement slide.
Think about it! If music lovers were the RIAA's best customers, how do you explain the preponderance of boy bands and Britney Spears? This is hardly music for the real connoisseur, yet it almost entirely fills the major label's profit ledgers.
The sad reality is that most people listen to their CDs in CD players, regardless of how many Slashdotters reply to this telling me something like "oh not me! I only listen to my CD collection on my computer using Linux!" The same goes for Windows. If people listen to CDs on computers, almost all of them will be doing it in Windows, because it dominates a large majority of the desktop and consumer PC market. As long as this market segment is catered to, no one will give a rats ass about the audiophile minority.
I think we may be overlooking the obvious... (Score:4, Interesting)
Think of it, the lawyers are probably pressing the hardest for these measures, because without a hard-edge stance, there isn't much for them to do. They are trying to justify their own existence.
Does that mean that RIAA members are innocents? Hell no!
What would be cool is if there was a "competing" record company(s) that weren't members of the RIAA that sold CD's at a decent price ($8-$10), didn't do jackass stunts like copy-protection, and actually did something to promote smaller bands instead of the megastars.
I am so surprised that the U.S. government hasn't disbanded the RIAA on the grounds that it's a monopolistic cartel. Get with it, dammit!
Re:I think we may be overlooking the obvious... (Score:3, Interesting)
It'd be great, but only if the retailers sold them with the discount intact. The unscrupulous might simply see it as a way to jack up their own profits on those titles; after all, how many customers have any idea of the wholesale cost of the CD they're buying? Or they (the larger chains, at least) might be pressured by the RIAA to not even carry them in the first place. You know, typical M$ tactics: "Do not even offer products that aren't ours or we'll cut you off completely".
If enough of the retailers gave them the finger in response to that kind of treatment, we'd win. If not, the upstart publisher gets crushed. Bummer.
All it'd take is ONE slightly greedier player... (Score:3, Interesting)
What makes more money? One $18 CD with a $12 margin or 3 $10 CD's with a $5 margin... You're more likely to see more purchases with the lower cost; if you can balance things right you can make more money by selling for less.
Macslash (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently macs can read and burn everything but the first track. Not exactly effective copy protection.
How does this not ENCOURAGE piracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
But I have an iPod and a Mac, and I REALLY (for some bizarre reason) want to listen to the music from The Fast and the Furious.
Well, if I can't buy it LEGALLY, better turn to the help of my friend the internet, so I CAN get the music. And in the end I won't go out and buy the CD because I sampled it and I liked it. I'll leave it in the store because it's COMPLETELY USELESS to me. Why waste $20?
A new content day is dawning (Score:3, Insightful)
http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=06604 (Content is a Pure Public Good) and
http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=06609 (Why Encryption Doesn't Help) and
http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=06629 (How to Finance Content Creation) and
http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=06669 (Are We Just Rationalizing Theft)
All by Dan Kohn, a General Partner with Skymoon Ventures.
These essays put an end to the argument that the current system(s) proposed by content providers will lose - no matter what.
Also, anything Lessig has authored (already in
This is a very compelling series of reads on this issue.
Furthermore, if people like Ebert, Lessig, Dan Kohn and others continue to get the word out, we, and recording artists will be a lot better off in the near long term.
It's beyond me why any well-known act would sign with a major label today, given the raw potential for this medium (the net) to do almost pure 'pull' marketing.
More anti-trust ammo? (Score:3, Interesting)
Non-Windows operating systems? How did this decision get made I wonder? Has Microsoft leveraged their monopoly in the operating systems market against the music industry to keep out competition from other platforms (Apple) in the music and video markets as well? As one who has used the music and video tools in Windows XP and Apple's OSX, Apple obviously has a better, more refined product and Microsoft knows this. Like just about anything else in their line-up, Microsoft produces third rate products and then leverages their monopoly to prevent better products from getting a fair shake.
I would be most interested if anybody has information that might clarify why non-Windows operating systems are locked out.
Re:More anti-trust ammo? (Score:3, Insightful)
This likely has less to do with Microsoft leveraging than it does that the makers of "Cactus Data Shield" not only suck as making a protection method, but they can't code their way out of a paper bag either.
-Jayde
Conspiracy Theory (Score:5, Insightful)
What the RIAA is afraid of is NOT music piracy, per se, but the threat of the general public's musical tastes growing bigger than the set of bands they happen to be promoting.
So, now we're talking about copy protection. If the RIAA and friends get their way, we will only be able to buy CD players, etc, that will play CDs with their proprietary copy-protection/encryption scheme.
Think about it, if you wanted to listen to music on digital media, you'd have to buy THEIR music. I only hope this is a paraniod fantasy, but I can see where this is going.
Having to agree to be bound to a contract? (Score:3, Insightful)
Keep this up and they may as well force their resellers to prohibit the sale of music CDs to minors. Boy, wil that help their bottom line! (NOT)
Treat me like a thief... (Score:3, Interesting)
Years ago (back in the 80's) I read an article in Reader's Digest written by a man that complained about how stores were treating their customers like criminals: making them check their bags at the entrance and later on with anti-shoplifting measures. He was saying something to the effect of never again going into such a store. Today, he would have a very difficult time finding one he could still go to.
Just as nowadays we are completely used to those detectors they put at the door and the tabs that stain clothes when removed, we might grow used to copy protection in our cds if we don't take action now. The next generation will take these measures for granted.
BTW, anti-shoplifting measures are a good thing (imo) as long as they are not intrusive to the customer.
No copyright protection for recorded music! (Score:3)
The music industry is dinky. The entire industry does about $13 billion a year in revenue. Compaq alone is twice as big as the entire music industry. IBM is six times as big. Yet the RIAA is trying to dictate product design to the computer industry. The tail is wagging the dog here.
Congress can control what is copyrightable, and for how long. It's time for the computing industry to tell the RIAA where to get off.
Musicians can still make money. They can still tour. Appear in films and TV shows. Endorse products. The big names will still make big money. Just treat recordings as a promotional item, like radio. People will still buy CDs, although the prices will drop to slightly above manufacturing cost. Yes, recording industry margins will decline. Is that a real problem?
Re:Ebert failed to grasp (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Roger Ebert? (Score:2)
this is just wrong (Score:2)
Nowadays many people use "she". It is linguisticaly correct and it is considered politicaly correct.
Re:Open Source Music (Score:2)
It will also have the side effect that no musician can record music without having a contract with one of the record companies!