Playing CDs a Privilege Not A Right 661
Brett writes "Tommi Kyyrä, of IFPI Finland has said that being able to play music on a Linux or Apple computer is a privilege not a right, and that those that can't because of DRM'd CDs should just go out and buy a CD player. Is switching the debate to rights and privileges really where they want to go when we're talking about something we pay for?" From the article: "If the public and 'their' politicians believe that the entertainment industry is on the verge of collapse, they'll be much more likely to accept restrictions on use of content that they've paid for. For this reason, most industry talking heads keep their comments in check when talking about DRM schemes, but from time to time we've seen people truly speak their mind."
Funny, I was thinking something similar... (Score:5, Insightful)
According to TFA, his translated quote is:
Funny, I was just thinking something kind of similar, but slightly different:
Now, we need to understand that listening to music in your car or through your home stereos is an extra privilege. Normally, people listen to music on your computer. If you are a car or home stereo user, you should consider purchasing a regular CD player.
Given that when I pay for a CD, I'm paying for the music, not the plastic and mylar, can any RIAA person please explain to me why my position is any less valid than Tommi Kyyrä's?
Consider purchasing a computer... (Score:3, Funny)
Er, I mean in my quote, "Normally, people listen to music on their computers. If you are a car or home stereo user, you should consider purchasing a computer."
Damn, those people who don't hit Preview and re-read their messages before posting!
Right the first time (Score:3)
No, really: you didn't. The point was conveyed much more vigorously by referring to it as "a regular CD player" rather than "a computer".
Re:Funny, I was thinking something similar... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a generational thing, I suppose. The people who make up the RIAA (and equivalent organizations in other countries) and -- more importantly -- the politicians they buy, are of an age to think in terms of listening to music on a stereo, just as they think in terms of watching programs on a TV; the idea of a computer as a general-purpose device that can take over all of the entertainment functions previously fulfilled by special-purpose devices is still kind of alien to them. Specifically, it's something "those damn kids" do; which means that of course it's a privilege, not a right, because you know, it's kids. And I suspect that we'll have to wait 20+ years for the generation which currently sees computers as entertainment hubs to reach the age where they'll have enough clout to change this attitude.
Re:Funny, I was thinking something similar... (Score:5, Informative)
wb
Re:Funny, I was thinking something similar... (Score:5, Interesting)
Sometimes I feel like a sucker for paying when I could have just gotten the songs free, but usually I can justify it by saying at least the artist gets a penny or two of my 99 cents.
Comments like this one about how if I buy the music I am "privledged" make me feel more like a sucker for paying for music. Seriously- free/stolen depending on your position have zero DRM.
If I can't listen to a CD on my computer, or can't load it into iTunes, I am likely to say FUCK YOu to the RIAA and get it for free online. The RIAA needs to be very careful not to alienate paying customers.
Re:Funny, I was thinking something similar... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Funny, I was thinking something similar... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Funny, I was thinking something similar... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't download or traffic in copyrighted music for free, nor do I sell it to others.
Not because it's against the law, or because I'm concerned for corporate pricks that think we should pay for the very air we breathe. I pay for my music because I think it is right and proper to recompense my favorite musicians for producing music that brings a smile to my face, or makes me want to bang my head, whatever the case may be.
That being said, the government in my country (the USA) and the mega-corporations need to sit back and drink a nice big cup of S.T.F.U. as it slowly dawns on them that I, the taxpayer and purchaser of their wares pay for their room and board, and that they need me more than I need them.
Re:Funny, I was thinking something similar... (Score:4, Insightful)
True, but the monarchs of old needed the peasants much more than the peasants needed them. Who else would build their castles, grow their food, and make their clothes?
Re:Funny, I was thinking something similar... (Score:5, Interesting)
(1) music and culture existed before corporations;
(2) no one actually needs a corporation to make music;
(3) no one actually needs a corporation to promote their music anymore;
(4) no one actually needs a corporation to distribute their music globally anymore;
(5) i don't need a corporation to tell me what music i like, or which is good.
Seems more likely to me that the corporate mouthpiece's insulting and condescending *existence* is a privlege, and not a right...
Re:Funny, I was thinking something similar... (Score:5, Interesting)
-- Douglas Adams, personal quote (and nicely included in the Quintessential Phase radio shows)
it fits, doesn't it? stereos were part of these men's natural order of things; cds were invented when they were under 35 so they got a career in it; mp3s were invented while they were fat old execs and therefore are against their particular natural order of things.
i'm sure its evolutionarilly necessary for our survival as a species for such short-sightedness to reign in the long run, but in the short run, it simply pisses me off.
oh, by the way, i'm 35 as of saturday. so nobody better go invent anything, ok?
Re:Funny, I was thinking something similar... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, this applies to US states that use the caucus/convention system, but representative democracy everywhere starts with just a handful of votes.
Re:Funny, I was thinking something similar... (Score:3, Interesting)
I was in a game crazy a week or so ago, and saw a man who was at LEAST 70 buying video games and anxiously asking the clerks when this and that would be out ... He was clearly buying them for himself as he knew the plots to most of the final fantasy games :) Very weird, very cool.
Re:Funny, I was thinking something similar... (Score:5, Interesting)
These companies obviously don't want my business as a linux or mac user, therefore they don't foresee any losses as a result of me just pirating their music now do they? After all, if I'm just listening to it on my computer, no on my home stereo or in my car, then they must not feel like they are missing out.
Seems justified to me.
Another aspect: Getting my money is a privilege (Score:5, Interesting)
Why should I feel guilty when I buy the latest Andrea Bocelli album? Isn't it better simply not to buy it?
I don't pirate music either for the same reason. I would rather give mindshare to independant artists.
So, most of the losses aren't due to piracy, they are due to people making a decision not to support the RIAA.
Hello RIAA: Getting my money is a privilege, not a right. You are not entitled to get my money simply because you think that I should buy your product. I don't buy Microsoft software either for the same reason-- that they treat their customers as criminals for the simple reason that they use their product.
Re:Another aspect: Getting my money is a privilege (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Another aspect: Getting my money is a privilege (Score:5, Interesting)
>because you think that I should buy your product. I don't buy Microsoft software either for the same
>reason-- that they treat their customers as criminals for the simple reason that they use their product.
To begin, look at something lots of people are doing and say, "What if I had a piece of all of that?" That's OK for a starting point, but it's where you go from there when things get can get nasty. The "good" way would be to come up with some way to help those people do what they're doing, more conveniently, better, or whatever. Then they'd be glad to give you some money as fair exchange for helping them. Unfortunately the current US business model seems to be focused on the "tax" model. ie, find a way to skim the revenue without doing commensurate work. In this model, they also tend to look at an activity and say, "I *deserve* a piece of every bit of that!" What they fail to realize is that people will follow a law of pricing. Music downloaders have lots of music because it's "free." The moment they have to pay for it, then the quantity of music becomes a cost factor balanced with food, clothing, and other such stuff. But somehow the RIAA looks at it as if they were "denied" that much revenue, and had they been charging, they would have gotten that amount of money.
We were out walking the causway through the Bay yesterday, and I had a terrible thought. Someone's probably looking at all those people walking, and saying "What if I had a piece of all of that?" The next step would be to "privatize" bike and walking trails, the then Private Enterprise can run them for a modest fee, and instead of Government paying maintenance, (no doubt doing it incompetently, and government supposedly does with EVERYTHING) they'd be collecting revenue from the initial sale, and tax revenue from the walkers/riders.
Me, I'd be walking somewhere else, and wishing I still had the views.
As for music, I buy as little as I can, because I feel dirty buying label music. I do some shoppig at the indies on cdbaby, also.
Re:Another aspect: Getting my money is a privilege (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't feel like paying for the road to your home, any more than you feel like paying for the road to mine. Let's privatize ALL roads.
In the end, the only people who would win would be the beancounters. The people who figure out how much I'm paying for my little slice of road, and how much you're paying for yours. Then how much we each have to pay to drive over each other person's stretch of road as we drive to work. Don't forget about the guys who don't want to participate in beancounter madness - they've just put up tollbooths at each side of their property. Isn't it a pain to stop at 3 or 4 of those on the way into work, tossing the coins into the basket so the arm goes up?
As for bike paths, people in the US are exercise-avoidant enough, on their own. If pay to run/ride becomes an impediment to running and riding, let their health go downhill. So let's decide that there will be NO socialized medicine whatsoever, and we're going to let people drop dead in their homes and on sidewalks when they don't take care of themselves. Next someone has to agree to pay before the ambulance leaves the hospital. (or the firetruck leaves the firehouse, for that matter.) Oh, who pays to remove the dead bodies?
Now public health - my health DOES become an issue. The deadbeat's house next door just caught fire. He didn't pay to have the firemen come, so his house burns to the ground. Only problem - the sparks caught my house on fire, too. Oh, and his sanitary problems (dead bodies, for instance) got into the groundwater, and my well's contaminated. I could sue, but there's no point, because he hasn't got any money.
Somewhere you've got to draw a line, and declare "community" or "society." Apparently you draw that line at a lower level of built-in services than I do, and that's fine. But IMHO, drawing that line isn't so much a matter of "peoples' rights" as it is of simple efficiency. At some point it costs more to enumerate, account, and bill than it does to simply tax and provide.
Out of curiousity, what is your ideal minimum provided by taxes?
Re:Another aspect: Getting my money is a privilege (Score:5, Funny)
Great point. Consider that RIAA "pirates" money in a multiplicity of ways.
-If you buy ANYTHING advertised on radio, part of your purchase price goes to RIAA and the labels, because the station has to pay ASCAP licensing in order to play music. Therefore, you pay and kiss rapstar ass EVEN IF YOU HATE THE MUSIC.
-A similar scenario exists in stores which play background music. The store has to pay for a license and when you buy anything in there, you kiss RIAA ass, EVEN IF YOU HATE THE MISIC.
-Furthermore, when you go to clubs and restaurants, part of your bill goes into RIAA pockets. At least here you have a choice to go to places which play music you like. But still, a disproportionate amount of money is diverted away from productive local businesses.
-RIAA thinks you should buy recordings over and over because there is no replacement policy. For instance, I bought Pink Floyd on vinyl LP, and again when it scratched, then cassette tape, (anyone remember the RIAA freak-out in the 70s about tape), then CD, then CD again when it no longer played, then CD again as they came out with the Gold Edition and then the Millenium Edition and then the Aluminum Edition and there is no end in sight. Pardon me if I download a copy because I am too lazy to rip.
Of course the RIAA doesn't think any of this is gravy, and that is why they don't live and think like normal people. It was a beuatiful business model for the 1950s, when the equivalent of megabytes could only be delivered via fragile media, but times have changed and quite simply they don't do enough to justify charging $15 for albums any more. I'm not saying their product should be free. What I am saying is them need to be satisfied with less cocaine, uglier hookers and last year's Bentley.
Re:Funny, I was thinking something similar... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Funny, I was thinking something similar... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, this is a Finish comment, so their law may work differently. But this idea of "privledges" sure as hell doesn't jive with US law.
Re:Funny, I was thinking something similar... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Funny, I was thinking something similar... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Funny, I was thinking something similar... (Score:4, Funny)
No. I made a fair exchange for my money. I didn't agree to a contract when I did so. If they can restrict my use of the product, then why can't I restrict theirs? Hey RIAA! You know those little green pieces of paper I traded with you? You can do what you want with them, as long as you don't give them to someone else.
Re:Funny, I was thinking something similar... (Score:3, Insightful)
You buy the disc, so you having the disc is a privilege.
No, it's not a privilege. It's property.
unless there is a contract preventing you from doing something.
Which is my point. You don't sign a contract when you buy a disk. So cut it up, resell it, use it as a frisbee. As long as you don't copy it (other than backups, shifting, and fair use) there are no restrictions on its use.
If there's a technical "feature" preventin
Re:Funny, I was thinking something similar... (Score:3, Insightful)
Bollocks. There's plenty of rare vinyl out there that people have made a tidy profit on over the years.
unless there is a contract preventing you from doing something
What contract is on the CD? I haven't bought a CD in a while, but I don't see any contract when I buy the CD, nor do I sign one. Where am I given the opportunity to negotiate the contract?
Re:Funny, I was thinking something similar... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is such a BS stance on the issue. So if your electronic device has an OS it's a computer and shoudn't play DRM-CDs, but if the device is straight circuits it's cool?
Now, we need to understand that listening to music in your car or through your home stereos is an extra privilege. Normally, people listen to music on your computer. If you are a car or home stereo user, you should consider purchasing a regular CD player.
Awesome point. Think about this too - many new car DVD/Navigation systems have embedded OSes - are they computers? What about high end home theaters? Where is the line for these people?
One day (soon) there will be on-line movie stores and then people will have computers as PVRs in their home theaters - then what?
Re:Funny, I was thinking something similar... (Score:5, Interesting)
Since my wife and I didn't want to sit at my computer to watch the whole movie, I ripped the movie to my hard drive and encoded an xvid video (AutoGK rules too!). We enjoyed watching the movie on my xbox, and now I have a copy I can watch again any time we feel like it.
I enjoy the humor in the fact that I wouldn't have ripped a copy if there were no DRM to begin with.
Re:Funny, I was thinking something similar... (Score:4, Insightful)
After all it did "encourage" you to break/bypass the DRM by not working where it should have worked.
Re:Funny, I was thinking something similar... (Score:5, Insightful)
If that were the case than you would have the right to download an MP3 or another type of encoding of the music for a lifetime once you bought a CD. Even after your CD is lost, stolen, scratched to hell, or sold or even given to someone else.
I think you bought the plastic and mylar.
Re: I think you bought the plastic and mylar. (Score:3, Insightful)
Paint and canvas aren't terribly expensive either, but its common for Picasso, DaVinci, or Monet paintings to sell for millions of dollars. Its also not unheard of to get something from a landfill and sell it for a decent amount of money.
Plug your n
Examples: (Score:4, Interesting)
Case II: You buy some ephedrine, some lithuim batteries, some drano and some Acetone. They are your property to use as you wish. You decide to whip up a batch of Crack. Are you allowed to do this? NO.
Case III: You own your car. You decide it would be cool to remove the windshield wipers and seatbelts. Can you do that? only if you don't put it on the road or try to sell it for such a use.
case IV: you own some swapland. You want to drain it. can you do that? Not if it's considered a protected wetland.
case V: you own a CD. You trade it to someone else for another CD. Can you do that. Yes. You own a peice of DRM'd music for which you contracted to play on a single computer. Can you sell that to someone else. NO. you contracted for that.
In fact that is the single most compelling argument both for and against DRM. If you are forced to contract for something in a take-it-or-leave-it fashion, there is precedent in some situations that says you cannot be forced to contract to give up consumer rights. However if you are offered something at a lower price in return for giving up a right then you can lose a standard right. Thus one thing you could ask is the folloowing. When you bought the DRM'd music, did you ask if you could pay more and not have it DRM'd. If not then tough luck, you accepted the contract. If so, and were refused, you might just barely possibly have a case.
Case VI: Your a farmer and the govenement tells you you can grow so many bushells on your land. You grow more but you plan to use them only for internal consumption on the property. Can you do that? seems like you could but infact you can't (read the case of Wicard Wheat). That case in fact IS the entire basis of 90% of federal law. The goverment has the right to regulate how anything is consumed or used if there is even tangentially some affect on interstate commerce. in the case of Wickard, the Supreme court ruled that if he had not grown the crops for his own use, he might possibly have purhcased them on the open market.
The point is that No you can't do what you please even if you own property. Don't like that? change 200 Years of case law, otherwise stop whining.
Re:Examples: (Score:5, Insightful)
People don't enter into the contracts you describe when they purchase CDs, books, movies, or most any other creative media, because if they did you'd have a point. The power content providers wield over consumers comes from something other than contract law...
The problem here is that congress passed a law that made it illegal to circumvent DRM, and in the process gave away their power to determine what rights content owners have. As soon as congress figures out that they gave away some of their power things will get fixed. How many decades will it take?
Re:Examples: (Score:5, Funny)
Link please.
Re:Examples: (Score:5, Informative)
You must note that you own nothing in this case. The movie theater sold you a service, not a product. Thus this case is not covered under copyright law. (Until you try to "steal" the movie, that is.)
Case II: You buy some ephedrine, some lithuim batteries, some drano and some Acetone. You decide to whip up a batch of Crack. Are you allowed to do this? NO.
Actually, I'm a little fuzzy on this one. I'm not certain that whipping up crack is so much the problem as to what your intent is with it. If you were using the resulting chemical for non-biological scientific experiments (not sure what you'd do with crack, but hey) you probably would not be liable for criminal actions. Of course, it always helps to get a hazmat license to prove the fact before you begin your experiments.
Case III: You own your car. You decide it would be cool to remove the windshield wipers and seatbelts. Can you do that?
YES!
only if you don't put it on the road or try to sell it for such a use.
Again, this is a matter of services provided. The public as a whole is providing you with a service (public roads) which comes with terms of use. You agree to those terms in exchange for use of public roads when you get your driver's license. That's why a cop can fine you for having a vehicle that isn't up to code.
BTW, you can still sell the vehicle. You just can't claim it's road worthy. Otherwise, how do you think junk yards can take damaged cars?
case IV: you own some swapland. You want to drain it. can you do that? Not if it's considered a protected wetland.
This is probably a valid case, but it gets back to your rights ending when they begin to reasonably interfere with the rights of others. In the case of draining wetlands, the environmental impact will affect others. e.g. A bit like if you diverted a river farther up stream.
You own a peice of DRM'd music for which you contracted to play on a single computer. Can you sell that to someone else. NO. you contracted for that.
Actually, if you never signed a contract (or at least a click through agreement), you can sell it all you like. I remember a fellow attempting to sell his copy of an iTunes song just to prove he could do it. It's allowed by copyright law, so without a pre-existing agreement you are not restricted from sale.
Case VI: Your a farmer and the govenement tells you you can grow so many bushells on your land. You grow more but you plan to use them only for internal consumption on the property. Can you do that? seems like you could but infact you can't
I'll have to look up this case, but that is a rather serious issue if it's as simple as you state.
Re:Examples: (Score:4, Informative)
> Actually, I'm a little fuzzy on this one. I'm not certain that whipping up crack is so much the problem as to what your intent is with it. If you were using the resulting chemical for non-biological scientific experiments (not sure what you'd do with crack, but hey) you probably would not be liable for criminal actions. Of course, it always helps to get a hazmat license to prove the fact before you begin your experiments.
In many states, posession of certain ingredients with intent to manufacture certain controlled substances is a felony:
http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?section=69.50
It Is About Consumer Protection (Score:3, Insightful)
If we can make them put Parental Advisory stickers because some guy said the F*** word, then we certainly can make these guys put something that says, in large print:
"WARNING! This CD will not play on many CD players."
Mark
Re:mod UP PARENT, INFORMATIVE (Score:3, Funny)
And, your spedometer goes to 85~120mph. Does that mean you can speed? ONLY IF YOU DON'T GET CAUGHT.
=P
Re:Funny, I was thinking something similar... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Funny, I was thinking something similar... (Score:4, Informative)
It's worth noting, however, that they do this as a service to their customers, not because they are in any way required. It stems quite a bit from the fact that many computer programs are sold with no media at all. I know of at least one company (Hi H&R Block, we like TaxCut!) that has a scheme whereby you pay extra to be able to redownload your purchased software past the initial download. This is allowed because copyright law creates artificial scarcity. One copy is all you're entitled to with the exception of a single backup copy and loading from disk to memory. Note that this is complicated by situations that are considered "shifting" of the data rather than copying.
Re:Funny, I was thinking something similar... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Funny, I was thinking something similar... (Score:5, Informative)
At least 1 hollywood studio will do this. Ah here we go, quick google for 'dvd replacement' turns up everybodys favorite, Fox. Costs $7 (admin fees, the physical product and shipping is my guess).
http://www.foxhome.com/replacement/ [foxhome.com]
Disney (cost, $7): http://disney.go.com/disneyvideos/dvdsupport/faq.
Haven't found much info about any others.
Re:This seems fair and OK to me (Score:3, Insightful)
if they're drm'ed, they're NOT CD's! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: the "go out and buy another CD player", I wonder what Philips' stance will be on all of this. Haven't they denied the right of DRM and copy-protected "CD" distributors to actually call them CDs? Call the new "machines" what they are, DRM/copy-protection capable CD-like players.
All I can say is I am sorry for the next generation of people who are introduced to the entertainment marketplace. We who have so long been able to enjoy CDs as they were originally defined, CDs that would play in our cars, would play in our home entertainment centers, and on our computers. It seems that era may be ending. Sigh.
I suggest a meme, (hate that word)... start calling "DRM'ed CDs" something else. Say, maybe non-standard-and-playable-only-on-certain-player-t hingies resembling CDs.
Re:if they're drm'ed, they're NOT CD's! (Score:5, Funny)
Coasters.
Re:if they're drm'ed, they're NOT CD's! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:if they're drm'ed, they're NOT CD's! (Score:3, Funny)
Let's continue and call them DUMB CDs. Digitally Unusable Music Biatch.
That more completely fills the acronym void into a real word, and keeps up with the times.
Re:if they're drm'ed, they're NOT CD's! (Score:4, Insightful)
Not at all. The era that will be ending is the monopoly of the RIAA and the degradation of "mainstream" music. I really cannot see this effort they are trying to push through working in the marketplace. There are far too many CD players out in the market right now and far too little talent in the mainstream outlets for people to start wholesale replacement of their players so they can purchase and listen to DRM CD's. One of the problems for the industry is that the CD works too well. Other than the MP3 (which also is already out and popular in the wild), they cannot find a medium to make CD's obsolete. How do you get better than perfect sound (well, at least perfect for 99% of the population who can't tell the difference)?
With the formation of iTunes and similar outlets along with the momentum of the marketplace, I cannot see their efforts succeeding long term. Eventually, the grassroots independent labels will rise to higher prominence in the market's eyes because their music will be more creative and people will be able to play their music on their existing systems. I don't know about you, but I will NOT be spending more money just to listen to CD's I don't really need -- especially when their are other options. And there is certainly a lot of money to be made here by those who don't want to follow the DRM path. Where there is demand, you know the supplies will be coming soon.
We are likely seeing the end of an era. It is the end of the RIAA era.
Re:if they're drm'ed, they're NOT CD's! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:if they're drm'ed, they're NOT CD's! (Score:3)
You gotta fight for your right (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet another sordid chapter in the DRM saga...the insulting attempt to redefine our relationship to content we have purchased as a "privilege."
Here's the actual quote from Tommi Kyyrä himself:Tommi, don't you dare try to tell me that playing content I've purchased is a 'privilege'. I paid for that content, and I have the right to enjoy it. If your ridiculous DRM schemes get in the way of my legitimate use of my content, it's up to you and your cronies to remedy that, rather than try to redefine my rights as 'privileges'.
By the way, Tommi, your site [www.ifpi.fi] seems to be down, but don't worry....I guess having a web site that's up all the time is a 'privilege' as well.
Re:You gotta fight for your right (Score:5, Insightful)
There's something to be said for this line of thought.
50+ year copyrights are a privilege. Not a right.
Long term musician contracts are a privilege. Not a right.
Profits from CD sales are a privilege. Not a right!
Re:You gotta fight for your right (Score:5, Insightful)
This is tantamount to:
"Now we need to understand that, for computer users, owning physical media is an extra privelige - one that requires extra effort. Normally people listen to music via iTunes or on Hardware MP3 Players from files they've encoded from their CD collection. If you are a Linux user, since we're being assholes about it, we suggest you download our media illegally"
Re:You gotta fight for your right (Score:5, Insightful)
My computer's optical drive does, thus indicating that it is compatible with the CD specification laid down by Philips and Sony, and the manufacturer lists CDDA as a supported format, so I should be able to play CDs with that logo on any hardware device that (legally) displays that logo (or supports the standard).
That is the point of the logo, after all, to ensure compatibility and consumer confidence. Now, of course, the weasels don't put the logo on copy-protected CDs that violate the standard - but still sell them as audio CDs, of course (I'm just waiting for the DVD Video logo [wikipedia.org] to be devalued in the same way).
So I'm not entirely sure why, when I have a media PC in my living room partly for the purpose of playing CDs, I should have to go and buy a 'CD player' in order to play CDs. I'm pretty sure I already have a CD player. It's in my media PC.
cultural political status? (Score:4, Informative)
"IFPI Finland's goal is to ensure a favourable operational environment for the recording industry in Finland. This is achieved by improving recording industry's cultural political status, securing effective legislation to protect the recording industry's interests and improving the competitive environment."
I hope that's a joke. Flamebait rantings like this one can't possibly be helping them "improve the recording industry's cultural political status."
"on the verge of collapse" (Score:2, Insightful)
First Post.
Re:"on the verge of collapse" (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice attitude, asshole. (Score:5, Insightful)
those that can't because of DRM'd CDs should just go out and buy a CD player.
And they wonder why there is so much animosity directed at their cartel from consumers.
Re:Nice attitude, asshole. (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm suprised the RIAA isn't charging 25 cents a song for DRM "enabled" music, and subsidizing the cost of DRM players. That'll encourage market penetration, and once they've got a certian portion of the market unable to play anything else, they will finally have their freedoms.
Not like their employees (Congress) will do much to stop them, at least for a while.
Only one side brings cash to the transaction (Score:5, Insightful)
This discussion is very similar to the Jobs v. Music Industry debates over $0.99 song pricing and Jobs is right on the money - I am not going to pay more than a dollar for a song when I can get it for free using another application that is also on my computer.
The Real Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Fortunately... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fortunately... (Score:3, Interesting)
crackin 'n hackin (Score:2)
Making CDs is bound to a license (Score:5, Informative)
Recently, some major recording publishers have begun to sell CDs that violate the Red Book standard for the purposes of copy prevention, using systems like Copy control, or extra features such as DualDisc, which features a CD-layer and a DVD-layer. The CD-layer is much thinner, 0.9mm, than required by the Red Book, which stipulates 1.2mm. Philips and many other companies have warned them that including the Compact Disc Digital Audio logo on such non-conforming discs may constitute trademark infringement; either in anticipation or in response, the long-familiar logo is no longer to be seen on many recent CDs.
Any company can make any product and sell it for how much they like, but if they are going to make a "CD" then it must be a CD, which in turn will play on a Mac or Linux or any CD player with the CD logo on it. If a company wants to create something else, say SACD, DVD-A, it must be labeled and sold as such, and not as a CD.
End of story.
Re:Making CDs is bound to a license (Score:5, Informative)
See, the thing is, they (the RIAA etc) have quietly been dropping the CD logo for some time now. It used to be fairly prominent on the exterior packaging and on the disc itself. Then, they started embossing it on the inside of the case (top right/lower left corners around the disc inlay). Now, they just leave it out entirely in many cases.
What you may see instead is the Copy Protected Disc logo, as seen here. [macobserver.com]
So it is no longer a Compact Disc, red book standard. It is a Copy Protected Disc.
On another note - that copy protected logo is a terrible piece of logo design. When I look at it I think "Play Record Play Record"... probably not the message they want to be sending...
Nope! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Nope! (Score:3, Funny)
And who makes CD players... (Score:2, Informative)
Something about a monopoly is ringing in the back of my head...not sure what that's all about....
Ok, I won't buy CDs (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck them (Score:5, Interesting)
He's not talking about CDs (Score:5, Insightful)
He should say "Playing music on a Mac from silver coasters that happen to play music in some CD players isn't a right."
What About the Artists? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is so true. Also, one thing that doesn't come up a lot is how much of this money actually makes it back to the artists? Artists have to constantly audit the record labels to get their fare share. They're not just nickel-and-diming the customers, they're nickel-and-diming the artists on the other end.
Sure... (Score:5, Interesting)
No?
Then perhaps Mr. Kyyrä should keep his nose out of other people's brand choice purchases.
Anyways...
I don't go around ripping CD's and sharing them with my friends, in spite of the fact that I not only can, but in fact actually *DO* go around regularly ripping CD's (and DVD's too, for that matter) that I've legally purchased, so that I can play them on my laptop.
I do not in any way shape or form distribute the content that I obtain, and according to good old Copyright Law, copying for personal and private use does not and can not in any way be considered copyright infringement, regardless of the DMCA or other DMCA-like laws.
At some point... (Score:4, Funny)
wait a minute
They're trying to have their cake and eat it, too. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you buy a CD, you buy the limitation that it only plays on limited devices. You can't play it on your phonograph or eight-track, and it may not work on hardware that isn't Trusted. However, anything you can do with it (under fair use) you must be able to. Play it on your walkman, with audio out to the audio in of your linux box, and wash it through Audacity to get it on an MP3, if you like. You have that right because it's YOUR CD, and format-shifting is fair use.
Stance 2: They're selling you a limited license to listen to a collection of music.
If you buy a license to music, you have the right to hear that music. Copy protection that prevents your accessing your licensed music on devices that are Audio CD compatible (note the little "compact disk" logo on all standards-meeting CD playback devices) is an infringement on your rights to access your licensed property.
They don't want to sell you a CD, because they lose control over it, but they are not letting you use the material you are legally licensed to when you 'buy' a CD's content for personal use. It'd be nice if they'd make up their minds beyond "give us your money, and up yours."
Just a thought... (Score:4, Interesting)
privilege? (Score:4, Interesting)
After all, according to our RIAA, it's a license, anyway, right?
DRM is a pipe-dream (Score:4, Informative)
Wrong way around (Score:5, Insightful)
The record companies receiving my money is a privilege they have - not a right.
The moment they make music that I can't play on my chosen CD playing device (whether that be a car stereo, a non-Windows computer or my old CD player that may not understand non-RedBook CDs) they lose the privilege of receiving my money.
The moment they put music for download that I cannot trivially remove the DRM from is the moment that I stop buying music from them online.
I still buy regular CDs and music from iTMS because the former I can play on all my machines, and the latter I can trivially remove the DRM with JHymn. I buy unencrypted MP3s from places like Magnatune for the same reasons. I'm happy to buy DVDs because the DRM is trivially removed and I can put the movie I bought on my server so I can play it on whatever device is most convenient. The moment I can no longer do this is the moment I stop buying DVDs.
If in 20 years time, I cannot get music/video I can play on any of my chosen devices, so be it - I won't buy music or movies. I don't need them - I can do other activities instead such as read a website, go to the pub with my friends (and see a local live band), or go on a bike ride. I can happily get by without entertainment on plastic disks. The record companies must understand that mine and many others music purchases are discretionary spending they do NOT have a right to have - instead they have the privilege of having. A privilege that can be easily revoked.
Re:Wrong way around (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, your computer does not support Trusted Network Connection, and is not allowed to access our servers for the safety of you and our other customers.
Wrong oriface talking. (Score:3, Funny)
If the music industry is on the verge of collapse (Score:4, Insightful)
my rights, then
LET THE INDUSTRY COLLAPSE!!!!!
Something better will fill the vacuum.
The collapse of the entertainment industry (Score:3, Interesting)
Nah. We don't really like you enough. Maybe if the entertainment industry does collapse, maybe then we'll realize. But before? Nah. You keep it up with your doomsday predictions... I don't see Universal Studios or Paramount closing up shop, and I don't care about your problem.
Okay I can follow the rules if you can. (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Any company that uses any method that may intentionally or unintentionally cause confusion as to if the said music storage medium is or is not a Compact Disk is guilt of a violating the trademark and unfair business practices. IE like Lindows vs Windows. I can see far more customer confusion caused buy a music disk displayed with real CDs in a store with no clear label than would ever be caused by the confusion of Lindows and Windows.
3. If I purchase an item their is the assumption that I may do with the item what I want.
So if I can make the disk play in my computer then that is fine. If can rip the disk then I can put it on my music player. If I want to use it to tile my living room so be it.
4. If I do not own the CD but instead just licencing it. Said company must get a signed license from me and keep it on record.
5. If I just own a license to the music and I am not allowed to back it up then the providing company must replace the media forever if it ever fails or is damages. Since I forbidden to protect my investment to protect the Music provider the music provider must protect it for me at no cost and forever.
I can live with rules. I think it is time to stop supporting the record companies.
What Do We Actually Own? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hoisted by their own petard... (Score:5, Insightful)
Rip and burn from one of these DRM'd pieces of plastic, then make lots of copies on audio CD-Rs, which can be purchased for less than $1 each. Give (do not sell) those copies to all of your friends. It's all perfectly legal in the US.
When you buy audio CD-R media, you're automatically paying a royalty tax (3% of wholesale) by law. The RIAA should be more careful about what it wishes for - they pushed for the legislation which allows this.
18 USC, Chapter 10, Subchapter A, Section 1008 specifically states:
[emphasis added]
So, copy and distribute (noncommercially) all you want!
Separating CDs from non-CDs in the shops (Score:5, Insightful)
Alternatively, they should advise customers at the till that the disc they are about to purchase isn't a CD, despite having been packaged as one.
What about the "DISC" logo? (Score:3, Insightful)
The RIAA member companies should feel "privileged" that I choose to give them any money for any of their (mostly) lousey products to begin with. That is the only "privilege" involved in any of this.
More privilages (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems like he forgot a few "privilages"
Do you really think that you should be allowed to misuse something you own? Shoot, I need to get home throw out some AOL discs, otherwise the consumer-police may arrest me for using them as coasters.
A simple solution for a complex asshole (Score:4, Insightful)
I know we can just boycott whatever these mega-corps push out, but that doesn't tell them our exact meaning, who even says they're listening? I personally think it would be better to be selective on what to not purcahse, if it's DRMed, return it, if it's not DRMed and you want it, let them know.
the slow decline of media companies (Score:3, Insightful)
My spending money on your product is a privilige, not a right, and I will take my ball and go home if you don't offer me a product I want to buy.
The media world is changing, and while I'm sure the RIAA will squeeze some more cash out of their decaying system, there are plenty of media creators at there who are hungry for my cash and will create the products I want to consume at the price and format that I want.
Funny how that "free-market" argument can bite you in the ass...
This is Very Simple, People: (Score:4, Insightful)
"Right to Use is concomitant with purchase."
What does "use" mean? Any damn thing the customer defines it to mean. The vendor gave up all rights to constrain the customer when s/he sold the item (and yes, you sold it despite what that flimsly little piece of paper inside the shrinkwrap may say).
To placate the IP Fundamentalists, we may agree, for the moment, that "use" should not include the making and distribution of copies to others. Anything outside of that should be perfectly okay. Meaningful counterexamples welcome.
Schwab
he got it backwards (Score:5, Insightful)
So, the question to ask is not whether I should be able to play copyrighted content on my Linux computer. Rather, it is clear that we need to resolve the conflict between DRM and copyright law in a way that is constitutionally and socially acceptable. And the only way I see is to eliminate all copyright protection for content that prevents copying through technological measures, including DRM or use of proprietary formats.
Context on Kyyrä's comment (Score:5, Informative)
The high points of the law include (these are mostly quoted from Electronic Frontier Finland's FAQ on the law at http://www.effi.org/tekijanoikeus/laki/tekijanoike us-faq.html [effi.org] (Finnish only)):
- prohibition on sale, distribution, possession and "organized discussion" (yes, it says this; no, "organized discussion" is not defined; yes, it's hard to see how this isn't against the Finnish constituion) of products whose purpose is the circumvention of DRM (this would include all non-sanctioned DVD players using something like libdvdcss);
- prohibition on copying of "efficiently" protected music or other copyrighted material to, for example, MP3 players; this is sort of allowed in one clause and expressly prohibited in another (this has been the major point seen in public discussion in the last few days);
- prohibition of "parallel" import of goods from outside the EFTA; individuals can still order goods from outside the EFTA, but all (including private) resale is prohibited; it doesn't actually matter whether the import is "parallel" or the only import, it must still be sanctioned by the copyright holder;
- possibility of expansion of the "cassette tax" (currently paid for recording media such as audio tapes and CD/DVD-Rs sold in Finland; money goes to the record labels based on how many records they sell, IIRC) to other media that "may be used to store copyrighted material"; this potentially includes all hard drives.
"Efficient protection" is a key concept in the law, but is not actually defined. According to the committee responsible for the law, protection is "efficient" if it was "meant to protect the copyrighted work from being copied". So it could be said that this law makes the shift key an illegal circumvention device.
The law was written pretty much behind closed doors, with only "experts" from the record label trade bodies and similar organizations heard. Also the head of the committee, Jukka Liedes, sits on the board of ESEK, a sub-organization of Gramex (a trade association which represents record labels in Finland). The Ministry of Education, which is the ministry responsible for the law, has also been forwarding press releases penned by the abovementioned organizations pretty much verbatim and quoting them in interviews.
It is a matter of discussion whether the committee responsible for the law is actually evil and corrupt, or just so incompetent that they have no actual idea what the rules proposed by the industry actually mean in practice.
The law was accepted in its current form today, with an official (but not having any power of law) note attached effectively saying that "there's some stuff in there that should be fixed". I understand that the law will be headed for the final yes/no vote in the parliament in the near future. In my opinion, it's very likely that it will be pushed through; the recording industry has put their rather powerful propaganda machine in high gear and (I assume) also their lobbying machinery after the outcry from the public began.
The minister of culture Tanja Karpela (who is the "owner" of the law) has refused to admit that there are any problems with the current version of the law, even though it has obvious internal contradictions as well as contradicting the constitution. When opposition to the law first started making headlines, she stated her suspicion that it was a result of "machinations by certain parties" (that's a pretty much literal and verbatim translation). It would appear that she is mostly repeating statements prepared by someone else regar
a brief response (Score:3, Insightful)
The CD drive in my Linux or Mac computer has a "Compact Disc Digital Audio" logo on its door. Its firmware contains full support for the Red Book specifications.
MY COMPUTER IS A REGULAR CD PLAYER.
Re:This is why Conservatives rail against Liberals (Score:5, Insightful)
Then why is it that Ralph Nader/liberals seem to be the only political voice opposing these institutions? And why is it that Republicans are so closely tied to these businesses (not that Democrats aren't, too)?
Absolutely Incorrect (Score:4, Interesting)