How to Turn A Music Lover to Piracy 521
dugn writes to tell us The Consumerist is running a story about how a run of the mill (read non-tech-savvy) music lover was pushed to become a pirate. "I've devoted a not-inconsequential chunk of my life to collecting music; to tracking down obscure records, cassettes, 8-Tracks and CD's of all genres and styles. And now apparently that is all but over. Music has somehow evolved from tangible things into amorphous collections of 1's and 0's guarded over by interested parties as if they were gold bullion. How so very sad."
hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
What? Music has always been data. This guy isn't a music lover, he's a memorabilia lover.
Re:hmmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
What? Music has always been data.
That's right. Way back in Vienna, before their falling out, Prince-Archbishop Colloredo would pay Mozart rather well for his data.
Re:hmmm... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then, some guy (named Edison) created an anomily. A peculiar quirk of technology that turned it inot a PRODUCT.
Luckily, technology has come around to return Music to it's proper place. It is now, once again, a Service
That's hat really bug me about the music industry. They are trying to sell a Service, like it was a Product, and then they have the audasity to blame US for their problems. RIAA, here's a free clue for you. "Contempt of Business Model" is not a crime. Your market was a fluke; an abhoration of technology that has been corrected. Just like that buggy-whip manufacturer in the oft-quoted Danny Devito flick, your time has passed. Adapt, or die. Just like every body else.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:hmmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that 2006 US music sales included 588.2 million albums and 581.9 million digital tracks indicates that there is perhaps a bit of money in the field of selling albums and music, and not just performing.
When it is so patently obvious that owning music is worth quite a bit to hundreds of millions of people, the old argument that recorded music "should" just be used to draw people to concerts seems more than a little self-serving.
Yeah, right. Courtney Love knows self serving. (Score:4, Interesting)
US music sales included 588.2 million albums and 581.9 million digital tracks indicates that there is perhaps a bit of money in the field of selling albums and music, and not just performing. When it is so patently obvious that owning music is worth quite a bit to hundreds of millions of people, the old argument that recorded music "should" just be used to draw people to concerts seems more than a little self-serving.
Are you implying that artists somehow benefit from music sales? I was under the impression that platinum performing artists made next to nothing from those sales but were forced to tour perpetually to promote them [salon.com].
Yes, hundreds of millions of people are willing to pay for music. The greedy pigs who own the entire history of recorded music, unfortunately are so busy both artists and fans that no one is getting what they deserve.
The vast majority of music is still acquired on CDs, but history is all they will provide in the future. Everyone but the majors are sick of the majors. New music is being produced, promoted and enjoyed without them. Online, they are just one of many providers. The future belongs to those who meet people's need for entertainment. Lawsuits, restrictions and bad deals are not fun for anyone.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They would if they would sell their own music, or found distributors that gave them favorable terms. (And don't try the crap about there being no such thing -- there is; you just don't get the marketing muscle that the big names have.) I feel no sympathy for the poor, downtrodden artists who sign away the rights to their music in hopes of becoming multimillionaires. They played the lottery, they lost.
In any case, I was responding to the sta
Re:hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)
For Fifteen THOUSAND Years
The earth is only 6000 years old, Bob.
Re:hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)
The earth is only 6000 years old, Bob.
Maybe he means 15000 dog years. Then it would fit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lest you think this is a joke, this is what between 1/3 and 1/2 of the USA's population believes. Much of Turkey's population believes similar things (i.e. that Darwin's theory is false), so take that into consideration before you admit them into the EU.
Re:hmmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
Right. Religion is only one brand of nonsense. Before they start acting snobbish and turning Turkey away, they may wish to clean up their own house first.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, homeopathy and other such things have become quite popular here in the USA, too. Personally, I blame it on the medical community, and on the government and its stance on medical research, pharmaceutical patents, and universal healthcare and insurance (or lack thereof). In a nut
Re:hmmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
People joke about the pricipal export of Lichtenstein being false teeth and the main export of Greece being culture, but Cuba does 'lend out' a phenomenal number of doctors to other countries.
I've visited and been very impressed at the serious level of effort they put into education and medicine.
Yes, they can't compete on level terms with the West and the phenomenal amout of cash we can put into solving a problem (viz. shotgun gene sequencing) but it very much reminds me of theoretical physics in Russia in the late 70's - frequently we were surprised by solutions to normally intractable problems they produced. We would say it would require many months of CPU time to simulate and their reply was 'we have no computers to do the simulation - we just invented new mathematics'. Cuban medicine and education appears to rely on inventiveness and necessity being the mother thereof.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, they are both right. It's just like is light particles or waves? It's both. To measure time you need a clock. There are two kinds of clocks we use. The one scientists use is run by the electronic forces that control the atoms and their particles. That's the one that governs your digital watch and radioactivity. The Bible
Re:hmmm... (Score:4, Interesting)
uh, no, it doesn't.
the bible doesn't state how old the earth is.
the problem with most people is that 1. they input into text what isn't there and 2. they tend to listen to what everyone else in their group believes, regardless of the data that contradicts their view.
gen 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
yes, in the beginning, god created the universe. then, at some undisclosed point in time after that event, god took a formless and void earth and did some more creating. you and others ASSUME verse 2 occurred instantaneously after the event described in verse 1, but that doesn't have to be the case.
"in the beginning, i was born. now it came to pass that i had a college final exam."
is my exam necessarily the instant after i was born? would you assume it IN CONTEXT? of course not. yet that is EXACTLY what you do with genesis verses 1 and 2.
the bible speaks of original creation being perfect and beautiful and not "without form and void." the "without form and void" state could have occurred billions of years after the event described in verse 1.
the bible is 100% consistent with an earth billions of years old.
btw, reading into scripture what isn't there and valuing the traditions of men are EXACTLY why the false belief in an eternal hell exists (leveraged by selfish people in order to ultimately control people to suit their own ends - knowingly or not). a parable about regretting a lack of kindness after a resurrection from the dead has been twisted and distorted to mean something that was never intended and blatantly contradicts on topic scriptures.
yeah, people engulfed in flames are going to ask for a drop of water to cure dry mouth. that flame sure must've been hot to make dry mouth the rich man's #1 physical concern! -lol-
the wages of sin is death (ro 6:23) and the dead know nothing (ec 9:5).
look it up yourself. not many people teach these basic truths, instead, they teach death is life and love is torture and the masses eat it up like cherry pie on the weekend.
apparently, they do not know god is love (1jo4:16) and love does NO HARM TO ITS NEIGHBOR (ro 13:10). an eternal torture chamber for billions of people IS NOT LOVE AND CONTRADICTS THE VERY ESSENCE OF THE BIBLE*, yet almost every "christian" organization teaches it and nobody speaks out against it. the irony is that a god of love is consistent with the bible and inconsistent with the traditions of men (like plato's inferno hellfire), yet, "christians" tend to latch onto the traditions.
the facts that death is the wages paid to sinners (actually earned by sinners - failing to care for others EQUAL to oneself) and the death means one knows nothing are both are concise and on point teaching in the bible. most modern day christians REJECT these simple teachings so they can hold on to their traditions.
and, no, death != eternal life. read ro 6:23 - death is CONTRASTED to eternal life. death is exactly what ec 9:5 says it is... a state of knowing nothing, like before you were born.
read ezekiel 37 to see a time pictured when the great masses (in his case the whole house of israel) are resurrected to life from their state of knowing nothing (death!) and learn of god ways - well after this first life has passed away.
you won't find many modern day "christian" churches teaching this truth, either. yet, there it is for someone to see if they put aside their biases and believe what is written.
* yes, god did some physically harsh things to people, but remember that his actions were taken against clay, as it were. he ended a pretty miserable existence and will resurrect those people (see ez 37 for an example) to a much brighte
It's biblical too (Score:2)
Now the funny part is that most commercial music sucks badly, and I wouldn't miss it if it died off completely. I'm sure there would be people creating music for other reasons that just money. There's lots of reasons to make music other than just money. I'm just saying that people were being paid for music before E
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hey Bob,
For the vast majority of that fifteen thousand years you speak of, music wasn't a service that people (regular folk, that is) provided each other at all. For the lion's share of the first 14/15ths, nearly all music was for religious purposes, so at best it was a service by people for their gods, not for each other. Music for pleasure didn't become decently commonplace until the Baroque era in the West, and even then it was a service of talented professionals for some King or Prince, not the every
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:hmmm... (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, I have heard of bard, troubadours, etc.. They became prominenet...in the Late Baroque era. Like I said. And most of them traveled from fiefdom to fiefdom and sang and played...for kings and lords, also like I said. It was the only way they could eat; playing for commoners (though it did happen on occassion) didn't fill the stomach until the economy could support it (think late classical period).
And respectfully, while fantasy novels on the whole are entertaining and occasionally even thought provoking, are by and large utter shite when it comes to historical accuracy. The closest one comes to historical accuracy in a novel like that is something like "Doomsday Book" by Connie Willis. And that portrayed the late medieval period; ain't no bards there.
Re:hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you are neglecting the quite proliferate history of an oral tradition through song amongst various indigenous peoples, which is a common pattern all over the world. It was quite commonly accompanied by instrumentation, typically percussion.
Re:hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:hmmm... (Score:4, Funny)
Then there's no hope for you.
Re:hmmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
Only insofar as religion is involved in everything in these people's lives. For example, many Native American peoples attribute[d] a spirit to basically everything. In such a case, everything they do is "religious". Is it then still accurate to characterize such work as "religious"?
I would argue that the [psuedo]historical aspect is more significant, at least to those particular people, than the religious. It would more accurately be termed "spiritual", but again, so would their entire life.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't quite understand why you make such a distinction between music for religious purposes and music for "pleasure." I mean, for these people it was more than just religion, it was their culture. They didn't really have such distinctions like church/state, religion/pop culture.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think that you'll find lots of examples of people singing with eachother... perhaps not a service perse, but still, it was done as a way to pass time and/or to pass on information. Well, actually you could say that it was a SERVICE.
Making music is practically as old as the oldest profession known to man.
Music wasn't limited to just the rich and famous, it belonged to everybody, EVEN to the commoners as you so put it.
And right now, if you sing H
Respectfully disagree (Score:5, Funny)
Re:hmmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
really? from what I remember of musical history most people got to listen to music for free and were encouraged to donate to the travelling bard or musician.
Granted history could be wrong and all artists commanded millions of rupees/gold coins/diamonds per performance from the kings of the world.
I am betting that that is not the case, most musicians worked for very little and gave away their craft, incredibly few were the "rock stars" that sold their creations for incredulous amounts of money. (Yes Mozart, Beethoven, and their likes were the exception and not the rule.)
Also most music was blatantly stolen. Most Irish jigs are variations of other jigs, and so on. Most of music's evolution is based on the original freedom and freeness the music had.
Paying huge sums of money all the time to musicians is a weird phenomenon of the past 50 years that is not the norm and will correct it's self. No matter what the RIAA and stars-in-their-eyes musicians want, it will change back to the way it was.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Untrue. This was "high music," as in the music of the high culture, but the low culture (which didn't have the advantage of writing the official history) produced music as well. You're not seriously asserting that no one but priests sang a note, are you? That's like saying there was never any literature other than the bible. Of course there was. It's just that the church had the means to record what they were doing.
Just so you know, I've been playing in renaissance music ensembles for decades, so I know what I'm talking about. (15th century music, on historical replicas of the instruments.) A lot of what we play is dance music, and they ain't dances for the gods.
So, please. Folk were probably singing before they were talking.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, the oldest instruments are around 40000 years old, contemporaries of cave art. And considering the ease with which one can make instruments out of commonly found materials, I'd find it astonishing if people didnt play around with making things like reed pipes or drums far earlier than that.
"Music for pleasure didn't become decently commonplace"
Betcha music for pleasure was decently commonplace for as long as people have been bored. Or consuming
Re:hmmm... (Score:4, Interesting)
The vast majority of celebrations in all the societies you mentioned were religious celebrations, honoring this or that god or mythlogical-historical event. Did music exist that was non-religous? Probably. But was it played for the commoners' consumption? Absolutely not. Musicians played when they could get paid, becuase that's how they survived. The nobles/priests/kings they played for were generally jealous of te service being provided to them, and did not look kindly upon freebies. Which was the original point I was responding to: music generally as a service of one person for another did not happen. Music only happened from religious or noble patronage, and only for those purposes, until pretty damn recently.
BTW, the fiddle had not been invented by the time Nero was emperor. So he didn't fiddle. And if one is to argue that the classically educated did know how to play, you'd be right, but two points remain. One, nearly all the music they studied was religious in nature. Two, the people who were classically educated were on the whole filthy frikkin rich or in a noble family and did not play for the common folk at all, which again was the point I was originally responding to.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
riddervise (knight songs) about courtly life and love
historiske (Historical) take a guess, yes about historical events and people
tryllevise (magical songs) about magic anf supernatural creatures
kæmpeviser (giant songs) about mythical events especially norse
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I hate to nitpick, but you're talking about SINGING. The grandparent is talking about MUSIC, and he is absolutely right. Most common people do not have access to INSTRUMENTS, the things which produce MUSIC.
Generally singing is considered one form of music, but even ignoring that there's this neat technique called "whistling" that has been popular for a little while now. Also the reed whistle, flute, horn and drum all predate even the earliest forms of writing. People were beating rhythms on hollow trees long before the concept of currency was invented.
Re:hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Your badly-written and incoherent ramblings just don't amount to much of anything other than uneducated, music snobbery. "Oooh, damn that Edison for recording music on a medium! He ruined it for everyone!" Fucktard.
Re:hmmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
We live in a world where someone can make a functionally identical recording of a performance quickly and easily, and do so in bulk. Said recordings can be played as many times as desired through relatively cheap hardware.
In essence, a CD player and some speakers can functionally replace ANY music performer. This is very consistent and very cheap to do. With our current music culture the only thing a concert is good for is to see personalities on stage (I hesitate to call them musicians) and to see an expensive show. (Pyrotechnics, etc)
So you tell me how a performer can compete with technology without any kind of legal protections. If someone can record my performance and play it in their nightclub every night of the week, why the hell would they pay me to do it live?
Don't get me wrong. I disagree with a lot of things in the music industry. Especially the flagrant abuse of copyright by major labels. But thinking that you can apply a business model from 500 years ago to the current market is just as rediculous.
Re:hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
It hasn't always been digital data...It hasn't even always been recordable data...prior to analog recording techniques, the only way to record a song was to write it down and learn to play it yourself. And before notation, the only way to copy a song was to listen to somebody else play it, and lean to play it yourself (still the most rewarding way to learn new music, IMHO)
Re:hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, but the author of the article is conflating the information with the media. His real complaint is that the music industry is transitioning from a convenient media system to an inconvenient media system.
Whether or not the music data is stored Digitally, or in an Analog fashion is irrelevant. Music hasn't evolved into data, just like any other kind of information hasn't evolved into data in the transition from oral tradition to magnetic storage.
Right and Wrong... (Score:4, Interesting)
Now I have music in something where alphabetically it is really easy to find. Well, except for all of that Japanese noise! But, I don't have my visual cues, my stacks... My musical "thought" process is gone. Seeing the edge of a CD with a certain color made me think of playing it. Seeing something, made me dig for a cover. It is harder in lots of ways to find the music in intuitive ways.
He isn't simply after the memorabilia, he's after the memory. It's that subtle difference between work and working. A task is easy to break down, and code around perhaps. But, making meaningful software and work methods is a whole lot more difficult.
Re:hmmm... (Score:4, Informative)
FTA (journal entry dated March 20, 2007):He mentioned before that he spent 20k on vinyl and CDs already. He just wanted the Luna compilation. If you go to Rhino [rhino.com], you can purchase the Luna cover:
1. He had the option of purchasing the CD (as he professed to in the past), but
2. He purchased a cheaper WMA with this big DISCLAIMER directly below (once you checkout):He opted for 2, and ignored the disclaimer.
I thought you can purchase a CD and download them to your iPod. Am I mistaken? I fail to see that as justification for becoming a music pirate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dude, he uses and iPod and buys music thru iTunes. iTunes sells nothing but fair-use-restricted, DRM-encumbered music. The schmuck isn't complaining about DRM, he is complaining about the other guys DRM that doesn't play nice with his iPod. He seems to be fine with DRM as long as it works with
Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Correction (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a sad thing to admit, but I'm officially afraid of music now. Afraid and angry. I'm afraid of rootkits, embedded media player software that auto-installs, and CDs that will not play on computers. And I'm right pissed off about this because, while I am indeed a music pirate, I have an enormous collection of legitimately purchased music.
Now I refuse to buy music. It is no longer an option. I hate the music industry and I refuse to support even my favourite artists for subjecting their fans to such hazards. I listen to music to accentuate whatever it is I'm doing, and I refuse to change my lifestyle to suit music.
I'm done with buying music. Maybe forever. It all depends on the music industry. I want hassle-free music. I don't care what medium it comes on as long as I can transfer it to whatever media suit what I'm doing that day. I refuse to repurchase albums on other formats. I'm done buying widgets. Music is not something that fits in your hand. Sell me music or begone.
P.s., when I hear audacious BS like the recording industry suing a restaurant for playing music in the dining room my sympathy for their pleas disappears. To empathise with an industry that cannot be satisfied is futile.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What's a Pirate in This Context (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Sorry for being flamish, but you asked and I answered honestly.
I can dig (Score:2)
Re:What's a Pirate in This Context (Score:5, Insightful)
I think there's truth to the idea. The problem is, the media companies won't take a stance on what you're paying for when you buy a CD. Are you buying a product, or some kind of license. They won't take a stance because they want to have their cake and eat it too.
They obviously don't want to say you've "purchased" anything, since it implies that you have some ownership. Ownership implies rights, and they don't want consumers to have any rights. On the other hand, if you've purchased a "license", then it becomes even more ambiguous. What are the terms of the license? When did I agree to it? If I'm purchasing a "license to listen" as you suppose, then what if I play my CD for a friend-- that friend has no license to listen. That friend is as much an "unlicensed listener" as if they downloaded the MP3 from the internet.
Of course, things would be made more clear if the media companies would simply agree that the issue is simply copyright, and the problem is with mass duplication and distribution. Of course, this is really only sticky because they don't seem to want to stipulate that consumers have fair-use rights or that copyrights have limits. With "licensing", they can continually charge consumers on whatever terms they wish, making the same person pay for the same media content repeatedly (i.e. once for your phone, once for your mp3 player, again when you buy a new mp3 player), but the idea of "fair use" threatens those sorts of business models.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, they have taken a stance [boingboing.net]:
Re: (Score:3)
But that's exactly what I mean by "they want to have their cake and eat it too." If you want to say they've taken a stance, then the problem is that they've taken both stances, and hop back-and-forth depending on which will serve them better. Ok, so maybe they made a legal claim with legal ramifications, but that doesn't prevent Sony from trying to hold customers to "license agreements", but only that it might not stand up in court if the customer has a good lawyer. It (according to this article) doesn't
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
An etymological question (Score:3, Interesting)
It just seems like a bizarre word to pick out of the entire English language to describe that activity. I can't imagine that it was chosen by anyone who didn't have a definite axe to grind against "unauthorized copying," since it's such a loaded term.
I wonder if its origins have ever been really well researched, because it's probably too late now to ever change it. I suspect that the generation of young
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:An etymological question (Score:5, Informative)
1603 T. DEKKER Wonderfull Yeare sig. A4, Banish these Word-pirates (you sacred mistresses of learning) into the gulfe of Barbarisme.] 1668 J. HANCOCK Brooks' String of Pearls (Notice at end), Some dishonest Booksellers, called Land-Pirats, who make it their practise to steal Impressions of other mens Copies. 1703 D. DEFOE True-born Englishman in True Collect. I. Explan. Pref. sig. B3v, Its being Printed again and again, by Pyrates.
Re:An etymological question (Score:4, Informative)
So you can see how "piracy" got linked to "copyright infringement" - via actual seagoing music pirates. Surprised no one else pointed it out.
Piracy = Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Piracy = Freedom (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Piracy = Freedom (Score:4, Funny)
"Dude, is that an ABBA directory I see on your filesystem?"
"Uh, no, uh, that's, um... where I hide my pr0n"
"Cool."
ROFL (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:ROFL (Score:4, Interesting)
Did you sign a licensing agreement when you purchased the music? No? Then there is no license, and your use of the material is governed only by appropriate laws involving intellectual property, copyright, and first sale. Period.
What goes around and around comes around and ... (Score:3, Insightful)
And here you all thought that you owned all those 8 track tapes, when in fact you're just storing them for the company that made them.
I've seen some of my grandparents' early 45s and they did indeed have a label with a license printed on them. It said things like RCA owned the record and the music on it and all you had was a license to l
Purchasing a License? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You fool! They're just going to raise the price of CDs now so the online track is scaled accordingly
Re: (Score:2)
An audiobook lover moves to piracy. (Score:5, Insightful)
And that is the funny thing. I have been downloading the *EXACT* same books that I have paid Audible for from bittorrent. I have no problem buying Audio Books - but when I buy them, the DRM gets in my way, and I cannot always listen to the book I paid for in the manner I want. I *WANT* to pay for the books, I have no problem with that. I just want to be able to listen to them as I choose, not as the company controlling them chooses.
In the same way, I have found myself downloading MP3's of music that I already own on CD because it is faster for me to download the music that I already have, than to go through my CD collection and rip all the music.
I cannot see any of these industries surviving for long when they stand in the way of what consumers who are willing to pay for what actually want. The Barenaked ladies have it right. The author of this article is correct, we are being driven to piracy. At least I have never used Rhino.
Re: (Score:3)
This is where it gets even more interesting. If as they say you are only buying a license to listen to the tracks on a CD, are you still guilty of pirating even though by their definition you're allowed to have those tracks? What's the real legal difference between obtaining MP3s from the CD
Re:An audiobook lover moves to piracy. (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand if I never owned these albums at all, shouldn't the RIAA be after whoever robbed my car while resupplying me with new copies of those CDs?
All kidding aside, I have often wondered about the legality of what I did.
Now if you excuse me I have to run before the DMCA Death Squads gets here.
Re:An audiobook lover moves to piracy. (Score:4, Informative)
Renter's contents insurance has been available for decades.
You're free to not purchase it (hey, many renters don't own much), but don't make out like you couldn't have had insurance
Otherwise I agree with your point completely. It's a good question, and has actually come up in insurance claims similar to yours.
Its sad really (Score:3, Interesting)
Been there, done that (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The blame isnt the RIAA/MPAA or industries, the blame is on Apple, MSFT and Tivo.
Nobody forced DRM on any of those devices but the makers of those devices. If a 20 dollar dvd player can play DivX with no problems, there's no reason the others can't - other than companies wanting to set up th
Re:Been there, done that (Score:4, Informative)
What a stunningly ignorant sequence of statements!
Let me see if I can shed a little light.
Tivo chose DRM. They chose it because they felt they would be sued into oblivion if they did not. You may have a point here, although I believe that they made the correct decision - as in, they wouldn't have lasted a month if they didn't go the DRM route.
Microsoft and Apple both had to implement DRM if they wanted to be able to sell music. Microsoft had to implement DRM if they wanted to make Windows Media the most popular format around, even before they were selling music. The labels simply would not have permitted them to sell digital downloads without DRM. So yes, they very much were forced to use DRM - it was either that, or not compete in the industry at all. They have a responsibility to their shareholders to make money. So yes, they had to use DRM.
A 20 dollar DVD player can play DivX with no problems. That's correct. But the issue here isn't playing non-encrypted content. The issue is that the content creators want protection. This is why they're releasing media which is encrypted. Sure, you can make a player that plays unencrypted media. It's not useful for playing mass-media content; virtually no DVD releases are unencrypted, although I have seen one example. Try selling a DVD player that doesn't support CSS and let me know how far you get!
Yes, it was his choice to use DRM and make money, or refuse to use DRM, and be lynched by the shareholders. What a choice!
Money is the root of all of this evil, but next in line is the MAFIAA.
Sand on a beach (Score:5, Insightful)
Trying to sell digital information on the internet is literally like trying to sell sand on a beach. It's infinitely available. They're using DRM to create the illusion of scarcity, kind of like shovelling sand back into the sea, what they're really doing is just digging a big hole for themselves instead of trying to find somewhere which doesn't have any sand (improving their business model). When the tide comes in they'll just bury their heads and hope for the best.
Not pushed or forced... chose (Score:5, Insightful)
This entire blog post should be retitled "Why I chose to become a pirate, and how my own ignorance of media formats helped it along." The guy made a mistake (downloading WMA format music to play on an iPod) and rather than deal with it and eat his $10 losses, decided that he would rather get his music for free.
Please... if you pirate music, good for you. But don't claim it was forced on you, and don't claim that you didn't choose to do it of your own free will. Man up and take responsibility for you actions.
Note: I am not a record-industry shill, I'm just sick of people justifying their actions in order to clear their consciences.
Re:Not pushed or forced... chose (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds like he's simply saying he was always willing to spend his money on music, as long as he got 3 things out of the transaction. First, he expected to receive a good quality recording (better than what he'd get from some 2nd. generation copy). Second, he expected that some of his money would find its way back to the artist, to ensure they were fairly compensated for their work. And lastly, he expected the music to be playable on any device that advertised itself as capable of performing a music playback operation on that type of media. (EG. A tape player should play back ANY audio cassette he purchased. A record player should play back ANY vinyl record he purchased. And an iPod should play back ANY digital music purchases of his.)
The current state of the industry means those requirements are no longer being universally met - so yes, that effectively "pushes" him towards looking at piracy as a more viable alternative.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He spent $10 on the music. He shouldn't have to check formats and DRM licenses, especially licenses that *would not download* (did you get that far?). He was trying to gain the ability to listen to the music he downloaded legally. And he couldn't do it. From TFA:
In t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
CDs and cassettes have been runaway successes in the past precisely because they avoided this kind of problem; you didn't need to 'research' anything to get what you wanted. You buy the CD, it works in any CD player. Of course various companies have got egg on their face when they tried to ignore the red book standards; hello Sony.
So a consumer assumed downloadable music wou
Re:Not pushed or forced... chose (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe not "forced to pirate", but they definitely sent the message that doing business with record companies in a legitimate manner means throwing money away for no return. They sent the message that, if you just want to listen to music, and you're not a computer genius, you're better off downloading illegal DRM-free copies.
So what? Why should Joe Sixpack be expected to track the licensing differences between WMA and AAC? If I went to a record store, spent $10 on a cassette, and then went back and wanted to exchange it for a $10 credit on the same album in CD form, you'd be able to do that. (At least, you used to be able to do that) Why not the same for WMAs? If what he really purchased was the right to listen to that music, we shouldn't he be able to retrieve whatever format he likes to exercise that right?
It sounds more like the record company felt entitled to his $10 whether or not they provided him with anything of value.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The day I'll start respecting the licenses on music is the day the stop selling it as a product. Choose is it a license or a product? If it's a product stop telling me how it's to be used. If it's a license then I should be able to
Re:Not pushed or forced... chose (Score:5, Insightful)
(The other solution to this is that since the iPod is the de-facto standard for personal music players at this point Apple could just pony up the money to license the WMA codecs. I'm sure that Microsoft would take the money no matter where it came from)
Forget RIAA (Score:3, Insightful)
That sound that you hear faintly in the background (Score:3, Insightful)
IMO, that is the ONLY possible outcome of the head-on crash of the entertainment industry, technology, and their desire to control the use of content. It may take awhile, but the current entertainment industry will die. It will probably be slow, painful, and not fun to watch but it is inevitable.
Re:That sound that you hear faintly in the backgro (Score:5, Funny)
It will be massively enjoyable to watch.
wasted time (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps part of the realization is that was wasted time, as now you can collect music from anyone who ever existed in a matter of seconds. The fun was probably not the music, but the journey, experiences, and people met in doing so.
Not a license to listen (Score:5, Informative)
Lack of availability did it for me... (Score:3, Interesting)
Well as I said it was a good song catchy, and it got stuck in my head "FOR YEARS" literally. And for a long time I just couldn't figure out how to find or get this song. Then came the magic of the internet and search engines. I could remember a couple lines of the song and from time to time I'd plug the lines I could remember into Google and Yahoo, etc...well a little at a time I started finding the song's information at forst I got a title, but no singer or band, then eventually I got the singer, however it wasn't attributed to any album, and as I said...ONE HIT wonder.
Then the Magic Day, I found out this song only ever appeared on the sound track to a particular movie, from that summer I remembered it from...great go find the sound track. Umm...only ever produced on cassette tape, likelyhood of finding a tape copy of a silly summer movie soundtrack...LOW...VERY LOW...but OK, I'll give it a shot...the search begins.
I checked every obscure/rare music reseller I could think of, and more that people turned me on to...NO LUCK...but you guessed that.
So then along comes various P2P networks, and sites, etc...and yes I looked in iTunes, not there....Then, by pure luck one day on a bittoreent site I remember to try plugging in the song, and there it is...Downloaded!
Well said, save for one typo: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm sure someone not so damn tired either auto translated (like loose/lose which this gent did (huzzah!)) or
figured it out quickly.
I did not.
Thought 1: three house? Three houses? Why go to three houses? Different internet connections?
Thought 2: Tree house? He has a tree house? WTF...makes no sense. Tree house are fun, tho.
Thought 3: Time? Three hours? Ah, makes sense now. Odd. Funny, but odd.
Thought 4: HEY, I'll be damned, the typed lose instead of loose! Wow, house/hours typo forgiven!
Thought 5: I need a nap.
Economic Warfare and Defective Products (Score:3, Informative)
It will cost Rhino far more to deal with the credit card company's fees for his refusing payment than he paid originally for the music.
Only one of many problems (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Only one of many problems (Score:4, Insightful)
Happy Music Customer (Score:3, Insightful)
You know what really sucks?... (Score:3, Interesting)
We're talking less than 1% profit! What kind of crap is that? The label makes the most money, even though all they did was broker an arrangement between the artist, a studio, a media press, and a marketing outfit. They're a THIRD PARTY and they make the lion share of the profit, and then they have the balls to sue everyone under the sun because they downloaded an MP3.
Back in the day, Steve Albini (Big Black/Shellac fame) composed a fairly accurate breakdown of who makes the most money on record sales, and the figures are really sad.
Here's a link for your reading pleasure. [negativland.com].
If you're lazy, to summarize: You can make more money flipping burgers than selling CDs of your music via a record label.
Looking at the numbers, I would rather send a $10 check to the artist and download the MP3 than pay some suit for his new ferrari.
Recently Garth Brooks made a deal with Walmart where all his new releases would be sold via the Walmart chain, with something close to 50%-50% profit sharing. I think as we get more and more artists to follow suit and tell recording labels to fuck off, RIAA and its army of racketeering criminals will pretty much fizzle out of existence.
Artists: I will GLADLY pay you for downloadable music (DRM-free, of course) as long as YOU are getting more than chump change off every sale. I will GLADLY pay you for cover art and promo media if YOU make money on it. Of course, the offer doesn't stand if your music SUCKS.
Which brings me to another point -- majority of the music that RIAA is trying so hard to protect SUCKS. The top 40 is a mockery of what music should be and nothing but a SHITTY rehash of somebody else's past work.
ok, I'm done.
-v
Rhino (Score:3, Funny)
The DRM helps protect the file from illegal copying. However, as with any 'lock', hackers may break it. Those who knowingly tamper with DRM are acting illegally. They may even wear masks and possess secret identities. We discourage any attempt to defeat the copyright protection.
How to Turn A Music Lover to Piracy (Score:3, Interesting)
Easy: tell him how the music industry works.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
CD and a record are fundamentally incompataible due to the way they work.
an iTunes-downloaded AAC file and a non-iPod AAC-compatile music player are not fundamentally incompatable. they're supposed to work together, but this CRAP prevents that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is interesting anyways, how people is not complaining about Apple iTunes not supporting wma.
Apple does not support WMA because as soon as they do, MS has won the war to be gatekeeper of music. WMA is proprietary and only companies that pay MS can encode them or play them in hardware or software. MS will literally be able to charge a toll on all music and be able to shut out anyone they want. Would you like to switch to Linux, oops, no music for you. Would you like to buy a game console, oops Sony's PS4 and Nintendo's Wii2 can't play all the music you have. Apple saw it coming and jumped into the